Part 5 (1/2)

What then, (I must again inquire,) are the grounds for the superst.i.tious reverence which is entertained in certain quarters for the readings of Codex B? If it be a secret known to the recent Editors of the New Testament, they have certainly contrived to keep it wondrous close.

II. More recently, a claim to co-ordinate primacy has been set up on behalf of the Codex Sinaiticus. Tischendorf is actually engaged in remodelling his seventh Leipsic edition, chiefly in conformity with the readings of his lately discovered MS.(129) And yet the Codex in question abounds with ”errors of the the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in doc.u.ments of first-rate importance.” On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.(130) ”Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder ... whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament. Tregelles has freely p.r.o.nounced that 'the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as _very rough_.' ”(131) But when ”the first scribe” and his ”very rough”

performance have been thus unceremoniously disposed of, one would like to be informed what remains to command respect in Codex ?? Is, then, _ma.n.u.script authority_ to be confounded with _editorial caprice_,-exercising itself upon the corrections of ”at least ten different revisers,” who, from the vith to the xiith century, have been endeavouring to lick into shape a text which its original author left ”_very rough_?”

The co-ordinate primacy, (as I must needs call it,) which, within the last few years, has been claimed for Codex B and Codex ?, threatens to grow into a species of tyranny,-from which I venture to predict there will come in the end an unreasonable and unsalutary recoil. It behoves us, therefore, to look closely into this matter, and to require a reason for what is being done. The text of the sacred deposit is far too precious a thing to be sacrificed to an irrational, or at least a superst.i.tious devotion to two MSS.,-simply because they may possibly be older by a hundred years than any other which we possess. ”Id verius quod prius,” is an axiom which holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism as in Dogmatic Truth. But on that principle, (as I have already shewn,) the last twelve verses of S. Mark's Gospel are fully established;(132) and by consequence, the credit of Codd. B and ? sustains a severe shock. Again, ”Id verius quod prius;” but it does not of course follow that a Codex of the ivth century shall exhibit a more correct text of Scripture than one written in the vth, or even than one written in the xth. For the proof of this statement, (if it can be supposed to require proof,) it is enough to appeal to Codex D. That venerable copy of the Gospels is of the vith century. It is, in fact, one of our five great uncials. No older MS. of the Greek Text is known to exist,-excepting always A, B, C and ?. And yet _no_ text is more thoroughly disfigured by corruptions and interpolations than that of Codex D. In the Acts, (to use the language of its learned and accurate Editor,) ”it is hardly an exaggeration to a.s.sert that it reproduces the _textus receptus_ much in the same way that one of the best Chaldee Targums does the Hebrew of the Old Testament: so wide are the variations in the diction, so constant and inveterate the practice of expanding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(133) Where, then, is the _a priori_ probability that two MSS. of the ivth century shall have not only a superior claim to be heard, but almost an exclusive right to dictate which readings are to be rejected, which retained?

How ready the most recent editors of the New Testament have shewn themselves to hammer the sacred text on the anvil of Codd. B and ?,-not unfrequently in defiance of the evidence of all other MSS., and sometimes to the serious detriment of the deposit,-would admit of striking ill.u.s.tration were this place for such details. Tischendorf's English ”_New Testament_”-”with various readings from the three most celebrated ma.n.u.scripts of the Greek Text” translated at the foot of every page,-is a recent attempt (1869) to popularize the doctrine that we have to look exclusively to two or three of the oldest copies, if we would possess the Word of G.o.d in its integrity. Dean Alford's constant appeal in his revision of the Authorized Version (1870) to ”the oldest MSS.” (meaning thereby generally Codd. ? and B with one or two others(134)), is an abler endeavour to familiarize the public mind with the same belief. I am bent on shewing that there is nothing whatever in the character of either of the Codices in question to warrant this servile deference.

(_a_) And first,-Ought it not sensibly to detract from our opinion of the value of their evidence to discover that _it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which the two MSS. differ, the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree_? Now this is a plain matter of fact, of which any one who pleases may easily convince himself. But the character of two witnesses who habitually contradict one another has been accounted, in every age, precarious. On every such occasion, only one of them can possibly be speaking the truth. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I confess that these _perpetual_ inconsistencies between Codd. B and ?,-grave inconsistencies, and occasionally even gross ones,-altogether destroy my confidence in either?

