Addas Adimantus (a disciple of Manes) was the author of a work of the same kind. Augustine (viii. 606 c) says of it,--"ubi de utroque Testamento velut inter se contraria testimonia proferuntur versipelli dolositate, velut inde ostendatur utrumque ab uno Deo esse non posse, sed alterum ab altero." Cerdon was the first to promulgate this pestilential tenet (605 a). Then Marcion his pupil, then Apelles, and then Patricius.
[569] t.i.tus Bostr. adv. Manichaeos (_ap._ Galland. v. 329 b), leaving others to note the correspondences between the New and the Old Testament, proposes to handle the "Contrasts": [Greek: pros autas tas ant.i.theseis ton logion ch.o.r.esomen]. At pp. 339 e, 340 a, b, he confirms what Tertullian says about the calling down of fire from heaven.
[570] Verba [Greek: hos kai e. epoiese] cur quis addiderit, planum.
Eidem interpolatori debentur quae verba [Greek: str. de epeti. autois]
excipiunt. Gravissimum est quod testium additamentum [Greek: ho gar huios], &c. ab eadem manu derivandum est, nec per se solum pro spurio haberi potest; cohaeret enim c.u.m argumento tum auctoritate arctissime c.u.m prioribus. (N. T. ed. 1869, p. 544.)
[571] Secundo iam saeculo quin in codicibus omnis haec interpolatio circ.u.mferri consueverit, dubitari nequit. (Ibid.)
[572] The following are the references left by the Dean. I have not had time or strength to search out those which are left unspecified in this MS. and the last.
Jerome.--Apostoli in Lege versati ... ulcisci nituntur iniuriam, _et imitari Eliam_, &c. Dominus, qui non ad iudicandum _venerat_, sed _ad salvandum_, &c. ... increpat eos _quod non meminerint doctrinae suae et bonitatis Evangelicae_, &c. (i. 857 b, c, d.)
Cyprian, Synodical Epistle.--"Filius hominis non venit animas hominum perdere, sed salvare." p. 98. A.D. 253.
Tatian.--Veni, inquit, animam salvam facere. (Carn. c. 12 et 10: and Anim. c. 13.)
Augustine gives a long extract from the same letter and thus quotes the words twice,--x. 76, 482. Cp. ii. 593 a.
[Greek: Kai ho Kyrios pros tous apostolous eipontas en pyri kolasai tous me dexamenous autous kata ton elian; Ouk oidate phesi poiou pneumatos este]. (p. 1019.)
Theodoret, iii. 1119. ([Greek: poiou].)
Epiph. ii. 31. ([Greek: hoiou].)
Basil, ii. 271 (Eth.) quotes the whole place.
Augustine.--Respondit eis Dominus, dicens eos nescire cuius spiritus filii essent, et quod ipse liberare venisset, non perdere. viii. 139 b.
Cp. iii. (2), 194 b.
Cyril Al.--[Greek: Mepo tes neas kekratekotes charitos ... touto eipon, ton elian aphorontes ton pyri k.t.l.] Cord. Cat. 263 = Cram. Cat. 81.
Also iv. 1017.--By a strange slip of memory, Cyril sets down a reproof found in St. Matthew: but this is enough to shew that he admits that _some_ reproof finds record in the Gospel.
Chrys. vii. 567 e: x. 305 d: vii. 346 a: ix. 677 c.
Opus Imp. ap. Chrys. vi. 211, 219.
Didymus.--[Greek: Ouk oidate oiou pneumatos estin ho huios tou anthropou]. De Trin. p. 188.
[573] Evst. 48 (Matthaei"s c): Evst. 150 (Harl. 5598).
[574] See Matthaei, N.T. 1786, vol. ii. p. 17.
[575] [I have been unable to discover this Lection.]
APPENDIX I.
PERICOPE DE ADULTERA.
I have purposely reserved for the last the most difficult problem of all: viz. those twelve famous verses of St. John"s Gospel (chap. vii. 53 to viii. 11) which contain the history of "the woman taken in adultery,"--the _pericope de adultera_, as it is called. Altogether indispensable is it that the reader should approach this portion of the Gospel with the greatest amount of experience and the largest preparation. Convenient would it be, no doubt, if he could further divest himself of prejudice; but that is perhaps impossible. Let him at least endeavour to weigh the evidence which shall now be laid before him in impartial scales. He must do so perforce, if he would judge rightly: for the matter to be discussed is confessedly very peculiar: in some respects, even unique. Let me convince him at once of the truth of what has been so far spoken.
