Part 9 (2/2)

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 Pes.h.i.+tto, 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 a.s.sortment 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 cla.s.s 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 doc.u.ments 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.

-- 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 a.s.suming 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 Pes.h.i.+tto 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 circ.u.mstance 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 ma.s.s 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 a.s.sign 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 Pa.s.sion,--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 a.s.signed, 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'?

-- 5.

<script>