completely upon our Revisionists. It is found in S. Luke’s Gospel (xxiii.
45), and belongs to the history of the Crucifixion. All are aware that as,
at the typical redemption out of Egypt, there had been a preternatural
darkness over the land for three days,(143) so, preliminary to the actual
Exodus of “the Israel of GOD,” “there was darkness over all the land” for
three hours.(144) S. Luke adds the further statement,—“_And the sun was
darkened_” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος). Now the proof that this is what S.
Luke actually wrote, is the most obvious and conclusive possible.
Ἐσκοτίσθη is found in all the most ancient documents. Marcion(145) (whose
date is A.D. 130-50) so exhibits the place:—besides the old Latin(146) and
the Vulgate:—the Peschito, Cureton’s, and the Philoxenian Syriac
versions:—the Armenian,—the Æthiopic,—the Georgian,—and the
Slavonic.—Hippolytus(147) (A.D. 190-227),—Athanasius,(148)—Ephraem
Syr.,(149)—Theodore Mops.,(150)—Nilus the monk,(151)—Severianus, (in a
homily preserved in Armenian, p. 439,)—Cyril of Alexandria,(152)—the
apocryphal _Gospel of Nicodemus_—and the _Anaphora Pilati_,(153)—are all
witnesses to the same effect. Add the _Acta Pilati_(154)—and the Syriac
_Acts of the Apostles_.(155)—Let it suffice of the Latins to quote
Tertullian.(156)—But the most striking evidence is the consentient
testimony of the manuscripts, viz. _all the uncials_ but 3 and-a-half, and
_every known Evangelium_.
That the darkness spoken of was a divine portent—_not_ an eclipse of the
sun, but an incident wholly out of the course of nature—the ancients
clearly recognize. Origen,(157)—Julius Africanus(158) (A.D. 220),—Macarius
Magnes(159) (A.D. 330),—are even eloquent on the subject. Chrysostom’s
evidence is unequivocal.(160) It is, nevertheless, well known that this
place of S. Luke’s Gospel was tampered with from a very early period; and
that Origen(161) (A.D. 186-253), and perhaps Eusebius,(162) employed
copies which had been depraved. In some copies, writes Origen, instead of
“and the sun was darkened” (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος), is found “the sun
having become eclipsed” (τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος). He points out with truth
that the thing spoken of is a physical impossibility, and delivers it as
his opinion that the corruption of the text was due either to some
friendly hand in order to _account for_ the darkness; or else, (which
he,(163) and Jerome(164) after him, thought more likely,) to the enemies
of Revelation, who sought in this way to provide themselves with a pretext
for cavil. Either way, Origen and Jerome elaborately assert that ἐσκοτίσθη
is the only true reading of S. Luke xxiii. 45. Will it be believed that
this gross fabrication—for no other reason but because it is found in א B
L, and probably once existed in C(165)—has been resuscitated in 1881, and
foisted into the sacred Text by our Revisionists?
It would be interesting to have this proceeding of theirs explained. _Why_
should the truth dwell exclusively(166) with א B L? It cannot be pretended
that between the IVth and Vth centuries, when the copies א B were made,
and the Vth and VIth centuries, when the copies A Q D R were executed,
this corruption of the text arose: for (as was explained at the outset)
the reading in question (καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος) is found in all the oldest
and most famous documents. Our Revisionists cannot take their stand on
“Antiquity,”—for as we have seen, _all the Versions_ (with the single
exception of the Coptic(167)),—and the oldest Church writers, (Marcion,
Origen, Julius Africanus, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Gregory Naz., Ephraem,
&c.,) are _all_ against them.—They cannot advance the claim of “clearly
preponderating evidence;” for they have but a single Version,—_not_ a
single Father,—and but three-and-a-half Evangelia to appeal to, out of
perhaps three hundred and fifty times that number.—They cannot pretend
that essential probability is in favour of the reading of א B; seeing that
the thing stated is astronomically impossible.—They will not tell us that
critical opinion is with them: for their judgment is opposed to that of
every Critic ancient and modern, except Tischendorf since his discovery of
codex א.—Of what nature then will be their proof?... _Nothing_ results
from the discovery that א reads τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος, B
ἐκλείποντος,—except that those two codices are of the same corrupt type as
those which Origen deliberately condemned 1650 years ago. In the meantime,
with more of ingenuity than of ingenuousness, our Revisionists attempt to
conceal the foolishness of the text of their choice by translating it
unfairly. They present us with, “_the sun’s light failing_.” But this is a
gloss of their own. There is no mention of “the sun’s _light_” in the
Greek. Nor perhaps, if the rationale of the original expression were
accurately ascertained, would such a paraphrase of it prove correct(168).
