The Traditional Text of the Holy
Gospels
Vindicated and Established
By the Late
John William Burgon, B.D.
Dean of Chichester
Arranged, Completed, and Edited by
Edward Miller, M.A.
Late Rector of Bucknell, Oxon; Editor of the Fourth Edition
of Dr. Scrivener’s“Plain Introduction to the Textual Criticism of
the New Testament”; and Author of“A Guide to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament”
† §ø÷¬ wø¬ ß¡ƒ˜8øÊ
PHIL. i. 1
London
George Bell And Sons
Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.
1896Contents
Preface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Chapter II. Principles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. . . . . . . . . . . 50
Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. . . . . 78
Chapter V. The Antiquity of the Traditional Text. I.
Witness of the Early Fathers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Chapter VI. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. II.
Witness of the Early Syriac Versions. . . . . . . . . . . 141
Chapter VII. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. III.
Witness of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text. . . . 153
Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. . . . . . . . . . . 167
Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. . . 179
Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. . . . . . . . . . . . 193
Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. . . . . . 218
Chapter XII. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245
Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. . . . . . 261
Appendix II. Læø¬—Vinegar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
Appendix III. The Rich Young Man. . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And . . . . . 312
Appendix VI. The Peshitto And Curetonian. . . . . . . . . 317
Appendix VII. The Last Twelve Verses Of St. Mark’s
Gospel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
Appendix VIII. New Editions Of The Peshitto-Syriac And
The Harkleian-Syriac Versions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
General Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
Index II. Passages Of The New Testament Commented On. 356iv The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365[iv][v]
“Tenet ecclesia nostra, tenuitque semper firmam illam et
immotam Tertulliani regulam‘Id verius quod prius, id prius
quod ab initio.’ Quo propius ad veritatis fontem accedimus, eo
purior decurrit Catholicae doctrinae rivus.”—CAVE‘S Proleg. p.
xliv.
“Interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona, et ambulate
in eâ.”—Jerem. vi. 16.
“In summa, si constat id verius quod prius, id prius quod ab
initio, id ab initio quod ab Apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id
esse ab Apostolis traditum, quod apud Ecclesias Apostolorum
fuerit sacrosanctum.”—TERTULL. adv. Marc. l. iv. c. 5.Preface.
The death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented by a large number of
people on the other side of the Atlantic as well as on this, cut him
off in the early part of a task for which he had made preparations
during more than thirty years. He laid the foundations of his
system with much care and caution, discussing it with his friends,
such as the late Earl of Selborne to whom he inscribed The Last
Twelve Verses, and the present Earl of Cranbrook to whom he
dedicated The Revision Revised, for the purpose of sounding
the depths of the subject, and of being sure that he was resting
upon firm rock. In order to enlarge the general basis of Sacred
Textual Criticism, and to treat of the principles of it scientifically
and comprehensively, he examined manuscripts widely, making
many discoveries at home and in foreign libraries; collated some
himself and got many collated by other scholars; encouraged new
and critical editions of some of the chief Versions; and above
all, he devised and superintended a collection of quotations from
the New Testament to be found in the works of the Fathers
and in other ecclesiastical writings, going far beyond ordinary indexes, which may be found in sixteen thick volumes amongst
the treasures of the British Museum. Various events led him
during his life-time to dip into and publish some of his stores,
such as in his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, his famous
Letters to Dr. Scrivener in the Guardian Newspaper, and in The
Revision Revised. But he sedulously amassed materials for the
greater treatise up to the time of his death.
He was then deeply impressed with the incomplete state of
his documents; and gave positive instructions solely for the
publication of his Text of the Gospels as marked in the margin
of one of Scrivener’s editions of the New Testament, of his
[vi][vii]
4 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
disquisition on“honeycomb” which as exhibiting a specimen of
his admirable method of criticism will be found in Appendix I of
this volume, and perhaps of that on Dæø¬ in Appendix II, leaving
the entire question as to publishing the rest to his nephew, the
Rev. W. F. Rose, with the help of myself, if I would undertake
the editing required, and of others.
The separate papers, which were committed to my charge
in February, 1889, were contained in forty portfolios, and
according to my catalogue amounted to 2,383. They were
grouped under various headings, and some were placed in one
set as “Introductory Matter”ready for the printer. Most had been
copied out in a clear hand, especially by“M.W.” mentioned in
the Preface of the Revision Revised, to whom also I am greatly
indebted for copying others. The papers were of lengths varying
from fourteen pages or more down to a single sentence or a
single reference. Some were almost duplicates, and a very few
similarly triplicates.
After cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, suggesting a choice
between three plans, viz.,
1. Publishing separately according to the Dean’s instructions
such papers as were judged to be fit for publication, and leaving
the rest:—
2. To put together a Work on the Principles of Textual
Criticism out of the MSS., as far as they would go:—
3. To make up what was ready and fit into a Book, supplying
from the rest of the materials and from elsewhere what was
wanting besides filling up gaps as well as I could, and out of the
rest (as well as from the Dean’s published works) to construct
brief notes on the Text which we had to publish.
This report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean Goulburn, Sir
Edward Maunde Thompson, and other distinguished scholars,
and the unanimous opinion was expressed that the third of these
plans should be adopted.
Not liking to encounterPreface. 5
Tot et tanta negotia solus,
I invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam,
Fellow of Hertford College, and the Rev. Dr. Waller, Principal of
St. John’s Hall, Highbury—a man of mathematical accuracy—to
read over at my house the first draft of a large portion of Volume
I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has been too busy since that time to
afford me any help, except what may be found in his valuable [viii]
comparison of the texts of the Peshitto and Curetonian printed
in Appendix VI: but Mr. Gwilliam has been ready with advice
and help all along which have been of the greatest advantage to
me especially on the Syriac part of the subject, and has looked
through all the first proofs of this volume.
It was afterwards forced upon my mind that if possible the
Indexes to the Fathers ought to be included in the work. Indeed
no book could adequately represent Dean Burgon’s labours which
did not include his apparatus criticus in that province of Textual
Criticism, in which he has shewn himself so facile princeps,
that no one in England, or Germany, or elsewhere, has been as
yet able to come near him. With Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s
kind help, I have been able to get the part of the Indexes which
relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing, and they will be
published in course of time, God willing, if the learned world
evinces sufficient interest in the publication of them.
Unfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed a first
arrangement of Volume II, my health gave way; and after
vainly endeavouring for a year to combine this severe toil with
the conduct of a living, I resigned the latter, and moved into
Oxford to devote myself exclusively to the important work of
turning the unpublished results of the skilful faithfulness and
the indefatigable learning of that“grand scholar”—to use Dr.
Scrivener’s phrase—towards the settlement of the principles
that should regulate the ascertainment of the Divine Words
constituting the New Testament. [ix][x]
6 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
The difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact that after all
was gathered out of the Dean’s remains that was suitable for
the purpose, and when gaps of smaller or greater size were
filled, as has been done throughout the series of unfinished and
unconnected MSS., there was still a large space to cover without
the Master’s help in covering it.
Time and research and thought were alike necessary.
Consequently, upon advice, I accepted an offer to edit the
fourth edition of Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, and although
that extremely laborious accomplishment occupied far more time
than was anticipated, yet in the event it has greatly helped the
execution of my task. Never yet, before or since Dean Burgon’s
death, has there been such an opportunity as the present. The
general apparatus criticus has been vastly increased; the field of
palaeography has been greatly enlarged through the discoveries
in Egypt; and there is a feeling abroad that we are on the brink of
an improvement in systems and theories recently in vogue.
On returning to the work, I found that the key to the removal
of the chief difficulty in the way of such improvement lay in
an inflow of light upon what may perhaps be termed as to this
subject the Pre-manuscriptal Period,—hitherto the dark age of
Sacred Textualism, which precedes what was once“the year one”
of Palaeography. Accordingly, I made a toilsome examination
for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the
Fathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order
to draw a self-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D.,
with the result that the Traditional Text is found to stand in
the general proportion of 3:2 against other variations, and in a
much higher proportion upon thirty test passages. Afterwards,
not being satisfied with resting the basis of my argument upon
one scrutiny, I went again through the writings of the seventy-
six Fathers concerned (with limitations explained in this book),
besides others who yielded no evidence, and I found that although
several more instances were consequently entered in my note-Preface. 7
book, the general results remained almost the same. I do not
flatter myself that even now I have recorded all the instances
that could be adduced:—any one who is really acquainted with
this work will know that such a feat is absolutely impossible,
because such perfection cannot be obtained except after many
repeated efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts have
been honest and fair even to self-abnegation, but that the general
results which are much more than is required by my argument,
as is explained in the body of this work, abundantly establish
the antiquity of the Traditional Text, by proving the superior
acceptance of it during the period at stake to that of any other.
Indeed, these examinations have seemed to me, not only to
carry back the Traditional Text satisfactorily to the first age, but
to lead also to solutions of several difficult problems, which are
now presented to our readers. The wealth of MSS. to which the
Fathers introduce us at second-hand can only be understood by
those who may go through the writings of many of them with this
view; and outnumbers over and over again before the year 1000 all the contemporaneous Greek MSS. which have come down
to us, not to speak of the years to which no MSS. that are now
extant are in the opinion of all experts found to belong.
It is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to say that we
came together after having worked on independent lines, though
I am bound to acknowledge my great debt to his writings. At first
we did not agree thoroughly in opinion, but I found afterwards
that he was right and I was wrong. It is a proof of the unifying
power of our principles, that as to our system there is now
absolutely no difference between us, though on minor points,
generally outside of this immediate subject, we do not always
exactly concur. Though I have the Dean’s example for altering
his writings largely even when they were in type, as he never
failed to do, yet in loyalty I have delayed alterations as long as I
could, and have only made them when I was certain that I was
introducing some improvement, and more often than not upon
[xi][xii]
8 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
advice proffered to me by others.
Our coincidence is perhaps explained by our having been
born when Evangelical earnestness affected all religious
life, by our having been trained under the High Church
movement, and at least in my case mellowed under the
more moderate widening caused by influences which prevailed
in Oxford for some years after 1848. Certainly, the
comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness—probably in imitation
of German method—which had before characterized Dr. Pusey’s
treatment of any subject, and found an exemplification in
Professor Freeman’s historical researches, and which was as
I think to be seen in the action of the best spirits of the Oxford
of 1848-56—to quote my own experience,—lay at the root and
constituted the life of Burgon’s system, and the maintenance of
these principles so far as we could at whatever cost formed the
link between us. To cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of
the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty
remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime
and a sin, not only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness
exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a
method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and
logical method. Perfectly familiar with all that can be and
is advanced in favour of such procedure, must we not say
that hardly any worse pattern than this in investigations and
conclusions could be presented before young men at the critical
time when they are entering upon habits of forming judgements
which are to carry them through life? Has the over-specialism
which has been in vogue of late years promoted the acceptance of
the theory before us, because it may have been under specializing
influences forgotten, that the really accomplished man should
aim at knowing something of everything else as well as knowing
everything of the thing to which he is devoted, since narrowness
in investigation and neglect of all but a favourite theory is likely
to result from so exclusive an attitude?Preface. 9
The importance of the question at stake is often underrated.
Dr. Philip Schaff in his well-known“Companion”(p. 176),—as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in one of his brochures (“Ein ceterum
censeo zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik”) which he has kindly
sent me, has pointed out,—observes that whereas Mill reckoned
the variations to amount to 30,000, and Scrivener supposed that
they have since increased to four times as much, they“cannot
now fall much short of 150,000.” This amount is appalling, and
most of them are of a petty character. But some involve highly
important passages, and even Hort has reckoned (Introduction,
p. 2) that the disputed instances reach about one-eighth of the
whole. Is it too strong therefore to say, that we live over a
volcano, with a crust of earth of not too great a thickness lying
between?
The first half of our case is now presented in this Volume,
which is a complete treatise in itself. A second will I hope follow
at an early date, containing a disquisition on the Causes of the
Corruption of the Traditional Text; and, I am glad to say, will
consist almost exclusively of Dean Burgon’s own compositions.
I ask from Critics who may not assent to all our conclusions
a candid consideration of our case, which is rested solely upon
argument and reason throughout. This explanation made by the
Dean of his system in calmer times and in a more didactic form
cannot, as I think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we seem at
first sight anywhere to leap from reasoning to dogmatism, our
readers will discover, I believe, upon renewed observation that
at least from our point of view that is not so. If we appear to
speak too positively, we have done this, not from confidence in any private judgement, but because we are sure, at least in our
own minds, that we express the verdict of all the ages and all the
countries.
May the great Head of the Church bless our effort on behalf
of the integrity of His Holy Word, if not according to our plan
and purpose, yet in the way that seemeth Him best!
[xiii]
[xiv]The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Edward Miller.
9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:
Epiphany 1896.
[001]
10 Introduction.
A few remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was left
imperfect by Dean Burgon at his unexpected death, may make
the object and scope of it more intelligible to many readers.
Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a close inquiry into
what is the genuine Greek—the true text of the Holy Gospels, of
the Acts of the Apostles, of the Pauline and Apostolic Epistles,
and the Revelation. Inasmuch as it concerns the text alone,
it is confined to the Lower Criticism according to German
nomenclature, just as a critical examination of meaning, with
all its attendant references and connexions, would constitute
the Higher Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any
scientific investigation of the language, the purport, and the
teaching of the various books of the New Testament, and ought
itself to be conducted upon definite and scientific principles.
The object of this treatise is to lead to a general settlement of
those principles. For this purpose the Dean has stripped the
discussion of all adventitious disguise, and has pursued it lucidly
into manifold details, in order that no employment of difficult terms or involved sentences may shed any mystification over
the questions discussed, and that all intelligent people who are
interested in such questions—and who is not?—may understand
the issues and the proofs of them.
In the very earliest times much variation in the text of the New
Testament, and particularly of the Holy Gospels—for we shall
treat mainly of these four books as constituting the most important
province, and as affording a smaller area, and so being more
convenient for the present inquiry:—much diversity in words and
expression, I say, arose in the Church. In consequence, the school
of scientific Theology at Alexandria, in the person of Origen,
[002][003]
12 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
first found it necessary to take cognizance of the matter. When
Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his manuscripts with him,
and they appear to have formed the foundation of the celebrated
library in that city, which was afterwards amplified by Pamphilus
and Eusebius, and also by Acacius and Euzoius1, who were all
successively bishops of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if
not under his controlling care, the two oldest Uncial Manuscripts
in existence as hitherto discovered, known as B and , or
the Vatican and Sinaitic, were executed in handsome form and
exquisite calligraphy. But shortly after, about the middle of the
fourth century—as both schools of Textual Critics agree—a text
differing from that of B and advanced in general acceptance;
and, increasing till the eighth century in the predominance won
by the end of the fourth, became so prevalent in Christendom, that
the small number of MSS. agreeing with B and forms no sort
of comparison with the many which vary from those two. Thus
the problem of the fourth century anticipated the problem of the
nineteenth. Are we for the genuine text of the New Testament to
go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and the few others which
mainly agree with them, or are we to follow the main body of
New Testament MSS., which by the end of the century in which
those two were produced entered into possession of the field of
contention, and have continued in occupation of it ever since?
This is the problem which the following treatise is intended to
solve, that is to say, which of these two texts or sets of readings
is the better attested, and can be traced back through the stronger
evidence to the original autographs.
A few words are now needed to describe and account for the
present position of the controversy.
After the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual Criticism
1 See Jerome, Epist. 34 (Migne, xxii. p. 448). Cod. V. of Philo has
the following inscription:—ïP y ø¬ ¿wø¿ø¬ …º±ƒwø¬ µs…±ƒø, i.e.
transcribed on vellum from papyrus. Leopold Cohn’s edition of Philo, De
Opiticiis Mundi, Vratislaw, 1889.Introduction. 13
began to rise again. The career of it may be divided into four
stages, which may be termed respectively, Infancy, Childhood,
Youth, and Incipient Maturity2
.
I. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very
small number of manuscripts, probably only five, in repute at
the time; and six years afterwards appeared the Complutensian
edition under Cardinal Ximenes, which had been printed two
years before that of Erasmus. Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza,
and the Elzevirs, also, as is well known, published editions of
their own. In the latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in 1633,
occurred for the first time the widely-used expression“Textus
Receptus.”The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully
to the text received everywhere.
II. In the next, evidence from Manuscripts, Versions, and
Fathers was collected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bentley
thought of going back to the fourth century for decisive evidence.
Bengel and Griesbach laid stress upon families and recensions
of manuscripts, and led the way in departing from the received standard. Collation of manuscripts was carried on by these two
critics and by other able scholars, and largely by Scholz. There
was thus an amplification of materials, and a crop of theories.
Much that was vague and elemental was intermingled with a
promise of a great deal that would prove more satisfactory in the
future.
III. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann, who
began to discard the readings of the Received Text, supposing
it to be only two centuries old. Authorities having already
become inconveniently multitudinous, he limited his attention
to the few which agreed with the oldest Uncials, namely, L
or the Regius at Paris, one or two other fragments of Uncials,
a few Cursives, the Old Latin Manuscripts, and a few of the
oldest Fathers, making up generally some six or seven in all
2 See my Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pp. 7-37.
George Bell and Sons, 1886.
[004][005]
14 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
upon each separate reading. Tischendorf, the discoverer of
, the twin-sister of B, and the collator of a large number of
MSS.3, followed him in the main, as did also Tregelles. And
Dr. Hort, who, with Bishop Westcott, began to theorize and
work when Lachmann’s influence was at the highest, in a most
ingenious and elaborate Introduction maintained the cause of
the two oldest Uncials—especially B—and their small band of
followers. Admitting that the Received Text dates back as far
as the middle of the fourth century, Hort argued that it was
divided by more than two centuries and a half from the original
Autographs, and in fact took its rise at Antioch and should be
called“Syrian,” notwithstanding the predominance which he
acknowledged that it has enjoyed since the end of the fourth
century. He termed the readings of which B and are the chief
exponents“the Neutral Text,”and held that that text can be traced
back to the genuine Autographs4
.
IV. I have placed the tenets of the opposite school last as
exhibiting signs of Incipient Maturity in the Science, not because
they are admitted to be so, that being not the case, but because of
their intrinsic merits, which will be unfolded in this volume, and
because of the immense addition recently made of authorities to
our store, as well as on account of the indirect influence exercised
of late by discoveries pursued in other quarters5. Indeed, it is
sought to establish a wider stock of ruling authorities, and a
sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the advocacy
of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and
3 For an estimate of Tischendorf’s great labour, see an article on Tischendorf’s
Greek Testament in the Quarterly Review for July, 1895.
4 Dr. Hort’s theory, which is generally held to supply the philosophical
explanation of the tenets maintained in the school of critics who support B
and as pre-eminently the sources of the correct text, may be studied in his
Introduction. It is also explained and controverted in my Textual Guide, pp.
38-59; and has been powerfully criticized by Dean Burgon in The Revision
Revised, Article III, or in No. 306 of the Quarterly Review, without reply.
5 Quarterly Review, July 1895,“Tischendorf’s Greek Testament.”Introduction. 15
especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not
advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here
and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean
Burgon6, about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St.
Matthew’s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL
TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there
is any record. We trust to the fullest testimony and the most
enlightened view of all the evidence. In humble dependence upon
God the Holy Ghost, Who we hold has multiplied witnesses all
down the ages of the Church, and Whose cause we believe we
plead, we solemnly call upon those many students of the Bible in
these days who are earnest after truth to weigh without prejudice
what we say, in the prayer that it may contribute something
towards the ascertainment of the true expressions employed in
the genuine Word of GOD.
[006]
6 See Preface.Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds.
§ 1.
In the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem of the highest
dignity and importance7: namely, On what principles the true
text of the New Testament Scriptures is to be ascertained? My
subject is the Greek text of those Scriptures, particularly of the
four Gospels; my object, the establishment of that text on an
intelligible and trustworthy basis.
That no fixed principles were known to exist before 1880
is proved by the fact that the most famous critics not only
differed considerably from one another, but also from themselves.
Till then all was empiricism in this department. A section, a
7 It is remarkable, that in quarters where we should have looked for
more scientific procedure the importance of the Textual Criticism of the
New Testament is underrated, upon a plea that theological doctrine may
be established upon passages other than those of which the text has been
impugned by the destructive school. Yet (a) in all cases consideration of
the text of an author must perforce precede consideration of inferences from
the text—Lower Criticism must be the groundwork of Higher Criticism; (b)
confirmatory passages cannot be thrown aside in face of attacks upon doctrine
of every possible character; (c) Holy Scripture is too unique and precious
to admit of the study of the several words of it being interesting rather than
important; (d) many of the passages which Modern Criticism would erase or
suspect—such as the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, the first Word from
the Cross, and the thrilling description of the depth of the Agony, besides
numerous others—are valuable in the extreme; and, (e) generally speaking,
it is impossible to pronounce, especially amidst the thought and life seething
everywhere round us, what part of Holy Scripture is not, or may not prove to
be, of the highest importance as well as interest.—E. M.Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 17
chapter, an article, a pamphlet, a tentative essay—all these indeed
from time to time appeared: and some were excellent of their
kind. But we require something a vast deal more methodical,
argumentative, and complete, than is compatible with such [007]
narrow limits. Even where an account of the facts was extended
to greater length and was given with much fullness and accuracy,
there was an absence of scientific principle sufficient to guide
students to a satisfactory and sound determination of difficult
questions. Tischendorf’s last two editions differ from one another
in no less than 3,572 particulars. He reverses in every page in
1872 what in 1859 he offered as the result of his deliberate
judgement. Every one, to speak plainly, whether an expert or
a mere beginner, seemed to consider himself competent to pass
sentence on any fresh reading which is presented to his notice.
We were informed that“according to all principles of sound
criticism” this word is to be retained, that to be rejected: but till
the appearance of the dissertation of Dr. Hort no one was so
obliging as to tell us what the principles are to which reference
is confidently made, and by the loyal application of which we
might have arrived at the same result for ourselves. And Hort’s
theory, as will be shewn further on, involves too much violation
of principles generally received, and is too devoid of anything
like proof, ever to win universal acceptance. As matters of fact
easily verified, it stands in sharp antagonism to the judgement
passed by the Church all down the ages, and in many respects
does not accord with the teaching of the most celebrated critics
of the century who preceded him.
I trust I shall be forgiven, if in the prosecution of the present
inquiry I venture to step out of the beaten track, and to lead
my reader forward in a somewhat humbler style than has been
customary with my predecessors. Whenever they have entered
upon the consideration of principles, they have always begun
by laying down on their own authority a set of propositions,
some of which so far from being axiomatic are repugnant to our[009]
18 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[008]
judgement and are found as they stand to be even false. True
that I also shall have to begin by claiming assent to a few
fundamental positions: but then I venture to promise that these
shall all be self-evident. I am very much mistaken if they do not
also conduct us to results differing greatly from those which have
been recently in favour with many of the most forward writers
and teachers.
Beyond all things I claim at every thoughtful reader’s hands
that he will endeavour to approach this subject in an impartial
frame of mind. To expect that he will succeed in divesting
himself of all preconceived notions as to what is likely, what
not, were unreasonable. But he is invited at least to wear his
prejudices as loose about him as he can; to be prepared to cast
them off if at any time he has been shewn that they are founded
on misapprehension; to resolve on taking nothing for granted
which admits of being proved to be either true or false. And, to
meet an objection which is sure to be urged against me, by proof
of course I do but mean the nearest approach to demonstration,
which in the present subject-matter is attainable.
Thus, I request that, apart from proof of some sort, it shall not
be taken for granted that a copy of the New Testament written
in the fourth or fifth century will exhibit a more trustworthy text
than one written in the eleventh or twelfth. That indeed of two
ancient documents the more ancient might not unreasonably have
been expected to prove the more trustworthy, I am not concerned
to dispute, and will not here discuss such a question; but the
probabilities of the case at all events are not axiomatic. Nay, it
will be found, as I am bold enough to say, that in many instances
a fourteenth-century copy of the Gospels may exhibit the truth
of Scripture, while the fourth-century copy in all these instances
proves to be the depositary of a fabricated text. I have only to
request that, until the subject has been fully investigated, men
will suspend their judgement on this head: taking nothing for
granted which admits of proof, and regarding nothing as certainlyChapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 19
either true or false which has not been shewn to be so.
§ 2.
