The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 16

[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.

[237] vii. 2: x. 475.

[238] i. 29.

[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias sarkines]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias sarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all' en plaxi kardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) _Ap_. Mai, iii. 89, 90.

[240] 299.

[241] iii. 302.

[242] Concil. vi. 154.

[243] ii. 129.

[244] 344.

[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.

[246] Galland. v. 505.

[247] vi. 609.

[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.

[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.

[250] Galland. xi. 248.

[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.

[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and Theodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or [Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the word [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E is '_nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D_ (Claromonta.n.u.s), made by some ignorant person'? that 'the Greek _is manifestly worthless_, and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities'? [Scrivener's Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers.]

[253] Scrivener's Introd. ii. 254.

[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.

[255] Besides GLP and the following cursives,--29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.

[256] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:--the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads [Greek: kardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. -- 6. See Burton's ed. p. 637):--Cyril in one place, as explained above:--and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer's Catena, vii. 595 ([Greek: en plaxi kardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word [Greek: plaxi].

[257] [The papers on a.s.similation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials under that head were scanty.--For 2 Cor. iii. 3, see also a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]

CHAPTER X.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

IV. Omission.

[We have now to consider the largest of all cla.s.ses of corrupt variations from the genuine Text[258]--the omission of words and clauses and sentences,--a truly fertile province of inquiry. Omissions are much in favour with a particular school of critics; though a habit of admitting them whether in ancient or modern times cannot but be symptomatic of a tendency to scepticism.]

-- 1.

Omissions are often treated as 'Various Readings.' Yet only by an Hibernian licence can words omitted be so reckoned: for in truth the very essence of the matter is that on such occasions nothing is read. It is to the case of words omitted however that this chapter is to be exclusively devoted. And it will be borne in mind that I speak now of those words alone where the words are observed to exist in ninety-nine MSS. out of a hundred, so to speak;--being away only from that hundredth copy.

Now it becomes evident, as soon as attention has been called to the circ.u.mstance, that such a phenomenon requires separate treatment. Words so omitted labour _prima facie_ under a disadvantage which is all their own. My meaning will be best ill.u.s.trated if I may be allowed to adduce and briefly discuss a few examples. And I will begin with a crucial case;--the most conspicuous doubtless within the whole compa.s.s of the New Testament. I mean the last twelve verses of St. Mark's Gospel; which verses are either bracketed off, or else entirely severed from the rest of the Gospel, by Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford and others.

The warrant of those critics for dealing thus unceremoniously with a portion of the sacred deposit is the fact that whereas Eusebius, for the statement rests solely with him, declares that anciently many copies were without the verses in question, our two oldest extant MSS. conspire in omitting them. But, I reply, the latter circ.u.mstance does not conduct to the inference that those verses are spurious. It only proves that the statement of Eusebius was correct. The Father cited did not, as is evident from his words[259], himself doubt the genuineness of the verses in question; but admitted them to be genuine. [He quotes two opinions;--the opinion of an advocate who questions their genuineness, and an opposing opinion which he evidently considers the better of the two, since he rests upon the latter and casts a slur upon the former as being an off-hand expedient; besides that he quotes several words out of the twelve verses, and argues at great length upon the second hypothesis.

On the other hand, one and that the least faulty of the two MSS.

witnessing for the omission confesses mutely its error by leaving a vacant s.p.a.ce where the omitted verses should have come in; whilst the other was apparently copied from an exemplar containing the verses[260].

And all the other copies insert them, except L and a few cursives which propose a manifestly spurious subst.i.tute for the verses,--together with all the versions, except one Old Latin (k), the Lewis Codex, two Armenian MSS. and an Arabic Lectionary,--besides more than ninety testimonies in their favour from more than 'forty-four' ancient witnesses[261];--such is the evidence which weighs down the conflicting testimony over and over and over again. Beyond all this, the cause of the error is patent. Some scribe mistook the [Greek: Telos] occurring at the end of an Ecclesiastical Lection at the close of chapter xvi. 8 for the 'End' of St. Mark's Gospel[262].

That is the simple truth: and the question will now be asked by an intelligent reader, 'If such is the balance of evidence, how is it that learned critics still doubt the genuineness of those verses?'

To this question there can be but one answer, viz. 'Because those critics are blinded by invincible prejudice in favour of two unsafe guides, and on behalf of Omission.'

We have already seen enough of the character of those guides, and are now anxious to learn what there can be in omissions which render them so acceptable to minds of the present day. And we can imagine nothing except the halo which has gathered round the detection of spurious pa.s.sages in modern times, and has extended to a supposed detection of pa.s.sages which in fact are not spurious. Some people appear to feel delight if they can prove any charge against people who claim to be orthodox; others without any such feeling delight in superior criticism; and the flavour of scepticism especially commends itself to the taste of many. To the votaries of such criticism, omissions of pa.s.sages which they style 'interpolations,' offer temptingly s.p.a.cious hunting-fields.

Yet the experience of copyists would p.r.o.nounce that Omission is the besetting fault of transcribers. It is so easy under the influence of the desire of accomplis.h.i.+ng a task, or at least of anxiety for making progress, to pa.s.s over a word, a line, or even more lines than one. As has been explained before, the eye readily moves from one ending to a similar ending with a surprising tendency to pursue the course which would lighten labour instead of increasing it. The c.u.mulative result of such abridgement by omission on the part of successive scribes may be easily imagined, and in fact is just what is presented in Codex B[263].

Besides these considerations, the pa.s.sages which are omitted, and which we claim to be genuine, bear in themselves the character belonging to the rest of the Gospels, indeed--in Dr. Hort's expressive phrase--'have the true ring of genuineness.' They are not like some which some critics of the same school would fain force upon us[264]. But beyond all,--and this is the real source and ground of attestation,--they enjoy superior evidence from copies, generally beyond comparison with the opposing testimony, from Versions, and from Fathers.]

-- 2.

The fact seems to be all but overlooked that a very much larger amount of proof than usual is required at the hands of those who would persuade us to cancel words which have been hitherto by all persons,--in all ages,--in all countries,--regarded as inspired Scripture. They have (1) to account for the fact of those words' existence: and next (2), to demonstrate that they have no right to their place in the sacred page.

The discovery that from a few copies they are away, clearly has very little to do with the question. We may be able to account for the omission from those few copies: and the instant we have done this, the negative evidence--the argument _e silentio_--has been effectually disposed of. A very different task--a far graver responsibility--is imposed upon the adverse party, as may be easily shewn. [They must establish many modes of accounting for many cla.s.ses and groups of evidence. Broad and sweeping measures are now out of date. The burden of proof lies with them.]

-- 3.

The force of what I am saying will be best understood if a few actual specimens of omission may be adduced, and individually considered. And first, let us take the case of an omitted word. In St. Luke vi. 1 [Greek: deuteroproto] is omitted from some MSS. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers accordingly exhibit the text of that place as follows:--[Greek: Egeneto de en sabbato diaporeuesthai auton dia sporimon].

Now I desire to be informed how it is credible that so very difficult and peculiar a word as this,--for indeed the expression has never yet been satisfactorily explained,--should have found its way into every known Evangelium except [Symbol: Aleph]BL and a few cursives, if it be spurious? How it came to be here and there omitted, is intelligible enough. (_a_) One has but to glance at the Cod. [Symbol: Aleph],

[Greek: TO EN SABBATo]

[Greek: DEUTEROPRoTo]

in order to see that the like ending ([Greek: To]) in the superior line, fully accounts for the omission of the second line. (_b_) A proper lesson begins at this place; which by itself would explain the phenomenon. (_c_) Words which the copyists were at a loss to understand, are often observed to be dropped: and there is no harder word in the Gospels than [Greek: deuteroprotos]. But I repeat,--will you tell us how it is conceivable that [a word nowhere else found, and known to be a _crux_ to commentators and others, should have crept into all the copies except a small handful?]

In reply to all this, I shall of course be told that really I must yield to what is after all the weight of external evidence: that Codd.

[Symbol: Aleph]BL are not ordinary MSS. but first-cla.s.s authorities, of sufficient importance to outweigh any number of the later cursive MSS.