Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: B. Additional Bohairic Manuscripts in Egypt (1893) (5)

423 Neither Winer nor his careful translator, Professor Moulton, seems
disposed to yield to Lachmann’s authority in this matter. “In the
better class of writers,” says Winer, “such forms are probably due
to the transcribers (Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 721), but in later
authors, especially the Scholiasts (as on Thucydides iii. 11 and
54), they cannot be set aside. In the N. T., however, there is very
little in favour of these conjunctives” (Moulton’s “Winer,” p. 89
and note 4, p. 361 and note 1). Yet Tregelles thinks “there would be
no difficulty about the case, had not one been made by grammatical
critics” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 211, note †). But in
his own example, John xvii. 2, ἵνα ... δώσῃ is read by אcACGKMSX,
33, 511, 546, and (so far as I can find) by no other manuscript
whatever. On the other hand δώσει (read by Westcott and Hort; _see_
Introd., Notes, p. 172) is supported by BEHUYΓΔΛΠ (א has δωσω, D
εχη, L δωσ), and (as it would seem) by every other codex extant:
δώσῃ came into the common text from the second edition of Erasmus.
Out of the twenty-five collated by myself for this chapter, δώσει is
found in twenty-four (now including Wake 12 or Cod. 492 and Cod.
622), and the following others have been expressly cited for it: 1,
10, 11, 15, 22, 42, 45, 48, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61 (Dobbin), 63, 65, 66,
106, 118, 124, 127, 131, 142, 145, 157, 250, 262, Evst. 3, 22, 24,
36, and at least fifty others, indeed one might say all that have
been collated with any degree of minuteness: so too the
Complutensian and first edition of Erasmus. The constant confusion
of ει and η at the period when the uncials were written abundantly
accounts for the reading of the few, though AC are among them. In
later times such itacisms were far more rare in careful
transcription, and the mediaeval copyists knew their native language
too well to fall into the habit in this passage. In Pet. iii. 1 ἵνα
κερδηθήσονται is read by all the uncials (אABCKLP), nearly all
cursives, and the Complutensian edition, in the place of -σωνται of
Erasmus and the Received text; just as we have ἵνα γινώσκομεν in
אAB*LP, 98, 99, 101, 180, 184, 188, 190 in 1 John v. 20. The case
for ἀρκεσθησόμεθα 1 Tim. vi. 8 is but a shade less feeble.

424 Tischendorf, however, boldly interposes a comma between the words
(_see_ p. 359, note), and is followed by Westcott and Hort and by
Bp. Lightfoot, whose note on the passage (Coloss. p. 318) is very
elaborate. This mode of punctuation would set χριστοῦ in apposition
to μυστηρίου, in support of which construction ch. i. 27 (ὅ); 1 Tim.
iii. 16 (ὅς) are alleged. This, however, is not the sense favoured
by Hilary (_in agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi_, and again _Deus
Christus sacramentum est_), and would almost call for the article
before χριστοῦ. In meaning it would be equivalent to D*, &c., ὅ
ἐστιν _χσ_.

425 In Dr. Swete’s edition, vol. ii. p. 11, Theodore expounds thus in
the old Latin version: _sed facti sumus quieti in medio vestro_, hoc
est, “omni mediocritate et humilitate sumus abusi, nolentes graves
aliquibus videri.”

426 A like combination is seen in Cod. 37 in 1 Tim. vi. 19 τῆς αἰωνίου
ὄντως ζωῆς.

427 Dean Burgon has just presented me with the photographed page in Cod.
G, respecting whose evidence there can be no remaining doubt.

428 The true reading of the Codex Alexandrinus in 1 Tim. iii. 16 has
long been an interesting puzzle with Biblical students. The
manuscript, and especially the leaf containing this verse (fol.
145), now very thin and falling into holes, must have been in a
widely different condition from the present when it first came to
England. At that period Young, Huish, and the rest who collated or
referred to it, believed that _ΘΣ_ was written by the first hand.
Mill (N. T. _ad loc._) declares that he had first supposed the
primitive reading to be _ΟΣ_, seeing clearly that the line _over_
the letters had not been entirely made, but only thickened, by a
later hand, probably the same that traced the coarse, rude, recent,
horizontal diameter now running through the circle. On looking more
closely, however, he detected “ductus quosdam et vestigia satis
certa ... praesertim ad partem sinistram, qua peripheriam literae
pertingit,” evidently belonging to an earlier diameter, which the
thicker and later one had almost defaced. This old line was
afterwards seen by John Berriman and four other persons with him
(Gloucester Ridley, Gibson, Hewett, and Pilkington) by means of a
glass in the bright sunshine, when he was preparing his Lady Moyer’s
Lecture for 1737-8 (Critical Dissertation on 1 Tim. iii. 16, p.
156). Wetstein admitted the existence of such a transverse line, but
referred it to the tongue or _sagitta_ of Ε on the reverse of the
leaf, an explanation rejected by Woide, but admitted by Tregelles,
who states in opposition to Woide that “Part of the Ε on the other
side of the leaf _does_ intersect the Ο, as we have seen again and
again, and which others with us have seen also” (Horne, iv. p. 156).
This last assertion may be received as quite true, and yet not
relevant to the point at issue. In an Excursus appended to 1 Timothy
in his edition of “The Pastoral Epistles” (p. 100, 1856), Bp.
Ellicott declares, as the result of “minute personal inspection,”
that the original reading was “indisputably” ΟΣ. But the fact is,
that the page is much too far gone to admit of any present judgement
which would weigh against past judgements, as any one who examines
the passage can see for himself. Woide could see the line in 1765,
but not in 1785.

429 Yet how can it be _precarious_ in the face of such testimony as the
following (_Quarterly Review_, Oct. 1881, p. 363)? Τὸ δὲ θεὸν ὄντα
ἄνθρωπον θελῆσαι γενέσθαι καὶ ἀνασχέσθαι καταβῆναι τοσοῦτον ...
τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ ἐκπλήξεως γέμον. Ὅ δὴ καὶ Παῦλος θαυμάζων ἔλεγε; καὶ
ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον; ποῖον μέγα? θεὸς
ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί; καὶ πάλιν ἀλλαχοῦ; οὐ γὰρ ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται
ὁ θεός (Chrysostom, i. 497). It is necessary to study the context
well before we can understand the strength or weakness of Patristic
evidence.

430 Twenty-three times in all, as Ward (_see_ p. 394, note) observes,
adding that “nothing can be more express and unquestionable than his
reading.” The _Quarterly Reviewer_ speaks very well (_ubi supra_),
“A single quotation is better than many references. Among a
multitude of proofs that Christ is God, Gregory says: Τιμοθέῳ δὲ
διαρρήδην βοᾷ ὅτι ὁ θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι”
(ii. 693).

431 Bentleii Critica Sacra, p. 67, ’Σχόλια Photii MSS. (Bib. Pub. Cant.)
_ad loc_. ὁ ἐν ἁγίοις Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ _ιβ_ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν σχολίων
φησίν, ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί.’ Photius also quoted Gregory
Thaumaturgus (or Apollinarius) for θεός.

432 Dr. Swete, in his masterly edition of the Latin translation of
Theodore’s commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles, after citing the Latin
text as _qui manifestatus est in carne_, adds “Both our MSS. read
_qui_, here and [15 lines] below and use the masculine consistently
throughout the context.... Thus the present translation goes to
confirm the inference already drawn from the Greek fragment of
Theodore, de Incarn. xiii (Migne, P. G. 66, 987), that he read ὃς
ἐφανερώθη” (vol. ii. p. 135 n.): pertinently observing that if
Theodore used ὅς, he was in harmony with the Syriac versions.

433 “Conspectum lectionis hujus loci optime dedit in sermone vernaculo
William H. Ward, V. D. M. in Bibliotheca Sacrâ Americanâ, anni
1865,” Tregelles N. T. _ad loc_. For a copy of this work I am
indebted to the kindness of A. W. Tyler of New York. Mr. Ward
wonders that neither Tregelles nor I have noticed a certain pinhole
in Cod. A, which was pointed out to Sir F. Madden by J. Scott
Porter, made by some person at the extremity of the sagitta of the Ε
on the opposite page, and falling exactly on the supposed transverse
line of the Θ. I cannot perceive the pinhole, but the vellum is fast
crumbling away from the effects of time, certainly through no lack
of care on the part of those who keep the manuscript.

434 “As the Apostle here applies to _Christ_ language which in the Old
Testament is made use of with reference to Jehovah (_see_ Isa. viii.
13), he clearly suggests the supreme godhead of our Redeemer,” as
Dr. Roberts puts the matter (Words of the New Testament, p. 170).
Not, of course, that our critical judgement should be swayed one way
or the other by individual prepossessions; but that those who in the
course of these researches have sacrificed to truth much that they
have hitherto held dear, need not suppress their satisfaction when
truth is gain.

435 This translation of 2 Peter, 2, 3 John, and Jude, printed by Pococke
from Bodl. Orient. 119, well deserves careful study, being totally
different in style and character both from the Peshitto and the
Harkleian, somewhat free and periphrastic, yet, in our paucity of
good authorities just here, of great interest and full of valuable
readings. Thus, in this very verse it reads ἀδικούμενοι (“being
wronged as the hire of their wrong-doing”) with א*BP and the
Armenian, difficult as it may seem to receive that word as genuine:
in ver. 17 it omits εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα with אB and some other versions:
in ch. iii. 10 it sides with the Sahidic alone in receiving οὐχ
εὑρεθήσεται (apparently correctly) instead of εὑρεθήσεται of אBKP,
of the excellent cursives 27, 29, 66 _secundâ manu_, of the Armenian
and Harkleian margin, where the Received text follows the obvious
κατακαήσεται of AL and the rest, and C hits upon ἀφανισθήσονται in
pure despair.

436 Bp. Chr. Wordsworth speaks as though there were a _paronomasia_, a
play on the words ἀγάπη and ἀπάτη, comparing (after Windischmann) 2
Thess. ii. 10. “The false teachers called their meetings ἀγάπαι,
_love feasts_, but they were mere ἀπάται, _deceits_. Their _table_
was a _snare_” (Ps. lxix. 22). This view might be tenable if St.
Peter, with whom the _paronomasia_ must have taken its rise, were
not the earlier writer of the two, as the Bishop of Lincoln believes
he was, as firmly as we do. Perhaps Dr. Westcott’s notion that 2
Peter is a translation, not an original, at least in ch. ii, will
best account for the textual variations between it and St. Jude.

437 See the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, Introduction, pp. xxxv, xxxvii.

438 “Restitui in Grecis hoc membrum ex quatuor manuscr. codicum, veteris
Latini et Syri interpretis auctoritate. sic etiam assueto Johanne
istis oppositionibus contrariorum uti quam saepissimè.” Beza, N. T.,
1582.

439 Horne (Introduction, vol. ii. pt. ii. ch. iii. sect. 4), and after
his example Tregelles (Horne, iv. pp. 384-8), give a curious list of
more than fifty volumes, pamphlets, or critical notices on this
question. The following are the most worthy of perusal: Letters to
Edward Gibbon, Esq., by G. Travis, Archdeacon of Chester, 1785, 2nd
edit.; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Richard Porson,
1790; Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, &c., by Herbert Marsh
[afterwards Bp. of Peterborough], 1795; A Vindication of the
Literary Character of Professor Porson, by Crito Cantabrigiensis
[Thomas Turton, afterwards Bp. of Ely], 1827; Two Letters on some
parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, by Nicolas Wiseman,
1835, for which _see_ Index. For Dr. Adam Clarke’s “Observations,”
&c., 1805, _see_ Evan. 61. Add F. A. Knittel on 1 John v. 7.
Professor Ezra Abbot’s edition of “Orme’s Memoir of the Controversy
on 1 John v. 7,” New York, 1866, has not fallen in my way. As
elaborate works, on the verses are “A new plea for the authenticity
of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, or Porson’s Letters to
Travis eclectically examined,” Cambridge, 1867, being the
performance of a literary veteran, the late Rev. Charles Forster,
whose arguments in vindication of the Pauline origin of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, published in 1838, modern Biblical writers have
found it easier to pass by than to refute; and “The Three Witnesses,
the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old,” by the
Rev. H. T. Armfield, Bagster, 1883.

440 That the Codex Montfortianus was influenced by the Vulgate is
probably true, though it is a little hasty to infer the fact at once
from a single instance, namely, the substitution of χριστός after
that version and Uscan’s Armenian for the second πνεῦμα in verse 6:
“quae lectio Latina Graece in codicem 34 Dublinensem illum
Montfortianum recepta luculenter testatur versionem vulgatam ad cum
conficiendum valuisse” (Tischendorf _ad loc._).

441 It is really surprising how loosely persons who cannot help being
scholars, at least in some degree, will talk about codices
containing this clause. Dr. Edward Tatham, Rector of Lincoln
College, Oxford (1792-1834), writing in 1827, speaks of a manuscript
in his College Library which exhibited it, but is now missing, as
having been once seen by him and Dr. Parsons, Bishop of Peterborough
(Crito Cantabrigiensis, p. 334, note). Yet there can be no question
that he meant Act. 33, which does not give the verse, but has long
been known to have some connexion with the Codex Montfortianus,
which does (_see_ Act. 33).

442 Of the two Spanish MSS. one _leon._2 contains the passage only in
the margin, the other _leon._1 adds at the end of ver. 8, _in
__xpo__ __ihu_. Canon Westcott cites a manuscript in the British
Museum (Add. 11,852), of the ninth century, to the same effect,
observing that, like _m_ and _cav._, it contains the Epistle to the
Laodiceans. This MS. runs “quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant _sps_
et aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt. Sicut in caelo tres sunt
pater verbum et _sps_ et tres unum sunt.” Westcott’s manuscript is,
in fact, _ulm._, and had already been used by Porson (Letters, &c.,
p. 148).

443 Mr. Forster (_ubi supra_, pp. 200-209) believed that he had
discovered _Greek_ authority of the fourth century for this passage,
in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictine
edition of Chrysostom (Tom. xii. pp. 416-21), whose date Montfaucon
easily fixes by internal evidence at A.D. 381. As this discovery, if
real, is of the utmost importance in the controversy, it seems only
right to subjoin the words alleged by this learned divine, leaving
them to make their own way with the reader: (1) εἷς κέκληται ὁ Πατὴρ
καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον: (2) δεῖ γὰρ τῇ ἀποστολικῇ χορείᾳ
παραχωρῆσαι τὴν Ἁγίαν Τριάδα, ἢν ὁ Πατὴρ καταγγέλλει. Τριὰς
Ἀποστόλων, μάρτυς τῆς οὐρανίου Τριάδος.

444 The “Prologus Galeatus in vii Epistolas _Canonicas_,” in which the
author complains of the omission of ver. 7, “ab infidelibus
translatoribus,” is certainly not Jerome’s, and begins to appear in
codices of about the ninth century.

445 The writer of a manuscript note in the British Museum copy of
Travis’ “Letters to Gibbon,” 1785, p. 49, very well observes on the
second citation from Cyprian: “That three are one might be taken
from the eighth verse, as that was certainly understood of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost, _especially when Baptism was the subject in
hand_” [Matt. xxviii. 19].

446 It will be seen upon examination of our collations on p. 402 that
the points of difference between Codex Montfortianus (34) and
Erasmus’ printed text are two, viz. that 34 omits καί after πνεῦμα
in ver. 8, and with the Complutensian leaves out its last clause
altogether; while, on the other hand, Erasmus and Cod. 34 agree
against the Complutensian in their barbarous neglect of the Greek
article in both verses. As regards the omission in Cod. 34 of the
last clause of ver. 8 (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν), it is obvious
to conjecture that the person, whosoever he was, that sent the
transcript of the passage to Erasmus, who never saw the MS. for
himself, might have broken off after copying the disputed words, and
neglected to note down the further variation that immediately
followed them. After the foregoing explanation we must leave the
matter as it stands, for there is no known mode of accounting for
the discrepancy, whereof Mr. Forster makes the very utmost in the
following note, which, as a specimen of his book, is annexed entire:
“Bishop Marsh labours hard to identify the Codex Britannicus used by
Erasmus, with the Codex Montfortianus. Erasmus’s own description of
the Codex Britannicus completely nullifies the attempt: ‘Postremo:
Quod Britannicum etiam in terrae testimonio addebat, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς
εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι, quod non addebatur hic duntaxat in editione
Hispaniensi.’ Now as this clause is also omitted in the Montfort
Codex, it cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus. In
this as yet undiscovered MS., therefore, we have a second and
independent Gr. MS. witness to the seventh verse. The zeal of the
adversaries to evade this fact only betrays their sense of its
importance” (p. 126). Alas! _Hi motus animorum._

447 I side with Porson against Travis on every important point at issue
between them, and yet I must say that if the former lost a legacy
(as has been reported) by publishing his “Letters,” he was entitled
to but slender sympathy. The prejudices of good men (especially when
a passage is concerned which they have long held to be a genuine
portion of Scripture, clearly teaching pure and right doctrine)
should be dealt with gently: not that the truth should be dissembled
or withheld, but when told it ought to be in a spirit of tenderness
and love. Now take one example out of fifty of the tone and temper
of Porson. The immediate question was a very subordinate one in the
controversy, namely, the evidence borne by the Acts of the Lateran
Council, A.D. 1215. “Though this,” rejoins Porson, “proves nothing
in favour of the verse, it proves two other points. That the clergy
then exercised dominion over the rights of mankind, and that able
tithe-lawyers often make sorry critics. _Which I desire some certain
gentlemen of my acquaintance to lay up in their hearts as a very
seasonable innuendo_” (Letters, p. 361, quoted from “A Tale of a
Tub” p. 151). As if it were a disgrace for an Archdeacon to know a
little about the laws which affect the clergy.

448 Gaussen (Theopneustia, pp. 115-7) has still spirit remaining to
press the masculine forms οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ver. 7 and οἱ τρεῖς ver. 8
as making in favour of the intervening clause: “Remove it, and the
grammar becomes incoherent:” a reason truly, but one not strong
enough to carry his point.

449 We are compelled to draw a sharp distinction between γεγεννημένος
and γεννηθείς in the same context, and, with all deference to the
_Quarterly Reviewer_ (April, 1882, p. 366), we do not think his view
of the matter more natural than that given in the text: “St. John,”
he suggests, “is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the
new birth (ὁ γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who retains the
sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit which he received when he
became regenerate (ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ).” [The distinction
given between the perfect and aorist, as I have altered it in the
text, is perfectly just, and explains the passage. The effects of
regeneration if continued are indefectible, but the mere fact of
regeneration entails constant watchfulness.]

450 So it certainly seems to me after careful inspection of Cod. A,
although it may be too bold to say, as some have, that there are in
it no corrections by later hands. Above in ver. 10 ἐν ἀυτῷ is
supported by ABKLP and a shower of cursives in the room of ἐν ἑαυτῷ
of א and the Received text, but here there is no difference of sense
between the two forms. Dr. Hort (Introd., Notes, p. 144) has an
exhaustive and cautious note on the breathing of αυτου, αυτῳ, &c.,
and ultimately declines to exclude the aspirate from the N. T.

451 The Revision Revised, pp. 247-8.

452 For a very full and clear account of a MS. of this class, the reader
may consult an article by Prof. Isaac H. Hall in the “Journal of the
American Oriental Society,” vol. xi, No. 2, 1885.

453 It is not meant that these terms occur as titles. _Apostolos_ (ܫܥܝܐ
or ܐܝܥܫ) as applied to a book means the fourteen Epp. of St. Paul.
_Evangeliom_, in the sense of _Evangelistary_ in a title, is quoted
in “Thesaurus Syriacus.”

But many liturgical terms were borrowed from the Greeks, especially
by the Maronites. For a succinct account of Greek and Latin Service
Books, _see_ Pelliccia’s “Polity” (tr. Bellett, 1883), pp. 183-8:
for the Syriac system, _see_ Etheridge’s “Syrian Churches,” pp.
112-6.

<pre id="pg-footer">