Part 4 (1/2)

Luke ii. 14. But because we propose to ourselves that _no uncertainty whatever_ shall remain on this subject, it will not be wasted labour if at parting we pour into the ruined citadel just enough of shot and sh.e.l.l to leave no dark corner standing for the ghost of a respectable doubt hereafter to hide in. Now, it is confessedly nothing else but the high estimate which Critics have conceived of the value of the testimony of the old uncials (? A B C D), which has occasioned any doubt at all to exist in this behalf. Let the learned Reader then ascertain for himself the character of codices ? A B C D hereabouts, by collating _the context in which S. Luke ii. 14 is found_, viz. the 13 verses which precede and the one verse (ver. 15) which immediately follows. If the old uncials are observed all to sing in tune throughout, hereabouts, well and good: but if on the contrary, their voices prove utterly discordant, _who_ sees not that the last pretence has been taken away for placing _any confidence at all_ in their testimony concerning the text of ver. 14, turning as it does on the presence or absence of _a single letter_?... He will find, as the result of his a.n.a.lysis, that within the s.p.a.ce of those 14 verses, the old uncials are responsible for 56 ”various readings” (so-called): singly, for 41; in combination with one another, for 15. So diverse, however, is the testimony they respectively render, that they are found severally to differ from the Text of the cursives no less than 70 times. Among them, besides twice varying the phrase,-they contrive to omit 19 words:-to add 4:-to subst.i.tute 17:-to alter 10:-to transpose 24.-Lastly, these five codices are observed (within the same narrow limits) to fall into _ten_ different combinations: viz. B ?, for 5 readings;-B D, for 2;-? C, ? D, A C, ? B D, A ? D, A B ? D, B ? C D, A B ? C D, for 1 each. A therefore, which stands alone _twice_, is found in combination 4 times;-C, which stands alone _once_, is found in combination 4 times;(130)-B, which stands alone 5 times, is found in combination 6 times;-?, which stands alone 11 times, is found in combination 8 times;-D, which stands alone 22 times, is found in combination 7 times.... And now,-for the last time we ask the question,-With what show of reason can the unintelligible e?d???a? (of ? A B D) be upheld as genuine, in defiance of _the whole body of Ma.n.u.scripts_, uncial and cursive,-the great bulk of the Versions,-and the mighty array of (upwards of fifty) Fathers exhibited above?

(C) We are at last able to proceed, with a promise that we shall rarely prove so tedious again. But it is absolutely necessary to begin by clearing the ground. We may not go on doubting for ever. The ”Angelic hymn” and ”The last 12 Verses” of S. Mark's Gospel, are convenient places for a trial of strength. _It has now been proved_ that the commonly received text of S. Luke ii. 14 is the true text,-the Revisionists'

emendation of the place, a palpable mistake. On behalf of the second Gospel, we claim to have also established that an important portion of the sacred narrative has been unjustly branded with a note of ignominy; from which we solemnly call upon the Revisionists to set the Evangelist free.

The pretence that no harm has been done him by the mere statement of what is an undeniable fact,-(viz. that ”the two oldest Greek ma.n.u.scripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end;” and that ”some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel,”)-will not stand examination. Pin to the shoulder of an honourable man a hearsay libel on his character, and see what he will have to say to you! Besides,-_Why have the 12 verses been further separated off from the rest of the Gospel?_ This at least is unjustifiable.

Those who, with Drs. Roberts and Milligan,(131) have been taught to maintain ”_that the pa.s.sage is not the immediate production of S.