(_b_) On the other hand, discrepant as the testimony of these two MSS. is throughout, they yet, strange to say, conspire every here and there in exhibiting minute corruptions of such an unique and peculiar kind as to betray a (probably not very remote) common corrupt original. These coincidences in fact are so numerous and so extraordinary as to establish a real connexion between those two codices; and that connexion is fatal to any claim which might be set up on their behalf as wholly independent witnesses.(135)

(_c_) Further, it is evident that both alike have been subjected, probably during the process of transcription, to the same depraving influences. But because such statements require to be established by an induction of instances, the reader's attention must now be invited to a few samples of the grave blemishes which disfigure our two oldest copies of the Gospel.

1. And first, since it is the omission of the end of S. Mark's Gospel which has given rise to the present discussion, it becomes a highly significant circ.u.mstance that the original scribe of Cod. ? had _also_ omitted the _end of the Gospel according to S. John_.(136) In this suppression of ver. 25, Cod. ? stands _alone_ among MSS. A cloud of primitive witnesses vouch for the genuineness of the verse. Surely, it is nothing else but the _reductio ad absurdum_ of a theory of recension, (with Tischendorf in his last edition,) to accommodate our printed text to the vicious standard of the original penman of Cod. ? and bring the last chapter of S. John's Gospel to a close at ver. 24!

Cod. B, on the other hand, omits the whole of those two solemn verses wherein S. Luke describes our LORD's ”Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y Sweat,” together with the act of the ministering Angel.(137) As to the genuineness of those verses, recognised as they are by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Didymus, Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus, Chrysostom, Theodoret, by all the oldest versions, and by almost every MS. in existence, including Cod.

?,-it admits of _no_ doubt. Here then is proof positive that in order to account for omissions from the Gospel in the oldest of the uncials, there is no need whatever to resort to the hypothesis that such portions of the Gospel are not the genuine work of the Evangelist. ”The admitted error of Cod. B in this place,” (to quote the words of Scrivener,) ”ought to make some of its advocates more chary of their confidence in cases where it is less countenanced by other witnesses than in the instance before us.”

Cod. B (not Cod. ?) is further guilty of the ”grave error” (as Dean Alford justly styles it,) of omitting that solemn record of the Evangelist:-”Then said JESUS, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” It also withholds the statement that the inscription on the Cross was ”in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew.”(138) Cod. ?, on the other hand, omits the confession of the man born blind (? d? ?f?, p?ste??, ????e; ?a?

p??se????se? a?t?) in S. John ix. 38.-Both Cod. ? and Cod. B retain nothing but the word ???? of the expression t?? ???? a?t?? t?? p??t?t????, in S. Matth. i. 25; and suppress altogether the important doctrinal statement ? ?? ?? t? ???a??, in S. John iii. 13: as well as the clause d?e???? d?? ?s?? a?t??; ?a? pa???e? ??t??, in S. John viii. 59.

Concerning all of which, let it be observed that I am neither imputing motives nor pretending to explain _the design_ with which these several serious omissions were made. All that is a.s.serted is, that they cannot be imputed to the carelessness of a copyist, but were intentional: and I insist that they effectually dispose of the presumption that when an important pa.s.sage is observed to be wanting from Cod. B or Cod. ?, its absence is to be accounted for by a.s.suming that it was also absent _from the inspired autograph of the Evangelist_.

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of ?, or of both, has clearly been _interpolated_. There does not exist in the whole compa.s.s of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer's side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. ?, where it is introduced at the end of ver. 49,-in defiance of reason as well as of authority.(139) ”This interpolation” (remarks Mr.

Scrivener) ”which would represent the SAVIOUR as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false.”(140) Another singularly gross specimen of interpolation, in my judgment, is supplied by the purely apocryphal statement which is met with in Cod. ?, at the end of S. Matthew's account of the healing of the Centurion's servant,-?a?

?p?st?e?a? ? e?at??ta???? e?? t?? ????? a?t?? e? a?t? t? ??a, e??e? t??

pa?da ???a????ta (viii. 13.)-Nor can anything well be weaker than the subst.i.tution (for ?ste??sa?t?? ?????, in S. John ii. 3) of the following,(141) which is found _only_ in Cod. ?:-????? ??? e????, ?t?

s??ete?es?e ? ????? t?? ?a??.

