insists that the words are
perfectly genuine notwithstanding. The thing is certain however, and the
Revisers are to blame for having surrendered five precious words of
genuine Scripture, as I am going to shew.
1. Now, even if the whole of the case were already before the reader,
although to some there might seem to exist a _prima facie_ probability
that the clause is spurious, yet even so,--it would not be difficult to
convince a thoughtful man that the reverse must be nearer the truth. For
let the parallel places in the first two Gospels be set down side by
side:--
St. Matt. xxvi. 73. St. Mark xiv. 70.
(1) [Greek: Alethos kai su] (1) [Greek: Alethos]
(2) [Greek: ex auton ei.] (2) [Greek: ex auton ei.]
(3) [Greek: kai gar] (3) [Greek: kai gar Galilaios ei,]
(4) [Greek: he lalia sou delon se poiei]
(4) [Greek: kai he lalia sou homoiazei.]
What more clear than that the later Evangelist is explaining what his
predecessor meant by 'thy speech bewrayeth thee' [or else is giving an
independent account of the same transaction derived from the common
source]? To St. Matthew,--a Jew addressing Jews,--it seemed superfluous
to state that it was the peculiar accent of Galilee which betrayed Simon
Peter. To St. Mark,--or rather to the readers whom St. Mark specially
addressed,--the point was by no means so obvious. Accordingly, he
paraphrases,--'for thou art a Galilean and thy speech correspondeth.'
Let me be shewn that all down the ages, in ninety-nine copies out of
every hundred, this peculiar diversity of expression has been faithfully
retained, and instead of assenting to the proposal to suppress St.
Mark's (fourth) explanatory clause with its unique verb [Greek:
homoiazei], I straightway betake myself to the far more pertinent
inquiry,--What is the state of the text hereabouts? What, in fact, the
context? This at least is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
1. And first, I discover that Cod. D, in concert with several copies of
the Old Latin (a b c ff^{2} h q, &c.), only removes clause (4) from its
proper place in St. Mark's Gospel, in order to thrust it into the
parallel place in St. Matthew,--where it supplants the [Greek: he lalia
sou delon se poiei] of the earlier Evangelist; and where it clearly has
no business to be.
Indeed the object of D is found to have been to assimilate St. Matthew's
Gospel to St. Mark,--for D also omits [Greek: kai su] in cla
|