Mark_,”-”_can hardly be regarded as a part of the original Gospel_; but is rather an addition made to it at a very early age, whether in the lifetime of the Evangelist or not, it is impossible to say:”-such Critics are informed that they stultify themselves when they proceed in the same breath to a.s.sure the offended reader that the pa.s.sage ”is nevertheless _possessed of full canonical authority_.”(132) Men who so write show that they do not understand the question. For if these 12 verses _are_ ”canonical Scripture,”-as much inspired as the 12 verses which precede them, and as worthy of undoubting confidence,-then, whether they be ”the production of S. Mark,” or of some other, is a purely irrelevant circ.u.mstance. The _Authors.h.i.+p_ of the pa.s.sage, as every one must see, is not the question. The last 12 verses of Deuteronomy, for instance, were probably not written by Moses. Do we therefore separate them off from the rest of Deuteronomy, and enc.u.mber the margin with a note expressive of our opinion? Our Revisionists, so far from holding what follows to be ”canonical Scripture,” are careful to state that a rival ending to be found elsewhere merits serious attention. S. Mark xvi. 9-20, therefore (_according to them_), is _not certainly_ a genuine part of the Gospel; _may_, after all, be nothing else but a spurious accretion to the text.

And as long as such doubts are put forth by our Revisionists, they publish to the world that, _in their account_ at all events, these verses are _not_ ”possessed of full canonical authority.” If ”the two oldest Greek ma.n.u.scripts” _justly_ ”omit from verse 9 to the end” (as stated in the margin), will any one deny that our printed Text ought to omit them also?(133) On the other hand, if the circ.u.mstance is a mere literary curiosity, will any one maintain that it is ent.i.tled to abiding record in the margin of the _English Version_ of the everlasting page?-_affords any warrant whatever for separating _”the last Twelve Verses”_ from their context_?

(D) We can probably render ordinary readers no more effectual service, than by offering now to guide them over a few select places, concerning the true reading of which the Revisionists either entertain such serious doubts that they have _recorded_ their uncertainty in the margin of their work; or else, entertaining no doubts at all, have deliberately thrust a new reading into the body of their text, and _that_, without explanation, apology, or indeed record of any kind.(134) One remark should be premised, viz. that ”various Readings” as they are (often most unreasonably) called, are seldom if ever the result of conscious _fraud_. An immense number are to be ascribed to sheer accident. It was through erroneous judgment, we repeat, not with evil intent, that men took liberties with the deposit.

They imported into their copies whatever readings they considered highly recommended. By some of these ancient Critics it seems to have been thought allowable _to abbreviate_, by simply leaving out whatever did not appear to themselves strictly necessary: by others, to _transpose_ the words-even the members-of a sentence, almost to any extent: by others, to _subst.i.tute_ easy expressions for difficult ones. In this way it comes to pa.s.s that we are often presented, and in the oldest doc.u.ments of all, with Readings which stand self-condemned; are clearly fabrications. That it was held allowable to a.s.similate one Gospel to another, is quite certain. Add, that as early as the IInd century there abounded in the Church doc.u.ments,-”Diatessarons” they were sometimes called,-of which the avowed object was to weave one continuous and connected narrative ”out of the four;”-and we shall find that as many heads have been provided, as will suffice for the cla.s.sification of almost every various reading which we are likely to encounter in our study of the Gospels.

I. TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we have already furnished the reader with two notable and altogether dissimilar specimens. The first (viz. the omission of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 from certain ancient copies of the Gospel) seems to have originated in an unique circ.u.mstance. According to the Western order of the four, S. Mark occupies _the last_ place. From the earliest period it had been customary to write t???? (”END”) after the 8th verse of his last chapter, in token that _there_ a famous ecclesiastical lection comes to a close. _Let the last leaf of one very ancient archetypal copy have begun at ver. 9; and let that last leaf have perished;-and all is plain._ A faithful copyist will have ended the Gospel perforce-as B and ? have done-at S. Mark xvi.

8.... Our other example (S. Luke ii. 14) will have resulted from an accident of the most ordinary description,-as was explained at the outset.-To the foregoing, a few other specimens of erroneous readings resulting from Accident shall now be added.

