o it is even obvious
that the correspondence of those four Codexes in such a particular as
this must needs be the result of their having derived the reading from
one and the same original. On the contrary, the agreement of all the
rest in a trifling matter of detail like the present can be accounted
for in only one way, viz., by presuming that they also have all been
derived through various lines of descent from a single document: but
_that_ document the autograph of the Evangelist. [For the great number
and variety of them necessitates their having been derived through
various lines of descent. Indeed, they must have the notes of number,
variety, as well as continuity, and weight also.]
Sec. 3.
On countless occasions doubtless, it is very difficult--perhaps
impossible--to determine, apart from external evidence, which
collocation of two or more words is the true one, whether e.g. [Greek:
echei zoen] for instance or [Greek: zoen echei][341],--[Greek: egerthe
eutheos] or [Greek: eutheos egerthe][342],--[Greek: cholous,
typhlous]--or [Greek: typhlous, cholous][343],--shall be preferred. The
burden of proof rests evidently with innovators on Traditional use.
Obvious at the same time is it to foresee that if a man sits down before
the Gospel with the deliberate intention of improving the style of the
Evangelists by transposing their words on an average of seven (B), eight
([Symbol: Aleph]), or twelve (D) times in every page, he is safe to
convict himself of folly in repeated instances, long before he has
reached the end of his task. Thus, when the scribe of [Symbol: Aleph],
in place of [Greek: exousian edoken auto kai krisin poiein][344],
presents us with [Greek: kai krisin edoken auto exousian poiein], we
hesitate not to say that he has written nonsense[345]. And when BD
instead of [Greek: eisi tines ton ode hestekoton] exhibit [Greek: eise
ton ode ton hestekoton], we cannot but conclude that the credit of those
two MSS. must be so far lowered in the eyes of every one who with true
appreciation of the niceties of Greek scholarship observes what has been
done.
[This characteristic of the old uncials is now commended to the
attention of students, who will find in the folios of those documents
plenty of instances for examination. Most of the cases of Transposition
are petty enough, whilst some, as the specimens already presented to the
reader indicate, constitute blots not favourable to the general
reputation of th
|