That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other
Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and has to
do with a Book which is inspired; that is, whose true Author is
God. For we assume that the Bible is to be taken as inspired, and
not regarded upon a level with the Books of the East, which are
held by their votaries to be sacred. It is chiefly from inattention to
this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department
of Sacred Science known as“Textual Criticism.”Aware that the
New Testament is like no other book in its origin, its contents,
its history, many critics of the present day nevertheless permit
themselves to reason concerning its Text, as if they entertained no
suspicion that the words and sentences of which it is composed
were destined to experience an extraordinary fate also. They make
no allowances for the fact that influences of an entirely different
kind from any with which profane literature is acquainted have
made themselves felt in this department, and therefore that even
those principles of Textual Criticism which in the case of profane
authors are regarded as fundamental are often out of place here.
It is impossible that all this can be too clearly apprehended.
In fact, until those who make the words of the New Testament
their study are convinced that they move in a region like no
other, where unique phenomena await them at every step, and
where seventeen hundred and fifty years ago depraving causes
unknown in every other department of learning were actively at
work, progress cannot really be made in the present discussion.
Men must by all means disabuse their minds of the prejudices which the study of profane literature inspires. Let me explain this
matter a little more particularly, and establish the reasonableness
of what has gone before by a few plain considerations which
[010][011]
20 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
must, I think, win assent. I am not about to offer opinions, but
only to appeal to certain undeniable facts. What I deprecate, is
not any discriminating use of reverent criticism, but a clumsy
confusion of points essentially different.
No sooner was the work of Evangelists and Apostles
recognized as the necessary counterpart and complement of
God’s ancient Scriptures and became the“New Testament,”
than a reception was found to be awaiting it in the world
closely resembling that which He experienced Who is the subject
of its pages. Calumny and misrepresentation, persecution and
murderous hate, assailed Him continually. And the Written Word
in like manner, in the earliest age of all, was shamefully handled
by mankind. Not only was it confused through human infirmity
and misapprehension, but it became also the object of restless
malice and unsparing assaults. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides,
Heracleon, Menander, Asclepiades, Theodotus, Hermophilus,
Apollonides, and other heretics, adapted the Gospels to their own
ideas. Tatian, and later on Ammonius, created confusion through
attempts to combine the four Gospels either in a diatessaron or
upon an intricate arrangement made by sections, under which
as a further result the words of one Gospel became assimilated
to those of another8. Want of familiarity with the sacred words
in the first ages, carelessness of scribes, incompetent teaching,
and ignorance of Greek in the West, led to further corruption of
the Sacred Text. Then out of the fact that there existed a vast
number of corrupt copies arose at once the need of Recension,
which was carried on by Origen and his school. This was a
fatal necessity to have made itself felt in an age when the first
principles of the Science were not understood; for“to correct”
was too often in those days another word for“to corrupt.” And
this is the first thing to be briefly explained and enforced: but
8 See below, Vol. II. throughout, and a remarkable passage quoted from
Caius or Gaius by Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (Quarterly Review,
No. 306), pp. 323-324.Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 21
more than a counterbalance was provided under the overruling
Providence of God.
§ 3.
Before our Lord ascended up to Heaven, He told His disciples
that He would send them the Holy Ghost, Who should supply His
place and abide with His Church for ever. He added a promise
that it should be the office of that inspiring Spirit not only“to
bring to their remembrance all things whatsoever He had told
them9
,
” but also to“guide” His Church“into all the Truth,” or,
“the whole Truth10” (¿ ± ƒt ªuµ±). Accordingly, the
earliest great achievement of those days was accomplished on
giving to the Church the Scriptures of the New Testament, in
which authorized teaching was enshrined in written form. And
first, out of those many Gospels which incompetent persons had
“taken in hand”to write or to compile out of much floating matter
of an oral or written nature, He guided them to discern that four
were wholly unlike the rest—were the very Word of God.
There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent,
who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of
Truth, straightway abdicated His office; took no further care of
His work; abandoned those precious writings to their fate. That
a perpetual miracle was wrought for their preservation—that
copyists were protected against the risk of error, or evil
men prevented from adulterating shamefully copies of the
Deposit—no one, it is presumed, is so weak as to suppose.
But it is quite a different thing to claim that all down the ages the
sacred writings must needs have been God’s peculiar care; that the Church under Him has watched over them with intelligence
9 St. John xiv. 26.
10 St. John xvi. 13.
[012][013]
22 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
and skill; has recognized which copies exhibit a fabricated, which
an honestly transcribed text; has generally sanctioned the one,
and generally disallowed the other. I am utterly disinclined to
believe—so grossly improbable does it seem—that at the end of
1800 years 995 copies out of every thousand, suppose, will prove
untrustworthy; and that the one, two, three, four or five which
remain, whose contents were till yesterday as good as unknown,
will be found to have retained the secret of what the Holy Spirit
originally inspired. I am utterly unable to believe, in short, that
God’s promise has so entirely failed, that at the end of 1800 years
much of the text of the Gospel had in point of fact to be picked by
a German critic out of a waste-paper basket in the convent of St.
Catherine; and that the entire text had to be remodelled after the
pattern set by a couple of copies which had remained in neglect
during fifteen centuries, and had probably owed their survival
to that neglect; whilst hundreds of others had been thumbed to
pieces, and had bequeathed their witness to copies made from
them.
I have addressed what goes before to persons who sympathize
with me in my belief. To others the argument would require
to be put in a different way. Let it then be remembered, that a
wealth of copies existed in early times; that the need of zealous
care of the Holy Scriptures was always felt in the Church; that
it is only from the Church that we have learnt which are the
books of the Bible and which are not; that in the age in which
the Canon was settled, and which is presumed by many critics
to have introduced a corrupted text, most of the intellect of the
Roman Empire was found within the Church, and was directed
upon disputed questions; that in the succeeding ages the art of
transcribing was brought to a high pitch of perfection; and that
the verdict of all the several periods since the production of those
two manuscripts has been given till a few years ago in favour of
the Text which has been handed down:—let it be further borne
in mind that the testimony is not only that of all the ages, but ofChapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 23
all the countries: and at the very least so strong a presumption
will ensue on behalf of the Traditional Text, that a powerful case
indeed must be constructed to upset it. It cannot be vanquished
by theories grounded upon internal considerations—often only
another name for personal tastes—, or for scholarly likes or
dislikes, or upon fictitious recensions, or upon any arbitrary
choice of favourite manuscripts, or upon a strained division of
authorities into families or groups, or upon a warped application
of the principle of genealogy. In the ascertainment of the facts of
the Sacred Text, the laws of evidence must be strictly followed.
In questions relating to the inspired Word, mere speculation and
unreason have no place. In short, the Traditional Text, founded
upon the vast majority of authorities and upon the Rock of Christ’s
Church, will, if I mistake not, be found upon examination to be
out of all comparison superior to a text of the nineteenth century,
whatever skill and ingenuity may have been expended upon the
production or the defence of it.
§ 4.
For due attention has never yet been paid to a circumstance
which, rightly apprehended, will be found to go a great way
towards establishing the text of the New Testament Scriptures
on a solid basis. I refer to the fact that a certain exhibition of
the Sacred Text—that exhibition of it with which we are all most
familiar—rests on ecclesiastical authority. Speaking generally,
the Traditional Text of the New Testament Scriptures, equally
with the New Testament Canon, rests on the authority of the
Church Catholic.“Whether we like it, or dislike it”(remarked a learned writer in the first quarter of the nineteenth century),“the
present New Testament Canon is neither more nor less than the
probat of the orthodox Christian bishops, and those not only of the
first and second, but of the third and fourth, and even subsequent
[014][015]
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
24 centuries11
.
” In like manner, whether men would or would not
have it so, it is a plain fact that the Traditional Greek Text of
the New Testament is neither more nor less than the probat of
the orthodox Greek Christian bishops, and those, if not as we
maintain of the first and second, or the third, yet unquestionably
of the fourth and fifth, and even subsequent centuries.
For happily, the matter of fact here is a point on which the
disciples of the most advanced of the modern school are entirely
at one with us. Dr. Hort declares that“The fundamental text of
late extant Greek MSS. generally is, beyond all question, identical
with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second
half of the fourth century…. The bulk of extant MSS. written
from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later must have
had in the greater number of extant variations a common original
either contemporary with, or older than, our oldest MSS.12”And
again,“Before the close of the fourth century, as we have said,
a Greek text, not materially differing from the almost universal
text of the ninth century and the Middle Ages, was dominant,
probably by authority, at Antioch, and exercised much influence
elsewhere13
.
” The mention of“Antioch” is, characteristically
of the writer, purely arbitrary. One and the same Traditional
Text, except in comparatively few particulars, has prevailed in
the Church from the beginning till now. Especially deserving
of attention is the admission that the Text in question is of
the fourth century, to which same century the two oldest of our
Sacred Codexes (B and ) belong. There is observed to exist
in Church Lectionaries precisely the same phenomenon. They
have prevailed in unintermitted agreement in other respects from
11 Rev. John Oxlee’s sermon on Luke xxii. 28-30 (1821), p. 91 (Three
Sermons on the power, origin, and succession of the Christian Hierarchy, and
especially that of the Church of England).
12 Westcott and Hort, Introduction, p. 92.
13 Ibid. p. 142.Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 25
very early times, probably from the days of St. Chrysostom14
,
and have kept in the main without change the form of words in
which they were originally cast in the unchangeable East.
And really the problem comes before us (God be praised!) in
a singularly convenient, a singularly intelligible form. Since the
sixteenth century—we owe this also to the good Providence of
God—one and the same text of the New Testament Scriptures
has been generally received. I am not defending the“Textus
Receptus”; I am simply stating the fact of its existence. That it
is without authority to bind, nay, that it calls for skilful revision
in every part, is freely admitted. I do not believe it to be
absolutely identical with the true Traditional Text. Its existence,
nevertheless, is a fact from which there is no escaping. Happily,
Western Christendom has been content to employ one and the
same text for upwards of three hundred years. If the objection
be made, as it probably will be,“Do you then mean to rest upon
the five manuscripts used by Erasmus?” I reply, that the copies
employed were selected because they were known to represent
with accuracy the Sacred Word; that the descent of the text was
evidently guarded with jealous care, just as the human genealogy
of our Lord was preserved; that it rests mainly upon much the
widest testimony; and that where any part of it conflicts with
the fullest evidence attainable, there I believe that it calls for
correction.
The question therefore which presents itself, and must needs
be answered in the affirmative before a single syllable of the
actual text is displaced, will always be one and the same, viz. this: Is it certain that the evidence in favour of the proposed new
reading is sufficient to warrant the innovation? For I trust we
shall all be agreed that in the absence of an affirmative answer to
this question, the text may on no account be disturbed. Rightly or
wrongly it has had the approval of Western Christendom for three
[016]
14 Scrivener, Plain Introduction, ed. 4, Vol. I. pp. 75-76.[017]
26 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
centuries, and is at this hour in possession of the field. Therefore
the business before us might be stated somewhat as follows: What
considerations ought to determine our acceptance of any reading
not found in the Received Text, or, to state it more generally and
fundamentally, our preference of one reading before another?
For until some sort of understanding has been arrived at on this
head, progress is impossible. There can be no Science of Textual
Criticism, I repeat—and therefore no security for the inspired
Word—so long as the subjective judgement, which may easily
degenerate into individual caprice, is allowed ever to determine
which readings shall be rejected, which retained.
In the next chapter I shall discuss the principles which must
form the groundwork of the Science. Meanwhile a few words are
necessary to explain the issue lying between myself and those
critics with whom I am unable to agree. I must, if I can, come
to some understanding with them; and I shall use all clearness
of speech in order that my meaning and my position may be
thoroughly apprehended.
§ 5.
Strange as it may appear, it is undeniably true, that the whole
of the controversy may be reduced to the following narrow
issue: Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast
multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing
is more remarkable than the marvellous agreement which subsists
between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides
exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at
once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and—strange to
say—also amongst themselves?
The advocates of the Traditional Text urge that the Consent
without Concert of so many hundreds of copies, executed by
different persons, at diverse times, in widely sundered regionsChapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 27
of the Church, is a presumptive proof of their trustworthiness,
which nothing can invalidate but some sort of demonstration that
they are untrustworthy guides after all.
The advocates of the old uncials—for it is the text exhibited
by one or more of five Uncial Codexes known as AB which
is set up with so much confidence—are observed to claim that
the truth must needs reside exclusively with the objects of their
choice. They seem to base their claim on“antiquity”; but the real
confidence of many of them lies evidently in a claim to subtle
divination, which enables them to recognize a true reading or the
true text when they see it. Strange, that it does not seem to have
struck such critics that they assume the very thing which has to be
proved. Be this as it may, as a matter of fact, readings exclusively
found in Cod. B, or Cod. , or Cod. D are sometimes adopted
as correct. Neither Cod. A nor Cod. C are ever known to
inspire similar confidence. But the accession of both or either
as a witness is always acceptable. Now it is remarkable that all
the five Codexes just mentioned are never found, unless I am
mistaken, exclusively in accord.
This question will be more fully discussed in the following
treatise. Here it is only necessary further to insist upon the
fact that, generally speaking, compromise upon these issues is
impossible. Most people in these days are inclined to remark
about any controversy that the truth resides between the two
combatants, and most of us would like to meet our opponents
half-way. The present contention unfortunately does not admit [018]
of such a decision. Real acquaintance with the numerous points
at stake must reveal the impossibility of effecting a settlement
like that. It depends, not upon the attitude, or the temper,
or the intellects of the opposing parties: but upon the stern and
incongruous elements of the subject-matter of the struggle. Much
as we may regret it, there is positively no other solution.
Indeed there exist but two rival schools of Textual Criticism.
And these are irreconcilably opposed. In the end, one of them28 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
will have to give way: and, vae victis! unconditional surrender
will be its only resource. When one has been admitted to be the
right, there can no place be found for the other. It will have to
be dismissed from attention as a thing utterly, hopelessly in the
wrong15
.
[019]
15 Of course this trenchant passage refers only to the principles of the school
found to fail. A school may leave fruits of research of a most valuable kind,
and yet be utterly in error as to the inferences involved in such and other facts.
Dean Burgon amply admitted this. The following extract from one of the many
detached papers left by the author is appended as possessing both illustrative
and personal interest:—
“Familiar as all such details as the present must of necessity prove to
those who have made Textual Criticism their study, they may on no account
be withheld. I am not addressing learned persons only. I propose, before I
lay down my pen, to make educated persons, wherever they may be found,
partakers of my own profound conviction that for the most part certainty is
attainable on this subject-matter; but that the decrees of the popular school—at
the head of which stand many of the great critics of Christendom—are utterly
mistaken. Founded, as I venture to think, on entirely false premisses, their
conclusions almost invariably are altogether wrong. And this I hold to be
demonstrable; and I propose in the ensuing pages to establish the fact. If I do
not succeed, I shall pay the penalty for my presumption and my folly. But if I
succeed—and I wish to have jurists and persons skilled in the law of evidence,
or at least thoughtful and unprejudiced persons, wherever they are to be found,
and no others, for my judges,—if I establish my position, I say, let my father
and my mother’s son be kindly remembered by the Church of Christ when heChapter I. Preliminary Grounds. 29
has departed hence.”[020]
Chapter II. Principles.
§ 1.
The object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the Scriptures
of the New Testament, is to determine what the Apostles and
Evangelists of Christ actually wrote—the precise words they
employed, and the very order of them. It is therefore one of the
most important subjects which can be proposed for examination;
and unless handled unskilfully, ought to prove by no means
wanting in living interest. Moreover, it clearly takes precedence,
in synthetical order of thought, of every other department of
Sacred Science, so far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy
Scripture.
Now Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two distinct
branches of inquiry. (1) Its first object is to collect, investigate,
and arrange the evidence supplied by Manuscripts, Versions,
Fathers. And this is an inglorious task, which demands prodigious
labour, severe accuracy, unflagging attention, and can never be
successfully conducted without a considerable amount of solid
learning. (2) Its second object is to draw critical inferences; in
other words, to discover the truth of the text—the genuine words
of Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and calls
for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be successfully
accomplished here without large and exact knowledge, freedom
from bias and prejudice. Above all, there must be a clear and
judicial understanding. The logical faculty in perfection must
energize continually: or the result can only be mistakes, which
may easily prove calamitous.Chapter II. Principles. 31
My next step is to declare what has been hitherto effected in
either of these departments, and to characterize the results. In
the first-named branch of the subject, till recently very little has
been attempted: but that little has been exceedingly well done.
Many more results have been added in the last thirteen years:
a vast amount of additional evidence has been discovered, but
only a small portion of it has been thoroughly examined and
collated. In the latter branch, a great deal has been attempted:
but the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who
augured much from it. The critics of this century have been in too
great a hurry. They have rushed to conclusions, trusting to the
evidence which was already in their hands, forgetting that only
those conclusions can be scientifically sound which are drawn
from all the materials that exist. Research of a wider kind ought
to have preceded decision. Let me explain and establish what I
have been saying.
§ 2.
It was only to have been anticipated that the Author of the
Everlasting Gospel—that masterpiece of Divine Wisdom, that
miracle of superhuman skill—would shew Himself supremely
careful for the protection and preservation of His own chiefest
work. Every fresh discovery of the beauty and preciousness of
the Deposit in its essential structure does but serve to deepen
the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been
made in God’s eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of
the inspired Text.
Yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which man’s
inventive skill could have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter. Let us take a slight but comprehensive view
of what is found upon investigation, as I hold, to have been the
Divine method in respect of the New Testament Scriptures.
[021][022]
32 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the Gospels and
Epistles in the original Greek were multiplied to an extraordinary
extent all down the ages and in every part of the Christian
Church. The result has been that, although all the earliest have
perished, there remains to this day a prodigious number of such
transcripts; some of them of very high antiquity. On examining
these with care, we discover that they must needs have been (a)
produced in different countries, (b) executed at intervals during
the space of one thousand years, (c) copied from originals no
longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has been
accumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, such as
is wholly unapproachable with respect to any other writings in
the world16. More than two thousand manuscript copies are now
(1888) known to exist17
.
It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture aloud
before the congregation—a practice which is observed to have
New Testament, after Dean Burgon’s death, the list has been largely increased.
In the fourth edition of the Introduction (Appendix F, p. 397) the total number
under the six classes of“Evangelia,” “Acts and Catholic Epistles,” “St. Paul,”
“Apocalypse,” “Evangelistaria,” and“Apostolos,” has reached (about) 3,829,
and may be reckoned when all have come in at over 4,000. The separate MSS.
(some in the reckoning just given being counted more than once) are already
over 3,000.
16 There are, however, in existence, about 200 MSS. of the Iliad and Odyssey
of Homer, and about 150 of Virgil. But in the case of many books the
existing authorities are but scanty. Thus there are not many more than thirty
of Aeschylus, and they are all said by W. Dindorf to be derived from one
of the eleventh century: only a few of Demosthenes, of which the oldest are
of the tenth or eleventh century: only one authority for the first six books
of the Annals of Tacitus (see also Madvig’s Introduction): only one of the
Clementines: only one of the Didachè, &c. See Gow’s Companion to School
Classics, Macmillan & Co. 1888.
17 “I had already assisted my friend Prebendary Scrivener in greatly enlarging
Scholz’s list. We had, in fact, raised the enumeration of‘Evangelia’ [copies
of Gospels] to 621: of‘Acts and Catholic Epistles’ to 239: of‘Paul’ to 281:
of‘Apocalypse’ to 108: of‘Evangelistaria’ [Lectionary copies of Gospels] to
299: of the book called‘Apostolos’ [Lectionary copies of Acts and Epistles]Chapter II. Principles. 33
prevailed from the Apostolic age—has resulted in the increased
security of the Deposit: for (1) it has led to the multiplication, by
authority, of books containing the Church Lessons; and (2) it has
secured a living witness to the ipsissima verba of the Spirit—in
all the Churches of Christendom. The ear once thoroughly
familiarized with the words of Scripture is observed to resent the
slightest departure from the established type. As for its tolerating
important changes, that is plainly out of the question.
II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it became
translated into the several languages of the ancient world. For,
though Greek was widely understood, the commerce and the
intellectual predominance of the Greeks, and the conquests of
Alexander having caused it to be spoken nearly all over the
Roman Empire, Syriac and Latin Versions were also required
for ordinary reading, probably even in the very age of the
Apostles. And thus those three languages in which“the title of
His accusation” was written above His cross—not to insist upon
any absolute identity between the Syriac of the time with the
then“Hebrew” of Jerusalem—became from the earliest time the
depositaries of the Gospel of the World’s Redeemer. Syriac was
closely related to the vernacular Aramaic of Palestine and was
spoken in the adjoining region: whilst Latin was the familiar
idiom of all the Churches of the West.
Thus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals and occidentals alike habitually read aloud the writings of the
Evangelists and Apostles. Before the fourth and fifth centuries
the Gospel had been further translated into the peculiar idioms
[023]
to 81—making a total of 1629. But at the end of a protracted and somewhat
laborious correspondence with the custodians of not a few great continental
libraries, I am able to state that our available‘Evangelia’ amount to at least
739: our‘Acts and Cath. Epp.’ to 261: our‘Paul’ to 338: our‘Apoc.’ to 122:
our ‘Evst.’ to 415: our copies of the‘Apostolos’ to 128—making a total of
2003. This shews an increase of three hundred and seventy-four.” Revision
Revised, p. 521. But since the publication of Dr. Gregory’s Prolegomena, and of the fourth edition of Dr. Scrivener’s Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the[024]
34 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are now called the Bohairic
and the Sahidic Versions,—of Ethiopia and of Armenia,—of
Gothland. The text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages
was clearly, to a great extent, protected against the risk of further
change; and these several translations remain to this day as
witnesses of what was found in copies of the New Testament
which have long since perished.
III. But the most singular provision for preserving the memory
of what was anciently read as inspired Scriptures remains to be
described. Sacred Science boasts of a literature without a parallel
in any other department of human knowledge. The Fathers of the
Church, the Bishops and Doctors of primitive Christendom, were
in some instances voluminous writers, whose works have largely
come down to our times. These men often comment upon, freely
quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspiration: whereby it
comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of
Scripture are sometimes producible. The quotations of passages
by the Fathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the
copies used by them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations,
though it be at second hand: and sometimes their testimony has
more than usual value when they argue or comment upon the
passage in question. Indeed, very often the manuscripts in their
hands, which so far live in their quotations, are older—perhaps
centuries older—than any copies that now survive. In this way,
it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided
for the integrity of the Deposit:—Copies,—Versions,—Fathers.
On the relation of each of which heads to one another something
particular has now to be delivered.
§ 3.Chapter II. Principles. 35
Manuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial, i.e. those
which are written in capital letters, and Cursive or“minuscule,”
i.e. those which are written in“running” or small hand. This
division though convenient is misleading. The earliest of the
“Cursives” are more ancient than the latest of the“Uncials” by
full one hundred years18 949.
. The later body of the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be
proved, to the body of the Cursives. There is no merit, so to
speak, in a MS. being written in the uncial character. The number
of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of the Cursives, though
they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It will be shewn
in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in the face of recent
discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, much reason for inferring
that Cursive MSS. were largely derived from MSS. on Papyrus,
just as the Uncials themselves were, and that the prevalence for
some centuries of Uncials took its rise from the local library of
Caesarea. For a full account of these several Codexes, and for
many other particulars in Sacred Textual Criticism, the reader is
referred to Scrivener’s Introduction, 1894.
Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly mistaken
estimate of the importance of the Textual decrees of the five
oldest of these Uncial copies, which lies at the root of most of the
criticism of the last fifty years. We are constrained in consequence
to bestow what will appear to some a disproportionate amount
of attention on those five Codexes: viz. the Vatican Codex B,
and the Sinaitic Codex , which are supposed to be both of the
fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the fragmentary
Parisian Codex C, which are assigned to the fifth: and lastly D,
the Codex Bezae at Cambridge, which is supposed to have been
written in the sixth. To these may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are concerned, the Codex Beratinus ¶,
and the Rossanensian Codex £, both of which are of the early
18 Evan. 481 is dated A.D.{FNS 835; Evan. S. is dated A.D.{FNS
[025][026]
36 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
part of the sixth century or end of the fifth. But these two witness
generally against the two oldest, and have not yet received as
much attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end that we
have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, , and
D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence.
Let not any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. places
them upon a pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved
to be wrong time after time by evidence of an earlier period than
that which they can boast.
Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most
important instruments of Textual Criticism is what no competent
person will be found to deny. The chief reasons of this are their
continuous text, their designed embodiment of the written Word,
their number, and their variety. But we make also such great
account of MSS., because (1) they supply unbroken evidence
to the text of Scripture from an early date throughout history
until the invention of printing; (2) they are observed to be dotted
over every century of the Church after the first three; (3) they
are the united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom.
There can have been no collusion therefore in the preparation
of this class of authorities. The risk of erroneous transcription
has been reduced to the lowest possible amount. The prevalence
of fraud to a universal extent is simply a thing impossible.
Conjectural corrections of the text are pretty sure, in the long
run, to have become effectually excluded. On the contrary, the
testimony of Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though often
on that account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been
already said, is often not to be found; yet occasionally it is
very precious, whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness
of their verdict: while Versions, though on larger details they
yield a most valuable collateral evidence, yet from their nature
are incapable of rendering help upon many important points of
detail. Indeed, in respect of the ipsissima verba of Scripture, the
evidence of Versions in other languages must be precarious in aChapter II. Principles. 37
high degree.
Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, certain
of the Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw Manuscripts
altogether in the shade. We possess no actual copies of the
New Testament so old as the Syriac and the Latin Versions by
probably more than two hundred years. Something similar is
perhaps to be said of the Versions made into the languages of
Lower and Upper Egypt, which may be of the third century19
.
Reasonable also it is to assume that in no instance was an ancient
Version executed from a single Greek exemplar: consequently,
Versions enjoyed both in their origin and in their acceptance
more publicity than of necessity attached to any individual copy.
And it is undeniable that on countless occasions the evidence of a
translation, on account of the clearness of its testimony, is every
bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of the Greek.
But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley’s golden
precept, that“The real text of the sacred writers does not now,
since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any MS. or
edition, but is dispersed in them all.” This truth, which was
evident to the powerful intellect of that great scholar, lies at the
root of all sound Textual Criticism. To abide by the verdict of
the two, or five, or seven oldest Manuscripts, is at first sight
plausible, and is the natural refuge of students who are either
superficial, or who wish to make their task as easy and simple
as possible. But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary
to all principles of justice and of science. The problem is more complex, and is not to be solved so readily. Evidence of a strong
and varied character may not with safety be cast away, as if it
were worthless.
§ 4.
19 Or, as some think, at the end of the second century.
[027][028]
38 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
We are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of
the vast mass of testimony which lies ready to our hands. And
we must just as evidently seek for principles to guide us in the
employment of it. For it is the absence of any true chart of the
ocean that has led people to steer to any barren island, which
under a guise of superior antiquity might at first sight present the
delusive appearance of being the only safe and sure harbour.
1. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this,—That the thing
which we are always in search of is the Text of Scripture as
it actually proceeded from the inspired writers themselves. It
is never, I mean,“ancient readings” which we propose as the
ultimate object of our inquiries. It is always the oldest Reading of
all which we desire to ascertain; in other words, the original Text,
nothing else or less than the very words of the holy Evangelists
and Apostles themselves.
And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. For
sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude
to establish concerning the readings for which they contend,
that at least they must needs be very ancient. Now, since all
readings must needs be very ancient which are found in very
ancient documents, nothing has really been achieved by proving
that such and such readings existed in the second century of
our era:—unless it can also be proved that there are certain
other attendant circumstances attaching to those readings, which
constitute a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded
as the only genuine wording of the passage in question. The
Holy Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the
ingenuity of critics.
2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental
principle that of two possible ways of reading the Text, that
way which is found on examination to be the better attested and
authenticated—by which I mean, the reading which proves on
inquiry to be supported by the better evidence—must in every
instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual reading, andChapter II. Principles. 39
is to be accepted accordingly by all students.
3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz.
this: That hitherto we have become acquainted with no single
authority which is entitled to dictate absolutely on all occasions,
or even on any one occasion, as to what shall or shall not be
regarded as the true Text of Scripture. We have here no one
infallible witness, I say, whose solitary dictum is competent to
settle controversies. The problem now to be investigated, viz.
what evidence is to be held to be“the best,” may doubtless
be stated in many ways: but I suppose not more fairly than
by proposing the following question,—Can any rules be offered
whereby in any case of conflicting testimony it may be certainly
ascertained which authorities ought to be followed? The court
is full of witnesses who contradict one another. How are we to
know which of them to believe? Strange to say, the witnesses
are commonly, indeed almost invariably, observed to divide
themselves into two camps. Are there no rules discoverable by
which it may be probably determined with which camp of the
two the truth resides?
I proceed to offer for the reader’s consideration seven Tests of
Truth, concerning each of which I shall have something to say
in the way of explanation by-and-by. In the end I shall ask the
reader to allow that where these seven tests are found to conspire,
we may confidently assume that the evidence is worthy of all
acceptance, and is to be implicitly followed. A reading should
be attested then by the seven following. NOTES OF TRUTH.
1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
[029][030]
40 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.
§ 5.
The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be postponed
to the next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions of a more
general character demand immediate attention.
I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail nothing.
A reading is to be adopted not because it is old, but because it
is the best attested, and therefore the oldest. There may seem
to be paradox on my part: but there is none. I have admitted,
and indeed insist upon it, that the oldest reading of all is the
very thing we are in search of: for that must of necessity be
what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer himself. But,
as a rule, fifty years, more or less, must be assumed to have
intervened between the production of the inspired autographs
and the earliest written representation of them now extant. And
precisely in that first age it was that men evinced themselves least
careful or accurate in guarding the Deposit,—least critically exact
in their way of quoting it;—whilst the enemy was most restless,
most assiduous in procuring its depravation. Strange as it may
sound,—distressing as the discovery must needs prove when it is
first distinctly realized,—the earliest shreds and scraps—for they
are at first no more—that come into our hands as quotations of the
text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only disappointing
by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, their
vagueness; but they are often demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed
to give one example out of many.
“My God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me?” ºr
±ƒsª¿µ¬; So it is in St. Matt. xxvii. 46: so in St. Mark
xv. 34. But because, in the latter place, , one Old Latin, the
Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions, besides Eusebius, followedChapter II. Principles. 41
by L and a few cursives, reverse the order of the last two words,
the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing. They have yet
older authority, however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D. 164)
and the Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore as
antiquity goes, the evidence for reading ±ƒsª¿s¬ ºµ is really
wondrous strong.
And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is considered,
is perceived to be overwhelming20. Add the discovery that
±ƒsª¿s¬ ºµ is the established reading of the familiar
Septuagint, and we have no hesitation whatever in retaining
the commonly Received Text, because the secret is out. were
sure to follow the Septuagint, which was so dear to Origen.
Further discussion of the point is superfluous.
I shall of course be asked,—Are we then to understand that you
condemn the whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy?
And if you do, to what other authorities would you have us resort?
I answer:—So far from regarding the whole body of ancient
authorities as untrustworthy, it is precisely“the whole body of
ancient authorities”to which I insist that we must invariably make
our appeal, and to which we must eventually defer. I regard them
therefore with more than reverence. I submit to their decision
unreservedly. Doubtless I refuse to regard any one of those same
most ancient manuscripts—or even any two or three of them—as oracular. But why? Because I am able to demonstrate that every
one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned
upon evidence older than itself. To pin my faith therefore to
one, two, or three of those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to
insinuate that the whole body of ancient authorities is unworthy
of credit.
It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal: and further,
I insist that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity shall be accepted.
But then, inasmuch as by“Antiquity”I do not even mean any one
20 AC£ (¶ in St. Matt.) with fourteen other uncials, most cursives, four Old
Latin, Gothic, St. Irenaeus, &c. &c.
[031][032]
42 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
single ancient authority, however ancient, to the exclusion of,
and in preference to, all the rest, but the whole collective body,
it is precisely“the body of ancient authorities” which I propose
as the arbiters. Thus, I do not mean by“Antiquity” either (1)
the Peshitto Syriac: or (2) Cureton’s Syriac: or (3) the Old Latin
Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5) the Egyptian, or indeed (6) any
other of the ancient Versions:—not (7) Origen, nor (8) Eusebius,
nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10) Cyril,—nor indeed (11) any other
ancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod. A,—nor (13)
Cod. B,—nor (14) Cod. C,—nor (15) Cod. D,—nor (16) Cod.
,—nor in fact (17) any other individual Codex that can be
named. I should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard
by with one or two of the stones which compose it. By Antiquity
I understand the whole body of documents which convey to me
the mind of Antiquity,—transport me back to the primitive age,
and acquaint me, as far as is now possible, with what was its
verdict.
And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept as
decisive the verdict of any two or three of these in defiance of
the ascertained authority of all, or a majority of the rest.
In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, arbitrarily
broken off, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient witnesses. And
further than this, I recognize other Notes of Truth, as I have
stated already; and I shall prove this position in my next chapter.
§ 6.
II. The term“various readings” conveys an entirely incorrect
impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a
little handful of documents—of which Codexes B- of the fourth
century, D of the sixth, L of the eighth, are the most conspicuous
samples—and the Traditional Text of the New Testament. The
expression“various readings” belongs to secular literature andChapter II. Principles. 43
refers to phenomena essentially different from those exhibited
by the copies just mentioned. Not but what“various readings,”
properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane
codexes. One has but to inspect Scrivener’s Full and Exact
Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels
(1853) to be convinced of the fact. But when we study the
New Testament by the light of such Codexes as B , we find
ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by
phenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has
undergone apparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation;
has been manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences
have been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the
judgement. The result is simply calamitous. There are evidences
of persistent mutilation, not only of words and clauses, but of
entire sentences. The substitution of one expression for another,
and the arbitrary transposition of words, are phenomena of such
perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last that what lies
before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient recension
of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the
usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as
the name may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy
or caprice, or tasteless assiduity on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in a long series of years. There are reasons for
inferring, that we have alighted on five specimens of what the
misguided piety of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful
in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking, there may have been
little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil motive
where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But,
as will be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much
licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest the inference, that
they are in fact indebted for their preservation to their hopeless
character. Thus it would appear that an evil reputation ensured
their neglect in ancient times; and has procured that they should
survive to our own, long after multitudes which were much better
[033][034]
44 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
had perished in the Master’s service. Let men think of this matter
as they will,—whatever in fact may prove to be the history of
that peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. B ,
in some copies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version,
in Origen, and to a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic
Translations,—all must admit, as a matter of fact, that it differs
essentially from the Traditional Text, and is no mere variation of
it.
But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article?
Why may not the“Traditional Text” be the fabrication?
1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The
consent without concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,—of
every date from the fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging
to every region of ancient Christendom,—is a colossal fact not to
be set aside by any amount of ingenuity. A predilection for two
fourth-century manuscripts closely resembling one another, yet
standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier to find
two consecutive verses in which they differ than two consecutive
verses in which they entirely agree:—such a preference, I say,
apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well
founded, is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive.
2. Next,—Because,—although for convenience we have
hitherto spoken of Codexes B as exhibiting a single text,—it is
in reality not one text but fragments of many, which are to be
met with in the little handful of authorities enumerated above.
Their witness does not agree together. The Traditional Text, on
the contrary, is unmistakably one.
3. Further,—Because it is extremely improbable, if not
impossible, that the Traditional Text was or could have been
derived from such a document as the archetype of B- : whereas
the converse operation is at once obvious and easy. There is
no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of words, or
clauses, or verses, from a fuller text: but the fuller text could
not have been produced from the shorter by any developmentChapter II. Principles. 45
which would be possible under the facts of the case21. Glosses
would account for changes in the archetype of B- , but not
conversely22
.
4. But the chief reason is,—Because, on making our appeal
unreservedly to Antiquity—to Versions and Fathers as well as
copies,—the result is unequivocal. The Traditional Text becomes
triumphantly established,—the eccentricities of B and their
colleagues become one and all emphatically condemned. All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which
something has been said already, and more will have to be said in
the sequel. Returning now to the phenomenon adverted to at the
outset, we desire to explain that whereas“Various Readings,”
properly so called, that is to say, the Readings which possess
really strong attestation—for more than nineteen-twentieths of
the“Various Readings” commonly quoted are only the vagaries
of scribes, and ought not to be called“Readings” at all—do not
require classification into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have
classified them;“Corrupt Readings,”if they are to be intelligently
handled, must by all means be distributed under distinct heads,
as will be done in the Second Part of this work.
III.“It is not at all our design”(remarks Dr. Scrivener)“to seek
our readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually
are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their
21 See Vol. II.
22 All such questions are best understood by observing an illustration. In St.
Matt. xiii. 36, the disciples say to our Lord,“Explain to us (¡qø !º÷ )
the parable of the tares.” The cursives (and late uncials) are all agreed in
this reading. Why then do Lachmann and Tregelles (not Tischendorf) exhibit
¥±qø? Only because they find ¥±qø in B. Had they known that
the first reading of exhibited that reading also, they would have been more
confident than ever. But what pretence can there be for assuming that the
Traditional reading of all the copies is untrustworthy in this place? The plea
of antiquity at all events cannot be urged, for Origen reads ¡qø four times.
The Versions do not help us. What else is ¥±qø but a transparent Gloss?
î±qø (elucidate) explains ¡qø, but ¡qø (tell) does not explain
¥±qø.
[035][036]
46 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances
wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance23
.
” From
which it is plain that in this excellent writer’s opinion, the truth
of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance at the hands of the
older uncials: that only when these yield conflicting testimony
may we resort to the“confessedly secondary evidence” of the
later uncials: and that only so may we proceed to inquire for
the testimony of the great mass of the cursive copies. It is not
difficult to foresee what would be the result of such a method of
procedure.
I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the
spirit of my learned friend’s remarks on the present, and on many
similar occasions. His language is calculated to countenance the
popular belief (1) That the authority of an uncial codex, because
it is an uncial, is necessarily greater than that of a codex written in
the cursive character: an imagination which upon proof I hold to
be groundless. Between the text of the later uncials and the text
of the cursive copies, I fail to detect any separative difference:
certainly no such difference as would induce me to assign the
palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this treatise, that
it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or to infer, that cursive
copies were all descended from the uncials. New discoveries in
palaeography have ruled that error to be out of court.
But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to which
I regret to find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful sanction,
that the text of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance in
the oldest of the uncials. I venture to express my astonishment
that so learned and thoughtful a man should not have seen that
before certain“elder brethren” are erected into a supreme court
of judicature, some other token of fitness besides that of age
must be produced on their behalf. Whence, I can but ask—
,
whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to establish
23 Plain Introduction, I. 277. 4th edition.Chapter II. Principles. 47
the contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that Codexes
B are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved text:
and that B , for C is a palimpsest, i.e., has had the works of
Ephraem the Syrian written over it as if it were of no use, are
probably indebted for their very preservation solely to the fact
that they were anciently recognized as untrustworthy documents?
Do men indeed find it impossible to realize the notion that there
must have existed such things as refuse copies in the fourth,
fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries as well as in the eighth, ninth,
tenth, and eleventh? and that the Codexes which we call B may
possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been of that class24?
Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of Codd. B as a supreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are
observed to be discordant in their judgements: (2) That when
they thus differ among themselves it is generally demonstrable
by an appeal to antiquity that the two principal judges B and
have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That when these
two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in
the wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four
agree, and yet all four are in error.
Does any one then inquire,—But why at all events may
not resort be had in the first instance to Codd. B ?—I
answer,—Because the inquiry is apt to prejudice the question,
pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too likely to narrow
the issue and render the Truth hopelessly difficult of attainment.
For every reason, I am inclined to propose the directly opposite
method of procedure, as at once the safer and the more reasonable
method. When I learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any
particular place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on
the subject exists between Codexes AB (for the chances are
that they will be all at loggerheads among themselves), I inquire
24 It is very remarkable that the sum of Eusebius’ own evidence is largely
against those uncials. Yet it seems most probable that he had B and executed
from the ¡ or “critical”copies of Origen. See below, Chapter IX.
[037][038]
48 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
for the verdict as it is given by the main body of the copies.
This is generally unequivocal. But if (which seldom happens) I
find this a doubtful question, then indeed I begin to examine the
separate witnesses. Yet even then it helps me little, or rather it
helps me nothing, to find, as I commonly do, that A is on one
side and B on the other,—except by the way that wherever are
seen together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, the
inferior reading is pretty sure to be found there also.
Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no serious
division,—of course, significance does not attach itself to
any handful of eccentric copies,—but that there is a practical
unanimity among the cursives and later uncials: I cannot see that
a veto can rest with such unstable and discordant authorities,
however much they may singly add to the weight of the vote
already tendered. It is as a hundred to one that the uncial or uncials
which are with the main body of the cursives are right, because
(as will be shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual
decision of the whole Church; and that the dissentients—be they
few or many—are wrong. I inquire however,—What say the
Versions? and last but not least,—What say the Fathers?
The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best
illustrated by an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of the“five
old uncials” are complete documents, B and : and these being
confessedly derived from one and the same exemplar, cannot be
regarded as two. The rest of the“old uncials” are lamentably
defective.—From the Alexandrian Codex (A) the first twenty-
four chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel are missing: that is, the
MS. lacks 870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also
without 126 consecutive verses of St. John’s Gospel. More than
one-fourth of the contents of Cod. A are therefore lost25
.
—D is
complete only in respect of St. Luke: wanting 119 verses of St.
Matthew,—5 verses of St. Mark,—166 verses of St. John.—On
25 Viz. 996 verses out of 3,780.Chapter II. Principles. 49
the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective in respect of St.
Luke’s and St. John’s Gospel; from the former of which it omits
643 (out of 1,151) verses; from the latter, 513 (out of 880), or
far more than the half in either case. Codex C in fact can only be
described as a collection of fragments: for it is also without 260
verses of St. Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.
The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual Critic is
manifest. He is unable to compare“the five old uncials”together
except in respect of about one verse in three. Sometimes he finds
himself reduced to the testimony of A : for many pages together
of St. John’s Gospel, he is reduced to the testimony of . Now, when the fatal and peculiar sympathy which subsists between
these three documents is considered, it becomes apparent that
the Critic has in effect little more than two documents before
him. And what is to be said when (as from St. Matt. vi. 20
to vii. 4) he is reduced to the witness of two Codexes,—and
those, ? Evident it is that whereas the Author of Scripture
hath bountifully furnished His Church with (speaking roughly)
upwards of 2,30026 copies of the Gospels, by a voluntary act
of self-impoverishment, some Critics reduce themselves to the
testimony of little more than one: and that one a witness whom
many judges consider to be undeserving of confidence.
26 Miller’s Scrivener (4th edition), Vol. I. Appendix F. p. 397. 1326 + 73 +
980 = 2379.
[039]
[040][041]
Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of
Truth.
§ 1. Antiquity.
The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony. That
it is not by any means always so is a familiar fact. To quote the
known dictum of a competent judge:“It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New
Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred
years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers
and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syriac Church,
used far inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or
Erasmus, or Stephen, thirteen centuries after, when moulding
the Textus Receptus27
.
” Therefore Antiquity alone affords no
security that the manuscript in our hands is not infected with
the corruption which sprang up largely in the first and second
centuries. But it remains true, notwithstanding, that until evidence
has been produced to the contrary in any particular instance, the
more ancient of two witnesses may reasonably be presumed to be
the better informed witness. Shew me for example that, whereas
a copy of the Gospels (suppose Cod. B) introduces the clause
“Raise the dead” into our SAVIOUR‘S ministerial commission to
His Apostles (St. Matt. x. 8),—another Codex, but only of
the fourteenth century (suppose Evan. 604 (Hoskier)), omits
it;—am I not bound to assume that our LORD did give this charge
27 Scrivener’s Introduction, Ed. iv (1894), Vol. II. pp. 264-265.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 51
to His Apostles; did say to them, µ¡øz¬ µw¡µƒµ; and that the
words in question have accidentally dropped out of the sacred
Text in that later copy? Show me besides that in three other of
our oldest Codexes ( ) the place in St. Matthew is exhibited
in the same way as in Cod. B; and of what possible avail can
it be that I should urge in reply that in three more MSS. of the
thirteenth or fourteenth century the text is exhibited in the same
way as in Evan. 604?
There is of course a strong antecedent probability, that the
testimony which comes nearest to the original autographs has
more claim to be the true record than that which has been
produced at a further distance from them. It is most likely that
the earlier is separated from the original by fewer links than
the later:—though we can affirm this with no absolute certainty,
because the present survival of Uncials of various dates of
production shews that the existence of copies is measured by
no span like that of the life of men. Accordingly as a general
rule, and a general rule only, a single early Uncial possesses
more authority than a single later Uncial or Cursive, and a still
earlier Version or Quotation by a Father must be placed before
the reading of the early Uncial.
Only let us clearly understand what principle is to guide us,
in order that we may know how we are to proceed. Is it to be
assumed, for instance, that Antiquity is to decide this matter?
by which is meant only this,—That, of two or more conflicting
readings, that shall be deemed the true reading which is observed
to occur in the oldest known document. Is that to be our
fundamental principle? Are we, in other words, to put up with
the transparent fallacy that the oldest reading must of necessity
be found in the oldest document? Well, if we have made up
our minds that such is to be our method, then let us proceed to construct our text chiefly by the aid of the Old Latin and Peshitto
Versions,—the oldest authorities extant of a continuous text: and
certainly, wherever these are observed to agree in respect of any
[042][043]
52 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
given reading, let us hear nothing about the conflicting testimony
of or B, which are of the fourth century; of D, which is of the
sixth; of L, which is of the eighth.
But if our adversaries shift their ground, disliking to be“hoist
with their own petard,”and if such a solution standing alone does
not commend itself to our own taste, we must ask, What is meant
by Antiquity?
For myself, if I must assign a definite period, I am disposed
to say the first six or seven centuries of our era. But I observe
that those who have preceded me in these inquiries draw the line
at an earlier period. Lachmann fixes A.D. 400: Tregelles (ever
illogical) gives the beginning of the seventh century: Westcott
and Hort, before the close of the fourth century. In this absence
of agreement, it is found to be both the safest and the wisest
course to avoid drawing any hard and fast line, and in fact any
line at all. Antiquity is a comparative term. What is ancient is
not only older than what is modern, but when constantly applied
to the continuous lapse of ages includes considerations of what
is more or less ancient. Codex E is ancient compared with Codex
L: Cod. A compared with Cod. E: Cod. compared with
Cod. A: Cod. B though in a much lesser degree compared with
Cod. : the Old Latin and Peshitto Versions compared with
Cod. B: Clemens Romanus compared with either. If we had
the copy of the Gospels which belonged to Ignatius, I suppose
we should by common consent insist on following it almost
implicitly. It certainly would be of overwhelming authority. Its
decrees would be only not decisive. [This is, I think, too strong:
there might be mistakes even in that.—E. M.] Therefore by
Antiquity as a principle involving more or less authority must
be meant the greater age of the earlier Copies, Versions, or
Fathers. That which is older will possess more authority than
that which is more recent: but age will not confer any exclusive,
or indeed paramount, power of decision. Antiquity is one Note
of Truth: but even if it is divorced from the arbitrary selection ofChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 53
Authorities which has regulated too much the employment of it
in Textual Criticism, it cannot be said to cover the whole ground.
§ 2. Number.
We must proceed now to consider the other Notes, or Tests: and
the next is Number.
1. That“witnesses are to be weighed—not counted,”—is a
maxim of which we hear constantly. It may be said to embody
much fundamental fallacy.
2. It assumes that the“witnesses” we possess,—meaning
thereby every single Codex, Version, Father—, (1) are capable of
being weighed: and (2) that every individual Critic is competent
to weigh them: neither of which propositions is true.
3. In the very form of the maxim,—“Not to be counted—but to
be weighed,”—the undeniable fact is overlooked that“number”
is the most ordinary ingredient of weight, and indeed in matters
of human testimony, is an element which even cannot be cast
away. Ask one of Her Majesty’s Judges if it be not so. Ten
witnesses (suppose) are called in to give evidence: of whom one
resolutely contradicts what is solemnly deposed to by the other
nine. Which of the two parties do we suppose the Judge will be
inclined to believe?
4. But it may be urged—would not the discovery of the
one original autograph of the Gospels exceed in“weight” any
“number” of copies which can be named? No doubt it would, I answer. But only because it would be the original document, and
not “a copy” at all: not“a witness” to the fact, but the very fact
itself. It would be as if in the midst of a trial,—turning, suppose,
on the history of the will of some testator—, the dead man
himself were to step into Court, and proclaim what had actually
taken place. Yet the laws of Evidence would remain unchanged:
and in the very next trial which came on, if one or two witnesses
[044][045]
54 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
out of as many hundred were to claim that their evidence should
be held to outweigh that of all the rest, they would be required to
establish the reasonableness of their claim to the satisfaction of
the Judge: or they must submit to the inevitable consequence of
being left in an inconsiderable minority.
5. Number then constitutes Weight, or in other words,—since I
have used“Weight”here in a more general sense than usual,—is
a Note of Truth. Not of course absolutely, as being the sole
Test, but caeteris paribus, and in its own place and proportion.
