The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 23

APPENDIX I. HONEYCOMB-??? ????SS??? ??????.

[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this Dissertation, as being finished for Press.]

I propose next to call attention to the omission from St. Luke xxiv. 42 of a precious incident in the history of our Lord's Resurrection. It was in order effectually to convince the Disciples that it was Himself, in His human body, who stood before them in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day, that He inquired, [ver. 41] "Have ye here any meat?

[ver. 42] and they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB." But those four last words (?a? ?p? e??ss??? ??????) because they are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott and Hort ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the Revisers of 1881 were by those critics persuaded to exclude them also. How do men suppose that such a clause as that established itself universally in the sacred text, if it be spurious? "How do you suppose," I shall be asked in reply, "if it be genuine, that such a clause became omitted from any ma.n.u.script at all?"

I answer,-The omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest age of fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narrative; in which, singular to relate, the incident recorded in St. Luke xxiv. 41-43 was identified with that other mysterious repast which St. John describes in his last chapter(405). It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would ever be made to establish an enforced harmony between incidents exhibiting so many points of marked contrast: for St. Luke speaks of (1) "broiled fish [?????? ?pt??] and honeycomb," (2) which "_they_ gave _Him_," (3) "and _He_ did eat" (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in a chamber, (7) at Jerusalem:-whereas St. John specifies (1) "_bread_, and fish [???????] likewise," (2) which _He_ gave them, (3) and of which it is not related that Himself partook. (4) The occasion was subsequent: (5) the time, early morning: (6) the scene, the sea-sh.o.r.e: (7) the country, Galilee.

Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the way of excuse for those ancient men, that "broiled fish" was common to both repasts; that they both belong to the period subsequent to the Resurrection: that the same parties, our LORD namely and His Apostles, were concerned in either transaction; and that both are prefaced by similar words of inquiry.

Waiving this, it is a plain fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the two incidents parallel; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), -- 341; and St.

John (xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally ---- 221, 223, 225. The Syriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of critical scholars(406) are yet more precise. Let the intention of their venerable compiler-whoever he may have been-be exhibited in full. It has never been done before:-

"(ST. LUKE xxiv.) "(ST. JOHN xxi.)"

"-- 397. [Jesus] said unto them, "-- 255. Jesus saith unto them, Have ye here any meat? (ver. 41.) Children, have ye any meat? They answered Him, No. (ver. 5.) "_Id._ ... "-- 259 ... As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread. (ver. 9.) "-- 398. And they gave Him a piece "-- 264. Jesus then cometh and of a broiled fish and of an taketh bread, and giveth them, and honeycomb. (ver. 42.) fish likewise. (ver. 13.) "-- 399. And He took it and did eat "-- 262. Jesus saith unto them, Come before them. (ver. 43.)" and dine. (ver. 12.)"

The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places are deliberately identified. But the mischief is of much older date than the Eusebian Canons, and must have been derived in the first instance from a distinct source. Eusebius, as he himself informs us, did but follow in the wake of others. Should the Diatessaron cf Ammonius or that of Tatian ever be recovered, a flood of light will for the first time be poured over a department of evidence where at present we must be content to grope our way(407).

But another element of confusion I suspect is derived from that lost Commentary on the Song of Solomon in which Origen is said to have surpa.s.sed himself(408). Certain of the ancients insist on discovering in St. Luke xxiv. 42 the literal fulfilment of the Greek version of Cant. v.

1, "I ate my _bread_ with _honey_." Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that those words of the spouse "were fulfilled" when "they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb(409)": while Gregory Nyss. points out (alluding to the same place) that "the true Bread," when He appeared to His Disciples, "was by honeycomb made sweet(410)." Little did those Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 centuries their fervid and sometimes fanciful references to Scripture would occasion!

I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused these two narratives, or rather these two distinct occasions. "Who knows not," asks Epiphanius, "that our SAVIOUR ate, after His Resurrection from the dead?

