Part 30 (1/2)
Next, for the cursive Copies. You claim without enquiry,-and _only because you find that men have claimed them before you_,-Nos. 17, 73, 181, as witnesses for ??. Will you permit me to point out that no progress will ever be made in these studies so long as ”professed Critics” will persevere in the evil practice of transcribing one another's references, and thus appropriating one another's blunders?
About the reading of ”Paul 17,” (the notorious ”33” of the Gospels,) there is indeed no doubt.-Mindful however of President Routh's advice to me always ”to verify my references,”-concerning ”Paul 73” I wrote a letter of enquiry to Upsala (July 28, 1879), and for all answer (Sept. 6th) received a beautiful tracing of what my correspondent called the ”1 Thim. iii. 16 _paraphe_.” It proved to be an abridged exhibition of 21 lines of c.u.menius. I instantly wrote to enquire whether this was really all that the codex in question has to say to 1 Tim. iii. 16? but to this I received no reply. I presumed therefore that I had got to the bottom of the business. But in July 1882, I addressed a fresh enquiry to Dr. Belsheim of Christiania, and got his answer last October. By that time he had visited Upsala: had verified for me readings in other MSS., and reported that the reading here is ??. I instantly wrote to enquire whether he had seen the word with his own eyes? He replied that he desired to look further into _this_ matter on some future occasion,-the MS. in question being (he says) a difficult one to handle. I am still awaiting his final report, which he promises to send me when next he visits Upsala. (”Aurivillius” says nothing about it.) Let ”Paul 73” in the meantime stand with a note of interrogation, or how you will.
About ”Paul 181,” (which Scholz describes as ”vi. 36” in the Laurentian library at Florence,) I take leave to repeat (in a foot-note) what (in a letter to Dr. Scrivener) I explained in the ”Guardian” ten years ago.(965) In consequence however of your discourteous remarks (which you will be gratified to find quoted at foot,(966)) I have written (not for the first time) to the learned custos of the Laurentian library on the subject; stating the entire case and reminding him of my pertinacity in 1871. He replies,-”Scholz fallitur huic bibliothecae tribuendo codicem sign. 'plut.
vi. n. 36.' Nec est in praesenti, nec fuit antea, neque exstat in alia bibliotheca apud nos.”... On a review of what goes before, I submit that one who has taken so much pains with the subject does not deserve to be flouted as I find myself flouted by the Bp. of Gloucester and Bristol,-who has not been at the pains to verify _one single point_ in this entire controversy for himself.
_Every other known copy of S. Paul's Epistles_, (written in the cursive character,) I have ascertained (by laborious correspondence with the chiefs of foreign libraries) concurs in exhibiting Te?? ?fa?e???? ??
sa???. The importance of this testimony ought to be supremely evident to yourself who contend so strenuously for the support of Paul 73 and 181.
But because, in my judgment, this practical unanimity of the ma.n.u.scripts is not only ”important” but _conclusive_, I shall presently recur to it (viz. at pages 494-5,) more in detail. For do but consider that these copies were one and all derived from yet older MSS. than themselves; and that the remote originals of those older MSS. were perforce of higher antiquity still, and were executed in every part of primitive Christendom.
How is it credible that they should, one and all, conspire to mislead? I cannot in fact express better than Dr. Berriman did 140 years ago, the logical result of such a concord of the copies:-”From whence can it be supposed that this general, I may say this universal consent of the Greek MSS. should arise, but from hence,-That Te?? is the genuine original reading of this Text?” (p. 325.)
In the meantime, you owe me a debt of grat.i.tude: for, in the course of an enquiry which I have endeavoured to make exhaustive, I have discovered _three_ specimens of the book called ”_Apostolus_,” or ”_Praxapostolus_”
(_i.e._ Lections from the Epistles and Acts) which also exhibit ?? in this place. One of these is Reg. 375 (our ”Apost. 12”) in the French collection, a _Western_ codex, dated A.D. 1022.(967) The story of the discovery of the other two (to be numbered ”Praxapost.” 85, 86,) is interesting, and will enliven this dull page.
At Tusculum, near Rome,-(the locality which Cicero rendered ill.u.s.trious, and where he loved to reside surrounded by his books,)-was founded early in the XIth century a Christian library which in process of time became exceedingly famous. It retains, in fact, its ancient reputation to this day. Nilus ”Rossanensis” it was, who, driven with his monks from Calabria by invading hordes, established in A.D. 1004 a monastery at Tusculum, to which either he, or his successors, gave the name of ”Crypta Ferrata.” It became the headquarters of the Basilian monks in the XVIIth century.
