Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these are generally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness of ending' (Homoeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy to the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down. The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol: Aleph], omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the reader judge for himself. The passage stands thus:—[Greek: he gar sarx mou alethos esti brosis, kai to haima mou alethos esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph] by a very easy mistake let his eye pass from one [Greek: alethos] to another, and characteristically enough the various correctors allowed the error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though the error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of frequent use?]

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine Lord Himself, abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age, owing to the recurrence of [Greek: ouai hymin] at the beginning, by some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. It passed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol: Aleph]BDLZ, a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (bis); ix. 755); Opus Imperf. 185 (bis); 186 (bis); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact (i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there have been careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) in several of the known copies; and if,—as very often is the case,—it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder,—which it clearly is,—it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to give an instance of my meaning.

Our Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth away his wife [Greek: ei me epi porneia, kai gamese allen, moichatai],—adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenen gamesas moichatai]. Those five words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them.

And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Peshitto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including B[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives. So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of [Greek: ton] in the expression [Greek: TON psichion TON piptonTON] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the words [Greek: psichion ton] out of some copies. Unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in—[Symbol: Aleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor by Clemens Alex.[50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what settles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission: besides Ambrose[52], Jerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex., Gregory[55] Naz., Asterius[56], Basil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in abolishing 'the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.'

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels. Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the mind of the Church,—when the Canon was not definitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently composed,—severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions.

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration.]

FOOTNOTES:

[50] P. 232.

[51] Ap. Orig. i. 827.

[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:—places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.

[53] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.

[54] Ap. Mai ii. 516, 520.

[55] i. 370.

[56] P. 12.

[57] ii. 169.

[58] ii. 142.

[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (bis) 764; vii. 779.

[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. text, 524).



CHAPTER IV.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

III. From Writing in Uncials.

Sec. 1.

Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.

St. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon ede]) has suffered in this way,—owing to the unusual position of [Greek: ede]. Certain of the scribes who imagined that [Greek: ede] might belong to ver. 36, rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: ede] can only belong to ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of doubtful authority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pass that there are four ways of exhibiting this place:—(a) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Kai ho therizon]:—(b) [Greek: pros therismon. Ede ho th.]:—(c) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Ho therizon]:—(d) [Greek: pros therismon. Ho therizon, k.t.l.]

The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: ede]: which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great mass of the copies: as well as by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help us. But [Greek: ede] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai ede ho therizon]): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: ede kai],—which shews that some early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow. But recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (marg.), are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with ACDL) making [Greek: ede] begin the next sentence,—which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.

Sec. 2.

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son,—'And I perish here with hunger!' But why 'here?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St. Luke the words stood thus,—[Greek: EGODELIMOAPOLLYMAI], some careless scribe after writing [Greek: EGODE], reduplicated the three last letters ([Greek: ODE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek: ego de ode]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From [Greek: ego de ode limo], the sentence has now developed into [Greek: ego de limo ode]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: ego de ode] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations. It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress.

The inventors of [Greek: ode] or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence. Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here,' are observed also to advocate, above, 'in my Father's house.' No extant Greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [Greek: [en to oiko] tou patros mou]: but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Peshitto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome[69], Augustine[70] and Cassian[71] were acquainted. The phrase 'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate. But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whatever between two localities—but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.—These are many words; but I know not how to be briefer. And,—what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh?'

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL. What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthenai ek]: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his father,—[Greek: Poieson me hos hena ton misthion sou]:

Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheos]) after [Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original?

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS. written thus,—[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the middle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,—'And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.' It is so that Origen[73], Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.

Sec. 3.

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind called Euroclydon' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; being compounded of [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind,' and [Greek: klydon], 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives intact in the Peshitto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,—'the blast' (he says) 'of the tempest[76], which [blast] is called Tophonikos Euroklīdon.' Not so the licentious scribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual 'Euroclydon,' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo,' which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he would hardly have explained 'Eurielion' or 'Euriclion' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek: EUROKLUDON] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULON]) are at this day the sole surviving Greek witnesses. Well may the evidence for 'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed:'—

'Euronotus is so called as intervening immediately between Eurus and Notus, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of Libonotus, as being interposed between Libs and Notus. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other wind intervenes. But Eurus and Aquilo are at 90 deg. distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105 deg.; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsolanus[78].'

Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible Latin name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has 'Aquilo' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way ([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pass that every copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDON][79]: the secunda mantis has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDON],—which is also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circumstance is, that not [Greek: ULON] but [Greek: UDON] has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81].

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), assigning as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have substituted [Greek: dierchesthai] for it.' But to construct the text of Scripture on such considerations, is to build a lighthouse on a quicksand. I could have referred the learned Critic to plenty of places where the thing he speaks of as incredible has been done. The proof that St. John used the uncompounded verb is the fact that it is found in all the copies except our two untrustworthy friends. The explanation of [Greek: DIerchomai] is sufficiently accounted for by the final syllable ([Greek: DE]) of [Greek: mede] which immediately precedes. Similarly but without the same excuse,

St. Mark x. 16 [Greek: eulogei] has become [Greek: kateulogei] ([Symbol: Aleph]BC). " xii. 17 [Greek: thaumasan] " [Greek: ezethaumasan] ([Symbol: Aleph]B). " xiv. 40 [Greek: bebaremenoi] " [Greek: katabebaremenoi] (A[Symbol: Aleph]B).

It is impossible to doubt that [Greek: kai] (in modern critical editions of St. Luke xvii. 37) is indebted for its existence to the same cause. In the phrase [Greek: ekei synachthesontai hoi aetoi] it might have been predicted that the last syllable of [Greek: ekei] would some day be mistaken for the conjunction. And so it has actually come to pass. [Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and substituted [Greek: episynachthesontai] for [Greek: synachthesontai]. The self-same casualty, viz. [Greek: kai] elicited out of the insertion of [Greek: ekei] and the transposition of the clauses, is discoverable among the Cursives at St. Matt. xxiv. 28,—the parallel place: where by the way the old uncials distinguish themselves by yet graver eccentricities[82]. How can we as judicious critics ever think of disturbing the text of Scripture on evidence so precarious as this?

It is proposed that we should henceforth read St. Matt. xxii. 23 as follows:—'On that day there came to Him Sadducees saying that there is no Resurrection.' A new incident would be in this way introduced into the Gospel narrative: resulting from a novel reading of the passage. Instead of [Greek: hoi legontes], we are invited to read [Greek: legontes], on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BDMSZP and several of the Cursives, besides Origen, Methodius, Epiphanius. This is a respectable array. There is nevertheless a vast preponderance of numbers in favour of the usual reading, which is also found in the Old Latin copies and in the Vulgate. But surely the discovery that in the parallel Gospels it is—

[Greek: hoitines legousin anastasin me einai] (St. Mark xii. 18) and [Greek: hoi antilegontes anastasin me einai] (St. Luke xx. 27)

may be considered as decisive in a case like the present. Sure I am that it will be so regarded by any one who has paid close attention to the method of the Evangelists. Add that the origin of the mistake is seen, the instant the words are inspected as they must have stood in an uncial copy:

[Greek: SADDOUKAIOIOILEGONTES]

and really nothing more requires to be said. The second [Greek: OI] was safe to be dropped in a collocation of letters like that. It might also have been anticipated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Peshitto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook [Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.

Sec. 4.

The termination [Greek: TO] (in certain tenses of the verb), when followed by the neuter article, naturally leads to confusion; sometimes to uncertainty. In St. John v. 4 for instance, where we read in our copies [Greek: kai etarasse to hydor], but so many MSS. read [Greek: etarasseto], that it becomes a perplexing question which reading to follow. The sense in either case is excellent: the only difference being whether the Evangelist actually says that the Angel 'troubled' the water, or leaves it to be inferred from the circumstance that after the Angel had descended, straightway the water 'was troubled.'

The question becomes less difficult of decision when (as in St. Luke vii. 21) we have to decide between two expressions [Greek: echarisato blepein] (which is the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]*ABDEG and 11 other uncials) and [Greek: echarisato to blepein] which is only supported by [Symbol: Aleph]^{b}ELVA. The bulk of the Cursives faithfully maintain the former reading, and merge the article in the verb.

