breast,' (literally, 'upon His chest,'--[Greek: epi to stethos autou]), and said, 'Lord, who is it that is to betray Thee?' (ch. xxi. 20)....

Yes, and the Church was not slow to take the beautiful hint. His language so kindled her imagination that the early Fathers learned to speak of St. John the Divine, as [Greek: ho epistethios],--'the (recliner) on the chest[191].'

Now, every delicate discriminating touch in this sublime picture is faithfully retained throughout by the cursive copies in the proportion of about eighty to one. The great bulk of the MSS., as usual, uncial and cursive alike, establish the undoubted text of the Evangelist, which is here the Received Text. Thus, a vast majority of the MSS., with [Symbol: Aleph]AD at their head, read [Greek: epipeson] in St. John xiii. 25.

Chrysostom[192] and probably Cyril[193] confirm the same reading. So also Nonnus[194]. Not so B and C with four other uncials and about twenty cursives (the vicious Evan. 33 being at their head), besides Origen[195] in two places and apparently Theodorus of Mopsuestia[196].

These by mischievously a.s.similating the place in ch. xiii to the later place in ch. xxi in which such affecting reference is made to it, hopelessly obscure the Evangelist's meaning. For they subst.i.tute [Greek: anapeson oun ekeinos k.t.l.] It is exactly as when children, by way of improving the sketch of a great Master, go over his matchless outlines with a clumsy pencil of their own.

That this is the true history of the subst.i.tution of [Greek: anapeson]

in St. John xiii. 25 for the less obvious [Greek: epipeson] is certain.

Origen, who was probably the author of all the mischief, twice sets the two places side by side and elaborately compares them; in the course of which operation, by the way, he betrays the viciousness of the text which he himself employed. But what further helps to explain how easily [Greek: anapeson] might usurp the place of [Greek: epipeson][197], is the discovery just noticed, that the ancients from the earliest period were in the habit of identifying St. John, as St. John had identified himself, by calling him '_the one that lay_ ([Greek: ho anapeson]) _upon the Lord's chest_.' The expression, derived from St. John xxi. 20, is employed by Irenaeus[198] (A.D. 178) and by Polycrates[199] (Bp. of Ephesus A.D. 196); by Origen[200] and by Ephraim Syrus[201]: by Epiphanius[202] and by Palladius[203]: by Gregory of n.a.z.ianzus[204] and by his namesake of Nyssa[205]: by pseudo-Eusebius[206], by pseudo-Caesarius[207], and by pseudo-Chrysostom[208]. The only wonder is, that in spite of such influences all the MSS. in the world except about twenty-six have retained the true reading.

Instructive in the meantime it is to note the fate which this word has experienced at the hands of some Critics. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, have all in turn bowed to the authority of Cod. B and Origen. Bishop Lightfoot mistranslates[209] and contends on the same side. Alford informs us that [Greek: epipeson] has surrept.i.tiously crept in 'from St. Luke xv. 20': (why should it? how could it?) '[Greek: anapeson] not seeming appropriate.' Whereas, on the contrary, [Greek: anapeson] is the invariable and obvious expression,--[Greek: epipeson] the unusual, and, till it has been explained, the unintelligible word. Tischendorf,--who had read [Greek: epipeson] in 1848 and [Greek: anapeson] in 1859,--in 1869 reverts to his first opinion; advocating with parental partiality what he had since met with in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. Is then the truth of Scripture aptly represented by that fitful beacon-light somewhere on the French coast,--now visible, now eclipsed, now visible again,--which benighted travellers amuse themselves by watching from the deck of the Calais packet?

It would be time to pa.s.s on. But because in this department of study men are observed never to abandon a position until they are fairly sh.e.l.led out and left without a pretext for remaining, I proceed to shew that [Greek: anapeson] (for [Greek: epipeson]) is only one corrupt reading out of many others hereabouts. The proof of this statement follows.

