[Greek: diedoke tois [mathetais, oi de mathetai tois] anakeimenois.]

The one sufficient proof that St. John did so write, being the testimony of the MSS. Moreover, we are expressly a.s.sured by St. Matthew (xiv. 19), St. Mark (vi. 41), and St. Luke (ix. 16), that our Saviour's act was performed in this way. It is clear however that some scribe has suffered his eye to wander from [Greek: tois] in l. 2 to [Greek: tois] in l.

4,--whereby St. John is made to say that our Saviour himself distributed to the 5000. The blunder is a very ancient one; for it has crept into the Syriac, Bohairic, and Gothic versions, besides many copies of the Old Latin; and has established itself in the Vulgate. Moreover some good Fathers (beginning with Origen) so quote the place. But such evidence is unavailing to support [Symbol: Aleph]ABL[Symbol: Pi], the early reading of [Symbol: Aleph] being also contradicted by the fourth hand in the seventh century against the great cloud of witnesses,--beginning with D and including twelve other uncials, beside the body of the cursives, the Ethiopic and two copies of the Old Latin, as well as Cyril Alex.

Indeed, there does not exist a source of error which has proved more fatal to the transcribers of MSS. than the proximity of identical, or nearly identical, combinations of letters. And because these are generally met with in the final syllables of words, the error referred to is familiarly known by a Greek name which denotes 'likeness of ending' (h.o.m.oeoteleuton). The eye of a scribe on reverting from his copy to the original before him is of necessity apt sometimes to alight on the same word, or what looks like the same word, a little lower down.

The consequence is obvious. All that should have come in between gets omitted, or sometimes duplicated.

It is obvious, that however inconvenient it may prove to find oneself in this way defrauded of five, ten, twenty, perhaps thirty words, no very serious consequence for the most part ensues. Nevertheless, the result is often sheer nonsense. When this is the case, it is loyally admitted by all. A single example may stand for a hundred. [In St. John vi. 55, that most careless of careless transcripts, the Sinaitic [Symbol: Aleph], omits on a most sacred subject seven words, and the result hardly admits of being characterized. Let the reader judge for himself.

The pa.s.sage stands thus:--[Greek: he gar sarx mou alethos esti brosis, kai to haima mou alethos esti posis]. The transcriber of [Symbol: Aleph]

by a very easy mistake let his eye pa.s.s from one [Greek: alethos] to another, and characteristically enough the various correctors allowed the error to remain till it was removed in the seventh century, though the error issued in nothing less than 'My Flesh is drink indeed.' Could that MS. have undergone the test of frequent use?]

But it requires very little familiarity with the subject to be aware that occasions must inevitably be even of frequent occurrence when the result is calamitous, and even perplexing, in the extreme. The writings of Apostles and Evangelists, the Discourses of our Divine Lord Himself, abound in short formulae; and the intervening matter on such occasions is constantly an integral sentence, which occasionally may be discovered from its context without evident injury to the general meaning of the place. Thus [ver. 14 in St. Matt, xxiii. was omitted in an early age, owing to the recurrence of [Greek: ouai hymin] at the beginning, by some copyists, and the error was repeated in the Old Latin versions. It pa.s.sed to Egypt, as some of the Bohairic copies, the Sahidic, and Origen testify. The Vulgate is not quite consistent: and of course [Symbol: Aleph]BDLZ, a concord of bad witnesses especially in St. Matthew, follow suit, in company with the Armenian, the Lewis, and five or more cursives, enough to make the more emphatic the condemnation by the main body of them. Besides the verdict of the cursives, thirteen uncials (as against five) including [Symbol: Phi] and [Symbol: Sigma], the Pes.h.i.tto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Arabian, some MSS. of the Vulgate, with Origen (iii. 838 (only in Lat.)); Chrysostom (vii. 707 (_bis_); ix. 755); Opus Imperf. 185 (_bis_); 186 (_bis_); John Damascene (ii. 517); Theophylact (i. 124); Hilary (89; 725); Jerome (iv. 276; v. 52; vi. 138: vii. 185)].

