Part 6 (2/2)
(3) The influence which Origen's writings exercised over his own and the immediately succeeding ages of the Church, was prodigious. Basil, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, writing against the heresy of Eunomius about 150 years later,-although he read ?? ?f?s? in his own copy of S. Paul's Epistles,-thought fit to avail himself of Origen's suggestion. It suited his purpose. He was proving the eternal existence of the SON of G.o.d. Even _not to know_ G.o.d (he remarks) is _not to be_: in proof of which, he quotes S. Paul's words in 1 Cor. i. 28:-”Things _which are not_, hath G.o.d chosen.” ”Nay,” (he proceeds,) the same S. Paul, ”in his Epistle to the Ephesians, inasmuch as he is addressing persons who by intimate knowledge were truly joined to Him who 'IS,' designates them specially as 'those _which are_:' saying,-'To the Saints _which are_, and faithful in CHRIST JESUS.' ” That this fancy was not original, Basil makes no secret. He derived it, (he says,) from ”those who were before us;” a plain allusion to the writings of Origen. But neither was _the reading_ his own, either.
This is evident. He had _found_ it, he says,-(an a.s.severation indispensable to the validity of his argument,)-but only after he had made search,(164)-”_in the old copies_.”(165) No doubt, Origen's strange fancy must have been even _unintelligible_ to Basil when first he met with it.
In plain terms, it sounds to this day incredibly foolish,-when read apart from the mutilated text which alone suggested it to Origen's fervid imagination.-But what there is in all this to induce us to suspect that Origen's reading was after all the _right_ one, and _ours_ the _wrong_, I profess myself wholly at a loss to discover. Origen himself complains bitterly of the depraved state of the copies in his time; and attributes it (1) to the carelessness of the scribes: (2) to the rashness of correctors of the text: (3) to the licentiousness of individuals, adopting some of these corrections and rejecting others, according to their own private caprice.(166)
(4) Jerome, a man of severer judgment in such matters than either Origen or Basil, after rehearsing the preceding gloss, (but only to reject it,) remarks that ”certain persons” had been ”over-fanciful” in putting it forth. He alludes probably to Origen, whose Commentary on the Ephesians, in three books, he expressly relates that he employed:(167) but he does not seem to have apprehended that Origen's text _was without the words_ ??
?f?s?. If he was acquainted with Origen's text, (of which, however, his writings afford no indication,) it is plain that he disapproved of it.
Others, he says, understand S. Paul to say not ”the Saints _which are_:”
but,-”the Saints and faithful _which are at Ephesus_.”(168)
(5) The witnesses have now all been heard: and I submit that there has been elicited from their united evidence nothing at all calculated to shake our confidence in the universally received reading of Ephesians i.
1. The facts of the case are so scanty that they admit of being faithfully stated in a single sentence. Two MSS. of the ivth century, (exhibiting in other respects several striking notes of vicious sympathy,) are found to conspire in omitting a clause in Ephesians i. 1, which, (necessary as it is to the sense,) may be inferred to have been absent from Origen's copy: and Basil testifies that it was absent from ”the old copies” to which he himself obtained access. This is really the whole of the matter: in which it is much to be noted that Origen does not say that he _approved_ of this reading. Still less does Basil. They both witness to _the fact_ that the words ?? ?f?s? were omitted from _some_ copies of the iiird century, just as Codd. B and ? witness to the same fact in the ivth. But what then?
Origen is known occasionally to go out of his way to notice readings confessedly worthless; and, why not here? For not only is the text all but _unintelligible_ if the words ?? ?f?s? be omitted: but (what is far more to the purpose) the direct evidence of _all_ the copies, whether uncial or cursive,(169)-and of _all_ the Versions,-is _against_ the omission. In the face of this overwhelming ma.s.s of unfaltering evidence to insist that Codd. B and ? must yet be accounted right, and all the rest of Antiquity wrong, is simply irrational. To uphold the authority, in respect of this nonsensical reading, of _two_ MSS. confessedly untrustworthy in countless other places,-against _all_ the MSS.-_all_ the Versions,-is nothing else but an act of vulgar prejudice. I venture to declare,-(and with this I shall close the discussion and dismiss the subject,)-that _there does not exist one single instance in the whole of the New Testament_ of a reading even probably correct in which the four following notes of spurious origin concur,-which nevertheless are observed to attach to the two readings which have been chiefly discussed in the foregoing pages: viz.