Might it not have been expected that the old uncials' ([Symbol: Aleph]ABCD) would exhibit the entire context of such a pa.s.sage as the present with tolerable accuracy? The reader is invited to attend to the results of collation:--

xiii. 21.-[Greek: o] [Symbol: Aleph]B: [Greek: umin lego] _tr._ B.

xiii. 22.-[Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: oi Ioudaioi] [Symbol: Aleph]: [Greek: aporountei] D.

xiii. 23.-[Greek: de] B: + [Greek: ek] [Symbol: Aleph]ABCD:-[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai] D.

xiii. 24. (_for_ [Greek: pythesthai tis an eie] + [Greek: outos]

D) [Greek: kai legei auto, eipe tis estin] BC: (_for_ [Greek: legei]) [Greek: elegen] [Symbol: Aleph]: + [Greek: kai legei auto eipe tis estin peri ou legei] [Symbol: Aleph].

xiii. 25. (_for_ [Greek: epipeson]) [Greek: anapeson] BC:-[Greek: de]

BC: (_for_ [Greek: de]) [Greek: oun] [Symbol: Aleph]D; -[Greek: outos] [Symbol: Aleph]AD.

xiii. 26. + [Greek: oun] BC: + [Greek: auto] D:--[Greek: o] B: + [Greek: kai legei] [Symbol: Aleph]BD: + [Greek: an] D: (_for_ [Greek: bapsas]) [Greek: embapsas] AD: [Greek: bapso ... kai doso auto] BC: + [Greek: psomou] (_after_ [Greek: psomion]) C: (_for_ [Greek: embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas] D: (_for_ [Greek: kai embapsas]) [Greek: bapsas oun] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: -[Greek: to]

B: + [Greek: lambanei kai] BC: [Greek: Iskariotou] [Symbol: Aleph]BC: [Greek: apo Karyotou] D.

xiii. 27.-[Greek: tote] [Symbol: Aleph]:-[Greek: meta to psomion tote] D: (_for_ [Greek: legei oun]) [Greek: kai legei]

D:-[Greek: o] B.

In these seven verses therefore, (which present no special difficulty to a transcriber,) the Codexes in question are found to exhibit at least thirty-five varieties,--for twenty-eight of which (jointly or singly) B is responsible: [Symbol: Aleph] for twenty-two: C for twenty-one: D for nineteen: A for three. It is found that twenty-three words have been added to the text: fifteen subst.i.tuted: fourteen taken away; and the construction has been four times changed. One case there has been of senseless transposition. Simon, the father of Judas, (not Judas the traitor), is declared by [Symbol: Aleph]BCD to have been called 'Iscariot.' Even this is not all. What St. John relates concerning himself is hopelessly obscured; and a speech is put into St. Peter's mouth which he certainly never uttered. It is not too much to say that every delicate lineament has vanished from the picture. What are we to think of guides like [Symbol: Aleph]BCD, which are proved to be utterly untrustworthy?

-- 5.

The first two verses of St. Mark's Gospel have fared badly. Easy of transcription and presenting no special difficulty, they ought to have come down to us undisfigured by any serious variety of reading. On the contrary. Owing to entirely different causes, either verse has experienced calamitous treatment. I have elsewhere[210] proved that the clause [Greek: huiou tou Theou] in verse 1 is beyond suspicion. Its removal from certain copies of the Gospel was originally due to heretical influence. But because Origen gave currency to the text so mutilated, it re-appears mechanically in several Fathers who are intent only on reproducing a certain argument of Origen's against the Manichees in which the mutilated text occurs. The same Origen is responsible to some extent, and in the same way, for the frequent introduction of 'Isaiah's' name into verse 21--whereas 'in the prophets' is what St.

Mark certainly wrote; but the appearance of 'Isaiah' there in the first instance was due to quite a different cause. In the meantime, it is witnessed to by the Latin, Syriac[211], Gothic, and Egyptian versions, as well as by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta], and (according to Tischendorf) by nearly twenty-five cursives; besides the following ancient writers: Irenaeus, Origen, Porphyry, t.i.tus, Basil, Serapion, Epiphanius, Severia.n.u.s, Victor, Eusebius, Victorinus, Jerome, Augustine.

