« Prev Chapter XIV. Causes of Corruption Chiefly… Next »

CHAPTER XIV.

CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.

X. CORRUPTION BY THE ORTHODOX.

§ 1.

ANOTHER cause why, in very early times, the Text of the Gospels underwent serious depravation, was mistaken solicitude on the part of the ancient orthodox for the purity of the Catholic faith. These persons, like certain of the moderns, Beza for example, evidently did not think it at all wrong to tamper with the inspired Text. If any expression seemed to them to have a dangerous tendency, they altered it, or transplanted it, or removed it bodily from the sacred page. About the uncritical nature of what they did, they entertained no suspicion: about the immorality of the proceeding, they evidently did not trouble themselves at all. On the contrary, the piety of the motive seems to have been held to constitute a sufficient excuse for any amount of licence. The copies which had undergone this process of castigation were even styled ‘corrected,’—and doubtless were popularly looked upon as ‘the correct copies’ [like our ‘critical texts’]. An illustration of this is afforded by a circumstance mentioned by Epiphanius.

212

He states (ii. 36) that the orthodox, out of jealousy for the Lord’s. Divinity, eliminated from St. Luke xix. 41 the record that our Saviour ‘wept.’ We will not pause to inquire what this statement may be worth. But when the same Father adds,—‘In the uncorrected copies (ἐν τοῖς ἀδιορθώτοις ἀντιγράφοις) is found “He wept,”’ Epiphanius is instructive. Perfectly well aware that the expression is genuine, he goes on to state that ‘Irenaeus quoted it in his work against Heresies, when he had to confute the error of the Docetae497497    Πρὸς τοὶς δοκήσει τὸν Χριστὸν πεφηνέναι λέγοντας..’ ‘Nevertheless,’ Epiphanius adds, the orthodox through fear erased the record.’

So then, the process of ‘correction’ was a critical process conducted on utterly erroneous principles by men who knew nothing whatever about Textual Criticism. Such recensions of the Text proved simply fatal to the Deposit. To ‘correct’ was in this and such like cases simply to ‘corrupt.’

Codexes BאD may be regarded as specimens of Codexes which have once and again passed through the hands of such a corrector or διορθωτής.

St. Luke (ii. 40) records concerning the infant Saviour that the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit.’ By repeating the selfsame expression which already,—viz. in chap. i. 80,—had been applied to the Childhood of the Forerunner498498    Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε, καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι., it was clearly the design of the Author of Scripture to teach that the Word ‘made flesh’ submitted to the same laws of growth and increase as every other Son of Adam. The body ‘grew,’—the spiritual part ‘waxed strong.’ This statement was nevertheless laid hold of by the enemies of Christianity. How can it be pretended (they asked) that He was ‘perfect God’ (τέλειος Θεός), of whom it is related in respect of His spirit that 213he waxed strong499499    It is the twenty-fourth and the thirtieth question in the first Dialogus of pseudo-Caesarius (Gall. vi. 17, 20).’? The consequence might have been foreseen. Certain of the orthodox were ill-advised enough to erase the word πνεύματι from the copies of St. Luke ii. 40; and lo, at the end of 1,500 years, four ‘corrected’ copies, two Versions, one Greek Father, survive to bear witness to the ancient fraud. No need to inquire which, what, and who these be.

But because it is אBDL, Origen500500    Opp. 953, 954—with suspicious emphasis., and the Latin, the Egyptian and Lewis which are without the word πνεύματι, Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, and the Revisers jump to the conclusion that πνεύματι is a spurious accretion to the Text. They ought to reverse their proceeding; and recognize in the evidence one more indication of the untrustworthiness of the witnesses. For,—how then is it supposed that the word (πνεύματι) ever obtained its footing in the Gospel? For all reply we are assured that it has been imported hither from St. Luke i. 80. But, we rejoin, How does the existence of the phrase ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι in i. 80 explain its existence in ii. 40, in every known copy of the Gospels except four, if in these 996 places, suppose, it be an interpolation? This is what has to be explained. Is it credible that all the remaining uncials, and every known cursive copy, besides all the lectionaries, should have been corrupted in this way: and that the truth should survive exclusively at this time only in the remaining four; viz. in B–א,—the sixth century Cod. D,—and the eighth century Cod. L?

