01.09. CHAPTER IX. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL
CHAPTER IX. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION CHIEFLY INTENTIONAL.
III. Attraction.
§ 1.
There exist not a few corrupt Readings,—and they have imposed largely on many critics,—which, strange to relate, have arisen from nothing else but the proneness of words standing side by side in a sentence to be attracted into a likeness of ending,—whether in respect of grammatical form or of sound; whereby sometimes the sense is made to suffer grievously,—sometimes entirely to disappear. Let this be called the error of Attraction. The phenomena of ’Assimilation’ are entirely distinct. A somewhat gross instance, which however has imposed on learned critics, is furnished by the Revised Text and Version of John 6:71 and John 13:26.
’Judas Iscariot’ is a combination of appellatives with which every Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas Iskariôtês] is found in Matthew 10:4 and Matthew 26:14: in Mark 3:19 and Mark 14:10: in Luke 6:16, and in Luke 22:31 with the express statement added that Judas was so ’surnamed.’ So far happily we are all agreed. St. John’s invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom he names four times, as ’Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;’—jealous doubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, ’Jude ([Greek: Ioudas]) the brother of James[228]’: and resolved that there shall be no mistake about the traitor’s identity. Who does not at once recall the Evangelist’s striking parenthesis in John 14:22,—’Judas (not Iscariot)’? Accordingly, in John 13:2 the Revisers present us with ’Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son’: and even in John 12:4 they are content to read ’Judas Iscariot.’ But in the two places of St. John’s Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. John 6:71 and John 13:26, instead of ’Judas Iscariot the son of Simon’ the Revisers require us henceforth to read, ’Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.’ And why? Only, I answer, because—in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simônos IskariôTÊN] (in John 6:71) and [Greek: Iouda Simônos IskariôTÊ] (in John 13:26)—a little handful of copies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskariôTOU]. Need I go on? Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskariôTÊN], [Greek: IskariôTÊ], have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive [Greek: SImôNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to remain,—where such bêtises are the rule and not the exception,—viz. in the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not only have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages already mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.
§ 2.
Another and a far graver case of ’Attraction’ is found in Acts 20:24. St. Paul, in his address to the elders of Ephesus, refers to the discouragements he has had to encounter. ’But none of these things move me,’ he grandly exclaims, ’neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy.’ The Greek for this begins [Greek: all’ oudenos logon poioumai]: where some second or third century copyist (misled by the preceding genitive) in place of [Greek: logoN] writes [Greek: logoU]; with what calamitous consequence, has been found largely explained elsewhere[229]. Happily, the error survives only in Codd. B and C: and their character is already known by the readers of this book and the Companion Volume. So much has been elsewhere offered on this subject that I shall say no more about it here: but proceed to present my reader with another and more famous instance of attraction.
St. Paul in a certain place (2 Corinthians 3:3) tells the Corinthians, in allusion to the language of Exodus 31:12, Exodus 34:1, that they are an epistle not written on ’stony tables([Greek: en plaxi lithinais]),’ but on ’fleshy tablesof the heart ([Greek: en plaxi kardias sarkinais]).’ The one proper proof that this is what St. Paul actually wrote, is not only (1) That the Copies largely preponderate in favour of so exhibiting the place: but (2) That the Versions, with the single exception of ’that abject slave of manuscripts the Philoxenian [or Harkleian] Syriac,’ are all on the same side: and lastly (3) That the Fathers are as nearly as possible unanimous. Let the evidence for [Greek: kardias] (unknown to Tischendorf and the rest) be produced in detail:— In the second century, Irenaeus[230],—the Old Latin,—the Peshitto. In the third century, Origen seven times[231],—the Coptic version. In the fourth century, the Dialogus[232],—Didymus[233],—Basil[234],—Gregory Nyss.[235],—Marcus the Monk[236],—Chrysostom in two places[237],—Nilus[238],—the Vulgate,—and the Gothic versions. In the fifth century, Cyril[239],—Isidorus[240],—Theodoret[241],—the Armenian—and the Ethiopic versions. In the seventh century, Victor, Bp. of Carthage addressing Theodorus P.[242] In the eighth century, J. Damascene[243] ... Besides, of the Latins, Hilary[244],—Ambrose[245],—Optatus[246],—Jerome[247],— Tichonius[248],—Augustine thirteen times[249],—Fulgentius[250], and others[251] ... If this be not overwhelming evidence, may I be told whatis[252]? But then it so happens that—attracted by the two datives between which [Greek: kardias] stands, and tempted by the consequent jingle, a surprising number of copies are found to exhibit the ’perfectly absurd’ and ’wholly unnatural reading[253],’ [Greek: plaxi kardiAIS sarkinAIS]. And because (as might have been expected from their character) A[254]B[Symbol: Aleph]CD[255] are all five of the number,—Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, one and all adopt and advocate the awkward blunder[256]. [Greek: Kardiais] is also adopted by the Revisers of 1881 without so much as a hint let fall in the margin that the evidence is overwhelmingly against themselves and in favour of the traditional Text of the Authorized Version[257].
