FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102  
103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   >>   >|  
the other disciple.' When the women, their visit ended, had in turn departed from the Sepulchre, she was left in the garden alone. 'Mary was standing [with her face] _towards the sepulchre_ weeping,--_outside_[173].' All this, singular to relate, was completely misunderstood by the critics of the two first centuries. Not only did they identify the incident recorded in St. John xx. 11, 12 with St. Mark xv. 5 and St. Luke xxiv. 3, 4, from which, as we have seen, the first-named Evangelist is careful to distinguish it;--not only did they further identify both places with St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3[174], from which they are clearly separate;--but they considered themselves at liberty to tamper with the inspired text in order to bring it into harmony with their own convictions. Some of them accordingly altered [Greek: pros to mnemeion] into [Greek: pros to mnemeio] (which is just as ambiguous in Greek as '_at_ the sepulchre' in English[175]), and [Greek: exo] they boldly erased. It is thus that Codex A exhibits the text. But in fact this depravation must have begun at a very remote period and prevailed to an extraordinary extent: for it disfigures the best copies of the Old Latin, (the Syriac being doubtful): a memorable circumstance truly, and in a high degree suggestive. Codex B, to be sure, reads [Greek: heistekei pros to mnemeio, exo klaiousa],--merely transposing (with many other authorities) the last two words. But then Codex B substitutes [Greek: elthousai] for [Greek: eiselthousai] in St. Mark xvi. 5, in order that the second Evangelist may not seem to contradict St. Matt, xxviii. 2, 3. So that, according to this view of the matter, the Angelic appearance was outside the sepulchre[176]. Codex [Symbol: Aleph], on the contrary, is thorough. Not content with omitting [Greek: exo],--(as in the next verse it leaves out [Greek: duo], in order to prevent St. John xx. 12 from seeming to contradict St. Matt. xxviii. 2, 3, and St. Mark xvi. 5),--it stands alone in reading [Greek: EN to mnemeio]. (C and D are lost here.) When will men learn that these 'old uncials' are _ignes fatui_,--not beacon lights; and admit that the texts which they exhibit are not only inconsistent but corrupt? There is no reason for distrusting the received reading of the present place in any particular. True, that most of the uncials and many of the cursives read [Greek: pros to mnemeio]: but so did neither Chrysostom[177] nor Cyril[178] read the place.
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102  
103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

mnemeio

 

xxviii

 

sepulchre

 
uncials
 
contradict
 

Evangelist

 
reading
 

identify

 

present

 

matter


distrusting
 

appearance

 

received

 

Angelic

 

heistekei

 
cursives
 

suggestive

 

degree

 

klaiousa

 
Symbol

substitutes

 
elthousai
 

transposing

 

authorities

 

eiselthousai

 

circumstance

 

lights

 
beacon
 

leaves

 

reason


omitting

 

contrary

 

content

 

stands

 

inconsistent

 

exhibit

 

corrupt

 

Chrysostom

 

prevent

 

recorded


incident

 

misunderstood

 

critics

 

centuries

 

places

 

distinguish

 
careful
 

completely

 

relate

 

departed