§ 3.
All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our Lord's human descent exhibit certain distinctive features. St. Matthew distributes the 42 names in “the book of the generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” into three fourteens; and requires us to recognize in the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 11 a different person (viz. Jehoiakim) from the Ἰεχονίας of ver. 12 (viz. Jehoiachin). Moreover, in order to produce this symmetry of arrangement, he leaves out the names of 3 kings,—Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah: and omits at least 9 generations of Zorobabel's descendants[259]. The mystical correspondence between the 42 steps in our Saviour's human descent from Abraham, and the 42 stations of the Israelites on their way to Canaan[260], [pg 181] has been often remarked upon. It extends to the fact that the stations also were, historically, far more than 42. And so much for what is contained in St. Matthew's Gospel.
St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy in backward order, derives the descent of “Jesus, the son of Joseph” from “Adam, the son of God.” He traces our Lord's descent from David and again from Zorobabel through a different line of ancestry from that adopted by St. Matthew. He introduces a second “Cainan” between Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The only names which the two tables of descent have in common are these five,—David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, Jesus.
But Cod. D—(from which the first chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel has long since disappeared)—in St. Luke iii. exhibits a purely fabricated table of descent. To put one name for another,—as when A writes “Shem” instead of Seth: to misspell a name until it ceases to be recognizable,—as when א writes “Balls” for Boaz: to turn one name into two by cutting it in half,—as where א writes “Admin” and “Adam” instead of Aminadab: or again, in defiance of authority, to leave a name out,—as when A omits Mainan and Pharez; or to put a name in,—as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts “Joaram” after Aram:—with all such instances of licence the “old Uncials” have made us abundantly familiar. But we are not prepared to find that in place of the first 18 names which follow those of “Jesus” and “Joseph” in St. Luke's genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive), D introduces the 9 immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud to Jacob) as enumerated by St. Matthew,—thus abbreviating St. Luke's genealogy by 9 names. Next,—“Zorobabel” and “Salathiel” being common to both genealogies,—in place of the 20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel and David (viz. Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents us with the 15 royal descendants of David enumerated by [pg 182] St. Matthew (viz. Solomon to Jehoiachin[261] inclusive);—infelicitously inventing an imaginary generation, by styling Jehoiakim “the son of Eliakim,”—being not aware that “Jehoiakim” and “Eliakim” are one and the same person: and, in defiance of the first Evangelist, supplying the names of the 3 kings omitted by St. Matthew (i. 8), viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34 names follow in Cod. D; the second “Cainan” being omitted. In this way, the number of St. Luke's names is reduced from 77 to 66. A more flagrant instance of that licentious handling of the deposit which was a common phenomenon in Western Christendom is seldom to be met with[262]. This particular fabrication is happily the peculiar property of Cod. D; and we are tempted to ask, whether it assists in recommending that singular monument of injudicious and arbitrary textual revision to the favour of one of the modern schools of Critics.
§ 4.
We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the hands of those who fabricated the text of Cod. D is only to be understood by those who will be [pg 183] at the pains to study its readings throughout. Constantly to substitute the wrong word for the right one; or at all events to introduce a less significant expression: on countless occasions to mar the details of some precious incident; and to obscure the purpose of the Evangelist by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired text,—this will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As another example added to those already cited:—In St. Luke xxii, D omits verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, evidently from a wish to correct the sacred account by removing the second mention of the Cup from the record of the third Evangelist.
St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the first Good Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea “taking courage went in (εἰσῆλθε) to Pilate and requested to have the body (σῶμα) of Jesus”: that “Pilate wondered (ἐθαύμασεν) [at hearing] that He was dead (τέθνηκε) already: and sending for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if [Jesus] had been dead long?” (εἰ πάλαι ἀπέθανε.)
But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting “went” (ἦλθεν) for “went in,”—“corpse” (πτῶμα) for “body” (which by the way he repeats in ver. 45),—and a sentiment of “continuous wonder” (ἐθαύμαζεν) for the fact of astonishment which Joseph's request inspired,—having also substituted the prosaic τεθνήκει for the graphic τέθνηκε of the Evangelist,—represents Pilate as inquiring of the centurion “if [indeed Jesus] was dead already?” (εἰ ἤδη τεθνήκει; si jam mortuus esset?), whereby not only is all the refinement of the original lost, but the facts of the case also are seriously misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph's tidings. He only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made not with a view to testing the veracity of his informant, but for the satisfaction of his own curiosity as to the time when his Victim had expired.
Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on an exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43 and all v. 44) of the second Gospel. The reader is requested to refer to the note[263], where he will find set down a collation of eight consecutive verses in the selfsame context: viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive; after an attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by courtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as Cod. D be called “a copy” at all. Had the genuine text been copied over and over again till the crack of doom, the result could never have been this. There are in fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no less than 67—much more than half—have been either omitted (21), or else added (11); substituted (10), or else transposed (11); depraved (12, as by writing ανατελλοντος for ἀνατείλαντος), or actually blundered (2, as by writing ερχονται ημιον for ἔρχονται ἡμῖν). Three times the construction has been altered,—once indeed very seriously, for the Angel at the sepulchre is made to personate Christ. Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the result of Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote καὶ ἀναβλέψασαι θεωροῦσιν ὅτι ἀποκεκύλισται ὁ λίθος, what else but a licentious [pg 185] paraphrase is the following,—ερχονται και ευρισκουσιν αποκεκυλισμενον τον λιθον? This is in fact a fabricated, not an honestly transcribed text: and it cannot be too clearly understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, I mean) is exhibited by Codexes BאD throughout.