Appendix II. Læø¬—Vinegar

[The Dean thought this to be one of his most perfect papers.]

When He had reached the place called Golgotha, there were some who offered to the Son of Man ( ¥w¥ø “were for giving” Him) a draught of wine drugged with myrrh461. He would not so much as taste it. Presently, the soldiers gave Him while hanging on the Cross vinegar mingled with gall462. This He tasted, but declined to drink. At the end of six hours, He cried, “I thirst”: whereupon one of the soldiers ran, filled a sponge with vinegar, and gave Him to drink by offering the sponge up to His mouth secured to the summit of the reed of aspersion: whereby (as St. John significantly remarks) it covered the bunch of ceremonial hyssop which was used for sprinkling the people463. This time He drank; and exclaimed, “It is finished.”

Now, the ancients, and indeed the moderns too, have hopelessly confused this pathetic story by identifying the“vinegar and gall” of St. Matt. xxvii. 34 with the “myrrhed wine” of St. Mark xv. 23; shewing therein a want of critical perception which may reasonably excite astonishment; for “wine” is not [254] “vinegar,” neither is “myrrh” “gall.” And surely, the instinct of humanity which sought to alleviate the torture of crucifixion by administering to our Saviour a preliminary soporific draught, was entirely distinct from the fiendish malice which afterwards with a nauseous potion strove to aggravate the agony of dissolution. Least of all is it reasonable to identify the leisurely act of

461 º £º ºs ø ø6 ø , Mark xv. 23. 462 Læø¬ ºµƒp «øª ¬ ºµº ºs ø , Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37). 463 †ªu ± ƒµ¬ ¿y ø Dæø ¬, ±v Q }¿Û ¿µ£ s ƒµ¬, John xix. 29.

[255] 276 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

the insolent soldiery at the third hour464, with what “one of them” (evidently appalled by the darkness) “ran” to do at the ninth465. Eusebius nevertheless, in his clumsy sectional system, brackets466 together these three places (St. Matt. xxvii. 34, St. Mark xv. 23, St. John xix. 29): while moderns (as the excellent Isaac Williams) and ancients (as Cyril of Jerusalem)467 alike strenuously contend that the two first must needs be identical. The consequence might have been foreseen. Besides the substitution of “wine” for “vinegar” (ø6 ø for Dæø¬) which survives to this day in nineteen copies of St. Matt. xxvii. 34, the words “and gall” are found improperly thrust into four or five copies of St. John xix. 29. As for Eusebius and Macarius Magnes, they read St. John xix. 29 after such a monstrous fashion of their own, that I propose to invite separate attention to it in another place. Since however the attempt to assimilate the fourth Gospel to the first (by exhibiting Dæø¬ ºµƒp «øª ¬ in St. John xix. 29) is universally admitted to be indefensible, it need not occupy us further.

I return to the proposed substitution of ø6 ø for Dæø¬ in St. Matt. xxvii. 34, and have only to point out that it is as plain an instance of enforced harmony as can be produced. That it exists in many copies of the Old-Latin, and lingers on in the Vulgate: is the reading of the Egyptian, Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions and the Lewis Cod.; and survives in B †, besides thirteen of the cursives468;—all this will seem strange to those only who

464 Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37). 465 ö±v µ0 s…¬ ¥£±ºp µ0¬ æ ±Pƒˆ , Matt. xxvii. 48 (= Mark xv. 36). 466 Not so the author of the Syriac Canons. Like Eusebius, he identifies (1) Matt. xxvii. 34 with Mark xv. 23; and (2) Matt. xxvii. 48 with Mark xv. 36 and Luke xxiii. 36; but unlike Eusebius, he makes John xix. 29 parallel with these last three. 467 The former,—pp. 286-7: the latter,—p. 197. The Cod. Fuld. ingeniously—“Et dederunt ei vinum murratum bibere cum felle mixtum” (Ranke, p. 154). 468 Evann. 1, 22, 33, 63, 69, 73, 114, 122, 209, 222, 253, 507, 513.

Appendix II. Læø¬—Vinegar. 277

have hitherto failed to recognize the undeniable fact that Codd. B- DL are among the foulest in existence. It does but prove how inveterately, as well as from how remote a period, the error under discussion has prevailed. And yet, the great and old Peshitto Version,—Barnabas469 , —Irenaeus470 , —Tertullian471 , —Celsus472 , —Origen473 , —the Sibylline verses in two places474 (quoted by Lactantius),—and

469 §7. 470 Pp. 526, 681 (Mass. 212, 277). 471 De Spect. written A.D.{FNS 198 (see Clinton, App. p. 413), c. xxx.-i. p. 62. 472 “ ‘Et dederunt ei bibero acetum et fel.’ Pro eo quod dulci suo vino eos laetificarat, acetum ei porrexerunt; pro felle autem magna ejus miseratio amaritudinem gentium dulcem fecit.” Evan. Conc. p. 245. 473 Celsus ƒx Dæø¬ ±v ƒt «øªt @ µ ¥w µ ƒ˜ 8 øÊ, —writes Origen (i. 416 c d e), quoting the blasphemous language of his opponent and refuting it, but accepting the reference to the Gospel record. This he does twice, remarking on the second occasion (i. 703 b c) that such as Celsus are for ever offering to JESUS{FNS “gall and vinegar. ” (These passages are unknown to many critics because they were overlooked by Griesbach.)—Elsewhere Origen twice (iii. 920 d e, 921 b) recognizes the same incident, on the second occasion contrasting the record in Matt. xxvii. 34 with that in Mark xv. 23 in a way which shews that he accounted the places parallel:—“Et hoc considera, quod secundum Matthaeum quidem Jesus accipiens acetum cum felle permixtum gustavit, et noluit bibere: secundum Marcum autem, cum daretur et myrrhatum vinum, non accepit.”—iii. 921 b. 474 Lib. i. 374 and viii. 303 (assigned by Alexander to the age of Antoninus Pius), ap. Galland. i. 346 a, 395 c. The line (µ0¬ ¥r ƒx £ˆº± «øªu , ±v µ0¬ ¥w»± Dæø¬ ¥… ± ) is also found in Montfaucon's Appendix (Palaeogr. 246).

[256] 278 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

ps.-Tatian475 ,

—are more ancient authorities than any of the preceding, and they all yield adverse testimony.

Coming down to the fourth century, (to which Bbelong,) those two Codexes find themselves contradicted by Athanasius476 in two places,—by another of the same name477 who has been mistaken for the patriarch of Alexandria,—by Eusebius of Emesa478 , —by Theodore of Heraclea479 , —by Didymus480 , —by Gregory of Nyssa481 , —and by his namesake of

Sibyll. lib. i. 374, Gall. i. 346 a µ0¬ ¥r ƒx £ˆº± «øªu , ±v µ0¬ ¿yƒø Dæø¬ £±ƒø ; ibid. viii. 303, 395 c ... ¿ µ÷ Dæø¬ ¥… ± ; quoted by Lactantius, lib. iv. c. 18, A.D.{FNS 320, Gall. iv. 300 a ... µ0¬ ¥w»± Dæø¬ ¥… ± , which is the way the line is quoted from the Sibyl in Montfaucon's Appendix (Pal. Graec. 246). Lactantius a little earlier (Gall. iv. 299 b) had said,—“Dederunt ei cibum fellis, et miscuerunt ei aceti potionem.” 475 Referring to the miracle at Cana, where (viz. in p. 55) the statement is repeated. Evan. Conc. p. 245. See above, note 5. 476 Apud Montf. ii. 63; Corderii, Cat in Luc. p. 599. 477 The Tractatus [ii. 305 b] at the end of the Quaestt. ad Antiochum (Ath. ii. 301-6), which is certainly of the date of Athanasius, and which the editor pronounces to be not unworthy of him (Praefat. II. viii-ix). 478 Opusc. ed. Augusti, p. 16. 479 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 393. 480 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 409. 481 üP ¿ø p «øª« ƒµ ±v Dæµ ¥ q £ø«ø¬, ø5± ø1 8ø ¥±÷ø ƒ˜ µPµ£ sƒ ƒt ªøƒ w± ¥µ {ºµ ø ¥ p ƒøÊ ±ªqºø ¿£øƒµw ø . —i. 624 b (where it should be noted that the contents of verses 34 and 48 (in Matt. xxvii) are confused).