Worst of all, it will sometimes of necessity happen that such an omission took place at an exceedingly remote period; (for there have been careless scribes in every age:) and in consequence the error is pretty sure to have propagated itself widely. It is observed to exist (suppose) in several of the known copies; and if,--as very often is the case,--it is discoverable in two or more of the 'old uncials,' all hope of its easy extirpation is at an end. Instead of being loyally recognized as a blunder,--which it clearly is,--it is forthwith charged upon the Apostle or Evangelist as the case may be. In other words, it is taken for granted that the clause in dispute can have had no place in the sacred autograph. It is henceforth treated as an unauthorized accretion to the text. Quite idle henceforth becomes the appeal to the ninety-nine copies out of a hundred which contain the missing words. I proceed to give an instance of my meaning.

Our Saviour, having declared (St. Matt. xix. 9) that whosoever putteth away his wife [Greek: ei me epi p.o.r.neia, kai gamese allen, moichatai],--adds [Greek: kai ho apolelymenen gamesas moichatai]. Those five words are not found in Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]DLS, nor in several copies of the Old Latin nor in some copies of the Bohairic, and the Sahidic. Tischendorf and Tregelles accordingly reject them.

And yet it is perfectly certain that the words are genuine. Those thirty-one letters probably formed three lines in the oldest copies of all. Hence they are observed to exist in the Syriac (Pes.h.i.tto, Harkleian and Jerusalem), the Vulgate, some copies of the Old Latin, the Armenian, and the Ethiopic, besides at least seventeen uncials (including B[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]), and the vast majority of the cursives.

So that there can be no question of the genuineness of the clause.

A somewhat graver instance of omission resulting from precisely the same cause meets us a little further on in the same Gospel. The threefold recurrence of [Greek: ton] in the expression [Greek: ToN psichion ToN piptonToN] (St. Luke xvi. 21), has (naturally enough) resulted in the dropping of the words [Greek: psichion ton] out of some copies.

Unhappily the sense is not destroyed by the omission. We are not surprised therefore to discover that the words are wanting in--[Symbol: Aleph]BL: or to find that [Symbol: Aleph]BL are supported here by copies of the Old Latin, and (as usual) by the Egyptian versions, nor by Clemens Alex.[50] and the author of the Dialogus[51]. Jerome, on the other hand, condemns the Latin reading, and the Syriac Versions are observed to approve of Jerome's verdict, as well as the Gothic. But what settles the question is the fact that every known Greek MS., except those three, witnesses against the omission: besides Ambrose[52], Jerome[53], Eusebius[54] Alex., Gregory[55] Naz., Asterius[56], Basil[57], Ephraim[58] Syr., Chrysostom[59], and Cyril[60] of Alexandria. Perplexing it is notwithstanding to discover, and distressing to have to record, that all the recent Editors of the Gospels are more or less agreed in abolishing 'the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table.'

[The foregoing instances afford specimens of the influence of accidental causes upon the transmission from age to age of the Text of the Gospels.

Before the sense of the exact expressions of the Written Word was impressed upon the mind of the Church,--when the Canon was not definitely acknowledged, and the halo of antiquity had not yet gathered round writings which had been recently composed,--severe accuracy was not to be expected. Errors would be sure to arise, especially from accident, and early ancestors would be certain to have a numerous progeny; besides that evil would increase, and slight deviations would give rise in the course of natural development to serious and perplexing corruptions.

In the next chapter, other kinds of accidental causes will come under consideration.]

FOOTNOTES:

[50] P. 232.

[51] _Ap._ Orig. i. 827.

[52] Ambrose i. 659, 1473, 1491:--places which shew how insecure would be an inference drawn from i. 543 and 665.

[53] Hieron. v. 966; vi. 969.

[54] _Ap._ Mai ii. 516, 520.

[55] i. 370.

[56] P. 12.

[57] ii. 169.

[58] ii. 142.

[59] i. 715, 720; ii. 662 (_bis_) 764; vii. 779.

[60] v^{2}. 149 (luc. text, 524).

CHAPTER IV.

ACCIDENTAL CAUSES OF CORRUPTION.

III. From Writing in Uncials.

-- 1.

Corrupt readings have occasionally resulted from the ancient practice of writing Scripture in the uncial character, without accents, punctuation, or indeed any division of the text. Especially are they found in places where there is something unusual in the structure of the sentence.

