The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 17

which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen(220).

And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus (t?de t? te????) and the Codex Pamphili (t? a?t? pa?a??tat?? ?????) manifested great agreement with one another.

The probability that ? was thus at least in part copied from a ma.n.u.script executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain "Codex Marchalia.n.u.s" is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius; and that Origen's recension of the Old Testament, although he published no edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions ma.n.u.scripts executed by Origen with great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the library of Caesarea "which was written by the hand of the holy Pamphilus(221)." These notices added to the frequent reference by St.

Jerome and others to the critical (?????) MSS., by which we are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its ill.u.s.trious founder had won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that ?

should have been sent forth from that "school of criticism."

But if ? was, then B must have been;-at least, if the supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate leaves of ? were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case.

Yet Dr. Hort is "inclined to surmise that B and ? were both written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the ancestors of ? were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical, not the textual sense(222)." For this opinion, in which Dr.

Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but "surmise"

founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of some of his arguments.

-- 2(223).

The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2) the curious discovery that Codexes ?B, and to some extent D, either belong to the same cla.s.s as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen's teaching.

The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly B?D, are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but const.i.tute a cla.s.s.

The proof of this position is to be found in various pa.s.sages where the influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of ???? t??

Te??-"The Son of G.o.d"-in Mark i. 1(224); and of ?? ?f?s?-"at Ephesus"-in Eph. i. 1(225); in the subst.i.tution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for Bethany(226); in the omission of the second part of the last pet.i.tion the Lord's Prayer in St. Luke(227), of ?p??s??? ?? ?????e? in John i.

27(228).

He is also the cause why the important qualification e??? ("without a cause") is omitted by B? from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, Versions(229), Fathers, has been banished from the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers(230).

To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-?, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the clause t? ????e?? ? pe??es?a? ("that you should not obey the truth") Gal.

iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St.

Matthew's Gospel(231); but when he comes to the place in Galatians(232), he is observed, first to admit that the clause "is found in some copies,"

and straightway to add that "inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius(233), he omits it." The clue to his omission is supplied by his own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen his guide(234). And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.

For:-

C Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.

Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.

Orig. ii. 373.

Cyril Al. ii. 737.

Ephr. Syr. iii. 203.

Macarius Magnes (or rather the heathen philosopher with whom he disputed),-128.

ps.-Athanas. ii. 454.

Theodoret ii. 40.

J. Damascene ii. 163.

Theodorus Studita,-433, 1136.

Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in quibusdam codicibus, "Quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati?" Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus.

Against:-

?ABD*FG 17*.

d e f g-fu.

Pes.h.i.tto, Bohairic.

Chrys.

Euthal. cod.

Exemplaria Adamantii.

Cyril 429.

Theodoret i. 658 (=Mai vii2 150).

Theodorus Mops.

Hier. vii. 418. c.

In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our LORD'S two miracles of feeding(235); drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner is, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary(236), that Jerome(237), that Chrysostom(238), had Origen's remarks before them when they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD "commands the mult.i.tude to sit down" (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the 4000, He does not "command" but only "directs" them to sit down. (St.

Matt. xv. 35(239)) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, ?a? ????e?se t??? ??????-but pa????e??e t? ????

??apese??; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii.

6). We should of course have a.s.sumed a slip of memory on Origen's part; but that ?BD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity with Origen(240). He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he has before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.

Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,-"It is not written 'He it is to whom I shall give the sop'; but with the addition of 'I shall dip': for it says, 'I shall dip the sop and give it.' " This is the reading of BCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the officiousness of Origen himself. _Who_, at all events, on such precarious evidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed to as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The grounds on which Tischendorf reads ??? t? ????? ?a? d?s? a?t?, are characteristic, and in their way a curiosity(241).

Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke's Gospel with the words,-"Get thee behind Me, Satan(242)." But Origen officiously points out that this (quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not say. He adds a reason,-"He said to Peter, 'Get thee behind Me, Satan'; but to the Devil, 'Get thee hence,' without the addition 'behind Me'; for to be behind Jesus is a good thing(243)."

Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his wicked countrymen:-"I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye likewise do that which you have seen with your father." He contrasts His own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to their respective "Fathers,"-to "My Father," that is, G.o.d; and to "your father," that is, the Devil(244). That this is the true sense of the place appears plainly enough from the context. "Seen with" and "heard from(245)"

are the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that whereof he discourses.

Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that G.o.d is the "Father"

spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support this view, erased "My" and "your"; and in the second member of the sentence, for "seen with," subst.i.tuted "heard from";-as if a contrast had been intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human knowledge,-which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in reality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant precept: "I speak the things which I have seen with the Father." "Do ye the things which ye have heard from the Father,"-which is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a text thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept (?st? ... p??e?te); but he has all the Fathers(246) (including himself),-all the Versions,-all the copies against him, being supported only by B.

But the evidence against "the restored reading" to which Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting ?? and subst.i.tuting ????sate pa?? t?? ?at???

for ?????ate pa?? t? ?at?? ???.) is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit ??: only four (BLT, 13) omit ???: a very little handful are for subst.i.tuting ????sate with the genitive for ?????ate. Chrys., Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of good repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39, only five read ?st? (?BDLT): while p??e?te is found only in Cod. B.

Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ?p??e?te, which however is only found in ?DLT. "The reading is remarkable" says Alford. Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.

-- 3.

Besides these pa.s.sages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion subsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic ma.n.u.scripts affords a strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of the School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught.

Origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most eminent of the teachers engaged(247).

CHAPTER X. THE OLD UNCIALS. CODEX D.

-- 1(248).

It is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy Scripture, which like the Text had met with opposition, was being settled in the later part of the century in which these two ma.n.u.scripts were produced, or at the beginning of the next. The two questions appear to have met together in Eusebius. His lat.i.tudinarian proclivities seem to have led him in his celebrated words(249) to lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some persons to a few of the Books of the New Testament; and cause us therefore not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who wished without reason to leave out portions of the Text. Now the first occasion, as is well known, when we find all the Books of the New Testament recognized with authority occurred at the Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D., if the pa.s.sage is genuine(250), which is very doubtful; and the settlement of the Canon which was thus initiated, and was accomplished by about the end of the century, was followed, as was natural, by the settlement of the Text. But inasmuch as the latter involved a large mult.i.tude of intricate questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired a very firm hold, it was long before universal acquiescence finally ensued upon the general acceptance effected in the time of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of the Divine Word, and the character of the Written Word, were confirmed about the same time:-mainly, in the period when the Nicene Creed was re-a.s.serted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; for the Canon of Holy Scripture was fixed and the Orthodox Text gained a supremacy over the Origenistic Text about the same time:-and finally, after the Third Council of Constantinople in 680 A.D., at which the acknowledgement of the Natures of the Son of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; for it was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly perfect form to be handed down with scarce any opposition to future ages of the Church.