The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 15

[212] Thus Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wordsworth, Green, Scrivener, M^{c}Clellan, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers.

[213] In pseudo-Jerome's Brev. in Psalm., Opp. vii. (ad calc.) 198.

[214] Mont. i. 462.

[215] Ubi supra.

[216] Omitting trifling variants.

[217] [Symbol: Aleph]BL are _exclusively_ responsible on 45 occasions: +C (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BCL), on 27: +D, on 35: +[Symbol: Delta], on 73: +CD, on 19: +C[Symbol: Delta], on 118: +D[Symbol: Delta] (i.e. [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]), on 42: +CD[Symbol: Delta], on 66.

[218] In the text of Evan. 72 the reading in dispute is _not_ found: 205, 206 are duplicates of 209: and 222, 255 are only fragments. There remain 1, 22, 33, 61, 63, 115, 131, 151, 152, 161, 184, 209, 253, 372, 391:--of which the six at Rome require to be re-examined.

[219] v. 10.

[220] _Ap._ Hieron. vii. 17.

[221] 'Evangelistas arguere falsitatis, hoc impiorum est, Celsi, Porphyrii, Juliani.' Hieron. i. 311.

[222] [Greek: grapheos toinun esti sphalma]. Quoted (from the lost work of Eusebius ad Marinum) in Victor of Ant.'s Catena, ed. Cramer, p. 267.

(See Simon, iii. 89; Mai, iv. 299; Matthaei's N.T. ii. 20, &c.)

[223] 'Nos autem nomen Isaiae putamus _additum Scriptorum vitio_, quod et in aliis locis probare possumus.' vii. 17 (I suspect he got it from Eusebius).

[224] See Studia Biblica, ii. p. 249. Syrian Form of Ammonian sections and Eusebian Canons by Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, B.D. Mr. Gwilliam gives St.

Luke iii. 4-6, according to the Syrian form.

[225] Compare St. Mark vi. 7-13 with St. Luke ix. 1-6.

[226] Schulz,--'et [Greek: lalia] et [Greek: omoiazei] aliena a Marco.'

Tischendorf--'omnino e Matthaeo fluxit: ipsum [Greek: omoiazei]

glossatoris est.' This is foolishness,--not criticism.

[227] Scrivener's Full Collation of the Cod. Sin., &c., 2nd ed., p.

xlvii.

CHAPTER IX.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

III. Attraction.

-- 1.

There exist not a few corrupt Readings,--and they have imposed largely on many critics,--which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing else but the p.r.o.neness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,--whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,--sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called the error of Attraction. The phenomena of 'a.s.similation' are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of St.

John vi. 71 and xiii. 26.

'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas Iskariotes] is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19 and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express statement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'--jealous doubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas]) the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor's ident.i.ty. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,--'Judas (not Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are content to read 'Judas Iscariot.' But in the two places of St. John's Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of 'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And _why_? Only, I answer, because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTeN] (in vi. 71) and [Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTe] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of copies subst.i.tute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on?

Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskarioTeN], [Greek: IskarioTe], have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive [Greek: SImoNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely deserved a pa.s.sing remark at our hands had it been suffered to remain,--where such _betises_ are the rule and not the exception,--viz.

in the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two pa.s.sages already mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.

-- 2.

Another and a far graver case of 'Attraction' is found in Acts xx. 24.

St. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter. 'But none of these things move me,' he grandly exclaims, 'neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.' The Greek for this begins [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN]

writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers of this book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed to present my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction.

St. Paul in a certain place (2 Cor. iii. 3) tells the Corinthians, in allusion to the language of Exodus x.x.xi. 12, x.x.xiv. 1, that they are an epistle not written on '_stony tables_ ([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),'

but on '_fleshy tables_ of the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias sarkinais]).' The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single exception of 'that abject slave of ma.n.u.scripts the Philoxenian [or Harkleian] Syriac,' are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for [Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in detail:--

In the second century, Irenaeus[230],--the Old Latin,--the Pes.h.i.+tto.

In the third century, Origen seven times[231],--the Coptic version.

In the fourth century, the Dialogus[232],--Didymus[233],--Basil[234],--Gregory Nyss.[235],--Marcus the Monk[236],--Chrysostom in two places[237],--Nilus[238],--the Vulgate,--and the Gothic versions.

In the fifth century, Cyril[239],--Isidorus[240],--Theodoret[241],--the Armenian--and the Ethiopic versions.

In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus P.[242]

In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[244],--Ambrose[245],--Optatus[246],--Jerome[247],-- Tichonius[248],--Augustine thirteen times[249],--Fulgentius[250], and others[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told what _is_[252]?

But then it so happens that--attracted by the two datives between which [Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the 'perfectly absurd'

and 'wholly unnatural reading[253],' [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS].

And because (as might have been expected from their character) A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,--Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] is also adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257].

FOOTNOTES:

[228] St. Luke vi. 16; Acts i. 13; St. Jude 1.

[229] Above, pp. 28-31.

[230] 753 _int_.

[231] ii. 843 c. Also _int_ ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.

[232] _Ap_. Orig. i. 866 a,--interesting and emphatic testimony.

[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.

[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.

[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all' en to tes kardias pyxio]).