Akin to the foregoing are all those instances,—and they are literally without number—, where the proximity of a like ending has been the fruitful cause of error. Let me explain: for this is a matter which cannot be too thoroughly apprehended.

Such a collection of words as the following two instances exhibit will shew my meaning.

In the expression [Greek: estheta lampran anepempsen] (St. Luke xxiii. 11), we are not surprised to find the first syllable of the verb ([Greek: an]) absorbed by the last syllable of the immediately preceding [Greek: lampran]. Accordingly, [Symbol: Aleph]LR supported by one copy of the Old Latin and a single cursive MS. concur in displaying [Greek: epempsen] in this place.

The letters [Greek: NAIKONAIKAI] in the expression (St. Luke xxiii. 27) [Greek: gynaikon hai kai] were safe to produce confusion. The first of these three words could of course take care of itself. (Though D, with some of the Versions, make it into [Greek: gynaikes].) Not so however what follows. ABCDLX and the Old Latin (except c) drop the [Greek: kai]: [Symbol: Aleph] and C drop the [Greek: ai]. The truth rests with the fourteen remaining uncials and with the cursives.

Thus also the reading [Greek: en ole te Galilaia] (B) in St. Matt. iv. 23, (adopted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers,) is due simply to the reduplication on the part of some inattentive scribe of the last two letters of the immediately preceding word,—[Greek: periegen]. The received reading of the place is the correct one,—[Greek: kai periegen holen ten Galilaian ho Iesous], because the first five words are so exhibited in all the Copies except B[Symbol: Aleph]C; and those three MSS. are observed to differ as usual from one another,—which ought to be deemed fatal to their evidence. Thus,

B reads [Greek: kai periegen en holei tei Galilaiai]. [Symbol: Aleph] " [Greek: kai periegen ho is en tei Galilaiai]. C " [Greek: kai periegen ho is en hole tei Galilaiai].

But—(I shall be asked)—what about the position of the Sacred Name? How comes it to pass that [Greek: ho Iesous], which comes after [Greek: Galilaian] in almost every other known copy, should come after [Greek: periegen] in three of these venerable authorities (in D as well as in [Symbol: Aleph] and C), and in the Latin, Peshitto, Lewis, and Harkleian? Tischendorf, Alford, Westcott and Hort and the Revisers at all events (who simply follow B in leaving out [Greek: ho Iesous] altogether) will not ask me this question: but a thoughtful inquirer is sure to ask it.

The phrase (I reply) is derived by [Symbol: Aleph]CD from the twin place in St. Matthew (ix. 35) which in all the MSS. begins [Greek: kai periegen ho is]. So familiar had this order of the words become, that the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], (a circumstance by the way of which Tischendorf takes no notice,) has even introduced the expression into St. Mark vi. 6,—the parallel place in the second Gospel,—where [Greek: ho is] clearly has no business. I enter into these minute details because only in this way is the subject before us to be thoroughly understood. This is another instance where 'the Old Uncials' shew their text to be corrupt; so for assurance in respect of accuracy of detail we must resort to the Cursive Copies.

Sec. 5.

The introduction of [Greek: apo] in the place of [Greek: hagioi] made by the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,—derives its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of [Greek: agioi] for [Greek: apo]. It was but the mistaking of [Greek: AGIO] for [Greek: APO]. At the end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with four cursives,—in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,—(2) to introduce both readings ([Greek: apo] and [Greek: hagioi]) into the text. Accordingly [Greek: apo Theou hagioi] is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. [Greek: hypo] for [Greek: apo]—but only because [Greek: hypo] went immediately before); of which fresh blunder ([Greek: hypo Theou hagioi]) Theophylact is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both [Greek: apo] and [Greek: agioi] were left out,—which accounts for the reading of certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began, Tischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and '(4)', as proofs that '(1)' is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of 'holy men of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake from God,' which is wooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned?

Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb. vii. 1. Instead of [Greek: Ho synantesas Abraam]—said of Melchizedek,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit [Greek: OS]. The whole body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],—besides Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of [Greek: synantesas] has been reduplicated through careless transcription: [Greek: OSSYN]—instead of [Greek: OSYN]—. That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable blunder is found.

Sec. 6.

I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in suggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release unto you?' asked Pilate on a memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,—'Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' Origen so quotes the place, but 'In many copies,' he proceeds, 'mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: and those copies may perhaps be right,—else would the name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds, 'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics[94].' From this we are clearly intended to infer that 'Jesus Barabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which—besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to pronounce incredible[95].

The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some inattentive second century copyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of 'unto you' ([Greek: UMIN]) for the word 'Jesus' ([Greek: IN]): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of [Greek: UMIN],—from which, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that 'fabric of Textual Criticism' which has been the cause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. But, as every one must see, 'such things as these are not 'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;' but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting the blunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than we can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No 'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas was our Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]

FOOTNOTES:

[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of [Greek: ede] in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36—as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041).

[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = cat^{ox} iv. 21.

[63] dem. 440. But not in cs. 426: theoph. 262, 275.

[64] vii. 488, 662: ix. 32.

[65] i. 397. 98. (Palladius) 611: iii. 57. So also in iv. 199, [Greek: etoimos ede pros to pisteuein].

[66] Ambrose, ii. 279, has 'Et qui metit.' Iren.^{int} substitutes 'nam' for 'et,' and omits 'jam.' Jerome 9 times introduces 'jam' before 'albae sunt.' So Aug. (iii.^2 417): but elsewhere (iv. 639: v. 531) he omits the word altogether.

[67] 'Hic' is not recognized in Ambrose. Append. ii. 367.

[68] The Fathers render us very little help here. Ps.-Chrys. twice (viii. 34: x. 838) has [Greek: ego de ode]: once (viii. 153) not. John Damascene (ii. 579) is without the [Greek: ode].

[69] i. 76: vi. 16 (not vi. 484).

[70] iii.^{2} 259 (not v. 511).

[71] p. 405.

[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 nobis 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. Vaticanus, 1859 (8vo), p. v. Sec. 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] Peshitto. [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 Sec.)], 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. lxxxix. 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.']

Sec. 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 ass 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 multitude 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 multitude 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 circumstance. That many copies of the Old Latin (not of the Vulgate) recognize [Greek: hoti], besides the Peshitto 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 assertion 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 manuscripts (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, Peshitto, 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],— Severianus of Gabala[108];—these twelve Versions and Fathers constitute 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.

Sec. 2.

[A suggestive example[112] of the corruption introduced by a petty Itacism may be found in Rev. i. 5, where the beautiful expression which has found its way into so many tender passages relating to Christian devotion, 'Who hath washed[113] us from our sins in His own blood' (A.V.), is replaced in many critical editions (R.V.) by, 'Who hath loosed[114] us from our sins by His blood.' In early times a purist scribe, who had a dislike of anything that savoured of provincial retention of Aeolian or Dorian pronunciations, wrote from unconscious bias [Greek: u] for [Greek: ou], transcribing [Greek: lusanti] for [Greek: lousanti] (unless he were not Greek scholar enough to understand the difference): and he was followed by others, especially such as, whether from their own prejudices or owing to sympathy with the scruples of other people, but at all events under the influence of a slavish literalism, hesitated about a passage as to which they did not rise to the spiritual height of the precious meaning really conveyed therein. Accordingly the three uncials, which of those that give the Apocalypse date nearest to the period of corruption, adopt [Greek: u], followed by nine cursives, the Harkleian Syriac, and the Armenian versions. On the other side, two uncials—viz. B^{2} of the eighth century and P of the ninth—the Vulgate, Bohairic, and Ethiopic, write [Greek: lousanti] and—what is most important—all the other cursives except the handful just mentioned, so far as examination has yet gone, form a barrier which forbids intrusion.]

[An instance where an error from an Itacism has crept into the Textus Receptus may be seen in St. Luke xvi. 25. Some scribes needlessly changed [Greek: hode] into [Greek: hode], misinterpreting the letter which served often for both the long and the short [Greek: o], and thereby cast out some illustrative meaning, since Abraham meant to lay stress upon the enjoyment 'in his bosom' of comfort by Lazarus. The unanimity of the uncials, a majority of the cursives, the witness of the versions, that of the Fathers quote the place being uncertain, are sufficient to prove that [Greek: hode] is the genuine word.]