And this, happily, our opponents freely admit: so freely in fact,
that my only wonder is that they do not discover their own
inconsistency.
6. But the axiom in question labours under the far graver
defect of disparaging the Divine method, under which in the
multitude of evidence preserved all down the ages provision
has been made as matter of hard fact, not by weight but by
number, for the integrity of the Deposit. The prevalent use of the
Holy Scriptures in the Church caused copies of them to abound
everywhere. The demand enforced the supply. They were read
in the public Services of the Church. The constant quotation
of them by Ecclesiastical Writers from the first proves that they
were a source to Christians of continual study, and that they were
used as an ultimate appeal in the decision of knotty questions.
They were cited copiously in Sermons. They were employed in
the conversion of the heathen, and as in the case of St. Cyprian
must have exercised a strong influence in bringing people to
believe.
Such an abundance of early copies must have ensured
perforce the production of a resulting abundance of other copies
made everywhere in continuous succession from them until
the invention of printing. Accordingly, although countless
numbers must have perished by age, use, destruction in war,
and by accident and other causes, nevertheless 63 Uncials, 737
Cursives, and 414 Lectionaries are known to survive of theChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 55
Gospels alone28. Add the various Versions, and the mass of
quotations by Ecclesiastical Writers, and it will at once be
evident what materials exist to constitute a Majority which shall
outnumber by many times the Minority, and also that Number
has been ordained to be a factor which cannot be left out of the
calculation.
7. Another circumstance however of much significance has
yet to be stated. Practically the Axiom under consideration is
discovered to be nothing else but a plausible proposition of a
general character intended to shelter the following particular
application of it:—“We are able”—says Dr. Tregelles—“to take
the few documents … and safely discard … the 89/90 or whatever
else their numerical proportion may be29
.
” Accordingly in his
edition of the Gospels, the learned writer rejects the evidence of
all the cursive Codexes extant but three. He is mainly followed
by the rest of his school, including Westcott and Hort.
Now again I ask,—Is it likely, is it in any way credible, that
we can be warranted in rejecting the testimony of (suppose) 1490
ancient witnesses, in favour of the testimony borne by (suppose)
ten? Granting freely that two of these ten are older by 50 or 100
years than any single MS. of the 1490 I confidently repeat the
question. The respective dates of the witnesses before us may [046]
perhaps be thus stated. The ten MSS. so confidently relied upon
date as follows, speaking generally:—
2 about A.D. 330-340.
1 about 550.
1 about 750.
6 (say) about 950 to A.D. 1350.
28 But see Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 397. App. F, where
the numbers as now known are given as 73, 1326, 980 respectively.
29 Account of the Printed Text, p. 138.[047]
56 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
The 1490 MSS. which are constantly observed to bear
consentient testimony against the ten, date somewhat thus:—
1: A.D. 400.
1: 450.
2: 500.
16 (say): 650 to A.D. 850.
1470: 850 to A.D. 1350.
And the question to which I invite the reader to render an
answer is this:—By what process of reasoning, apart from an
appeal to other authorities, (which we are going to make by-and-
by), can it be thought credible that the few witnesses shall prove
the trustworthy guides,—and the many witnesses the deceivers?
Now those many MSS. were executed demonstrably at
different times in different countries. They bear signs in their
many hundreds of representing the entire area of the Church,
except where versions were used instead of copies in the original
Greek. Many of them were written in monasteries where a
special room was set aside for such copying. Those who were in
trust endeavoured with the utmost pains and jealousy to secure
accuracy in the transcription. Copying was a sacred art. And
yet, of multitudes of them that survive, hardly any have been
copied from any of the rest. On the contrary, they are discovered
to differ among themselves in countless unimportant particulars;
and every here and there single copies exhibit idiosyncrasies
which are altogether startling and extraordinary. There has
therefore demonstrably been no collusion—no assimilation to
an arbitrary standard,—no wholesale fraud. It is certain that
every one of them represents a MS., or a pedigree of MSS.,
older than itself; and it is but fair to suppose that it exercises
such representation with tolerable accuracy. It can often be
proved, when any of them exhibit marked extravagancy, that
such extravagancy dates back as far as the second or third
century. I venture to think—and shall assume until I find that IChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 57
am mistaken—that, besides the Uncials, all the cursive copies in
existence represent lost Codexes of great antiquity with at least
the same general fidelity as Ev. 1, 33, 69, which enjoy so much
favour in some quarters only because they represent lost MSS.
demonstrably of the same general type as Codd. 30
.
It will be seen that the proofs in favour of Number being
a recognized and powerful Note of Truth are so strong, that
nothing but the interests of an absorbing argument can prevent the
acknowledgement of this position. It is doubtless inconvenient to
find some 1490 witnesses contravening some ten, or if you will,
twenty favourites: but Truth is imperative and knows nothing of
the inconvenience or convenience of Critics.
8. When therefore the great bulk of the witnesses,—in the
proportion suppose of a hundred or even fifty to one,—yield
unfaltering testimony to a certain reading; and the remaining
little handful of authorities, while advocating a different reading,
are yet observed to be unable to agree among themselves as
to what that different reading shall precisely be,—then that
other reading concerning which all that discrepancy of detail is
observed to exist, may be regarded as certainly false.
I will now give an instance of the general need of the testimony
of Number being added to Antiquity, in order to establish a
Reading. [048]
There is an obscure expression in the Epistle to
the Hebrews,—Alford speaks of it as“almost a locus
desperatus”—which illustrates the matter in hand not unaptly.
The received reading of Heb. iv. 2,—“not being mixed
[viz. the word preached] with faith in them that heard it,”—is
supported by the united testimony of the Peshitto and of the
Latin versions31. Accordingly, the discovery that also exhibits
µµ¡±ºµø¬ determined Tischendorf, who however stands
alone with Scholz, to retain in this place the singular participle.
30 This general position will be elucidated in Chapters IX and XI.
31 So also the Georgian and Sclavonic versions (the late Dr. Malan).[049]
58 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
And confessedly the note of Antiquity it enjoys in perfection;
as well as yields a sufficiently intelligible sense. But then
unfortunately it proves to be incredible that St. Paul can have been
the author of the expression32. All the known copies but four33
read not µ¡±ºsø¬ but –ºsø¬. So do all the Fathers who
are known to quote the place34:—Macarius35, Chrysostom36
,
Theodorus of Mopsuestia37, Cyril38, Theodoret39, Damascene40
,
Photius41, Theophylactus42, Oecumenius43. The testimony of
four of the older of these is even express: and such an amount
of evidence is decisive. But we are able to add that of the
Harkleian, Bohairic, Ethiopic, and Armenian versions. However
uncongenial therefore the effort may prove, there can be no doubt
at all that we must henceforth read here,—“But the word listened
to did not profit them, because they were not united in respect of
faith with those who listened [and believed]”: or words to that
32 The Traditional view of the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews is here
maintained as superior both in authority and evidence to any other.
33 , 31, 41, 114.
34 Tischendorf wrongly adduces Irenaeus. Read to the end of III. c. 19, § 1.
35 Ap. Galland. vii. 178.
36 xii. 64 c, 65 b. ö±v E¡± ƒ ±º±ƒˆ¬; øP µ6¿µ, øP µ}±, ªª ,
øPµ¡q±. See by all means Cramer’s Cat. p. 451.
37 Ap. Cramer, Cat. p. 177. üP p¡ &± ±ƒp ƒt ¿wƒ ƒø÷¬ ¿±µªµ÷
ººsø; Dµ øTƒ…¬ ±…ƒsø,
“ºtµµ¡±ºsø¬ ƒ«¿wƒµ ƒø÷¬
øµ÷.
”
38 vi. 15 d. ¡± p¡ ºµªªø ±ƒp ƒx 4ø ƒ¡y¿ø ±±¡ ± ƒµ
ªªuªø¬, ±q¿µ¡ ºsªµ ±vø6ø¬ U¥±ƒ, .ƒ.ª. After this, it becomes of little
moment that the same Cyril should elsewhere (i. 394) read µ¡±ºsø¬
¿wƒµ ƒø÷¬ ø{±.
39 iii. 566. After quoting the place, Thdrt. proceeds, §w p¡ dµ ! ƒøÊ
òµøÊ¿±µªw± ƒøz¬… ºt… ø7ø ƒø÷¬ ƒøÊòµøʪyø¬ ±¡±sƒ±¬.
40 ii. 234.
41 Ap. Oecum.
42 ii. 670.
43 From Dr. Malan, who informs me that the Bohairic and Ethiopic exhibit
“their heart was not mixed with”: which represents the same reading.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 59
effect44. Let this then be remembered as a proof that, besides
even the note of Variety to some extent super-added to that of
Antiquity, it must further be shewn on behalf of any reading
which claims to be authentic, that it enjoys also the support of
a multitude of witnesses: in other words that it has the note of
Number as well45
.
And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the
Syriac and the Latin versions are such venerable documents
they must be held to outweigh all the rest, and may be right
in this matter after all. It will be found explained elsewhere
that in places like the present, those famous versions are often
observed to interpret rather than to reproduce the inspired verity:
to discharge the office of a Targum rather than of a translation.
The sympathy thus evinced between and the Latin should be
observed: the significance of it will come under consideration
afterwards.
§ 3. Variety.
I must point out in the next place, that Evidence on any passage,
which exhibits in perfection the first of the two foregoing
characteristics—that of Antiquity, may nevertheless so easily fall
under suspicion, that it becomes in the highest degree necessary
to fortify it by other notes of Truth. And there cannot be a
stronger ally than Variety. [050]
No one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety
distinguishing witnesses massed together must needs constitute a
most powerful argument for believing such Evidence to be true.
44 So Theophylactus (ii. 670), who (with all the more trustworthy authorities)
writes µ¡±ºsø¬. For this sense of the verb, see Liddell and Scott’s Lex.,
and especially the instances in Wetstein.
45 Yet Tischendorf says,“Dubitare nequeo quin lectio Sinaitica hujus loci
mentem scriptoris recte reddat atque omnium sit verissima.”[051]
60 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Witnesses of different kinds; from different countries; speaking
different tongues:—witnesses who can never have met, and
between whom it is incredible that there should exist collusion
of any kind:—such witnesses deserve to be listened to most
respectfully. Indeed, when witnesses of so varied a sort agree
in large numbers, they must needs be accounted worthy of even
implicit confidence. Accordingly, the essential feature of the
proposed Test will be, that the Evidence of which“Variety”
is to be predicated shall be derived from a variety of sources.
Readings which are witnessed to by MSS. only; or by ancient
Versions only: or by one or more of the Fathers only:—whatever
else may be urged on their behalf, are at least without the full
support of this note of Truth; unless there be in the case of MSS.
a sufficient note of Variety within their own circle. It needs only
a slight acquaintance with the principles which regulate the value
of evidence, and a comparison with other cases enjoying it of one
where there is actually no variety, to see the extreme importance
of this third Test. When there is real variety, what may be
called hole-and-corner work,—conspiracy,—influence of sect or
clique,—are impossible. Variety it is which imparts virtue to
mere Number, prevents the witness-box from being filled with
packed deponents, ensures genuine testimony. False witness is
thus detected and condemned, because it agrees not with the rest.
Variety is the consent of independent witnesses, and is therefore
eminently Catholic. Origen or the Vatican and the Sinaitic, often
stand all but alone, because there are scarce any in the assembly
who do not hail from other parts with testimony different from
theirs, whilst their own evidence finds little or no verification.
It is precisely this consideration which constrains us to pay
supreme attention to the combined testimony of the Uncials
and of the whole body of the Cursive Copies. They are (a)
dotted over at least 1000 years: (b) they evidently belong to so
many divers countries,—Greece, Constantinople, Asia Minor,
Palestine, Syria, Alexandria, and other parts of Africa, not toChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 61
say Sicily, Southern Italy, Gaul, England, and Ireland: (c) they
exhibit so many strange characteristics and peculiar sympathies:
(d) they so clearly represent countless families of MSS., being
in no single instance absolutely identical in their text, and
certainly not being copies of any other Codex in existence,—that
their unanimous decision I hold to be an absolutely irrefragable
evidence of the Truth46. If, again, only a few of these copies
disagree with the main body of them, I hold that the value of the
verdict of the great majority is but slightly disturbed. Even then
however the accession of another class of confirmatory evidence
is most valuable. Thus, when it is perceived that Codd. are
the only uncials which contain the clause µ¡øz¬ µw¡µƒµ in St.
Matt. x. 8, already spoken of, and that the merest fraction of the
cursives exhibit the same reading, the main body of the cursives
and all the other uncials being for omitting it, it is felt at once
that the features of the problem have been very nearly reversed.
On such occasions we inquire eagerly for the verdict of the most
ancient of the Versions: and when, as on the present occasion,
they are divided,—the Latin and the Ethiopic recognizing the
clause, the Syriac and the Egyptian disallowing it,—an impartial
student will eagerly inquire with one of old time,—“Is there not
here a prophet of the Lord besides, that we might inquire of
him?” He will wish to hear what the old Fathers have to say
on this subject. I take the liberty of adding that when he has
once perceived that the text employed by Origen corresponds usually to a surprising extent with the text represented by Codex
B and some of the Old Latin Versions, he will learn to lay
less stress on every fresh instance of such correspondence. He
will desiderate greater variety of testimony,—the utmost variety
which is attainable. The verdict of various other Fathers on
this passage supplies what is wanted47. Speaking generally,
46 See below, Chapter XI, where the character and authority of Cursive
Manuscripts are considered.
47 The evidence on the passage is as follows:—For the insertion:—
[052][053]
62 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
the consentient testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses,
coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far
than the same number of witnesses proceeding from one and the
same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of
sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion. Thus when
it is found that the scribe of B wrote“six conjugate leaves of
Cod. 48
,
” it is impossible to regard their united testimony in
the same light as we should have done, if one had been produced
in Palestine and the other at Constantinople. So also of primitive
Patristic testimony. The combined testimony of Cyril, patriarch
of Alexandria;—Isidore of Pelusium, a city at the mouth of the
Nile;—and Nonnus of Panopolis in the Thebaid, is not nearly
so weighty as the testimony of one of the same three writers in
conjunction with Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in Gaul, and with
Chrysostom who passed the greater part of his life at Antioch.
The same remark holds true of Versions. Thus, the two Egyptian
Versions when they conspire in witnessing to the same singular
reading are entitled to far less attention than one of those same
Versions in combination with the Syriac, or with the Latin, or
with the Gothic.
§ 4. Weight, or Respectability.
We must request our readers to observe, that the term“weight”
may be taken as regards Textual Evidence in two senses, the
* etc. BC*¶£DPî, 1, 13, 33, 108, 157, 346, and about ten more.
Old Latin (except f), Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Hilary, Cyril Alex. (2),
Chrysostom (2).
Against:—
EFGKLMSUVXì†. The rest of the Cursives, Peshitto (Pusey and Gwilliam
found it in no copies), Sahidic, Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Chrysostom, in loc.,
Juvencus. Compare Revision Revised, p. 108, note.
48 By the Editor. See Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction (4th ed.), Vol. I. p. 96,
note 1, and below, Chapter IX.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 63
one general and the other special. In the general sense, Weight
includes all the notes of truth,—it may relate to the entire mass of
evidence;—or else it may be employed as concerning the value
of an individual manuscript, or a single Version, or a separate
Father. Antiquity confers some amount of Weight: so does
Number: and so does Variety also, as well as each of the other
notes of truth. This distinction ought not to be allowed to go
out of sight in the discussion which is now about to occupy our
attention.
We proceed then to consider Weight in the special sense and
as attached to single Witnesses.
Undeniable as it is, (a) that ancient documents do not admit
of being placed in scales and weighed; and (b) that if they
did, the man does not exist who is capable of conducting
the operation,—there are yet, happily, principles of sound
reason,—considerations based on the common sense of mankind,
learned and unlearned alike,—by the aid of which something may
be effected which is strictly analogous to the process of weighing
solid bodies in an ordinary pair of scales. I proceed to explain.
1. In the first place, the witnesses in favour of any given reading
should be respectable.“Respectability” is of course a relative
term; but its use and applicability in this department of Science
will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although
they may not be altogether agreed as to the classification of
their authorities. Some critics will claim, not respectability only,
but absolute and oracular authority for a certain set of ancient witnesses,—which others will hold in suspicion. It is clear
however that respectability cannot by itself confer pre-eminence,
much less the privilege of oracular decision. We listen to any
one whose character has won our respect: but dogmatism as to
things outside of actual experience or mathematical calculation
is the prerogative only of Revelation or inspired utterance; and
if assumed by men who have no authority to dogmatize, is only
accepted by weak minds who find a relief when they are able
[054][055]
64 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
“jurare in verba magistri.”
“To swear whate’er the master says is true.”
And if on the contrary certain witnesses are found to range
themselves continually on the side which is condemned by a
large majority of others exhibiting other notes of truth entitling
them to credence, those few witnesses must inevitably lose in
respectability according to the extent and frequency of such
eccentric action.
2. If one Codex (z) is demonstrably the mere transcript of
another Codex (f), these may no longer be reckoned as two
Codexes, but as one Codex. It is hard therefore to understand
how Tischendorf constantly adduces the evidence of“E of
Paul” although he was perfectly well aware that E is“a mere
transcript of the Cod. Claromontanus49” or D of Paul. Or again,
how he quotes the cursive Evan. 102; because the readings
of that unknown seventeenth-century copy of the Gospels are
ascertained to have been derived from Cod. B itself50
.
3. By strict parity of reasoning, when once it has been
ascertained that, in any particular instance, Patristic testimony
is not original but derived, each successive reproduction of the
evidence must obviously be held to add nothing at all to the weight
of the original statement. Thus, it used to be the fashion to cite (in
proof of the spuriousness of“the last twelve verses”of St. Mark’s
Gospel) the authority of“Eusebius, Gregory of Nyssa, Victor
of Antioch, Severus of Antioch, Jerome51
”—to which were
,
added“Epiphanius and Caesarius52
,
”—“Hesychius of Jerusalem
and Euthymius53
.
” In this enumeration, the names of Gregory,
Victor, Severus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were introduced
49 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 176.
50 Ibid. p. 208.
51 Tregelles’ Printed Text, &c., p. 247.
52 Tischendorf, N. T., p. 322.
53 Tischendorf and Alford.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 65
in error. There remains Eusebius,—whose exaggeration (a)
Jerome translates, (b) Hesychius (sixth century) copies, and
(c) Euthymius (A.D. 1116) refers to54 and Eusebius himself
neutralizes55. The evidence therefore (such as it is) collapses
hopelessly: being reducible probably to a random statement in the
lost treatise of Origen on St. Mark56, which Eusebius repudiates,
even while in his latitudinarian way he reproduces it. The weight
of such testimony is obviously slight indeed.
4. Again, if two, three, or four Codexes are discovered by
reason of the peculiarities of text which they exhibit to have
been derived,—nay, confessedly are derived—from one and the
same archetype,—those two, three, or four Codexes may no
longer be spoken of as if they were so many. Codexes B and
, for example, being certainly the twin products of a lost
exemplar, cannot in fairness be reckoned as = 2. Whether
their combined evidence is to be estimated at = 1.75, 1.50, or
1.25, or as only 1.0,—let diviners decide. May I be allowed
to suggest that whenever they agree in an extraordinary reading
their combined evidence is to be reckoned at about 1.50: when in
an all but unique reading, at 1.25: when the reading they contain
is absolutely unique, as when they exhibit ƒ¡µøºs… ¥r
±Pƒˆ in St. Matt. xvii. 22, they should be reckoned as a
single Codex? Never, at all events, can they be jointly reckoned
as absolutely two. I would have them cited as B- . Similar [056]
considerations should be attached to F and G of St. Paul, as being
“independent transcripts of the same venerable archetype57
”and
,
to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, and perhaps 348, 624, 78858
,
as being also the representatives of only one anterior manuscript
54 Burgon’s Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 38-69; also p. 267.
55 Ad Marinum. Ibid. p. 265.
56 Ibid. pp. 235-6.
57 Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 181.
58 Ferrar and Abbott’s Collation of Four Important Manuscripts, Abbè Martin,
Quatre MSS. importants, J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar Group
(C. J. Clay and Sons), 1893. Miller’s Scrivener, I. p. 398, App. F.[057]
66 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of uncertain date.
5. It requires further to be pointed out that when once a clear
note of affinity has been ascertained to exist between a small
set of documents, their exclusive joint consent is henceforward
to be regarded with suspicion: in other words, their evidential
Weight becomes impaired. For instance, the sympathy between
D and some Old Latin copies is so marked, so constant, in fact so
extraordinary, that it becomes perfectly evident that D, though
only of the sixth century, must represent a Greek or Latin Codex
of the inaccurate class which prevailed in the earliest age of all,
a class from which some of the Latin translations were made59
.
6. I suppose it may be laid down that an ancient Version
outweighs any single Codex, ancient or modern, which can
be named: the reason being, that it is scarcely credible that
a Version—the Peshitto, for example, an Egyptian, or the
Gothic—can have been executed from a single exemplar. But
indeed that is not all. The first of the above-named Versions and
some of the Latin are older,—perhaps by two centuries—than
the oldest known copy. From this it will appear that if the
only witnesses producible for a certain reading were the Old
Latin Versions and the Syriac Version on the one hand,—Codd.
B- on the other,—the united testimony of the first two would
very largely overbalance the combined testimony of the last. If B
or if stood alone, neither of them singly would be any match
for either the Syriac or the Old Latin Versions,—still less for the
two combined.
7. The cogency of the considerations involved in the last
paragraph becomes even more apparent when Patristic testimony
has to be considered.
It has been pointed out elsewhere60 that, in and by itself,
the testimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had,
59 See below, Chapter X. Also Mr. Rendel Harris’“Study of Codex Bezae”in
the Cambridge Texts and Studies.
60 Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, p. 21, &c.; Revision Revised, p. 297.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 67
must be held to outweigh the solitary testimony of any single
Codex which can be named. The circumstance requires to be
again insisted on here. How to represent the amount of this
preponderance by a formula, I know not: nor as I believe does
any one else know. But the fact that it exists, remains, and
is in truth undeniable. For instance, the origin and history of
Codexes AB is wholly unknown: their dates and the places
of their several production are matters of conjecture only. But
when we are listening to the articulate utterance of any of the
ancient Fathers, we not only know with more or less of precision
the actual date of the testimony before us, but we even know
the very diocese of Christendom in which we are standing. To
such a deponent we can assign a definite amount of credibility,
whereas in the estimate of the former class of evidence we have
only inferences to guide us.
Individually, therefore, a Father’s evidence, where it can
be certainly obtained—caeteris paribus, is considerably greater
than that of any single known Codex. Collectively, however,
the Copies, without question, outweigh either the Versions by
themselves, or the Fathers by themselves. I have met—very
rarely I confess—but I have met with cases where the Versions,
as a body, were opposed in their testimony to the combined
witness of Copies and Fathers. Also, but very rarely, I have [058]
known the Fathers, as a body, opposed to the evidence of Copies
and Versions. But I have never known a case where the Copies
stood alone—with the Versions and the Fathers united against
them.
I consider that such illustrious Fathers as Irenaeus
and Hippolytus,—Athanasius and Didymus,—Epiphanius and
Basil,—the two Gregories and Chrysostom,—Cyril and
Theodoret, among the Greeks,—Tertullian and Cyprian,—Hilary
and Ambrose,—Jerome and Augustine, among the Latins,—are
more respectable witnesses by far than the same number of
Greek or Latin Codexes. Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and[059]
68 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Eusebius, though first-rate Authors, were so much addicted to
Textual Criticism themselves, or else employed such inconsistent
copies,—that their testimony is that of indifferent witnesses or
bad judges.
As to the Weight which belongs to separate Copies, that
must be determined mainly by watching their evidence. If they
go wrong continually, their character must be low. They are
governed in this respect by the rules which hold good in life. We
shall treat afterwards of the character of Codex D, of , and of
B.
§ 5. Continuity.
In proposing Continuous Existence as another note of a genuine
reading, I wish to provide against those cases where the Evidence
is not only ancient, but being derived from two different sources
may seem to have a claim to variety also. I am glad to
have the opportunity thus early of pointing out that the note
of variety may not fairly be claimed for readings which are
not advocated by more than two distinct specimens of ancient
evidence. But just now my actual business is to insist that some
sort of Continuousness is requisite as well as Antiquity, Number,
Variety, and Weight.
We can of course only know the words of Holy Scripture
according as they have been handed down to us; and in
ascertaining what those words actually were, we are driven
perforce to the Tradition of them as it has descended to us
through the ages of the Church. But if that Tradition is broken in
the process of its descent, it cannot but be deprived of much of
the credit with which it would otherwise appeal for acceptance.