But, in fact, the phrase ἔκλειψις ἡλίου means “an eclipse of the sun” and
_no other thing_. In like manner, τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος(169) (as our
Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the sun becoming
eclipsed_,” or “_suffering eclipse_.” It is easy for Revisionists to
“emphatically deny that there is anything in the Greek word ἐκλείπειν,
when associated with the sun, which involves necessarily the notion of an
eclipse.”(170) The _fact_ referred to may not be so disposed of. It lies
outside the province of “emphatic denial.” Let them ask any Scholar in
Europe what τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλιπόντος means; and see if he does not tell them
that it can _only_ mean, “the sun _having become eclipsed_”! They know
this every bit as well as their Reviewer. And they ought either to have
had the manliness to render the words faithfully, or else the good sense
to let the Greek alone,—which they are respectfully assured was their only
proper course. Καί ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος is, in fact, clearly above suspicion.
Τοῦ ἡλίου ἐκλείποντος, which these learned men (with the best intentions)
have put in its place, is, to speak plainly, a transparent fabrication.
That it enjoys “_clearly preponderating evidence_,” is what no person,
fair or unfair, will for an instant venture to pretend.
III. Next, let us produce an instance of depravation of Scripture
resulting from the practice of ASSIMILATION, which prevailed anciently to
an extent which baffles arithmetic. We choose the most famous instance
that presents itself.
(_a_) It occurs in S. Mark vi. 20, and is more than unsuspected. The
substitution (on the authority of א B L and the Coptic) of ἠπόρει for
ἐποίει in that verse, (_i.e._ the statement that Herod “was much
_perplexed_,”—instead of Herod “_did_ many things,”) is even vaunted by
the Critics as the recovery of the true reading of the place—long obscured
by the “very singular expression” ἐποίει. To ourselves the only “very
singular” thing is, how men of first-rate ability can fail to see that, on
the contrary, the proposed substitute is simply fatal to the SPIRIT’S
teaching in this place. “Common sense is staggered by such a rendering,”
(remarks the learned Bishop of Lincoln). “People are not wont to _hear
gladly_ those by whom they are _much perplexed_.”(171) But in fact, the
sacred writer’s object clearly is, to record the striking circumstance
that Herod was so moved by the discourses of John, (whom he used to
“listen to with pleasure,”) that he even “_did many things_” (πολλὰ
ἐποίει) _in conformity with the Baptist’s teaching_.(172)... And yet, if
this be so, how (we shall be asked) has “he was much perplexed” (πολλὰ
ἠπόρει) contrived to effect a lodgment in _so many as three_ copies of the
second Gospel?
It has resulted from nothing else, we reply, but the determination to
assimilate a statement of S. Mark (vi. 20) concerning Herod and John the
Baptist, with another and a distinct statement of S. Luke (ix. 7), having
reference to Herod and our LORD. S. Luke, speaking of the fame of our
SAVIOUR’S miracles at a period subsequent to the Baptist’s murder,
declares that when Herod “heard _all things that were done_ BY HIM”
(ἤκουσε τὰ γινόμενα ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ πάντα), “he _was much perplexed_”
(διηπόρει).—Statements so entirely distinct and diverse from one another
as _this_ of S. Luke, and _that_ (given above) of S. Mark, might surely
(one would think) have been let alone. On the contrary. A glance at the
foot of the page will show that in the IInd century S. Mark’s words were
solicited in all sorts of ways. A persistent determination existed to make
him say that Herod having “heard of _many things which _THE BAPTIST_
did_,” &c.(173)—a strange perversion of the Evangelist’s meaning, truly,
and only to be accounted for in one way.(174)
Had this been _all_, however, the matter would have attracted no
attention. One such fabrication more or less in the Latin version, which
abounds in fabricated readings, is of little moment. But then, the Greek
scribes had recourse to a more subtle device for assimilating Mark vi. 20
to Luke ix. 7. They perceived that S. Mark’s ἐποίει might be almost
identified with S. Luke’s διηπόρει, by _merely changing two of the
letters_, viz. by substituting η for ε and ρ for ι. From this, there
results in S. Mk. vi. 20: “and having heard many things of him, _he was
perplexed_;” which is very nearly identical with what is found in S. Lu.
ix. 7. This fatal substitution (of ἠπόρει for ἐποίει) survives happily
only in codices א B L and the Coptic version—all of bad character. But
(calamitous to relate) the Critics, having disinterred this
long-since-forgotten fabrication, are making vigorous efforts to galvanize
it, at the end of fifteen centuries, into ghastly life and activity. We
venture to assure them that they will not succeed. Herod’s “perplexity”
did not begin until John had been beheaded, and the fame reached Herod of
the miracles which our SAVIOUR wrought. The apocryphal statement, now for
the first time thrust into an English copy of the New Testament, may be
summarily dismissed. But the marvel will for ever remain that a company of
distinguished Scholars (A.D. 1881) could so effectually persuade
themselves that ἐποίει (in S. Mark vi. 20) is a “_plain and clear error_,”
and that there is “_decidedly preponderating evidence_” in favour of
ἠπόρει,—as to venture to _substitute the latter word for the former_. This
will for ever remain a marvel, we say; seeing that _all the uncials_
except three of bad character, together with _every known cursive without
exception_;—the old Latin and the Vulgate, the Peschito and the
Philoxenian Syriac, the Armenian, Æthiopic, Slavonian and Georgian
versions,—are with the traditional Text. (The Thebaic, the Gothic, and
Cureton’s Syriac are defective here. The ancient Fathers are silent.)
IV. More serious in its consequences, however, than any other source of
mischief which can be named, is the process of MUTILATION, to which, from
the beginning, the Text of Scripture has been subjected. By the
“Mutilation” of Scripture we do but mean the intentional Omission—_from
whatever cause proceeding_—of genuine portions. And the causes of it have
been numerous as well as diverse. Often, indeed, there seems to have been
at work nothing else but a strange passion for getting rid of whatever
portions of the inspired Text have seemed to anybody superfluous,—or at
all events have appeared capable of being removed without manifest injury
to the sense. But the estimate of the tasteless IInd-century Critic will
never be that of the well-informed Reader, furnished with the ordinary
instincts of piety and reverence. This barbarous mutilation of the Gospel,
by the unceremonious excision of a multitude of little words, is often
attended by no worse consequence than that thereby an extraordinary
baldness is imparted to the Evangelical narrative. The removal of so many
of the coupling-hooks is apt to cause the curtains of the Tabernacle to
hang wondrous ungracefully; but often _that_ is all. Sometimes, however,
(as might have been confidently anticipated,) the result is calamitous in
a high degree. Not only is the beauty of the narrative effectually marred,
(as _e.g._ by the barbarous excision of καί—εὐθέως—μετὰ δακρύων—Κύριε,
from S. Mark ix. 24):(175)—the doctrinal teaching of our SAVIOUR’S
discourses in countless places, damaged, (as _e.g._ by the omission of καὶ
νηστείᾳ from verse 29):—absurd expressions attributed to the Holy One
which He certainly never uttered, (as _e.g._ by truncating of its last
word the phrase τό, Εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι in verse 23):—but (I.) The
narrative is often rendered in a manner unintelligible; or else (II.), The
entire point of a precious incident is made to disappear from sight; or
else (III.), An imaginary incident is fabricated: or lastly (IV.), Some
precious saying of our Divine LORD is turned into absolute nonsense. Take
a single short example of what has last been offered, from each of the
Gospels in turn.
(I.) In S. Matthew xiv. 30, we are invited henceforth to submit to the
information concerning Simon Peter, that “_when he saw the wind_, he was
afraid.” The sight must have been peculiar, certainly. So, indeed, is the
expression. But Simon Peter was as unconscious of the one as S. Matthew of
the other. Such curiosities are the peculiar property of codices א B—the
Coptic version—and the Revisionists. The predicate of the proposition
(viz. “_that it was strong_,” contained in the single word ἰσχυρόν) has
been wantonly excised. That is all!—although Dr. Hort succeeded in
persuading his colleagues to the contrary. A more solemn—a far sadder
instance, awaits us in the next Gospel.
(II.) The first three Evangelists are careful to note “the _loud_ cry”
with which the Redeemer of the World expired. But it was reserved for S.
Mark (as Chrysostom pointed out long since) to record (xv. 39) the
memorable circumstance that _this particular portent_ it was, which
wrought conviction in the soul of the Roman soldier whose office it was to
be present on that terrible occasion. The man had often witnessed death by
Crucifixion, and must have been well acquainted with its ordinary
phenomena. Never before had he witnessed anything like this. He was
stationed where he could see and hear all that happened: “standing” (S.
Mark says) “near” our SAVIOUR,—“_over against Him_.” “Now, when the
Centurion saw that it was _after so crying out_ (κράξας), that He expired”
(xv. 39) he uttered the memorable words, “Truly this man _was_ the SON OF
GOD!” “What chiefly moved him to make that confession of his faith was
that our SAVIOUR evidently died _with power_.”(176) “The miracle” (says
Bp. Pearson) “was not in the death, but _in the voice_. The strangeness
was not that He should die, but that at the point of death He should _cry
out so loud_. He died not by, but with a Miracle.”(177) ... All this
however is lost in א B L, which literally _stand alone_(178) in leaving
out the central and only important word, κράξας. Calamitous to relate,
they are followed herein by our Revisionists: who (misled by Dr. Hort)
invite us henceforth to read,—“Now when the Centurion saw _that He so gave
up the ghost_.”
(III.) In S. Luke xxiii. 42, by leaving out two little words (τω and
_κε_), the same blind guides, under the same blind guidance, effectually
misrepresent the record concerning the repentant malefactor. Henceforth
they would have us believe that “he said, ‘JESUS, remember me when thou
comest in thy Kingdom.’ ” (Dr. Hort was fortunately unable to persuade the
Revisionists to follow him in further substituting “_into_ thy kingdom”
for “_in_ thy kingdom;” and so converting what, in the A. V., is nothing
worse than a palpable mistranslation,(179) into what would have been an
indelible blot. The record of his discomfiture survives in the margin).
Whereas none of the Churches of Christendom have ever yet doubted that S.
Luke’s record is, that the dying man “said _unto _JESUS, LORD, remember
me,” &c.
(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second καί and the second
οἴδατε, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, “And whither I go, _ye know the
way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, “And
whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as
we all remember) “Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not ‘whither’ Thou
goest, and how can we know ‘the way’?” ... Let these four samples suffice
of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is
deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel;
and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so
much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.
We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up
to the Reader’s notice. For indeed, this astonishing taste for mutilating
and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the
history of Textual Criticism.
