The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 21

In the meantime we are a.s.sured on the authority of ?BDLZ-with most of the Latin Copies, including of course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the Lewis, and the Bohairic, besides Epiphanius,-that the clause in question has no right to its place in St. Matthew's Gospel. So confidently is this opinion held, that the Revisers, following Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have ejected the words from the Text. But are they right? Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.

If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew's Gospel, how will you possibly account for its presence in every MS. in the world except 7, viz. 5 uncials and 2 cursives? It is pretended that it crept in by a.s.similation from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply,-

1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring improbability of such an hypothesis? Why should the Gospel most in vogue have been a.s.similated in all the Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and read in the Churches?

2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale falsification of the MSS. took place? The Pes.h.i.+tto Syriac as usual sides with the bulk of the Cursives: but it has been shewn to be of the second century. Some of the Latin Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance of the evidence is overwhelmingly one way. But then

3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from St. Mark's Gospel,-for the very conclusive reason that the two places are delicately discriminated,-as on the testimony of the Cursives and the Pes.h.i.+tto has been shewn already. And

4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction on the part of any but the advocates of the popular theory that, on the contrary, it is St. Matthew's Gospel which has been corrupted from St. Mark's. A conclusive note of the a.s.similating process is discernible in St. Mark's Gospel where ? has intruded,-not in St. Matthew's.

5. Why St. Matthew's Gospel was maimed in this place, I am not able to explain. Demonstrable it is that the Text of the Gospels at that early period underwent a process of Revision at the hands of men who apparently were as little aware of the foolishness as of the sinfulness of all they did: and that Mutilation was their favourite method. And, what is very remarkable, the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend the commission of crime, and often leads to its detection, is largely recognizable here. But the Eye which never sleeps has watched over the Deposit, and provided Himself with witnesses.

-- 5.

Singular to relate, the circ.u.mstances under which Simon and Andrew, James and John were on the last occasion called to Apostles.h.i.+p (St. Matt. iv.

17-22: St. Mark i. 14-20: St. Luke v. 1-11) have never yet been explained(321). The facts were as follows.

It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were moored to the sh.o.r.e.

The fishermen having "toiled all the night and taken nothing(322),'-'were gone out of them and had washed out (?p?p???a?) their nets (t?

d??t?a)(323)." But though fis.h.i.+ng in deep water had proved a failure, they knew that by wading into the shallows, they might even now employ a casting-net with advantage. Accordingly it was thus that our SAVIOUR, coming by at this very juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed (?????ta? ?f???st???)(324). Thereupon, entering Simon's boat, "He prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land(325)." The rest requires no explanation.

Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story is the graphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the well-known usage of the language which gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the present a pluperfect signification(326). The Translators of 1611, not understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate(327), had been before them, to render ?p?p???a? t? d??t?a,-"were was.h.i.+ng their nets." Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let alone, no serious harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not only retaining the incorrect translation "were was.h.i.+ng their nets," but, by making the Greek tally with the English-by subst.i.tuting in short ?p????? for ?p?p???a?,-have so effectually darkened the Truth as to make it simply irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the meantime to which the reader's attention is just now invited is this:-that the compound verb in the aorist tense (?p?p???a?) has been retained by the whole body of the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages: while the barbarous ?p????? is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials BD(328) and a single cursive (Evan. 91)(329).

-- 6.

"How hardly shall they that _have riches_ enter into the Kingdom of Heaven," exclaimed our LORD on a memorable occasion. The disciples were amazed. Replying to their thoughts,-"Children," He added, "how hard is it for them that _trust in riches_ to enter into the Kingdom of G.o.d." (St.

Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all the cursives, are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions support them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what is so well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort eject t??? pep????ta? ?p? t??? ???as?? from the text, on the sole ground that the clause in question is omitted by ?B?, one copy of the Italic (k), and one copy of the Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding requires an apology,-"I think it unsafe," says Tischendorf, "to forsake in this place the very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow": i.e. Codexes ? and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does the critic mean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his meaning, then let him be reminded that Clemens(330), a more ancient authority than ?B by 150 years,-not to say the Latin and the Syriac Versions, which are more ancient still,-recognizes the words in question(331). Does however the learned critic mean no more than this,-That it is with him a fundamental principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of B and ?? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.

For the strangest circ.u.mstance is behind. Immediately after he has thus (in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of ?B, Tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined evidence of ?BC?. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate the absurd reading ?????te? p??? ????? ?a? t?? d??ata? s????a?; whereas it was evidently to themselves (p??? ?a?t???) that the disciples said it.

Aware that this time the "antiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates"

stand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf grounds his rejection of p??? a?t?? on the consideration that "Mark never uses the expression ?e?e?? p??? a?t??." Just as if the text of one place in the Gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist in another place,-and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present instance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!

Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four,-all the versions but one (the Bohairic),-may be in error: but that B-?, C, and Cod. ? which is curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.

-- 7.

There are many occasions-as I remarked before,-where the very logic of the case becomes a powerful argument. Worthless in and by themselves,-in the face, I mean, of general testimony,-considerations derived from the very reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to a.s.sist the judgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced. But their cogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey of the evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be the right reading of a place. They seem then to sweep the field. Such an occasion is presented by St. Luke xvi. 9,-where our LORD, having shewn what provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would find himself houseless,-the Divine Speaker infers that something a.n.a.logous should be done by ourselves with our own money,-"in order" (saith He) "that _when ye fail_, ye may be received into the everlasting tabernacles." The logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the choice of terms in the Original is exquisite: the word employed to designate Man's departure out of this life (????p?te), conveying the image of one fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the word used in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and of Isaac, and of Jacob(332).

