In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.
Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such respectable, and such venerable witnesses as these, is clearly above suspicion. Besides its recognition in the [pg 251] ancient scholium to which attention has been largely invited already[454], we find the incident of the “honeycomb” recognized by 13 ancient Fathers,—by 8 ancient Versions,—by the unfaltering Tradition of the universal Church,—above all, by every copy of St. Luke's Gospel in existence (as far as is known), uncial as well as cursive—except six. That it carries on its front the impress of its own genuineness, is what no one will deny[455]. Yet was Dr. Hort for dismissing it without ceremony. “A singular interpolation evidently from an extraneous source, written or oral,” he says. A singular hallucination, we venture to reply, based on ideal grounds and “a system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly self-condemned[456];” seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-א,—by A seldom found in the Gospels in such association,—by D of the sixth century,—by L of the eighth,—by Π of the ninth.
I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit an instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text demand laborious investigation,—have a singular history of their own,—may on no account be disposed of in a high-handed way, by applying to them any cut and dried treatment,—nay I must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause in dispute enjoys in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz. number, antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides continuity of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents[457]. Tischendorf conjectures that the “honeycomb” [pg 252] may have been first brought in from the “Gospel of the Hebrews.” What if, on the contrary, by the Valentinian “Gospel of Truth,”—a composition of the second century,—the “honeycomb” should have been first thrust out[458]? The plain statement of Epiphanius (quoted above[459]) seems to establish the fact that his maimed citation was derived from that suspicious source.
Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury occasionally sustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote age from the evil influence of the fabricated narratives, or Diatessarons, which anciently abounded. The genuineness of the clause καὶ ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου, it is hoped, will never more be seriously called in question. Surely it has been demonstrated to be quite above suspicion[460].
Appendix II. Ὄξος—Vinegar.
[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]
When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who offered to the Son of Man (ἐδίδουν “were for giving” Him) a draught of wine drugged with myrrh[461]. He would not so much as taste it. Presently, the soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with gall[462]. This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours, He cried, “I thirst”: whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge with vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the people[463]. This time He drank; and exclaimed, “It is finished.”