(_a_) Always instructive, it is sometimes even entertaining to trace the history of a mistake which, dating from the IInd or IIIrd century, has remained without a patron all down the subsequent ages, until at last it has been suddenly taken up in our own times by an Editor of the sacred Text, and straightway palmed off upon an unlearned generation as the genuine work of the HOLY GHOST. Thus, whereas the Church has. .h.i.therto supposed that S. Paul's company ”were in all in the s.h.i.+p _two hundred threescore and sixteen souls_” (Acts xxvii. 37), Drs. Westcott and Hort (relying on the authority of B and the Sahidic version) insist that what S. Luke actually wrote was ”_about seventy-six_.” In other words, instead of d?a??s?a? ?d?????ta??, we are invited henceforth to read ?S ?d?????ta??. What can have given rise to so formidable a discrepancy?

Mere accident, we answer. First, whereas S. Luke certainly wrote ?e? d?

?? t? p???? a? p?sa? ???a?, his last six words at some very early period underwent the familiar process of Transposition, and became, a? p?sa?

???a? ?? t? p????; whereby the _word_ p???? and the _numbers_ d?a??s?a?

?d?????ta?? were brought into close proximity. (It is thus that Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, &c., wrongly exhibit the place.) But since ”276” when represented in Greek numerals is S?S, the inevitable consequence was that the words (written in uncials) ran thus: ????????O????OS?S. Behold, the secret is out! Who sees not what has happened? There has been no intentional falsification of the text. There has been no critical disinclination to believe that ”a corn-s.h.i.+p, presumably heavily laden, would contain so many souls,”-as an excellent judge supposes.(135) The discrepancy has been the result of sheer accident: is the merest blunder. Some IInd-century copyist connected the last letter of ????O with the next ensuing numeral, which stands for 200 (viz. S); and made an _independent word_ of it, viz. ??-_i.e._ ”about.”

But when S (_i.e._ 200) has been taken away from S?S (_i.e._ 276), 76 is perforce all that remains. In other words, the result of so slight a blunder has been that instead of ”_two hundred_ and seventy-six” (S?S), some one wrote ?? ???-_i.e._ ”_about_ seventy-six.” His blunder would have been diverting had it been confined to the pages of a codex which is _full_ of blunders. When however it is adopted by the latest Editors of the N. T. (Drs. Westcott and Hort),-and by their influence has been foisted into the margin of our revised English Version-it becomes high time that we should reclaim against such a gratuitous depravation of Scripture.

All this ought not to have required explaining: the blunder is so gross,-its history so patent. But surely, had its origin been ever so obscure, the most elementary critical knowledge joined to a little mother-wit ought to convince a man that the reading ?? ?d?????ta??

_cannot_ be trustworthy. A reading discoverable only in codex B and one Egyptian version (which was evidently executed from codices of the same corrupt type as codex B) _may always be dismissed as certainly spurious_.

But further,-Although a man might of course say ”about _seventy_” or ”about _eighty_,” (which is how Epiphanius(136) quotes the place,) _who_ sees not that ”about seventy-_six_” is an impossible expression? Lastly, the two false witnesses give divergent testimony even while they seem to be at one: for the Sahidic (or Thebaic) version arranges the words in an order _peculiar to itself_.

(_b_) Another corruption of the text, with which it is proposed henceforth to disfigure our Authorized Version, (originating like the last in sheer accident,) occurs in Acts xviii. 7. It is related concerning S. Paul, at Corinth, that having forsaken the synagogue of the Jews, ”he entered into a certain man's house _named Justus_” (???at? ???st??). That this is what S. Luke wrote, is to be inferred from the fact that it is found in almost every known copy of the Acts, beginning with A D G H L P. Chrysostom-the only ancient Greek Father who quotes the place-_so_ quotes it. This is, in consequence, the reading of Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf in his 7th edition. But then, the last syllable of ”name” (???????) and the first three letters of ”Justus” (???S???), in an uncial copy, may easily get mistaken for an independent word. Indeed it only wants a horizontal stroke (at the summit of the second ? in ?????) to produce ”t.i.tus” (?????). In the Syriac and Sahidic versions accordingly, ”t.i.tus” actually stands _in place of_ ”Justus,”-a reading no longer discoverable in any extant codex.

