It is right to mention that, in the place of τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος, the more emphatic form τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου ought to be adopted from אA (see Plate v. No. 13) BCDE, 31, 182, 184 (Sanderson), with some twenty other cursives, Didymus, &c.; while τοῦ ἰδίου αἵματος is only in HLP, the majority of cursives, Athanasius, Chrysostom, &c. We must, however, protest strongly against the interpretation put upon τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου by Mr. Darby in his “New Translation,” “the blood of his own,” “le sang de son propre [fils],” as being no less unwarrantable, though more reverential, than that of Wakefield, which Bp. Middleton (Doctrine of the Greek Article, pp. 293-5) condemns so justly. Nor can we do less than repudiate unreservedly Dr. Hort's expedient (Notes, p. 99), who would render “through the blood that was His own,” i.e. as being His Son's. Indeed he has so little faith in it that he is constrained to say “It is however true that this general sense, if indicated, is not sufficiently expressed in the text as it stands.”
31. Acts xxvii. 16. Καῦδα, the form which Erasmus noted as that of Cod. B, is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in preference to Κλαῦδα of Tischendorf and the Received text. Putting Kura of the Peshitto, Keda of Pell Platt's Ethiopic, out of the question, we note that אc, the Vulgate and Latins (Jerome has Cauden, Cassiodorus Gaudem), followed by the Roman edition of the Ethiopic, alone omit the λ. In the first century Pomponius Mela wrote Cauda, the other Pliny Gaudos, and Suidas speaks of Caudo as an island near Crete: it is now called Gozo, and is not to be confounded with the island of Gaulus near Malta, now bearing the same name. The λ is inserted by Ptolemy, the celebrated geographer of the second century, and by later writers: it is found in א*AHLP, in all known cursives (with a like variation in the termination as in the other form), the Bohairic, the later Syriac both in its text and in Greek letters in its margin, the Armenian, and Erpenius', or the only trustworthy form of the Arabic. Chrysostom and Bede have the same reading, which must surely be retained unless the union of Cod. B with the Latins is to prevail against all other evidence put together.
32. Acts xxvii. 37. In the place of διακόσιαι ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ Westcott and Hort have received into their text ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα ἕξ, placing the common reading in the margin. Their form is supported by Cod. B and the Sahidic version only, and was plainly resorted to by those who were slow to believe that a corn ship, presumably heavily laden (vers. 6, 18), would contain so many souls. There is a slight variation in the other authorities, as is usual where numbers are concerned, from the ancient practice of representing them by letters, whereof many traces are yet remaining throughout Codex Sarravianus of the Septuagint, dating from the end of the fourth century, and in our present copies (Cod. D in Acts xiii. 18; 20; xix. 9) of the New Testament: even in this place Cod. 61 has σοϛ. Hence A reads πέντε for ἕξ, 31 omits ἕξ entirely, one Bohairic copy has the incredible number of 876 (ωοϛ), another 176 (ροϛ). The Ethiopic is reported by Tregelles to read ὡς διακόσιαι ἕξ, but that in the Polyglott favours the common text; Epiphanius comes nearest to B (ὡς ἑβδομήκοντα), “libere” adds Tischendorf. For the more specific number assigned by B ὡς is not so well suited.
In ordinary cases the common reading would be abided by without hesitation, upheld as it is by אCHLP, by all cursives, virtually by A, 31, completely by the Latin, both Syriac, the Armenian, and most copies of the Bohairic. It is obvious also that the writer wishes to impress upon us the fact that out of so large a party all were saved, and seventy-six would be a small number indeed. Josephus was wrecked in the Adriatic with 600 on board (Josephus' Life, c. 3: see Whiston's note)[416]. It is right, however, to point out that, on the possible supposition that numeral letters, not words, were employed in St. Luke's autograph, the difference between B and the Received text would consist of the insertion or the contrary of the letter ω: whether in fact it be assumed that the Evangelist wrote ωσοϛ or σοϛ, “about 76” or “276.” Surely it is more likely that ω was inserted than omitted.
In ver. 39 the first hand of B, this time favoured by C, and supported by the Bohairic, Armenian, and (in Tregelles) the [pg 379] Ethiopic versions, has another curious variation, also promoted into the text by Westcott and Hort, ἐκσῶσαι for the common ἐξῶσαι, which they banish into the margin. This change also is very minute, being simply the resolution of xi into the two consonants for which it stands, and the reading very ingenious, unless indeed it be regarded as a mistake made ex ore dictantis (see p. [10]), which with Madvig as cited by Mr. Hammond (Outlines of Textual Criticism, first edition, p. 13, note) we regard as a slovenly plan, such as one would be loth to impute hastily to the scribes of so noble a copy as Cod. B. Here, however, as ever, internal evidence being equiponderant, we must decide by the weight of documentary proof, and adopt ἐξῶσαι with אAHLP, all cursives (including 61), the Latin and Syriac versions.
Third Series. St. Paul.
33. Rom. v. 1. Δικαιωθέντες οὖν ἐκ πίστεως εἰρήνην ἔχομεν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Here, as in 2 Cor. iii. 3, we find the chief uncials supporting a reading which is manifestly unsuitable to the context, although, since it does not absolutely destroy the sense, it does not (nor indeed does that other passage) lack strenuous defenders. Codd. אB for ἔχομεν have primâ manu ἔχωμεν, and though some doubt has been thrown on the primitive reading of B, yet Mai and Tregelles (An Account of the Printed Text, p. 156) are eyewitnesses to the fact, which is now settled: Tischendorf in 1866 referred ἔχομεν to the third hand of B, Codd. ACDEKL, not less than thirty cursives, including 104, 244, 257 and the remarkable copies 17, 37, also read ἔχωμεν, as do d e f g, the Vulgate (“habeamus”), the Peshitto Syriac (ܢܚܘܐ ܠܢ ܫܠܡܐ or ܐܡܠܫ ܢܠ ܐܘܚܢ), Bohairic, Ethiopic (in both forms), and Arabic. Chrysostom too supports this view, and so apparently Tertullian (“monet justificatos ex fide Christi ... pacem ad Deum habere”). The case for ἔχομεν is much weaker in itself: Codd. אaB3FG (in spite of the contrary testimony of f g, their respective Latin versions) P, perhaps the majority of the cursive manuscripts (29, 30, 47, 221, 260, 265, &c.), Didymus, Epiphanius, Cyril (once), and the Slavonic. The later Syriac might seem to combine both readings (ܢܗܘܐ ܐܬ ܠܢ ܠܘܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܫܝܢܐ or ܐܢܝܫ ܐܗܠܐ ܐܘܠ ܢܠ ܬܐ ܐܘܗܢ): White translates “habemus,” but has no note on the passage[417]. Had the scales [pg 380] been equally poised, no one would hesitate to prefer ἔχομεν, for the closer the context is examined the clearer it will appear that inference not exhortation is the Apostle's purpose: hence those who most regard “ancient evidence” (Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort; Lachmann could not make up his mind) have struggled long before they would admit ἔχωμεν into the text. The “Five Clergymen” who in or about 1858 benefited the English Church by revising its Authorized version of this Epistle, even though they render “let us have peace with God,” are constrained to say, “An overwhelming weight of authority has necessitated a change, which at the first sight seems to impair the logical force of the Apostle's argument. No consideration, however, of this kind can be allowed to interfere with the faithful exhibition of the true text, as far as it can be ascertained; and no doubt the real Word of God, thus faithfully exhibited, will vindicate its own meaning, and need no help from man's shortsighted preference” (Preface, p. vii). Every one must honour the reverential temper in which these eminent men approached their delicate task; yet, if their sentiments be true, where is the place for internal evidence at all? A more “overwhelming weight” of manuscript authority upholds καρδίαις in 2 Cor. iii. 3: shall we place it in the text, “leaving the real Word of God to vindicate its own meaning”? Ought we to assume that the reading found in the few most ancient codices—not, in the case of Rom. v. 1, in the majority of the whole collection—must of necessity be the “real Word of God, faithfully exhibited”? I see no cause to reply in the affirmative, nor do Meyer and Dr. Field[418].
We conclude, therefore, that this is a case for the application of the paradiplomatical canon (VII): that the itacism ω for ο, so familiar to all collators of Greek manuscripts[419], crept into [pg 381] some very early copy, from which it was propagated among our most venerable codices, even those from which the earliest versions were made:—that this is one out of a small number of well-ascertained cases in which the united testimonies of the best authorities conspire in giving a worse reading than that preserved by later and, on the whole, quite inferior copies.
34. 1 Cor. xi. 24. I am as unwilling as Mr. C. Forster could have been to strike out from the Received text “a word which (if genuine) the Lord God had spoken!” (A new Plea for the Three Heavenly Witnesses, Preface, p. xvii), but I cannot censure Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, or Westcott and Hort, or Dean Blakesley for deciding on the state of the evidence, as now generally taken, that it is not genuine. Yet it is with great satisfaction that I find Bp. Chr. Wordsworth able to retain κλώμενον, and to save the solemn clause τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν from being “bald and impressive without the participle.” Mr. Forster's argument in behalf of κλώμενον, that it refers to ch. x. 16, τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, has a double edge, and might be employed to indicate the source from which the word crept in here. It is more to the purpose to urge with Bp. Wordsworth that early scribes were offended by the apparent inconsistency of the term with John xix. 36, and because there is nothing like it in the narratives of the three earlier Evangelists. If we decide to retain κλώμενον, it must be in opposition to the four chief manuscripts אABC, though אC insert it by the third hand of each. Cod. D, like its namesake of the Gospels and Acts, is [pg 382] somewhat inclined to paraphrases, and has θρυπτόμενον[420] by the first hand, κλώμενον by the second. Only two cursives here side with the great uncials (17, and the valuable second hand of 67), as do Zohrab's Armenian, Cyril of Alexandria and Fulgentius in the fifth century, and Theodoret's report of Athanasius. The word κλώμενον is found in EFGKLP, all other cursives, the Latin versions of DE (quod frangitur), with Ambrosiaster: G and the interlinear Latin of F, which, as has been already shown under that MS., is taken from G, prefer quod frangetur, with both Syriac, the Gothic, and the Armenian of Uscan. The Latin Vulgate has tradetur (but traditur in harl.2, even in the parallel column of F and against its Greek, and so Cyprian); the Bohairic renders traditur; but the Sahidic and Ethiopic datur, after the διδόμενον of Zacagni's Euthalius, derived from Luke xxii. 19. Theodoret himself knew of both forms. The main strength of κλώμενον rests on Patristic evidence. Mr. Forster has added to our previous store the “conclusive testimony” of Basil (Forster, p. xxvi) and of Athanasius himself (ibid. p. xvii), which is better than Theodoret's report at second hand; and thus too Chrysostom in three places, one manuscript of Euthalius, John Damascene, the Patriarch Germanus (a.d. 715, ibid. p. xix), Œcumenius and Theophylact. Mr. Forster is perfectly justified also in pressing the evidence of the Primitive Liturgies, in all of which κλώμενον occurs in the most sacred words of Institution (ibid. pp. xx, xxi). Whatsoever change these services have received in the course of ages, they have probably been little altered since the fourth century, and very well established must the word have then been to have found a place in them all. On the whole, therefore, we submit this important text as a proof that the united readings of אABC are sometimes at variance, not only with the more modern codices united, but with the text of the oldest versions and most illustrious Fathers. We confess, however, that in ver. 29 ἀναξίως (compare ver. 27) and τοῦ κύ look too much like glosses to be maintained confidently against the evidence of א*ABC*, 17, (67**) and some manuscripts of the Ethiopic.
35. 1 Cor. xiii. 3. ἐὰν παραδῶ τὸ σῶμά μου ἵνα καυθήσωμαι, [pg 383] “though I give my body to be burned.” Here we find the undoubtedly false reading καυχήσωμαι in the three chief codices אAB and in 17, adopted by Drs. Westcott and Hort[421], and it is said to have been favoured by Lachmann in 1831, by Tregelles in 1873 (A. W. Tyler, Bibl. Sacra, 1873, p. 502). Jerome testifies that in his time “apud Graecos ipsos ipsa exemplaria esse diversa,” and preferred καυχήσωμαι (though all copies of the Latin have ut ardeam or ut ardeat), which is said to be countenanced by the Roman Ethiopic: the case of the Bohairic is stated by Bp. Lightfoot (Chap. IV)[422]. Tischendorf cites Ephraem (ii. 112) for καυχήσομαι. This variation, which involves the change of but one letter, is worth notice, as showing that the best uncial MSS. are not always to be depended upon, and sometimes are “blemished with errors” (Wordsworth, N. T., ad loc.). As a parallel use, Theodotion's version of Dan. iii. 8 (παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν εἰς πῦρ) is very pertinent: and for the punishment of burning alive, as practised in those times, consult (if it be thought needful) Joseph., Antiq. xvii. 6, 4 (Hort). Καυχήσωμαι may have obtained the more credit, inasmuch as each of the other principal readings, namely Tischendorf's καυθήσομαι (DEFGL, 44, 47, 71, 80, 104, 113**, 253**, 254, 255, 257, 260, 265, with nine of Matthaei's, and some others: καθήσομαι 244) and καυθήσωμαι (CK, 29, 37, and many others, Chrysostom, Theodoret, &c.) of Lachmann and Tregelles, are anomalous, the former in respect to mood, the latter to tense. The important cursive 73 has καυθήσεται with some Latin copies: Codd. 1, 108*, Basil (perhaps Cyprian) adopt καυθῇ: the Syriac (ܕܢܐܘܕ or ܕܘܐܢܕ), and I suppose the Arabic, will suit either of these last. Evidence seems to preponderate on the side of καυθήσομαι, but in the case of these itacisms manuscripts are very fallacious we know. Such a subjunctive future as καυθήσωμαι, however, I should have been disposed to question, had it not passed muster with much better scholars than I am: but to illustrate it, as Tregelles does (An Account of the Printed Text, [pg 384] p. 117, note), from ἵνα δώσῃ Apoc. viii. 3, is to accomplish little, since δώσηι is the reading of אAC, 1 (although Erasmus has δώσῃ with BP, 6, 7, 91, 98, and the Complutensian), 13, 28, 29, 30, 37, 40, 48, 68, 87, 94, 95, 96 (δωσι 8, 26, 27: δω 14), together with the best copies of Andreas, and is justly approved by Lachmann and Tischendorf, nay even by Tregelles himself in his second revision (1872). It seems most likely that in both places ἵνα, the particle of design, is followed by the indicative future, as (with Meyer and Bp. Ellicott) I think to be clearly the case in Eph. vi. 3. In John xvii. 3 even Tregelles adopts ἵνα γινώσκουσιν[423].