1. The adverse testimony of _all the uncial MSS. except two_.
2. The adverse testimony of all, or _very nearly all_, the cursive MSS.
3. The adverse testimony of _all the Versions_, without exception.
4. The adverse testimony of _the oldest Ecclesiastical Writers_.
To which if I do not add, as I reasonably might,-
5. _The highest inherent improbability_,-it is only because I desire to treat this question purely as one of _Evidence_.
II. Learned men have tasked their ingenuity _to account for_ the phenomenon on which we have been bestowing so many words. The endeavour is commendable; but I take leave to remark in pa.s.sing that if we are to set about discovering reasons at the end of fifteen hundred years for every corrupt reading which found its way into the sacred text during the first three centuries subsequent to the death of S. John, we shall have enough to do. Let any one take up the Codex Bezae, (with which, by the way, Cod.
B shews marvellous sympathy(170),) and explain if he can why there is a grave omission, or else a gross interpolation, in almost every page; and how it comes to pa.s.s that Cod. D ”reproduces the 'textus receptus' of the Acts 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 expounding the narrative by means of interpolations which seldom recommend themselves as genuine by even a semblance of internal probability.”(171) Our business as Critics is not _to invent theories_ to account for the errors of Copyists; but rather to ascertain where they have erred, where not. What with the inexcusable depravations of early Heretics,-the preposterous emendations of ancient Critics,-the injudicious a.s.siduity of Harmonizers,-the licentious caprice of individuals;-what with errors resulting from the inopportune recollection of similar or parallel places,-or from the familiar phraseology of the Ecclesiastical Lections,-or from the inattention of Scribes,-or from marginal glosses;-however arising, endless are the corrupt readings of the oldest MSS. in existence; and it is by no means safe to follow up the detection of a depravation of the text with a theory to account for its existence. Let me be allowed to say that such theories are seldom satisfactory. _Guesses_ only they are at best.
Thus, I profess myself wholly unable to accept the suggestion of Ussher,-(which, however, found favour with Garnier (Basil's editor), Bengel, Benson, and Michaelis; and has since been not only eagerly advocated by Conybeare and Howson following a host of German Critics, but has even enjoyed Mr. Scrivener's distinct approval;)-that the Epistle to the Ephesians ”was _a Circular_ addressed to other Asiatic Cities besides the capital Ephesus,-to Laodicea perhaps among the rest (Col. iv. 16); and that while some Codices may have contained the name of Ephesus in the first verse, _others may have had another city subst.i.tuted, or the s.p.a.ce after_ t??? ??s?? _left utterly void_.”(172) At first sight, this conjecture has a kind of interesting plausibility which recommends it to our favour. On closer inspection,-(i) It is found to be not only gratuitous; but (ii) altogether unsupported and unsanctioned by the known facts of the case; and (what is most to the purpose) (iii) it is, as I humbly think, demonstrably erroneous. I demur to it,-
(1) Because of its exceeding Improbability: for (_a_) when S. Paul sent his Epistle to the Ephesians we know that Tychicus, the bearer of it,(173) was charged with _a distinct Epistle_ to the Colossians:(174) an Epistle nevertheless so singularly like the Epistle to the Ephesians that it is scarcely credible S. Paul would have written those two several Epistles to two of the Churches of Asia, and yet have sent only a duplicate of one of them, (_that_ to the Ephesians,) furnished with a different address, to so large and important a place as Laodicea, for example, (_b_) Then further, the provision which S. Paul made at this very time for communicating with the Churches of Asia which he did not separately address is found to have been different. The Laodiceans were to read in their public a.s.sembly S.
Paul's ”_Epistle to the Colossians_,” which the Colossians were ordered to send them. The Colossians in like manner were to read the Epistle,-(to whom addressed, we know not),-which S. Paul describes as t?? ??
?a?d??e?a?.(175) If then it had been S. Paul's desire that the Laodiceans (suppose) should read publicly in their Churches his Epistle to the Ephesians, surely, he would have charged the Ephesians to procure that _his Epistle to them should be read in the Church of the Laodiceans_. Why should the Apostle be gratuitously a.s.sumed to have simultaneously adopted one method with the Churches of _Colosse_ and Laodicea,-another with the Churches of _Ephesus_ and Laodicea,-in respect of his epistolary communications?
(2) (_a_) But even supposing, for argument's sake, that S. Paul _did_ send duplicate copies of his Epistle to the Ephesians to certain of the princ.i.p.al Churches of Asia Minor,-why should he have left the salutation _blank_, (”carta bianca,” as Bengel phrases it,(176)) for Tychicus to fill up when he got into Asia Minor? And yet, by the hypothesis, nothing short of _this_ would account for the reading of Codd. B and ?.