When then, and where did the work of depravation take place? It must have been before the sixth century, because Leontius of Cyprus501501    Ed. Migne, vol. 93, p. 1581 a, b (Novum Auct. i. 700). quotes it three times and discusses the expression at length:—before the fifth, because, besides 214Cod. A, Cyril502502    When Cyril writes (Scholia, ed. Pusey, vol. vi. 568),—“Τὸ δὲ παιδίον ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙ, πληρούμενον ΣΟΦΙΑ καὶ ΧΑΡΙΤΙ.” καίτοι κατὰ φύσιν παντέλειός ἐστιν ὡς Θεὸς καὶ ἐξ ἰδίου πληρώματος διανέμει τοῖς ἁγίοις τὰ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΑ, καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ ΣΟΦΙΑ, καὶ τῆς ΧΑΡΙΤΟΣ ὁ δοτήρ,—it is clear that πνεύματι must have stood in Cyril’s text. The same is the reading of Cyril’s Treatise, De Incarnatione (Mai, ii. 57): and of his Commentary on St. Luke (ibid. p. 136). One is surprised at Tischendorf’s perverse inference concerning the last-named place. Cyril had begun by quoting the whole of ver. 40 in exact conformity with the traditional text (Mai, ii. 136). At the close of some remarks (found both in Mai and in Cramer’s Catena), Cyril proceeds as follows, according to the latter:—ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς ἔφη “ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο” ΚΑΙ ΤΑ ΕΞΗΣ. Surely this constitutes no ground for supposing that he did not recognize the word πνεύματι, but rather that he did. On the other hand, it is undeniable that in V. P. ii. 138 and 139 (= Concilia iii. 241 d, 244 a), from Pusey’s account of what he found in the MSS. (vii. P. i. 277-8)) the word πνεύματι must be suspected of being an unauthorized addition to the text of Cyril’s treatise, De Rectâ fide ad Pulcheriam et Eudociam., Theodoret503503    ii. 152: iv. 112: v. 120, 121 (four times). and ps.-Caesarius504504    Εἰ τέλειός ἐστι Θεὸς ὁ Χριστός, πῶς ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς λέγει, τὸ δὲ παιδίον Ἰησοῦς ηὔξανε καὶ ἐκραταιοῦτο πνεύματι;—S. Caesarii, Dialogus I, Quaest. 24 (ap. Galland. vi. 17 c). And see Quaest. 30. recognize the word:—before the fourth, because Epiphanius505505    ii. 36 d., Theodore of Mopsuestia506506    Fragmenta Syriaca, ed. Sachau, p.53.—The only other Greek Fathers who quote the place are Euthymius and Theophylact., and the Gothic version have it:—before the third, before nearly all of the second century, because it is found in the Peshitto. What more plain than that we have before us one other instance of the injudicious zeal of the orthodox? one more sample of the infelicity of modern criticism?

§ 2.

Theodotus and his followers fastened on the first part of St. John viii. 40, when they pretended to shew from Scripture that Christ is mere Man507507    Ἢν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ Epiph. i. 463.. I am persuaded that the reading ‘of My Father508508    Instead of παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ.,’—which Origen509509    i. 410: iv. 294, 534. Elsewhere he defends and employs it., Epiphanius510510    i. 260, 463: 49., Athanasius511511    i. 705., Chrysostom512512    viii. 365., Cyril Alex.513513    (Glaph.) i. 18., 215and Theodoret514514    iv. 83, 430. But both Origen (1. 705: iv. 320, 402) and Cyril (iv. 554: v. 758) quote the traditional reading; and Cyril (iv. 549) distinctly says that the latter is right, and παρὰ τοῦ πατρός wrong. prove to have been acquainted,—was substituted by some of the orthodox in this place, with the pious intention of providing a remedy for the heretical teaching of their opponents. At the present day only six cursive copies are known to retain this trace of a corruption of Scripture which must date from the second century.

We now reach a most remarkable instance. It will be remembered that St. John in his grand preface does not rise to the full height of his sublime argument until he reaches the eighteenth verse. He had said (ver. 14) that the ‘Word was made flesh,’ &c.; a statement which Valentinus was willing to admit. But, as we have seen, the heresiarch and his followers denied that ‘the Word’ is also ‘the Son’ of God. As if in order to bar the door against this pretence, St. John announces (ver. 18) that ‘the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him’: thus establishing the identity of the Word and the Only begotten Son. What else could the Valentinians do with so plain a statement, but seek to deprave it? Accordingly, the very first time St. John i. 18 is quoted by any of the ancients, it is accompanied by the statement that the Valentinians in order to prove that the ‘only begotten’ is ‘the Beginning,’ and is ‘God,’ appeal to the words,—‘the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father515515    Excerpt. Theod. 968.—Heracleon’s name is also connected by Origen with this text. Valentinus (ap. Iren. 100) says, ὃν δὴ καὶ υἱὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ Θεὸν κέκληκεν.,’ &c. Inasmuch, said they, as the Father willed to become known to the worlds, the Spirit of Gnosis produced the ‘only begotten’ ‘Gnosis,’ and therefore gave birth to ‘Gnosis,’ that is to ;the Son’: in order that by ‘the Son’ ‘the Father’ might be made known. While then that ‘only begotten Son’ abode ‘in the bosom of the 216Father,’ He caused that here upon earth should be seen, alluding to ver. 14, one ‘as the only begotten Son.’ In which, by the way, the reader is requested to note that the author of the Excerpta Theodoti (a production of the second century) reads St. John i. 18 as we do.

I have gone into all these strange details,—derived, let it be remembered, from documents which carry us back to the former half of the second century,—because in no other way is the singular phenomenon which attends the text of St. John i. 18 to be explained and accounted for. Sufficiently plain and easy of transmission as it is, this verse of Scripture is observed to exhibit perturbations which are even extraordinary. Irenaeus once writes ὁ [?] μονογενὴς υἱός: once, ὁ [?] μονογενὴς Θεός: once, ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεοῦ516516    Pp. 627, 630, 466.: Clemens Alex., ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς μόνος517517    P. 956.; which must be very nearly the reading of the Codex from which the text of the Vercelli Copy of the Old Latin was derived518518    ‘Deum nemo vidit umquam: nisi unicus filius solus, sinum patris ipse enarravit.’—(Comp. Tertullian:—‘Solus filius patrem novit et sinum patris ipse exposuit’ (Prax. c. 8. Cp. c. 21): but he elsewhere (ibid. c. 15) exhibits the passage in the usual way.) Clemens writes,—τότε ἐποπτεύσεις τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρός, ὃν ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς Θεὸς μόνος ἐξηγήσατο (956), and in the Excerpt. Theod. we find οὖτος τὸν κόλπον τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐξηγήσατο ὁ Σωτήρ (969). But this is unintelligible until it is remembered that our Lord is often spoken of by the Fathers as ἡ δεξιά τοῦ ὑψίστου . . . κόλπος δέ τῆς δεξιᾶς ὁ Πατήρ.(Greg. Nyss. 192.). Eusebius four times writes 6ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός519519    Ps. 440 (–ὁ): Marcell. 165, 179, 273.: twice, μονογενὴς Θεός520520    Marcell. 334: Theoph. 14.: and on one occasion gives his reader the choice of either expression, explaining why both may stand521521    Marcell. 132. Read on to p. 134.. Gregory Nyss.522522    Opp. ii. 466. and Basil523523    Opp. iii. 23, 358., though they recognize the usual reading of the place, are evidently vastly more familiar with the reading ὁ μονογενὴς Θεός524524    Greg. Nyss. Opp. i. 192, 663 (θεὸς πάντως ὁ μονογενής, ὁ ἐν τοῖς κόλποις ὢν τοῦ Πατρός, οὕτως εἰπόντος τοῦ Ἰωάννου) Also ii. 432, 447, 450, 470, 506: (always ἐν τοῖς κόλποις). Basil, Opp. iii. 12.: for Basil 217adopts the expression thrice525525    Basil, Opp. iii. 14, 16, 117: and so Eunomius (ibid. i. 623)., and Gregory nearly thirty-three times as often526526    Contra Eunom. I have noted ninety-eight places.. This was also the reading of Cyril Alex.527527    Cyril (iv. 104) paraphrases St. John i. 18 thus:—αὐτὸς γὰρ Θεὸς ὢν ὁ μονογενὴς, ἐν κόλποις ὢν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ πατρός, ταύτην πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὲποιήσατο τὴν ἐξήγησιν. Presently (p. 105), he says that St. John καὶ “μονογενῆ Θεὸν” ἀποκαλεῖ τὸν υἱόν, καὶ “ἐν κόλποις” εἶναι φησὶ τοῦ πατρός But on p. 107 he speaks quite plainly: ὁ μονογενής,” φησί, “Θεός, ὁ ὣν εἰς τὸν κὸλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγῇσατο.” ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἔφη “μονογενῆ” καὶ “Θεόν,” τίθησιν εὐθύς, “ὁ ὢν ἐν τοῖς κόλποις τοῦ πατρός.’—So v. 137, 768. And yet he reads υἱός in v. 365, 437: vi. 90., whose usual phrase however is ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγος528528    He uses it seventeen times in his Comm.on Isaiah (ii. 4, 35, 122, &c.), and actually so reads St. John i. 18 in one place (Opp. vi. 587). Theodoret once adopts the phrase (Opp. v. 4).. Didymus has only [? cp. context] ὁ μονογενὴς Θεός, —for which he once writes ὁ μονογενὴς Θεὸς λόγος529529    De Trin. 76, 140, 372:—7.. Cyril of Jer. seems to have read ὁ μονογενὴς μόνος530530    P. 117..

[I have retained this valuable and suggestive passage in the form in which the Dean left it. It evidently has not the perfection that attends some of his papers, and would have been amplified and improved if his life had been spared. More passages than he noticed, though limited to the ante-Chrysostom period, are referred to in the companion volume531531    Traditional Text, p. 113, where the references are given.. The portentous number of mentions by Gregory of Nyssa escaped me, though I knew that there were several. Such repetitions of a phrase could only be admitted into my calculation in a restricted and representative number. Indeed, I often quoted at least on our side less than the real number of such reiterations occurring in one passage, because in course of repetition they came to assume for such a purpose a parrot-like value.

But the most important part of the Dean’s paper is found in his account of the origin of the expression. This inference is strongly confirmed by the employment of it 218in the Arian controversy. Arius reads Θεός (ap. Epiph. 73—Tischendorf), whilst his opponents read Υἱός. So Faustinus seven times (I noted him only thrice), and Victorinus Afer six (10) times in reply to the Arian Candidus532532    Who quoted Arius’ words:—‘Subsistit ante tempora et aeones plenus Deus, ungenitus, et immutabilis.’ But I cannot yet find Tischendorf’s reference.. Also Athanasius and Hilary of Poictiers four times each, and Ambrose eight (add Epp. I. xxii. 5). It is curious that with this history admirers of B and א should extol their reading over the Traditional reading on the score of orthodoxy. Heresy had and still retains associations which cannot be ignored: in this instance some of the orthodox weakly played into the hands of heretics533533    The reading Υἱός is established by unanswerable evidence.. None may read Holy Scripture just as the idea strikes them.]

§ 3.

All are familiar with the received text of 1 Cor. xv. 47:—ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ἐκ γῆς χοϊκός· ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος ὁ Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. That this place was so read in the first age is certain: for so it stands in the Syriac. These early heretics however of whom St. John speaks, who denied that ‘Jesus Christ had come in the flesh534534    The Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus were the direct precursors of Apolonius, Photinus, Nestorius, &c., in assailing the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Their heresy must have been actively at work when St. John wrote his first (iv. 1, 2, 3) and second (ver. 7) Epistles.,’ and who are known to have freely ‘taken away from the words’ of Scripture535535    Rev. xxii. 19., are found to have made themselves busy here. If (they argued) ‘the second man’ was indeed ‘the Lord-from-Heaven,’ how can it be pretended that Christ took upon Himself human flesh536536    Ἐπιπηδῶσιν ἡμῖν οἱ αἱρετικοί λέγοντες· ἰδοὺ οὐκ ἀνέλαβε πάρκα ὁ Χριστός· ὁ δεύτ. γάρ φησιν ἄνθρ. ὁ κ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ. Chrys. 114 b.? And to bring out this contention of theirs more plainly, they did not hesitate to remove as superfluous the word ‘man’ in the second 219clause of the sentence. There resulted,—‘The first man [was] of the earth, earthy: ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ537537    Τὴν γὰρ κατὰ σάρκα γέννησιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἀνελεῖν βουλόμενοι, ἐνήλλαξαν τό, ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος· καὶ ἐποίησαν, ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος. Dial. [ap. Orig.] i. 868.—Marcion had in fact already substituted Κύριος for ἄνθρωπος in ver. 45: (‘the last Lord became a quickening spirit’:) [Tertull. ii. 304]—a fabricated reading which is also found to have been upheld by Marcion’s followers:—ὁ ἔσχατος Κύριος εἰς πν. ζω. Dial. ubi supra. ἔδει γὰρ αὐτούς, εἴ γε τὰ εὐαγγέλια ἐτίμων, μὴ περιτέμνειν τὰ εὐαγγέλια, μὴ μέρη τῶν εὐαγγελίων ἐξυφελεῖν, μὴ ἕτερα προσθῆναι, μήτε λόγῳ, μήτε ἰδίᾳ γνώμῃ τὰ εὐαγγέλια προσγράφειν . . . . προσγεγραφήκασι γοῦν ὅσα βεβούληνται, καὶ ἐξυφείλαντο ὅσα κακρίκασι. Titus of Bostra c. Manichaeos (Galland. v. 328).,’ It is thus that Marcion538538    Tertull. 304, (Primus homo de humo terrenus, secundus Dominus de Caelo). (A.D. 130) and his followers539539    Dial. [Orig. i.] 868, (ὁ δεύτερος Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ). read the place. But in this subject-matter extravagance in one direction is ever observed to beget extravagance in another. I suspect that it was in order to counteract the ejection by the heretics of ἄνθρωπος in. ver. 47, that, early in the second century, the orthodox retaining ἄνθρωπος, judged it expedient to leave out the expression ὁ Κύριος, which had been so unfairly pressed against them; and were contented to read,—‘the second man [was] from heaven.’ A calamitous exchange, truly. For first, (I), The text thus maimed afforded countenance to another form of misbelief. And next, (II), It necessitated a further change in 1 Cor. xv. 47.

(I) It furnished a pretext to those heretics who maintained that Christ was ‘Man’ before He came into the World. This heresy came to a head in the persons of Apolinarius540540    Τὸ δὲ πάντων χαλεπώτατον ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησιαστικαῖς συμφοραῖς, ἡ τῶν Ἀπολιναριστῶν ἐστὶ παρρησία. Greg. Naz. 167. and Photinus; in contending with whom, Greg. Naz.541541    ii. 168,—a very interesting place. See also p. 87. and Epiphanius542542    i. 831. are observed to argue with disadvantage from the mutilated text. Tertullian543543    ii. 443, 531., and Cyprian544544    Pp. 180, 209, 260, 289, 307 (primus homo de terrae limo, &c.). after him, knew no other reading but ‘secundus 220homo de Caelo,’—which is in fact the way this place stands in the Old Latin. And thus, from the second century downwards, two readings (for the Marcionite text was speedily forgotten) became current in the Church:—(1) The inspired language of the Apostle, cited at the outset,—which is retained by all the known copies, except nine; and is vouched for by Basil545545    iii. 40., Chrysostom546546    iii. 114 four times: x. 394, 395. Once (xi. 374) he has ὁ δεύτ. ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ., Theodotus547547    iv. 1051., Eutherius548548    Ap. Thdt. v. 1135.; Theodorus Mops.549549    Ap. Galland. viii. 626, 627., Damascene550550    i. 222 (where for ἄνθρ. he reads Ἀδάμ), 563. Also ii. 120, 346. , Petrus Siculus551551    ’Adversus Manichaeos,’—ap. Mai, iv. 68, 69., and Theophylact552552    ii. 228:—οὐχ ὅτι ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἤτοι τὸ ἀνθρώπινον πρόσλημμα, ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἦν, ὡς ὁ ἄφρων Ἀπολιν8άριος ἐλήρει.: and (2) The corrected (i.e. the maimed) text of the orthodox;—ὁ δεύτερος· ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ: with which, besides the two Gregories553553    Naz. ii. 87 (= Thdt. iv. 62), 168.—Nyss. ii. 11., Photinus554554    Ap. Epiphan. i. 830. and Apolinarius the heretics were acquainted; but which at this day is only known to survive in א*BCD*EFG and two cursive copies. Origen555555    ii. 559 (with the Text. Recept.): iv. 302 not., and (long after him) Cyril, employed both readings556556    Hippolytus may not be cited in evidence, being read both ways. (Cp. ed. Fabr. ii. 30:—ed. Lagarde, 138. 15:—ed. Galland. ii. 483.)—Neither may the expression τοῦ δευτέρου ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Pet. Alex. (ed. Routh, Rell. Sacr. iv. 48) be safely pressed..

(II) But then, (as all must see) such a maimed exhibition of the text was intolerable. The balance of the sentence had been destroyed. Against ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, St. Paul had set ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος: against ἐκ γῆςἐξ οὐρανοῦ: against χοϊκόςὁ Κύριος:. Remove ὁ Κύριος, and some substitute for it must be invented as a counterpoise to χοϊκός. Taking a hint from what is found in ver. 48, some one (plausibly enough,) suggested ἐπουράνιος: and this gloss so effectually recommended 221itself to Western Christendom, that having been adopted by Ambrose557557    Primus homo de terra, terrenus: secundus homo de caelo caelestis.—i. 1168, 1363: ii. 265, 975. And so ps.-Ambr. 166, 437., by Jerome558558     ii. 298: iv. 930: vii. 296. (and later by Augustine559559    The places are given by Sabatier in loc.,) it established itself in the Vulgate560560    Only because it is the Vulgate reading, I am persuaded, does this reading appear in Orig. interp. ii. 84, 85: iii. 951: iv. 546., and is found in all the later Latin writers561561    As Philastrius (ap. Galland. vii. 492, 516).—Pacianus (ib. 275).—Marius Mercator (ib. viii. 664).—Capreolus (ib. ix. 493). But see the end of the next ensuing note.. Thus then, a third rival reading enters the field,—which because it has well-nigh disappeared from Greek MSS., no longer finds an advocate. Our choice lies therefore between the two former:—viz. (a) the received, which is the only well-attested reading of the place: and (b) the maimed text of the Old Latin, which Jerome deliberately rejected (A.D. 380), and for which he substituted another even worse attested reading. (Note, that these two Western fabrications effectually dispose of one another.) It should be added that Athanasius562562    Vol. i. p. 1275,—ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. ὁ Κύριος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ οὐράνιος:—on which he remarks, (if indeed it be he), ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἀμφοτέρωθεν οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος ὀνομάζεται. And lower down,—Κύριος, διὰ τὴν μίαν ὑπόστασιν· δεύτ. μὲν ἄνθρ., κατὰ τὴν ἑνωμένην ἀνθρωπότητα. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ δέ, κατὰ τὴν θεότητα.—P. 448,—ὁ δεύτερος ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ ἐπουράνιος.—Ap. Montf. ii. 13 (= Galland. v. 167),—ὁ δεύτ. ἄνθρ. ἐξ οὐρανοῦ.—Note that Maximinus, an Arian bishop, A.D. 427-8 (ap. Augustin. viii. 663) is found to have possessed a text identical with the first of the preceding:—‘Ait ipse Paulus, Primus homo Adam de terra terrenus, secundus homo Dominus de Caelo caelestis advenit. lends his countenance to all the three readings.

But now, let me ask,—Will any one be disposed, after a careful survey of the premisses, to accept the verdict of Tischendorf, Tregelles and the rest, who are for bringing the Church back to the maimed text of which I began by giving the history and explaining the origin? Let it be noted that the one question is,—shall ὁ Κύριος be retained in the 222second clause, or not? But there it stood within thirty years of the death of St. John: and there it stands, at the end of eighteen centuries in every extant copy (including AK LP) except nine. It has been excellently witnessed to all down the ages,—viz. By Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theodotus, Eutherius, Theodore Mops., Damascene and others. On what principle would you now reject it? . . . With critics who assume that a reading found in אBCDEFG must needs be genuine,—it is vain to argue. And yet the most robust faith ought to be effectually shaken by the discovery that four, if not five (אACFG) of these same MSS., by reading ‘we shall all sleep; but we shall not all be changed,’ contradict St. Paul’s solemn announcement in ver. 51: while a sixth (D) stands alone in substituting ‘we shall all rise; but we shall not all be changed.’—In this very verse, C is for introducing Ἀδάμ into the first clause of the sentence: FG, for subjoining ὁ οὐράνιος. When will men believe that guides like these are to be entertained with habitual distrust? to be listened tog with the greatest caution? to be followed, for their own sakes,—never?

I have been the fuller on this place, because it affords an instructive example of what has occasionally befallen the words of Scripture. Very seldom indeed are we able to handle a text in this way. Only when the heretics assailed, did the orthodox defend: whereby it came to pass that a record was preserved of how the text was read by the ancient Father. The attentive reader will note (a) That all the changes which we have been considering belong to the earliest age of all:—(א) That the corrupt reading is retained by אBC and their following: the genuine text, in the great bulk of the copies:—(c) That the first mention of the text is found in the writings of an early heretic:—(d) That [the orthodox introduced a change in the interests, as they fancied, of truth, but from utter misapprehension 223of the nature and authority of the Word of God:—and (e) that under the Divine Providence that change was so effectually thrown out, that decisive witness is found on the other side].