[Again, in St. John xiii. 25, [Greek: houtos] has dropped out of many copies and so out of the Received Text because by an Itacism it was written [Greek: outos] in many manuscripts. Therefore [Greek: ekeinos outos] was thought to be a clear mistake, and the weaker word was accordingly omitted. No doubt Latins and others who did not understand Greek well considered also that [Greek: houtos] was redundant, and this was the cause of its being omitted in the Vulgate. But really [Greek: houtos], being sufficiently authenticated[115], is exactly in consonance with Greek usage and St. John's style[116], and adds considerably to the graphic character of the sacred narrative. St. John was reclining ([Greek: anakeimenos]) on his left arm over the bosom of the robe ([Greek: en toi kolpoi]) of the Saviour. When St. Peter beckoned to him he turned his head for the moment and sank ([Greek: epipeson], not [Greek: anapeson] which has the testimony only of B and about twenty-five uncials, [Symbol: Aleph] and C being divided against themselves) on the breast of the Lord, being still in the general posture in which he was ([Greek: houtos][117]), and asked Him in a whisper 'Lord, who is it?']

[Another case of confusion between [Greek: o] and [Greek: o] may be seen in St. Luke xv. 24, 32, where [Greek: apololos] has gained so strong a hold that it is found in the Received Text for [Greek: apololos], which last being the better attested appears to be the right reading[118]. But the instance which requires the most attention is [Greek: katharizon] in St. Mark vii. 19, and all the more because in The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the alteration into [Greek: katharizon] is advocated as being 'no part of the Divine discourse, but the Evangelist's inspired comment on the Saviour's words[119].' Such a question must be decided strictly by the testimony, not upon internal evidence—which in fact is in this case absolutely decisive neither way, for people must not be led by the attractive view opened by [Greek: katharizon], and [Greek: katharizon] bears a very intelligible meaning. When we find that the uncial evidence is divided, there being eight against the change ([Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]KMUV[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]), and eleven for it ([Symbol: Aleph]ABEFGHLSX[Symbol: Delta]);—that not much is advanced by the versions, though the Peshitto, the Lewis Codex, the Harkleian (?), the Gothic, the Old Latin[120], the Vulgate, favour [Greek: katharizon];—nor by the Fathers:—since Aphraates[121], Augustine (?)[122], and Novatian[123] are contradicted by Origen[124], Theophylact[125], and Gregory Thaumaturgus[126], we discover that we have not so far made much way towards a satisfactory conclusion. The only decided element of judgement, so far as present enquiries have reached, since suspicion is always aroused by the conjunction of [Symbol: Aleph]AB, is supplied by the cursives which with a large majority witness to the received reading. It is not therefore safe to alter it till a much larger examination of existing evidence is made than is now possible. If difficulty is felt in the meaning given by [Greek: katharizon],—and that there is such difficulty cannot candidly be denied,—this is balanced by the grammatical difficulty introduced by [Greek: katharizon], which would be made to agree in the same clause with a verb separated from it by thirty-five parenthetic words, including two interrogations and the closing sentence. Those people who form their judgement from the Revised Version should bear in mind that the Revisers, in order to make intelligible sense, were obliged to introduce three fresh English words that have nothing to correspond to them in the Greek; being a repetition of what the mind of the reader would hardly bear in memory. Let any reader who doubts this leave out the words in italics and try the effect for himself. The fact is that to make this reading satisfactory, another alteration is required. [Greek: Katharizon panta ta bromata] ought either to be transferred to the 20th verse or to the beginning of the 18th. Then all would be clear enough, though destitute of a balance of authority: as it is now proposed to read, the passage would have absolutely no parallel in the simple and transparent sentences of St. Mark. We must therefore be guided by the balance of evidence, and that is turned by the cursive testimony.]

Sec. 3.

Another minute but interesting indication of the accuracy and fidelity with which the cursive copies were made, is supplied by the constancy with which they witness to the preposition [Greek: en] (not the numeral [Greek: hen]) in St. Mark iv. 8. Our Lord says that the seed which 'fell into the good ground' 'yielded by ([Greek: en]) thirty, and by ([Greek: en]) sixty, and by ([Greek: en]) an hundred.' Tischendorf notes that besides all the uncials which are furnished with accents and breathings (viz. EFGHKMUV[Symbol: Pi]) 'nearly 100 cursives' exhibit [Greek: en] here and in ver. 20. But this is to misrepresent the case. All the cursives may be declared to exhibit [Greek: en], e.g. all Matthaei's and all Scrivener's. I have myself with this object examined a large number of Evangelia, and found [Greek: en] in all. The Basle MS. from which Erasmus derived his text[127] exhibits [Greek: en],—though he printed [Greek: hen] out of respect for the Vulgate. The Complutensian having [Greek: hen], the reading of the Textus Receptus follows in consequence: but the Traditional reading has been shewn to be [Greek: en],—which is doubtless intended by [Greek: EN] in Cod. A.

Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Delta] (two ever licentious and [Symbol: Delta] similarly so throughout St. Mark) substitute for the preposition [Greek: en] the preposition [Greek: eis],—(a sufficient proof to me that they understand [Greek: EN] to represent [Greek: en], not [Greek: hen]): and are followed by Tischendorf, Tregelles, and the Revisers. As for the chartered libertine B (and its servile henchman L), for the first [Greek: en] (but not for the second and third) it substitutes the preposition [Greek: EIS]: while, in ver. 20, it retains the first [Greek: en], but omits the other two. In all these vagaries Cod. B is followed by Westcott and Hort[128].

Sec. 4.

St. Paul[129] in his Epistle to Titus [ii. 5] directs that young women shall be 'keepers at home,' [Greek: oikourous]. So, (with five exceptions,) every known Codex[130], including the corrected [Symbol: Aleph] and D,—HKLP; besides 17, 37, 47. So also Clemens Alex.[131] (A.D. 180),—Theodore of Mopsuestia[132],—Basil[133],—Chrysostom[134]— Theodoret[135],—Damascene[136]. So again the Old Latin (domum custodientes[137]),—the Vulgate (domus curam habentes[138]),—and Jerome (habentes domus diligentiam[139]): and so the Peshitto and the Harkleian versions,—besides the Bohairic. There evidently can be no doubt whatever about such a reading so supported. To be [Greek: oikouros] was held to be a woman's chiefest praise[140]: [Greek: kalliston ergon gyne oikouros], writes Clemens Alex.[141]; assigning to the wife [Greek: oikouria] as her proper province[142]. On the contrary, 'gadding about from house to house' is what the Apostle, writing to Timothy[143], expressly condemns. But of course the decisive consideration is not the support derived from internal evidence; but the plain fact that antiquity, variety, respectability, numbers, continuity of attestation, are all in favour of the Traditional reading.

Notwithstanding this, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, because they find [Greek: oikourgous] in [Symbol: Aleph]*ACD*F-G, are for thrusting that 'barbarous and scarcely intelligible' word, if it be not even a non-existent[144], into Titus ii. 5. The Revised Version in consequence exhibits 'workers at home'—which Dr. Field may well call an 'unnecessary and most tasteless innovation.' But it is insufficiently attested as well, besides being a plain perversion of the Apostle's teaching. [And the error must have arisen from carelessness and ignorance, probably in the West where Greek was not properly understood.]

So again, in the cry of the demoniacs, [Greek: ti hemin kai soi, Iesou, huie tou Theou]; (St. Matt. viii. 29) the name [Greek: Iesou] is omitted by B[Symbol: Aleph].

The reason is plain the instant an ancient MS. is inspected:—[Greek: KAISOIIUUIETOUTHU]:—the recurrence of the same letters caused too great a strain to scribes, and the omission of two of them was the result of ordinary human infirmity.

Indeed, to this same source are to be attributed an extraordinary number of so-called 'various readings'; but which in reality, as has already been shewn, are nothing else but a collection of mistakes,—the surviving tokens that anciently, as now, copying clerks left out words; whether misled by the fatal proximity of a like ending, or by the speedy recurrence of the like letters, or by some other phenomenon with which most men's acquaintance with books have long since made them familiar.

FOOTNOTES:

[96] St. Mark xi. 4. See Revision Revised, pp. 57-58.

[97] St. Mark vii. 19, [Greek: katharizon] for [Greek: katharizon]. See below, pp. 61-3.

[98] St. Luke ii. 14.

[99] St. Luke xxiii. 42.