It is a singular circ.u.mstance that at the end of eighteen centuries two instances, and but two, should exist of a considerable portion of Scripture left to the mercy, so to speak, of "Textual Criticism." Twelve consecutive Verses in the second Gospel--as many consecutive Verses in the fourth--are in this predicament. It is singular, I say, that the Providence which has watched so marvellously over the fortunes of the Deposit,--the Divine Wisdom which has made such ample provision for its security all down the ages, should have so ordered the matter, that these two co-extensive problems have survived to our times to be tests of human sagacity,--trials of human faithfulness and skill. They present some striking features of correspondence, but far more of contrast,--as will presently appear. And yet the most important circ.u.mstance of all cannot be too soon mentioned: viz. that both alike have experienced the same calamitous treatment at the hands of some critics. By common consent the most recent editors deny that either set of Verses can have formed part of the Gospel as it proceeded from the hands of its inspired author. How mistaken is this opinion of theirs in respect of the "Last twelve verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark," has been already demonstrated in a separate treatise. I must be content in this place to deal in a far less ceremonious manner with the hostile verdict of many critics concerning St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. That I shall be able to satisfy those persons who profess themselves unconvinced by what was offered concerning St. Mark"s last twelve verses, I am not so simple as to expect. But I trust that I shall have with me all candid readers who are capable of weighing evidence impartially, and understanding the nature of logical proof, when it is fully drawn out before them,--which indeed is the very qualification that I require of them.
And first, the case of the _pericope de adultera_ requires to be placed before the reader in its true bearings. For those who have hitherto discussed it are observed to have ignored certain preliminary considerations which, once clearly apprehended, are all but decisive of the point at issue. There is a fundamental obstacle, I mean, in the way of any attempt to dislodge this portion of the sacred narrative from the context in which it stands, which they seem to have overlooked. I proceed to explain.
Sufficient prominence has never yet been given to the fact that in the present discussion the burden of proof rests entirely with those who challenge the genuineness of the Pericope under review. In other words, the question before us is not by any means,--Shall these Twelve Verses be admitted--or, Must they be refused admission--into the Sacred Text?
That point has been settled long, long ago. St. John"s Twelve verses are in possession. Let those eject them who can. They are known to have occupied their present position for full seventeen hundred years. There never was a time--as far as is known--- when they were not _where_,--and to all intents and purposes _what_--they now are. Is it not evident, that no merely ordinary method of proof,--no merely common argument,--will avail to dislodge Twelve such Verses as these?
"Twelve such Verses," I say. For it is the extent of the subject-matter which makes the case so formidable. We have here to do with no dubious clause, concerning which ancient testimony is divided; no seeming gloss, which is suspected to have overstepped its proper limits, and to have crept in as from the margin; no importation from another Gospel; no verse of Scripture which has lost its way; no weak amplification of the Evangelical meaning; no tasteless appendix, which enc.u.mbers the narrative and almost condemns itself. Nothing of the sort. If it were some inconsiderable portion of Scripture which it was proposed to get rid of by shewing that it is disallowed by a vast amount of ancient evidence, the proceeding would be intelligible. But I take leave to point out that a highly complex and very important incident--as related in twelve consecutive verses of the Gospel--cannot be so dealt with.
Squatters on the waste are liable at any moment to be served with a notice of ejectment: but the owner of a mansion surrounded by broad acres which his ancestors are known to have owned before the Heptarchy, may on no account be dispossessed by any such summary process. This--to speak without a figure--is a connected and very striking portion of the sacred narrative:--the description of a considerable incident, complete in itself, full of serious teaching, and of a kind which no one would have ever dared to invent. Those who would a.s.sail it successfully must come forward with weapons of a very different kind from those usually employed in textual warfare.
It shall be presently shewn that these Twelve Verses hold their actual place by a more extraordinary right of tenure than any other twelve verses which can be named in the Gospel: but it would be premature to enter upon the proof of that circ.u.mstance now. I prefer to invite the reader"s attention, next to the actual texture of the _pericope de adultera_, by which name (as already explained) the last verse of St.
John vii. together with verses 1-11 of ch. viii. are familiarly designated. Although external testimony supplies the sole proof of genuineness, it is nevertheless reasonable to inquire what the verses in question may have to say for themselves. Do they carry on their front the tokens of that baseness of origin which their impugners so confidently seek to fasten upon them? Or do they, on the contrary, unmistakably bear the impress of Truth?
The first thing which strikes me in them is that the actual narrative concerning "the woman taken in adultery" is entirely contained in the last nine of these verses: being preceded by two short paragraphs of an entirely different character and complexion. Let these be first produced and studied:
"and every man went to his own house: but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives." "And again, very early in the morning, He presented Himself in the Temple; and all the people came unto Him: and He sat down and taught them."