It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has
disappeared from codices א B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen
to an anecdote which has hitherto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:—
“I once asked my teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus,”—(the words are Jerome’s
in a letter to Nepotianus),—“to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke’s
expression σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, literally the ‘_second-first_ sabbath.’
‘I will tell you all about it in church,’ he replied. ‘The congregation
shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,—either to stand
silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do
not.’ ” But “_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke
was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have
descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word δευτερόπρωτον that
the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods,
quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of Nazianzus [A.D.
360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].
Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression,
but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the
same;—and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called “Pelusiota” after the place of
his residence in Lower Egypt.—Ps.-Cæsarius(184) also volunteers remarks on
the word [A.D. 400?].—It is further explained in the _Paschal
Chronicle_,(185)—and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.—“_Sabbatum
secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the
Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to
assume that a word so attested must at least be entitled to _its place in
the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony,
coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant
fact that δευτερόπρωτον is found in _every codex extant_ except א B L, and
half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded
as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a
few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the
matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also
is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed
constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or
else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable
indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have
_established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is
precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni
præstat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more
likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the
reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very
consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from
manuscripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is
a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices
above referred to, S. Luke’s famous “second-first Sabbath” has been
_thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.
But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated
with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from
the four Gospels alone: by codex א,—3455 words: by codex D,—3704
words.(188)
As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with,
occurs within the compass of the last three chapters of S. Luke’s Gospel,
from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our
Revisionists, or else served with “notice to quit.” We proceed to specify
the chief of these:—
(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Institution of the Sacrament of
the LORD’S Supper,—from “which is given for you” to the end,—32 words.)
(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR’S Agony in the garden,—26 words.)
(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Passover,—8 words.)
(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD’S prayer on behalf of His murderers,—12 words.)
(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the title on the Cross was written in
Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,—7 words.)
(6) xxiv. 1. (“and certain with them,”—4 words.)
(7) _ibid._ 3. (“of the LORD JESUS,”—3 words.)
(8) _ibid._ 6. (“He is not here, but He is risen,”—5 words.)
(9) _ibid._ 9. (“from the sepulchre,”—3 words.)
(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter’s visit to the sepulchre,—22
words.)
(11) _ibid._ 36. (“and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”—5 words.)
(12) _ibid._ 40. (“and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands
and His feet,”—10 words.)
(13) _ibid._ 42. (“and of an honeycomb,”—4 words.)
(14) _ibid._ 51. (“and was carried up into Heaven,”—5.)
(15) _ibid._ 52. (“worshipped Him,”—2 words.)
(16) _ibid._ 53. (“praising and,”—2 words.)
On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized
Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st passage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20)
must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups
seemed to create a difficulty.—The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.
82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of GOD
Incarnate.—The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the
information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel
passages.—The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with
the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.—The 6th and 13th are certainly
instances of enforced Harmony.—Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere
wantonness,—the veriest licentiousness.—In the meantime, so far are Drs.
Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that
they even style the 1st “a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the
subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone.
With the same “moral certainty,” they further proceed to shut up within
double brackets the 2nd, 4th, 7th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th: while the
3rd, 5th, 6th, 13th, and 16th, they exclude from their Text as
indisputably spurious matter.
Now, we are not about to abuse our Readers’ patience by an investigation
of the several points raised by the foregoing statement. In fact, all
should have been passed by in silence, but that unhappily the “Revision”
of our Authorized Version is touched thereby very nearly indeed. So
intimate (may we not say, _so fatal_?) proves to be the sympathy between
the labours of Drs. Westcott and Hort and those of our Revisionists, _that
whatever the former have shut up within double brackets, the latter are
discovered to have branded with a note of suspicion_, conceived invariably
in the same terms: viz., “Some ancient authorities omit.” And further,
_whatever those Editors have rejected from their Text, these Revisionists
have rejected also_. It becomes necessary, therefore, briefly to enquire
after the precise amount of manuscript authority which underlies certain
of the foregoing changes. And happily this may be done in a few words.