CHAPTER XI.. Causes of Corruption Chiefly Intentional.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

V. Transposition, VI. Substitution, and VII. Addition.

Sec. 1.

One of the most prolific sources of Corrupt Readings, is Transposition, or the arbitrary inversion of the order of the sacred words,--generally in the subordinate clauses of a sentence. The extent to which this prevails in Codexes of the type of B[Symbol: Aleph]CD passes belief. It is not merely the occasional writing of [Greek: tauta panta] for [Greek: panta tauta],--or [Greek: ho laos outos] for [Greek: outos ho laos], to which allusion is now made: for if that were all, the phenomenon would admit of loyal explanation and excuse. But what I speak of is a systematic putting to wrong of the inspired words throughout the entire Codex; an operation which was evidently regarded in certain quarters as a lawful exercise of critical ingenuity,--perhaps was looked upon as an elegant expedient to be adopted for improving the style of the original without materially interfering with the sense.

Let me before going further lay before the reader a few specimens of Transposition.

Take for example St. Mark i. 5,--[Greek: kai ebaptizonto pantes],--is unreasonably turned into [Greek: pantes kai ebaptizonto]; whereby the meaning of the Evangelical record becomes changed, for [Greek: pantes] is now made to agree with [Greek: Hierosolumitai], and the Evangelist is represented as making the very strong assertion that all the people of Jerusalem came to St. John and were baptized. This is the private property of BDL[Symbol: Delta].

And sometimes I find short clauses added which I prefer to ascribe to the misplaced critical assiduity of ancient Critics. Confessedly spurious, these accretions to the genuine text often bear traces of pious intelligence, and occasionally of considerable ability. I do not suppose that they 'crept in' from the margin: but that they were inserted by men who entirely failed to realize the wrongness of what they did,--the mischievous consequences which might possibly ensue from their well-meant endeavours to improve the work of the Holy Ghost.

It will be seen therefore that some cases of transposition are of a kind which is without excuse and inadmissible. Such transposition consists in drawing back a word which occurs further on, but is thus introduced into a new context, and gives a new sense. It seems to be assumed that since the words are all there, so long as they be preserved, their exact collocation is of no moment. Transpositions of that kind, to speak plainly, are important only as affording conclusive proof that such copies as B[Symbol: Aleph]D preserve a text which has undergone a sort of critical treatment which is so obviously indefensible that the Codexes themselves, however interesting as monuments of a primitive age,--however valuable commercially and to be prized by learned and unlearned alike for their unique importance,--are yet to be prized chiefly as beacon-lights preserved by a watchful Providence to warn every voyaging bark against making shipwreck on a shore already strewn with wrecks.

Transposition may sometimes be as conveniently illustrated in English as in Greek. St. Luke relates (Acts ii. 45, 46) that the first believers sold their goods 'and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily,' &c. For this, Cod. D reads, 'and parted them daily to all men as every man had need. And they continued in the temple.'

Sec. 2.

It is difficult to divine for what possible reason most of these transpositions were made. On countless occasions they do not in the least affect the sense. Often, they are incapable of being idiomatically represented, in English. Generally speaking, they are of no manner of importance, except as tokens of the licence which was claimed by disciples, as I suspect, of the Alexandrian school [or exercised unintentionally by careless or ignorant Western copyists]. But there arise occasions when we cannot afford to be so trifled with. An important change in the meaning of a sentence is sometimes effected by transposing its clauses; and on one occasion, as I venture to think, the prophetic intention of the Speaker is obscured in consequence. I allude to St. Luke xiii. 9, where under the figure of a barren fig-tree, our Lord hints at what is to befall the Jewish people, because in the fourth year of His Ministry it remained unfruitful. 'Lo, these three years,' (saith He to the dresser of His Vineyard), 'come I seeking fruit on this fig-tree, and find none; cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?' 'Spare it for this year also' (is the rejoinder), 'and if it bear fruit,--well: but if not, next year thou shalt cut it down.' But on the strength of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, some recent Critics would have us read,--'And if it bear fruit next year,--well: but if not, thou shalt cut it down':--which clearly would add a year to the season of the probation of the Jewish race. The limit assigned in the genuine text is the fourth year: in the corrupt text of [Symbol: Aleph]BLT^{w}, two bad Cursives, and the two chief Egyptian versions, this period becomes extended to the fifth.

