prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by
clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The “Angelic
hymn” and “The last 12 Verses” of S. Mark’s Gospel, are convenient places
for a trial of strength. _It has now been proved_ that the commonly
received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,—the Revisionists’
emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second
Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the
sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from
which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free.
The pretence that no harm has been done him by the mere statement of what
is an undeniable fact,—(viz. that “the two oldest Greek manuscripts, and
some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;” and that “some
other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)—will not stand
examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on
his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,—_Why have
the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?_
This at least is unjustifiable.
Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,(131) have been taught to
maintain “_that the passage is not the immediate production of S.
Mark_,”—“_can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel_; but is
rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime
of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”—such Critics are
informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same
breath to assure the offended reader that the passage “is nevertheless
_possessed of full canonical authority_.”(132) Men who so write show that
they do not understand the question. For if these 12 verses _are_
“canonical Scripture,”—as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede
them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,—then, whether they be “the
production of S. Mark,” or of some other, is a purely irrelevant
circumstance. The _Authorship_ of the passage, as every one must see, is
not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were
probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the
rest of Deuteronomy, and encumber the margin with a note expressive of our
opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be
“canonical Scripture,” are careful to state that a rival ending to be
found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore
(_according to them_), is _not certainly_ a genuine part of the Gospel;
_may_, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text.
And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish
to the world that, _in their account_ at all events, these verses are
_not_ “possessed of full canonical authority.” If “the two oldest Greek
manuscripts” _justly_ “omit from verse 9 to the end” (as stated in the
margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them
also?(133) On the other hand, if the circumstance is a mere literary
curiosity, will any one maintain that it is entitled to abiding record in
the margin of the _English Version_ of the everlasting page?—_affords any
warrant whatever for separating _“the last Twelve Verses”_ from their
context_?
(D) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service,
than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning
the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious
doubts that they have _recorded_ their uncertainty in the margin of their
work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a
new reading into the body of their text, and _that_, without explanation,
apology, or indeed record of any kind.(134) One remark should be premised,
viz. that “various Readings” as they are (often most unreasonably) called,
are seldom if ever the result of conscious _fraud_. An immense number are
to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we
repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit.
They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly
recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been
thought allowable _to abbreviate_, by simply leaving out whatever did not
appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, to _transpose_ the
words—even the members—of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to
_substitute_ easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to
pass that we are often presented, and in the oldest documents of all, with
Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was
held allowable to assimilate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add,
that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church
documents,—“Diatessarons” they were sometimes called,—of which the avowed
object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative “out of the
four;”—and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will
suffice for the classification of almost every various reading which we
are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.
I. TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we
have already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether
dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20
from certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an
unique circumstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark
occupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary
to write τέλος (“END”) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token
that _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the
last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and
let that last leaf have perished;—and all is plain._ A faithful copyist
will have ended the Gospel perforce—as B and א have done—at S. Mark xvi.
8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an
accident of the most ordinary description,—as was explained at the
outset.—To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings
resulting from Accident shall now be added.
(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the
history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has
remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it
has been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred
Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the
genuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has hitherto
supposed that S. Paul’s company “were in all in the ship _two hundred
threescore and sixteen souls_” (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort
(relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what
S. Luke actually wrote was “_about seventy-six_.” In other words, instead
of διακόσιαι ἑβδομηκονταέξ, we are invited henceforth to read ὩΣ
ἑβδομηκονταέξ. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy?
Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ἦμεν δὲ
ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί, his last six words at some very early period
underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, αἱ πᾶσαι
ψυχαὶ ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ; whereby the _word_ πλοίῳ and the _numbers_ διακόσιαι
ἑβδομηκονταέξ were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But
since “276” when represented in Greek numerals is ΣΟΣ, the inevitable
consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus:
ΨΥΧΑΙΕΝΤΩΠΛΟΙΩΣΟΣ. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has
happened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There
has been no critical disinclination to believe that “a corn-ship,
presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,”—as an excellent
judge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer
accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the
last letter of ΠΛΟΙΩ with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200
(viz. Σ); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. ὡς—_i.e._ “about.”