I proceed to shew that this imposing array of authorities for reading [Greek: en to esaia to prophete] instead of [Greek: en tois prophetais]

in St. Mark i. 2, which has certainly imposed upon every recent editor and critic[212],--has been either overestimated or else misunderstood.

1. The testimony of the oldest versions, when attention is paid to their contents, is discovered to be of inferior moment in minuter matters of this nature. Thus, copies of the Old Latin version thrust Isaiah's name into St. Matt. i. 22, and Zechariah's name into xxi. 4: as well as thrust out Jeremiah's name from xxvii. 9:--the first, with Curetonian, Lewis, Harkleian, Palestinian, and D,--the second, with Chrysostom and Hilary,--the third, with the Pes.h.i.tto. The Latin and the Syriac further subst.i.tute [Greek: tou prophetou] for [Greek: ton propheton] in St.

Matt. ii. 23,--through misapprehension of the Evangelist's meaning. What is to be thought of Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] for introducing the name of 'Isaiah' into St. Matt. xiii. 35,--where it clearly cannot stand, the quotation being confessedly from Ps. lxxviii. 2; but where nevertheless Porphyry[213], Eusebius[214], and pseudo-Jerome[215] certainly found it in many ancient copies?

2. Next, for the testimony of the Uncial Codexes [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta]:--If any one will be at the pains to tabulate the 900[216] new 'readings' adopted by Tischendorf in editing St. Mark's Gospel, he will discover that for 450, or just half of them,--all the 450, as I believe, being corruptions of the text,--[Symbol: Aleph]BL are responsible: and further, that their responsibility is shared on about 200 occasions by D: on about 265 by C: on about 350 by [Delta][217]. At some very remote period therefore there must have grown up a vicious general reading of this Gospel which remains in the few bad copies: but of which the largest traces (and very discreditable traces they are) at present survive in [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta]. After this discovery the avowal will not be thought extraordinary that I regard with unmingled suspicion readings which are exclusively vouched for by five of the same Codexes: e.g. by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta].

3. The cursive copies which exhibit 'Isaiah' in place of 'the prophet.'

reckoned by Tischendorf at 'nearly twenty-five,' are probably less than fifteen[218], and those, almost all of suspicious character. High time it is that the inevitable consequence of an appeal to such evidence were better understood.

4. From Tischendorf's list of thirteen Fathers, serious deductions have to be made. Irenaeus and Victor of Antioch are clearly with the Textus Receptus. Serapion, t.i.tus, Basil do but borrow from Origen; and, with his argument, reproduce his corrupt text of St. Mark i. 2. The last-named Father however saves his reputation by leaving out the quotation from Malachi; so, pa.s.sing directly from the mention of Isaiah to the actual words of that prophet. Epiphanius (and Jerome too on one occasion[219]) does the same thing. Victorinus and Augustine, being Latin writers, merely quote the Latin version ('sicut scriptum est in Isaia propheta'), which is without variety of reading. There remain Origen (the faulty character of whose Codexes has been remarked upon already), Porphyry[220] the heretic (who wrote a book to convict the Evangelists of mis-statements[221], and who is therefore scarcely a trustworthy witness), Eusebius, Jerome and Severia.n.u.s. Of these, Eusebius[222] and Jerome[223] deliver it as their opinion that the name of 'Isaiah' had obtained admission into the text through the inadvertency of copyists. Is it reasonable, on the slender residuum of evidence, to insist that St. Mark has ascribed to Isaiah words confessedly written by Malachi? 'The fact,' writes a recent editor in the true spirit of modern criticism, 'will not fail to be observed by the careful and honest student of the Gospels.' But what if 'the fact'

should prove to be 'a fiction' only? And (I venture to ask) would not 'carefulness' be better employed in scrutinizing the adverse testimony?

