The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 6

[72] [The prodigal was prepared to say this; but his father's kindness stopped him:--a feature in the account which the Codexes in question ignore.]

[73] iii. 687. But in i. 228 and 259 he recognizes [Greek: theou].

[74] _Ap._ Mai vii. 135.

[75] Praep. xiii. 6,--[Greek: monou tou henos] (vol. ii. 294).

[76] Same word occurs in St. Mark iv. 37.

[77] iii. 101.

[78] Falconer's Dissertation on St. Paul's Voyage, pp. 16 and 12.

[79] Let the learned Vercellone be heard on behalf of Codex B: 'Antequam manum de tabula amoveamus, e re fore videtur, si, ipso codice Vaticano inspecto, duos injectos scrupulos eximamus. Cl. Tischendorfius in nuperrima sua editione scribit (Proleg. p. cclxxv), Maium ad Act. xxvii.

14, codici Vaticano tribuisse a prima manu [Greek: euraklydon]; nos vero [Greek: eurakydon]; atque subjungit, "_utrumque, ut videtur, male_." At, quidquid "videri" possit, certum n.o.bis exploratumque est Vaticanum codicem primo habuisse [Greek: eurakydon], prout expressum fuit tum in tabella qua Maius Birchianas lectiones notavit, tum in altera qua nos errata corrigenda recensuimus.'--Praefatio to Mai's 2nd ed. of the Cod.

Vatica.n.u.s, 1859 (8vo), p. v. -- vi. [Any one may now see this in the photographed copy.]

[80] _Ap._ Galland. x. 225.

[81] Remark that some vicious sections evidently owed their origin to the copyist _knowing more of Latin than of Greek_.

True, that the compounds euronotus euroauster exist in Latin. _That is the reason why_ the Latin translator (not understanding the word) rendered it _Euroaquilo_: instead of writing _Euraquilo_.

I have no doubt that it was some Latin copyist who began the mischief.

Like the man who wrote [Greek: ep' auto to phoro] for [Greek: ep'

autophoro].

Readings of Euroclydon

[Greek: EURAKYDoN] B (sic) [Greek: EURAKYLoN] [Symbol: Aleph]A [Greek: EURAKeLoN]

[Greek: EUTRAKeLoN]

[Greek: EURAKLeDoN] Pes.h.i.+tto.

[Greek: EURAKYKLoN]

Euroaquilo Vulg.

[Greek: EUROKLYDoN] HLP [Greek: EURAKLYDoN] Syr. Harkl.

[Greek: EURYKLYDoN] B^{2 man.}

[82] [Greek: Opou] ([Greek: ou] [Symbol: Aleph]) [Greek: gar] (--[Greek: gar] [Symbol: Aleph]BDL) [Greek: ean] ([Greek: an] D) [Greek: to ptoma]

([Greek: soma] [Symbol: Aleph]).

[83] _Sancti Dei homines._

[84] _Ap._ Galland. x. 236 a.

[85] Trin. 234.

[86] iii. 389.

[87] '_Locuti sunt homines D_.'

[88] Their only supporters seem to be K [i.e. Paul 117 (Matthaei's --)], 17, 59 [published in full by Cramer, vii. 202], 137 [Reiche, p. 60]. Why does Tischendorf quote besides E of Paul, which is nothing else but a copy of D of Paul?

[89] Chrys. xii. 120 b, 121 a.

[90] Theodoret, iii. 584.

[91] J. Damascene, ii. 240 c.

[92] St. Matt. xxvii. 17.

[93] Cf. [Greek: ho legomenos Barabbas]. St. Mark xv. 7.

[94] _Int._ iii. 918 c d.

[95] On the two other occasions when Origen quotes St. Matt. xxvii. 17 (i. 316 a and ii. 245 a) nothing is said about 'Jesus Barabbas.'-- Alluding to the place, he elsewhere (iii. 853 d) merely says that '_Secundum quosdam Barabbas dicebatur et Jesus._'--The author of a well-known scholion, ascribed to Anastasius, Bp. of Antioch, but query, for see Migne, vol. lx.x.xix. p. 1352 b c (= Galland. xii. 253 c), and 1604 a, declares that he had found the same statement 'in very early copies.' The scholion in question is first cited by Birch (Varr. Lectt.

p. 110) from the following MSS.:--S, 108, 129, 137, 138, 143, 146, 181, 186, 195, 197, 199 or 200, 209, 210, 221, 222: to which Scholz adds 41, 237, 238, 253, 259, 299: Tischendorf adds 1, 118. In Gallandius (Bibl.

P. P. xiv. 81 d e, _Append._), the scholion may be seen more fully given than by Birch,--from whom Tregelles and Tischendorf copy it. Theophylact (p. 156 a) must have seen the place as quoted by Gallandius. The only evidence, so far as I can find, for reading '_Jesus_ Barabbas' (in St.

Matt. xxvii. 16, 17) are five disreputable Evangelia 1, 118, 209, 241, 299,--the Armenian Version, the Jerusalem Syriac, [and the Sinai Syriac]; (see Adler, pp. 172-3).

CHAPTER V.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

IV. Itacism.

[It has been already shewn in the First Volume that the Art of Transcription on vellum did not reach perfection till after the lapse of many centuries in the life of the Church. Even in the minute elements of writing much uncertainty prevailed during a great number of successive ages. It by no means followed that, if a scribe possessed a correct auricular knowledge of the Text, he would therefore exhibit it correctly on parchment. Copies were largely disfigured with misspelt words. And vowels especially were interchanged; accordingly, such change became in many instances the cause of corruption, and is known in Textual Criticism under the name 'Itacism.']

-- 1.

It may seem to a casual reader that in what follows undue attention is being paid to minute particulars. But it constantly happens,--and this is a sufficient answer to the supposed objection,--that, from exceedingly minute and seemingly trivial mistakes, there result sometimes considerable and indeed serious misrepresentations of the Spirit's meaning. New incidents:--unheard-of statements:--facts as yet unknown to readers of Scripture:--perversions of our Lord's Divine sayings:--such phenomena are observed to follow upon the omission of the article,--the insertion of an expletive,--the change of a single letter.

Thus [Greek: palin], thrust in where it has no business, makes it appear that our Saviour promised to return the a.s.s on which He rode in triumph into Jerusalem[96]. By writing [Greek: o] for [Greek: o], many critics have transferred some words from the lips of Christ to those of His Evangelist, and made Him say what He never could have dreamed of saying[97]. By subjoining [Greek: s] to a word in a place which it has no right to fill, the harmony of the heavenly choir has been marred effectually, and a sentence produced which defies translation[98]. By omitting [Greek: to] and [Greek: Kyrie], the repenting malefactor is made to say, 'Jesus! remember me, when Thou comest in Thy kingdom[99].'

Speaking of our Saviour's triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took place 'the day after' 'they made Him a supper' and Lazarus 'which had been dead, whom He raised from the dead,' 'sat at the table with Him'

(St. John xii. 1, 2), St. John says that 'the mult.i.tude which had been with Him _when_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised Him from the dead bare testimony' (St. John xii. 17). The meaning of this is best understood by a reference to St. Luke xix. 37, 38, where it is explained that it was the sight of so many acts of Divine Power, the chiefest of all being the raising of Lazarus, which moved the crowds to yield the memorable testimony recorded by St. Luke in ver. 38,--by St. John in ver. 13[100]. But Tischendorf and Lachmann, who on the authority of D and four later uncials read [Greek: hoti] instead of [Greek: hote], import into the Gospel quite another meaning. According to their way of exhibiting the text, St. John is made to say that 'the mult.i.tude which was with Jesus, testified _that_ He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead': which is not only an entirely different statement, but also the introduction of a highly improbable circ.u.mstance. That many copies of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize [Greek: hoti], besides the Pes.h.i.+tto and the two Egyptian versions, is not denied. This is in fact only one more proof of the insufficiency of such collective testimony. [Symbol: Aleph]AB with the rest of the uncials and, what is of more importance, _the whole body of the cursives_, exhibit [Greek: hote],--which, as every one must see, is certainly what St. John wrote in this place. Tischendorf's a.s.sertion that the prolixity of the expression [Greek: ephonesen ek tou mnemeiou kai egeiren auton ek nekron] is inconsistent with [Greek: hote][101],--may surprise, but will never convince any one who is even moderately acquainted with St. John's peculiar manner.

The same mistake--of [Greek: hoti] for [Greek: hote]--is met with at ver. 41 of the same chapter. 'These things said Isaiah _because_ he saw His glory' (St. John xii. 41). And why not '_when_ he saw His glory'?

which is what the Evangelist wrote according to the strongest attestation. True, that eleven ma.n.u.scripts (beginning with [Symbol: Aleph]ABL) and the Egyptian versions exhibit [Greek: hoti]: also Nonnus, who lived in the Thebaid (A.D. 410): but all other MSS., the Latin, Pes.h.i.+tto, Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and one Egyptian version:-- Origen[102],--Eusebius in four places[103],--Basil[104],--Gregory of Nyssa twice[105],--Didymus three times[106],--Chrysostom twice[107],-- Severia.n.u.s of Gabala[108];--these twelve Versions and Fathers const.i.tute a body of ancient evidence which is overwhelming. Cyril three times reads [Greek: hoti][109], three times [Greek: hote][110],--and once [Greek: henika][111], which proves at least how he understood the place.

-- 2.