Chapter 17

of being permitted to announce a solemn fact--concerning Capernaum[29].--The newly-discovered ancient name of the Island of Malta, _Melitene_[30], (for which geographers are indebted to the adventurous spirit of Westcott and Hort), may also be profitably considered in connexion with what is to be the subject of the present chapter. And now to break up fresh ground.

Attention is therefore invited to a case of attraction in Acts xx. 24. It is but the change of a single letter ([Greek: logoU] for [Greek: logoN]), yet has that minute deflection from the truth led to a complete mangling of the most affecting perhaps of St. Paul's utterances. I refer to the famous words [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai, oude echô tên psuchên mou timian emautô, hôs teleiôsai ton dromon mou meta charas]: excellently, because idiomatically, rendered by our Translators of 1611,--'But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.'

For [Greek: oudenos loGON], (the accusative after [Greek: poioumai]), some one having substituted [Greek: oudenos loGOU],--a reading which survives to this hour in B and C[31],--it became necessary to find something else for the verb to govern. [Greek: Tên psychên] was at hand, but [Greek: oude echô] stood in the way. [Greek: Oude echô] must therefore go[32]; and go it did,--as B, C, and [Symbol: Aleph] remain to attest. [Greek: Timian] should have gone also, if the sentence was to be made translatable; but [Greek: timian] was left behind[33]. The authors of ancient embroilments of the text were sad bunglers. In the meantime, Cod. [Symbol: Aleph] inadvertently retained St. Luke's word, [Greek: LOGON]; and because [Symbol: Aleph] here follows B in every other respect, it exhibits a text which is simply unintelligible[34].

Now the second clause of the sentence, viz. the words [Greek: oude echo tên psychên mou timian emautô], may on no account be surrendered. It is indeed beyond the reach of suspicion, being found in Codd. A, D, E, H, L, P, 13, 31,--in fact in every known copy of the Acts, except the discordant [Symbol: Aleph]BC. The clause in question is further witnessed to by the Vulgate[35],--by the Harkleian[36],--by Basil[37],--by Chrysostom[38],--by Cyril[39],--by Euthalius[40],--and by the interpolator of Ignatius[41]. What are we to think of our guides (Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers) who have nevertheless surrendered the Traditional Text and presented us instead with what Dr. Field,--who is indeed a Master in Israel,--describes as the impossible [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên timian emautô][42]?

The words of the last-named eminent scholar on the reading just cited are so valuable in themselves, and are observed to be so often in point, that they shall find place here:--'Modern Critics,' he says, 'in deference to the authority of the older MSS., and to certain critical canons which prescribe that preference should be given to the shorter and more difficult reading over the longer and easier one, have decided that the T.R. in this passage is to be replaced by that which is contained in those older MSS.

'In regard to the difficulty of this reading, that term seems hardly applicable to the present case. A difficult reading is one which presents something apparently incongruous in the sense, or anomalous in the construction, which an ignorant or half-learned copyist would endeavour, by the use of such critical faculty as he possessed, to remove; but which a true critic is able, by probable explanation, and a comparison of similar cases, to defend against all such fancied improvements. In the reading before us, [Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên timian emautô], it is the construction, and not the sense, which is in question; and this is not simply difficult, but impossible. There is really no way of getting over it; it baffles novices and experts alike[43].' When will men believe that a reading vouched for by only B[Symbol: Aleph]C is safe to be a fabrication[44]? But at least when Copies and Fathers combine, as here they do, against those three copies, what can justify critics in upholding a text which carries on its face its own condemnation?

§ 3.

We now come to the inattention of those long-since-forgotten Ist or IInd century scribes who, beguiled by the similarity of the letters [Greek: EN] and [Greek: AN] (in the expression [Greek: ENANthrôpois eudokia], St. Luke ii. 14), left out the preposition. An unintelligible clause was the consequence, as has been explained above (p. 21): which some one next sought to remedy by adding to [Greek: eudokia] the sign of the genitive ([Greek: S]). Thus the Old Latin translations were made.

That this is the true history of a blunder which the latest Editors of the New Testament have mistaken for genuine Gospel, is I submit certain[45]. Most Latin copies (except 14[46]) exhibit 'pax hominibus bonae voluntatis,' as well as many Latin Fathers[47]. On the other hand, the preposition [Greek: EN] is retained in every known Greek copy of St. Luke without exception, while the reading [Greek: eudokias] is absolutely limited to the four uncials AB[Symbol: Aleph]D. The witness of antiquity on this head is thus overwhelming and decisive.

§ 4.

In other cases the source, the very progress of a blunder,--is discoverable. Thus whereas St. Mark (in xv. 6) certainly wrote [Greek: hena desmion], [Greek: ONPER êtounto], the scribe of [Symbol: Delta], who evidently derived his text from an earlier copy in uncial letters is found to have divided the Evangelist's syllables wrongly, and to exhibit in this place [Greek: ON.PERÊTOUNTO]. The consequence might have been predicted. [Symbol: Aleph]AB transform this into [Greek: ON PARÊTOUNTO]: which accordingly is the reading adopted by Tischendorf and by Westcott and Hort.

Whenever in fact the final syllable of one word can possibly be mistaken for the first syllable of the next, or _vice versa_, it is safe sooner or later to have misled somebody. Thus, we are not at all surprised to find St. Mark's [Greek: ha parelabon] (vii. 4) transformed into [Greek: haper elabon], but only by B.

[Another startling instance of the same phenomenon is supplied by the substitution in St. Mark vi. 22 of [Greek: tês thygatros autou Hêrôdiados] for [Greek: tês thygatros autês tês Hêrôdiados]. Here a first copyist left out [Greek: tês] as being a repetition of the last syllable of [Greek: autês], and afterwards a second attempted to improve the Greek by putting the masculine pronoun for the feminine ([Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek: AUTÊS]). The consequence was hardly to have been foreseen.]

Strange to say it results in the following monstrous figment:--that the fruit of Herod's incestuous connexion with Herodias had been a daughter, who was also named Herodias; and that she,--the King's own daughter,--was the immodest one[48] who came in and danced before him, 'his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee,' as they sat at the birthday banquet. Probability, natural feeling, the obvious requirements of the narrative, History itself--, for Josephus expressly informs us that 'Salome,' not 'Herodias,' was the name of Herodias' daughter[49],--all reclaim loudly against such a perversion of the truth. But what ought to be in itself conclusive, what in fact settles the question, is the testimony of the MSS.,--of which only seven ([Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] with two cursive copies) can be found to exhibit this strange mistake. Accordingly the reading [Greek: AUTOU] is rejected by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf and Alford. It has nevertheless found favour with Dr. Hort; and it has even been thrust into the margin of the revised Text of our Authorized Version, as a reading having some probability.

This is indeed an instructive instance of the effect of accidental errors--another proof that [Symbol: Aleph]BDL cannot be trusted.

Sufficiently obvious are the steps whereby the present erroneous reading was brought to perfection. The immediate proximity in MSS. of the selfsame combination of letters is observed invariably to result in a various reading. [Greek: AUTÊSTÊS] was safe to part with its second [Greek: TÊS] on the first opportunity, and the definitive article ([Greek: tês]) once lost, the substitution of [Greek: AUTOU] for [Greek: AUTÊS] is just such a mistake as a copyist with ill-directed intelligence would be sure to fall into if he were bestowing sufficient attention on the subject to be aware that the person spoken of in verses 20 and 21 is Herod the King.

[This recurrence of identical or similar syllables near together was a frequent source of error. Copying has always a tendency to become mechanical: and when the mind of the copyist sank to sleep in his monotonous toil, as well as if it became too active, the sacred Text suffered more or less, and so even a trifling mistake might be the seed of serious depravation.]

§ 5.

Another interesting and instructive instance of error originating in sheer accident, is supplied by the reading in certain MSS. of St. Mark viii. 1. That the Evangelist wrote [Greek: pampollou ochlou] 'the multitude being very great,' is certain. This is the reading of all the uncials but eight, of all the cursives but fifteen. But instead of this, it has been proposed that we should read, 'when there was again a great multitude,' the plain fact being that some ancient scribe mistook, as he easily might, the less usual compound word for what was to himself a far more familiar expression: i.e. he mistook [Greek: PAMPOLLOU] for [Greek: PALIN POLLOU].

This blunder must date from the second century, for 'iterum' is met with in the Old Latin as well as in the Vulgate, the Gothic, the Bohairic, and some other versions. On the other hand, it is against 'every true principle of Textual Criticism' (as Dr. Tregelles would say), that the more difficult expression should be abandoned for the easier, when forty-nine out of every fifty MSS. are observed to uphold it; when the oldest version of all, the Syriac, is on the same side; when the source of the mistake is patent; and when the rarer word is observed to be in St. Mark's peculiar manner. There could be in fact no hesitation on this subject, if the opposition had not been headed by those notorious false witnesses [Symbol: Aleph]BDL, which it is just now the fashion to uphold at all hazards. They happen to be supported on this occasion by GMN[Symbol: Delta] and fifteen cursives: while two other cursives look both ways and exhibit [Greek: palin pampollou].

In St Mark vii. 14, [Greek: palin] was similarly misread by some copyists for [Greek: panta], and has been preserved by [Symbol: Aleph]BDL[Symbol: Delta] ([Greek: PALIN] for [Greek: PANTA]) against thirteen uncials, all the cursives, the Peshitto and Armenian.

So again in St. John xiii. 37. A reads [Greek: dynasai moi] by an evident slip of the pen for [Greek: dynamai soi]. And in xix. 31 [Greek: megalÊ Ê Êmera] has become [Greek: megalê hêmera] in [Symbol: Aleph]AE[Symbol: Gamma] and some cursive copies.

FOOTNOTES:

[18] See the passages quoted in Scrivener's Introduction, II. 270-2, 4th ed.

[19] Tertull. (Prax. c. 22): Ambr. (ii. 576, 607, 689 _bis_): Hilary (930 _bis_, 1089): Jerome (v. 208): Augustin (iii^2. 615): Maximinus, an Arian bishop (_ap_. Aug. viii. 651).

[20] Pater (_or_ Pater meus) quod dedit mihi (_or_ mihi dedit), majus omnibus est (_or_ majus est omnibus: _or_ omnibus majus est).

[21] iii^2. 615. He begins, '_Quid dedit Filio Pater majus omnibus? Ut ipsi ille esset unigenitus Filius_.'

[22] i. 236.

[23] viii. 363 _bis_.

[24] i. 188: ii. 567: iii. 792: iv. 666 (ed. Pusey): v^1. 326, 577, 578: _ap._ Mai ii. 13: iii. 336.

[25] v. 1065 (=Dial^{Maced} _ap._ Athanas. ii. 555).

[26] Viz. + [Greek: mou] ABD:--[Greek: mou] [Symbol: Aleph] | [Greek: os] A: [Greek: o] B[Symbol: Aleph]D | [Greek: dedôken] B[Symbol: Aleph]A: [Greek: dedôkôs] | [Greek: meizôn] [Symbol: Aleph]D: [Greek: meizon] AB | [Greek: meiz. pantôn estin] A: [Greek: pantôn meiz. estin] B[Symbol: Aleph]D.

[27] The Revision Revised, p. 51-3.

[28] The Revision Revised, p. 53-4.

[29] Ibid. p. 51-6.

[30] Ibid. p. 177-8.

[31] Also in Ammonius the presbyter, A.D. 458--see Cramer's Cat. p. 334-5, _last line_. [Greek: Logou] is read besides in the cursives Act. 36, 96, 105.

[32] I look for an approving word from learned Dr. Field, who wrote in 1875--'The real obstacle to our acquiescing in the reading of the T.R. is, that if the words [Greek: oude echô] had once formed a part of the original text, there is no possibility of accounting for the subsequent omission of them.' The same remark, but considerably toned down, is found in his delightful Otium Norvicense, P. iii, p. 84.

[33] B and C read--[Greek: all' oudenos logou poioumai tên psychên emautô]: which is exactly what Lucifer Calarit. represents,--'_sed pro nihilo aestimo animam meam caram esse mihi_' (Galland. vi. 241).

[34] [Symbol: Aleph] reads--[Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tên psychên timian emautô hôs teleiôsô ton dromon mou].

[35] '_Sed nihil horum_ ([Greek: toutôn] is found in many Greek Codd.) _vereor, nee facio animam meam pretiosiorem quam me_.' So, the _Cod. Amiat._ It is evident then that when Ambrose (ii. 1040) writes '_nec facio animam meam cariorem mihi_,' he is quoting the latter of these two clauses. Augustine (iii^{1}. 516), when he cites the place thus, '_Non enim facto animam meam preliosiorem quam me_'; and elsewhere (iv. 268) '_pretiosam mihi_'; also Origen (_interp._ iv. 628 c), '_sed ego non facto cariorem animam meam mihi_'; and even the Coptic, '_sed anima mea, dico, non est pretiosa mihi in aliquo verbo_':--these evidently summarize the place, by making a sentence out of what survives of the second clause. The Latin of D exhibits '_Sed nihil horum cura est mihi: neque habeo ipsam animam caram mihi_.'

[36] Dr. Field says that it may be thus Graecized--[Greek: all' oudena logon poioumai, oude lelogistai moi psychê ti timion].

[37] ii. 296 e,--exactly as the T.R.

[38] Exactly as the T.R., except that he writes [Greek: tên psychên] without [Greek: mou] (ix. 332). So again, further on (334 b), [Greek: ouk echô timian tên emautou psychên]. This latter place is quoted in Cramer's Cat. 334.

[39] _Ap._ Mai ii. 336 [Greek: edei kai tês zôês kataphronein hyper tou teleiôsai ton dromon, oude tên psychên ephê poieiôsai timian heautô.]

[40] [Greek: logon echô, oude poioumai tên psychên timian emautô, ôste k.t.l.] (_ap._ Galland. x. 222).

[41] [Greek: all' oudenos logon poioumai tôn deinôn, oude echô tên psychên timian emautô]. Epist. ad Tars. c. 1 (Dressel, p. 255).

[42] The whole of Dr. Field's learned annotation deserves to be carefully read and pondered. I speak of it especially in the shape in which it originally appeared, viz. in 1875.

[43] Ibid. p. 2 and 3.

[44] Surprising it is how largely the text of this place has suffered at the hands of Copyists and Translators. In A and D, the words [Greek: poioumai] and [Greek: echô] have been made to change places. The latter Codex introduces [Greek: moi] after [Greek: echô],--for [Greek: emautô] writes [Greek: emautou],--and exhibits [Greek: tou teleiôsai] without [Greek: hôs]. C writes [Greek: hôs to teleiôsai]. [Symbol: Aleph]B alone of Codexes present us with [Greek: teleiôsô] for [Greek: teleiôsai], and are followed by Westcott and Hort _alone of Editors_. The Peshitto ('_sed mihi nihili aestimatur anima mea_'), the Sahidic ('_sed non facto animam meam in ullâ re_'), and the Aethiopic ('_sed non reputo animam meam nihil quidquam_'), get rid of [Greek: timian] as well as of [Greek: oude echô]. So much diversity of text, and in such primitive witnesses, while it points to a remote period as the date of the blunder to which attention is called in the text, testifies eloquently to the utter perplexity which that blunder occasioned from the first.

[45] Another example of the same phenomenon, (viz. the absorption of [Greek: EN] by the first syllable of [Greek: ANthrôpois]) is to be seen in Acts iv. 12,--where however the error has led to no mischievous results.

[46] For those which insert _in_ (14), and those which reject it (25), see Wordsworth's edition of the Vulgate on this passage.

[47] Of Fathers:--Ambrose i. 1298--Hieronymus i. 448^{2}, 693, 876: ii. 213: iv. 34, 92: v. 147: vi. 638: vii. 241, 251, 283,--Augustine 34 times,--Optatus (Galland. v. 472, 457),--Gaudentius Brix. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Chromatius Ag. (Gall. viii. 337),--Orosius (_ib._ ix. 134), Marius M. (_ib._ viii. 672), Maximus Taur. (_ib._ ix. 355),--Sedulius (_ib._ 575),--Leo M. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Mamertus Claudianus (Gall. x. 431),--Vigilius Taps. (_ap._ Sabat.),--Zacchaeus (Gall. ix. 241),--Caesarius Arel. (_ib._ xi. 11),--ps.-Ambros. ii. 394, 396,--Hormisdas P. (Conc. iv. 1494, 1496),--52 Bps. at 8th Council of Toledo (Conc. vi. 395), &c., &c.

[48] See Wetstein on this place.

[49] Antiqq. i. 99, xviii. 5. 4.