'honesty' in admitting that on grounds precarious as the present no indictment against an Evangelist can be seriously maintained? This proposal to revive a blunder which the Church in her corporate capacity has from the first refused to sanction (for the Evangelistaria know nothing of it) carries in fact on its front its own sufficient condemnation. Why, in the face of all the copies in the world (except a little handful of suspicious character), will men insist on imputing to an inspired writer a foolish mis-statement, instead of frankly admitting that the text must needs have been corrupted in that little handful of copies through the officiousness of incompetent criticism?

And do any inquire,--How then did this perversion of the truth arise? In the easiest way possible, I answer. Refer to the Eusebian tables, and note that the foremost of his sectional parallels is as follows:--

St. Matt. [Greek: e] (i.e. iii. 3).

St. Mark. [Greek: b] (i.e. i. 3).

St. Luke. [Greek: z] (i.e. iii. 3-6).

St. John. [Greek: i] (i.e. i. 23)[224].

Now, since the name of Isaiah occurs in the first, the third and the fourth of these places in connexion with the quotation from Is. xl. 3, _what_ more obvious than that some critic with harmonistic proclivities should have insisted on supplying _the second also_, i.e. the parallel place in St. Mark's Gospel, with the name of the evangelical prophet, elsewhere so familiarly connected with the pa.s.sage quoted? This is nothing else in short but an ordinary instance of a.s.similation, so unskilfully effected however as to betray itself. It might have been pa.s.sed by with fewer words, for the fraud is indeed transparent, but that it has so largely imposed upon learned men, and established itself so firmly in books. Let me hope that we shall not hear it advocated any more.

Regarded as an instrument of criticism, a.s.similation requires to be very delicately as well as very skilfully handled. If it is to be applied to determining the text of Scripture, it must be employed, I take leave to say, in a very different spirit from what is met with in Dr.

Tischendorf's notes, or it will only mislead. Is a word--a clause--a sentence--omitted by his favourite authorities [Symbol: Aleph]BDL? It is enough if that learned critic finds nearly the same word,--a very similar clause,--a sentence of the same general import,--in an account of the same occurrence by another Evangelist, for him straightway to insist that the sentence, the clause, the word, has been imported into the commonly received Text from such parallel place; and to reject it accordingly.

But, as the thoughtful reader must see, this is not allowable, except under peculiar circ.u.mstances. For first, whatever _a priori_ improbability might be supposed to attach to the existence of identical expressions in two Evangelical records of the same transaction, is effectually disposed of by the discovery that very often ident.i.ty of expression actually does occur. And (2), the only condition which could warrant the belief that there has been a.s.similation, is observed to be invariably away from Dr. Tischendorf's instances.--viz. a sufficient number of respectable attesting witnesses: it being a fundamental principle in the law of Evidence, that the very few are rather to be suspected than the many. But further (3), if there be some marked diversity of expression discoverable in the two parallel places; and if that diversity has been carefully maintained all down the ages in either place;--then it may be regarded as certain, on the contrary, that there has not been a.s.similation; but that this is only one more instance of two Evangelists saying similar things or the same thing in slightly different language. Take for example the following case:--Whereas St.

Matt. (xxiv. 15) speaks of 'the abomination of desolation [Greek: to rhethen DIA Daniel tou prophetou], standing ([Greek: hestos]) in the holy place'; St. Mark (xiii. 14) speaks of it as '[Greek: to rhethen UPO Daniel tou prophetou] standing ([Greek: hestos]) where it ought not.'

Now, because [Symbol: Aleph]BDL with copies of the Italic, the Vulgate, and the Egyptian versions omit from St. Mark's Gospel the six words written above in Greek, Tischendorf and his school are for expunging those six words from St. Mark's text, on the plea that they are probably an importation from St. Matthew. But the little note of variety which the Holy Spirit has set on the place in the second Gospel (indicated above in capital letters) suggests that these learned men are mistaken.

Accordingly, the other fourteen uncials and all the cursives,--besides the Pes.h.i.tto, Harkleian, and copies of the Old Latin--a much more weighty body of evidence--are certainly right in retaining the words in St. Mark xiii. 14.

Take two more instances of misuse in criticism of a.s.similation.

