Part 15 (1/2)

[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.

[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.

[214] Mont. i. 462.

[215] Ubi supra.

[216] Omitting trifling variants.

[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73: +CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.

[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ found: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:--of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.

[219] v. 10.

[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.

[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.

[222] [Greek: grapheos toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267.

(See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)

[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).

[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St.

Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.

[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.

[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'

Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]

glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.

[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.

xlvii.

CHAPTER IX.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

III. Attraction.

-- 1.

There exist not a few corrupt Readings,--and they have imposed largely on many critics,--which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing else but the p.r.o.neness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,--whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,--sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called the error of Attraction. The phenomena of 'a.s.similation' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St.

John vi. 71 and xiii. 26.

'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas Iskariotes] is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'--jealous doubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas]) the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor's ident.i.ty. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,--'Judas (not Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read 'Judas Iscariot.' But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And _why_? Only, I answer, because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTeN] (in vi. 71) and [Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTe] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of copies subst.i.tute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on?