Now as every one must see, the former of these two paragraphs is unmistakably not the beginning but the end of a narrative. It purports to be the conclusion of something which went before, not to introduce something which comes after. Without any sort of doubt, it is St. John"s account of what occurred at the close of the debate between certain members of the Sanhedrin which terminates his history of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The verse in question marks the conclusion of the Feast,--implies in short that all is already finished. Remove it, and the antecedent narrative ends abruptly. Retain it, and all proceeds methodically; while an affecting contrast is established, which is recognized to be strictly in the manner of Scripture[576]. Each one had gone to his home: but the homeless One had repaired to the Mount of Olives. In other words, the paragraph under discussion is found to be an integral part of the immediately antecedent narrative: proves to be a fragment of what is universally admitted to be genuine Scripture. By consequence, itself must needs be genuine also[577].
It is vain for any one to remind us that these two verses are in the same predicament as those which follow: are as ill supported by MS.
evidence as the other ten: and must therefore share the same fate as the rest. The statement is incorrect, to begin with; as shall presently be shewn. But, what is even better deserving of attention, since confessedly these twelve verses are either to stand or else to fall together, it must be candidly admitted that whatever begets a suspicion that certain of them, at all events, must needs be genuine, throws real doubt on the justice of the sentence of condemnation which has been pa.s.sed in a lump upon all the rest.
I proceed to call attention to another inconvenient circ.u.mstance which some Critics in their eagerness have overlooked.
The reader will bear in mind that--contending, as I do, that the entire Pericope under discussion is genuine Scripture which has been forcibly wrenched away from its lawful context,--I began by examining the upper extremity, with a view to ascertaining whether it bore any traces of being a fractured edge. The result is just what might have been antic.i.p.ated. The first two of the verses which it is the fashion to brand with ignominy were found to carry on their front clear evidence that they are genuine Scripture. How then about the other extremity?
Note, that in the oracular Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph] immediate transition is made from the words "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,"
in ch. vii. 5a, to the words "Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying," in ch. viii. 12. And we are invited by all the adverse Critics alike to believe that so the place stood in the inspired autograph of the Evangelist.
But the thing is incredible. Look back at what is contained between ch.
vii. 37 and 5a, and note--(_a_) That two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (ver. 40-42): (_b_) That some were for laying violent hands on our Lord (ver. 44): (_c_) That the Sanhedrin, being a.s.sembled in debate, were reproaching their servants for not having brought Him prisoner, and disputing one against another[578] (ver. 45-52). How can the Evangelist have proceeded,--"Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world"? What is it supposed then that St.
John meant when he wrote such words?
But on the contrary, survey the context in any ordinary copy of the New Testament, and his meaning is perfectly clear. The last great day of the Feast of Tabernacles is ended. It is the morrow and "very early in the morning." The Holy One has "again presented Himself in the Temple" where on the previous night He so narrowly escaped violence at the hands of His enemies, and He teaches the people. While thus engaged,--the time, the place, His own occupation suggesting thoughts of peace and holiness and love,--a rabble rout, headed by the Scribes and Pharisees, enter on the foulest of errands; and we all remember with how little success.
Such an interruption need not have occupied much time. The Woman"s accusers having departed, our Saviour resumes His discourse which had been broken off. "Again therefore" it is said in ver. 12, with clear and frequent reference to what had preceded in ver. 2--"Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world." And had not that saying of His reference as well to the thick cloud of moral darkness which His words, a few moments before, had succeeded in dispelling, as to the orb of glory which already flooded the Temple Court with the effulgence of its rising,--His own visible emblem and image in the Heavens?... I protest that with the incident of "the woman taken in adultery,"--so introduced, so dismissed,--all is lucid and coherent: without those connecting links, the story is scarcely intelligible. These twelve disputed verses, so far from "fatally interrupting the course of St.
John"s Gospel, if retained in the text[579]," prove to be even necessary for the logical coherency of the entire context in which they stand.
But even that is not all. On close and careful inspection, the mysterious texture of the narrative, no less than its "edifying and eminently Christian" character, vindicates for the _Pericope de adultera_ a right to its place in the Gospel. Let me endeavour to explain what seems to be its spiritual significancy: in other words, to interpret the transaction.
The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our Saviour on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our Lord is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion.
The trial by the bitter water, or water of conviction[580], was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband was himself innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife.
Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. v. 16 to 24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the Lord, the priest took "holy water in an earthen vessel," and put "of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water." Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by an oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,--her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed.