Fourth Series. Catholic Epistles.
44. James iv. 4. Μοιχοὶ καί should be omitted before μοιχαλίδες on the testimony of א*AB, 13. The Peshitto, Bohairic, Latin, Armenian, and both Ethiopic versions have “adulterers” (fornicatores ff) only, but since no Greek copy thus reads, we must suppose that their translators were startled by the bold imagery so familiar to the Hebrew prophets (Isa. liv. 5; Jer. ii. 2; Ezek. xvi. 32 are cited from a host of similar passages by Wordsworth) and endeavoured to dilute it in this way. Tischendorf would join μοιχαλίδες with δαπανήσητε ver. 3, alleging the point or stop placed after it in Cod. B: but this point is not found in Vercellone's edition, although he leaves a small space before οὐκ. The full form Μοιχοὶ καὶ μοιχαλίδες of אcKLP, the later Syriac, and all other known copies, is evidently a correction of early scribes.
45. James iv. 5. The variation between κατῴκισεν and κατῴκησεν is plainly to be attributed to a mere itacism, whichsoever is to be regarded as the true form. We find ι in אAB, 101, 104 only, nor is it quite accurate to say with Tischendorf that collators are apt to overlook such points. In KLP, and apparently in all other manuscripts of every class, η is read, and so the catenas, with Theophylact and Œcumenius, understand this difficult passage. That all the versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptian, &c.) thus render seems decisive in favour of η. The combination of אAB, however strong, has repeatedly been seen not to be irresistible; and while it must be confessed that in our existing Greek copies the interchange of ι and η (though found in Cod. A) is not an itacism of the very oldest type (p. 10), yet here the testimony of the versions refers it back to the second century. Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, combine in reading κατῴκισεν.
46. 1 Pet. i. 23. Here we have a remarkable example to illustrate what we saw in the cases of Rom. viii. 20; 2 Cor. iii. 3, Phil. ii. 1, that the chief uncials sometimes conspire in readings which are unquestionably false, and can hardly have arisen independently of each other. For σπορᾶς φθαρτῆς Codd. אAC have φθορᾶσ φθαρτῆς, the scribe's eye wandering in writing [pg 398] σπορᾶς to the beginning of the next word: Cod. B is free from this vile corruption. When Mill records the variation for Cod. A, he adds (as well he might), “dormitante scribâ:” but that the same gross error should be found in three out of the four oldest codices, and in no other, is very suggestive, and not a little perplexing to false theorists.
47. 1 Pet. iii. 15. Κύριον δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν. For θεόν we find χριστόν (a change of considerable doctrinal importance)[434] in אABC, 7, 8 (Stephen's ια´), 13, 33 (margin), 69, 137, 182, 184 (but not 221: see p. [310], note 2), Apost. 1 (ιν χν ἡμῶν) with its Arabic translation. Thus too read both Syriac versions, the Sahidic, Bohairic, Armenian (τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ χριστόν), Erpenius' Arabic, the Vulgate, Clement of Alexandria, Fulgentius, and Bede. Jerome has “Jesum Christum:” the Ethiopic and one other (Auctor de promiss., fourth century) omit both words. Against this very strong case we can set up for the common text only the more recent uncials KLP (not more than seven uncials contain this Epistle), the mass of later cursives (ten out of Scrivener's twelve, also Wake 12, or Cod. 193), the Polyglott Arabic, Slavonic, Theophylact, and Œcumenius, authorities of the ninth century and downwards. It is a real pleasure to me in this instance to express my cordial agreement with Tregelles (and so read Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort), when he says, “Thus the reading χριστόν may be relied on confidently” (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 285). I would further allege this text as one out of many proofs that the great uncials seldom or never conspire in exhibiting a really valuable departure from the later codices, unless supported by some of the best of the cursives themselves. See, however, Acts xiii. 32.
48. 2 Pet. ii. 13. The resemblance between the second epistle of St. Peter and that of St. Jude is too close to be unobserved by the most careless reader, and the supposition that the elder [pg 399] Apostle's letter was in Jude's hands when he wrote his own is that which best meets the circumstances of the case. The σπῖλοι of the present verse, for example, looks like the origin of σπιλάδες in Jude 12, where the latter word is employed in a signification almost unprecedented in classical Greek, though the Orphic poems have been cited for its bearing the sense of “spots,” which all the ancient versions rightly agree with our Authorized Bible in attributing to it. Bearing in mind the same verse of St. Jude, it seems plain that ἀπάταις of the Received text cannot be accepted as true, as well because it affords so poor a meaning in connexion with ἐντρυφῶντες and συνευωχούμενοι, as because the later writer must have seen ἀγάπαις in his model, when he paraphrased it by οἱ ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπιλάδες συνευωχούμενοι. For this change of two letters we have the support of Cod. A (as corrected by the first hand) and B alone of the manuscripts, but of the versions, the Latin Speculum m which in these later epistles is strangely loose, yet cannot be misunderstood in the present place, the Vulgate, the Sahidic version, the Ethiopic, the Syriac printed with the Peshitto[435], and the margin of the Harkleian version. Add to these Ephraem and the Latin author of the tract “de singularitate clericorum,” both of the fourth century. The little group of cursives 27, 29, and the second hand of 66 read ἀγνοίαις; but ἀπάταις, nescio quo sensu[436], still [pg 400] cleaves to the text of Tischendorf and of Westcott and Hort, and to the margin of Tregelles, who in the text prefers ἀγάπαις with Lachmann and Westcott and Hort's margin. Codd. אA (in its original form) CKLP, all other cursives, the catenas (Cod. 36, &c.), the Bohairic, Armenian, and Harkleian versions also have ἀπάταις, and so Theophylact and Œcumenius, but hardly Jerome as cited by Tischendorf.
49. 1 John ii. 23. The English reader will have observed that the latter clause of this verse, “but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also,” is printed in italics in our Authorized version, this being the only instance in the New Testament wherein variety of reading is thus denoted by the translators, who derived both the words and this method of indicating their doubtful authenticity from the “Great Bible” of 1539[437]. The corresponding Greek ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει (which appears to have been lost out of some copies by Homoeoteleuton), was first inserted in Beza's Greek Testament in 1582[438], it is approved by all modern editors (Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort), and, though still absent from the textus receptus, is unquestionably genuine. This is just such a point as versions are best capable of attesting. The “Great Bible” had no doubt taken the clause from the Latin Vulgate, in whose printed editions and chief manuscripts it is found (e.g. in am. fuld. demid. tol. harl.), as also in both Syriac, both Egyptian (the Sahidic not for certain), the Armenian, Ethiopic, and Erpenius' (not the Polyglott) Arabic version. Of manuscripts the great uncials אABC (with P) contain the clause, the later KL omit it. Of the cursives only two of Scrivener's (182, 225) have it, and another (183) secundâ manu: from twelve or more of them it is absent, as also from seven of Matthaei's: but of the other cursives it is present in at least thirty, whereof 3, 5, 13, 66** (marg.), 68, 69, 98 are valuable. It is also acknowledged by Clement, Origen (thrice), Eusebius, both Cyrils, Theophylact, and the Western Fathers. The younger Cyril, possibly Euthalius, and one or [pg 401] two others have ὁμολογεῖ for the final ἔχει: the Old Latin m, Cyprian, and Hilary repeat τὸν υἱὸν καί before τὸν πατέρα ἔχει. The critical skill of Beza must not be estimated very highly, yet in this instance he might well have been imitated by the Elzevir editors.
50. 1 John v. 7, 8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα; καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ], τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα; καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The authenticity of the words within brackets will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by any one whose judgement ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped to keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies, and led to investigations into collateral points of the highest importance, such as the sources of the Received text, the manuscripts employed by R. Stephen, the origin and value of the Velesian readings, and other points. A critical résumé of the whole discussion might be profitably undertaken by some competent scholar; we can at present touch only upon the chief heads of this great debate[439].
The two verses appear in the early editions, with the following notable variations from the common text, C standing for the Complutensian, Er. for one or more of Erasmus' five editions. Ver. 7.—ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ usque ad τῇ γῇ ver. 8, Er. 1, 2.—ὁ prim. et [pg 402] secund. Er. 3. [non C. Er. 4, 5]. + και (post πατήρ) C.—τό Er. 3. πνεῦμα ἅγιον Er. 3, 4, 5.—οὗτοι C. + εισ το (ante εν) C. Ver. 8, επί της γης C.—τὸ ter Er. 3, 4, 5 [habent C. Er. 1, 2].—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin. vers. C. They are found, including the clause from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ in no more than three Greek manuscripts, and those of very late date, one of them (Cod. Ravianus, Evan. 110) being a mere worthless copy from printed books; and in the margin of a fourth, in a hand as late as the sixteenth century. The real witnesses are the Codex Montfortianus, Evan. 61, Act. 34 (whose history was described above, p. 187[440]); Cod. Vat.-Ottob. 298 (Act. 162), and, for the margin, a Naples manuscript (Act. 83 or 173, q. v.). On comparing these slight and scanty authorities with the Received text we find that they present the following variations: ver. 7. ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ (pro ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) 162.—ὁ prim. et secund. 34, 162.—τό 34, 162. πνα ἅγιον 34, 162.—οὗτοι 162. + εἰς τό (ante ἕν) 162. Ver. 8. εἰσί 73 marg. ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς 162.—τό ter 34.—καί (post πνα) 34, 162.—καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ad fin. vers. 34, 162, fin. εἰσι 173. No printed edition, therefore, is found to agree with either 34 or 162 (173, whose margin is so very recent, only differs from the common text by dropping ν ἐφελκυστικόν), though on the whole 162 best suits the Complutensian: but the omission of the article in ver. 7, while it stands in ver. 8 in 162, proves that the disputed clause was interpolated (probably from its parallel Latin) by one who was very ill acquainted with Greek.
The controverted words are not met with in any of the extant uncials (אABKLP) or in any cursives besides those named above[441]: the cursives that omit them were found by the careful calculation of the Rev. A. W. Grafton, Dean Alford's secretary [pg 403] (N. T. ad. loc.), to amount to 188 in all (to which we may now add Codd. 190, 193, 219-221), besides some sixty Lectionaries. The aspect of things is not materially altered when we consult the versions. The disputed clause is not in any manuscript of the Peshitto, nor in the best editions (e.g. Lee's): the Harkleian, Sahidic, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Arabic do not contain it in any shape: scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it. The Latin versions, therefore, alone lend it any support, and even these are much divided. The chief and oldest authority in its favour is Wiseman's Speculum m and r of the earlier translation; it is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its manuscripts, but not in the best, such as am. fuld. harl.3; nor in Alcuin's reputed copies at Rome (primâ manu) and London (Brit. Mus. Add. 10,546), nor in the book of Armagh and full fifty others. In one of the most ancient which contain it, cav., ver. 8 precedes ver. 7 (as appears also in m. tol. demid. and a codex at Wolfenbüttel, Wizanburg. 99 [viii] cited by Lachmann), while in the margin is written “audiat hoc Arius et ceteri,” as if its authenticity was unquestioned[442]. In general there is very considerable variety of reading (always a suspicious circumstance, as has been already explained), and often the doubtful words stand only in the margin: the last clause of ver. 8 (et hi tres unum sunt), especially, is frequently left out when the “Heavenly Witnesses” are retained. It is to defend this omission by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas, not to account for the reception of the doubtful words, that the Complutensian editors wrote a note, the longest and indeed almost the only one in their New Testament. We conclude, therefore, that the passage from ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ to ἐν τῇ γῇ had no place in ancient Greek manuscripts, but came into some of the Latin at least as early as the sixth century.
