Note I.

ON THE ERRONEOUS READINGS OF THE VATICAN MANUSCRIPT.

The Vatican manuscript omits the verses in Luke's gospel which describe the agony and bloody sweat of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane, and inserts a new clause in Matthew's gospel which virtually attributes the death of Christ on the cross to the wound inflicted by the soldier's spear. These variations, which were zealously advocated by the late Mr. Granville Penn, are by no means of a trifling nature, but involve very serious consequences. If they are correct, the view taken of the atonement, not only in this treatise, but also throughout the Scripture, is erroneous; if false, the Vatican manuscript, hitherto esteemed of great value, is convicted of corrupting the sacred text, at least in the New Testament, and must therefore lose much of its authority, These variations are however negatived, as has been already shown, by the strongest evidence, external and internal. In addition to the arguments previously employed for this purpose, the opposite testimony of some of the earliest biblical versions, namely, the Old Italic, the Vulgate, and the Peshito Syriac, will here be adduced; as likewise a few further remarks on the statements of Chrysostom, who is cited with so much confidence by Mr. Penn in support of his own opinions, and of the preeminent superiority of the Vatican manuscript. The Italic version of the passages in question is copied from the splendid work of Bianchini; the Vulgate from the folio Paris edition of 1549; and of the Peshito a literal English translation is given, which has been kindly furnished to the author by the Rev. Dr. Henderson.

__________________

Luke, chap. 22, v. 43, 44.

VERCELLI MANUSCRIPT.

V. 43. Appamit autem illi angelus de coelo, confortans eum. Et factus est in agonia, et prolixius oravit. v. 44, Et factus est sudor illius quasi guttoe sanguinis decurrentis super terram.

VERONA MANUSCRIPT.

V. 43. Apparuit autem illi angelus de coelo, confortans eum. Et factus est in agonia, et prolixius oravit. v. 44, Et factus est sudor ejus sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentes in terram.

VULGATE.

V. 43. Apparuit autem illi angelus de coelo, confortans eum. Et factus in agonia prolixius orabat. v. 44. Et factus est sudor ejus sicut guttae sanguinis decurrentis in terram.

PESHITO.

And there appeared to him an angel from heaven, who strengthened him. And when he was in fear he prayed earnestly, and his sweat was as drops of blood, and it fell upon the ground.

__________________

Matthew, chap. 27, v. 47 — 50.

VERCELLI MANUSCRIPT.

V. 47. Quidam autem illic stantes et audientes dicebant, Heliam vocat iste. v. 48. Et continuo currens unus ex eis, accepta spongia, implevit aceto, et imposuit in harundine, et dabat ei bibere. v. 49. Ceteri vero dixerunt, Sine, videamus si venit Helias et liberavit eum. v. 50. Jesus autem, iterum clamans voce magna, emisit spiritum.

VERONA MANUSCRIPT.

V. 47. Q.uidam autem illic stantes et audientes dicebant, Heliam vocat iste. v. 48. Et continuo currens unus ex eis, accepta spongia, implevit aceto, et imposuit in harundine, et dabat ei bibere. v. 49. Ceteri vero dixerunt, Sine, videamus si venit Helias et liberavit eum. v. 50. Jesus autem, iterum clamans voce magna, emisit spiritum.

VULGATE.

V. 47. Quidam autem illic stantes et audientes dicebant, Eliam vocat iste. v. 48. Et continuo currens unus ex eis acceptam spongiam implevit aceto, et imposuit arundini, et dabat ei bibere. v. 49. Caeteri vero dicebant, Sine, videamus an veniat Elias liberans eum. v. 50. Jesus autem, iterum clamans voce magna, emisit spiritum.

PESHITO.

Now certain men of them that stood there, when they heard said, This person calleth Elias. And immediately one of them ran, and took up a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and placed it on a reed, and gave him to drink. But the rest said. Desist! we shall see whether Elias will come to deliver him. And Jesus cried again with a loud voice, and resigned his spirit.

__________________

John, chap. 19, v. 32—34.

VERCELLI MANUSCRIPT.

V. 32. Venerunt ergo rnilites, et primi quidem crura fregerunt, et alterius similiter qui simul crucifixus erat. v. 33. Ad Jesum autem cum venissent, et viderunt eum jam mortuum, non fraegerunt crura ejus. v. 34. sed unus ex militibus lancia latus ejus percussit, et exiit confestim sanguis et aqua.

VERONA MANUSCRIPT.

V. 32. Venerunt ergo milites, et illius quidem primi fregerunt crura, et alterius qui simul crucifixus erat cum eo. v. 33. Ad Jesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum jam mortuum, non fregerunt crura ejus. v. 34. Sed unus militum lancea latus ejus pupugit, et exivit continuo sanguis et aqua.

VULGATE.

V. 32. Venerunt ergo milites, et primi quidem fregerunt crura, et alterius qui crucifixus est cum eo. v. 33. Ad Jesum autem cum venissent, ut viderunt eum jam mortuum, non fregerunt ejus crura; v. 34. sed unus militum lancea latus ejus aperuit, et continuo exivit sanguis et aqua.

PESHITO.

And the soldiers came and brake the legs of the first, and of the other who was crucified with him; but when they came to Jesus, they saw that he was already dead, and brake not his legs; but one of the soldiers smote him in his side with a lance, and immediately there came out blood and water.

__________________

It thus appears that these venerable and justly esteemed versions, which are probably more ancient than any Greek manuscript of the New Testament now extant, confirm the common readings of the two passages under discussion, and contradict those of the Vatican manuscript. To the omission by this manuscript of the former passage, which describes the agony and bloody sweat of Christ, the authority of Chrysostom, quoted by Mr. Penn, is not less opposed than these versions, as will be evident from the following paragraph, of which a translation has already been given in the text. In commenting on Matt. chap. 26, v. 36 — 38, this writer remarks: — “Ὁ δὲ ἐκτένως εὕχεταιε καὶ, ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ ὑπόκρισις εἶναι τὸ πρᾶγμα, καὶ ἱδρῶτες ἐπιῤῥέουσι διὰ τὴν αι’τίαν πάλιν τὴν αὐτήνί καὶ, ἵνα μὴ τουτο εἴπωσιν αἱρετικοὶ, ὅτι ὑποκρίνεται τὴν ἀγωνίαν, διὰ τουτο καὶ ἱδρῶτες ὡς θρόμβοι αἵματος, καὶ ἅγγελος ἐνισχύων αὐτὸν ἐφάνη, καὶ μυρία φόβου τεκμήρια, ἵνα μὴ τις ε’ἶπῃ τὰ ῥήματα πεπλασμένα εἷναι."¹  — Chrysostom here supposes that one principal object of recording in Scripture this narrative of the agony and bloody sweat of Christ, was to refute the error of those heretics who denied the reality of his mental sufferings; and it is in singular accordance with such a supposition, that the subtraction of this narrative from Luke's gospel is by competent judges attributed either to heretics, or to rash and injudicious critics, who did not well understand it.

How far Chrysostom approved of the new clause respecting the manner of Christ's death, inserted by the Vatican manuscript in Matthew's gospel, will be seen by another paragraph from his writings, wherein he comments as follows on Matt. chap. 27, v. 48, 49.— "Καὶ εὐθέως ἐπότισαν αὐτὸν ὅξοςῐ ἕτερος δὲ προσελθὼν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἤνοιξε“ Τι’ γένοιτ’ ἂν τούτων παρανομώτερον, τί δὲ θηριωδέστερον; οἲ μέχρι τοσούτου τὴν ἑαυτῶν μανίαν ἐξέτειναν, καὶ εἷς νεκρὸν σῶμα λοιπὸν ὑβρίζοντες” Σὺ δέ μοι σκόπει, πῶς ταῖς παρανομίαις αὐτῶν εἰς· ἡμετέραν κέχρηται σωτηρίανῐ μετὰ γὰρ τὴν πληγὴν, αἱ πηγαὶ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμων ἐκεῖθεν α’νέβλυσαν” ’Ο δέ Ἰησοῦς, κράξας φωνῇ μεγάλῃ, ἀφῆκε τὺ πνεῦμα. Τυυτό ἐστινὸ ξ’λεγενῖἘξουσίαν ἔχω θεῖναι τὴν ψυχήν μον, καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχω πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτὴν, καὶ ἐγὼ τίθημι αὐτὴν ἀπ’ ἐμαυτοῦ· Διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ φωνῇ ἐκραύγασεν, ἵνα δειχθῇ ὅτι καθ’ ἐξουσίαν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐγένετο. (Ο γοῦν Μάρκος φησὶν ὅτι ἐθαύμασεν ὁ Πιλάτος εἰ ἤδη τέθνηκε, καὶ ὅτι ὁ κεντυρίων διὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα ἐπίστευσεν, ὅτι μετ’ ἐξουσίας ἀπέθανεν."² — This passage relates to the treatment of Christ by the soldiers, after he had uttered the cry, Eloi! Eloi! lamma sabachthani? and may be freely rendered thus. — "They immediately gave him vinegar to drink; but another of them coming up, with a spear pierced his side. What can be conceived more lawless, or more brutal than the conduct of these men, who indulged their rage to such an extent as even to insult a dead body? But observe how he employed their lawlessness for our salvation; for from the wound thus made the fountains of our salvation sprang forth. And Jesus, having cried with a loud voice, resigned his spirit. This fulfilled what he had previously said: — I have authority to lay down my life, and authority to take it again, and I lay it down of my own accord. — For it was to show that the act was voluntary, that he cried with a loud voice. Mark accordingly says that Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and that the centurion believed on this account chiefly, because he died of his own accord." — Now, although Chrysostom here adopts the same order of narration as the editor of the Vatican manuscript, the diversity of their expressions renders it doubtful whether in so doing he followed his guidance. The words of the manuscript are, — "ἄλλος δὲ, λαβὼν λόγχην, ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδωρ καὶ αἷμα:"  — those of the commentator, — "ἕτερος δέ προσελθὼν, λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἤνοιξε." — It is far more probable that he borrowed the clause directly from John's gospel, for the purpose of describing in a single paragraph all the proceedings of the soldiers on this occasion; and it is certain that he did not draw from it those conclusions which have been so zealously embraced by Mr. Penn, since he ascribes the death of Christ, not to the wound inflicted by the soldier's spear, but to his own voluntary and supernatural agency, and represents that wound as a brutal insult offered to his dead body. On the whole, it must be evident that the objections which have been alleged against the various readings of the Vatican manuscript in these two important passages of the evangelical narrative, are not weakened, but on the contrary fully confirmed, by an appeal to the authority of Chrysostom.

1) Chrysostomus, Opera, vol. vii. p. 791. On account of its seeming to favour his own interpretation, Mr. Penn adopts a various reading of this passage, introduced by Morel; — 'ὠς καὶ εἰς νεκρὸν σῶμα λοιπὸν ὑέρίζοντες;" — but this reading, disapproved by Montfaucon, in his magnificent edition of Chrysostom, and at variance with the context, is evidently a corruption.

2) Chrysostomus, Opera, vol. vii. p. 825.