To reason about such transpositions of words, a wearisome proceeding at best, soon degenerates into the veriest trifling. Sometimes, the order of the words is really immaterial to the sense. Even when a different shade of meaning is the result of a different collocation, that will seem the better order to one man which seems not to be so to another. The best order of course is that which most accurately exhibits the Author's precise shade of meaning: but of this the Author is probably the only competent judge. On our side, an appeal to actual evidence is obviously the only resource: since in no other way can we reasonably expect to ascertain what was the order of the words in the original document. And surely such an appeal can be attended with only one result: viz. the unconditional rejection of the peculiar and often varying order advocated by the very few Codexes,--a cordial acceptance of the order exhibited by every document in the world besides.

I will content myself with inviting attention to one or two samples of my meaning. It has been made a question whether St. Luke (xxiv. 7) wrote,--[Greek: legon, Hoti dei ton huion tou anthropou paradothenai], as all the MSS. in the world but four, all the Versions, and all the available Fathers' evidence from A.D. 150 downwards attest: or whether he wrote,--[Greek: legon ton huion tou anthropou hoti dei paradothenai], as [Symbol: Aleph]BCL,--and those four documents only--would have us believe? [The point which first strikes a scholar is that there is in this reading a familiar classicism which is alien to the style of the Gospels, and which may be a symptom of an attempt on the part of some early critic who was seeking to bring them into agreement with ancient Greek models.] But surely also it is even obvious that the correspondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as this must needs be the result of their having derived the reading from one and the same original. On the contrary, the agreement of all the rest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accounted for in only one way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been derived through various lines of descent from a single document: but that document the autograph of the Evangelist. [For the great number and variety of them necessitates their having been derived through various lines of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number, variety, as well as continuity, and weight also.]

Sec. 3.

On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult--perhaps impossible--to determine, apart from external evidence, which collocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e.g. [Greek: echei zoen] for instance or [Greek: zoen echei],--[Greek: egerthe eutheos] or [Greek: eutheos egerthe],--[Greek: cholous, typhlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, cholous],--shall be preferred. The burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.

Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before the Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the Evangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight ([Symbol: Aleph]), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to convict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph], in place of [Greek: exousian edoken auto kai krisin poiein], presents us with [Greek: kai krisin edoken auto exousian poiein], we hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense. And when BD instead of [Greek: eisi tines ton ode hestekoton] exhibit [Greek: eise ton ode ton hestekoton], we cannot but conclude that the credit of those two MSS. must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true appreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has been done.

It is hoped that the passages already quoted may be found sufficient to exhibit the character of the large class of instances in which the pure Text of the original Autographs has been corrupted by Transposition. That it has been so corrupted, is proved by the evidence which is generally overpowering in each case. There has clearly been much intentional perversion: carelessness also and ignorance of Greek combined with inveterate inaccuracy, characteristics especially of Western corruption as may be seen in Codex D and the Old Latin versions, must have had their due share in the evil work. The result has been found in constant slurs upon the sacred pages, lessening the beauty and often perverting the sense,--a source of sorrow to the keen scholar and reverent Christian, and reiterated indignity done in wantonness or heedlessness to the pure and easy flow of the Holy Books.]

Sec. 4.