St. Matthew (xii. 10), and St. Luke in the parallel place of his Gospel (xiv. 3), describe our Lord as asking,--'Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?' Tischendorf finding that his favourite authorities in this latter place continue the sentence with the words 'or _not_?' a.s.sumes that those two words must have fallen out of the great bulk of the copies of St. Luke, which, according to him, have here a.s.similated their phraseology to that of St. Matthew. But the hypothesis is clearly inadmissible,--though it is admitted by most modern critics. Do not these learned persons see that the supposition is just as lawful, and the probability infinitely greater, that it is on the contrary the few copies which have here undergone the process of a.s.similation; and that the type to which they have been conformed, is to be found in St. Matt.

xxii. 17; St. Mark xii. 14; St. Luke xx. 22?

It is in fact surprising how often a familiar place of Scripture has exerted this kind of a.s.similating influence over a little handful of copies. Thus, some critics are happily agreed in rejecting the proposal of [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR, (backed scantily by their usual retinue of evidence) to subst.i.tute for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], in St. Luke xv. 16, the words [Greek: chortasthenai ek]. But editors have omitted to point out that the words [Greek: epethymei chortasthenai], introduced in defiance of the best authorities into the parable of Lazarus (xvi. 20), have simply been transplanted thither out of the parable of the prodigal son.

The reader has now been presented with several examples of a.s.similation.

Tischendorf, who habitually overlooks the phenomenon where it seems to be sufficiently conspicuous, is observed constantly to discover cases of a.s.similation where none exist. This is in fact his habitual way of accounting for not a few of the omissions in Cod. [Symbol: Aleph]. And because he has deservedly enjoyed a great reputation, it becomes the more necessary to set the reader on his guard against receiving such statements without a thorough examination of the evidence on which they rest.

-- 6.

The value--may I not say, the use?--of these delicate differences of detail becomes apparent whenever the genuineness of the text is called in question. Take an example. The following fifteen words are deliberately excluded from St. Mark's Gospel (vi. 11) by some critics on the authority of [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta],--a most suspicious company, and three cursives; besides a few copies of the Old Latin, including the Vulgate:--[Greek: amen lego hymin, anektoteron estai Sodomois e Gomorrois en hemerai kriseos, he te polei ekeine]. It is pretended that this is nothing else but an importation from the parallel place of St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15). But that is impossible: for, as the reader sees at a glance, a delicate but decisive note of discrimination has been set on the two places. St. Mark writes, [Greek: SodomOIS e GomorrOIS]: St. Matthew, [Greek: Ge SodomoN KAI GomorroN].

And this threefold, or rather fourfold, diversity of expression has existed from the beginning; for it has been faithfully retained all down the ages: it exists to this hour in every known copy of the Gospel,-- except of course those nine which omit the sentence altogether. There can be therefore no doubt about its genuineness. The critics of the modern school (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort) seek in vain to put upon us a mutilated text by omitting those fifteen words. The two places are clearly independent of each other.

It does but remain to point out that the exclusion of these fifteen words from the text of St. Mark, has merely resulted from the influence of the parallel place in St. Luke's Gospel (ix. 5),--where nothing whatever is found[225] corresponding with St. Matt. x. 5--St. Mark vi.

11. The process of a.s.similation therefore has been actively at work here, although not in the way which some critics suppose. It has resulted, not in the insertion of the words in dispute in the case of the very many copies; but on the contrary in their omission from the very few. And thus, one more brand is set on [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL[Symbol: Delta] and their Latin allies,--which will be found _never_ to conspire together exclusively except to mislead.

-- 7.

Because a certain clause (e.g. [Greek: kai he lalia sou h.o.m.oiazei] in St. Mark xiv. 70) is absent from Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort entirely eject these five precious words from St. Mark's Gospel, Griesbach having already voted them 'probably spurious.' When it has been added that many copies of the Old Latin also, together with the Vulgate and the Egyptian versions, besides Eusebius, ignore their existence, the present writer scarcely expects to be listened to if he insists that the words are perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.

1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader, although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability that the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by side:--

St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70.