[100] St. Matt. xx. 9. See also St. Mark xi. 9, 10.

[101] 'Quae quidem orationis prolixitas non conveniens esset si [Greek: hote] legendum esset.'

[102] iv. 577: 'quando.'

[103] Dem. Ev. 310, 312, 454 bis.

[104] i. 301.

[105] ii. 488, and ap. Gall. vi. 580.

[106] Trin. 59, 99, 242.

[107] viii. 406, 407. Also ps.-Chrysost. v. 613. Note, that 'Apolinarius' in Cramer's Cat. 332 is Chrys. viii. 407.

[108] Ap. Chrys. vi. 453.

[109] iv. 505, 709, and ap. Mai iii. 85.

[110] ii. 102: iv. 709, and ap. Mai iii. 118.

[111] v^{1}. 642.

[112] Unfortunately, though the Dean left several lists of instances of Itacism, he worked out none, except the substitution of [Greek: hen] for [Greek: en] in St. Mark iv. 8, which as it is not strictly on all fours with the rest I have reserved till last. He mentioned all that I have introduced (besides a few others), on detached papers, some of them more than once, and [Greek: lousanti] and [Greek: katharizon] even more than the others. In the brief discussion of each instance which I have supplied, I have endeavoured whenever it was practicable to include any slight expressions of the Dean's that I could find, and to develop all surviving hints.

[113] [Greek: lousanti].

[114] [Greek: lusanti].

[115] [Greek: houtos]. BCEFGHLMX[Symbol: Delta]. Most cursives. Goth. [Greek: outos]. KSU[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Lambda]. Ten cursives. Omit [Symbol: Aleph]AD[Pi]. Many cursives. Vulg. Pesh. Ethiop. Armen. Georg. Slavon. Bohair. Pers.

[116] E.g. Thuc. vii. 15, St. John iv. 6.

[117] See St. John iv. 6: Acts xx. 11, xxvii. 17. The beloved Apostle was therefore called [Greek: ho epistethios]. See Suicer. s. v. Westcott on St. John xiii. 25.

[118] 24. [Greek: apololos.] [Symbol: Aleph]^{a}ABD &c. [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*GKMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]*. Most curs.

32. [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]*ABD &c. [Greek: apololos]. [Symbol: Aleph]^{c}KMRSX[Symbol: Gamma][Symbol: Pi]*. Most curs.

[119] Pp. 179, 180. Since the Dean has not adopted [Greek: katharizon] into his corrected text, and on account of other indications which caused me to doubt whether he retained the opinion of his earlier years, I applied to the Rev. W. F. Rose, who answered as follows:—'I am thankful to say that I can resolve all doubt as to my uncle's later views of St. Mark vii. 19. In his annotated copy of the Twelve Verses he deletes the words in his note p. 179, "This appears to be the true reading," and writes in the margin, "The old reading is doubtless the true one," and in the margin of the paragraph referring to [Greek: katharizon] on p. 180 he writes, "Alter the wording of this." This entirely agrees with my own recollection of many conversations with him on the subject. I think he felt that the weight of the cursive testimony to the old rending was conclusive,—at least that he was not justified in changing the text in spite of it.' These last words of Mr. Rose express exactly the inference that I had drawn.

[120] 'The majority of the Old Latin MSS. have "in secessum uadit (or exiit) purgans omnes escas"; i (Vindobonensis) and r (Usserianus) have "et purgat" for "purgans": and a has a conflation "in secessum exit purgans omnes escas et exit in rivum"—so they all point the same way.'—(Kindly communicated by Mr. H. J. White.)

[121] Dem. xv. (Graffin)—'Vadit enim esca in ventrem, unde purgatione in secessum emittitur.' (Lat.)

[122] iii. 764. 'Et in secessum exit, purgans omnes escas.'

[123] Galland. iii. 319. 'Cibis, quos Dominus dicit perire, et in secessu naturali lege purgari.'

[124] iii. 494. [Greek: elege tauta ho Soter, katharizon panta ta bromata.]

[125] i. 206. [Greek: ekkatharizon panta ta bromata.]

[126] Galland. iii. 400. [Greek: alla kai ho Soter, panta katharizon ta bromata.]

[127] Evan. 2. See Hoskier, Collation of Cod. Evan. 604, App. F. p. 4.

[128] [The following specimens taken from the first hand of B may illustrate the kakigraphy, if I may use the expression, which is characteristic of that MS. and also of [Symbol: Aleph]. The list might be easily increased.

I. Proper Names.

[Greek: Ioanes], generally: [Greek: Ioannes], Luke i. 13*, 60, 63; Acts iii. 4; iv. 6, 13, 19; xii. 25; xiii. 5, 25; xv. 37; Rev. i. 1, 4, 9; xxii. 8.

[Greek: Beezeboul], Matt. x. 25; xii. 24, 27; Mark iii. 22; Luke xi. 15, 18, 19.

[Greek: Nazaret], Matt. ii. 23; Luke i. 26; John i. 46, 47. [Greek: Nazara], Matt. iv. 13. [Greek: Nazareth], Matt. xxi. 11; Luke ii. 51; iv. 16.

[Greek: Maria] for [Greek: Mariam], Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 19. [Greek: Mariam] for [Greek: Maria], Matt. xxvii. 61; Mark xx. 40; Luke x. 42; xi. 32; John xi. 2; xii. 3; xx. 16, 18. See Traditional Text, p. 86.

[Greek: Koum], Mark v. 41. [Greek: Golgoth], Luke xix. 17.

[Greek: Istraeleitai, Istraelitai, Israeleitai, Israelitai].

[Greek: Eleisabet, Elisabet].

[Greek: Moses, Mouses.]

[Greek: Dalmanountha], Mark viii. 10.

[Greek: Iose] (Joseph of Arimathea), Mark xv. 45. [Greek: Ioseph], Matt. xxvii. 57, 59; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii. 50; John xix. 38.

II. Mis-spelling of ordinary words.

[Greek: kath' idian], Matt. xvii. 1, 19; xxi v. 3; Mark iv. 34; vi. 31, &c. [Greek: kat' idian], Matt. xiv. 13, 23; Mark vi. 32; vii. 33, &c.

[Greek: genema], Matt. xxvi. 29; Mark xiv. 25; Luke xxii. 18. [Greek: gennema], Matt. iii. 7; xii. 34; xxiii. 33; Luke iii. 7 (the well-known [Greek: gennemata echidnon]).

A similar confusion between [Greek: genesis] and [Greek: gennesis], Matt. i, and between [Greek: egenethen] and [Greek: egennethen], and [Greek: gegenemai] and [Greek: gegennemai]. See Kuenen and Cobet N. T. ad fid. Cod. Vaticani lxxvii.

III. Itacisms.

[Greek: kreino], John xii. 48 ([Greek: kreinei]). [Greek: krino], Matt. vii. 1; xix. 28; Luke vi. 37; vii. 43; xii. 57, &c.

[Greek: teimo, timo], Matt. xv. 4, 5, 8; xix. 19; xxvii. 9; Mark vii. 6, 10, &c.

[Greek: enebreimethe] (Matt. ix. 30) for [Greek: enebrimesato]. [Greek: anakleithenai] (Mark vi. 39) for [Greek: anaklinai. seitos] for [Greek: sitos] (Mark iv. 28).

IV. Bad Grammar.

[Greek: toi oikodespotei epekalesan] for [Greek: ton oikodespoten ekal.] (Matt. x. 25). [Greek: katapatesousin] for [Greek:-sosin] (Matt. vii. 6). [Greek: ho an aitesetai] (Matt. xiv. 7). [Greek: hotan de akouete] (Mark xiii. 7).

V. Impossible words.

[Greek: emnesteumenen] (Luke i. 27). [Greek: ouranou] for [Greek: ouraniou] (ii. 13). [Greek: anezetoun] (Luke ii. 44). [Greek: kopiousin] (Matt. vi. 28). [Greek: erotoun] (Matt. xv. 23). [Greek: kataskenoin] (Mark iv. 32). [Greek: hemeis] for [Greek: hymeis]. [Greek: hymeis] for [Greek: hemeis].]

[129] This paper on Titus ii. 5 was marked by the Dean as being 'ready for press.' It was evidently one of his later essays, and was left in one of his later portfolios.

