Part 17 (1/2)

My rejoinder is plain:--Not only am I of course willing to yield to external evidence, but it is precisely 'external evidence' which makes me insist on retaining [Greek: deuteroproto--apo melissiou keriou--haras ton stauron--kai anephereto eis ton ouranon--hotan eklipete]--the 14th verse of St. Matthew's xxiiird chapter--and the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel. For my own part, I entirely deny the cogency of the proposed proof, and I have clearly already established the grounds of my refusal. Who then is to be the daysman between us? We are driven back on first principles, in order to ascertain if it may not be possible to meet on some common ground, and by the application of ordinary logical principles of reasoning to clear our view. [As to these we must refer the reader to the first volume of this work. Various cases of omission have been just quoted, and many have been discussed elsewhere.

Accordingly, it will not be necessary to exhibit this large cla.s.s of corruptions at the length which it would otherwise demand. But a few more instances are required, in order that the reader may see in this connexion that many pa.s.sages at least which the opposing school designate as Interpolations are really genuine, and that students may be placed upon their guard against the source of error that we are discussing.]

-- 4.

And first as to the rejection of an entire verse.

The 44th verse of St. Matt. xxi, consisting of the fifteen words printed at foot[265], is marked as doubtful by Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers:--by Tischendorf it is rejected as spurious. We insist that, on the contrary, it is indubitably genuine; reasoning from the antiquity, the variety, the respectability, the largeness, or rather, the general unanimity of its attestation.

For the verse is found in the Old Latin, and in the Vulgate,--in the Pes.h.i.+tto, Curetonian, and Harkleian Syriac,--besides in the Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic versions. It is found also in Origen[266],-- ps.-Tatian[267]--Aphraates[268],--Chrysostom[269],--Cyril Alex.[270],-- the Opus Imperfectum[271],--Jerome[272],--Augustine[273]:--in Codexes B[Symbol: Aleph]C[Symbol: Theta][Symbol: Sigma]XZ[Symbol: Delta][Symbol: Pi]EFG HKLMSUV,--in short, it is attested by every known Codex except two of bad character, viz.--D, 33; together with five copies of the Old Latin, viz.--a b e ff^{1} ff^{2}. There have therefore been adduced for the verse in dispute at least five witnesses of the second or third century:--at least eight of the fourth:--at least seven if not eight of the fifth: after which date the testimony in favour of this verse is overwhelming. How could we be justified in opposing to such a ma.s.s of first-rate testimony the solitary evidence of Cod. D (concerning which see above, Vol. I. c. viii.) supported only by a single errant Cursive and a little handful of copies of the Old Latin versions, [even although the Lewis Codex has joined this petty band?]

But, says Tischendorf,--the verse is omitted by Origen and by Eusebius,--by Irenaeus and by Lucifer of Cagliari,--as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. I answer, this most insecure of arguments for mutilating the traditional text is plainly inadmissible on the present occasion.

The critic refers to the fact that Irenaeus[274], Origen[275], Eusebius[276] and Cyril[277] having quoted 'the parable of the wicked husbandmen' _in extenso_ (viz. from verse 33 to verse 43), _leave off at verse_ 43. Why may they not leave off where the parable leaves off? Why should they quote any further? Verse 44 is nothing to their purpose. And since the Gospel for Monday morning in Holy Week [verses 18-43], in every known copy of the Lectionary actually ends at verse 43,--why should not their quotation of it end at the same verse? But, unfortunately for the critic, Origen and Cyril (as we have seen,--the latter expressly,) elsewhere actually quote the verse in dispute. And how can Tischendorf maintain that Lucifer yields adverse testimony[278]?

That Father quotes _nothing but_ verse 43, which is all he requires for his purpose[279]. Why should he have also quoted verse 44, which he does not require? As well might it be maintained that Macarius Egyptius[280]

and Philo of Carpasus[281] omit verse 44, because (like Lucifer) they only quote verse 43.

I have elsewhere explained what I suspect occasioned the omission of St.

Matt. xxi. 44 from a few Western copies of the Gospels[282].

Tischendorf's opinion that this verse is a fabricated imitation of the parallel verse in St. Luke's Gospel[283] (xx. 18) is clearly untenable.

Either place has its distinctive type, which either has maintained all down the ages. The single fact that St. Matt. xxi. 44 in the Pes.h.i.+tto version has a sectional number to itself[284] is far too weighty to be set aside on nothing better than suspicion. If a verse so elaborately attested as the present be not genuine, we must abandon all hope of ever attaining to any certainty concerning the Text of Scripture.

In the meantime there emerges from the treatment which St. Matt. xxi. 44 has experienced at the hands of Tischendorf, the discovery that, in the estimation of Tischendorf, Cod. D [is a doc.u.ment of so much importance as occasionally to outweigh almost by itself the other copies of all ages and countries in Christendom.]

-- 5.

I am guided to my next example, viz. the text of St. Matt. xv. 8, by the choice deliberately made of that place by Dr. Tregelles in order to establish the peculiar theory of Textual Revision which he advocates so strenuously; and which, ever since the days of Griesbach, has it must be confessed enjoyed the absolute confidence of most of the ill.u.s.trious editors of the New Testament. This is, in fact, the second example on Tregelles' list. In approaching it, I take leave to point out that that learned critic unintentionally hoodwinks his readers by not setting before them in full the problem which he proposes to discuss. Thoroughly to understand this matter, the student should be reminded that there is found in St. Matt. xv. 8,--and parallel to it in St. Mark vii. 6,--

St. Matt.

'Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, ”This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips ([Greek: engizei moi ho laos houtos to stomati auton, kai tois cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me.”'

St. Mark.

'Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, hypocrites, as it is written, ”This people honoureth Me with their lips ([Greek: houtos ho laos tois cheilesi me tima]), but their heart is far from Me.”'

The place of Isaiah referred to, viz. ch. xxix. 13, reads as follows in the ordinary editions of the LXX:--[Greek: kai eipe Kyrios, engizei moi ho laos houtos en to stomati autou, kai en tois cheilesin auton timosi me].

Now, about the text of St. Mark in this place no question is raised.

Neither is there any various reading worth speaking of in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred in respect of the text in St. Matthew. But when reference is made to the two oldest copies in existence, B and [Symbol: Aleph], we are presented with what, but for the parallel place in St.

Mark, would have appeared to us a strangely abbreviated reading. Both MSS. conspire in exhibiting St. Matt. xv. 8, as follows:--[Greek: ho laos houtos tois cheilesi me tima]. So that six words ([Greek: engizei moi] and [Greek: to stomati auton, kai]) are not recognized by them: in which peculiarity they are countenanced by DLT^{c}, two cursive copies, and the following versions:--Old Latin except f, Vulgate, Curetonian, Lewis, Pes.h.i.+tto, and Bohairic, (Cod. A, the Sahidic and Gothic versions, being imperfect here.) To this evidence, Tischendorf adds a phalanx of Fathers:--Clemens Roma.n.u.s (A.D. 70), Ptolemaeus the Gnostic (A.D. 150), Clemens Alexandrinus (A.D. 190), Origen in three places (A.D. 210), Eusebius (A.D. 325), Basil, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom: and Alford supplies also Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The testimony of Didymus (A.D.

350), which has been hitherto overlooked, is express. Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, are naturally found to follow the Latin copies. Such a weight of evidence may not unreasonably inspire Dr. Tregelles with an exceeding amount of confidence. Accordingly he declares 'that this one pa.s.sage might be relied upon as an important proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony.' Availing himself of Dr. Scrivener's admission of 'the possibility that the disputed words in the great bulk of the MSS. were inserted from the Septuagint of Isaiah xxix. 13[285],' Dr. Tregelles insists 'that on every true principle of textual criticism, the words must be regarded as an amplification borrowed from the Prophet. This naturally explains their introduction,' (he adds); 'and when once they had gained a footing in the text, it is certain that they would be multiplied by copyists, who almost always preferred to make pa.s.sages as full and complete as possible' (p. 139). Dr. Tregelles therefore relies upon this one pa.s.sage,--not so much as a 'proof that it is the few MSS. and not the many which accord with ancient testimony';--for one instance cannot possibly prove that; and that is after all beside the real question;--but, as a proof that we are to regard the text of Codd.

B[Symbol: Aleph] in this place as genuine, and the text of all the other Codexes in the world as corrupt.

The reader has now the hypothesis fully before him by which from the days of Griesbach it has been proposed to account for the discrepancy between 'the few copies' on the one hand, and the whole torrent of ma.n.u.script evidence on the other.

Now, as I am writing a book on the principles of Textual Criticism, I must be allowed to set my reader on his guard against all such unsupported dicta as the preceding, though enforced with emphasis and recommended by a deservedly respected name. I venture to think that the exact reverse will be found to be a vast deal nearer the truth: viz.

that undoubtedly spurious readings, although they may at one time or other have succeeded in obtaining a footing in MSS., and to some extent may be observed even to have propagated themselves, are yet discovered to die out speedily; seldom indeed to leave any considerable number of descendants. There has always in fact been a process of elimination going on, as well as of self-propagation: a corrective force at work, as well as one of deterioration. How else are we to account for the utter disappearance of the many _monstra potius quam variae lectiones_ which the ancients nevertheless insist were prevalent in their times? It is enough to appeal to a single place in Jerome, in ill.u.s.tration of what I have been saying[286]. To return however from this digression.