As a matter of fact, the error resulted _not_ in the _subst.i.tution_ of ”t.i.tus” for ”Justus,” but in the introduction of _both_ names where S.

Luke wrote but one. ? and E, the Vulgate, and the Coptic version, exhibit ”_t.i.tus Justus_.” And that the foregoing is a true account of the birth and parentage of ”t.i.tus” is proved by the tell-tale circ.u.mstance, that in B the letters ?? and ??? are all religiously retained, and a supernumerary letter (?) has been thrust in between,-the result of which is to give us one more imaginary gentleman, viz. ”_t.i.tius_ Justus;” with whose appearance,-(and he is found _nowhere_ but in codex B,)-Tischendorf in his 8th ed., with Westcott and Hort in theirs, are so captivated, that they actually give him a place in their text. It was out of compa.s.sion (we presume) for the friendless stranger ”_t.i.tus_ Justus” that our Revisionists have, in preference, promoted _him_ to honour: in which act of humanity they stand alone. Their ”new Greek Text” is _the only one in existence_ in which the imaginary foreigner has been advanced to citizens.h.i.+p, and a.s.signed ”a local habitation and a name.” ... Those must have been wondrous drowsy days in the Jerusalem Chamber when such manipulations of the inspired text were possible!

(_c_) The two foregoing depravations grew out of the ancient practice of writing the Scriptures in uncial characters (_i.e._ in capital letters), no s.p.a.ce being interposed between the words. Another striking instance is supplied by S. Matthew xi. 23 and S. Luke x. 15, where however the error is so transparent that the wonder is how it can ever have imposed upon any one. What makes the matter serious is, that it gives a turn to a certain Divine saying, of which it is incredible that either our SAVIOUR or His Evangelists knew anything. We have hitherto believed that the solemn words ran as follows:-”And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted (? ... ????e?sa) unto heaven, shalt be brought down (?ata?as??s?) to h.e.l.l.” For this, our Revisionists invite us to subst.i.tute, in S. Luke as well as in S.

Matthew,-”And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted (? ... ?????s?;) unto heaven?” And then, in S. Matthew, (but not in S. Luke,)-”Thou shalt go down (?ata?s?) into Hades.” Now, what can have happened to occasion such a curious perversion of our LORD'S true utterance, and to cause Him to ask an unmeaning _question_ about the future, when He was clearly announcing a _fact_, founded on the history of the past?

A stupid blunder has been made (we answer), of which traces survive (as usual) only in the same little handful of suspicious doc.u.ments. The final letter of Capernaum (?) by cleaving to the next ensuing letter (?) has made an independent word (??); which new word necessitates a change in the construction, and causes the sentence to become interrogative. And yet, fourteen of the uncial ma.n.u.scripts and the whole body of the cursives know nothing of this: neither does the Peschito-nor the Gothic version: no,-nor Chrysostom,-nor Cyril,-nor ps.-Caesarius,-nor Theodoret,-the only Fathers who quote either place. The sole witnesses for ? ... ?????s? in _both_ Gospels are ? B, copies of the old Latin, Cureton's Syriac, the Coptic, and the aethiopic versions,-a consensus of authorities which ought to be held fatal to any reading. C joins the conspiracy in Matthew xi. 23, but not in Luke x. 15: D L consent in Luke, but not in Matthew. The Vulgate, which sided with ? B in S. Matthew, forsakes them in S. Luke. In writing _both_ times ?ata?s? (”thou shalt go down”), codex B (forsaken this time by ?) is supported by a single ma.n.u.script, viz. D. But because, in Matthew xi. 23, B obtains the sanction of the Latin copies, ?ata?s? is actually introduced into the Revised Text, and we are quietly informed in the margin that ”Many ancient authorities read _be brought down_:” the truth being (as the reader has been made aware) that there are _only two ma.n.u.scripts in existence which read anything else_. And (what deserves attention) those two ma.n.u.scripts are convicted of having _borrowed their quotation from the Septuagint_,(137) and therefore stand self-condemned.... Were the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber all-saving the two who in their published edition insist on reading (with B and D) ?ata?s? in both places-_all_ fast asleep when they became consenting parties to this sad mistake?