[130] All Matthaei's 16,—all Rinck's 7,—all Reiche's 6,—all Scrivener's 13, &c., &c.

[131] 622.

[132] Ed. Swete, ii. 247 (domos suas bene regentes); 248 (domus proprias optime regant).

[133] ii. (Eth.) 291 a, 309 b.

[134] xi. 750 a, 751 b c d—[Greek: he oikouros kai oikonomike.]

[135] iii. 704.

[136] ii. 271.

[137] Cod. Clarom.

[138] Cod. Amiat., and August. iii^{1}. 804.

[139] vii. 716 c, 718 b (Bene domum regere, 718 c).

[140] [Greek: kat' oikon oikourousin hoste parthenoi] (Soph. Oed. Col. 343).—'[Greek: Oikouros] est quasi proprium vocabulum mulierum: [Greek: oikourgos] est scribarum commentum,'—as Matthaei, whose note is worth reading, truly states. Wetstein's collections here should by all means be consulted. See also Field's delightful Otium Norv., pp. 135-6.

[141] P. 293, lin. 4 (see lin. 2).

[142] P. 288, lin. 20.

[143] 1 Tim. v. 13.

[144] [Greek: oikourgein]—which occurs in Clemens Rom. (ad Cor. c. 1)—is probably due to the scribe.



CHAPTER VI.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

V. Liturgical Influence.

Sec. 1.

There is one distinct class of evidence provided by Almighty God for the conservation of the deposit in its integrity[145], which calls for special notice in this place. The Lectionaries of the ancient Church have not yet nearly enjoyed the attention they deserve, or the laborious study which in order to render them practically available they absolutely require. Scarcely any persons, in fact, except professed critics, are at all acquainted with the contents of the very curious documents alluded to: while collations of any of them which have been hitherto effected are few indeed. I speak chiefly of the Books called Evangelistaria (or Evangeliaria), in other words, the proper lessons collected out of the Gospels, and transcribed into a separate volume. Let me freely admit that I subjoin a few observations on this subject with unfeigned diffidence; having had to teach myself throughout the little I know;—and discovering in the end how very insufficient for my purpose that little is. Properly handled, an adequate study of the Lectionaries of the ancient Church would become the labour of a life. We require exact collations of at least 100 of them. From such a practical acquaintance with about a tenth of the extant copies some very interesting results would infallibly be obtained[146].

As for the external appearance of these documents, it may be enough to say that they range, like the mass of uncial and cursive copies, over a space of about 700 years,—the oldest extant being of about the eighth century, and the latest dating in the fifteenth. Rarely are any so old as the former date,—or so recent as the last named. When they began to be executed is not known; but much older copies than any which at present exist must have perished through constant use: [for they are in perfect order when we first become acquainted with them, and as a whole they are remarkably consistent with one another]. They are almost invariably written in double columns, and not unfrequently are splendidly executed. The use of Uncial letters is observed to have been retained in documents of this class to a later period than in the case of the Evangelia, viz. down to the eleventh century. For the most part they are furnished with a kind of musical notation executed in vermilion; evidently intended to guide the reader in that peculiar recitative which is still customary in the oriental Church.

In these books the Gospels always stand in the following order: St. John: St. Matthew: St. Luke: St. Mark. The lessons are brief,— resembling the Epistles and Gospels in our Book of Common Prayer.

They seem to me to fall into two classes: (a) Those which contain a lesson for every day in the year: (b) Those which only contain [lessons for fixed Festivals and] the Saturday-Sunday lessons ([Greek: sabbatokyriakai]). We are reminded by this peculiarity that it was not till a very late period in her history that the Eastern Church was able to shake herself clear of the shadow of the old Jewish Sabbath[147]. [To these Lectionaries Tables of the Lessons were often added, of a similar character to those which we have in our Prayer-books. The Table of daily Lessons went under the title of Synaxarion (or Eclogadion); and the Table of the Lessons of immovable Festivals and Saints' days was styled Menologion[148].]

Liturgical use has proved a fruitful source of textual perturbation. Nothing less was to have been expected,—as every one must admit who has examined ancient Evangelia with any degree of attention. For a period before the custom arose of writing out the Ecclesiastical Lections in the 'Evangelistaries,' and 'Apostolos,' it may be regarded as certain that the practice generally prevailed of accommodating an ordinary copy, whether of the Gospels or of the Epistles, to the requirements of the Church. This continued to the last to be a favourite method with the ancients[149]. Not only was it the invariable liturgical practice to introduce an ecclesiastical lection with an ever-varying formula,—by which means the holy Name is often found in MSS. where it has no proper place,—but notes of time, &c., ['like the unique and indubitably genuine word [Greek: deuteroprotoi][150],' are omitted as carrying no moral lesson, as well as longer passages like the case of the two verses recounting the ministering Angel with the Agony and the Bloody Sweat[151].

That Lessons from the New Testament were probably read in the assemblies of the faithful according to a definite scheme, and on an established system, at least as early as the fourth century, has been shewn to follow from plain historical fact in the tenth chapter of the Twelve Last Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, to which the reader is referred for more detailed information. Cyril, at Jerusalem,—and by implication, his namesake at Alexandria,—Chrysostom, at Antioch and at Constantinople,— Augustine, in Africa,—all four expressly witness to the circumstance. In other words, there is found to have been at least at that time fully established throughout the Churches of Christendom a Lectionary, which seems to have been essentially one and the same in the West and in the East. That it must have been of even Apostolic antiquity may be inferred from several considerations[152]. For example, Marcion, in A.D. 140, would hardly have constructed an Evangelistarium and Apostolicon of his own, as we learn from Epiphanius[153], if he had not been induced by the Lectionary System prevailing around him to form a counterplan of teaching upon the same model.]

Sec. 2.

Indeed, the high antiquity of the Church's Lectionary System is inferred with certainty from many a textual phenomenon with which students of Textual Science are familiar.

It may be helpful to a beginner if I introduce to his notice the class of readings to be discussed in the present chapter, by inviting his attention to the first words of the Gospel for St. Philip and St. James' Day in our own English Book of Common Prayer,—'And Jesus said unto His disciples.' Those words he sees at a glance are undeniably nothing else but an Ecclesiastical accretion to the Gospel,—words which breed offence in no quarter, and occasion error to none. They have nevertheless stood prefixed to St. John xiv. 1 from an exceedingly remote period; for, besides establishing themselves in every Lectionary of the ancient Church[154], they are found in Cod. D[155],—in copies of the Old Latin[156] as the Vercellensis, Corbeiensis, Aureus, Bezae,—and in copies of the Vulgate. They may be of the second or third, they must be as old as the fourth century. It is evident that it wants but a very little for those words to have established their claim to a permanent place in the Text. Readings just as slenderly supported have been actually adopted before now[157].

I proceed to cite another instance; and here the success of an ordinary case of Lectionary licence will be perceived to have been complete: for besides recommending itself to Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort, the blunder in question has established itself in the pages of the Revised Version. Reference is made to an alteration of the Text occurring in certain copies of Acts iii. 1, which will be further discussed below[158]. When it has been stated that these copies are [Symbol: Aleph]ABCG,—the Vulgate,—the two Egyptian versions,—besides the Armenian,—and the Ethiopic,—it will be admitted that the Ecclesiastical practice which has resulted in so widespread a reading, must be primitive indeed. To some persons such a formidable array of evidence may seem conclusive in favour of any reading: but it can only seem so to those who do not realize the weight of counter-testimony.

But by far the most considerable injury which has resulted to the Gospel from this cause is the suspicion which has alighted in certain quarters on the last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark. [Those verses made up by themselves a complete Lection. The preceding Lection, which was used on the Second Sunday after Easter, was closed with the Liturgical note 'The End,' or [Greek: TO TELOS], occurring after the eighth verse. What more probable, nay, more certain result could there be, than that some scribe should mistake the end of the Lection for the end of St. Mark's Gospel, if the last leaf should chance to have been torn off, and should then transcribe no more[159]? How natural that St. Mark should express himself in a more condensed and abrupt style than usual. This of course is only put forward as an explanation, which leaves the notion of another writer and a later date unnecessary. If it can be improved upon, so much the better. Candid critics ought to study Dean Burgon's elaborate chapter already referred to before rejecting it.]

Sec. 3.