But instead of this, ?BDLR? with AX present us with e???p? or e??e?p?,-shewing that the author of this reading imagined without discrimination, that what our LORD meant to say was that when at last our money "fails" us, we may not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the number of twelve, together with two correctors of ?, the bulk of the Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, and Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus(333), Clemens Alex.(334), Origen(335), Methodius(336), Basil(337), Ephraem Syrus(338), Gregory Naz.(339), Didymus(340), Chrysostom(341), Severia.n.u.s(342), Jerome(343), Augustine(344), Eulogius(345), and Theodoret(346), also Aphraates (A.D.

325)(347), support the reading ????p?te. Cyril appears to have known both readings(348).

His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his fragmentary remains; and "divination" is a faculty to which I make no pretence.

In p. 349, after de? d? p??t?? a?t??? ?p?pese?? t?? ???????a? ?p?p?d??t??

?a??t??, ?a? t?? ?a?? ??? p?a??t?? ??e???t??. ?d??f??t?? ??? ?????p?

pa?t? t?? ?a??t?? t?? ?????,-Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower down) ?ta? a?t??? ? ?p??e??? ???e?t? ??????S, with which corresponds the Syriac of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same pa.s.sage in Cramer's Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, ?p?pes???ta? p??t?? t??

???????a? ?p?p?d??t?? a?t??? t?? ?a??t?? (lines 21-3), we are presented with ?ta? a?t??? ? ?p??e??? ???e?p?? ???, which clearly reverses the testimony. If Cyril wrote _that_, he read (like every other Father) ????p?te. It is only right to add that ????p? is found besides in pp. 525, 526 (= Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril's Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This however (like the quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Pes.h.i.+tto. I must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my judgement concerning Cyril's text is at fault.

-- 8.

There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration concerning the guiding and illuminating office of the Holy Ghost, than our Lord's promise that "when He, the Spirit of Truth shall come, He shall guide you into all the Truth": ?d???se? ??? e?? p?sa? t?? ????e?a? (St. John xvi. 13). Now, the six words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary amount of perturbation; far more than can be due to the fact that they happen to be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief,-every known variety in reading this pa.s.sage may be brought under one of three heads:-

1. With the first,-which is in fact a gloss, not a reading (d????seta?

??? t?? ????e?a? p?sa?),-we need not delay ourselves. Eusebius in two places(349), Cyril Jer.(350), copies of the Old Latin(351), and Jerome(352) in a certain place, so read the place. Unhappily the same reading is also found in the Vulgate(353). It meets with no favour however, and may be dismissed.

2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our Lord's meaning, might have been as unceremoniously dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L (?d???se? ??? ?? t? ????e?? p?s?), but that unhappily it has found favour with Tischendorf,-I suppose, because with the exception of p?s? it is the reading of his own Cod. ?(354). It is thus that Cyril Alex.(355) thrice reads the place: and indeed the same thing practically is found in D(356); while so many copies of the Old Latin exhibit _in omni veritate_, or _in veritate omni_(357), that one is constrained to inquire, How is ?? ????e??

pas? to be accounted for?

We have not far to look. ?d??e?? followed by ?? occurs in the LXX, chiefly in the Psalms, more than 16 times. Especially must the familiar expression in Ps. xxiv. 5 (?d???s?? e ?? t? ????e?? s??, _Dirige me in veritate tua_), by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some early copyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13 in this fatal way.

One is only astonished that so acute a critic as Tischendorf should have overlooked so plain a circ.u.mstance. The constant use of the Psalm in Divine Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting therefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pa.s.s, that in this as in other places its phraseology must have influenced the memory.

3. The one true reading of the place (?d???se? ??? e?? p?sa? t??

????e?a?) is attested by 12 of the uncials (EGHIbKMSUG???), the whole body of the cursives, and by the following Fathers,-Didymus(358), Epiphanius(359), Basil(360), Chrysostom(361), Theodotus, Bp. of Antioch(362), Cyril Alex.(363), Theodoret(364); besides Tertullian in five places, Hilary and Jerome in two(365).

But because the words p?sa? t?? ????e?a? are found transposed in ABY alone of ma.n.u.scripts, and because Peter Alex.(366), and Didymus(367) once, Origen(368) and Cyril Alex.(369) in two places, are observed to sanction the same infelicitous arrangement (viz. t?? ????e?a? p?sa?),-Lachmann, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without hesitation this order of the words(370). It cannot of course be maintained. The candid reader in the meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth has been preserved neither by A nor B nor D: least of all by ?: but comes down to us unimpaired in the great ma.s.s of MS. authorities, uncial and cursive, as well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.

-- 9.

It may have been antic.i.p.ated by the readers of these pages that the Divine Author of Scripture has planted here and there up and down the sacred page-often in most improbable places and certainly in forms which we should have least of all imagined-tests of accuracy, by attending to which we may form an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of the sacred Text. This is a discovery which at first astonished me: but on mature reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently antic.i.p.ated.

Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom-which is observed to have made such abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms of animal life, for the preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious plants,-should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed of His own Everlasting Word?

For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of which every one may convince himself by opening a copy of the Gospels furnished with a sufficient critical apparatus), that although in relating the healing of the centurion's servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes e?at??ta???S in verses 5 and 8, he writes e?at??ta??? instead of -?O in ver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and cursives alike. _Only_ one uncial (viz. ?) has ventured to a.s.similate the two places, writing e?at??ta???? throughout. With the blindness proverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows ?, though the carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all who examine it.

The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the sc.r.a.p of a ballad which identified the murderer, another sc.r.a.p of it being found with the bullet in the body of the murdered man.