But when Σ (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from ΣΟΣ (_i.e._ 276), 76 is
perforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a
blunder has been that instead of “_two hundred_ and seventy-six” (ΣΟΣ),
some one wrote ὡς ος´—_i.e._ “_about_ seventy-six.” His blunder would have
been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is
_full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of
the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),—and by their influence has been
foisted into the margin of our revised English Version—it becomes high
time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of
Scripture.
All this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so
gross,—its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so
obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little
mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading ὡς ἑβδομηκονταέξ
_cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one
Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same
corrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_.
But further,—Although a man might of course say “about _seventy_” or
“about _eighty_,” (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_
sees not that “about seventy-_six_” is an impossible expression? Lastly,
the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to
be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an
order _peculiar to itself_.
(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth
to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer
accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at
Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, “he entered into
a certain man’s house _named Justus_” (ὀνόματι Ἰούστου). That this is what
S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost
every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom—the
only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place—_so_ quotes it. This is, in
consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his
7th edition. But then, the last syllable of “name” (ΟΝΟΜΑΤΙ) and the first
three letters of “Justus” (ΙΟΥΣΤΟΥ), in an uncial copy, may easily get
mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke
(at the summit of the second Ι in ΤΙΙΟΥ) to produce “Titus” (ΤΙΤΟΥ). In
the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, “Titus” actually stands _in
place of_ “Justus,”—a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex.
As a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _substitution_ of
“Titus” for “Justus,” but in the introduction of _both_ names where S.
Luke wrote but one. א and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit
“_Titus Justus_.” And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth
and parentage of “Titus” is proved by the tell-tale circumstance, that in
B the letters ΤΙ and ΙΟΥ are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary
letter (Τ) has been thrust in between,—the result of which is to give us
one more imaginary gentleman, viz. “_Titius_ Justus;” with whose
appearance,—(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)—Tischendorf in his
8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they
actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compassion (we
presume) for the friendless stranger “_Titus_ Justus” that our
Revisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act
of humanity they stand alone. Their “new Greek Text” is _the only one in
existence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to
citizenship, and assigned “a local habitation and a name.” ... Those must
have been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such
manipulations of the inspired text were possible!
(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of
writing the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters),
no space being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is
supplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error
is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any
one. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain
Divine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His
Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words
ran as follows:—“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (ἡ ... ὑψωθεῖσα)
unto heaven, shalt be brought down (καταβιβασθήσῃ) to hell.” For this, our
Revisionists invite us to substitute, in S. Luke as well as in S.
Matthew,—“And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ;)
unto heaven?” And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)—“Thou shalt
go down (καταβήσῃ) into Hades.” Now, what can have happened to occasion
such a curious perversion of our LORD’S true utterance, and to cause Him
to ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly
announcing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?
A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as
usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious documents. The final
letter of Capernaum (Μ) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (Η) has
made an independent word (ΜΗ); which new word necessitates a change in the
construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet,
fourteen of the uncial manuscripts and the whole body of the cursives know
nothing of this: neither does the Peschito—nor the Gothic version: no,—nor
Chrysostom,—nor Cyril,—nor ps.-Cæsarius,—nor Theodoret,—the only Fathers
who quote either place. The sole witnesses for μὴ ... ὑψωθήσῃ in _both_
Gospels are א B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton’s Syriac, the Coptic,
and the Æthiopic versions,—a consensus of authorities which ought to be
held fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but
not in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate,
which sided with א B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing
_both_ times καταβήσῃ (“thou shalt go down”), codex B (forsaken this time
by א) is supported by a single manuscript, viz. D. But because, in Matthew
xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, καταβήσῃ is actually
introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the
margin that “Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth
being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two
manuscripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves
attention) those two manuscripts are convicted of having _borrowed their
quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand
self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all—saving
the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D)
καταβήσῃ in both places—_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting
parties to this sad mistake?
II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of
Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result
of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of
these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is
found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so
much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite
structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and
self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show
themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is,
the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed
to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His
written Word.
