§ 5.
The introduction of απο in the place of 'αγιοι made by the 'Revisers' into the Greek Text of 2 Peter i. 21,—derives its origin from the same prolific source. (1) some very ancient scribe mistook the first four letters of αγιοι for απο. It was but the mistaking of ΑΓΙΟ for ΑΠΟ. At the end of 1700 years, the only Copies which witness to this deformity are BP with four cursives,—in opposition to [Symbol: Aleph]AKL and the whole body of the cursives, the Vulgate[83] and the Harkleian. Euthalius knew nothing of it[84]. Obvious it was, next, for some one in perplexity,—(2) to introduce both readings (απο and 'αγιοι) into the text. Accordingly απο Θεου 'αγιοι is found in C, two cursives, and Didymus[85]. Then, (3), another variant crops up, (viz. 'υπο for απο—but only because 'υπο went immediately before); of which fresh blunder ('υπο Θεου 'αγιοι) Theophylact is the sole patron[86]. The consequence of all this might have been foreseen: (4) it came to pass that from a few Codexes, both απο and αγιοι were left out,—which accounts for the reading of certain copies of the Old Latin[87]. Unaware how the blunder began, Tischendorf and his followers claim '(2)', '(3)', and '(4)', as proofs that '(1)' is the right reading: and, by consequence, instead of 'holy men of God spake,' require us to read 'men spake from God,' which is wooden and vapid. Is it not clear that a reading attested by only BP and four cursive copies must stand self-condemned?
Another excellent specimen of this class of error is furnished by Heb. vii. 1. Instead of 'Ο συναντησας Αβρααμ—said of Melchizedek,—[Symbol: Aleph]ABD exhibit ΟΣ. The whole body of the copies, headed by CLP, are against them[88],—besides Chrysostom[89], Theodoret[90], Damascene[91]. It is needless to do more than state how this reading arose. The initial letter of συναντησας has been reduplicated through careless transcription: ΟΣΣΥΝ—instead of ΟΣΥΝ—. That is all. But the instructive feature of the case is that it is in the four oldest of the uncials that this palpable blunder is found.
§ 6.
I have reserved for the last a specimen which is second to none in suggestiveness. 'Whom will ye that I release unto you?' asked Pilate on a memorable occasion[92]: and we all remember how his enquiry proceeds. But the discovery is made that, in an early age there existed copies of the Gospel which proceeded thus,—'Jesus [who is called[93]] Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?' Origen so quotes the place, but 'In many copies,' he proceeds, 'mention is not made that Barabbas was also called Jesus: and those copies may perhaps be right,—else would the name of Jesus belong to one of the wicked,—of which no instance occurs in any part of the Bible: nor is it fitting that the name of Jesus should like Judas have been borne by saint and sinner alike. I think,' Origen adds, 'something of this sort must have been an interpolation of the heretics[94].' From this we are clearly intended to infer that 'Jesus Barabbas' was the prevailing reading of St. Matt. xxvii. 17 in the time of Origen, a circumstance which—besides that a multitude of copies existed as well as those of Origen—for the best of reasons, we take leave to pronounce incredible[95].
The sum of the matter is probably this:—Some inattentive second century copyist [probably a Western Translator into Syriac who was an indifferent Greek scholar] mistook the final syllable of 'unto you' (ΥΜΙΝ) for the word 'Jesus' (ΙΝ): in other words, carelessly reduplicated the last two letters of ΥΜΙΝ,—from which, strange to say, results the form of inquiry noticed at the outset. Origen caught sight of the extravagance, and condemned it though he fancied it to be prevalent, and the thing slept for 1500 years. Then about just fifty years ago Drs. Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles began to construct that 'fabric of Textual Criticism' which has been the cause of the present treatise [though indeed Tischendorf does not adopt the suggestion of those few aberrant cursives which is supported by no surviving uncial, and in fact advocates the very origin of the mischief which has been just described]. But, as every one must see, 'such things as these are not 'readings' at all, nor even the work of 'the heretics;' but simply transcriptional mistakes. How Dr. Hort, admitting the blunder, yet pleads that 'this remarkable reading is attractive by the new and interesting fact which it seems to attest, and by the antithetic force which it seems to add to the question in ver. 17,' [is more than we can understand. To us the expression seems most repulsive. No 'antithetic force' can outweigh our dislike to the idea that Barabbas was our Saviour's namesake! We prefer Origen's account, though he mistook the cause, to that of the modern critic.]
FOOTNOTES:
[61] It is clearly unsafe to draw any inference from the mere omission of ηδη in ver. 35, by those Fathers who do not shew how they would have began ver. 36—as Eusebius (see below, note 2), Theodoret (i. 1398: ii. 233), and Hilary (78. 443. 941. 1041).
[62] i. 219: iii. 158: iv. 248, 250 bis, 251 bis, 252, 253, 255 bis, 256, 257. Also iv. 440 note, which = catox iv. 21.
[63] dem. 440. But not in cs. 426: theoph. 262, 275.