It seems therefore needless to supply with a scrupulousness that might bore our readers a disquisition upon Substitution which has not forced itself into a place amongst Dean Burgon's papers, although it is found in a fragmentary plan of this part of the treatise. Substituted forms or words or phrases, such as [Greek: OS] ([Greek: hos]) for [Greek: THS] ([Greek: Theos]) [Greek: eporei] for [Greek: epoiei] (St. Mark vi. 20), or [Greek: ouk oidate dokimazein] for [Greek: dokimazete] (St. Luke xii. 56), have their own special causes of substitution, and are naturally and best considered under the cause which in each case gave them birth.

Yet the class of Substitutions is a large one, if Modifications, as they well may be, are added to it. It will be readily concluded that some substitutions are serious, some of less importance, and many trivial. Of the more important class, the reading of [Greek: hamartematos] for [Greek: kriseos] (St. Mark iii. 29) which the Revisers have adopted in compliance with [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta] and three Cursives, is a specimen. It is true that D reads [Greek: hamartias] supported by the first corrector of C, and three of the Ferrar group (13, 69, 346): and that the change adopted is supported by the Old Latin versions except f, the Vulgate, Bohairic, Armenian, Gothic, Lewis, and Saxon. But the opposition which favours [Greek: kriseos] is made up of A, C under the first reading and the second correction, [Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] and eleven other Uncials, the great bulk of the Cursives, f, Peshitto, and Harkleian, and is superior in strength. The internal evidence is also in favour of the Traditional reading, both as regards the usage of [Greek: enochos], and the natural meaning given by [Greek: kriseos]. [Greek: Hamartematos] has clearly crept in from ver. 28. Other instances of Substitution may be found in the well-known St. Luke xxiii. 45 ([Greek: tou heliou eklipontos]), St. Matt. xi. 27 ([Greek: bouletai apokalypsai]), St. Matt. xxvii. 34 ([Greek: oinon] for [Greek: oxos]), St. Mark i. 2 ([Greek: Hesaia] for [Greek: tois prophetais]), St. John i. 18 ([Greek: ho Monogenes Theos] being a substitution made by heretics for [Greek: ho Monogenes Huios]), St. Mark vii. 31 ([Greek: dia Sidonos] for [Greek: kai Sidonos]). These instances may perhaps suffice: many more may suggest themselves to intelligent readers. Though most are trivial, their cumulative force is extremely formidable. Many of these changes arose from various causes which are described in many other places in this book.]

Sec. 5.

A few examples will set this truth in clearer light. It is remarkable that efforts at interpolation occur most copiously amongst the books of those who are least fitted to make them. We naturally look amongst the representatives of the Western school where Greek was less understood than in the East where Greek acumen was imperfectly represented by Latin activity, and where translation into Latin and retranslation into Greek was a prolific cause of corruption. Take then the following passage from the Codex D (St. Luke vi. 4):--

'On the same day He beheld a certain man working on the sabbath, and said to him, "Man, blessed art thou if thou knowest what thou doest; but if thou knowest not, thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law."'

And another from the Curetonian Syriac (St. Matt. xx. 28), which occurs under a worse form in D.

'But seek ye from little to become greater, and not from greater to become less. When ye are invited to supper in a house, sit not down in the best place, lest some one come who is more honourable than thou, and the lord of the supper say to thee, "Go down below," and thou be ashamed in the presence of them that have sat down. But if thou sit down in the lower place, and one who is inferior to thee come in, the lord also of the supper will say to thee, "Come near, and come up, and sit down," and thou shalt have greater honour in the presence of them that have sat down.'

Who does not see that there is in these two passages no real 'ring of genuineness'?

Take next some instances of lesser insertions.]

Sec. 6.

