§ 9
It seems to have been anciently felt, in connexion with the first miraculous draught of fishes, that St. Luke’s statement (v. 7) that the ships were so full that ‘they were sinking’ (‘ωστε βυθιζεσθαι αυτα) requires some qualification. Accordingly C inserts ηδη (were ‘just’ sinking); and D, παρα τι (‘within a little’): while the Peshitto the Lewis and the Vulgate, as well as many copies of the Old Latin, exhibit ‘ita ut pene.’ These attempts to improve upon Scripture, and these paraphrases, indicate laudable zeal for the truthfulness of the Evangelist; but they betray an utterly mistaken view of the critic’s office. The truth is, βυθιζεσθαι, as the Bohairic translators perceived and as most of us are aware, means ‘were beginning to sink.’ There is no need of further qualifying the expression by the insertion with Eusebius437 of any additional word.
I strongly suspect that the introduction of the name of ‘Pyrrhus’ into Acts xx. 4 as the patronymic of ‘Sopater of Beraea,’ is to be accounted for in this way. A very early gloss it certainly is, for it appears in the Old Latin: yet, the Peshitto knows nothing of it, and the Harkleian rejects it from the text, though not from the margin. Origen and the Bohairic recognize it, but not Chrysostom nor the Ethiopic. I suspect that some foolish critic of the primitive age invented Πυρου (or Πυρρου) out of Βεροιαιος (or Βερροιαιος) which follows. The Latin form of this was ‘Pyrus438,’ ‘Pyrrhus,’ or ‘Pirrus439.’ In the Sahidic version he is called the ‘son of Berus’ (‘υιος Βερου),—which confirms me in my conjecture. But indeed, if it was with some Beraean that the gloss originated,—and what more likely?—it becomes an interesting circumstance that the inhabitants of that part of Macedonia are known to have confused the p and b sounds440.... This entire matter is unimportant in itself, but the letter of Scripture cannot be too carefully guarded: and let me invite the reader to consider,—If St. Luke actually wrote Σωπατρος Πυρρου Βεροιαιος, why at the present day should five copies out of six record nothing of that second word?
Footnotes
353 See The Traditional Text, pp. 51-52.
354 St. Mark vi. 33. See The Traditional Text, p. 80.
355 iii. 3 e: 4 b and c: 442 a: 481 b. Note, that the ρ’ησις in which the first three of these quotations occur seems to have been obtained by De la Rue from a Catena on St. Luke in the Mazarine Library (see his Monitum, iii. 1). A large portion of it (viz. from p. 3, line 25, to p. 4, line 29) is ascribed to ‘I. Geometra in Proverbia’ in the Catena in Luc. of Corderius, p. 217.
356 ii. 345.
357 ii. 242.
358 The Latin is edissere or dissere, enarra or narra, both here and in xv. 15.
359 iv. 254 a.
360 In St. Matthew xiii. 36 the Peshitto Syriac has [Syriac letters] ‘declare to us’ and in St. Matthew xv. 15 the very same words, there being no various reading in either of these two passages.
The inference is, that the translators had the same Greek word in each place, especially considering that in the only other place where, besides St. Matt. xiii. 36, v. 1., διασαφειν occurs, viz. St. Matt. xviii. 31, they render διεσαφησαν by [Syriac letters]—they made known.
Since φραζειν only occurs in St. Matt. xiii. 36 and xv. 15, we cannot generalize about the Peshitto rendering of this verb. Conversely, [Syriac letters] is used as the rendering of other Greek words besides φραζειν, e.g.
of επιλυειν, St. Mark iv. 34;
of διερμηνευειν, St. Luke xxiv. 27;
of διανοιγειν, St. Luke xxiv. 32 and Acts xvii. 3.
On the whole I have no doubt (though it is not susceptible of proof) that the Peshitto had, in both the places quoted above, φρασον.
361 In St. Mark vii. 3, the translators of the Peshitto render whatever Greek they had before them by [Syriac letters], which means ‘eagerly,’ ‘sedulously’; cf. use of the word for σπουδαιως, St. Luke vii. 4; επιμελως, St Luke xv. 8.
The Root means ‘to cease’; thence ‘to have leisure for a thing’: it has nothing to do with ‘Fist.’ [Rev. G.H. Gwilliam.]
362 Harkl. Marg. in loc., and Adler, p. 115.
363 Viz. a b c e ff2 l q.
364 ‘Οφειλει ψυχη, εν τω λογω του Κυριου κατακολουθουσα, τον σταυρον αυτου καθ’ ‘ημεραν αιρειν, ‘ως γεγραπται; τουτ’ εστιν, ‘ετοιμως εχουσα ‘υπομενειν δια Χριστον πασαν θλιψιν και πειρασμον, κ.τ.λ. (ii. 326 e). In the same spirit, further on, he exhorts to constancy and patience,—τον επι του Κυριου θανατον εν επιθυμιαι παντοτε προ οφθαλμων εχοντες, και (καθως ειρηται ‘υπο του Κυριου) καθ’ ‘ημεραν τον σταυρον αιροντες, ‘ο εστι θανατος (ii. 332 e). It is fair to assume that Ephraem’s reference is to St. Luke ix. 23, seeing that he wrote not in Greek but in Syriac, and that in the Peshitto the clause is found only in that place.
365 Ακουε Λουκα λεγοντος,—i. 281 f. Also, int. iii. 543.
366 Pp. 221 (text), 222, 227.
367 ii. 751 e, 774 e (in Es.)—the proof that these quotations are from St. Luke; that Cyril exhibits αρνησασθω instead of απαρν. (see Tischendorf’s note on St. Luke ix. 23). The quotation in i. 40 (Glaph.) may be from St. Matt. xvi. 24.
368 Migne, vol. lxxxvi. pp. 256 and 257.
369 After quoting St. Mark viii. 34,—‘aut juxta Lucam, dicebat ad cunctos: Si quis vult post me venire, abneget semetipsum; et tollat crucem suam, et sequetur me.’—i. 852 c.
This is found in his solution of XI Quaestiones, ’ad Algasiam,’—free translations probably from the Greek of some earlier Father. Six lines lower down (after quoting words found nowhere in the Gospels), Jerome proceeds:—‘Quotidie credens in Christum tollit crucem suam, et negat seipsum.’
370 This spurious clause adorned the lost archetype of Evann. 13, 69, 124, 346 (Ferrar’s four); and survives in certain other Evangelia which enjoy a similar repute,—as 1, 33, 72 (with a marginal note of distrust), 131.
371 They are St. Matt. xvi. 24; St. Mark viii. 34.
372 i. 597 c (Adorat.)—elsewhere (viz. i. 21 d; 528 c; 580 b; iv. 1058 a; v^(2). 83 c) Cyril quotes the place correctly. Note, that the quotation found in Mai, iii. 126, which Pusey edits (v. 418), in Ep. ad Hebr., is nothing else but an excerpt from the treatise de Adorat. i. 528 c.
373 In his Commentary on St. Matt. xvi. 24:—Δια παντος του βιου τουτο δει ποιειν. Διηνεκως γαρ, φησι, περιφερε τον θανατον τουτον, και καθ ‘ημεραν ‘ετοιμος εσο προς σφαγην (vii. 557 b). Again, commenting on ch. xix. 21,—Δει προηγουμενως ακολουθειν τω Χριστω τουτεστι, παντα τα παρ αυτου κελευομενα ποιειν, προς σφγας ειναι ‘ετοιμον, και θανατον καθημερινιν (p. 629 e):—words which Chrysostom immediately follows up by quoting ch. xvi. 24 (630 a).
374 i. 949 b,—‘Quotidie (inquit Apostolus) morior propter vestram salutem. Et Dominus, juxta antiqua exemplaria, Nisi quis tulerit crucem suam quotidie, et sequntus fuerit me, non potest meus esse discipulus’—Commenting on St. Matt. x. 38 (vol. vii. p. 65 b), Jerome remarks,—‘in alio Evangelio scribitur,—Qui non accipit crucem suam quotidie’: but the corresponding place to St. Matt. x. 38, in the sectional system of Eusebius (Greek and Syriac), is St. Luke xiv. 27.
375 Viz. Evan. 473 (2pe).
376 ii. 66 c, d.
377 See above, p. 175, note 2.
378 Proleg. p. cxlvi.
379 N.T. (1803), i. 368.
380 Lewis here agrees with Peshitto.
381 iv. 745.
382 In Ps. 501.
383 229 and 236.
384 vii. 736: xi. 478.
385 ii. 1209.
386 269.
387 577.
388 i. 881.
389 Ap. Chrys. vi. 460.
390 Ap. Greg. Nyss. ii. 258.
391 Galland. vi. 53.
392 ii. 346.
393 ii. 261, 324.
394 Ap. Greg. Nyss. iii. 429.
395 i. 132.
396 The attentive student of the Gospels will recognize with interest how gracefully the third Evangelist St. Luke (ix. 5) has overcome this difficulty.
397 Augustine, with his accustomed acuteness, points out that St. Mark’s narrative shews that after the words of ‘Sleep on now and take your rest,’ our Lord must have been silent for a brief space in order to allow His disciples a slight prolongation of the refreshment which his words had already permitted them to enjoy. Presently, He is heard to say,—‘It is enough’—(that is, ‘Ye have now slept and rested enough’); and adds, ‘The hour is come. Behold, the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.’ ‘Sed quia commemorata non est ipsa interpositio silentii Domini, propterea coartat intellectum, ut in illis verbis alia pronuntiatio requiratur.’—iii2. 106 a, b. The passage in question runs thus:—Καθειδετε το λοιπον και αναπαυεσθε. απεχει; ηλθεν ‘η ‘ωρα; ιδου, κ.τ.λ.
398 Those who saw this, explain the word amiss. Note the Scholion (Anon. Vat.) in Possinus, p. 321:—απεχει, τουτεστι, πεπληρωται, τελος εχει το κατ’ εμε. Last Twelve Verses, p. 226, note.
399 I retract unreservedly what I offered on this subject in a former work (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 225, 226). I was misled by one who seldom indeed misleads,—the learned editor of the Codex Bezae (in loco).
400 So Peshitto. Lewis, venit hora, appropinquat finis. Harkleian, adest consummatio, venit hora.
401 απεχει. Vg. sufficit. + το τελος, 13, 69, 124, 2pe, cscr, 47, 54, 56, 61, 184, 346, 348, 439. d, q, sufficit finis et hora. f, adest finis, venit hora. c, ff2, adest enim consummatio, et (ff2 venit) hora. a, consummatus est finis, advenit hora. It is certain that one formidable source of danger to the sacred text has been its occasional obscurity. This has resulted,—(1) sometimes in the omission of words: Δευτεροπρωτον. (2) Sometimes in substitution, as πυγμηι. (3) Sometimes in the insertion of unauthorized matter: thus, το τελος, as above.
402 iii. 105: iv. 913. So also iv. 614.
403 vi. 283.
404 i. 307.
405 viii. 392.
406 iv. 696.
407 Cramer’s Cat. in loc.
408 1063.
409 E.g. ver. 1. All the three officiously insert ‘ο Ιησους, in order to prevent people from imagining that Lazarus raised Lazarus from the dead; ver. 4, D gives the gloss, απο Καρυωτου for Ισκαριωτης; ver. 13, spells thus,—‘ωσσανα; besides constant inaccuracies, in which it is followed by none. [Symbol: Aleph] omits nineteen words in the first thirty-two verses of the chapter, besides adding eight and making other alterations. B is far from being accurate.
410 ‘Let her alone, that she may keep it against the day of My burying’ (Alford). But how could she keep it after she had poured it all out?—‘Suffer her to have kept it against the day of My preparation unto burial’ (McClellan). But ‘ινα τηρηση could hardly mean that: and the day of His ενταφιασμος had not yet arrived.
411 Consider ii. 11 and xi. 40: St. Luke xiii. 17: Heb. i. 3.
412 Consider v. 36 and iv. 34.
413 Consider St. John xix. 30. Cf. St. Luke xxii. 37.
414 Lewis, ‘and the work I have perfected’: Harkleian, ‘because the work,’ &c., ‘because’ being obelized.
415 The Bohairic and Ethiopic are hostile.
416 i. 245 (= Constt. App. viii. 1; ap. Galland. iii. 199).
417 P. 419.
418 Mcell p. 157.
419 i. 534.
420 ii. 196, 238: iii. 39.
421 v. 256: viii. 475 bis.
422 iii. 542: iv. 954: v1. 599, 601, 614: v2. 152.—In the following places Cyril shews himself acquainted with the other reading,—iv. 879: v1. 167, 366: vi. 124.
423 Polyc. frg. v (ed. Jacobson).
424 Ps.-Ignat. 328.
425 Ap. Gall. iii. 215.
426 P. 285.
427 ii. 545.
428 Pp. 510, 816, 1008. But opere constummato, pp. 812, 815.—Jerome also once (iv. 563) has opere completo.
429 Ap. Gall. v. 135.
430 P. 367.
431 Ap. Gall. iii. 308.
432 Ap. Aug. viii. 622.
433 iii2. 761: viii. 640.
434 v. 1166.
435 Ibid. 1165 g, 1166 a.
436 Though the Bohairic, Gothic, Vulgate, and Ethiopic versions are disfigured in the same way, and the Lewis reads ‘is.’
437 Theoph. 216 note: ‘ως κινδυνευειν αυτα βυθισθηναι.
438 Cod. Amiat.
439 g,—at Stockholm.
440 Stephanus De Urbibus in voc. Βεροια.
← Back to The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text