And there probably does not exist, in the whole compass of the Gospel, a more interesting instance of this than is furnished by the words [Greek: eipe de ho Kyrios], in St. Luke vii. 31. This is certainly derived from the Lectionaries; being nothing else but the formula with which it was customary to introduce the lection that begins at this place. Accordingly, only one out of forty copies which have been consulted for the purpose contains them. But the circumstance of interest remains to be stated. When these four unauthorized words have been thus got rid of, the important discovery is made that the two preceding verses (verses 28 and 29) must needs form a part of our Lord's discourse,—which it is perceived flows on unbroken from v. 24 to v. 35. This has been seen already by some[160], though denied by others. But the fact does not admit of rational doubt; though it is certainly not as yet generally known. It is not generally known, I mean, that the Church has recovered a piece of knowledge with which she was once familiar[161], but which for many centuries she has forgotten, viz. that thirty-two words which she supposed to be those of the Evangelist are in reality those of her Lord.

Indeed, when the expressions are considered, it is perceived that this account of them must needs be the true one. Thus, we learn from the 24th verse that our Saviour was at this time addressing 'the crowds' or 'multitudes.' But the four classes specified in verses 29, 30, cannot reasonably be thought to be the Evangelist's analysis of those crowds. In fact what is said of 'the Pharisees and Lawyers' in ver. 30 is clearly not a remark made by the Evangelist on the reception which our Saviour's words were receiving at the hands of his auditory; but our Saviour's own statement of the reception which His Forerunner's preaching had met with at the hands of the common people and the publicans on the one hand,—the Pharisees and the Scribes on the other. Hence the inferential particle [Greek: oun] in the 31st verse; and the use in ver. 35 of the same verb ([Greek: edikaiothe]) which the Divine Speaker had employed in ver. 29: whereby He takes up His previous statement while He applies and enforces it.

Another specimen of unauthorized accretion originating in the same way is found a little farther on. In St. Luke ix. 1 ('And having called together His twelve Disciples'), the words [Greek: mathetas autou] are confessedly spurious: being condemned by nearly every known cursive and uncial. Their presence in the meantime is fully accounted for by the adjacent rubrical direction how the lesson is to be introduced: viz. 'At that time Jesus having called together His twelve Disciples.' Accordingly we are not surprised to find the words [Greek: ho Iesous] also thrust into a few of the MSS.: though we are hardly prepared to discover that the words of the Peshitto, besides the Latin and Cureton's Syriac, are disfigured in the same way. The admirers of 'the old uncials' will learn with interest that, instead of [Greek: mathetas autou], [Symbol: Aleph]C with LX[Symbol: Lambda][Symbol: Xi] and a choice assortment of cursives exhibit [Greek: apostolous],—being supported in this manifestly spurious reading by the best copies of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, Bohairic, and a few other translations.

Indeed, it is surprising what a fertile source of corruption Liturgical usage has proved. Every careful student of the Gospels remembers that St. Matthew describes our Lord's first and second missionary journey in very nearly the same words. The former place (iv. 23) ending [Greek: kai pasan malakian en to lao] used to conclude the lesson for the second Sunday after Pentecost,—the latter (ix. 35) ending [Greek: kai pasan malakian] occupies the same position in the Gospel for the seventh Sunday. It will not seem strange to any one who considers the matter, that [Greek: en to lao] has in consequence not only found its way into ix. 35, but has established itself there very firmly: and that from a very early time. The spurious words are first met with in the Codex Sinaiticus[162].

But sometimes corruptions of this class are really perplexing. Thus [Symbol: Aleph] testifies to the existence of a short additional clause ([Greek: kai polloi ekolouthesan auto]) at the end, as some critics say, of the same 35th verse. Are we not rather to regard the words as the beginning of ver. 36, and as being nothing else but the liturgical introduction to the lection for the Twelve Apostles, which follows (ix. 36-x. 8), and whose Festival falls on the 30th June? Whatever its origin, this confessedly spurious accretion to the Text, which exists besides only in L and six cursive copies, must needs be of extraordinary antiquity, being found in the two oldest copies of the Old Latin:—a sufficient indication, by the way, of the utter insufficiency of such an amount of evidence for the genuineness of any reading.

This is the reason why, in certain of the oldest documents accessible, such a strange amount of discrepancy is discoverable in the text of the first words of St. Luke x. 25 ([Greek: kai idou nomikos tis aneste, ekpeirazon aiton, kai legon]). Many of the Latin copies preface this with et haec eo dicente. Now, the established formula of the lectionaries here is,—[Greek: nomikos tis prosethen to I.], which explains why the Curetonian, the Lewis, with 33, 'the queen of the cursives,' as their usual leader in aberrant readings is absurdly styled, so read the place: while D, with one copy of the Old Latin, stands alone in exhibiting,—[Greek: aneste de tis nomikos]. Four Codexes ([Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi]) with the Curetonian omit the second [Greek: kai] which is illegible in the Lewis. To read this place in its purity you have to take up any ordinary cursive copy.

Sec. 4.

Take another instance. St. Mark xv. 28 has been hitherto read in all Churches as follows:—'And the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, "And He was numbered with the transgressors."' In these last days however the discovery is announced that every word of this is an unauthorized addition to the inspired text. Griesbach indeed only marks the verse as probably spurious; while Tregelles is content to enclose it in brackets. But Alford, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers eject the words [Greek: kai eplerothe he graphe he legousa, kai meta anomon elogisthe] from the text altogether. What can be the reason for so extraordinary a proceeding?

Let us not be told by Schulz (Griesbach's latest editor) that 'the quotation is not in Mark's manner; that the formula which introduces it is John's: and that it seems to be a gloss taken from Luke xxii. 37.' This is not criticism but dictation,—imagination, not argument. Men who so write forget that they are assuming the very point which they are called upon to prove.

Now it happens that all the Uncials but six and an immense majority of the Cursive copies contain the words before us:—that besides these, the Old Latin, the Syriac, the Vulgate, the Gothic and the Bohairic versions, all concur in exhibiting them:—that the same words are expressly recognized by the Sectional System of Eusebius;—having a section ([Greek: sis] / [Greek: e] i.e. 216/8) to themselves—which is the weightiest sanction that Father had it in his power to give to words of Scripture. So are they also recognized by the Syriac sectional system (260/8), which is diverse from that of Eusebius and independent of it. What then is to be set against such a weight of ancient evidence? The fact that the following six Codexes are without this 28th verse, [Symbol: Aleph]ABCDX, together with the Sahidic and Lewis. The notorious Codex k (Bobiensis) is the only other ancient testimony producible; to which Tischendorf adds 'about forty-five cursive copies.' Will it be seriously pretended that this evidence for omitting ver. 28 from St. Mark's Gospel can compete with the evidence for retaining it?

Let it not be once more insinuated that we set numbers before antiquity. Codex D is of the sixth century; Cod. X not older than the ninth: and not one of the four Codexes which remain is so old, within perhaps two centuries, as either the Old Latin or the Peshitto versions. We have Eusebius and Jerome's Vulgate as witnesses on the same side, besides the Gothic version, which represents a Codex probably as old as either. To these witnesses must be added Victor of Antioch, who commented on St. Mark's Gospel before either A or C were written[163].

It will be not unreasonably asked by those who have learned to regard whatever is found in B or [Symbol: Aleph] as oracular,—'But is it credible that on a point like this such authorities as [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD should all be in error?'

It is not only credible, I answer, but a circumstance of which we meet with so many undeniable examples that it ceases to be even a matter of surprise. On the other hand, what is to be thought of the credibility that on a point like this all the ancient versions (except the Sahidic) should have conspired to mislead mankind? And further, on what intelligible principle is the consent of all the other uncials, and the whole mass of cursives, to be explained, if this verse of Scripture be indeed spurious?

I know that the rejoinder will be as follows:—'Yes, but if the ten words in dispute really are part of the inspired verity, how is their absence from the earliest Codexes to be accounted for?' Now it happens that for once I am able to assign the reason. But I do so under protest, for I insist that to point out the source of the mistakes in our oldest Codexes is no part of a critic's business. It would not only prove an endless, but also a hopeless task. This time, however, I am able to explain.