St. John iv. 35-6 ([Greek: leukai eisi pros therismon ede]) has suffered in this way,--owing to the unusual position of [Greek: ede]. Certain of the scribes who imagined that [Greek: ede] might belong to ver. 36, rejected the [Greek: kai] as superfluous; though no Father is known to have been guilty of such a solecism. Others, aware that [Greek: ede] can only belong to ver. 35, were not unwilling to part with the copula at the beginning of ver. 36. A few, considering both words of doubtful authority, retained neither[61]. In this way it has come to pa.s.s that there are four ways of exhibiting this place:--(_a_) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Kai ho therizon]:--(_b_) [Greek: pros therismon. ede ho th.]:--(_c_) [Greek: pros therismon ede. Ho therizon]:--(_d_) [Greek: pros therismon. Ho therizon, k.t.l.]

The only point of importance however is the position of [Greek: ede]: which is claimed for ver. 35 by the great ma.s.s of the copies: as well as by Origen[62], Eusebius[63], Chrysostom[64], Cyril[65], the Vulgate, Jerome of course, and the Syriac. The Italic copies are hopelessly divided here[66]: and Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]BM[Symbol: Pi] do not help us. But [Greek: ede] is claimed for ver. 36 by CDEL, 33, and by the Curetonian and Lewis (= [Greek: kai ede ho therizon]): while Codex A is singular in beginning ver. 36, [Greek: ede kai],--which shews that some early copyist, with the correct text before him, adopted a vicious punctuation. For there can be no manner of doubt that the commonly received text and the usual punctuation is the true one: as, on a careful review of the evidence, every unprejudiced reader will allow.

But recent critics are for leaving out [Greek: kai] (with [Symbol: Aleph]BCDL): while Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Tregelles (_marg._), are for putting the full stop after [Greek: pros therismon] and (with ACDL) making [Greek: ede] begin the next sentence,--which (as Alford finds out) is clearly inadmissible.

-- 2.

Sometimes this affects the translation. Thus, the Revisers propose in the parable of the prodigal son,--'And I perish _here_ with hunger!' But why '_here_?' Because I answer, whereas in the earliest copies of St.

Luke the words stood thus,--[Greek: EG.o.dELIMoAPOLLYMAI], some careless scribe after writing [Greek: EG.o.dE], reduplicated the three last letters ([Greek: oDE]): he mistook them for an independent word. Accordingly in the Codex Bezae, in R and U and about ten cursives, we encounter [Greek: ego de ode]. The inventive faculty having thus done its work it remained to superadd 'transposition,' as was done by [Symbol: Aleph]BL. From [Greek: ego de ode limo], the sentence has now developed into [Greek: ego de limo ode]: which approves itself to Griesbach and Schultz, to Lachmann and Tischendorf and Tregelles, to Alfoid and Westcott and Hort, and to the Revisers. A very ancient blunder, certainly, [Greek: ego de ode] is: for it is found in the Latin[67] and the Syriac translations.

It must therefore date from the second century. But it is a blunder notwithstanding: a blunder against which 16 uncials and the whole body of the cursives bear emphatic witness[68]. Having detected its origin, we have next to trace its progress.

The inventors of [Greek: ode] or other scribes quickly saw that this word requires a correlative in the earlier part of the sentence.

Accordingly, the same primitive authorities which advocate 'here,' are observed also to advocate, above, 'in my Father's house.' No extant Greek copy is known to contain the bracketed words in the sentence [Greek: [en to oiko] tou patros mou]: but such copies must have existed in the second century. The Pes.h.i.tto, the Cureton and Lewis recognize the three words in question; as well as copies of the Latin with which Jerome[69], Augustine[70] and Ca.s.sian[71] were acquainted. The phrase 'in domo patris mei' has accordingly established itself in the Vulgate.

But surely we of the Church of England who have been hitherto spared this second blunder, may reasonably (at the end of 1700 years) refuse to take the first downward step. Our Lord intended no contrast whatever between two localities--but between two parties. The comfortable estate of the hired servants He set against the abject misery of the Son: not the house wherein the servants dwelt, and the spot where the poor prodigal was standing when he came to a better mind.--These are many words; but I know not how to be briefer. And,--what is worthy of discussion, if not the utterances of 'the Word made flesh?'

If hesitation to accept the foregoing verdict lingers in any quarter, it ought to be dispelled by a glance at the context in [Symbol: Aleph]BL.