A clear groundwork of reasonableness lay underneath, and a
distinct province was assigned, when quod semper was added to
quod ubique et quod ab omnibus. So there is a Catholicity ofChapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 69
time, as well as of space and of people: and all must be claimed
in the ascertainment and support of Holy Writ.
When therefore a reading is observed to leave traces of
its existence and of its use all down the ages, it comes with
an authority of a peculiarly commanding nature. And on the
contrary, when a chasm of greater or less breadth of years yawns
in the vast mass of evidence which is ready for employment, or
when a tradition is found to have died out, upon such a fact alone
suspicion or grave doubt, or rejection must inevitably ensue.
Still more, when upon the admission of the Advocates of
the opinions which we are opposing the chasm is no longer
restricted but engulfs not less than fifteen centuries in its hungry
abyss, or else when the transmission ceased after four centuries,
it is evident that according to an essential Note of Truth, those
opinions cannot fail to be self-destroyed as well as to labour
under condemnation during more than three quarters of the
accomplished life of Christendom.
How Churchmen of eminence and ability, who in other
respects hold the truths involved in Churchmanship, are able
to maintain and propagate such opinions without surrendering
their Churchmanship, we are unable to explain. We would only
hope and pray that they may be led to see the inconsistencies
of their position. And to others who do not accept Church [060]
doctrine we would urge that, inasmuch as internal evidence is
so uncertain as often to face both ways, they really cannot rest
upon anything else than continuous teaching if they would mount
above personal likings and dislikings to the possession of definite
and unmistakable support. In fact all traditional teaching which
is not continuous must be like the detached pieces of a disunited
chain.
To put the question in the most moderate form, my meaning
is, that although it is possible that no trace may be discoverable
in any later document of what is already attested by documents
of the fourth century to be the true reading of any given place[061]
70 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of Scripture, yet it is a highly improbable circumstance that the
evidence should entirely disappear at such a very early period. It
is reasonable to expect that if a reading advocated by Codexes
and B, for instance, and the Old Latin Versions, besides one
or two of the Fathers, were trustworthy, there ought to be found
at least a fair proportion of the later Uncial and the Cursive
Copies to reproduce it. If, on the contrary, many of the Fathers
knew nothing at all about the matter; if Jerome reverses the
evidence borne by the Old Latin; if the later Uncials, and if the
main body of the Cursives are silent also:—what can be said
but that it is altogether unreasonable to demand acceptance for a
reading which comes to us upon such a very slender claim to our
confidence?
That is the most important inference: and it is difficult to see
how in the nature of the case it can be got over. But in other
respects also:—when a smaller break occurs in the transmission,
the evidence is proportionally injured. And the remark must be
added, that in cases where there is a transmission by several lines
of descent which, having in other respects traces of independence,
coincide upon a certain point, it is but reasonable to conclude that
those lines enjoy, perhaps, a silent, yet a parallel and unbroken
tradition all down the ages till they emerge. This principle is
often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of
the whole body of the Cursives and later Uncials61
.
§ 6. Context.
A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to
which the present volume is devoted, may be thus described. In
61 See more upon this point in Chapters V, XI. Compare St. Augustine’s
Canon:“Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec conciliis institutum sed semper
retentum est, non nisi auctoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur.” C.
Donatist. iv. 24.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 71
the case of a disputed reading, they seem to think that they do
enough if they simply marshal the authorities for and against, and
deliver an oracular verdict. In critical editions of the Greek text,
such a summary method is perhaps unavoidable. But I take leave
to point out that in Sacred Textual Criticism there are several
other considerations which absolutely require attention besides,
and that those considerations ought to find expression where the
space permits. It is to some of these that I proceed now to invite
the reader’s attention.
A word,—a phrase,—a clause,—or even a sentence or a
paragraph,—must have some relation to the rest of the entire
passage which precedes or comes after it. Therefore it will often
be necessary, in order to reach all the evidence that bears upon a
disputed question, to examine both the meaning and the language
lying on both sides of the point in dispute. We do not at present
lay so much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people
are generally not unready to observe it, and it is often open
to much difference of opinion:—we refrain especially, because
we find from experience that there is in the case of the New Testament always enough external evidence of whose existence
no doubt can be entertained to settle any textual question that can
arise.
Nevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance.
In 1 Cor. xiii. 5, Codex B and Clement of Alexandria read
ƒx ºt ±ƒ ¬ instead of ƒp ±ƒ ¬, i.e.“charity seeketh not
what does not belong to her,” instead of“seeketh not her own.”
That is to say, we are invited, in the midst of that magnificent
passage which is full of lofty principles, to suppose that a gross
violation of the eighth commandment is forbidden, and to insert
a commonplace repudiation of gross dishonesty. We are to sink
suddenly from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In fact,
the light shed on the words in question from the context on either
side of course utterly excludes such a supposition; consequently,
the only result is that we are led to distrust the witnesses that
[062][063]
72 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
have given evidence which is so palpably absurd.
But as regards the precise form of language employed, it will
be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance,
to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the
passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove
to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes even
self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses
with considerable suspicion and reserve.
Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the
exceedingly precious verse,“Howbeit, this kind goeth not out
but by prayer and fasting” (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has
met with rejection by the recent school of critics. Here the
evidence against the verse is confined to B and the first reading
of amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of the Cursives, e
and ff1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well as the Curetonian
and the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few Bohairic copies, a few
Ethiopic, and the Greek of Eusebius’ Canons:—evidence of a
slight and shifty character, when contrasted with the witness of
all the other Uncials and Cursives, the rest of the Versions, and
more than thirteen of the Fathers beginning with Tertullian and
Origen62. It is plain that the stress of the case for rejection, since
being afterwards corrected speaks uncertainly, rests such as it
is upon B; and that if the evidence of that MS. is found to be
unworthy of credit in the whole passage, weak indeed must be
the contention which consists mainly of such support.
Now if we inspect vv. 19, 20, 22, and 23, to go no farther,
we shall discover that the entire passage in B is wrapped in a fog
of error. It differs from the main body of the witnesses in ten
places; in four of which its evidence is rejected by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers63;
in two more by the Revisers64; and of the remaining four, it is
62 See Revision Revised, pp. 91, 206, and below, Chapter V.
63 ±0¥w±, ¥uºµ, ƒ¡ºs¡, ±ƒuµƒ±.
64 ºµƒq± µ.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 73
supported in two by only and in the other two by only and severally by one or six Cursives,
and D with severally four or five
Cursive copies65
.
Inspection of the Context therefore adds here strong
confirmation:—though indeed in this instance to have recourse
to such a weapon is to slay the already slain.
St. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist“having heard
in the prison the works of CHRIST, sent two of his Disciples”
(¥{ø ƒˆ º±ƒˆ ±PƒøÊ) with the inquiry,“Art Thou He that
should come66, or are we to look for another ( ƒµ¡ø)?” So all
the known copies but nine. So the Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic.
So Origen. So Chrysostom. It is interesting to note with what
differences of expression St. Luke reproduces this statement. [064]
Having explained in ver. 18 that it was the Forerunner’s disciples
who brought him tidings concerning CHRIST, St. Luke (vii. 19)
adds that John“called for certain two” (¥{ø ƒq¬) of them, and
“sent them to JESUS”: thus emphasizing, while he repeats, the
record of the earlier Evangelist. Inasmuch however as ƒµ¡ø
means, in strictness,“the other of two,
” in order not to repeat
himself, he substitutes ªªø for it. Now all this is hopelessly
obscured by the oldest amongst our manuscript authorities. It in
no wise surprises us to find that ƒq¬ has disappeared from D,
the Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The word
has disappeared from our English version also. But it offends
us greatly to discover that (1) û (with Cyril) obliterate ªªø
from St. Luke vii. 19, and thrust ƒµ¡ø into its place,—as clear
an instance of vicious assimilation as could anywhere be found:
while (2) for ¥{ø (in St. Matt. xi. 3) î write ¥q: which is
acquiesced in by the Peshitto, Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian
Versions. The Old Latin Versions prevaricate as usual: two read,
mittens duos ex discipulis suis: all the rest,—mittens discipulos
65 ƒ¡µøºs…, @ªø¿ƒw±; omission of 8øʬ, ªsµ.
66 A ¡«yºµø¬, for which D absurdly substitutes A ¡±yºµø¬,
“he that
worketh.”[065]
74 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
suos,—which is the reading of Cureton’s Syriac and the Dialogus
(p. 819), but of no known Greek MS.67 Lastly (3) for 8øÊ in
St. Luke, BLRû substitute {¡ø. What would be thought of us
if we were freely imposed upon by readings so plainly corrupt as
these three?
But light is thrown upon them by the context in St. Luke. In the
thirteen verses which immediately follow, Tischendorf himself
being the judge, the text has experienced depravation in at least
fourteen particulars68. With what reason can the same critic
straightway insist on other readings which rest exclusively upon
the same authorities which the fourteen readings just mentioned
claim for their support?
This Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known law
that mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same
or in other shapes. The carelessness, or the vitiated atmosphere,
that leads a copyist to misrepresent one word is sure to lead
him into error about another. The ill-ordered assiduity which
prompted one bad correction most probably did not rest there.
And the errors committed by a witness just before or just after
the testimony which is being sifted was given cannot but be held
to be closely germane to the inquiry.
So too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self-
collectedness, near to the moment in question, add to the authority
of the evidence. Consequently, the witness of the Context cannot
but be held to be positively or negatively, though perhaps more
67 So, as it seems, the Lewis, but the column is defective.
68 Viz. Ver. 20, ¿sƒµªµ for ¿sƒ±ªµ, ; ƒµ¡ø for ªªø, û. Ver.
22, omit Eƒ, û; insert ±v before …øw, ìî*õ; insert ±v before ¿ƒ…«øw,
. Ver. 23, B¬ for B¬ q , . Ver. 24, ƒø÷¬ D«ªø¬ for ¿¡x¬ ƒøz¬ D«ªø¬,
and eight others; æuª±ƒµ for 浪ª{±ƒµ, û. Ver. 25, æuª±ƒµ for
浪ª{±ƒµ, û. Ver. 26, æuª±ƒµ for 浪ª{±ƒµ, û. Ver. 28, insert
ºt before ªs…, ; omit ¿¡øuƒ¬, . Ver. 30, omit µ0¬ ±ƒø{¬, . Ver.
32, ªsµ for ªsøƒµ¬, *B. See Tischendorf, eighth edition, in loco. The
Concordia discors will be noticed.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 75
often negatively than positively, a very apposite Note of Truth.
§ 7. Internal Evidence.
It would be a serious omission indeed to close this enumeration of
Tests of Truth without adverting to those Internal Considerations
which will make themselves heard, and are sometimes
unanswerable.
Thus the reading of ¿qƒ… (masculine or neuter) which is
found in Cod. B (St. Luke xix. 37) we reject at once because
of its grammatical impossibility as agreeing with ¥qºµ…
(feminine); and that of ±¡¥w±¬ (2 Cor. iii. 3) according
to the witness of A on the score of its utter impossibility69
.
Geographical reasons are sufficiently strong against reading [066]
with Codd. † ±ƒx ±v æuøƒ± in St. Luke xxiv. 13 (i.e.
a hundred and threescore furlongs), to make it of no manner of
importance that a few additional authorities, as Origen, Eusebius,
and Jerome, can be produced in support of the same manifestly
corrupt reading. On grounds of ordinary reasonableness we
cannot hear of the sun being eclipsed when the moon was full,
or of our Lord being pierced before death. The truth of history,
otherwise sufficiently attested both by St. Matthew and Josephus,
absolutely forbids ±PƒøÊ( î) to be read for ±Pƒ ¬ (St. Mark vi.
69 The explanation given by the majority of the Revisers has only their English
Translation to recommend it,“in tables that are hearts of flesh” for ¿ª±æv
±¡¥w±¬ ±¡w±¬. In the Traditional reading (a) ¿ª±æv ±¡w±¬ answers
to ¿ª±æv ªw±¬; and therefore ±¡w±¬ would agree with ¿ª±æv, not with
±¡¥w±¬. (b) The opposition between ªw±¬ and ±¡¥w±¬ ±¡w±¬ would
be weak indeed, the latter being a mere appendage in apposition to ¿ª±æw, and
would therefore be a blot in St. Paul’s nervous passage. (c) The apposition is
harsh, ill-balanced (contrast St. Mark viii. 8), and unlike Greek: Dr. Hort is
driven to suppose ¿ª±æw to be a“primitive interpolation.” The faultiness of a
majority of the Uncials is corrected by Cursives, Versions, Fathers.[067]
76 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
22), and in consequence the wretched daughter of Herodias to be
taken to have been the daughter of Herod.
In these and such-like instances, the Internal reasons are plain
and strong. But there is a manifest danger, when critics forsake
those considerations which depend upon clear and definite points,
and build their own inventions and theories into a system of strict
canons which they apply in the teeth of manifold evidence that
has really everything to recommend it. The extent to which
some critics are ready to go may be seen in the monstrous Canon
proposed by Griesbach, that where there are more readings than
one of any place, that reading which favours orthodoxy is an
object of suspicion70. There is doubtless some reason in the
Canon which asserts that“The harder the reading, the less likely
it is to have been invented, and the more likely it is to be
genuine,” under which ¥µƒµ¡ø¿}ƒÛ (St. Luke vi. 1) must
receive additional justification. But people are ordinarily so
constituted, that when they have once constructed a system of
Canons they place no limits to their operation, and become slaves
to them.
Accordingly, the true reading of passages must be ascertained,
with very slight exception indeed, from the preponderating
weight of external evidence, judged according to its antiquity,
to number, variety, relative value, continuousness, and with the
help of the context. Internal considerations, unless in exceptional
cases they are found in strong opposition to evident error, have
only a subsidiary force. Often they are the product of personal
bias, or limited observation: and where one scholar approves,
another dogmatically condemns. Circumstantial evidence is
deservedly rated low in the courts of justice: and lawyers always
produce witnesses when they can. The Text of Holy Scripture
does not vary with the weathercock according to changing winds
70 “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspecta merito habetur, quae
orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifeste prae ceteris favet.” N.T. Prolegomena, I.
p. lxvi.Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth. 77
of individual or general opinion or caprice: it is decided by the
Tradition of the Church as testified by eye-witnesses and written
in black and white and gold in all countries of Christendom, and
all down the ages since the New Testament was composed.
I desire to point out concerning the foregoing seven Notes
of Truth in Textual Evidence that the student can never afford
entirely to lose sight of any of them. The reason is because
although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven
might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading
which can be named, practically this is never the case. And
why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the
fullest possible measure. No Test ever attains to perfection, or
indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can
be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to
put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength
resides in their co-operation.
[068]Chapter IV. The Vatican And
Sinaitic Manuscripts.
§ 1.
No progress is possible in the department of“Textual Criticism”
until the superstition—for we are persuaded that it is nothing
less—which at present prevails concerning certain of“the old
uncials” (as they are called) has been abandoned. By“the old
uncials” are generally meant, [1] The Vatican Codex (B),—and
[2] the Sinaitic Codex ( ),—which by common consent are
assigned to the fourth century: [3] the Alexandrian (A), and
[4] the Cod. Ephraemi rescriptus (C),—which are given to the
fifth century: and [5] the Codex Bezae (D),—which is claimed
for the sixth century: to which must now be added [6] the
Codex Beratinus (¶), at the end of the fifth, and [7] the Codex
Rossanensis (£), at the beginning of the sixth century. Five of
these seven Codexes for some unexplained reason, although the
latest of them (D) is sundered from the great bulk of the copies,
uncial and cursive, by about as many centuries as the earliest
of them (B ) are sundered from the last of their group, have
been invested with oracular authority and are supposed to be
the vehicles of imperial decrees. It is pretended that what is
found in either B or in or in D, although unsupported by any
other manuscript, may reasonably be claimed to exhibit the truth
of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence of all other
documents to the contrary. Let a reading be advocated by B and
in conjunction, and it is assumed as a matter of course thatChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 79
such evidence must needs outweigh the combined evidence of all other MSS. which can be named. But when (as often happens)
three or four of these“old uncials” are in accord,—especially if
(as is not unfrequently the case) they have the support of a single
ancient version (as the Bohairic),—or a solitary early Father (as
Origen), it seems to be deemed axiomatic that such evidence
must needs carry all before it71
.
I maintain the contradictory proposition, and am prepared
to prove it. I insist that readings so supported are clearly
untrustworthy and may be dismissed as certainly unauthentic.
But let us in this chapter seek to come to some understanding
with one another. My method shall be to ask a plain question
which shall bring the matter to a clear issue. I will then (1)
invent the best answers I am able to that question: and then (2)
to the best of my ability—I will dispose of these answers one by
one. If the reader (1) is able to assign a better answer,—or (2)
does not deem my refutation satisfactory,—he has but to call me
publicly to account: and by the rejoinder I shall publicly render
either he, or I, must be content to stand publicly discredited. If
I knew of a fairer way of bringing this by no means recondite
matter to a definite issue, the reader may be well assured I should
now adopt it72
.
—My general question is,—Why throughout the
Gospels are B and accounted so trustworthy, that all but the
absolute disposal of every disputed question about the Text is
held to depend upon their evidence?
And I begin by asking of a supposed Biblical Student,—Why
throughout the Gospels should Codex B and be deemed more
deserving of our confidence than the other Codexes? Biblical Student. Because they are the most ancient of our
Codexes.
71 See Hort’s Introduction, pp. 210-270.
72 I have retained this challenge though it has been rendered nugatory by
the Dean’s lamented death, in order to exhibit his absolute sincerity and
fearlessness.—E. M.
[069]
[070][071]
80 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Dean Burgon. This answer evidently seems to you to convey
an axiomatic truth: but not to me. I must trouble you to explain
to me why“the most ancient of our Codexes” must needs be the
purest?
B. S. I have not said that they“must needs be the purest”:
and I request you will not impute to me anything which I do not
actually say.
The Dean. Thank you for a most just reproof. Let us only
proceed in the same spirit to the end, and we shall arrive at
important results. Kindly explain yourself therefore in your own
way.
B. S. I meant to say that because it is a reasonable
presumption that the oldest Codexes will prove the purest,
therefore B—being the oldest Codexes of the Gospels—may
reasonably be expected to be the best.
The Dean. So far happily we are agreed. You mean, I presume,
that inasmuch as it is an admitted principle that the stream is
purest at its source, the antiquity of B and creates a reasonable
presumption in their favour. Is that what you mean?
B. S. Something of the kind, no doubt. You may go on.
The Dean. Yes, but it would be a great satisfaction to me
to know for certain, whether you actually do, or actually do not
mean what I suppose:—viz., to apply the principle, id verum esse
quod primum, I take you to mean that in B and we have the
nearest approach to the autographs of the Evangelists, and that
therefore in them we have the best evidence that is at present
within reach of what those autographs actually were. I will now
go on as you bid me. And I take leave to point out to you,
that it is high time that we should have the facts of the case
definitely before us, and that we should keep them steadily in
view throughout our subsequent discussion. Now all critics are
agreed, that B and were not written earlier than about 340, or
say before 330 A.D. You will admit that, I suppose?
B. S. I have no reason to doubt it.Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 81
The Dean. There was therefore an interval of not far short
of three hundred years between the writing of the original
autographs and the copying of the Gospels in B and 73
.
Those two oldest Codexes, or the earliest of them, are thus
found to be separated by nearly three centuries from the original
writings,—or to speak more accurately,—by about two centuries
and three-quarters from three of the great autographs, and by
about 250 years from the fourth. Therefore these MSS. cannot be
said to be so closely connected with the original autographs as to
be entitled to decide about disputed passages what they were or
were not. Corruption largely infected the several writings74, as I
shall shew at some length in some subsequent chapters, during
the great interval to which I have alluded.
B. S. But I am surprised to hear you say this. You must surely
recollect that B and were derived from one and the same
archetype, and that that archetype was produced“in the early
part of the second century if not earlier75
,
” and was very close
to the autographs, and that they must be accordingly accurate
transcripts of the autographs, and—
The Dean. I must really pray you to pause:—you have left
facts far behind, and have mounted into cloudland. I must beg
you not to let slip from your mind, that we start with a fact, so far
as it can be ascertained, viz. the production of B and , about
the middle of the fourth century. You have advanced from that fact to what is only a probable opinion, in which however I am
agreed with you, viz. that B and are derived from one and
the same older manuscript. Together therefore, I pray you will
not forget, they only count nearly as one. But as to the age of
that archetype—forgive me for saying, that—unintentionally no
73 Here the Dean’s MS. ceases, and the Editor is responsible for what follows.
The MS. was marked in pencil,“Very rough—but worth carrying on.”
74 See a passage from Caius quoted in The Revision Revised, p. 323. Eusebius,
Hist. Eccles. v. 28.
75 Hort, Introduction, p. 223.
[072][073]
82 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
doubt but none the less really—you have taken a most audacious
leap. May I ask, however, whether you can quote any ancient
authority for the date which you have affixed?
B. S. I cannot recollect one at the present moment.
The Dean. No, nor Dr. Hort either,—for I perceive that
you adopt his speculation. And I utterly deny that there is any
probability at all for such a suggestion:—nay, the chances are
greatly, if not decisively, against the original from which the lines
of B and diverged, being anything like so old as the second
century. These MSS. bear traces of the Origenistic school, as I
shall afterwards shew76. They have too much method in their
error for it to have arisen in the earliest age: its systematic
character proves it to have been the growth of time. They evince
effects, as I shall demonstrate in due course, of heretical teaching,
Lectionary practice, and regular editing, which no manuscript
could have contracted in the first ages of the Church.
B. S. But surely the differences between B and , which are
many, prove that they were not derived immediately from their
common ancestor, but that some generations elapsed between
them. Do you deny that?
The Dean. I grant you entirely that there are many differ-
ences between them,—so much the worse for the value of their
evidence. But you must not suffer yourself to be misled by the
figure of genealogy upon points where it presents no parallel.
There were in manuscripts no periods of infancy, childhood,
and youth, which must elapse before they could have a progeny.
As soon as a manuscript was completed, and was examined and
passed, it could be copied: and it could be copied, not only
once a year, but as often as copyists could find time to write
and complete their copies77. You must take also another circum-
76 See Appendix V, and below, Chapter IX.
77 As a specimen of how quickly a Cursive copy could be written by an
accomplished copyist, we may note the following entry from Dean Burgon’s
Letters in the Guardian to Dr. Scrivener, in a letter dated Jan. 29, 1873.“NoteChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 83
stance into consideration. After the destruction of manuscripts
in the persecution of Diocletian, and when the learned were
pressing from all quarters into the Church, copies must have
been multiplied with great rapidity. There was all the more
room for carelessness, inaccuracy, incompetency, and capricious
recension. Several generations of manuscripts might have been
given off in two or three years.—But indeed all this idea of fixing
the date of the common ancestor of B and is based upon pure
speculation—Textual Science cannot rest her conclusions upon
foundations of sand like that. I must bring you back to the Rock:
I must recall you to facts. B and were produced in the early
middle, so to speak, of the fourth century. Further than this,
we cannot go, except to say—and this especially is the point to
which I must now request your attention,—that we are in the
possession of evidence older than they are.
B. S. But you do not surely mean to tell me that other Uncials
have been discovered which are earlier than these?
The Dean. No: not yet: though it is possible, and perhaps
probable, that such MSS. may come to light, not in vellum but
in papyrus; for as far as we know, B and mark the emergence into prominence of the“Uncial” class of great manuscripts78
.
But though there are in our hands as yet no older manuscripts,
yet we have in the first place various Versions, viz., the Peshitto
of the second century79, the group of Latin Versions80 which
begin from about the same time, the Bohairic and the Thebaic
of the third century, not to speak of the Gothic which was about
contemporary with your friends the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS.
Next, there are the numerous Fathers who quoted passages in the
further, that there is … another copy of the O.T. in one volume … at the end
of which is stated that Nicodemus A æsø¬, the scribe, began his task on the
8th of June and finished it on the 15th of July, A.D.{FNS 1334, working very
hard—as he must have done indeed.”
78 See below, Chapter VIII. § 2.
79 See Chapter VI.
80 See Chapter VII.
[074][075]
84 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
earliest ages, and thus witnessed to the MSS. which they used.
To take an illustration, I have cited upon the last twelve verses of
St. Mark’s Gospel no less than twelve authorities before the end
of the third century, that is down to a date which is nearly half a
century before B and appeared. The general mass of quotations
found in the books of the early Fathers witnesses to what I say81
.
So that there is absolutely no reason to place these two MSS.
upon a pedestal by themselves on the score of supreme antiquity.
