Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half a dozen Evangelia,—whether written in the uncial or in the cursive character we deem a matter of small account,—opposing themselves to the whole body of the copies, uncial and cursive alike, is simply to make us suspicious of those six Evangelia. Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already and as often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense. Add such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has been already set before the reader; and further inquiry in our own minds we deem superfluous. But we must answer those distinguished Critics who have ruled that Codexes B-א, D, L, can hardly if ever err.
The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account. Some critics quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be allowed to speak for himself. He is inveighing against gluttony. “Is not variety consistent with simplicity of diet?” (he asks); and he enumerates olives, vegetables, milk, cheese, &c. If it must be flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be merely broiled. “ ‘Have ye here any meat?’ said our Lord to His disciples after His Resurrection. Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in respect of diet, ‘they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.’ ... Yet may the fact not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may partake besides of ‘honeycomb.’ The fittest food, in a word, we consider to be that which requires no [pg 247] cooking: next, as I began by explaining, cheap and ordinary articles of diet[425].” Shall I be thought unreasonable if I insist that so far from allowing that Clemens is “silent” concerning the “honeycomb,” I even regard his testimony to the traditionary reading of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure that “honeycomb” was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.
Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning our Saviour—“It is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of a fish[426].” The same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the circumstance that the Disciples “gave Him a piece of a broiled fish[427].” Eusebius in like manner thrice mentions the fact that our Lord partook of “broiled fish[428]” after His Resurrection. And because these writers do not also mention “honeycomb,” it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the words καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου cannot have existed in their copies of St. Luke[429]. The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril, after quoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 (“honeycomb” and all)[430], proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of the “fish”[431]. Ambrose and Augustine certainly recognized the incident of “the honeycomb”: yet the latter merely remarks that “to eat fish with the Lord is better than to eat lentiles with Esau[432];” while the former draws a mystical inference from “the record in the Gospel that Jesus ate broiled fishes[433].” Is it [pg 248] not obvious that the more conspicuous incident,—that of the “broiled fish,”—being common to both repasts, stands for all that was partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the entire meal? It excludes neither the “honeycomb” of the upper chamber, nor the “bread” which was eaten beside the Galilean lake. Tertullian[434], intending no slight either to the “broiled fish” or to the “bread,” makes mention only of our Lord's having “eaten honeycomb” after His Resurrection. And so Jerome, addressing John, bishop of Jerusalem, exclaims—“Why did the Lord eat honeycomb? Not in order to give thee licence to eat honey, but in order to demonstrate the truth of His Resurrection[435].” To draw inferences from the rhetorical silence of the Fathers as if we were dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of Parliament, can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient men.
As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places commonly cited from his writings[436], where he only mentions the partaking of “fish,” to preclude the belief that Origen knew of the “honeycomb” also in St. Luke xxiv. 42. We have but fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke[437], and an abridged translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly suspect that a certain scholium in Cordier's Catena on St. Luke[438], which contains a very elaborate recognition of the “honeycomb,” will be found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other of them. At foot the learned reader will be gratified by the sight of the original Greek of the scholium referred to[439], [pg 249] which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in Latin. He will at least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there speaks to us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive evidence in its favour which greatly outweighs the negative evidence of the archetype of B-א. But in fact as a specimen of mystical interpretation, the passage in question is quite in Origen's way[440]—has all his fervid wildness,—in all probability is actually his.
The question however to be decided is clearly not whether certain ancient copies of St. Luke were without the incident of the honeycomb; but only whether it is reasonable to infer from the premisses that the Evangelist made no mention of it. And I venture to anticipate that readers will decide this question with me in the negative. That, from a period of the remotest antiquity, certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their combined agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of the “honeycomb” from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need create no surprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident is attested by the following witnesses:—
In the second century, by Justin M.[441],—by Clemens Alexandrinus[442],—by Tertullian[443],—by the Old-Latin,—and by the Peshitto Version:
In the third century, by Cureton's Syriac,—and by the Bohairic:
In the fourth century, by Athanasius[444],—by Gregory of Nyssa[445],—by Epiphanius[446],—by Cyril of Jerusalem[447],—by Jerome[448],—by Augustine[449],—and by the Vulgate:
In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria[450],—by Proclus[451],—by Vigilius Tapsensis[452],—by the Armenian,—and Ethiopic Versions:
In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N[453]: