2-Jul

Previous

There are many occasions—as I remarked before,—where the very logic of the case becomes a powerful argument. Worthless in and by themselves,—in the face, I mean, of general testimony,—considerations derived from the very reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to assist the judgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced. But their cogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey of the evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be the right reading of a place. They seem then to sweep the field. Such an occasion is presented by St. Luke [pg 215] xvi. 9,—where our Lord, having shewn what provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would find himself houseless,—the Divine Speaker infers that something analogous should be done by ourselves with our own money,—“in order” (saith He) “that when ye fail, ye may be received into the everlasting tabernacles.” The logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the choice of terms in the Original is exquisite: the word employed to designate Man's departure out of this life (????p?te), conveying the image of one fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the word used in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and of Isaac, and of Jacob332.

But instead of this, ?BDLR? with AX present us with e???p? or e??e?p?,—shewing that the author of this reading imagined without discrimination, that what our Lord meant to say was that when at last our money “fails” us, we may not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the number of twelve, together with two correctors of ?, the bulk of the Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, and Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus333, Clemens Alex.334, Origen335, Methodius336, Basil337, Ephraem Syrus338, Gregory Naz.339, Didymus340, Chrysostom341, Severianus342, Jerome343, Augustine344, Eulogius345, and Theodoret346, also Aphraates (a.d. 325)347, support the reading ????p?te. Cyril appears to have known both readings348.

[pg 216]

His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his fragmentary remains; and “divination” is a faculty to which I make no pretence.

In p. 349, after de? d? p??t?? a?t??? ?p?pese?? t?? ???????a? ?p?p?d??t?? ?a??t??, ?a? t?? ?a?? ??? p?a??t?? ??e???t??. ?d??f??t?? ??? ?????p? pa?t? t?? ?a??t?? t?? ?????,—Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower down) ?ta? a?t??? ? ?p??e??? ???e?t? ??????S, with which corresponds the Syriac of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage in Cramer's Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, ?p?pes???ta? p??t?? t?? ???????a? ?p?p?d??t?? a?t??? t?? ?a??t?? (lines 21-3), we are presented with ?ta? a?t??? ? ?p??e??? ???e?p?? ???, which clearly reverses the testimony. If Cyril wrote that, he read (like every other Father) ????p?te. It is only right to add that ????p? is found besides in pp. 525, 526 (= Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril's Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This however (like the quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto. I must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my judgement concerning Cyril's text is at fault.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page