They are eclipsed in this respect by many other authorities older
than they are. Such, I must beg you to observe, is the verdict, not
of uncertain speculation, but of stubborn facts.
B. S. But if I am not permitted to plead the highest antiquity
on behalf of the evidence of the two oldest Uncials,—
The Dean. Stop, I pray you. Do not imagine for a single
instant that I wish to prevent your pleading anything at all that
you may fairly plead. Facts, which refuse to be explained out of
existence, not myself, bar your way. Forgive me, but you must
not run your head against a brick wall.
B. S. Well then82, I will meet you at once by asking a question
of my own. Do you deny that B and are the most precious
monuments of their class in existence?
The Dean. So far from denying, I eagerly assert that they are.
Were they offered for sale to-morrow, they would command a
fabulous sum. They might fetch perhaps £100,000. For aught I
know or care they may be worth it. More than one cotton-spinner
is worth—or possibly several times as much.
B. S. But I did not mean that. I spoke of their importance as
instruments of criticism.
The Dean. Again we are happily agreed. Their importance
is unquestionably first-rate. But to come to the point, will you
state plainly, whether you mean to assert that their text is in your
judgement of exceptional purity?
81 See next Chapter.
82 Another fragment found in the Dean’s papers is introduced here.Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 85
B. S. I do.
The Dean. At last there we understand one another. I on
the contrary insist, and am prepared to prove, that the text of
these two Codexes is very nearly the foulest in existence. On
what, pray, do you rely for your opinion which proves to be
diametrically the reverse of mine83?
B. S. The best scholars tell me that their text, and especially
the text of B, is of a purer character than any other: and indeed I
myself, after reading B in Mai’s edition, think that it deserves the
high praise given to it.
The Dean. My dear friend, I see that you have been taken in
by Mai’s edition, printed at Leipzig, and published in England
by Williams & Norgate and D. Nutt. Let me tell you that it is
a most faulty representation of B. It mixes later hands with the
first hand. It abounds in mistakes. It inserts perpetually passages
which are nowhere found in the copy. In short, people at the
time fancied that in the text of the mysterious manuscript in the Vatican they would find the verba ipsissima of the Gospels: but
when Cardinal Mai was set to gratify them, he found that B would
be unreadable unless it were edited with a plentiful correction of
errors. So the world then received at least two recensions of B
mixed up in this edition, whilst B itself remained behind. The
world was generally satisfied, and taken in. But I am sorry that
you have shared in the delusion.
B. S. Well, of course I may be wrong: but surely you will
respect the opinion of the great scholars.
The Dean. Of course I respect deeply the opinion of any great
scholars: but before I adopt it, I must know and approve the
grounds of their opinion. Pray, what in this instance are they?
B. S. They say that the text is better and purer than any other.
The Dean. And I say that it is nearly the most corrupt known.
If they give no special grounds except the fact that they think
83 Here the fragment ends.
[076][077]
86 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
so, it is a conflict of opinion. There is a balance between us.
But from this deadlock I proceed to facts. Take for example,
as before, the last twelve verses of St. Mark. On the one
side are alleged B and ,—of which B by the exhibition of a
blank space mutely confesses its omission, and betrays that
it is double-minded84; one Old Latin MS. (k), two Armenian
MSS., two Ethiopic, and an Arabic Lectionary; an expression of
Eusebius, who elsewhere quotes the passage, which was copied
by Jerome and Severus of Antioch, saying that the verses were
omitted in some copies. L of the eighth century, and a few
Cursives, give a brief, but impossible, termination. On the other
side I have referred to85 six witnesses of the second century,
six of the third, fifteen of the fourth, nine of the fifth, eight of
the sixth and seventh, all the other Uncials, and all the other
Cursives, including the universal and immemorial Liturgical use.
Here, as you must see, B and , in faltering tones, and with only
an insignificant following, are met by an array of authorities,
which is triumphantly superior, not only in antiquity, but also in
number, variety, and continuousness. I claim also the superiority
as to context, internal considerations, and in weight too.
B. S. But surely weight is the ground of contention between
us.
The Dean. Certainly, and therefore I do not assume my claim
till I substantiate it. But before I go on to do so, may I ask
whether you can dispute the fact of the four first Notes of Truth
being on my side?
B. S. No: you are entitled to so much allowance.
The Dean. That is a very candid admission, and just what
I expected from you. Now as to Weight. The passage just
quoted is only one instance out of many. More will abound later
on in this book: and even then many more must of necessity
remain behind. In point of hard and unmistakable fact, there is
84 See Dr. Gwynn’s remarks which are quoted below, Appendix VII.
85 The Revision Revised, p. 423. Add a few more; see Appendix VII.Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 87
a continual conflict going on all through the Gospels between
B and and a few adherents of theirs on the one side, and the
bulk of the Authorities on the other, and the nature and weight of
these two Codexes may be inferred from it. They will be found to
have been proved over and over again to be bad witnesses, who
were left to survive in their handsome dresses whilst attention
was hardly ever accorded to any services of theirs. Fifteen
centuries, in which the art of copying the Bible was brought to
perfection, and printing invented, have by unceasing rejection of
their claims scaled for ever the condemnation of their character,
and so detracted from their weight.
B. S. Still, whilst I acknowledge the justice of much that you
have said, I cannot quite understand how the text of later copies can be really older than the text of earlier ones.
The Dean. You should know that such a thing is quite possible.
Copies much more numerous and much older than B and live
in their surviving descendants. The pedigree of the Queen is in no
wise discredited because William the Conqueror is not alive. But
then further than this. The difference between the text of B and
on the one side and that which is generally represented by A
and ¶ and £ on the other is not of a kind depending upon date, but
upon recension or dissemination of readings. No amplification of
B and could by any process of natural development have issued
in the last twelve verses of St. Mark. But it was easy enough for
the scribe of B not to write, and the scribe of consciously86 and
deliberately to omit, verses found in the copy before him, if it
were determined that they should severally do so. So with respect
to the 2,556 omissions of B. The original text could without any
difficulty have been spoilt by leaving out the words, clauses,
and sentences thus omitted: but something much more than the
shortened text of B was absolutely essential for the production
of the longer manuscripts. This is an important point, and I must
86 Dr. Gwynn, Appendix VII.
[078][079]
88 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
say something more upon it.
First then87, Cod. B is discovered not to contain in the
Gospels alone 237 words, 452 clauses, 748 whole sentences,
which the later copies are observed to exhibit in the same places
and in the same words. By what possible hypothesis will such a
correspondence of the Copies be accounted for, if these words,
clauses, and sentences are indeed, as is pretended, nothing else
but spurious accretions to the text?
Secondly, the same Codex throughout the Gospels exhibits
394 times words in a certain order, which however is not the
order advocated by the great bulk of the Copies. In consequence
of what subtle influence will it be pretended, that all over the
world for a thousand years the scribes were universally induced
to deflect from the authentic collocation of the same inspired
words, and always to deflect in precisely the same way?
But Cod. B also contains 937 Gospel words, of which by
common consent the great bulk of the Cursive Copies know
nothing. Will it be pretended that in any part of the Church
for seven hundred years copyists of Evangelia entered into a
grand conspiracy to thrust out of every fresh copy of the Gospel
self-same words in the self-same places88?
You will see therefore that B, and so , since the same
arguments concern one as the other, must have been derived
from the Traditional Text, and not the Traditional Text from
those two Codexes.
B. S. You forget that Recensions were made at Edessa or
Nisibis and Antioch which issued in the Syrian Texts, and that
that was the manner in which the change which you find so
difficult to understand was brought about.
The Dean. Excuse me, I forget no such thing; and for a very
good reason, because such Recensions never occurred. Why,
there is not a trace of them in history: it is a mere dream of
87 Another MS. comes in here.
88 The MS. ceases.Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 89
Dr. Hort: they must be“phantom recensions,” as Dr. Scrivener
terms them. The Church of the time was not so unconscious of
such matters as Dr. Hort imagines. Supposing for a moment
that such Recensions, took place, they must have been either
merely local occurrences, in which case after a controversy on
which history is silent they would have been inevitably rejected
by the other Churches in Christendom; or they must have been
general operations of the Universal Church, and then inasmuch
as they would have been sealed with the concurrence of fifteen centuries, I can hardly conceive greater condemnations of B and
. Besides, how could a text which has been in fact Universal
be“Syrian”? We are on terra firma, let me remind you, not in
the clouds. The undisputed action of fifteen centuries is not to be
set aside by a nickname.
B. S. But there is another way of describing the process of
change which may have occurred in the reverse direction to that
which you advocate. Expressions which had been introduced
in different groups of readings were combined by“Conflation”
into a more diffuse and weaker passage. Thus in St. Mark vi.
33, the two clauses ±v¿¡ø ªø ±Pƒø{¬, ±v ªø ±PƒøÊ,
are made into one conflate passage, of which the last clause is
“otiose” after s¥¡±ºø µ÷occurring immediately before89
.
The Dean. Excuse me, but I entirely disagree with you. The
whole passage appears to me to savour of the simplicity of early
narratives. Take for example the well-known words in Gen.
xii. 5,“and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and
into the land of Canaan they came90
.
”A clumsy criticism, bereft
of any fine appreciation of times and habits unlike the present,
might I suppose attempt to remove the latter clause from that
place as being“otiose.” But besides, your explanation entirely
breaks down when it is applied to other instances. How could
conflation, or mixture, account for occurrence of the last cry in
89 Hort, Introduction, pp. 95-99.
90
–
[080][081]
90 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
St. Mark xv. 39, or of vv. 43-44 in St. Luke xxii describing
the Agony and Bloody Sweat, or of the first Word from the
Cross in St. Luke xxiii. 34, or of the descending angel and
the working of the cure in St. John v. 3-4, or of St. Peter’s
visit to the sepulchre in St. Luke xxiv. 12, or what would be
the foisting of verses or passages of different lengths into the
numerous and similar places that I might easily adduce? If these
were all transcribed from some previous text into which they had
been interpolated, they would only thrust the difficulty further
back. How did they come there? The clipped text of B and
—so to call it—could not have been the source of them. If
they were interpolated by scribes or revisers, the interpolations
are so good that, at least in many cases, they must have shared
inspiration with the Evangelists. Contrast, for example, the
real interpolations of D and the Curetonian. It is at the least
demonstrated that that hypothesis requires another source of the
Traditional Text, and this is the argument now insisted on. On
the contrary, if you will discard your reverse process, and for
“Conflation”will substitute“Omission”through carelessness, or
ignorance of Greek, or misplaced assiduity, or heretical bias, or
through some of the other causes which I shall explain later on,
all will be as plain and easy as possible. Do you not see that? No
explanation can stand which does not account for all the instances
existing. Conflation or mixture is utterly incapable of meeting
the larger number of cases. But you will find before this treatise
is ended that various methods will be described herein with care,
and traced in their actual operation, under which debased texts
of various kinds were produced from the Traditional Text.
B. S. I see that there is much probability in what you say: but
I retain still some lingering doubt.
The Dean. That doubt, I think, will be removed by the next
point which I will now endeavour to elucidate. You must know
that there is no agreement amongst the allies, except so far as
the denial of truth is concerned. As soon as the battle is over,Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 91
they at once turn their arms against one another. Now it is a
phenomenon full of suggestion, that such a Concordia discors
is conspicuous amongst B and and their associates. Indeed
these two Codexes are individually at variance with themselves, since each of them has undergone later correction, and in fact
no less than eleven hands from first to last have been at work
on , which has been corrected and re-corrected backwards and
forwards like the faulty document that it is. This by the way,
but as to the continual quarrels of these dissentients91, which are
patent when an attempt is made to ascertain how far they agree
amongst themselves, I must request your attention to a few points
and passages92
.
§ 2. St. John v. 4.
When it is abruptly stated that—four out of“the five old
uncials”—omit from the text of St. John’s Gospel the account of
the angel descending into the pool and troubling the water,—it is
straightway supposed that the genuineness of St. John v. 4 must
be surrendered. But this is not at all the way to settle questions
of this kind. Let the witnesses be called in afresh and examined.
91 An instance is afforded in St. Mark viii. 7, where“the Five Old Uncials”
exhibit the passage thus:
A. ± ƒ±ƒ± µªø±¬ µ¿µ ¿±¡±ƒµ± ± ±ƒ±.
*
. ± µªø±¬ ±ƒ± ¿±¡µµ.
1
. ± µªø±¬ µ¿µ ± ƒ±ƒ± ¿±¡±ƒµ±.
B. µªø±¬ ±ƒ± µ¿µ ± ƒ±ƒ± ¿±¡±ƒµ±.
C. ± µªø±¬ ±ƒ± µ¿µ ± ƒ±ƒ± ¿±¡±µƒµ.
D. ± µ«±¡ƒ±¬ µ¿µ ± ±ƒø¬ µµªµµ ¿±¡±ƒµ±.
Lachmann, and Tischendorf (1859) follow A; Alford, and Tischendorf
(1869) follow ; Tregelles and Westcott, and Hort adopt B. They happen to
be all wrong, and the Textus Receptus right. The only word they all agree in is
the initial ±w.
92 After this the MSS. recommence.
[082]92 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Now I submit that since these four witnesses omitting A,
(besides a multitude of lesser discrepancies,) are unable to agree
among themselves whether“there was at Jerusalem a sheep-pool”
[083]
( ), or“a pool at the sheep-gate”: whether it was“surnamed”
(BC), or“named” (D), or neither ( ):—which appellation, out
of thirty which have been proposed for this pool, they will
adopt,—seeing that C is for“Bethesda”; B for“Bethsaida”;
for“Bethzatha”; D for“Belzetha”:—whether or no the crowd
was great, of which they all know nothing,—and whether some
were “paralytics,”—a fact which was evidently revealed only to
D:—to say nothing of the vagaries of construction discoverable
in verses 11 and 12:—when, you see, at last these four witnesses
conspire to suppress the fact that an Angel went down into
the pool to trouble the water;—this concord of theirs derives
suggestive illustration from their conspicuous discord. Since, I
say, there is so much discrepancy hereabouts in B and and
their two associates on this occasion, nothing short of unanimity
in respect of the thirty-two contested words—five in verse 3,
and twenty-seven in verse 4—would free their evidence from
suspicion. But here we make the notable discovery that only
three of them omit all the words in question, and that the second
Corrector of C replaces them in that manuscript. D retains the
first five, and surrenders the last twenty-seven: in this step D
is contradicted by another of the“Old Uncials,” A, whose first
reading retains the last twenty-seven, and surrenders the first five.
Even their satellite L forsakes them, except so far as to follow the
first hand of A. Only five Cursives have been led astray, and they
exhibit strikingly this Concordia discors. One (157) follows the
extreme members of the loving company throughout. Two (18,
314) imitate A and L: and two more (33, 134) have the advantage
of D for their leader. When witnesses prevaricate so hopelessly,
how far can you believe them?
Now—to turn for a moment to the other side—this is a
matter on which the translations and such Fathers as quoteChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 93
the passage are able to render just as good evidence as the
Greek copies: and it is found that the Peshitto, most of the
Old Latin, as well as the Vulgate and the Jerusalem, with
Tertullian, Ammonius, Hilary, Ephraem the Syrian, Ambrose [084]
(two), Didymus, Chrysostom (eight), Nilus (four), Jerome, Cyril
of Alexandria (five), Augustine (two), and Theodorus Studita,
besides the rest of the Uncials93, and the Cursives94, with the
slight exception already mentioned, are opposed to the Old
Uncials95
.
Let me next remind you of a remarkable instance of this
inconsistency which I have already described in my book on
The Revision Revised (pp. 34-36).“The five Old Uncials” ( )
falsify the Lord’s Prayer as given by St. Luke in no less than
forty-five words. But so little do they agree among themselves,
that they throw themselves into six different combinations in
their departures from the Traditional Text; and yet they are
never able to agree among themselves as to one single various
reading: while only once are more than two of them observed to
stand together, and their grand point of union is no less than an
omission of the article. Such is their eccentric tendency, that in
respect of thirty-two out of the whole forty-five words they bear
in turn solitary evidence.
§ 3.
I should weary you, my dear student, if I were to take you through
all the evidence which I could amass upon this disagreement with
one another,—this Concordia discors. But I would invite your
attention for a moment to a few points which being specimens
may indicate the continued divisions upon Orthography which
93 S† mark the place with asterisks, and õ with an obelus.
94 In twelve, asterisks: in two, obeli.
95 The MS., which has not been perfect, here ceases.[085]
94 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
subsist between the Old Uncials and their frequent errors. And
first96, how do they write the“Mary’s”of the Gospels, of whom
in strictness there are but three?
“The Mother of JESUS97
,
” as most of us are aware, was not
“Mary”(ú±¡w±) at all; but“Mariam”(ú±¡qº),—a name strictly
identical with that of the sister of Moses98. We call her“Mary”
only because the Latins invariably write her name“Maria.” So
complete an obliteration of the distinction between the name of
the blessed Virgin—and that of (1) her sister, Mary the wife of
Clopas99, of (2) Mary Magdalene, and of (3) Mary the sister
of Lazarus, may be deplored, but it is too late to remedy the
mischief by full 1800 years. The question before us is not
that; but only—how far the distinction between“Mariam” and
“Maria” has been maintained by the Greek copies?
Now, as for the cursives, with the memorable exception of
96 In the Syriac one form appears to be used for all the Marys ([Syriac
characters] Mar-yam, also sometimes, but not always, spelt in the Jerusalem
Syriac [Syriaic characters] = Mar-yaam), also for Miriam in the O. T., for
Mariamne the wife of Herod, and others; in fact, wherever it is intended to
represent a Hebrew female name. At Rom. xvi. 6, the Peshitto has [Syriaic
characters] = ú±¡w± obviously as a translation of the Greek form in the text
which was followed. (See Thesaurus Syriacus, Payne Smith, coll. 2225, 2226.)
In Syriac literature [Syriac characters] = Maria occurs from time to time as
the name of some Saint or Martyr—e.g. in a volume of Acta Mart. described
by Wright in Cat. Syr. MSS. in B. M. p. 1081, and which appears to be a
fifth-century MS.
On the hypothesis that Hebrew-Aramaic was spoken in Palestine (pace Drs.
Abbot and Roberts), I do not doubt that only one form (cf. Pearson, Creed,
Art. iii. and notes) of the name was in use,“Maryam,” a vulgarized form
of“Miriam”; but it may well be that Greek Christians kept the Hebrew form
ú±¡±º for the Virgin, while they adopted a more Greek-looking word for
the other women. This fine distinction has been lost in the corrupt Uncials,
while observed in the correct Uncials and Cursives, which is all that the Dean’s
argument requires.—(G. H. G.)
97 The MSS. continue here.
98 LXX.
99 St. John xix. 25. As the passage is syndeton, the omission of the ±wwhichChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 95
Evann. 1 and 33,—which latter, because it is disfigured by
more serious blunders than any other copy written in the cursive
character, Tregelles by a mauvaise plaisanterie designates as
“the queen of the cursives,”—it may be said at once that they
are admirably faithful. Judging from the practice of fifty or sixty
which have been minutely examined with this view, the traces of irregularity are so rare that the phenomenon scarcely deserves
notice. Not so the old uncials. Cod. B, on the first occasion
where a blunder is possible100 (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits
ú±¡w± instead of ú±¡qº:—so does Cod. C in xiii. 55,—Cod. D
in St. Luke i. 30, 39, 56: ii. 5, 16, 34,—Codd. CD in St. Luke by
, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,—Codd. B , in ii. 19.
On the other hand, the Virgin’s sister (ú±¡w±), is twice written
ú±¡yº: viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56; and by , in St. John
xix. 25:—while Mary Magdalene is written ú±¡qº by“the five
old uncials” no less than eleven times: viz. by C, in St. Matt.
xxvii. 56,—by , in St. Luke xxiv. 10, St. John xix. 25, xx.
11,—by A, in St. Luke viii. 2,—by , in St. John xx. 1,—by
, in St. Matt. xxviii. 1,—by , in St. John xx. 16 and 18,—by
BC, in St. Mark xv. 40,—by , in St. Matt. xxvii. 61.
Lastly, Mary (ú±¡w±) the sister of Lazarus, is called ú±¡qº
by Cod. B in St. Luke x. 42: St. John xi. 2: xii. 3;—by BC, in
St. Luke xi. 32;—by , in St. Luke x. 39.—I submit that such
specimens of licentiousness or inattention are little calculated to
conciliate confidence in Codd. B . It is found that B goes
would be necessary if ú±¡w± ! ƒøÊ öª…¿ were different from ! ¥µªt
ƒ ¬ ºƒ¡x¬ ±0ƒøÊ could not be justified. Compare, e.g., the construction
in the mention of four in St. Mark xiii. 3. In disregarding the usage
requiring exclusively either syndeton or asyndeton, even scholars are guided
unconsciously by their English experience.—(ED.{FNS)
100 The genitive ú±¡ ±¬ is used in the Textus Receptus in Matt. i. 16, 18; ii. 11;
Mark vi. 3; Luke i. 41. ú±¡qº is used in the Nominative, Matt. xiii. 55; Luke
i. 27, 34, 39, 46, 56; ii. 5, 19. In the Vocative, Luke i. 30. The Accusative,
Matt. i. 20; Luke ii. 16. Dative, Luke ii. 5; Acts i. 14. ú±¡qº occurs for
another Mary in the Textus Receptus, Rom. xvi. 6.
[086][087]
96 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
wrong nine times: D, ten (exclusively in respect of the Virgin
Mary): C, eleven: , twelve.—Evan. 33 goes wrong thirteen
times: 1, nineteen times.—A, the least corrupt, goes wrong only
twice.
§ 4.
Another specimen of a blunder in Codexes B 33 is afforded
by their handling of our LORD‘S words,—“Thou art Simon the
son of Jona.” That this is the true reading of St. John i.
43 is sufficiently established by the fact that it is the read-
ing of all the Codexes, uncial and cursive alike,—excepting
always the four vicious specimens specified above. Add
to the main body of the Codexes the Vulgate, Peshitto and
Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and
Slavonic versions:—besides several of the Fathers, such as Sera-
pion101
,—Basil102
,—Epiphanius103
,—Chrysostom104
,—Asterius105
another (unknown) writer of the fourth century106:—with Cyril107
of the fifth,—and a body of evidence has been adduced, which
alike in respect of its antiquity, its number, its variety, and
its respectability, casts such witnesses as B- entirely into the
shade. When it is further remembered that we have preserved
to us in St. Matt. xvi. 17 our Saviour’s designation of Simon’s
patronymic in the vernacular of Palestine,“Simon Bar-jona,”
which no manuscript has ventured to disturb, what else but ir-
rational is the contention of the modern School that for“Jona”
101 Serapion, Bp. of Thmuis (on a mouth of the Nile) A.D.{FNS 340 (ap.
Galland. v. 60 a).
102 Basil, i. 240 d.
103 Epiphanius, i. 435 c.
104 Chrysostom, iii. 120 d e; vii. 180 a, 547 e quat.; viii. 112 a c (nine times).
105 Asterius, p. 128 b.
106 Basil Opp. (i. Append.) i. 500 e (cf. p. 377 Monitum).
107 Cyril, iv. 131 c.
,—andChapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 97
in St. John i. 42, we are to read“John”? The plain fact evi-
dently is that some second-century critic supposed that“Jonah”
and“John” are identical: and of his weak imagination the only
surviving witnesses at the end of 1700 years are three uncials and
one cursive copy,—a few copies of the Old Latin (which fluctu-
ate between“Johannis,”“Johanna,”and“Johna”),—the Bohairic
Version, and Nonnus. And yet, on the strength of this slender
minority, the Revisers exhibit in their text,“Simon the son of
John,”—and in their margin volunteer the information that the
Greek word is“Joanes,”—which is simply not the fact: ô…±¬
being the reading of no Greek manuscript in the world except
Cod. B108
. [088]
Again, in the margin of St. John i. 28 we are informed that
instead of Bethany—the undoubted reading of the place,—some
ancient authorities read“Betharabah.” Why, there is not a
single ancient Codex,—not a single ancient Father,—not a single
ancient Version,—which so reads the place109
.
§ 5.
108 A gives ô…±; , ô…±¬; C and D are silent. Obvious it is that the
revised text of St. John i. 43 and of xxi. 15, 16, 17,—must stand or fall
together. In this latter place the Vulgate forsakes us, and are joined by C and
D. On the other hand, Cyril (iv. 1117),—Basil (ii. 298),—Chrysostom (viii.
525 c d),—Theodoret (ii. 426),—Jo. Damascene (ii. 510 e),—and Eulogius
([A.D.{FNS 580.] ap. Photium, p. 1612), come to our air. Not that we require
it.