(_b_) Let the full extent of the demand which is made on our good nature be clearly appreciated. We are required to believe that there was (1) A copy of what we call S. Paul's ”Epistle to the Ephesians” sent into Asia Minor by S. Paul with a blank address; i.e. ”with the s.p.a.ce after t???
??s?? left utterly void:” (2) That Tychicus neglected to fill up that blank: and, (what is remarkable) (3) That no one was found to fill it up for him. Next, (4) That the same copy became the fontal source of the copy seen by Origen, and (5) Of the ”old copies” seen by Basil; as well as (6) Of Codd. B and ?. And even this is not all. The same hypothesis constrains us to suppose that, on the contrary, (7) _One other_ copy of this same ”Encyclical Epistle,” filled up with the Ephesian address, became the archetype of _every other copy of this Epistle in the world_.... But of what nature, (I would ask,) is the supposed necessity for building up such a marvellous structure of hypothesis,-of which the top story overhangs and overbalances all the rest of the edifice? The thing which puzzles us in Codd. B and ? is not that we find the name of _another City_ in the salutation of S. Paul's ”Epistle to the Ephesians,” but that we find the name of _no_ city at all; nor meet with any vacant s.p.a.ce there.
(_c_) On the other hand, supposing that S. Paul actually did address to different Churches copies of the present Epistle, and was scrupulous (as of course he was) to fill in the addresses himself before the precious doc.u.ments left his hands,-then, doubtless, each several Church would have received, cherished, and jealously guarded its own copy. But if _this_ had been the case, (or indeed if Tychicus had filled up the blanks for the Apostle,) is it not simply incredible that we should never have heard a word about the matter until now? unaccountable, above all, that there should nowhere exist traces of _conflicting testimony_ as to the Church to which S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was addressed? whereas _all_ the most ancient writers, without exception,-(Marcion himself [A.D. 140(177)], the ”Muratorian” fragment [A.D. 170 or earlier], Irenaeus [A.D. 175], Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Dionysius Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Eusebius,)-and all copies wheresoever found, give one unvarying, unfaltering witness. Even in Cod. B. and Cod. ?, (and this is much to be noted,) the _superscription_ of the Epistle attests that it was addressed ”to the Ephesians.” Can we be warranted (I would respectfully inquire) in inventing facts in the history of an Apostle's practice, in order to account for what seems to be after all only an ordinary depravation of his text?(178)
(3) But, in fact, it is high time to point out that such ”_a Circular_” as was described above, (each copy furnished with a blank, to be filled up with the name of a different City,) would be a doc.u.ment without parallel in the annals of the primitive Church. It is, as far as I am aware, essentially a modern notion. I suspect, in short, that the suggestion before us is only another instance of the fatal misapprehension which results from the incautious transfer of the notions suggested by some familiar word in a living language to its supposed equivalent in an ancient tongue. Thus, because ??????? or ????????? confessedly signifies ”circularis,” it seems to be imagined that ????????? ?p?st??? may mean ”a Circular Letter.” Whereas it really means nothing of the sort; but-”_a Catholic Epistle_.”(179)
An ”_Encyclical_” (and _that_ is the word which has been imported into the present discussion), was quite a different doc.u.ment from what _we_ call ”a Circular.” Addressed to no one Church or person in particular, it was Catholic or General,-the common property of all to whom it came. The General (or Catholic) Epistles of S. James, S. Peter, S. John are ”Encyclical.”(180) So is the well-known Canonical Epistle which Gregory, Bp. of Neocaesaraea in Pontus, in the middle of the third century, sent to the Bishops of his province.(181) As for ”_a blank circular_” to be filled up with the words ”in Ephesus,” ”in Laodicea,” &c.,-its like (I repeat) is wholly unknown in the annals of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. The two notions are at all events inconsistent and incompatible. If S. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians was ”a Circular,” then it was not ”Encyclical:” if it was ”Encyclical” then it was not ”a Circular.”
Are we then deliberately to believe, (for to this necessity we are logically reduced,) that the Epistle which occupies the fifth place among S. Paul's writings, and which from the beginning of the second century,-that is, from the very dawn of Historical evidence,-has been known as ”the Epistle to the Ephesians,” was an ”Encyclical,” ”Catholic”
or ”General Epistle,”-addressed t??? ?????? t??? ??s?, ?a? p?st??? ??
<script>