What else but the instinct of a trained understanding is it to survey the neighbourhood of a place like the present? Accordingly, we discover that in ver. 16, for [Greek: gemisai ten koilian autou apo], [Symbol: Aleph]BDLR present us with [Greek: chortasthenai ek]: and in ver. 22, the prodigal, on very nearly the same authority ([Symbol: Aleph]BDUX), is made to say to his father,--[Greek: Poieson me hos hena ton misthion sou]:

Which certainly he did not say[72]. Moreover, [Symbol: Aleph]BLX and the Old Latin are for thrusting in [Greek: tachy] (D [Greek: tacheos]) after [Greek: exenenkate]. Are not these one and all confessedly fabricated readings? the infelicitous attempts of some well-meaning critic to improve upon the inspired original?

From the fact that three words in St. John v. 44 were in the oldest MSS.

written thus,--[Greek: MONOUTHUOU] (i.e. [Greek: monou Theou ou]), the middle word ([Greek: theou]) got omitted from some very early copies; whereby the sentence is made to run thus in English,--'And seek not the honour which cometh from the only One.' It is so that Origen[73], Eusebius[74], Didymus[75], besides the two best copies of the Old Latin, exhibit the place. As to Greek MSS., the error survives only in B at the present day, the preserver of an Alexandrian error.

-- 3.

St. Luke explains (Acts xxvii. 14) that it was the 'typhonic wind called Euroclydon' which caused the ship in which St. Paul and he sailed past Crete to incur the 'harm and loss' so graphically described in the last chapter but one of the Acts. That wind is mentioned nowhere but in this one place. Its name however is sufficiently intelligible; being compounded of [Greek: Euros], the 'south-east wind,' and [Greek: klydon], 'a tempest:' a compound which happily survives intact in the Pes.h.i.tto version. The Syriac translator, not knowing what the word meant, copied what he saw,--'the blast' (he says) 'of the tempest[76], which [blast] is called Tophonikos Eurokl[=i]don.' Not so the licentious scribes of the West. They insisted on extracting out of the actual 'Euroclydon,' the imaginary name 'Euro-aquilo,' which accordingly stands to this day in the Vulgate. (Not that Jerome himself so read the name of the wind, or he would hardly have explained '_Eurielion_' or '_Euriclion_' to mean 'commiscens, sive deorsum ducens[77].') Of this feat of theirs, Codexes [Symbol: Aleph] and A (in which [Greek: EUROKLUDoN] has been perverted into [Greek: EURAKULoN]) are at this day _the sole surviving Greek witnesses_. Well may the evidence for 'Euro-aquilo' be scanty! The fabricated word collapses the instant it is examined. Nautical men point out that it is 'inconsistent in its construction with the principles on which the names of the intermediate or compound winds are framed:'--

'_Euronotus_ is so called as intervening immediately between _Eurus_ and _Notus_, and as partaking, as was thought, of the qualities of both. The same holds true of _Libonotus_, as being interposed between _Libs_ and _Notus_. Both these compound winds lie in the same quarter or quadrant of the circle with the winds of which they are composed, and no other wind intervenes. But _Eurus_ and _Aquilo_ are at 90 distance from one another; or according to some writers, at 105; the former lying in the south-east quarter, and the latter in the north-east: and two winds, one of which is the East cardinal point, intervene, as Caecias and Subsola.n.u.s[78].'

Further, why should the wind be designated by an impossible _Latin_ name? The ship was 'a ship of Alexandria' (ver. 6). The sailors were Greeks. What business has '_Aquilo_' here? Next, if the wind did bear the name of 'Euro-aquilo,' why is it introduced in this marked way ([Greek: anemos typhonikos, ho kaloumenos]) as if it were a kind of curiosity? Such a name would utterly miss the point, which is the violence of the wind as expressed in the term Euroclydon. But above all, if St. Luke wrote [Greek: EURAK]-, how has it come to pa.s.s that every copyist but three has written [Greek: EUROK]-? The testimony of B is memorable. The original scribe wrote [Greek: EURAKUDoN][79]: the _secunda mantis_ has corrected this into [Greek: EURYKLUDoN],--which is also the reading of Euthalius[80]. The essential circ.u.mstance is, that _not_ [Greek: ULoN] but [Greek: UDoN] has all along been the last half of the word in Codex B[81].