FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143  
144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   >>   >|  
t process has manifested itself. He assumes that the bulk of the MSS. have been conformed to the generally received reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. But it has been shewn that, on the contrary, it is the two oldest MSS. which have experienced assimilation. Their prototypes were depraved in this way at an exceedingly remote period. To state this matter somewhat differently.--In all the extant uncials but five, and in almost every known cursive copy of the Gospels, the words [Greek: to stomati auton, kai] are found to belong to St. Matt. xv. 8. How is the presence of those words to be accounted for? The reply is obvious:--By the fact that they must have existed in the original autograph of the Evangelist. Such however is not the reply of Griesbach and his followers. They insist that beyond all doubt those words must have been imported into the Gospel from Isaiah xxix. But I have shewn that this is impossible; because, at the time spoken of, the words in question had no place in the Greek text of the prophet. And this discovery exactly reverses the problem, and brings out the directly opposite result. For now we discover that we have rather to inquire how is the absence of the words in question from those few MSS. out of the mass to be accounted for? The two oldest Codexes are convicted of exhibiting a text which has been corrupted by the influence of the oldest Septuagint reading of Isaiah xxix. 13. I freely admit that it is in a high degree remarkable that five ancient Versions, and all the following early writers,--Ptolemaeus[295], Clemens Alexandrinus[296], Origen[297], Didymus[298], Cyril[299], Chrysostom[300], and possibly three others of like antiquity[301],--should all quote St. Matthew in this place from a faulty text. But this does but prove at how extremely remote a period the corruption must have begun. It probably dates from the first century. Especially does it seem to shew how distrustful we should be of our oldest authorities when, as here, they are plainly at variance with the whole torrent of manuscript authority. This is indeed no ordinary case. There are elements of distrust here, such as are not commonly encountered. Sec. 6. What I have been saying is aptly illustrated by a place in our Lord's Sermon on the Mount: viz. St. Matt. v. 44; which in almost every MS. in existence stands as follows: (1) [Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon], (2) [Greek: eulogeite tous kataromenous humas], (3) [
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143  
144   145   146   147   148   149   150   151   152   153   154   155   156   157   158   159   160   161   162   163   164   165   166   167   168   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

oldest

 

Isaiah

 

question

 

accounted

 
period
 
remote
 

reading

 

antiquity

 

corruption

 

agapate


Matthew

 

possibly

 

faulty

 

echthrous

 

extremely

 

Chrysostom

 

writers

 
Ptolemaeus
 

remarkable

 

ancient


Versions
 
Clemens
 

Alexandrinus

 

eulogeite

 

Didymus

 

Origen

 

kataromenous

 
ordinary
 

degree

 

torrent


manuscript

 
authority
 

illustrated

 
commonly
 

elements

 

distrust

 
Sermon
 
distrustful
 

authorities

 

Especially


encountered

 

century

 

stands

 

variance

 

existence

 

plainly

 
cursive
 

Gospels

 
stomati
 

uncials