Hither habitually resorted those ill.u.s.trious men, Sirletus, Mabillon, Zacagni, Ciampini, Montfaucon,-and more lately Mai and Dom Pitra. To Signor Cozza-Luzi, the present learned and enlightened chief of the Vatican library, (who is himself ”Abbas Monachorum Basiliensium Cryptae Ferratae,”) I am indebted for my copy of the Catalogue (now in process of publication(968)) of the extraordinary collection of MSS. belonging to the society over which he presides.
In consequence of the information which the Abbate Cozza-Luzi sent me, I put myself in communication with the learned librarian of the monastery, the ”Hieromonachus” D. Antonio Rocchi, (author of the Catalogue in question,) whom I cannot sufficiently thank for his courtesy and kindness.
The sum of the matter is briefly this:-There are still preserved in the library of the Basilian monks of Crypta Ferrata,-(notwithstanding that many of its ancient treasures have found their way into other repositories,(969))-4 ma.n.u.scripts of S. Paul's Epistles, which I number 290, -1, -2, -3: and 7 copies of the book called ”Praxapostolus,” which I number 83, -4, -5, -6, -7, -8, -9. Of these eleven, 3 are defective hereabouts: 5 read Te??: 2 (Praxapost.) exhibit ??; and 1 (Apost. 83) contains an only not unique reading, to be mentioned at p. 478.
Hieromonachus Rocchi furnishes me with references besides to 3 Liturgical Codices out of a total of 22, (?p?st???e?a?????a), which also exhibit Te??.(970) I number them Apost. 106, 108, 110.
And now, we may proceed to consider the VERSIONS.
[f] _Testimony of the_ VERSIONS _to the reading of_ 1 Tim. iii. 16.
”Turning to the ancient Versions” (you a.s.sert) ”we find them almost unanimous against Te??” (p. 65). But your business, my lord Bishop, was to show that some of them witness _in favour of_ ??. If you cannot show that several ancient Versions,-besides a fair proportion of ancient Fathers,-are clearly on your side, your contention is unreasonable as well as hopeless. What then do the VERSIONS say?
(_a_) Now, it is allowed on all hands that the LATIN Version was made from copies which must have exhibited ?st????? ? ?fa?e????. The agreement of the Latin copies is absolute. The Latin Fathers also conspire in reading ”_mysterium quod_:” though some of them seem to have regarded ”quod” as a conjunction. Occasionally, (as by the Translator of Origen,(971)) we even find ”quia” subst.i.tuted _for_ ”quod.” Estius conjectures that ”quod” _is_ a conjunction in this place. But in fact the reasoning of the Latin Fathers is observed invariably to proceed as if they had found nothing else but ”DEUS” in the text before them. They bravely a.s.sume that the Eternal WORD, the second Person in the Trinity, is _designated_ by the expression ”_magnum pietatis sacramentum_.”
(_b_) It is, I admit, a striking circ.u.mstance that such a mistake as this in the old Latin should have been retained in the VULGATE. But if you ever study this subject with attention, you will find that Jerome,-although no doubt he ”professedly corrected the old Latin Version by the help of ancient Greek ma.n.u.scripts,” (p. 69,)-on many occasions retains readings which it is nevertheless demonstrable that he individually disapproved. No certain inference therefore as to what Jerome _found_ in ancient Greek MSS. can be safely drawn from the text of the Vulgate.
(_c_) Next, for the _Syriac_ (PESCHITO) Version. I beg to subjoin the view of the late loved and lamented P. E. Pusey,-the editor of Cyril, and who at the time of his death was engaged in re-editing the Peschito. He says,-”In 1 Tim. iii. 16, the Syriac has '_qui manifestatus est_.' The relative is indeterminate, but the verb is not. In Syriac however ?st????? is masculine; and thus, the natural way would be to take ?st????? as the antecedent, and translate '_quod manifestatum est_.' _No one would have thought of any other way of translating the Syriac_-but for the existence of the various reading ?? in the Greek, and the _possibility_ of its affecting the translation into Syriac. But the Peschito is so really a translation into good Syriac, (not into word-for-word Syriac,) that if the translator had wanted to express the Greek ??, in so difficult a pa.s.sage, _he would have turned it differently_.”(972)-The Peschito therefore yields the same testimony as the Latin; and may not be declared (as you declare it) to be indeterminate. Still less may it be represented as witnessing to ??.