II. It is time to explain that, if the most serious depravations of Scripture are due to Accident, a vast number are unmistakably the result of DESIGN, and are very clumsily executed too. The enumeration of a few of these may prove instructive: and we shall begin with something which is found in S. Mark xi. 3. With nothing perhaps will each several instance so much impress the devout student of Scripture, as with the exquisite structure of a narrative in which corrupt readings stand self-revealed and self-condemned, the instant they are ordered to come to the front and show themselves. But the point to which we especially invite his attention is, the sufficiency of the _external evidence_ which Divine Wisdom is observed to have invariably provided for the establishment of the truth of His written Word.

(_a_) When our LORD was about to enter His capital in lowly triumph, He is observed to have given to ”two of His disciples” directions well calculated to suggest the mysterious nature of the incident which was to follow. They were commanded to proceed to the entrance of a certain village,-to unloose a certain colt which they would find tied there,-and to bring the creature straightway to JESUS. Any obstacle which they might encounter would at once disappear before the simple announcement that ”the LORD hath need of him.”(138) But, singular to relate, this transaction is found to have struck some third-rate IIIrd-century Critic as not altogether correct. The good man was evidently of opinion that the colt,-as soon as the purpose had been accomplished for which it had been obtained,-ought in common fairness to have been returned to ”the owners thereof.” (S. Luke xix. 33.) Availing himself therefore of there being no nominative before ”will send” (in S. Mark xi. 3), he a.s.sumed that it was _of Himself_ that our LORD was still speaking: feigned that the sentence is to be explained thus:-”say ye, 'that the LORD hath need of him _and will straightway send him hither_.' ” According to this view of the case, our SAVIOUR instructed His two Disciples to convey to the owner of the colt an undertaking from Himself _that He would send the creature back as soon as He had done with it_: would treat the colt, in short, _as a loan_.

A more stupid imagination one has seldom had to deal with. But in the meantime, by way of clenching the matter, the Critic proceeded on his own responsibility to thrust into the text the word ”_again_” (p????). The fate of such an unauthorized accretion might have been confidently predicted. After skipping about in quest of a fixed resting-place for a few centuries (see the note at foot(139)), p???? has shared the invariable fate of all such spurious adjuncts to the truth of Scripture, viz.: It has been effectually eliminated from the copies. Traces of it linger on only in those untrustworthy witnesses ? B C D L ?, and about twice as many cursive copies, also of depraved type. So transparent a fabrication ought in fact to have been long since forgotten. Yet have our Revisionists not been afraid to revive it. In S. Mark xi. 3, they invite us henceforth to read, ”And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The LORD hath need of him, and straightway _He_ (_i.e._ the LORD) _will send him_ BACK _hither_.” ... Of what can they have been dreaming? They cannot pretend that they have _Antiquity_ on their side: for, besides the whole ma.s.s of copies with A at their head, _both_ the Syriac, _both_ the Latin, and _both_ the Egyptian versions, the Gothic, the Armenian,-all in fact except the aethiopic,-are against them. Even Origen, who twice inserts p????,(140) twice leaves it out.(141) _Quid plura?_

(_b_) No need to look elsewhere for our next instance. A novel statement arrests attention five verses lower down: viz. that ”Many spread their garments upon the way” [and why not ”_in_ the way”? e?? does not mean ”upon”]; ”and others, branches _which they had cut from the fields_” (S.