§ 4.

Closely allied to the foregoing, and constantly referred to in connexion with it by those Fathers who undertook to refute the heresy of Apolinarius, is our Lord’s declaration to Nicodemus,—‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven’ (St. John iii. 13). Christ ‘came down from heaven’ when He became incarnate: and having become incarnate, is said to have ‘ascended up to Heaven,’ and ‘to be in Heaven,’ because ‘the Son of Man,’ who was not in heaven before, by virtue of the hypostatical union was thenceforward evermore ‘in heaven.’ But the Evangelist’s language was very differently taken by those heretics who systematically ‘maimed and misinterpreted that which belongeth to the human nature of Christ.’ Apolinarius, who relied on the present place, is found to have read it without the final clause (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανοῷ); and certain of the orthodox (as Greg. Naz., Greg. Nyssa, Epiphanius, while contending with him,) shew themselves not unwilling to argue from the text so mutilated. Origen and the author of the Dialogus once, Eusebius twice, Cyril not fewer than nineteen times, also leave off at the words even the Son of Man’: from which it is insecurely gathered that those Fathers disallowed the clause which follows. On the other hand, thirty-eight Fathers and ten Versions maintain the genuineness of the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανοῷ563563    See Revision Revised, pp. 132-5: and The Traditional Text, p. 114.. But the decisive circumstance is that,—besides the Syriac and the Latin copies which 224all witness to the existence of the clause,—the whole body of the uncials, four only excepted (אBLTb), and every known cursive but one (33)—are for retaining it.

No thoughtful reader will rise from a discussion like the foregoing without inferring from the facts which have emerged in the course of it the exceeding antiquity of depravations of the inspired verity. For let me not be supposed to have asserted that the present depravation was the work of Apolinarius. Like the rest, it is probably older by at least 150 years. Apolinarius, in whose person the heresy which bears his name came to a head, did but inherit the tenets of his predecessors in error; and these had already in various ways resulted in the corruption of the deposit.

§ 5564564    This paper is marked as having been written at Chichester in 1877, and is therefore earlier than the Dean’s later series.

The matter in hand will be conveniently illustrated by inviting the reader’s attention to another famous place. There is a singular consent among the Critics for eliminating from St. Luke ix. 54-6, twenty-four words which embody two memorable sayings of the Son of Man. The entire context is as follows:—‘Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, (as Elias did)? But he turned, and rebuked them. (and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.) (For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.) And they went to another village.’ The three bracketed clauses contain the twenty-four words in dispute.

The first of these clauses (ὡς καὶ Ἡλίας ἐποίησε), which claims to be part of the inquiry of St. John and St. James, Mill rejected as an obvious interpolation. ‘Res ipsa clamat. 225Quis enim sanus tam insignia deleverit565565    Proleg. 418.?’ Griesbach retained it as probably genuine.—The second clause (καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐκ οἴδατε οἵου πνεύματός ἐστε ὑμεῖς) he obelized as probably not genuine:—the third (ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου οὐκ ἦλθε ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι, ἀλλὰ σῶσαι) he rejected entirely. Lachmann also retains the first clause, but rejects the other two. Alford, not without misgiving, does the same. Westcott and Hort, without any misgiving about the third clause, are ‘morally certain’ that the first and second clauses are a Western interpolation. Tischendorf and Tregelles are thorough. They agree, and the Revisers of 1881, in rejecting unceremoniously all the three clauses and exhibiting the place curtly, thus.—Κύριε, θέλεις εἴπωμεν πῦρ καταβῆναι ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς; στραφεὶς δὲ ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς. καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν εἰς ἑτέραν κώμην.566566    The text of St. Luke ix. 51-6 prefixed to Cyril’s fifty-sixth Sermon (p. 253) is the text of B and א,—an important testimony to what I suppose may be regarded as the Alexandrine Textus Receptus of this place in the fifth century. But then no one supposes that Cyril is individually responsible for the headings of his Sermons. We therefore refer to the body of his discourse; and discover that the Syriac translator has rendered it (as usual) with exceeding licence. He has omitted to render some such words as the following which certainly stood in the original text:—εἰδέναι γὰρ χρή, ὅτι ὡς μήπω τῆς νέας κακρατηκότες χάριτος, ἀλλ

VIEWNAME is workSection