The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels: Being the Sequel to The Traditional Text of the Holy GospelsBurgon, John William
Religion
The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels: Being the Sequel to The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Burgon, John William
Bible. Gospels -- Criticism, Textual
'Judas Iscariot' is a combination of appellatives with which every
Christian ear is even awfully familiar. The expression [Greek: Ioudas
Iskariotes] is found in St. Matt. x. 4 and xxvi. 14: in St. Mark iii. 19
and xiv. 10: in St. Luke vi. 16, and in xxii. 31 with the express
statement added that Judas was so 'surnamed.' So far happily we are all
agreed. St. John's invariable practice is to designate the traitor, whom
he names four times, as 'Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon;'--jealous
doubtless for the honour of his brother Apostle, 'Jude ([Greek: Ioudas])
the brother of James[228]': and resolved that there shall be no mistake
about the traitor's identity. Who does not at once recall the
Evangelist's striking parenthesis in St. John xiv. 22,--'Judas (not
Iscariot)'? Accordingly, in St. John xiii. 2 the Revisers present us
with 'Judas Iscariot, Simon's son': and even in St. John xii. 4 they are
content to read 'Judas Iscariot.' But in the two places of St. John's
Gospel which remain to be noticed, viz. vi. 71 and xiii. 26, instead of
'Judas Iscariot the son of Simon' the Revisers require us henceforth to
read, 'Judas the son of Simon Iscariot.' And _why_? Only, I answer,
because--in place of [Greek: Ioudan Simonos IskarioTEN] (in vi. 71) and
[Greek: Iouda Simonos IskarioTE] (in xiii. 26)--a little handful of
copies substitute on both occasions [Greek: IskarioTOU]. Need I go on?
Nothing else has evidently happened but that, through the oscitancy of
some very early scribe, the [Greek: IskarioTEN], [Greek: IskarioTE],
have been attracted into concord with the immediately preceding genitive
[Greek: SImoNOS] ... So transparent a blunder would have scarcely
deserved a passing remark at our hands had it been suffered to
remain,--where such _betises_ are the rule and not the exception,--viz.
in the columns of Codexes B and [Symbol: Aleph]. But strange to say, not
only have the Revisers adopted this corrupt reading in the two passages
already mentioned, but they have not let so much as a hint fall that any
alteration whatsoever has been made by them in the inspired Text.
Sec. 2.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account