(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is
observed to have given to “two of His disciples” directions well
calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to
follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain
village,—to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,—and
to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might
encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that “the
LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is
found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not
altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the
colt,—as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been
obtained,—ought in common fairness to have been returned to “the owners
thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no
nominative before “will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he assumed that it was
_of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence
is to be explained thus:—“say ye, ‘that the LORD hath need of him _and
will straightway send him hither_.’ ” According to this view of the case,
our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the
colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as
soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_.
A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the
meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own
responsibility to thrust into the text the word “_again_” (πάλιν). The
fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently
predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a
few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), πάλιν has shared the invariable
fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has
been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only
in those untrustworthy witnesses א B C D L Δ, and about twice as many
cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought
in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not
been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to
read, “And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath
need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK
_hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend
that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole mass of
copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and
_both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,—all in fact except
the Æthiopic,—are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts πάλιν,(140)
twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_
(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement
arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that “Many spread their
garments upon the way” [and why not “_in_ the way”? εἰς does not mean
“upon”]; “and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S.
Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must
have been clever people certainly if they “cut _branches_ from” anything
except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the
margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for “branches” is in
strictness “_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ “layers of leaves”? and
what _proof_ is there that στοιβάδες has that meaning? and how could
“_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We
turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and
intelligible words: “And others cut down branches off the trees and
strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary
sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been
substituted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have
been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be
told.
An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word
sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences
which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself.
S. Matthew, after narrating that “a very great multitude spread their
garments in the way,” adds, “others cut branches (κλάδους) from the trees
and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any
considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently encumbering the
road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew’s
Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ “branches of any
considerable size,” but “leafy twigs”—“_foliage_,” in fact it was—“cut
from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he
employs (στοιβάδας) is an unique word—very like another of similar sound
(στιβάδας), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin.
Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most
licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only
seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some
Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter
word (στιβάδας) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark’s word
(στοιβάδας), substituted this for that. In consequence, it survives to
this day in nine uncial copies headed by א B. But then, στιβάς does not
mean “a branch” _at all_; no, nor a “layer of leaves” either; but _a
pallet_—_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of
grass, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the
other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_
exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change δένδρων
into ἀγρῶν (“_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory.
Στιβάς, as explained already, in strictness means a “bed.” Only by a
certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of
which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something
“strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit “_fields_” (in
lieu of “_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction
(κόψαντες for ἔκοπτον), and _omitting_ the words “and strawed them in the
way,” are observed—after a summary fashion of their own, (with which,
however, readers of B א D are only too familiar)—to dispose of this
difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this
misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred
words:—ἄλλοι δὲ στιβάδας, κόψαντες ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: 7 words in place of 12!
But the calamitous circumstance is that the Critics have all to a man
fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes στοιβάδας and
once στιβάδας), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with א B C L Δ
in reading ἐκ τῶν ἀγρῶν: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to
alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to
omit the clause_ ἐστρώννυον εἰς τὴν ὁδόν: while, against this little band
of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials,
headed by A D—the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the
Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Æthiopic as well
as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether
therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the
reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks
hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had
written the common word στΙβάδας, so vast a majority of the copies at this
day would exhibit the improbable στΟΙβάδας? Had the same S. Mark expressed
nothing else but ΚΌΨΑΝΤΕΣ ἐκ τῶν ἈΓΡΩ´Ν, will any one persuade us that
_every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ἜΚΟΠΤΟΝ ἐκ τῶν
ΔΈΝΔΡΩΝ, καὶ ἘΣΤΡΏΝΝΥΟΝ ἘΙΣ ΤῊΝ ὉΔΌΝ? And let us not be told that there
has been Assimilation here. There has been none. S. Matthew (xxi. 8)
writes ἈΠῸ τῶν δένδρον ... ἘΝ τῇ ὡδῷ: S. Mark (xi. 8), ἘΚ τῶν δένδρων ...
ἘΙΣ τὴν ὁδόν. The types are distinct, and have been faithfully retained
all down the ages. The common reading is certainly correct. The Critics
are certainly in error. And we exclaim (surely not without good reason)
against the hardship of thus having an exploded corruption of the text of
Scripture furbished up afresh and thrust upon us, after lying deservedly
forgotten for upwards of a thousand years.