109 “Araba” (instead of“abara”) is a word which must have exercised so
powerful and seductive an influence over ancient Eastern scribes,—(having
been for thirty-four centuries the established designation of the sterile Wady,
which extends from the Southern extremity of the Dead Sea to the North of the
Arabian Gulf)—that the only wonder is it did not find its way into Evangelia.
See Gesenius on ( ¡±± in the LXX of Deut. ii. 8, &c. So in the
Revised O. T.).[089]
98 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
B. S. But110, while I grant you that this general disagreement
between B and and the other old Uncials which for a time
join in their dissent from the Traditional Text causes the gravest
suspicion that they are in error, yet it appears to me that these
points of orthography are too small to be of any real importance.
The Dean. If the instances just given were only exceptions,
I should agree with you. On the contrary, they indicate the
prevailing character of the MSS. B and are covered all over
with blots111
,— even more so than B. How they could ever
have gained the characters which have been given them, is
passing strange. But even great scholars are human, and have
their prejudices and other weaknesses; and their disciples follow
them everywhere as submissively as sheep. To say nothing of
many great scholars who have never explored this field, if men
of ordinary acquirements in scholarship would only emancipate
themselves and judge with their own eyes, they would soon see
the truth of what I say.
B. S. I should assent to all that you have told me, if I could only
have before me a sufficient number of instances to form a sound
induction, always provided that they agree with these which you
have quoted. Those which you have just given are enough as
specimens: but forgive me when I say that, as a Biblical Student,
I think I ought to form my opinions upon strong, deep, and wide
foundations of facts.
The Dean. So far from requiring forgiveness from me, you
deserve all praise. My leading principle is to build solely upon
facts,—upon real, not fancied facts,—not upon a few favourite
facts, but upon all that are connected with the question under
consideration. And if it had been permitted me to carry out in its
integrity the plan which I laid down for myself112
,—that however
has been withheld under the good Providence of Almighty
110 The MSS. have ceased.
111 See Appendix V.
112 See Preface.Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts. 99
GOD.
—Nevertheless I think that you will discover in the sequel
enough to justify amply all the words that I have used. You
will, I perceive, agree with me in this,—That whichever side
of the contention is the most comprehensive, and rests upon the
soundest and widest induction of facts,—that side, and that side
alone, will stand.
[090]Chapter V. The Antiquity of the
Traditional Text113. I. Witness of the
Early Fathers.
§ 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.
Our readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle in the
way of an unprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and
comprehensive system constructed by Dean Burgon is found in
the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the internal coherence and the singular
ingenuity displayed in Dr. Hort’s treatise, no one can doubt:
and I hasten to pay deserved and sincere respect to the memory
of the highly accomplished author whose loss the students of
Holy Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments
sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon texts
and readings, upon manuscripts and versions and Fathers, and to
his collisions with the record of history, that a higher duty than
appreciation of a Theologian however learned and pious compels
us to demur.
But no searching examination into the separate links and
details of the argument in Dr. Hort’s Introduction to his Edition
of the New Testament will be essayed now. Such a criticism has
been already made by Dean Burgon in the 306th number of the101
Quarterly Review, and has been republished in The Revision
Revised114. The object here pursued is only to remove the
difficulties which Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our
own treatise. Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause
of Textual Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude
of the School of Lachmann. We know what it really means,
and against what principles we have to contend. He has also
displayed a contrast and a background to the true theory; and has
shewn where the drawing and colouring are either ill-made or
are defective. More than all, he has virtually destroyed his own
theory.
The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly the
following:
“The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not date
further back than the middle of the fourth century. Before that
text was made up, other forms of text were in vogue, which
may be termed respectively Neutral, Western, and Alexandrian.
The text first mentioned arose in Syria and more particularly at
Antioch. Originally there had been in Syria an Old-Syriac, which
after Cureton is to be identified with the Curetonian. In the third
century, about 250 A.D.,
‘an authoritative revision, accepted by
Syriac Christendom,’ was made, of which the locality would be
either Edessa or Nisibis, or else Antioch itself.‘This revision was
grounded probably upon an authoritative revision at Antioch’(p.
137) of the Greek texts which called for such a recension on
account of their‘growing diversity and confusion.’Besides these
two, a second revision of the Greek texts, or a third counting
the Syriac revision, similarly authoritative, was completed at
Antioch‘by 350 or thereabouts’; but what was now‘the Vulgate
Syriac’ text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo any
corresponding revision. From the last Greek revision issued a [092]
113 This chapter and the next three have been supplied entirely by the Editor.
114 See also Miller’s Textual Guide, chapter IV. No answer has been made to
the Dean’s strictures.[093]
102 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
text which was afterwards carried to Constantinople—‘Antioch
being the true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople’—and
thenceforward became the Text dominant in Christendom till the
present century. Nevertheless, it is not the true Text, for that is
the‘Neutral’ text, and it may be called‘Syrian.’ Accordingly,
in investigations into the character and form of the true Text,
‘Syrian’ readings are to be‘rejected at once, as proved to have a
relatively late origin.’”
A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that
Dr. Hort has given himself away in this part of his theory.
1. The criticism of the Canon and language of the Books
of the New Testament is but the discovery and the application
of the record of Testimony borne in history to those books or
to that language. For a proof of this position as regards the
Canon, it is sufficient to refer to Bishop Westcott’s admirable
discussion upon the Canon of the New Testament. And as with
the Books generally, so with the details of those Books—their
paragraphs, their sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their
words. To put this dictum into other terms:—The Church, all
down the ages, since the issue of the original autographs, has left
in Copies or in Versions or in Fathers manifold witness to the
books composed and to the words written. Dr. Hort has had the
unwisdom from his point of view to present us with some fifteen
centuries, and—I must in duty say it—the audacity to label those
fifteen centuries of Church Life with the title“Syrian,”which as
used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it amongst
his followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those
fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when
the Church was freeing herself from heresy and formulating
her Faith. They advanced amidst the most sedulous care of
Holy Scripture. They implied a consentient record from the
first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy, or carelessness, or
heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort aware, and do not
his adherents at the present day know, that Church Life means103
nothing arbitrary, but all that is soundest and wisest and most
complete in evidence, and most large-minded in conclusions?
Above all, did he fancy, and do his followers imagine, that the
HOLY GHOST who inspired the New Testament could have let the
true Text of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its
life, and that a deep and wide and full investigation (which by
their premisses they will not admit) must issue in the proof that
under His care the WORD of GOD has been preserved all through
the ages in due integrity?—This admission alone when stripped
of its disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.
2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is
obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three“phantom
revisions,” of which no recorded evidence exists115. We must
never forget that subjective theory or individual speculation are
valueless, when they do not agree with facts, except as failures
leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as soon as he
found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it
was, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square
with facts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them
agree with his theory. This is self-evident: no one has been able
to adduce, during the quarter of a century that has elapsed since
Dr. Hort published his book, passages to shew that Dr. Hort
was right, and that his supposed revisions really took place. The
acute calculations of Adams and Leverrier would have been very
soon forgotten, if Neptune had not appeared to vindicate their
correctness.
But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident that Dr. Hort is confuted out of his own mouth. The fifteen centuries of
dominant evidence, which he admits to have been on our side,
involve the other centuries that had passed previously, because
the Catholic Church of Christ is ever consistent with itself, and
are thus virtually decisive of the controversy; besides the collapse
[094]
115 See Dr. Scrivener’s incisive criticism of Dr. Hort’s theory, Introduction,
edit. 4, ii. 284-296.[095]
104 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of his theory when superimposed upon the facts of history and
found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove from the
surviving records of the first three or four centuries, during the
long period that elapsed between the copying of the Vatican and
Sinaitic MSS. and the days of the Evangelists, that the evidence
of Versions and Fathers is on our side.
And first of the Fathers.
§ 2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom
Writers.
No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination
of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who
died before A.D. 400 and in public documents written prior to
that date. The consequence is that many statements have been
promulgated respecting them which are inconsistent with the
facts of the case. Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has offended more
than once in this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up
by Dean Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the
utmost avail in any exhaustive examination of Patristic evidence
upon any given text, are in this respect of little use, the question
here being, What is the testimony of all the Fathers in the first
four centuries, and of every separate Father, as to the MSS.
used by them or him, upon the controversy waged between the
maintainers of the Traditional Text on the one side, and on the
other the defenders of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of
such an examination evidently lies not in separate passages of
the Gospels, but in the series of quotations from them found in
the works of the collective or individual Fathers of the period
under consideration.
I must here guard myself. In order to examine the text of
any separate passage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no105
evidence if possible should be left out. The present question is
of a different kind. Dr. Hort states that the Traditional Text,
or as he calls it“the Syrian,” does not go back to the earliest
times, that is as he says, not before the middle of the fourth
century. In proving my position that it can be traced to the
very first, it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the
evidence is half on our side and half on the other. It is really
found to be much more favourable to us. We fully admit that
corruption prevailed from the very first116: and so, we do not
demand as much as our adversaries require for their justification.
At all events the question is of a general character, and does
not depend upon a little more evidence or a little less. And the
argument is secondary in its nature: it relates to the principles of
the evidence, not directly to the establishment of any particular
reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely exhaustive,
provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the whole
case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as
far as my power would admit, having gone over the whole field a
second time, and having employed all the care in either scrutiny
that I could command.
The way in which my investigation has been accomplished is
as follows:—A standard of reference being absolutely necessary,
I have kept before me a copy of Dr. Scrivener’s Cambridge
Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the disputed passages
are printed in black type, although the Text there presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as revised
by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many
passages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record,
though not unfavourable to us, has many times been included
in our opponents’ column. I have used copies of the Fathers
in which the quotations were marked, chiefly those in Migne’s
Series, though I have also employed other editions where I could
116 The Revision Revised, pp. 323-324, 334.
[096][097]
106 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
find any of superior excellence as well as Migne. Each passage
with its special reading was entered down in my note-book
upon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell
on either side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so
presented. But all doubtful quotations (under which head were
included all that were not absolutely clear) were discarded as
untrustworthy witnesses in the comparison that was being made;
and all instances too of mere spelling, because these latter might
have been introduced into the text by copyists or editors through
an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when
the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The
fact also that deflections from the text more easily catch the
eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the
advantage of the opposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose
I generally decided questions against my own contention, and
have omitted to record many smaller instances favourable to us
which I should have entered in the other column. From various
reasons the large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to
this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred in them,
or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were
favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses
of St. John’s Gospel,“I and My Father are one,” “I am the way,
the truth, and the life,” “No man knoweth the Father but the
Son,” and many others. In Latin books, more quotations had
to be rejected than in Greek, because the verdict of a version
cannot be so close as the witness of the original language.
An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the
books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to
coincide more accurately with the Received Text. This is true
of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the Regulae brevius
Tractatae, which seem to have been read constantly at meals, or
were otherwise in continual use in Religious Houses. The monks
of a later age would not be content to hear every day familiar
passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to107
which they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct.
This fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these
treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in
the proportion of about 6:1, whereas the other books of St. Basil
yielded according to a ratio of about 8:3.
For the same reason I have not included Marcion’s edition of
St. Luke’s Gospel, or Tatian’s Diatessaron, in the list of books
and authors, because such representations of the Gospels having
been in public use were sure to have been revised from time to
time, in order to accord with the judgement of those who read or
heard them. Our readers will observe that these were self-denying
ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned the
list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet
our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position
of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted,
that it can afford to dispense with services which may be open
to some suspicion117. And the natural inference remains, that
the difference between the witness of the Ethica and the Regulae
brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that of the other works
of Basil on the other, suggests that too much variation, and [098]
too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of readings
meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of
any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps
not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author’s
pen118. Variant readings of quotations occurring in different
editions of the Fathers are found, according to my experience,
much less frequently than might have been supposed. Where
I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the Benedictine or
117 Yet Marcion and Tatian may fairly be adduced as witnesses upon individual
readings.
118 E.g.“Many of the verses which he [Origen] quotes in different places
shew discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of
citation or by corruption of the MSS. of his writings.” Hort, Introduction, p.
113. See also the whole passage, pp. 113-4.[099]
108 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other prints,
of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it.
Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its
general trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation
of authorities from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual
Critics shews that they have always been taken to be in the main
trustworthy. It is in order that we may be on sure ground that I
have rejected many passages on both sides, and a larger number
of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.
In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations
have generally been neglected (except in the case of St.
Irenaeus119), because the witness of a version is secondhand,
and Latin translators often employed a rendering with which
they were familiar in representing in Latin passages cited from
the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and
especially of the later Fathers before A.D. 400, it is not certain
whether the translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the
limit of time prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether
he used a Text or Texts of one class or another is of course much
better exhibited in his own Greek writing, than where some one
else has translated his words into Latin. Accordingly, in the case
of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest evidence has been admitted.
Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been rejected, and
later experience has convinced me that such rejections made in
the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process
like this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result,
and it is of the greatest possible importance that the foundation
of the building should be sound.
The general results will appear in the annexed Table. The
investigation was confined to the Gospels. For want of a better
term, I have uniformly here applied the title“Neologian” to the
Text opposed to ours.
119 See Hort. Introduction, p. 160. The most useful part of Irenaeus’ works in
this respect is found in the Latin Translation, which is of the fourth century.109
Fathers. Traditional
Neologian.
Text.
Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4
Epistle to Diognetus 1 0
Papias 1 0
Justin Martyr 17 20
Heracleon 1 7
Gospel of Peter 2 0
Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0
Athenagoras 3 1
Irenaeus (Latin as well as
63 41
Greek)
Hegesippus 2 0
Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4
Testament of Abraham 4 0
Epistola Viennensium et Lug-
1 0
dunensium
Clement of Alexandria 82 72
Tertullian 74 65
Clementines 18 7
Hippolytus 26 11
Callixtus (Pope) 1 0
Pontianus (Pope) 0 2
Origen 460 491
Julius Africanus 1 1
Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3
Novatian 6 4
Cornelius (Pope) 4 1
Synodical Letter 1 2
Cyprian 100 96
Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Synodus Antiochena 3 1110 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Acta Pilati 5 1
Theognostus 0 1
Archelaus (Manes) 11 2
Pamphilus 5 1
Methodius 14 8
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0
Lactantius 0 1
Juvencus 1 2
Arius 2 1
Acta Philippi 2 1
Apostolic Canons and Consti-
61 28
tutions
Eusebius (Caesarea) 315 214
Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0
Athanasius 179 119
Firmicus Maternus 3 1
Julius (Pope) 1 2
Serapion 5 1
Eustathius 7 2
Macarius Aegyptius or Mag-
36 17
nus120
Hilary (Poictiers) 73 39
Candidus Arianus 0 1
Eunomius 1 0
Didymus 81 36
Victorinus of Pettau 4 3
0 Or Magnus, or Major, which names were applied to him to distinguish
him from his brother who was called Alexandrinus, and to whom some of his
works have been sometimes attributed. Macarius Magnus or Aegyptius was a
considerable writer, as may be understood from the fact that he occupies nearly
1000 pages in Migne’s Series. His memory is still, I am informed, preserved
in Egypt. But in some fields of scholarship at the present day he has met with
strange neglect.111
Faustinus 4 0
Zeno 3 5
Basil 272 105
Victorinus Afer 14 14
Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20
Titus of Bostra 44 24
Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32
Pacianus 2 2
Optatus 10 3
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test 13 6
Gregory of Nyssa 91 28
Philastrius 7 6
Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4
Amphilochius 27 10
Epiphanius 123 78
Ambrose 169 77
Macarius Magnes 11 5
Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0
Evagrius Ponticus 4 0
Esaias Abbas 1 0
Nemesius 0 1
Philo of Carpasus121 9 2
——
2630 1753
The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically,
according to the issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional
Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the
readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list
will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence [102]
0 The names of many Fathers are omitted in this list, because I could not find
any witness on one side or the other in their writings. Also Syriac writings are
not here included.[103]
112 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are
given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the
other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent
in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a fair idea
of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of
unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as ¥s¥…±
for ¥…±, AøP¡qø¬ for Aµ øP¡±ø÷¬, øµ÷µ for ø ƒµ,
disarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles,
besides of course greater omissions of more or less importance.
In fact, a great deal of the variations suggest to us that they took
their origin when the Church had not become familiar with the
true readings, the verba ipsissima, of the Gospels, and when an
atmosphere of much inaccuracy was spread around. It will be
readily understood how easily the text of the Holy Gospels might
have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the
pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded
themselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians
of the day, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out.
That they were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been
due to the loving zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a
great though by no means the sole cause of corruption. But before
going further, it will be best to exhibit the testimony referred to
as it is borne by thirty of the most important passages in dispute.
They have been selected with care: several which were first
chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their absence
from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course,
the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in
this list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches,
The Last Twelve Verses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean
Burgon have been most prolific of apposite passages. A reference
here and there has been added from Resch’s Ausser-Canonische
Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig, 1894-5.
1. St. Matt. i. 25. †¡…ƒyƒøø.113
On the Traditional side:—
Tatian (Diatessaron).
Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20; ii. 15).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in S. Xti. Gen. 5; i. 392; ii. 599,
600).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9).
Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229).
Ephraem Syras (Commentary on Diatessaron).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5; III. lxxxviii. 17, &c.—5 times).
Ambrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89)122
.
Against:—I can discover nothing.
2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses).
Traditional:—Separate clauses are quoted by—
Didachè (§ I).
Polycarp (x.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11).
Tertullian (De Patient, vi.).
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8; Strom. iv. 14; vii. 14).
Origen (De Orat. i.; Cels. viii. 35; 41).
Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7; Comment, in Isai. 66; Comment. in
Ps. 3; 108).
Athanasius (De Incarnat. c. Arian. 3; 13).
Apost. Const, (i. 1, all the clauses; vii. I).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.; In S. Stephanum).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Philo of Carpasus (I. 7).
122 See The Revision Revised, p. 123.114 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Pacianus (Epist. ii.).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9; 10. 16).
Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; In Ps. xxxviii. 10; In Ps. cxviii.
12. 51).
Aphraates (Dem. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (p. 89).
Against:—
Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v.; De Zelo xv.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 49).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Origen (Comment. on St. John XX. xv.; xxvii.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).
[104]
3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.
Traditional:—
Didachè (viii, with variation).
Apostol. Const. (iii. 18; vii. 25, with variation).
Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).
Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it:—
Tertullian (De Orat. 8).
Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27).
Origen (De Orat. 18).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 18).
Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De Orat. Dom. end).
4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. )¿{ª.115
Traditional:—
Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18).
Testament of Abraham(5 times).
Origen (Select. in Ps. xvi.; Comment. in Matt. xii. 12).
Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6).
Esaias Abbas.
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73).
Against:—
Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. 1. 1—bis).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Select. in Ps. xlv. 2; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8).
Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 6).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4; Comment. in Ps. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; v. 5; Cohort. ad Gent. p. 79).
Basil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4; xlv. 2).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 37).
Philo of Carpasus (i. 7).
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.).
Lucifer (De Athan. ii.; Moriendum esse).
5. St. Matt. ix. 13. µ0¬ ºµƒqø±. Mark ii. 17.
Traditional:—
Barnabas (5).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Irenaeus (III. v. 2).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. xxviii. 16).
Eusebius (Comment. in Ps. cxlvi.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Basil (De Poenitent. 3; Hom. in Ps. xlviii. 1; Epist. Class. I. xlvi.
6).116 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[105]
Against:—
Clemens Rom. (ii. 2).
Hilary (in Mark ii. 17).
6. St. Matt. xi. 27. ø{ªƒ± ¿øqª»±.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. 1).
Archelaus—Manes (xxxvii.).
Clementines (Recog. ii. 47; Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13).
Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27—commenting upon it; De Incarn. c.
Arian. 7; 13; 47; 48; c. Arianos iii. 26; 49; c.
Sabell. Greg. 4).
Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 15).
Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201; De Spir. S. II. xi. 123).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; De Trin. ii. 10; vi. 26; ix. 50;
Frag. xv.).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (124).117
Against:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3; II. vi. I; IV. vi. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent. i. end; Paed. i. 5; Strom. i. 28;
v. 13; vii. 10; 18; Quis Div. Salv. viii.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 63—bis; Dial. c. Tryph. 100).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in Joh. i. 42).
Synodus Antiochena.
Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii.; c. Arian. i. 12; 39; iv. 23; Serm.
Maj. de Fide, 28).
Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11; De Eccles. Theol. I. xv; xvi.).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. 1).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34. 18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 4; 29;
Ancor. 67).
7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Clement Alex. ªø± ƒ. ¿¡ø xv.
Origen (Comment. in Matt. xiii. 7; Hom. i.).
Athanasius (De Virg. vii.).
Basil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9; Reg. fus. tract. xviii.; Hom, de Jejun.
iii.).
Juveneus (iii. vv. 381-2).
Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9; Epist. Class. I. xlii. 11).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc). Against:—none, so far as I can find.
8. St. Matt. xviii. 11. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Origen (ii. 147; Conc. v. 675). Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. 9).
Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. ii. 4; Expos. in Luc. vii. 209;
De Fid. Res. II. 6)123
.
123 The Revision Revised, p. 92.
[106]118 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Against:—none, so far as I can find.
9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. ±s, and ¿µ¡vƒøʱøÊ.
Traditional:—
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 10).
Origen— ±s(Comment. in Matt. xv. 10).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 7).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30).
Gregory Naz. (i. 529).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 34. 18).
Macarius Magnes (i. 9)124
.
Against:—
Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; Comment. in Matt. xv. 10.—bis).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Novatian (De Trin. xxx.).
Hilary—omits ±s(Comment. in loc.).
10. St. Matt. xxiii. 38. ¡ºø¬. St. Luke xiii. 35.119
Traditional:—
Cyprian (Test. ad Jud. i. 6).
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 8; xxxvii. 5).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeone et Anna).
Origen (Hom. in Jerem. vii.— bis; X.; xiii.; Select. in Jeremiam
xv.; in Threnos iv. 6).
Apostol. Const. (vi. 5).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. (38)—four times; IV. xvi. (189);
VI. (291); viii. (401); x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV.
i.; Comment. in Ps. 73—bis; 77; 79; in Isaiam
7-8; De Theophan. vii.—tris).
Basil (Comment. in Isaiam i. 20).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83).
Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69; In Cant. Cant. iv. 54).
Against:—
Didymus (Expos. in Ps. 67).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 40).
Zeno (xiv. 2).
11. St. Matt. xxvii. 34. Læø¬ and ø6ø.
124 I have mentioned here only cases where the passage is quoted professedly
from St. Matthew. The passage as given in St. Mark x. 17-18, and in St. Luke
xviii. 18-19, is frequently quoted without reference to any one of the Gospels.
Surely some of these quotations must be meant for St. Matthew.120 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Traditional:—
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Barnabas (§ 7).
Irenaeus.
Tertullian.
Celsus.
Origen.
Eusebius of Emesa.
Theodore of Heraclea.
Didymus.
Gregory Naz.
Gregory Nyss.
Ephraem Syrus.
Titus of Bostra.
Against:—
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Macarius Magnes (ii. 12).
Gospel of Nicodemus125
.
12. St. Matt. xxviii. 2. ¿xƒ ¬ {¡±¬.
Traditional:—
Gospel of Nicodemus.
Aeta Philippi.
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4).
Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. I. 390, 398)126?
125 For the reff. see below, Appendix II.
126 Compare The Revision Revised, pp. 162-3.121
Compare also Acta Pilati ( ¿x ƒøÊ ƒyº±ƒø¬ ƒøÊ ¿ª±wø,
and ƒøʺºµwø), and Gospel of Peter ( ¿vƒ ¬ {¡±— ¿v
ƒ ¬ {¡±¬).
Against:—
Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem).
Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70).
Apostol. Can. (vii. 1).
13. St. Matt. xxviii. 19. ±¿ƒwøƒµ¬.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. 1).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 14).
Apostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 49 (Lagarde); Const. ii. 26; iv. 1;
vii. 22).
Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii.—tris).
Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.).
Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.).
Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; xxv. 2 tingentes; lxiii. 18; ad
Novatianum Heret. iii.—3rd cent.; Testimon. II.
xxvi. tingentes).
Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.).
Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i.; Epist. ad Serap. i. 6; 28; ii. 6; iii.
6; iv. 5; de Syn. 23; De Titulis Ps. 148).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299; De Fide 4; De Bapt. I. 1; ii. 6; Epist.
Class. I. viii. 11; II. ccx. 3).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; ii. 5; iii. 23).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; c. Auxentium 14; De Syn.
xxix.; De Trin. ii. 1).
Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi.; In Bapt. Christ.; In Christ.