(_d_) It follows to enquire concerning the rendering of 1 Tim. iii. 16 in the PHILOXENIAN, or rather the HARKLEIAN Version (VIIth cent.), concerning which I have had recourse to the learned Editor of that Version. He writes:-”There can be no doubt that the authors of this Version had either Te?? or Te?? before them: while their marginal note shows that they were aware of the reading ??. They exhibit,-'_Great is the mystery of the goodness of the fear_ (feminine) _of _G.o.d_, who-was-manifested_ (masculine) _in the flesh_.' The marginal addition [?? before ?????? (or ?? before ??????)] makes the reference to G.o.d all the plainer.”(973) See more below, at p. 489.
Now this introduction of the word Te?? into the text, however inartistic it may seem to you and to me, is a fatal circ.u.mstance to those who would contend on your side. It shows translators divided between two rival and conflicting readings: but determined to give prominence to the circ.u.mstance which const.i.tuted the greatness of the mystery: viz. G.o.d INCARNATE. ”May I suggest” (adds the witty scholar in his Post-script) ”that there would be no mystery in 'a man being manifested in the flesh'?”
The facts concerning the Harkleian Version being such, you will not be surprised to hear me say that I am at a loss to understand how, without a syllable expressive of doubt, you should claim this version (the ”Philoxenian” you call it-but it is rather the Harkleian), as a witness on your side,-a witness for ??.(974) It not only witnesses _against_ you, (for the Latin and the Peschito do _that_,) but, as I have shown you, it is a witness on _my_ side.
(_e_) and (_f_). Next, for the Versions of LOWER and UPPER EGYPT.
”We are content” (you say) to ”refer our readers to Tischendorf and Tregelles, who unhesitatingly claim the Memphitic [or Coptic] and the Thebaic [or Sahidic] for ??.”(975) But surely, in a matter of this kind, my lord Bishop-(I mean, when we are discussing some nicety of a language of which personally we know absolutely nothing,)-we may never ”be content to refer our readers” to individuals who are every bit as ignorant of the matter as ourselves. Rather should we be at the pains to obtain for those whom we propose to instruct the deliberate verdict of those who have made the subject their special study. Dr. Malan (who must be heartily sick of me by this time), in reply to my repeated enquiries, a.s.sures me that in Coptic and in Sahidic alike, ”the relative p.r.o.noun always takes the gender of the Greek antecedent. But, inasmuch as there is properly speaking no neuter in either language, the masculine does duty _for_ the neuter; the gender of the definite article and relative p.r.o.noun being determined by the gender of the word referred to. Thus, in S. John xv. 26, the Coptic '_pi_' and '_phe_' respectively represent the definite article and the relative, alike in the expression ? ?a?????t?? ??, and in the expression t? ??e?a ?: and so throughout. In 1 Tim. iii. 16, therefore, '_pi musterion phe_,' must perforce be rendered, t? ?st????? ?:-not, surely, ?
?st????? ??. And yet, if _the relative_ may be masculine, why not _the article_ also? But in fact, we have no more right to render the Coptic (or the Sahidic) relative by ?? in 1 Tim. iii. 16, than in any other similar pa.s.sage where a neuter noun (_e.g._ p?e?a or s?a) has gone before. _In this particular case_, of course a pretence may be set up that the gender of the relative shall be regarded as an open question: but in strictness of grammar, it is far otherwise. No Coptic or Sahidic scholar, in fact, having to translate the Coptic or Sahidic back into Greek, would ever dream of writing anything else but t? ?st????? ?.”(976) And now I trust I have made it plain to you that _you are mistaken_ in your statement (p.
69),-that ”?? is _supported by the two Egyptian Versions_.” It is supported by _neither_. You have been shown that they both witness against you. You will therefore not be astonished to hear me again declare that I am at a loss to understand how you can cite the ”Philoxenian, _Coptic and Sahidic_,”(977)-as witnesses on your side. It is not in this way, my lord Bishop, that G.o.d'S Truth is to be established.
(_g_) As for the GOTHIC Version,-dissatisfied with the verdict of De Gabelentz and Loebe,(978) I addressed myself to Dr. Ceriani of Milan, the learned and most helpful chief of the Ambrosian Library: in which by the way is preserved _the only known copy_ of Ulphilas for 1 Tim. iii. 16. He inclines to the opinion that ”_saei_” is to be read,-the rather, because Andreas Uppstrom, the recent editor of the codex, a diligent and able scholar, has decided in favour of that ”_obscure_” reading.(979) The Gothic therefore must be considered to witness to the (more than) extraordinary combination;-???S ... ?st????? ... ?S. (See the footnote 4 p. 452.)
I obtain at the same time, the same verdict, and on the same grounds, from that distinguished and obliging scholar, Dr. John Belsheim of Christiania.