Part 5 (1/2)

In St. John iv. 15, on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]B, Tischendorf adopts [Greek: dierchesthai] (in place of the uncompounded verb), a.s.signing as his reason, that 'If St. John had written [Greek: erchesthai], no one would ever have subst.i.tuted [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 pa.s.s.

[Greek: KAI oi aetoi] is met with in many ancient authorities. But [Symbol: Aleph]LB also transposed the clauses, and subst.i.tuted [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 pa.s.sage.

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 antic.i.p.ated, that there would be found copyists to be confused by the antecedent [Greek: KAI]. Accordingly the Pes.h.i.+tto, Lewis, and Curetonian render the place 'et dicentes;' shewing that they mistook [Greek: KAI OI LEGONTES] for a separate phrase.

-- 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 etara.s.se to hydor], but so many MSS. read [Greek: etara.s.seto], 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 circ.u.mstance 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].