If the reader will take the trouble to inquire at the Bibliotheque at Paris for a Greek Codex numbered '71,' an Evangelium will be put into his hands which differs from any that I ever met with in giving singularly minute and full rubrical directions. At the end of St. Mark xv. 27, he will read as follows:—'When thou readest the sixth Gospel of the Passion,—also when thou readest the second Gospel of the Vigil of Good Friday,—stop here: skip verse 28: then go on at verse 29.' The inference from this is so obvious, that it would be to abuse the reader's patience if I were to enlarge upon it, or even to draw it out in detail. Very ancient indeed must the Lectionary practice in this particular have been that it should leave so fatal a trace of its operation in our four oldest Codexes: but it has left it[164]. The explanation is evident, the verse is plainly genuine, and the Codexes which leave it out are corrupt.

One word about the evidence of the cursive copies on this occasion. Tischendorf says that 'about forty-five' of them are without this precious verse of Scripture. I venture to say that the learned critic would be puzzled to produce forty-five copies of the Gospels in which this verse has no place. But in fact his very next statement (viz. that about half of these are Lectionaries),—satisfactorily explains the matter. Just so. From every Lectionary in the world, for the reason already assigned, these words are away; as well as in every MS. which, like B and [Symbol: Aleph], has been depraved by the influence of the Lectionary practice.

And now I venture to ask,—What is to be thought of that Revision of our Authorized Version which omits ver. 28 altogether; with a marginal intimation that 'many ancient authorities insert it'? Would it not have been the course of ordinary reverence,—I was going to say of truth and fairness,—to leave the text unmolested: with a marginal memorandum that just 'a very few ancient authorities leave it out'?

Sec. 5.

A gross depravation of the Text resulting from this cause, which nevertheless has imposed on several critics, as has been already said, is furnished by the first words of Acts iii. The most ancient witness accessible, namely the Peshitto, confirms the usual reading of the place, which is also the text of the cursives: viz. [Greek: Epi to auto de Petros kai Ioannes k.t.l.] So the Harkleian and Bede. So Codex E.

The four oldest of the six available uncials conspire however in representing the words which immediately precede in the following unintelligible fashion:—[Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran epi to auto. Petros de k.t.l.] How is it to be thought that this strange and vapid presentment of the passage had its beginning? It results, I answer, from the ecclesiastical practice of beginning a fresh lection at the name of 'Peter,' prefaced by the usual formula 'In those days.' It is accordingly usual to find the liturgical word [Greek: arche]—indicative of the beginning of a lection,—thrust in between [Greek: epi to auto de] and [Greek: Petros]. At a yet earlier period I suppose some more effectual severance of the text was made in that place, which unhappily misled some early scribe[165]. And so it came to pass that in the first instance the place stood thus: [Greek: ho de Kyrios prosetithei tous sozomenous kath' hemeran te ekklesia epi to auto],—which was plainly intolerable.

What I am saying will commend itself to any unprejudiced reader when it has been stated that Cod. D in this place actually reads as follows:—[Greek: kathemeran epi to auto en te ekklesia. En de tais hemerais tautais Petros k.t.l.]: the scribe with simplicity both giving us the liturgical formula with which it was usual to introduce the Gospel for the Friday after Easter, and permitting us to witness the perplexity with which the evident surplusage of [Greek: te ekklesia epi to auto] occasioned him. He inverts those two expressions and thrusts in a preposition. How obvious it now was to solve the difficulty by getting rid of [Greek: te ekklesia].

It does not help the adverse case to shew that the Vulgate as well as the copy of Cyril of Alexandria are disfigured with the same corrupt reading as [Symbol: Aleph]ABC. It does but prove how early and how widespread is this depravation of the Text. But the indirect proof thus afforded that the actual Lectionary System must needs date from a period long anterior to our oldest Codexes is a far more important as well as a more interesting inference. In the meantime I suspect that it was in Western Christendom that this corruption of the text had its beginning: for proof is not wanting that the expression [Greek: epi to auto] seemed hard to the Latins[166].

Hence too the omission of [Greek: palin] from [Symbol: Aleph]BD (St. Matt, xiii. 43). A glance at the place in an actual Codex[167] will explain the matter to a novice better than a whole page of writing:—

[Greek: akoueto. telos] [Greek: palin. arche. eipen o Kurios ten parabolen tauten.] [Greek: Omoia estin k.t.l.]

The word [Greek: palin], because it stands between the end ([Greek: telos]) of the lesson for the sixth Thursday and the beginning ([Greek: arche]) of the first Friday after Pentecost, got left out [though every one acquainted with Gospel MSS. knows that [Greek: arche] and [Greek: telos] were often inserted in the text]. The second of these two lessons begins with [Greek: homoia] [because [Greek: palin] at the beginning of a lesson is not wanted]. Here then is a singular token of the antiquity of the Lectionary System in the Churches of the East: as well as a proof of the untrustworthy character of Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BD. The discovery that they are supported this time by copies of the Old Latin (a c e ff^{1.2} g^{1.2} k l), Vulgate, Curetonian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, does but further shew that such an amount of evidence in and by itself is wholly insufficient to determine the text of Scripture.

When therefore I see Tischendorf, in the immediately preceding verse (xiii. 43) on the sole authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B and a few Latin copies, omitting the word [Greek: akouein],—and again in the present verse on very similar authority (viz. [Symbol: Aleph]D, Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Curetonian, Lewis, Bohairic, together with five cursives of aberrant character) transposing the order of the words [Greek: panta hosa echei polei],—I can but reflect on the utterly insecure basis on which the Revisers and the school which they follow would remodel the inspired Text.

It is precisely in this way and for the selfsame reason, that the clause [Greek: kai elypethesan sphodra] (St. Matt. xvii. 23) comes to be omitted in K and several other copies. The previous lesson ends at [Greek: egerthesetai],—the next lesson begins at [Greek: proselthon].

Sec. 6.

Indeed, the Ancient Liturgy of the Church has frequently exercised a corrupting influence on the text of Scripture. Having elsewhere considered St. Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer[168], I will in this place discuss the genuineness of the doxology with which the Lord's Prayer concludes in St. Matt. vi. 13[169],—[Greek: hoti sou estin he basileia kai he dynamis kai he doxa eis tous aionas. amen],—words which for 360 years have been rejected by critical writers as spurious, notwithstanding St. Paul's unmistakable recognition of them in 2 Tim. iv. 18,—which alone, one would have thought, should have sufficed to preserve them from molestation.

The essential note of primitive antiquity at all events these fifteen words enjoy in perfection, being met with in all copies of the Peshitto:—and this is a far weightier consideration than the fact that they are absent from most of the Latin copies. Even of these however four (k f g^{1} q) recognize the doxology, which is also found in Cureton's Syriac and the Sahidic version; the Gothic, the Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Harkleian, Palestinian, Erpenius' Arabic, and the Persian of Tawos; as well as in the [Greek: Didache] (with variations); Apostolical Constitutions (iii. 18-vii. 25 with variations); in St. Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24), Caesarius (Dial. i. 29). Chrysostom comments on the words without suspicion, and often quotes them (In Orat. Dom., also see Hom. in Matt. xiv. 13): as does Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 24). See also Opus Imperfectum (Hom. in Matt. xiv), Theophylact on this place, and Euthymius Zigabenus (in Matt. vi. 13 and C. Massal. Anath. 7). And yet their true claim to be accepted as inspired is of course based on the consideration that they are found in ninety-nine out of a hundred of the Greek copies, including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma] of the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries. What then is the nature of the adverse evidence with which they have to contend and which is supposed to be fatal to their claims?

Four uncial MSS. ([Symbol: Aleph]BDZ), supported by five cursives of bad character (1, 17 which gives [Greek: amen], 118, 130, 209), and, as we have seen, all the Latin copies but four, omit these words; which, it is accordingly assumed, must have found their way surreptitiously into the text of all the other copies in existence. But let me ask,—Is it at all likely, or rather is it any way credible, that in a matter like this, all the MSS. in the world but nine should have become corrupted? No hypothesis is needed to account for one more instance of omission in copies which exhibit a mutilated text in every page. But how will men pretend to explain an interpolation universal as the present; which may be traced as far back as the second century; which has established itself without appreciable variety of reading in all the MSS.; which has therefore found its way from the earliest time into every part of Christendom; is met with in all the Lectionaries, and in all the Greek Liturgies; and has so effectually won the Church's confidence that to this hour it forms part of the public and private devotions of the faithful all over the world?

