Part 5 (1/2)

(IV.) In S. John xiv. 4, by eliminating the second ?a? and the second ??date, our SAVIOUR is now made to say, ”And whither I go, _ye know the way_;” which is really almost nonsense. What He actually said was, ”And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know;” _in consequence of which_ (as we all remember) ”Thomas saith unto Him, LORD, we know not 'whither' Thou goest, and how can we know 'the way'?” ... Let these four samples suffice of a style of depravation with which, at the end of 1800 years, it is deliberately proposed to disfigure every page of the everlasting Gospel; and for which, were it tolerated, the Church would have to thank no one so much as Drs. Westcott and Hort.

We cannot afford, however, so to dismiss the phenomena already opened up to the Reader's notice. For indeed, this astonis.h.i.+ng taste for mutilating and maiming the Sacred Deposit, is perhaps the strangest phenomenon in the history of Textual Criticism.

It is in this way that a famous expression in S. Luke vi. 1 has disappeared from codices ? B L. The reader may not be displeased to listen to an anecdote which has. .h.i.therto escaped the vigilance of the Critics:-

”I once asked my teacher, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus,”-(the words are Jerome's in a letter to Nepotia.n.u.s),-”to explain to me the meaning of S. Luke's expression s?at?? de?te??p??t??, literally the '_second-first_ sabbath.'

'I will tell you all about it in church,' he replied. 'The congregation shall shout applause, and you shall have your choice,-either to stand silent and look like a fool, or else to pretend you understand what you do not.' ” But ”_eleganter lusit_,” says Jerome(180). The point of the joke was this: Gregory, being a great rhetorician and orator, would have descanted so elegantly on the signification of the word de?te??p??t?? that the congregation would have been borne away by his mellifluous periods, quite regardless of the sense. In other words, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus [A.D.

360] is found to have no more understood the word than Jerome did [370].

Ambrose(181) of Milan [370] attempts to explain the difficult expression, but with indifferent success. Epiphanius(182) of Cyprus [370] does the same;-and so, Isidorus(183) [400] called ”Pelusiota” after the place of his residence in Lower Egypt.-Ps.-Caesarius(184) also volunteers remarks on the word [A.D. 400?].-It is further explained in the _Paschal Chronicle_,(185)-and by Chrysostom(186) [370] at Antioch.-”_Sabbatum secundo-primum_” is found in the old Latin, and is retained by the Vulgate. Earlier evidence on the subject does not exist. We venture to a.s.sume that a word so attested must at least be ent.i.tled to _its place in the Gospel_. Such a body of first-rate positive IVth-century testimony, coming from every part of ancient Christendom, added to the significant fact that de?te??p??t?? is found in _every codex extant_ except ? B L, and half a dozen cursives of suspicious character, ought surely to be regarded as decisive. That an unintelligible word should have got _omitted_ from a few copies, requires no explanation. Every one who has attended to the matter is aware that the negative evidence of certain of the Versions also is of little weight on such occasions as the present. They are observed constantly to leave out what they either failed quite to understand, or else found untranslateable. On the other hand, it would be inexplicable indeed, that an unique expression like the present should have _established itself universally_, if it were actually spurious. This is precisely an occasion for calling to mind the precept _proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua_. Apart from external evidence, it is a thousand times more likely that such a peculiar word as this should be genuine, than the reverse. Tischendorf accordingly retains it, moved by this very consideration.(187) It got excised, however, here and there from ma.n.u.scripts at a very early date. And, incredible as it may appear, it is a fact, that in consequence of its absence from the mutilated codices above referred to, S. Luke's famous ”second-first Sabbath” has been _thrust out of his Gospel by our Revisionists_.

But indeed, Mutilation has been practised throughout. By codex B (collated with the traditional Text), no less than 2877 words have been excised from the four Gospels alone: by codex ?,-3455 words: by codex D,-3704 words.(188)

As interesting a set of instances of this, as are to be anywhere met with, occurs within the compa.s.s of the last three chapters of S. Luke's Gospel, from which about 200 words have been either forcibly ejected by our Revisionists, or else served with ”notice to quit.” We proceed to specify the chief of these:-

(1) S. Luke xxii. 19, 20. (Account of the Inst.i.tution of the Sacrament of the LORD'S Supper,-from ”which is given for you” to the end,-32 words.)

(2) _ibid._ 43, 44. (Our SAVIOUR'S Agony in the garden,-26 words.)

(3) xxiii. 17. (The custom of releasing one at the Pa.s.sover,-8 words.)

(4) _ibid._ 34. (Our LORD'S prayer on behalf of His murderers,-12 words.)

(5) _ibid._ 38. (The record that the t.i.tle on the Cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew,-7 words.)

(6) xxiv. 1. (”and certain with them,”-4 words.)

(7) _ibid._ 3. (”of the LORD JESUS,”-3 words.)

(8) _ibid._ 6. (”He is not here, but He is risen,”-5 words.)

(9) _ibid._ 9. (”from the sepulchre,”-3 words.)

(10) _ibid._ 12. (The mention of S. Peter's visit to the sepulchre,-22 words.)

(11) _ibid._ 36. (”and saith unto them, Peace be unto you!”-5 words.)

(12) _ibid._ 40. (”and when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet,”-10 words.)

(13) _ibid._ 42. (”and of an honeycomb,”-4 words.)

(14) _ibid._ 51. (”and was carried up into Heaven,”-5.)

(15) _ibid._ 52. (”wors.h.i.+pped Him,”-2 words.)

(16) _ibid._ 53. (”praising and,”-2 words.)

On an attentive survey of the foregoing sixteen instances of unauthorized Omission, it will be perceived that the 1st pa.s.sage (S. Luke xxii. 19, 20) must have been eliminated from the Text because the mention of _two_ Cups seemed to create a difficulty.-The 2nd has been suppressed because (see p.

82) the incident was deemed derogatory to the majesty of G.o.d Incarnate.-The 3rd and 5th were held to be superfluous, because the information which they contain has been already conveyed by the parallel pa.s.sages.-The 10th will have been omitted as apparently inconsistent with the strict letter of S. John xx. 1-10.-The 6th and 13th are certainly instances of enforced Harmony.-Most of the others (the 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 16th) seem to have been excised through mere wantonness,-the veriest licentiousness.-In the meantime, so far are Drs.

Westcott and Hort from accepting the foregoing account of the matter, that they even style the 1st ”a _perverse interpolation_:” in which view of the subject, however, they enjoy the distinction of standing entirely alone.