The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 12

[From the Diatessaron of Tatian and similar attempts to harmonize the Gospels, corruption of a serious nature has ensued in some well-known places, such as the transference of the piercing of the Lord's side from St. John xix. 34 to St. Matt. xxvii. 49[181], and the omission of the words 'and of an honeycomb' ([Greek: kai apo tou melissiou keriou][182]).]

Hence also, in Cureton's Syriac[183], the _patch-work_ supplement to St.

Matt. xxi. 9: viz.:--[Greek: polloi de] (St. Mark xi. 8) [Greek: exelthon eis hypantesin autou. kai] (St. John xii. 13) [Greek: erxanto ... chairontes ainein ton Theon ... peri pason hon eidon] (St. Luke xix.

37). This self-evident fabrication, 'if it be not a part of the original Aramaic of St. Matthew,' remarks Dr. Cureton, 'would appear to have been supplied from the parallel pa.s.sages of Luke and John conjointly.' How is it that even a sense of humour did not preserve that eminent scholar from hazarding the conjecture, that such a self-evident deflection of his corrupt Syriac Codex from the course all but universally pursued is a recovery of one more genuine utterance of the Holy Ghost?

FOOTNOTES:

[173] [Greek: Maria de heistekei pros to mnemeion klaiousa exo] (St.

John xx. 11). Comp. the expression [Greek: pros to phos] in St. Luke xxii. 56. Note, that the above is not offered as a revised translation; but only to shew unlearned readers what the words of the original exactly mean.

[174] Note, that in the sectional system of Eusebius _according to the Greek_, the following places are brought together:--

(St. Matt. xxviii) (St. Mark xvi) (St. Luke xxiv) (St. John xx) 1-4. 2-5. 1-4. 1, 11, 12.

_According to the Syriac_:-- 3, 4. 5. 3, 4, 5(1/2). 11, 12.

[175] Consider [Greek: ho de Petros heistekei pros te thyra exo] (St.

John xviii. 16). Has not this place, by the way, exerted an a.s.similating influence over St. John xx. 11?

[176] Hesychius, _qu._ 51 (apud Cotelerii Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. 43), explains St. Mark's phrase [Greek: en tois dexiois] as follows:--[Greek: delonoti tou exoterou spelaiou].

[177] viii. 513.

[178] iv. 1079.

[179] Traditional Text, pp. 81-8.

[180] I am tempted to inquire,--By virtue of what verifying faculty do Lachmann and Tregelles on the former occasion adopt the reading of [Symbol: Aleph]; Tischendorf, Alford, W. and Hort, the reading of B? On the second occasion, I venture to ask,--What enabled the Revisers, with Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, to recognize in a reading, which is the peculiar property of B, the genuine language of the Holy Ghost? Is not a superst.i.tious reverence for B and [Symbol: Aleph] betraying for ever people into error?

[181] Revision Revised, p. 33.

[182] Traditional Text, Appendix I, pp. 244-252.

[183] The Lewis MS. is defective here.

CHAPTER VIII.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

II. a.s.similation.

-- 1.

There results inevitably from the fourfold structure of the Gospel,--from the very fact that the story of Redemption is set forth in four narratives, three of which often ran parallel,--this practical inconvenience: namely, that sometimes the expressions of one Evangelist get improperly transferred to another. This is a large and important subject which calls for great attention, and requires to be separately handled. The phenomena alluded to, which are similar to some of those which have been treated in the last chapter, may be comprised under the special head of a.s.similation.

It will I think promote clearness in the ensuing discussion if we determine to consider separately those instances of a.s.similation which may rather be regarded as deliberate attempts to reconcile one Gospel with another: indications of a fixed determination to establish harmony between place and place. I am saying that between ordinary cases of a.s.similation such as occur in every page, and extraordinary instances where _per fas et nefas_ an enforced Harmony has been established,-- which abound indeed, but are by no means common,--I am disposed to draw a line.

This whole province is beset with difficulties: and the matter is in itself wondrously obscure. I do not suppose, in the absence of any evidence direct or indirect on the subject,--at all events I am not aware--that at any time has there been one definite authoritative attempt made by the Universal Church in her corporate capacity to remodel or revise the Text of the Gospels. An attentive study of the phenomena leads me, on the contrary, to believe that the several corruptions of the text were effected at different times, and took their beginning in widely different ways. I suspect that Accident was the parent of many; and well meant critical a.s.siduity of more. Zeal for the Truth is accountable for not a few depravations: and the Church's Liturgical and Lectionary practice must insensibly have produced others.

Systematic villainy I am persuaded has had no part or lot in the matter.

The decrees of such an one as Origen, if there ever was another like him, will account for a strange number of aberrations from the Truth: and if the Diatessaron of Tatian could be recovered[184], I suspect that we should behold there the germs at least of as many more. But, I repeat my conviction that, however they may have originated, the causes [are not to be found in bad principle, but either in infirmities or influences which actuated scribes unconsciously, or in a want of understanding as to what is the Church's duty in the transmission from generation to generation of the sacred deposit committed to her enlightened care.]

-- 2.

1. When we speak of a.s.similation, we do not mean that a writer while engaged in transcribing one Gospel was so completely beguiled and overmastered by his recollections of the parallel place in another Gospel,--that, forsaking the expressions proper to the pa.s.sage before him, he unconsciously adopted the language which properly belongs to a different Evangelist. That to a very limited extent this may have occasionally taken place, I am not concerned to deny: but it would argue incredible inattention to what he was professing to copy, on the one hand,--astonis.h.i.+ng familiarity with what he was not professing to copy, on the other,--that a scribe should have been capable of offending largely in this way. But in fact a moderate acquaintance with the subject is enough to convince any thoughtful person that the corruptions in MSS. which have resulted from accidental a.s.similation must needs be inconsiderable in bulk, as well as few in number. At all events, the phenomenon referred to, when we speak of 'a.s.similation,' is not to be so accounted for: it must needs be explained in some entirely different way. Let me make my meaning plain:

(_a_) We shall probably be agreed that when the scribe of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph], in place of [Greek: basanisai hemas] (in St. Matt. viii. 29), writes [Greek: hemas apolesai],--it may have been his memory which misled him. He may have been merely thinking of St. Mark i. 24, or of St. Luke iv. 34.

(_b_) Again, when in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]B we find [Greek: ta.s.somenos]

thrust without warrant into St. Matt. viii. 9, we see that the word has lost its way from St. Luke vii. 8; and we are p.r.o.ne to suspect that only by accident has it crept into the parallel narrative of the earlier Evangelist.

(_c_) In the same way I make no doubt that [Greek: potamo] (St. Matt.

iii. 6) is indebted for its place in [Symbol: Aleph]BC, &c., to the influence of the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel (i. 5); and I am only astonished that critics should have been beguiled into adopting so clear a corruption of the text as part of the genuine Gospel.

(_d_) To be brief:--the insertion by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: adelphe]

(in St. Matt. vii. 4) is confessedly the result of the parallel pa.s.sage in St. Luke vi. 42. The same scribe may be thought to have written [Greek: to anemo] instead of [Greek: tois anemois] in St. Matt. viii.

26, only because he was so familiar with [Greek: to anemo] in St. Luke viii. 24 and in St. Mark iv. 39.--The author of the prototype of [Symbol: Aleph]BD (with whom by the way are some of the Latin versions) may have written [Greek: echete] in St. Matt, xvi. 8, only because he was thinking of the parallel place in St. Mark viii. 17.--[Greek: erxanto aganaktein] (St. Matt. xx. 24) can only have been introduced into [Symbol: Aleph] from the parallel place in St. Mark x. 41, and _may_ have been supplied _memoriter_.--St. Luke xix. 21 is clearly not parallel to St. Matt. xxv. 24; yet it evidently furnished the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph] with the epithet [Greek: austeros] in place of [Greek: skleros].--The subst.i.tution by [Symbol: Aleph] of [Greek: hon paretounto] in St. Matt. xxvii. 15 for [Greek: hon ethelon] may seem to be the result of inconvenient familiarity with the parallel place in St.

Mark xv. 6; where, as has been shewn[185], instead of [Greek: honper eitounto], Symbol: [Aleph]AB viciously exhibit [Greek: hon paretounto], which Tischendorf besides Westcott and Hort mistake for the genuine Gospel. Who will hesitate to admit that, when [Symbol: Aleph]L exhibit in St. Matt. xix. 16,--instead of the words [Greek: poieso hina echo zoen aionion],--the formula which is found in the parallel place of St.

Luke xviii. 18, viz. [Greek: poiesas zoen aionion kleronomeso],--those unauthorized words must have been derived from this latter place? Every ordinary reader will be further p.r.o.ne to a.s.sume that the scribe who first inserted them into St. Matthew's Gospel did so because, for whatever reason, he was more familiar with the latter formula than with the former.

(_e_) But I should have been willing to go further. I might have been disposed to admit that when [Symbol: Aleph]DL introduce into St. Matt.

x. 12 the clause [Greek: legontes, eirene to oiko touto] (which last four words confessedly belong exclusively to St. Luke x. 5), the author of the depraved original from which [Symbol: Aleph]DL were derived may have been only yielding to the suggestions of an inconveniently good memory:--may have succeeded in convincing himself from what follows in verse 13 that St. Matthew must have written, 'Peace be to this house;'

though he found no such words in St. Matthew's text. And so, with the best intentions, he may most probably have inserted them.

(_f_) Again. When [Symbol: Aleph] and Evan. 61 thrust into St. Matt. ix.

34 (from the parallel place in St. Luke viii. 53) the clause [Greek: eidotes hoti apethanen], it is of course conceivable that the authors of those copies were merely the victims of excessive familiarity with the third Gospel. But then,--although we are ready to make every allowance that we possibly can for memories so singularly const.i.tuted, and to imagine a set of inattentive scribes open to inducements to recollect or imagine instead of copying, and possessed of an inconvenient familiarity with one particular Gospel,--it is clear that our complaisance must stop somewhere. Instances of this kind of licence at last breed suspicion.

Systematic 'a.s.similation' cannot be the effect of accident. Considerable interpolations must of course be intentional. The discovery that Cod. D, for example, introduces at the end of St. Luke v. 14 thirty-two words from St. Mark's Gospel (i. 45--ii. 1, [Greek: ho de exelthon] down to [Greek: Kapharnaoum]), opens our eyes. This wholesale importation suggests the inquiry,--How did it come about? We look further, and we find that Cod. D abounds in instances of 'a.s.similation' so unmistakably intentional, that this speedily becomes the only question, How may all these depravations of the sacred text be most satisfactorily accounted for? [And the answer is evidently found in the existence of extreme licentiousness in the scribe or scribes responsible for Codex D, being the product of ignorance and carelessness combined with such looseness of principle, as permitted the exercise of direct attempts to improve the sacred Text by the introduction of pa.s.sages from the three remaining Gospels and by other alterations.]

-- 3.

Sometimes indeed the true Text bears witness to itself, as may be seen in the next example.

The little handful of well-known authorities ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL, with a few copies of the Old Latin, and one of the Egyptian Versions[186]), conspire in omitting from St. John xvi. 16 the clause [Greek: hoti ego hypago pros ton Patera]: for which reason Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort omit those six words, and Lachmann puts them into brackets. And yet, let the context be considered. Our Saviour had said (ver. 16),--'A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me, because I go to the Father.' It follows (ver. 17),--'Then said some of His disciples among themselves, What is this that He saith unto us, A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see Me: and, _Because I go to the_ Father?'--Now, the context here,--the general sequence of words and ideas--in and by itself, creates a high degree of probability that the clause is genuine. It must at all events be permitted to retain its place in the Gospel, unless there is found to exist an overwhelming amount of authority for its exclusion. What then are the facts? All the other uncials, headed by A and I^{b} (_both_ of the fourth century),--every known Cursive--all the Versions, (Latin, Syriac, Gothic, Coptic, &c.)--are for retaining the clause. Add, that Nonnus[187] (A.D. 400) recognizes it: that the texts of Chrysostom[188]

and of Cyril[189] do the same; and that both those Fathers (to say nothing of Euthymius and Theophylact) in their Commentaries expressly bear witness to its genuineness:--and, With what shew of reason can it any longer be pretended that some Critics, including the Revisers, are warranted in leaving out the words?... It were to trifle with the reader to pursue this subject further. But how did the words ever come to be omitted? Some early critic, I answer, who was unable to see the exquisite proprieties of the entire pa.s.sage, thought it desirable to bring ver. 16 into conformity with ver. 19, where our Lord seems at first sight to resyllable the matter. That is all!

Let it be observed--and then I will dismiss the matter--that the selfsame thing has happened in the next verse but one (ver. 18), as Tischendorf candidly acknowledges. The [Greek: touto ti hestin] of the Evangelist has been tastelessly a.s.similated by BDLY to the [Greek: ti estin touto] which went immediately before.

-- 4.

Were I invited to point to a beautifully described incident in the Gospel, I should find it difficult to lay my finger on anything more apt for my purpose than the transaction described in St. John xiii. 21-25.

It belongs to the closing scene of our Saviour's Ministry. 'Verily, verily, I say unto you,' (the words were spoken at the Last Supper), 'one of you will betray Me. The disciples therefore looked one at another, wondering of whom He spake. Now there was reclining in the bosom of Jesus ([Greek: en de anakeimenos en to kolpo tou 'I.]) one of His disciples whom Jesus loved. To him therefore Simon Peter motioneth to inquire who it may be concerning whom He speaketh. He then, just sinking on the breast of Jesus ([Greek: epipeson de ekeinos houtos epi to stethos tou 'I.]) [i.e. otherwise keeping his position, see above, p.

60], saith unto Him, Lord, who is it?'

The Greek is exquisite. At first, St. John has been simply 'reclining ([Greek: anakeimenos]) in the bosom' of his Divine Master: that is, his place at the Supper is the next adjoining His,--for the phrase really means little more. But the proximity is of course excessive, as the sequel shews. Understanding from St. Peter's gesture what is required of him, St. John merely sinks back, and having thus let his head fall ([Greek: epipeson]) on (or close to) His Master's chest ([Greek: epi to stethos]), he says softly,--'Lord, who is it?' ... The moment is perhaps the most memorable in the Evangelist's life: the position, one of unutterable privilege. Time, place, posture, action,--all settle so deep into his soul, that when, in his old age, he would identify himself, he describes himself as 'the disciple whom Jesus loved; who also at the Supper' (that memorable Supper!) 'lay ([Greek: anepesen][190]) on Jesus'