One and the same reply has been rendered to this inquiry ever since the days of Erasmus. A note in the Complutensian Polyglott (1514) expresses it with sufficient accuracy. 'In the Greek copies, after And deliver us from evil, follows For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. But it is to be noted that in the Greek liturgy, after the choir has said And deliver us from evil, it is the Priest who responds as above: and those words, according to the Greeks, the priest alone may pronounce. This makes it probable that the words in question are no integral part of the Lord's Prayer: but that certain copyists inserted them in error, supposing, from their use in the liturgy, that they formed part of the text.' In other words, they represent that men's ears had grown so fatally familiar with this formula from its habitual use in the liturgy, that at last they assumed it to be part and parcel of the Lord's Prayer. The same statement has been repeated ad nauseam by ten generations of critics for 360 years. The words with which our Saviour closed His pattern prayer are accordingly rejected as an interpolation resulting from the liturgical practice of the primitive Church. And this slipshod account of the matter is universally acquiesced in by learned and unlearned readers alike at the present day.

From an examination of above fifty ancient oriental liturgies, it is found then that though the utmost variety prevails among them, yet that not one of them exhibits the evangelical formula as it stands in St. Matt. vi. 13; while in some instances the divergences of expression are even extraordinary. Subjoined is what may perhaps be regarded as the typical eucharistic formula, derived from the liturgy which passes as Chrysostom's. Precisely the same form recurs in the office which is called after the name of Basil: and it is essentially reproduced by Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Jerusalem, and pseudo-Caesarius; while something very like it is found to have been in use in more of the Churches of the East.

'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, now and always and for ever and ever. Amen.'

But as every one sees at a glance, such a formula as the foregoing,—with its ever-varying terminology of praise,—its constant reference to the blessed Trinity,—its habitual [Greek: nun kai aei],—and its invariable [Greek: eis tous aionas ton aionon], (which must needs be of very high antiquity, for it is mentioned by Irenaeus[170], and may be as old as 2 Tim. iv. 18 itself;)—the doxology, I say, which formed part of the Church's liturgy, though transcribed 10,000 times, could never by possibility have resulted in the unvarying doxology found in MSS. of St. Matt. vi. 13,—'For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.'

On the other hand, the inference from a careful survey of so many Oriental liturgies is inevitable. The universal prevalence of a doxology of some sort at the end of the Lord's Prayer; the general prefix 'for thine'; the prevailing mention therein of 'the kingdom and the power and the glory'; the invariable reference to Eternity:—all this constitutes a weighty corroboration of the genuineness of the form in St. Matthew. Eked out with a confession of faith in the Trinity, and otherwise amplified as piety or zeal for doctrinal purity suggested, every liturgical formula of the kind is clearly derivable from the form of words in St. Matt. vi. 13. In no conceivable way, on the other hand, could that briefer formula have resulted from the practice of the ancient Church. The thing, I repeat, is simply impossible.

What need to point out in conclusion that the Church's peculiar method of reciting the Lord's Prayer in the public liturgy does notwithstanding supply the obvious and sufficient explanation of all the adverse phenomena of the case? It was the invariable practice from the earliest time for the Choir to break off at the words 'But deliver us from evil.' They never pronounced the doxology. The doxology must for that reason have been omitted by the critical owner of the archetypal copy of St. Matthew from which nine extant Evangelia, Origen, and the Old Latin version originally derived their text. This is the sum of the matter. There can be no simpler solution of the alleged difficulty. That Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose recognize no more of the Lord's Prayer than they found in their Latin copies, cannot create surprise. The wonder would have been if they did.

Much stress has been laid on the silence of certain of the Greek Fathers concerning the doxology although they wrote expressly on the Lord's Prayer; as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa[171], Cyril of Jerusalem, Maximus. Those who have attended most to such subjects will however bear me most ready witness, that it is never safe to draw inferences of the kind proposed from the silence of the ancients. What if they regarded a doxology, wherever found, as hardly a fitting subject for exegetical comment? But however their silence is to be explained, it is at least quite certain that the reason of it is not because their copies of St. Matthew were unfurnished with the doxology. Does any one seriously imagine that in A.D. 650, when Maximus wrote, Evangelia were, in this respect, in a different state from what they are at present?

The sum of what has been offered may be thus briefly stated:—The textual perturbation observable at St. Matt. vi. 13 is indeed due to a liturgical cause, as the critics suppose. But then it is found that not the great bulk of the Evangelia, but only Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ, 1, 17, 118, 130, 209, have been victims of the corrupting influence. As usual, I say, it is the few, not the many copies, which have been led astray. Let the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer be therefore allowed to retain its place in the text without further molestation. Let no profane hands be any more laid on these fifteen precious words of the Lord Jesus Christ.

There yet remains something to be said on the same subject for the edification of studious readers; to whom the succeeding words are specially commended. They are requested to keep their attention sustained, until they have read what immediately follows.

The history of the rejection of these words is in a high degree instructive. It dates from 1514, when the Complutensian editors, whilst admitting that the words were found in their Greek copies, banished them from the text solely in deference to the Latin version. In a marginal annotation they started the hypothesis that the doxology is a liturgical interpolation. But how is that possible, seeing that the doxology is commented on by Chrysostom? 'We presume,' they say, 'that this corruption of the original text must date from an antecedent period.' The same adverse sentence, supported by the same hypothesis, was reaffirmed by Erasmus, and on the same grounds; but in his edition of the N.T. he suffered the doxology to stand. As the years have rolled out, and Codexes DBZ[Symbol: Aleph] have successively come to light, critics have waxed bolder and bolder in giving their verdict. First, Grotius, Hammond, Walton; then Mill and Grabe; next Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach; lastly Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers have denounced the precious words as spurious.

But how does it appear that tract of time has strengthened the case against the doxology? Since 1514, scholars have become acquainted with the Peshitto version; which by its emphatic verdict, effectually disposes of the evidence borne by all but three of the Old Latin copies. The [Greek: Didache] of the first or second century, the Sahidic version of the third century, the Apostolic Constitutions (2), follow on the same side. Next, in the fourth century come Chrysostom, Ambrose, ps.-Caesarius, the Gothic version. After that Isidore, the Ethiopic, Cureton's Syriac. The Harkleian, Armenian, Georgian, and other versions, with Chrysostom (2), the Opus Imperfectum, Theophylact, and Euthymius (2), bring up the rear[172]. Does any one really suppose that two Codexes of the fourth century (B[Symbol: Aleph]), which are even notorious for their many omissions and general accuracy, are any adequate set-off against such an amount of ancient evidence? L and 33, generally the firm allies of BD and the Vulgate, forsake them at St. Matt. vi. 13: and dispose effectually of the adverse testimony of D and Z, which are also balanced by [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma]. But at this juncture the case for rejecting the doxology breaks down: and when it is discovered that every other uncial and every other cursive in existence may be appealed to in its support, and that the story of its liturgical origin proves to be a myth,—what must be the verdict of an impartial mind on a survey of the entire evidence?

The whole matter may be conveniently restated thus:—Liturgical use has indeed been the cause of a depravation of the text at St. Matt. vi. 13; but it proves on inquiry to be the very few MSS.,—not the very many,—which have been depraved.

Nor is any one at liberty to appeal to a yet earlier period than is attainable by existing liturgical evidence; and to suggest that then the doxology used by the priest may have been the same with that which is found in the ordinary text of St. Matthew's Gospel. This may have been the case or it may not. Meanwhile, the hypothesis, which fell to the ground when the statement on which it rested was disproved, is not now to be built up again on a mere conjecture. But if the fact could be ascertained,—and I am not at all concerned to deny that such a thing is possible,—I should regard it only as confirmatory of the genuineness of the doxology. For why should the liturgical employment of the last fifteen words of the Lord's Prayer be thought to cast discredit on their genuineness? In the meantime, the undoubted fact, that for an indefinitely remote period the Lord's Prayer was not publicly recited by the people further than 'But deliver us from evil,'—a doxology of some sort being invariably added, but pronounced by the priest alone,—this clearly ascertained fact is fully sufficient to account for a phenomenon so ordinary [found indeed so commonly throughout St. Matthew, to say nothing of occurrences in the other Gospels] as really not to require particular explanation, viz. the omission of the last half of St. Matthew vi. 13 from Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDZ.