Chapter XVI: Appendix: II. ὄξος—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 (ἐδίδουν “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 substitution of “wine” for “vinegar” (οἶνον for ὄξος) 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 assimilate the fourth Gospel to the first (by exhibiting ὄξος μετὰ χολῆς in St. John xix. 29) is universally admitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

I return to the proposed substitution of οἶνον for ὄξος 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 BאDKLΠ, 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-א 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 Peshitto 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-א 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 Nazianzus(482),—by Ephraem Syrus(483),—by Lactantius(484),—by Jerome(485),—by Rufinus(486),—by Chrysostom(487),—by Severianus of Gabala(488),—by Theodore of Mopsuestia(489),—by Cyril of Alexandria(490),—and by Titus of Bostra(491). Now these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than Codexes B-א and D (who also have to reckon with A, Φ, and Σ—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 assigns 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 KLΠ. Those critics in fact who would substitute “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 ὄξος (not οἶνον) 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 passed 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 substitute 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?