Conspicuous beyond all things in the Centurion of Capernaum (St. Matt. viii. 13) was his faith. It occasioned wonder even in the Son of Man. Do we not, in the significant statement, that when they who had been sent returned to the house, 'they found the servant whole that had been sick,' recognize by implication the assurance that the Centurion, because he needed no such confirmation of his belief, went not with them; but enjoyed the twofold blessedness of remaining with Christ, and of believing without seeing? I think so. Be this however as it may, [Symbol: Aleph]CEMUX besides about fifty cursives, append to St. Matt. viii. 13 the clearly apocryphal statement, 'And the Centurion returning to his house in that same hour found the servant whole.' It does not improve the matter to find that Eusebius, besides the Harkleian and the Ethiopic versions, recognize the same appendix. We are thankful, that no one yet has been found to advocate the adoption of this patent accretion to the inspired text. Its origin is not far to seek. I presume it was inserted in order to give a kind of finish to the story.

They are (a) of Uncials [Symbol: Aleph] (in the first reading and as re-corrected in the seventh century) BD; (b) five Cursives (for a present of 346 may be freely made to Tischendorf); (c) ten Old Latin copies also the Aureus (Words.), some of the Vulgate (four according to Wordsworth), the Palestinian, Ethiopic, Armenian; (d) Origen (Lat. iii. 874), Hilary (733^{a}), Cyril Alex. (Mai Nova Pp. Bibliotheca, 481), Ambrose (i. 1478^{f}). But Irenaeus (Lat. i. 386), Cyril (Zach. 800), Chrysostom (ad locum) seem to quote from St. Mark. So too, as Tischendorf admits, Amphilochius.

On the other hand we have, (a) the chief corrector of [Symbol: Aleph](c^{a})[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] with thirteen other Uncials and the Greek MSS. of Adamantius and Pierius mentioned by Jerome; (b) all the Cursives, as far as is known (except the aforenamed); (c) the Vulgate, with the Peshitto, Harkletan, Lewis, Bohairic, and the Sahidic; (d) Jerome (in the place just now quoted), St. Basil who contrasts the text of St. Matthew with that of St. Mark, Didymus, who is also express in declaring that the three words in dispute are not found in St. Matthew (Trin. 195), St. John Damascene (ii. 346), Apollonius Philosophus (Galland. ix. 247), Euthymius Zigabenus (in loc), Paulinus (iii. 12), St. Ambrose (ii. 656^{a}), and Anastasius Sinaita (Migne, lxxxix. 941).

Theophylact (i. 133), Hesychius Presb. (Migne, lxiii. 142) Eusebius (Galland. ix. 580), Facundus Herm. (Galland. xi. 782), Athanasius (ii. 660), quote the words as from the Gospel without reference, and may therefore refer to St. Mark. Phoebadius (Galland. v. 251), though quoted against the Addition by Tischendorf, is doubtful.

On which side the balance of evidence inclines, our readers will judge. But at least they cannot surely justify the assertion made by the majority of the Revisers, that the Addition is opposed only by 'many authorities, some ancient,' or at any rate that this is a fair and adequate description of the evidence opposed to their decision.

An instance occurs in St. Mark iii. 16 which illustrates the carelessness and tastelessness of the handful of authorities to which it pleases many critics to attribute ruling authority. In the fourteenth verse, it had been already stated that our Lord 'ordained twelve,' [Greek: kai epoiese dodeka]; but because [Symbol: Aleph]B[Symbol: Delta] and C (which was corrected in the ninth century with a MS. of the Ethiopic) reiterate these words two verses further on, Tischendorf with Westcott and Hort assume that it is necessary to repeat what has been so recently told. Meanwhile eighteen other uncials (including A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma] and the third hand of C); nearly all the Cursives; the Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Lewis, Harkleian, Gothic, Armenian, and the other MSS. of the Ethiopic omit them. It is plainly unnecessary to strengthen such an opposition by researches in the pages of the Fathers.