As the holy Gospels of Truth have it, 'There was given unto Him' [which is a reference to St. Luke], 'bread and part of a broiled fish.' [but it is St. John who mentions the bread];-'and He took and ate' [but only according to St. Luke], 'and gave to His disciples,' [but only according to St. John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke's narrative, for Epiphanius straightway adds,] 'as He _also_ did at the sea of Tiberias; both eating,' [although _no_ eating on His part is recorded concerning _that_ meal,] 'and distributing(411).' " Ephraem Syrus makes the same mis-statement. "If He was not flesh," he asks, "who was it, at the sea of Tiberias, who ate(412)?" "While Peter is fishing," says Hesychius(413), (with plain reference to the narrative in St. John), "behold in the LORD'S hands bread and honeycomb(414)": where the "honeycomb" has clearly lost its way, and has thrust out the "fish." Epiphanius elsewhere even more fatally confuses the two incidents. "JESUS" (he says) "on a second occasion after His Resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb(415)." One would have set this down to sheer inadvertence, but that Jerome circ.u.mstantially makes the self-same a.s.sertion:-"In John we read that while the Apostles were fishing, He stood upon the sh.o.r.e, and ate part of a broiled fish and honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related to have done anything of the kind(416)." From whom can Jerome have derived that wild statement(417)? It is certainly not his own. It occurs in his letter to Hedibia where he is clearly a translator only(418). In another place, Jerome says, "He sought fish broiled upon the coals, in order to confirm the faith of His doubting Apostles, who were afraid to approach Him, because they thought they saw a spirit,-not a solid body(419)": which is a mixing up of St. John's narrative with that of St Luke. Clemens Alex., in a pa.s.sage which has. .h.i.therto escaped notice, deliberately affirms that "the LORD blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with which He feasted His Disciples(420)." Where did he find that piece of information?

One thing more in connexion with the "broiled fish _and honeycomb_."

Athanasius-and Cyril Alex.(421) after him-rehea.r.s.e the incident with entire accuracy; but Athanasius adds the apocryphal statement that "He took what remained over, and gave it unto them(422)": which tasteless appendix is found besides in Cureton's Syriac [not in the Lewis],-in the Bohairic, Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions; and must once have prevailed to a formidable extent, for it has even established itself in the Vulgate(423). It is witnessed to, besides, by two ninth-century uncials (??) and ten cursive copies(424). The thoughtful reader will say to himself,-"Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable conspiracy of primitive witnesses, we should have had this also thrust upon us by the new school as indubitable Gospel: and remonstrances would have been in vain!"

Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these many Fathers, had they employed honestly-made copies of St. Luke's and of St. John's Gospel, could have fallen into such frequent and such strange misrepresentations of what those Evangelists actually say. From some fabricated Gospel-from some "Diatessaron" or "Life of Christ," once famous in the Church, long since utterly forgotten,-from some unauthentic narrative of our Saviour's Death and Resurrection, I say, these several depravations of the sacred story must needs have been imported into St. Luke's Gospel. And lo, out of all that farrago, the only ma.n.u.script traces which survive at this distant day, are found in the notorious B-?, with A, D, L, and ?,-one copy each of the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis],-which exclusively enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the incident of the "honeycomb": while the confessedly spurious appendix, "He gave them what remained over," enjoys a far more ancient, more varied, and more respectable attestation,-and yet has found favour with no single Editor of the Sacred Text: no, nor have our Revisers seen fit by a marginal note to apprize the ordinary English reader that "many uncial authorities" are disfigured in this particular way. With this latter accretion to the inspired verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves: but that, so many disturbing influences having resulted, at the end of seventeen centuries, in the elimination of the clause ?a? ?p? e??ss??? ?????? from six corrupt copies of St. Luke's Gospel,-a fixed determination or a blundering tendency should now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narrative in respect of the incident which those four words embody,-this may well create anxiety. It makes critical inquiry an imperative duty: not indeed for our own satisfaction, but for that of others.

Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen Evangelia,-whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we deem a matter of small account,-opposing themselves to the whole body of the copies, uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious of those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already and as often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already set before the reader; and further inquiry in our own minds we deem superfluous. But we must answer those distinguished Critics who have ruled that Codexes B-?, D, L, can hardly if ever err.

The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. Some critics quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be allowed to speak for himself. He is inveighing against gluttony. "Is not variety consistent with simplicity of diet?" (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables, milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be merely broiled. " 'Have ye here any meat?' said our Lord to His disciples after His Resurrection. Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in respect of diet, 'they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.' ... Yet may the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may partake besides of 'honeycomb.' The fittest food, in a word, we consider to be that which requires no cooking: next, as I began by explaining, cheap and ordinary articles of diet(425)." Shall I be thought unreasonable if I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is "silent" concerning the "honeycomb," I even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure that "honeycomb" was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.

Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning our SAVIOUR-"It is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of a fish(426)."

The same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the circ.u.mstance that the Disciples "gave Him a piece of a broiled fish(427)." Eusebius in like manner thrice mentions the fact that our LORD partook of "broiled fish(428)" after His Resurrection. And because these writers do not also mention "honeycomb," it is a.s.sumed by Tischendorf and his school that the words ?a? ?p? e??ss??? ?????? cannot have existed in their copies of St.

Luke(429). The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril, after quoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 ("honeycomb" and all)(430), proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the "fish"(431). Ambrose and Augustine certainly recognized the incident of "the honeycomb": yet the latter merely remarks that "to eat fish with the LORD is better than to eat lentiles with Esau(432);" while the former draws a mystical inference from "the record in the Gospel that JESUS ate _broiled fishes_(433)." Is it not obvious that the more conspicuous incident,-that of the "broiled fish,"-being common to both repasts, stands for all that was partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the entire meal? It excludes neither the "honeycomb" of the upper chamber, nor the "bread" which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian(434), intending no slight either to the "broiled fish" or to the "bread," makes mention only of our Lord's having "eaten honeycomb" after His Resurrection. And so Jerome, addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem, exclaims-"Why did the Lord eat honeycomb? Not in order to give thee licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth of His Resurrection(435)." To draw inferences from the rhetorical _silence_ of the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of Parliament, can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient men.

As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited from his writings(436), where he only mentions the partaking of "fish," to preclude the belief that Origen knew of the "honeycomb" also in St. Luke xxiv. 42. We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke(437), and an abridged translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect that a certain scholium in Cordier's Catena on St. Luke(438), which contains a very elaborate recognition of the "honeycomb," will be found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them. At foot the learned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original Greek of the scholium referred to(439), which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in Latin. He will at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in its favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype of B-?. But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the pa.s.sage in question is quite in Origen's way(440)-has all his fervid wildness,-in all probability is actually _his_.

The question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient copies of St. Luke were without the incident of the honeycomb; but only whether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist made no mention of it. And I venture to antic.i.p.ate that readers will decide this question with me in the negative. That, from a period of the remotest antiquity, certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their combined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of the "honeycomb" from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need create no surprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident is attested by the following witnesses:-

In the second century, by Justin M.(441),-by Clemens Alexandrinus(442),-by Tertullian(443),-by the Old-Latin,-and by the Pes.h.i.tto Version:

In the third century, by Cureton's Syriac,-and by the Bohairic:

In the fourth century, by Athanasius(444),-by Gregory of Nyssa(445),-by Epiphanius(446),-by Cyril of Jerusalem(447),-by Jerome(448),-by Augustine(449),-and by the Vulgate:

In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria(450),-by Proclus(451),-by Vigilius Tapsensis(452),-by the Armenian,-and Ethiopic Versions:

In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N(453):

In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.

Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such respectable, and such venerable witnesses as these, is clearly above suspicion. Besides its recognition in the ancient scholium to which attention has been largely invited already(454), we find the incident of the "honeycomb" recognized by 13 ancient Fathers,-by 8 ancient Versions,-by the unfaltering Tradition of the universal Church,-above all, by every copy of St. Luke's Gospel in existence (as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive-except _six_.

That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness, is what no one will deny(455). Yet was Dr. Hort for dismissing it without ceremony. "A singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source, written or oral," he says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply, based on ideal grounds and "a system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly self-condemned(456);" seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-?,-by A seldom found in the Gospels in such a.s.sociation,-by D of the sixth century,-by L of the eighth,-by ? of the ninth.

I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit an instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text demand laborious investigation,-have a singular history of their own,-may on no account be disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them any cut and dried treatment,-nay I must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause in dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz.

number, antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides continuity of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents(457).

Tischendorf conjectures that the "honeycomb" may have been first brought in from the "Gospel of the Hebrews." What if, on the contrary, by the Valentinian "Gospel of Truth,"-a composition of the second century,-the "honeycomb" should have been first thrust out(458)? The plain statement of Epiphanius (quoted above(459)) seems to establish the fact that his maimed citation was derived from that suspicious source.

Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally sustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil influence of the fabricated narratives, or _Diatessarons_, which anciently abounded. The genuineness of the clause ?a? ?p? e??ss??? ??????, it is hoped, will never more be seriously called in question. Surely it has been demonstrated to be quite above suspicion(460).

APPENDIX II. ???S-VINEGAR.

[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]

When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who _offered_ to the Son of Man (?d?d??? "were for giving" Him) a draught of wine drugged with myrrh(461). He would not so much as taste it. Presently, the soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with gall(462). This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours, He cried, "I thirst": whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge with vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the people(463). This time He drank; and exclaimed, "It is finished."

Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have hopelessly confused this pathetic story by identifying the "vinegar and gall" of St. Matt.

xxvii. 34 with the "myrrhed wine" of St. Mark xv. 23; shewing therein a want of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment; for "wine" is not "vinegar," neither is "myrrh" "gall." And surely, the instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion by administering to our Saviour a preliminary soporific draught, was entirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a nauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of the insolent soldiery at the third hour(464), with what "one of them" (evidently appalled by the darkness) "ran" to do at the ninth(465). Eusebius nevertheless, in his clumsy sectional system, brackets(466) together these three places (St.

Matt. xxvii. 34, St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the excellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)(467) alike strenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical. The consequence might have been foreseen. Besides the subst.i.tution of "wine"

for "vinegar" (????? for ????) which survives to this day in nineteen copies of St. Matt. xxvii. 34, the words "and gall" are found improperly thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. As for Eusebius and Macarius Magnes, they read St. John xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion of their own, that I propose to invite separate attention to it in another place. Since however the attempt to a.s.similate the fourth Gospel to the first (by exhibiting ???? et? ????? in St. John xix. 29) is universally admitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.

I return to the proposed subst.i.tution of ????? for ???? in St. Matt.

xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of enforced harmony as can be produced. That it exists in many copies of the Old-Latin, and lingers on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian, Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives in B?DKL?, besides thirteen of the cursives(468);-all this will seem strange to those only who have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact that Codd. B-? DL are among the foulest in existence. It does but prove how inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error under discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old Pes.h.i.tto Version,-Barnabas(469),-Irenaeus(470),-Tertullian(471),-Celsus(472),-Origen(473),-the Sibylline verses in two places(474) (quoted by Lactantius),-and ps.-Tatian(475),-are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding, and they all yield adverse testimony.

Coming down to the fourth century, (to which B-? belong,) those two Codexes find themselves contradicted by Athanasius(476) in two places,-by another of the same name(477) who has been mistaken for the patriarch of Alexandria,-by Eusebius of Emesa(478),-by Theodore of Heraclea(479),-by Didymus(480),-by Gregory of Nyssa(481),-and by his namesake of n.a.z.ianzus(482),-by Ephraem Syrus(483),-by Lactantius(484),-by Jerome(485),-by Rufinus(486),-by Chrysostom(487),-by Severia.n.u.s of Gabala(488),-by Theodore of Mopsuestia(489),-by Cyril of Alexandria(490),-and by t.i.tus of Bostra(491). Now these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than Codexes B-? and D (who also have to reckon with A, F, and S-C being mute at the place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 24 to 2. To these (8 + 16 =) 24 are to be added the Apocryphal "Gospel of Nicodemus(492)," which Tischendorf a.s.signs to the third century; the "Acts of Philip(493)," and the Apocryphal "Acts of the Apostles(494)," which Dr.

Wright claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius(495), Amphilochius(496), ps.-Chrysostom(497), Maximus(498), Severus of Antioch(499), and John Damascene(500),-nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance the eighth and ninth-century Codexes KL?. Those critics in fact who would subst.i.tute "wine" for "vinegar" in St. Matt. xxvii. 34 have clearly no case. That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question against them is the fact that _every uncial and every cursive copy in existence_, except the very few specimens already quoted, attest that the oldest known reading of this place is the true reading. In fact, the Church has affirmed in the plainest manner, from the first, that ???? (not ?????) is to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an attempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but for the Vulgate would long since have pa.s.sed out of the memory of Christendom. Were they not aware that Jerome himself knew better? "Usque hodie" (he says) "Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis, _aceto et felle_ potant Jesum; et dant ei _vinum myrrhatum_ ut eum consopiant, et mala eorum non videat(501):"-whereby he both shews that he read St. Matt. xxvii. 34 according to the traditional text (see also p.

233 c), and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet perceived were essentially distinct, and in marked contrast with one another. But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I avow that it exceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded themselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of Scripture like the present, and to subst.i.tute for it a reading resting upon so slight a testimony _without furnishing ordinary Christian readers with at least a hint of what they had done_? They have considered the evidence in favour of "_wine_" (in St. Matt. xxvii. 34) not only "decidedly preponderating," but the evidence in favour of "_vinegar_" so slight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin.

Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be of the same opinion? Is this the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to represent the Church in this momentous business?

APPENDIX III. THE RICH YOUNG MAN.