Mark xi. 8). But how in the world could they have done _that_? They must have been clever people certainly if they ”cut _branches_ from” anything except _trees_. Was it because our Revisionists felt this, that in the margin they volunteer the information, that the Greek for ”branches” is in strictness ”_layers of leaves_”? But what _are_ ”layers of leaves”? and what _proof_ is there that st???de? has that meaning? and how could ”_layers of leaves_” have been suddenly procured from such a quarter? We turn to our Authorized Version, and are refreshed by the familiar and intelligible words: ”And others cut down branches off the trees and strawed them in the way.” Why then has this been changed? In an ordinary sentence, consisting of 12 words, we find that 2 words have been subst.i.tuted for other 2; that 1 has undergone modification; that 5 have been ejected. _Why_ is all this? asks the unlearned Reader. He shall be told.

An instance is furnished us of the perplexity which a difficult word sometimes occasioned the ancients, as well as of the serious consequences which have sometimes resulted therefrom to the text of Scripture itself.

S. Matthew, after narrating that ”a very great mult.i.tude spread their garments in the way,” adds, ”others cut branches (???d???) from the trees and strawed them in the way.”(142) But would not branches of any considerable size have impeded progress, inconveniently enc.u.mbering the road? No doubt they would. Accordingly, as S. Mark (with S. Matthew's Gospel before him) is careful to explain, they were _not_ ”branches of any considerable size,” but ”leafy twigs”-”_foliage_,” in fact it was-”cut from the trees and strawed in the way.” The word, however, which he employs (st???da?) is an unique word-very like another of similar sound (st??da?), yet distinct from it in sense, if not in origin.

Unfortunately, all this was not understood in a highly uncritical and most licentious age. With the best intentions, (for the good man was only seeking to reconcile two inconvenient parallel statements,) some Revisionist of the IInd century, having convinced himself that the latter word (st??da?) might with advantage take the place of S. Mark's word (st???da?), subst.i.tuted this for that. In consequence, it survives to this day in nine uncial copies headed by ? B. But then, st??? does not mean ”a branch” _at all_; no, nor a ”layer of leaves” either; but _a pallet_-_a floor-bed_, in fact, of the humblest type, constructed of gra.s.s, rushes, straw, brushwood, leaves, or any similar substance. On the other hand, because such materials are not obtainable _from trees_ exactly, the ancient Critic judged it expedient further to change d??d???

into ????? (”_fields_”). Even this was not altogether satisfactory.

St???, as explained already, in strictness means a ”bed.” Only by a certain amount of license can it be supposed to denote the materials of which a bed is composed; whereas the Evangelist speaks of something ”strawn.” _The self-same copies_, therefore, which exhibit ”_fields_” (in lieu of ”_trees_”), by introducing a slight change in the construction (???a?te? for ???pt??), and _omitting_ the words ”and strawed them in the way,” are observed-after a summary fas.h.i.+on of their own, (with which, however, readers of B ? D are only too familiar)-to dispose of this difficulty by putting it nearly out of sight. The only result of all this misplaced officiousness is a miserable travestie of the sacred words:-????? d? st??da?, ???a?te? ?? t?? ?????: 7 words in place of 12!

But the calamitous circ.u.mstance is that the Critics have all to a man fallen into the trap. True, that Origen (who once writes st???da? and once st??da?), as well as the two Egyptian versions, side with ? B C L ?

in reading ?? t?? ?????: but then _both versions_ (with C) _decline to alter the construction_ of the sentence; and (with Origen) _decline to omit the clause_ ?st??????? e?? t?? ?d??: while, against this little band of disunited witnesses, are marshalled all the remaining fourteen uncials, headed by A D-the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac; the Italic, the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the aethiopic as well as the Slavonic versions, besides the whole body of the cursives. Whether therefore Antiquity, Variety, Respectability of witnesses, numbers, or the reason of the thing be appealed to, the case of our opponents breaks hopelessly down. Does any one seriously suppose that, if S. Mark had written the common word st??da?, so vast a majority of the copies at this day would exhibit the improbable st???da?? Had the same S. Mark expressed nothing else but ???????S ?? t?? ?G?O??, will any one persuade us that _every copy in existence but five_ would present us with ??????? ?? t??