Explanation has been already given, how the introductions to Lections, and other Liturgical formulae, have been added by insertion to the Text in various places. Thus [Greek: ho Iesous] has often been inserted, and in some places remains wrongly (in the opinion of Dean Burgon) in the pages of the Received Text. The three most important additions to the Received Text occur, as Dean Burgon thought, in St. Matt. vi. 18, where [Greek: en to phanero] has crept in from v. 6 against the testimony of a large majority both of Uncial and of Cursive MSS.: in St. Matt. xxv. 13, where the clause [Greek: en he ho huios tou anthropou erchetai] seemed to him to be condemned by a superior weight of authority: and in St. Matt. xxvii. 35, where the quotation ([Greek: hina plerothe ... ebalon kleron]) must be taken for similar reasons to have been originally a gloss.]

FOOTNOTES:

The following are the numbers of Transpositions supplied by B, [Symbol: Aleph], and D in the Gospels:--B, 2,098: [Symbol: Aleph], 2,299: D, 3,471. See Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.

Marcion (Epiph. i. 317): Eusebius (Mai, iv. 266): Epiphanius (i. 348): Cyril (Mai, ii. 438): John Thess. (Gall. xiii. 188).

St. John v. 26, in [Symbol: Aleph]

St. Mark ii. 12, in D.

St. Luke xiv. 13, in [Symbol: Aleph]B.

St. John v. 27.

'Nec aliter' (says Tischendorf) 'Tertull.' (Prax. 21),--'et judicium dedit illi facere in potestate.' But this (begging the learned critic's pardon) is quite a different thing.

See the very learned, ingenious, and satisfactory disquisition in The Revision Revised, pp. 424-501.

The numbers are:--

B, substitutions, 935; modifications, 1,132; total, 2,067. [Symbol: Aleph], " 1,114; " 1,265; " 2,379. D, " 2,121; " 1,772; " 3,893.

Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13.

B has 536 words added in the Gospels: [Symbol: Aleph], 839: D, 2,213. Revision Revised, pp. 12, 13. The interpolations of D are notorious.

St. Luke vii. 10.

Theoph. p. 212.

An opposite fate, strange to say, has attended a short clause in the same narrative, which however is even worse authenticated. Instead of [Greek: oude en to Israel tosauten pistin euron] (St. Matt. viii. 10), we are invited henceforth to read [Greek: par' oudeni tosauten pistin en to Israel euron];--a tame and tasteless gloss, witnessed to by only B, and five cursives,--but having no other effect, if it should chance to be inserted, than to mar and obscure the Divine utterance.

For when our Saviour declares 'Not even in Israel have I found so great faith,' He is clearly contrasting this proficiency of an earnest Gentile against whatever of a like nature He had experienced in His dealing with the Jewish people; and declaring the result. He is contrasting Jacob's descendants, the heirs of so many lofty privileges, with this Gentile soldier: their spiritual attainments with his; and assigning the palm to him. Substitute 'With no one in Israel have I found so great faith,' and the contrast disappears. Nothing else is predicated but a greater measure of faith in one man than in any other. The author of this feeble attempt to improve upon St. Matthew's Gospel is found to have also tried his hand on the parallel place in St. Luke, but with even inferior success: for there his misdirected efforts survive only in certain copies of the Old Latin. Ambrose notices his officiousness, remarking that it yields an intelligible sense; but that, 'juxta Graecos,' the place is to be read differently (i. 1376.)

It is notorious that a few copies of the Old Latin (Augustine once (iv. 322), though he quotes the place nearly twenty times in the usual way) and the Egyptian versions exhibit the same depravation. Cyril habitually employed an Evangelium which was disfigured in the same way (iii. 833, also Opp. v. 544, ed. Pusey.). But are we out of such materials as these to set about reconstructing the text of Scripture?

'In quibusdam Latinis codicibus additum est, neque Filius: quum in Graecis, et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur adscriptum. Sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur.' Hier. vii. 199 a. 'Gaudet Arius et Eunomius, quasi ignorantia magistri gloria discipulorum sit, et dicunt:--"Non potest aequalis esse qui novit et qui ignorat."' Ibid. 6.

In vi. 919, we may quote from St. Mark.