  We repeat that the ill treatment which the deposit has experienced at the hands of those who fabricated the text of Cod. D is only to be understood by those who will be [pg 183] St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the first Good Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea “taking courage went in (e?s???e) to Pilate and requested to have the body (s?a) of Jesus”: that “Pilate wondered (??a?ase?) [at hearing] that He was dead (t?????e) already: and sending for the centurion [who had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if [Jesus] had been dead long?” (e? p??a? ?p??a?e.) But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting “went” (???e?) for “went in,”—“corpse” (pt?a) for “body” (which by the way he repeats in ver. 45),—and a sentiment of “continuous wonder” (??a?a?e?) for the fact of astonishment which Joseph's request inspired,—having also substituted the prosaic te????e? for the graphic t?????e of the Evangelist,—represents Pilate as inquiring of the centurion “if [indeed Jesus] was dead already?” (e? ?d? te????e?; si jam mortuus esset?), whereby not only is all the refinement of the original lost, but the facts of the case also are seriously misrepresented. For Pilate did not doubt Joseph's tidings. He only wondered at them. And his inquiry was made not with a view to testing the veracity of his informant, but for the satisfaction of his own curiosity as to the time when his Victim had expired. [pg 184]Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on an exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43 and all v. 44) of the second Gospel. The reader is requested to refer to the note263, where he will find set down a collation of eight consecutive verses in the selfsame context: viz. St. Mark xv. 47 to xvi. 7 inclusive; after an attentive survey of which he will not be disposed to deny that only by courtesy can such an exhibition of the original verity as Cod. D be called “a copy” at all. Had the genuine text been copied over and over again till the crack of doom, the result could never have been this. There are in fact but 117 words to be transcribed: and of these no less than 67—much more than half—have been either omitted (21), or else added (11); substituted (10), or else transposed (11); depraved (12, as by writing a?ate????t?? for ??ate??a?t??), or actually blundered (2, as by writing e????ta? ???? for ?????ta? ???). Three times the construction has been altered,—once indeed very seriously, for the Angel at the sepulchre is made to personate Christ. Lastly, five of the corrupt readings are the result of Assimilation. Whereas the evangelist wrote ?a? ??a???asa? ?e????s?? ?t? ?p??e????sta? ? ?????, what else but a licentious [pg 185] |
|