Appendix II. Læø¬—Vinegar. 279

Nazianzus482 , —by Ephraem Syrus483 , —by Lactantius484 , —by Jerome485 , —by Rufinus486 , —by Chrysostom487 , —by Severianus of Gabala488 , —by Theodore of Mopsuestia489 , —by Cyril of Alexandria490 , —and by Titus of Bostra491. Now these are more respectable contemporary witnesses to the text of Scripture by far than Codexes B- and D (who also have to reckon with A, ¶, and £—C being mute at the place), as well as outnumber them in the proportion of 24 to 2. To these (8 + 16 =) 24 are to be added the Apocryphal “Gospel of Nicodemus492 , ” which Tischendorf [257] assigns to the third century; the “Acts of Philip493 , ” and the Apocryphal “Acts of the Apostles494 , ” which Dr. Wright claims for the fourth; besides Hesychius495, Amphilochius496, ps.-

482 i. 481 a, 538 d, 675 b. More plainly in p. 612 e,—º ¬ ƒ ¬ «øª ¬, x¬ Dæø ¬, ¥ g ƒt ¿ £p µÊ µ£±¿µ{ ºµ (= Cat. Nic. p. 788). 483 ii. 48 c, 284 a. 484 Lib. iv. c. 18. See above, last page, note 7. 485 vii. 236 c d, quoted next page. 486 “Refertur etiam quod aceto potatus sit, vel vino myrrhato, quod est amarius felle.” Rufinus, in Symb. § 26. 487 vii. 819 a b (= Cat. Nic. p. 792). See also a remarkable passage ascribed to Chrys. in the Catena of Nicetas, pp. 371-2. 488 “Jesus de felle una cum aceto amaritudinis libavit.” (Hom. translated by Aucher from the Armenian.—Venice. 1827, p. 435). 489 Apud Mai, N. Bibl. PP. iii. 455. 490 Apud Mai, ii. 66; iii. 42. Is this the same place which is quoted in Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410? 491 Apud Galland. v. 332. 492 Or Acta Pilati, pp. 262, 286. 493 P. 85. 494 P. 16. 495 Cord. Cat. in Ps. ii. 410. 496 p. 87.

[258] 280 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

Chrysostom497, Maximus498, Severus of Antioch499, and John Damascene500 , —nine names which far outweigh in antiquity and importance the eighth and ninth-century Codexes KL†. Those critics in fact who would substitute “wine” for “vinegar” in St. Matt. xxvii. 34 have clearly no case. That, however, which is absolutely decisive of the question against them is the fact that every uncial and every cursive copy in existence, except the very few specimens already quoted, attest that the oldest known reading of this place is the true reading. In fact, the Church has affirmed in the plainest manner, from the first, that Dæø¬ (not ø6 ø ) is to be read here. We are therefore astonished to find her deliberate decree disregarded by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, in an attempt on their part to revive what is a manifest fabrication, which but for the Vulgate would long since have passed out of the memory of Christendom. Were they not aware that Jerome himself knew better? “Usque hodie” (he says) “Judaei et omnes increduli Dominicae resurrectionis, aceto et felle potant Jesum; et dant ei vinum myrrhatum ut eum consopiant, et mala eorum non videat501:”—whereby he both shews that he read St. Matt. xxvii. 34 according to the traditional text (see also p. 233 c), and that he bracketed together two incidents which he yet perceived were essentially distinct, and in marked contrast with one another. But what most offends me is the deliberate attempt of the Revisers in this place. Shall I be thought unreasonable if I avow that it exceeds my comprehension how such a body of men can have persuaded themselves that it is fair to eject the reading of an important place of Scripture like the present, and to substitute for it a reading resting upon so slight a testimony without furnishing ordinary Christian readers

497 x. 829. 498 ii. 84, 178. 499 Cramer, Cat. i. 235. 500 i. 228, 549. 501 vii. 236 c d.

Appendix II. Læø¬—Vinegar. 281

with at least a hint of what they had done? They have considered the evidence in favour of “wine” (in St. Matt. xxvii. 34) not only “decidedly preponderating,” but the evidence in favour of “vinegar” so slight as to render the word undeserving even of a place in the margin. Will they find a sane jury in Great Britain to be of the same opinion? Is this the candid and equitable action befitting those who were set to represent the Church in this momentous business?

[259]