FOOTNOTES:
[228] Luke 6:16d; Acts 1:13; Jude 1:1.
[229] Above, pp. 28-31.
[230] 753 int.
[231] ii. 843 c. Also int ii. 96, 303; iv. 419, 489, 529, 558.
[232] Ap. Orig. i. 866 a,—interesting and emphatic testimony.
[233] Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 272.
[234] i. 161 e. Cord. Cat. in Ps. i. 844.
[235] i. 682 ([Greek: ouk en plaxi lithinais ... all’ en tô tês kardias pyxiô]).
[236] Galland. viii. 40 b.
[237] vii. 2: x. 475.
[238] i. 29.
[239] i. 8: ii. 504: v^{2}. 65. (Aubert prints [Greek: kardias sarkinês]. The published Concilia (iii. 140) exhibits [Greek: kardias sarkinais]. Pusey, finding in one of his MSS. [Greek: all’ en plaxi kardias lithinais] (sic), prints [Greek: kardias sarkinais].) Ap. Mai, iii. 89, 90.
[240] 299.
[241] iii. 302.
[242] Concil. vi. 154.
[243] ii. 129.
[244] 344.
[245] i. 762: ii. 668, 1380.
[246] Galland. v. 505.
[247] vi. 609.
[248] Galland. viii. 742 dis.
[249] i. 672: ii. 49: iii^{1}. 472, 560: iv. 1302: v. 743-4: viii. 311: x. 98, 101, 104, 107, 110.
[250] Galland. xi. 248.
[251] Ps.-Ambrose, ii. 176.
[252] Yet strange to say, Tischendorf claims the support of Didymus and Theodoret for [Greek: kardiais], on the ground that in the course of their expository remarks they contrast [Greek: kardiai sarkinai] (or [Greek: logikai]) with [Greek: plakes lithinai]: as if it were not the word [Greek: plaxi] which alone occasions difficulty. Again, Tischendorf enumerates Cod. E (Paul) among his authorities. Had he then forgotten that E is ’nothing better than a transcript of Cod. D(Claromontanus), made by some ignorant person’? that ’the Greekis manifestly worthless, and that it should long since have been removed from the list of authorities’? [Scrivener’s Introd., 4th edit., i. 177. See also Traditional Text, p. 65, and note. Tischendorf is frequently inaccurate in his references to the fathers.] [253] Scrivener’s Introd. ii. 254.
[254] A in the Epistles differs from A in the Gospels.
[255] Besides GLP and the following cursives,—29, 30, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 55, 74, 104, 106, 109, 112, 113, 115, 137, 219, 221, 238, 252, 255, 257, 262, 277.
[256] That I may not be accused of suppressing what is to be said on the other side, let it be here added that the sum of the adverse evidence (besides the testimony of many MSS.) is the Harkleian version:—the doubtful testimony of Eusebius (for, though Valerius reads [Greek: kardias], the MSS. largely preponderate which read [Greek: kardiais] in H. E. Mart. Pal. cxiii. § 6. See Burton’s ed. p. 637):—Cyril in one place, as explained above:—and lastly, a quotation from Chrysostom on the Maccabees, given in Cramer’s Catena, vii. 595 ([Greek: en plaxi kardiais sarkinais]), which reappears at the end of eight lines without the word [Greek: plaxi].
[257] [The papers on Assimilation and Attraction were left by the Dean in the same portfolio. No doubt he would have separated them, if he had lived to complete his work, and amplified his treatment of the latter, for the materials under that head were scanty.—For 2 Corinthians 3:3, see also a note of my own to p. 65 of The Traditional Text.]