The Patristic testimony in its favour, though quite insufficient to establish the genuineness of the clause, is entitled to more consideration. Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and after it[443]: [but a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)]. The same must be said of the great Latins, Hilary, Lucifer, Ambrose, Jerome[444], and Augustine, with others of less note. On the other hand the African writers, Vigilius of Thapsus, at the end of the fifth century, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (fl. 508) in two places, expressly appeal to the “three Heavenly Witnesses” as a genuine portion of St. John's Epistle; nor is there much reason to doubt the testimony of Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was insisted on in a confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and 460 bishops in 484, and presented to the Arian Hunneric, king of the Vandals [or of Cassiodorus, an Italian, in the sixth century]. From that period the clause became well known in other regions of the West, and was in time generally accepted throughout the Latin Church.
But a stand has been made by the maintainers of this passage on the evidence of two African Fathers of a very different stamp from those hitherto named, Tertullian and Cyprian. If it could be proved that these writers cited or alluded to the passage, it would result—not by any means that it is authentic—but that like Acts viii. 37 and a few other like interpolations, it was known and received in some places, as early as the second or third century. Now as regards the language of Tertullian [pg 405] (which will be found in Tischendorf's and the other critical editions of the N. T.; advers. Prax. 25; de Pudic. 21), it must be admitted that Bp. Kaye's view is the most reasonable, that “far from containing an allusion to 1 John v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse” (Writings of Tertullian, p. 550, second edition); but I cannot thus dispose of his junior Cyprian (d. 258). One must say with Tischendorf (who, however, manages to explain away his testimony) “gravissimus est Cyprianus de eccles. unitate 5.” His words run, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” And yet further, in his Epistle to Jubaianus (73) on heretical baptism: “Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit,—si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?” If these two passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the stronger[445]), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning; although we must acknowledge that it was in this way ver. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies, and though we have clear examples of the like mystical interpretation in Eucherius (fl. 440) and Augustine (contra Maximin. 22), who only knew of ver. 8.
Stunica, the chief Complutensian editor, by declaring, in controversy with Erasmus, with reference to this very passage, “Sciendum est, Graecorum codices esse corruptos, nostros [i.e. Latinos] verò ipsam veritatem continere,” virtually admits that ver. 7 was translated in that edition from the Latin, not derived from Greek sources. The versions (for such we must call them) in Codd. 34, 162 had no doubt the same origin, but [pg 406] were somewhat worse rendered: the margin of 173 seems to be taken from a printed book. Erasmus, after excluding the passage from his first two editions, inserted it in his third under circumstances we have before mentioned; and notwithstanding the discrepancy of reading in ver. 8, there can be little or no doubt of the identity of his “Codex Britannicus” with Montfort's[446]. We have detailed the steps by which the text was brought into its present shape, wherein it long remained, unchallenged by all save a few such bold spirits as Bentley, defended even by Mill, implicitly trusted in by those who had no knowledge of Biblical criticism. It was questioned in fair argument by Wetstein, assailed by Gibbon in 1781 with his usual weapons, sarcasm and insinuation (Decline and Fall, chap. xxxvii). Archdeacon Travis, who came to the rescue, a person “of some talent and attainments” (Crito Cantab., p. 335, note), burdened as he was with a weak cause and undue confidence in its goodness, would have been at any rate—impar congressus Achilli—no match at all for the exact learning, the acumen, the wit, the overbearing scorn of Porson[447]. The [pg 407] “Letters” of that prince of scholars, and the contemporaneous researches of Herbert Marsh, have completely decided the contest. Bp. Burgess alone, while yet among us [d. 1837], and after him Mr. Charles Forster [d. 1871], clung obstinately to a few scattered outposts after the main field of battle had been lost beyond recovery[448].
On the whole, therefore, we need not hesitate to declare our conviction that the disputed words were not written by St. John: that they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8: that from the Latin they crept into two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful claim. We will close this slight review with the terse and measured judgement of Griesbach on the subject: “Si tam pauci, dubii, suspecti, recentes testes, et argumenta tam levia, sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam γνησιότητα, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia, et testimonia et argumenta: nullum prorsus superesset in re criticâ veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi Testamenti universus planè incertus esset atque dubius” (N. T., ad locum, vol. ii. p. 709).
51. 1 John v. 18. In this verse, according to the Received text, we have the perfect γεγεννημένος of continued effects and the aorist γεννηθείς of completed action used for the same person, although elsewhere in the same Epistle the man begotten of God is invariably γεγεννημένος (ch. ii. 29; iii. 9 bis; iv. 7; v. 1, 4). [pg 408] Hence the special importance of the various reading αὐτόν for ἑαυτόν after τηρεῖ, since, if this were to be accepted, ὁ γεννηθείς could be none other than the Only-begotten Son who keepeth the human sons of God, agreeably to His own declaration in John xvii. 12[449]. In behalf of αὐτόν we can allege only AB, 105 (a cursive collated by Matthaei), and the Vulgate (conservat eum), the testimony of A, always so powerful when sanctioned by B, being nothing weakened by the fact that it is corrected into ἑαυτόν by the original [?] scribe[450], who in copying had faithfully followed his exemplar, and on second thoughts supposed he had gone wrong. All other authorities, including copies, versions, and Fathers, א and the rest (C being lost here), have ἑαυτόν, the Peshitto very expressly [and Origen thrice, Didymus four times, Ephraem Syrus and Severus twice each, besides Theophylact and Œcumenius[451]]. We venture to commend this variation as one of a class Dean Vaughan speaks of, which, seeming violently improbable at first sight, grows upon the student as he becomes familiar with it. It must be confessed, however, that St. Paul makes but slight distinction between the two tenses in Gal. iv. 23, 29, and that we have no other example in Scripture or ecclesiastical writers of ὁ γεννηθείς being used absolutely for the Divine Son, though the contrast here suggested is somewhat countenanced by that between ὁ ἁγιάζων and οἱ ἁγιαζόμενοι in Heb. ii. 11. [So that Dr. Scrivener's view demands considerable sacrifice for its acceptance.]
52. Jude 5. Here we have a variation, vouched for by AB united, which it is hard to think true, however interesting the doctrinal inference would be. Instead of ὁ κύριος λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας, the article is omitted by אAB, and perhaps by C*, so that it must at any rate resign its place; while for ΚΣ of א (apparently of C*) and the mass of copies, with the Harkleian, we find ΙΣ in AB, 6, 7, 13, 29, 66 (secundâ manu), the Vulgate, Sahidic, Bohairic, and both Ethiopic versions. The Bodleian Syriac has yet another variation, ὁ Θεός, in support of which we have the important second hand of C, 5, 8, 68, tol. of the Vulgate, the Armenian (with ισ in the margin), the Arabic of Erpenius, Clement of Alexandria, and Lucifer. The Greek of Didymus has κσ ισ, but his Latin translation ισ, which Jerome also recognized, although he wrongly supposed that Joshua was meant. While we acknowledge that the Person who saved Israel out of Egypt was indeed the Saviour of the world, we should rather expect that He would be called the Christ (1 Cor. x. 4) than Jesus. There is a similar variation between χν, κν, and θν in the parallel passage 1 Cor. x. 9.
Lachmann alone reads Ἰησοῦς here, though Tregelles gives it a place in his margin. Westcott and Hort would be acting on their general principle if they received it, but, while setting Κύριος in the text and Ἰησοῦς in the margin, they brand the passage as corrupt, and would be inclined to believe that the original words were ὁ ... σώσας, without either of the nouns. Dr. Hort (Notes, p. 106) points out how slight the change would be from ΟΤΙΟ to ΟΤΙΣ (one Ι being dropped) in the simple uncials of early times.