Part 24 (2/2)

-- 8.

In this way it happened that in the earliest age the construction of St.

Luke i. 66 became misapprehended. Some Western scribe evidently imagined that the popular saying concerning John Baptist,--[Greek: ti apa to paidion touto estai], extended further, and comprised the Evangelist's record,--[Greek: kai cheir Kyriou en met' autou]. To support this strange view, [Greek: kai] was altered into [Greek: kai gar], and [Greek: esti] was subst.i.tuted for [Greek: en]. It is thus that the place stands in the Verona copy of the Old Latin (b). In other quarters the verb was omitted altogether: and that is how D, Evan. 59 with the Vercelli (a) and two other copies of the Old Latin exhibit the place.

Augustine[434] is found to have read indifferently--'ma.n.u.s enim Domini c.u.m illo,' and 'c.u.m illo est': but he insists that the combined clauses represent the popular utterance concerning the Baptist[435]. Unhappily, there survives a notable trace of the same misapprehension in [Symbol: Aleph]-BCL which, alone of MSS., read [Greek: kai gar ... en][436]. The consequence might have been antic.i.p.ated. All recent Editors adopt this reading, which however is clearly inadmissible. The received text, witnessed to by the Pes.h.i.+tto, Harkleian, and Armenian versions, is obviously correct. Accordingly, A and all the uncials not already named, together with the whole body of the cursives, so read the place. With fatal infelicity the Revisers exhibit 'For indeed the hand of the Lord was with him.' They clearly are to blame: for indeed the MS. evidence admits of no uncertainty. It is much to be regretted that not a single very ancient Greek Father (so far as I can discover) quotes the place.

-- 9.

It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke's statement (v. 7) that the s.h.i.+ps were so full that 'they were sinking' ([Greek: hoste bythizesthai auta]) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts [Greek: ede]

(were 'just' sinking); and D, [Greek: para ti] ('within a little'): while the Pes.h.i.+tto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old Latin, exhibit 'ita ut _pene_.' These attempts to improve upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken view of the critic's office. The truth is, [Greek: bythizesthai], as the Bohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means 'were beginning to sink.' There is no need of further qualifying the expression by the insertion with Eusebius[437] of any additional word.

I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of 'Pyrrhus' into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of 'Sopater of Beraea,' is to be accounted for in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old Latin: yet, the Pes.h.i.+tto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented [Greek: Pyrou]

(or [Greek: Pyrrou]) out of [Greek: Beroiaios] (or [Greek: Berroiaios]) which follows. The Latin form of this was 'Pyrus[438],' 'Pyrrhus,' or 'Pirrus[439].' In the Sahidic version he is called the 'son of Berus'

([Greek: huios Berou]),--which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some _Beraean_ that the gloss originated,--and what more likely?--it becomes an interesting circ.u.mstance that the inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have confused the _p_ and _b_ sounds[440].... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader to consider,--If St. Luke actually wrote [Greek: Sopatros Pyrrou Beroiaios], why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word?

FOOTNOTES:

[353] See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.

[354] St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.

[355] iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the [Greek: rhesis]

in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to 'I. Geometra in Proverbia' in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.

[356] ii. 345.

[357] ii. 242.

[358] The Latin is _edissere_ or _dissere_, _enarra_ or _narra_, both here and in xv. 15.

[359] iv. 254 a.

[360] In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Pes.h.i.+tto Syriac has [Syriac letters]

'declare to us' and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being _no_ various reading in either of these two pa.s.sages.

The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., [Greek: diasaphein] occurs, viz. St.

Matt. xviii. 31, they render [Greek: diesaphesan] by [Syriac letters]--they made known.

Since [Greek: phrazein] only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Pes.h.i.+tto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides [Greek: phrazein], e.g.

of [Greek: epiluein], St. Mark iv. 34; of [Greek: diermeneuein], St. Luke xxiv. 27; of [Greek: dianoigein], St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.

On the whole I have _no doubt_ (though it is not susceptible of _proof_) that the Pes.h.i.+tto had, in both the places quoted above, [Greek: phrason].

[361] In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Pes.h.i.+tto render whatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means 'eagerly,' 'sedulously'; cf. use of the word for [Greek: spoudaios], St.

Luke vii. 4; [Greek: epimelos], St Luke xv. 8.

<script>