But the inspired text has been depraved in the same licentious way throughout, by the responsible authors of Cod. B and Cod. ?, although such corruptions have attracted little notice from their comparative unimportance. Thus, the reading (in ?) ?a? de? e??a?es?a? ta e??a t??

pe?a?t?? ?a? (S. John ix. 4) carries with it its own sufficient condemnation; being scarcely rendered more tolerable by B's subst.i.tution of e for the second ?a?.-Instead of te?ee???t? ??? ?p? t?? p?t?a? (S.

Luke vi. 48), B and ? present us with the insipid gloss, d?a t? ?a???

????d?e?s?a? a?t??.-In the last-named codex, we find the name of ”Isaiah”

(?sa???) thrust into S. Matth. xiii. 35, in defiance of authority and of *fact*.-Can I be wrong in a.s.serting that the reading ? ????e??? ?e?? (for ????) in S. John i. 18, (a reading found in Cod. B and Cod. ? alike,) is undeserving of serious attention?-May it not also be confidently declared that, in the face of all MS. evidence,(142) no future Editors of the New Testament will be found to accept the highly improbable reading ? a????p??

? ?e??e??? ??s???, in S. John ix. 11, although the same two Codices conspire in exhibiting it?-or, on the authority of one of them (?), to read e? a?t? ??? est??(143) (for ?? a?t? ??? ??) in S. John i. 4?-Certain at least it is that no one will _ever_ be found to read (with B) ed?????ta d?? in S. Luke x. 1,-or (with ?) ? e??e?t?? t?? ?e?? (instead of ? ???? t?? ?e??) in S. John i. 34.-But let me ask, With what show of reason can the pretence of _Infallibility_, (as well as the plea of Primacy), be set up on behalf of a pair of MSS. licentiously corrupt as these have already been _proved_ to be? For the readings above enumerated, be it observed, are either critical depravations of the inspired Text, or else unwarrantable interpolations. They _cannot_ have resulted from careless transcription.

3. Not a few of the foregoing instances are in fact of a kind to convince me that the text with which Cod. B and Cod. ? were chiefly acquainted, must have been once and again subjected to a clumsy process of _revision_.

Not unfrequently, as may be imagined, the result (however tasteless and infelicitous) is not of serious importance; as when, (to give examples from Cod. ?,) for t?? ????? ?p??e?s?a? a?t? (in S. Luke v. 1) we are presented with s??a????a? t?? ?????:-when for ??? ?s?t?? (in S. Luke xv.

13) we read e?? ???a? a??a?; and for ?? ????s?????te? a?t?? (in S. Luke xxii. 25), we find ?? a????te? t?? [e????] e???s?a???s?? a?t??, ?a?, (which is only a weak reproduction of S. Matth. xx. 25):-when again, for s??t?a ?d? ??e???e? (in S. John vi. 17), we are shewn ?ata?ae? de a?t???

? s??t?a: and when, for ?a? t?? ?st?? ? pa?ad?s?? a?t?? (in S. John vi.

64) we are invited to accept ?a? t?? ?? ? e???? a?t?? pa?ad?d??a?.(144) But it requires very little acquaintance with the subject to foresee that this kind of license may easily a.s.sume serious dimensions, and grow into an intolerable evil. Thus, when the man born blind is asked by the HOLY ONE if he believes ?p? t?? ???? t?? Te?? (S. John. ix. 35), we are by no means willing to acquiesce in the proposed subst.i.tute, t?? ???? t??

a????p??: neither, when the SAVIOUR says, ????s??a? ?p? t?? ??? (S. John x. 14) are we at all willing to put up with the weak equivalent ????s???s?

e ta ea. Still less is ?a? e?? a?t??? ed??as any equivalent at all for ?a? t? ?? p??ta s? ?st?, ?a? t? s? ?? in S. John xvii. 10: or, a????

??s??s?? se, ?a? p???s??s?? s?? ?sa ?? ?e?e??, for ????? se ??se?; ?a?

??se? ?p?? ?? ???e??, in S. John xxi. 18. Indeed, even when our LORD is not the speaker, such licentious depravation of the text is not to be endured. Thus, in S. Luke xxiii. 15, Cod. B and Cod. ? conspire in subst.i.tuting for ???pe?a ??? ??? p??? a?t??,-a?epe?e? ?a? a?t?? p???

?a?; which leads one to suspect the copyist was misled by the narrative in ver. 7. Similar instances might be multiplied to an indefinite extent.

Two yet graver corruptions of the truth of the Gospel, (but they belong to the same category,) remain to be specified. Mindful, I suppose, of S.