The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark Part 20

2. Next, ORIGEN is claimed on the same side, on the strength of the following pa.s.sage in (Jerome's version of) his lost Homilies on S.

Luke:-"Si scriptum esset, _Super terram pax_, et hucusque esset finita sententia, recte quaestio nasceretur. Nunc vero in eo quod additum est, hoc est, quod post pacem dicitur, _In hominibus bonae voluntatis_, solvit quaestionem. Pax enim quam non dat Dominus super terram, non est pax bonae voluntatis." (_Opp._ iii. p. 946.) "From this," (says Tischendorf, who is followed by Tregelles,) "it is plain that Origen regarded e?d???a? as the true reading; not e?d???a-which is now thrice found in his Greek writings."-But,

Is one here more struck with the unfairness of the Critic, or with the feebleness of his reasoning? For,-(to say nothing of the insecurity of building on a Latin Translation,(502) especially in such a matter as the present,)-How can testimony like this be considered to outweigh the three distinct places in the original writings of this Father, where he reads not e?d???a? but e?d???a? Again. Why is a doubt insinuated concerning the trustworthiness of those three places, ("ut _nunc_ reperitur,") where there really is _no_ doubt? How is Truth ever to be attained if investigations like the present are to be conducted in the spirit of an eager partisan, instead of with the calm gravity of an impartial judge?

But I may as well state plainly that the context of the pa.s.sage above quoted shews that Tischendorf's proposed inference is inadmissible. Origen is supposing some one to ask the following question:-"Since Angels on the night when CHRIST was born proclaimed 'on earth _Peace_,'-why does our SAVIOUR say, 'I am _not_ come to send Peace upon earth, but a sword?'...

Consider," (he proceeds) "whether the answer may not be this:"-and then comes the extract given above. Origen, (to express oneself with colloquial truthfulness,) is _at his old tricks_. He is evidently acquainted with the reading e?d???a?: and because it enables him to offer (what appears to him) an ingenious solution of a certain problem, he adopts it for the nonce: his proposal to take the words e????? e?d???a? together, being simply preposterous,-as no one ever knew better than Origen himself.(503)

3. Lastly, CYRIL OF JERUSALEM is invariably cited by the latest Critics as favouring the reading e?d???a?. Those learned persons have evidently overlooked the candid acknowledgment of De Touttee, Cyril's editor, (p.

180, cf. bottom of p. 102,) that though _the MSS. of Cyril_ exhibit e?d???a, yet in his editorial capacity he had ventured _to print_ e?d???a?. This therefore is one more Patristic attestation to the trustworthiness of the Textus Receptus in respect of S. Luke ii. 14, which has been hitherto unaccountably lost sight of by Critics. (May I, without offence, remind Editors of Scripture that instead of _copying_, they ought in every instance _to verify_ their references?)

III. The history of this corruption of the Text is not hard to discover.

It is interesting and instructive also.

(1.) In the immediately post-Apostolic age,-if not earlier still,-some Copyist will have omitted the ?? before ?????p???. The resemblance of the letters and the similarity of the sound (??, ??,) misled him:-

????T?O???S

Every one must see at a glance how easily the thing may have happened. (It is in fact precisely what _has_ happened in Acts iv. 12; where, for ??

?????p???, D and a few cursive MSS. read ?????p???,-being countenanced therein by the Latin Versions generally, and by them only.)

(2.) The result however-(d??a ?? ???st??? Te? ?a? ?p? ??? e????? ?????p???

e?d???a)-was obviously an impossible sentence. It could not be allowed to stand. And yet it was not by any means clear what had happened to it. In order, as it seems, to _force_ a meaning into the words, some one with the best intentions will have put the sign of the genitive (S) at the end of e?d???a. The copy so depraved was destined to play an important part; for it became the fontal source of the Latin Version, which exhibits the place thus:-_Gloria in altissimis __DEO__, et in terra pax hominibus bonae voluntatis...._ It is evident, by the way, (if the quotation from Irenaeus, given above, is to be depended upon,) that Irenaeus must have so read the place: (viz. e????? ?????p??? e?d???a?.)

(3.) To restore the preposition (??) which had been accidentally thrust out, and to obliterate the sign of the genitive (S) which had been without authority thrust in, was an obvious proceeding. Accordingly, _every Greek Evangelium extant_ exhibits ?? ?????p???: while _all but four_ (B, ?, A, D) read e?d???a. In like manner, into some MSS. of the Vulgate (e.g. the _Cod. Amiatinus_,) the preposition ("in") has found its way back; but the genitive ("bonae voluntatis") has never been rectified in a single copy of the Latin version.-The Gothic represents a copy which exhibited ??

?????p??? e?d???a?.(504)

The consequence is that a well-nigh untranslatable expression retains its place in the Vulgate to the present hour. Whether (with Origen) we connect e?d???a? with e?????,-or (with the moderns) we propose to understand "men of good pleasure,"-the result is still the same. The harmony of the three-part Anthem which the Angels sang on the night of the Nativity is hopelessly marred, and an unintelligible discord subst.i.tuted in its place.

Logic, Divinity, Doc.u.ments are here all at one. The reading of Stephens is unquestionably correct. The reading of the latest Editors is as certainly corrupt. This is a case therefore where the value of Patristic testimony becomes strikingly apparent. It affords also one more crucial proof of the essential hollowness of the theory on which it has been recently proposed by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest to reconstruct the text of the New Testament.

To some, it may perhaps seem unreasonable that so many words should be devoted to the establishment of the text of a single place of Scripture,-depending, as that text does, on the insertion or the omission of a single letter. I am content to ask in reply,-_What_ is important, if not the utterance of Heaven, when, at the laying of the corner-stone of the New Creation, "the Morning Stars sang together, and all the Sons of G.o.d shouted for joy?"

IV. Only one word in conclusion.

Whenever the time comes for the Church of England to revise her Authorized Version (1611), it will become necessary that she should in the first instance instruct some of the more judicious and learned of her sons carefully to revise the Greek Text of Stephens (1550). Men require to know precisely what it is they have to translate before they can pretend to translate it. As for supposing that Scholars who have been appointed to revise _a Translation_ are competent at a moment's notice, as every fresh difficulty presents itself, to develop the skill requisite for revising _the original Text_,-it is clearly nothing else but supposing that experts in one Science can at pleasure shew themselves proficients in another.

But it so happens that, on the present occasion, that _other_ Science is one of exceeding difficulty. Revisionists _here_ will find it necessary altogether to disabuse their minds of the _Theory_ of Textual Criticism which is at present the dominant and the popular one,-and of which I have made it my business to expose the fallaciousness, in respect of several crucial texts, in the course of the present work.

I cannot so far forget the unhappy circ.u.mstances of the times as to close this note without the further suggestion, (sure therein of the approval of our trans-Atlantic brethren,) that, for a Revision of the Authorized Version to enjoy the confidence of the Nation, and to procure for itself acceptance at the hands of the Church,-it will be found necessary that the work should be confided to _Churchmen_. The Church may never abdicate her function of being "a Witness and a Keeper of Holy Writ." Neither can she, without flagrant inconsistency and scandalous consequence, ally herself in the work of Revision with the Sects. Least of all may she a.s.sociate with herself in the sacred undertaking an Unitarian Teacher,-one who avowedly [see the letter of "One of the Revisionists, G. V. S.," in the "Times" of July 11, 1870] denies the eternal G.o.dhead of her LORD. That the individual alluded to has shewn any peculiar apt.i.tude for the work of a Revisionist; or that he is a famous Scholar; or that he can boast of acquaintance with any of the less familiar departments of Sacred Learning; is not even pretended. (It would matter nothing if the reverse were the case.) What else, then, is this but to offer a deliberate insult to the Majesty of Heaven in the Divine Person of Him who is alike the Object of the Everlasting Gospel, and its Author?

APPENDIX (B).

EUSEBIUS "ad Marinum" concerning the reconcilement of S. Mark xvi.

9 with S. Matthew xxviii. 1.

(Referred to at pp. 46, 47, 54, and 233.)

SUBJOINED is the original text of EUSEBIUS, taken from the "Quaestiones ad Marinum" published by Card. Mai, in his "Nova Patrum Bibliotheca" (Romae, 1847,) vol. iv. pp. 255-7.

I. ??? pa?? ?? t? ?at?a?? ??e sa?t?? fa??eta? ??e?e????? ? S?t??, pa??

d? t? ????? p??? t? ?? t?? sa?t??.

???t?? d?tt? ?? e?? ? ??s??; ? ?? ??? [t? ?ef??a??? a?t? _del._?(505)]

t?? t??t? f?s???sa? pe????p?? ??et??, e?p?? ?? ? ?? ?pas?? a?t?? f??es?a?

t??? ??t????f??? t?? ?at? ?????? e?a??e????; t? ???? ????? t?? ??t????f??

t? t???? pe?????fe? t?? ?at? t?? ?????? ?st???a? ?? t??? ?????? t??

?f???t?? ?ea??s??? ta?? ???a??? ?a? e?????t?? a?ta?? "? f?e?s?e, ??s???

??te?te t?? ?a?a?????." ?a? t??? ????, ??? ?p????e?: "?a? ????sasa?

?f????, ?a? ??de?? ??d?? e?p??, ?f????t? ???." ?? t??t? ??? s?ed?? ??

?pas? t??? ??t????f??? t?? ?at? ?????? e?a??e???? pe??????apta? t? t????; t? d? ???? spa???? ?? t?s?? ???? ??? ?? p?s? fe??e?a pe??tt? ?? e??, ?a?

???sta e?pe? ????e? ??t?????a? t? t?? ???p?? e?a??e??st?? a?t????. ta?ta ?? ??? e?p?? ?? t?? pa?a?t??e??? ?a? t??t? ??a???? pe??tt?? ???t?a.

????? d? t?? ??d? ?t???? t???? ??ete?? t?? ?p?s??? ?? t? t?? e?a??e????

??af? fe??????, d?p??? e??a? f?s? t?? ??a???s??, ?? ?a? ?? ?t?????

p??????, ??at??a? te pa?ade?t?a? ?p???e??, t? ? ????? ta?t?? ??e????, ?

??e???? ta?t??, pa?? t??? p?st??? ?a? e??a?s?? ??????es?a?.

?a? d? t??de t?? ????? s??????????? e??a? ???????, p??s??e? t?? ????

d?e???e?e?? t?? ??a???sat??; e? ???? d?????e? t?? t?? ????? d?????a?, ??? ?? e????e? a?t?? ??a?t?a? t??? pa?? t?? ?at?a??? ??? sa?t??

???????a? t?? S?t??a ?e?e??????; t? ??? "??ast?? d? p??? t? ?? t??

sa?t??" ?at? t?? ??????, et? d?ast???? ??a???s?e?a; ?a? et? t?

??ast?? d?, ?p?st???e?;(506) ?a? t?? d?????a? ?f?????e? t?? ????

?p??e??????. e?ta t? ?? ??ast?? ??, ?p? t?? pa?? t? ?at?a?? ???

sa?t??. t?te ??? ????et?; t? d? ???? ?t??a? ?? d?a???a? ?p?stat????, s?????e? t??? ?p??e???????; p??? ??? t? ?? t?? sa?t?? ?f??? ?a??? t?

?a?da????. t??t? ???? ?d???se ?a? ? ??????? p??? ?a? a?t?? t? ?? t??

sa?t?? ?f?a? a?t?? t? ?a?da???? a?t???sa?. ??t?? ??? ?a? pa?? t? ?????

p??? ?f??? a?t?. ?? p??? ??ast??, ???? p??? p??te??? ?at? t?? ?at?a??? ???

t?? sa?t??. t?te ??? ??ast?? ?f??? t? ?a???, ?? t?te ???? p???. ??

pa??stas?a? ?? t??t??? ?a????? d??. t?? ?? ??? t?? ??ast?se?? t?? ??? t??

sa?t??, t?? d? t?? t?? S?t???? ?p?fa?e?a?, t?? p???, ?? ???a?e? ? ??????

e?p?? (? ?a? et? d?ast???? ??a???st???) ??ast?? d?; e?ta ?p?st??a?te?, t?

???? ??t???, p??? t? ?? t?? sa?t?? ?f??? ?a??? t? ?a?da????, ?f? ??

??e???e? ?pt? da????a.

II. ??? ?at? t?? ?at?a??? ??? sa?t?? ? ?a?da???? te?ea??? t??

???stas??, ?at? t?? ??????? ? a?t? ?st?sa ??a?e? pa?? t? ??e?? t? ??

t?? sa?t??.

??d?? ?? ??t??e?? ?at? t??? t?p???, e? t? ??? sa?t?? ? t?? ?spe?????

??a? t?? et? t?? ???a? t?? sa?t?? ???es?a? ?p?????e?, ?? t??e?

?pe???fas??, ???? t? ?ad? ?a? ??? t?? ???t?? t?? et? t? s?at??, ?.t.?.