Resurr.—bis; Epist. v.; xxiv.).
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. i. 15).
[108]122 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5).
Firmicus Maternus (De Error. Profan. Relig. xxv.).
Ambrose (De Joseph. xii. 71).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium iv. 18).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 3; 74. 5; ±µ±ª±w…¬,
end).
Against:—none.
14. St. Mark i. 2. ƒø÷¬ ¿¡øuƒ±¬… ó±”.
Traditional:—
Titus of Bostra.
Origen.
Porphyry.
Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3).
Eusebius.
Ambrose127
.
[109]
Against:—
Irenaeus (III. xi. 8).
Origen (Cels. ii. 4; Comment. in John i. 14).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. iii. 4).
Epiphanius.
Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 51).
Serapion.
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. S. Joann.).
15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.
127 For reff. see Vol. II. viii. For Mark i. 1, •1øʃøÊòµøÊ, see Appendix IV.123
Traditional:—
Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39).
Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53; Apol. i. 45).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6; iv. 56).
Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn. xxxvii.; Adv. Praxeam xxx.).
Clementines (Epit. 141).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. ad fin.).
Vincentius (2nd Council of Carthage—Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. p.
124).
Acta Pilati (xiv. 2).
Apost. Can. and Const. (can. 1; v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. 1).
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27).
Syriac Table of Canons.
Macarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24).
Aphraates (Dem. i.—bis).
Didymus (Trin. ii. 12).
Syriac Acts of the Apostles.
Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 6).
Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel—Wright (4; 17; 24).
Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38; De Interpell. ii. 5; Apol. proph.
David II. iv. 26; Luc. vii. 81; De Poenit. I. viii.
35; De Spir. S. II. xiii. 151).
Against:—
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1)128
.
16. St. Luke i. 28. µPªøºs , .ƒ.ª.
128 The Revision Revised, pp. 423-440. Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-51. The
latitudinarian Eusebius on the same passage witnesses on both sides.124 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Traditional:—
Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.).
Ambrose (Exposit. in loc.).
Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc.; Adv. Manich. iii.).
[110]
17. St. Luke ii. 14. ïP¥øw±.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Origen (c. Celsum i. 60; Selecta in Ps. xlv.; Comment. in Matt.
xvii.; Comment. in Joh. i. 13).
Apostol. Const. (vii. 47; viii. 12).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeon. et Anna).
Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); vii. (342)).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (De Fid. Cap. 12).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.; xx.).
Titus of Bostra (Expos. in Luc. ad loc).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. cxlviii.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 27; Expos. in Ps. lxxxiv.).
Basil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5).
Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29; III. 78. 15).
Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv.; In Cant. Cant. xv.; In Diem Nat.
Christ. 1138; De Occurs. Dom. 1156).
Ephraem Syr.129 (Gr. iii. 434).
129 The Revision Revised, pp. 420-1; Last Twelve Verses, pp. 42-3.125
Against:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc.).
Juvencus (II. v. 174).
18. St. Luke x. 41-2. Hªw… «¡µw± ƒw , ” y¬.
Traditional:—
Basil (Const. Monast. i. 1).
Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.).
Evagrius Ponticus.
Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But ºµ¡º ¬).
19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.
Traditional:—
Justin M. (Tryph. 103).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2; IV. xxxv. 3).
Tatian (Ciasca, 556).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5; 18).
Marcion (ad loc.).
Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in Luc. ad loc.).
Eusebius (Sect. 283).
Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. lxviii.).
Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. Mops.).
Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16). [111]
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) lxix. 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37).
Arius (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 19; 61)130
.
130 The Revision Revised, pp. 79-82. The Dean alleges more than forty
witnesses in all. What are quoted here, as in the other instances, are only the
Fathers before St. Chrysostom.126 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Against:—none.
20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers.
Traditional:—
Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23).
Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 108—bis).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Archelaus (xliv.).
Marcion (in loc.).
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 18).
Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5; Hom. xi. 20).
Apost. Const. (ii. 16; v. 14).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.).
Eusebius (canon x.).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sabbati).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 32).
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 69; De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In Ps.
CXVIII. iii. 8; xiv. 28; Expos. Luc. v. 77; x. 62;
Cant. Cant. i. 46).
Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. anim. forma—bis).
Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. ad loc.—bis).
Acta Pilati (x. 5).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78).
Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. (N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (1) 4).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright), 11; (16)131
.
Against:—none.
131 Ibid. pp. 82-5.127
21. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.).
Gospel of Peter (i. 11).
Acta Pilati (x. 1).
Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. vii.).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc).
Against:—none.
[112]
22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. øƒw.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Pilati.
Anaphora Pilati (§ 7).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18).
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.).
Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 49; ad Adelph. 3; ap. Epiph. i.
1006).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24).
Macarius Magnes (iii. 17).
Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 1).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright, p. 16).
Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48).
Against:—
Origen (Cels. ii. 35).
Acta Pilati.[113]
128 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Eusebius mentions the reading ª¿yƒø¬, but appears
afterwards to condemn it132
.
23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5).
Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7; quoted by Epiph. i. 1003).
Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294).
Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 141).
Epiphanius (Haer. III. lxxvii. 9)133
.
Against:—none.
24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. ¿xºµªwø ¡wø.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Justin Martyr (bis).
Clemens Alex.
Tertullian.
Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35).
Cyril Jerus. (bis).
Gregory Nyss.
Epiphanius.
Against:—
Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5134
.
25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?
132 The Revision Revised, pp. 61-65.
133 Ibid. pp. 90-1.
134 See below, Appendix I.129
Traditional:—
Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ. Christ. iii.).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19).
Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 348—bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; p.
468; iv. p. 584; v. p. 591).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) 1; II. (li.) 12; (lxv.) 3; (lxix.) 56;
Ancoratus lxxv.).
Alexandrians and Egyptians (Ambrose In Ps. 36).
Against:—
Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2); III. xi. 1).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.).
Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8; 17).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9).
Valentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. I. (xxxi.) 27).
Origen (c. Cels. vi. 5; Princip. II. ix. 4; IV. i. 30; In Joh. i. 22;
34; ii. 6; 10; 12; 13—bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c.
Haer. v. 151).
Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. xiv.).
Basil (c. Eunom. V. 303).
Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. Hom. ii.).
Candidus Arianus (De Generat. Div.).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. iv. 33; 41).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 10).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4);
De Fide III. vi. 41-2—tris)135
.
26. St. John i. 18. Iúøøs¬ •1y¬.
135 Many of the Fathers quote only as far as øP¥r . But that was evidently
a convenient quotation of a stock character in controversy, just as ¿qƒ± ¥
±PƒøÊ sµƒø was even more commonly. St Epiphanius often quotes thus,
but remarks (Haer. II. (lxix.) 56, Ancor. lxxv.), that the passage goes on to A
søµ.[114]
130 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6; IV. xx. 6).
Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5).
Synodus Antiochena.
Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. vi. 2; c. Celsum ii. 71).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. ix.; II. xi.; xxiii.).
Alexander Alex. (Epist.).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11).
Didymus (In Ps. cix.).
Athanasius (De Decr. Nic. Syn. xiii.; xxi.; c. Arianos ii. 62; iv.
26).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manichaeos iii. 6).
Basil (De Spir. S. xi.; Hom. in Ps. xxviii. 3; Epist. ccxxxiv.;
Sermons xv. 3).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. p. 522).
Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 39; 40).
Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x. 30; De Benedict, xi. 51; Expos. in
Luc. i. 25—bis; ii. 12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De
Spir. S. I. i. 26).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5—tris).
Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 91).
Victorinus Afer (De Generat. Verb. xvi.; xx.; Adv. Arium i.
2—bis; iv. 8; 32).
Against:—
Irenaeus (IV. xx. 11).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 12).
Origen (Comment, in Joh. II. 29; XXXII. 13).
Eusebius (•1x¬ or òµy¬, De Eccles. Theol. I. ix-x.).131
Didymus (De Trin. i. 15; ii. 5; 16).
Arius (ap. Epiph. 73—Tisch.).
Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi.; c. Eunom. i. p. 623).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. p. 577—bis; 581).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. (lxv.) 5; III. (lxx.) 7).
27. St. John iii. 13. Ib ƒ˜üP¡±˜.
Traditional:—
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4).
Novatian (De Trin. 13).
Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. Zyg.).
Origen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5; In Rom. viii. 2—bis).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2).
Amphilochius (Sentent. et Excurs. xix.).
Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.).
Theodorus Heracleensis (In Is. liii. 5).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. lvii. 7).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Zeno (xii. I).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. ii. 11; cxxxviii. 22; De Trin. x. 16).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17; xliii. 39; Expos. in Luc. vii. 74).
Aphraates (Dem. viii.).
Against:—some Fathers quote as far as these words and then
stop, so that it is impossible to know whether they stopped
because the words were not in their copies, or because they did
not wish to quote further. On some occasions at least it is evident
that it was not to their purpose to quote further than they did, e.g.
Greg. Naz. Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. ii.) is only less [115]
doubtful136. See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.
28. St. John X. 14. }øº± Q¿xƒˆ ºˆ.
136 See The Revision Revised, p. 133.132 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Traditional:—
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.).
Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end; xxxiii. 15).
Against:—
Eusebius (Comment. in Isaiam 8).
Basil (Hom. xxi.; xxiii.).
Epiphanius (Comm. in Ps. lxvi.)137
.
29. St. John xvii. 24. øU¬ (or E).
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. 1).
Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 58)138
.
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. 17—bis; c. Marcell. p. 292).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. lxiv. 5; De Trin. ix. 50).
Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De Spirit. S.
II. viii. 76).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)139
.
Against:—
Clemens Alex. (140—Tisch.).
30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.
137 Ibid. pp. 220-1.
138 Tischendorf quotes these on the wrong side.
139 The Revision Revised, pp. 217-8.133
Traditional:—
Origen (Princ. II. vi.; vol. ii. 1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; In Luc.
Hom. xxvii; xxix; In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. H. E.
VI. 25; XIII. 5; XIX. 2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. p.
474).
Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15).
Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii.—bis).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20).
Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11).
Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499)140
.
Against:—none.
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned,
the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to
the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not?
The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the
quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the
Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant,
during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this
conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian,
or for the Text of B and , a case from the evidence of the
Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now
placed before the reader.
An objection may be raised by those who are not well
acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the Fathers,
that the materials of judgement here produced are too scanty.
But various characteristic features in their mode of dealing with
quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as textual
criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful
and uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future
140 Ibid. pp. 23-4. See also an article in Hermathena, Vol. VIII., No. XIX.,
1893, written by the Rev. Dr. Gwynn with his characteristic acuteness and
ingenuity.
[116][117]
134 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
ages a record of readings, but for their own special purpose in
view. They may quote an important passage in dispute, or they
may leave it wholly unnoticed. They often quote just enough
for their purpose, and no more. Some passages thus acquire a
proverbial brevity. Again, they write down over and over again,
with unwearied richness of citation, especially from St. John’s
Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all critics
agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of
the Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from
doubt, as has been already explained. And the Greek Fathers
themselves often work words of the New Testament into the
roll of their rhetorical sentences, so that whilst evidence is given
for the existence of a verse, or a longer passage, or a book, no
certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words actually used
or the order of them. This is particularly true of St. Gregory of
Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also
of his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St.
Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose
and inaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father,
as has been known about Origen since the days of Griesbach,
often used conflicting manuscripts. As will be seen more at
length below, corruption crept in from the very first.
Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers
which are not founded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen
are described as being remarkable for the absence of Traditional
readings in their works141. Whereas besides his general testimony
of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement witnesses in the list just
given 8 times for them to 14 against them; whilst Origen is found
44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the Neologian. Clement
as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which must have
been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to
Traditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too.
141 Hort, Introduction, pp. 128, 127.135
Hilary of Poictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text,
as has been frequently said: though in his commentaries he did
not use so Traditional a text as in his De Trinitate and his other
works. The texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even
of Justin, are not of that exclusively Western character which
Dr. Hort ascribes to them142. Traditional readings occur almost
equally with others in Justin’s works, and predominate in the
works of the other three.
But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text,
the quotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption
which prevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away
by the vast current of the transmission of the Text of the [118]
Gospels. Just as if we ascended in a captive balloon over the
Mississippi where the volume of the Missouri has not yet become
intermingled with the waters of the sister river, so we may mount
up above those ages and trace by their colour the texts, or rather
clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with one
another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be
careful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not
with distinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately
composed, nor with any general forms of expression which grew
up independently, nor in fact with anything that would satisfy
literally the full meaning of the word“texts,” when we apply it
as it has been used. What is properly meant is that, of the variant
readings of the words of the Gospels which from whatever cause
grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far as we
know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and
may be traced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we
can use the term Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in
our conception and use of it.
The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to
the colour of their testimony, the locality where they flourished,
142 Ibid. p. 113.136 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
and the age in which they severally lived, under five heads,
viz., Early Traditional, Later Traditional, Syrio-Low Latin,
Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call Caesarean.
I. Early Traditional.
Traditional.Neologian.
Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4
Epistle to Diognetus 1 0
Papias 1 0
Epistola Viennensium et Lug-
1 0
dunensium
Hegesippus 2 0
Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0
Justin143 17 20
Athenagoras 3 1
Gospel of Peter 2 0
Testament of Abraham 4 0
Irenaeus 63 41
Clementines 18 7
Hippolytus 26 11
—— ——
151 84
II. Later Traditional.
Traditional.Neologian.
Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3
Cornelius 4 1
Synodical Letter 1 2
Archelaus (Manes) 11 2
Apostolic Constitutions and
61 28
Canons
0 It may perhaps be questioned whether Justin should be classed here: but
the character of his witness, as on Matt. v. 44, ix. 13, and Luke xxii. 43-44, is
more on the Traditional side, though the numbers are against that.137
Synodus Antiochena 3 1
Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4
Methodius 14 8
Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0
Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0
Titus of Bostra 44 24
Athanasius(—except Contra
63
Arianos)144122
Serapion 5 1
Basil 272 105
Eunomius 1 0
Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32
Firmicus Maternus 3 1
Victorinus of Pettau 4 3
Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4
Hilary of Poictiers 73 39
Eustathius 7 2
Macarius Aegyptius or Mag-
36 17
nus
Didymus 81 36
Victorinus Afer 14 14
Gregory of Nyssa 91 28
Faustinus 4 0
Optatus 10 3
Pacianus 2 2
Philastrius 7 6
Amphilochius (Iconium) 27 10
Ambrose 169 77
Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0
Epiphanius 123 78
Acta Pilati 5 1
0 Athanasius in his“Orationes IV contra Arianos” used Alexandrian texts.
See IV.138 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Acta Philippi 2 1
Macarius Magnes 11 5
Quaestiones ex Utroque Testa-
13 6
mento
Evagrius Ponticus 4 0
Esaias Abbas 1 0
Philo of Carpasus 9 2
—— ——
1332 609
III. Western or Syrio-Low Latin.
Traditional.Neologian.
Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4
Callixtus and Pontianus
1 2
(Popes)
Tertullian 74 65
Novatian 6 4
Cyprian 100 96
Zeno, Bishop of Verona 3 5
Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20
Lactantius 0 1
Juvencus (Spain) 1 2
Julius (Pope)? 1 2
Candidus Arianus 0 1
Nemesius (Emesa) 0 1
—— ——
205 203
[121]
IV. Alexandrian.
Traditional.Neologian.
Heracleon 1 7
Clement of Alexandria 82 72139
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Theognostus 0 1
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
Arius 2 1
Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos) 57 56
—— ——
161 150
V. Palestinian or Caesarean.
Traditional.Neologian.
Julius Africanus (Emmaus) 1 1
Origen 460 491
Pamphilus of Caesarea 5 1
Eusebius of Caesarea 315 214
—— ——
781 707
The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled
are now sufficiently clear.
I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn
in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that
in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had
made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the pure waters
generally prevailed.
II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of
the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or interval:
the witness is continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation
is given to Dr. Hort’s notion that a revision or recension
was definitely accomplished at Antioch in the middle of the
fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as the
Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward
and persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if[122]
[123]
140 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
not altogether impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface
betokening any movement in the depths such as a revision or
recension would necessitate.
III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and
especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it
does not appear to have been so general as the name“Western”
would suggest. But this will be a subject of future investigation.
There seems to have been a connexion between some parts of
the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria.
IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This,
as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will
demand more examination.
V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to
meet in Palestine under Origen.
But this points to a later time in the period under investigation.
We must now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.Chapter VI. The Antiquity Of The
Traditional Text. II. Witness of the
Early Syriac Versions.
The rise of Christianity and the spread of the Church in Syria was
startling in its rapidity. Damascus and Antioch shot up suddenly
into prominence as centres of Christian zeal, as if they had grown
whilst men slept.
The arrangement of places and events which occurred during
our Lord’s Ministry must have paved the way to this success,
at least as regards principally the nearer of the two cities
just mentioned. Galilee, the scene of the first year of His
Ministry—“the acceptable year of the Lord”—through its vicinity
to Syria was admirably calculated for laying the foundation of
such a development. The fame of His miracles and teaching
extended far into the country. Much that He said and did
happened on the Syrian side of the Sea of Galilee. Especially
was this the case when, after the death of John the Baptist had
shed consternation in the ranks of His followers, and the Galilean
populace refused to accompany Him in His higher teaching, and
the wiles of Herod were added as a source of apprehension to the
bitter opposition of Scribes and Pharisees, He spent some months
between the Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles in the north
and north-east of Palestine. If Damascus was not one of the“ten
cities145
,
” yet the report of His twice feeding thousands, and 145 According to Pliny (N. II. v. 18), the towns of Decapolis were: 1.
Scythopolis the chief, not far from Tiberias (Joseph. B. J. III. ix. 7); 2.
Philadelphia; 3. Raphanae; 4. Gadara; 5. Hippos; 6. Dios; 7. Pella; 8. Gerasa;
9. Canatha (Otopos, Joseph.); 10. Damascus. This area does not coincide
[124][125]
142 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of His stay at Caesarea Philippi and in the neighbourhood146 of
Hermon, must have reached that city. The seed must have been
sown which afterwards sprang up men knew not how.
Besides the evidence in the Acts of the Apostles, according
to which Antioch following upon Damascus became a basis of
missionary effort hardly second to Jerusalem, the records and
legends of the Church in Syria leave but little doubt that it
soon spread over the region round about. The stories relating to
Abgar king of Edessa, the fame of St. Addaeus or Thaddaeus as
witnessed particularly by his Liturgy and“Doctrine,”and various
other Apocryphal Works147, leave no doubt about the very early
extension of the Church throughout Syria. As long as Aramaic
was the chief vehicle of instruction, Syrian Christians most likely
depended upon their neighbours in Palestine for oral and written
teaching. But when—probably about the time of the investment
of Jerusalem by Vespasian and Titus and the temporary removal
of the Church’s centre to Pella—through the care of St. Matthew
and the other Evangelists the Gospel was written in Greek, some
with that which is sometimes now marked in maps and is part of Galilee and
Samaria. But the Gospel notion of Decapolis, is of a country east of Galilee,
lying near to the Lake, starting from the south-east, and stretching on towards
the mountains into the north. It was different from Galilee (Matt. iv. 25), was
mainly on the east of the sea of Tiberias (Mark v. 20, Eusebius and Jerome
OS2. pp. 251, 89—“around Pella and Basanitis,”—Epiphanius Haer. i. 123),
extended also to the west (Mark vii. 31), was reckoned in Syria (Josephus,
passim,“Decapolis of Syria”), and was generally after the time of Pompey
under the jurisdiction of the Governor of Syria. The Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes it well as“situated, with the exception of a small portion, on the
eastern side of the Upper Jordan and the sea of Tiberias.” Smith’s Dictionary
of the Bible, to which I am indebted for much of the evidence given above, is
inconsistent. The population was in a measure Greek.
146 ï0¬ ƒp¬ }º±¬ ö±±¡µw±¬ ƒ ¬ ¶ªw¿¿ø. What a condensed account of His
sojourn in various“towns”!
147 See Ancient Syriac Documents relative to the Earliest Establishment of
Christianity in Edessa and the neighbouring countries, &c. edited by W.
Cureton, D.D., with a Preface by the late Dr. Wright, 1864.143
regular translation was needed and doubtless was made.
So far both Schools of Textual Criticism are agreed. The
question between them is, was this Translation the Peshitto, or
was it the Curetonian? An examination into the facts is required:
neither School has any authority to issue decrees.
The arguments in favour of the Curetonian being the oldest
form of the Syriac New Testament, and of the formation of the
Peshitto in its present condition from it, cannot be pronounced
to be strong by any one who is accustomed to weigh disputation.
Doubtless this weakness or instability may with truth be traced
to the nature of the case, which will not yield a better harvest
even to the critical ingenuity of our opponents. May it not with
truth be said to be a symptom of a feeble cause?
Those arguments are mainly concerned with the internal
character of the two texts. It is asserted148 (1) that the Curetonian
was older than the Peshitto which was brought afterwards into
closer proximity with the Greek. To this we may reply, that the
truth of this plea depends upon the nature of the revision thus
claimed149. Dr. Hort was perfectly logical when he suggested,
or rather asserted dogmatically, that such a drastic revision as
was necessary for turning the Curetonian into the Peshitto was
made in the third century at Edessa or Nisibis. The difficulty
lay in his manufacturing history to suit his purpose, instead of
following it. The fact is, that the internal difference between the
text of the Curetonian and the Peshitto is so great, that the former
could only have arisen in very queer times such as the earliest,
when inaccuracy and looseness, infidelity and perverseness, [126]
might have been answerable for anything. In fact, the Curetonian
must have been an adulteration of the Peshitto, or it must have
148 Cureton’s Preface to“An Antient Recension, &c.”
149 Philip E. Pusey held that there was a revision of the Peshitto in the eighth
century, but that it was confined to grammatical peculiarities. This would on
general grounds be not impossible, because the art of copying was perfected
by about that time.[127]
144 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
been partly an independent translation helped from other sources:
from the character of the text it could not have given rise to it150
.
Again, when (2) Cureton lays stress upon“certain peculiarities
in the original Hebrew which are found in this text, but not in
the Greek,” he has not found others to follow him, and (3) the
supposed agreement with the Apocryphal Gospel according to
the Hebrews, as regards any results to be deduced from it, is of a
similarly slippery nature. It will be best to give his last argument
in his own words:—“It is the internal evidence afforded by the
fact that upon comparing this text with the Greek of St. Matthew
and the parallel passages of St. Mark and St. Luke, they
are found to exhibit the same phenomena which we should, a
priori, expect certainly to discover, had we the plainest and most
incontrovertible testimony that they are all in reality translations
from such an Aramaic original as this.” He seems here to be
trying to establish his position that the Curetonian was at least
based on the Hebrew original of St. Matthew, to which he did
not succeed in bringing over any scholars.
The reader will see that we need not linger upon these
arguments. When interpreted most favourably they carry us
only a very short way towards the dethronement of the great
Peshitto, and the instalment of the little Curetonian upon the
seat of judgement. But there is more in what other scholars have
advanced. There are resemblances between the Curetonian, some
of the Old-Latin texts, the Codex Bezae, and perhaps Tatian’s
Diatessaron, which lead us to assign an early origin to many of the
peculiar readings in this manuscript. Yet there is no reason, but
all the reverse, for supposing that the Peshitto and the Curetonian
were related to one another in line-descent. The age of one need
have nothing to do with the age of the other. The theory of the
Peshitto being derived from the Curetonian through a process
of revision like that of Jerome constituting a Vulgate rests upon
150 See Appendix VI.145
a false parallel151. There are, or were, multitudes of Old-Latin
Texts, which in their confusion called for some recension: we
only know of two in Syriac which could possibly have come into
consideration. Of these, the Curetonian is but a fragment: and
the Codex Lewisianus, though it includes the greater part of the
Four Gospels, yet reckons so many omissions in important parts,
has been so determinedly mutilated, and above all is so utterly
heretical152, that it must be altogether rejected from the circle
of purer texts of the Gospels. The disappointment caused to the
adherents of the Curetonian, by the failure of the fresh MS. which
had been looked for with ardent hopes to satisfy expectation, may
be imagined. Noscitur a sociis: the Curetonian is admitted by
all to be closely allied to it, and must share in the ignominy of
its companion, at least to such an extent as to be excluded from
the progenitors of a Text so near to the Traditional Text as the
Peshitto must ever have been153
.
But what is the position which the Peshitto has occupied till
the middle of the present century? What is the evidence of facts
on which we must adjudicate its claim?
Till the time of Cureton, it has been regarded as the Syriac
Version, adopted at the time when the translation of the New
Testament was made into that language, which must have been either the early part of the second century, or the end of the
first,—adopted too in the Unchangeable East, and never deposed
from its proud position. It can be traced by facts of history or by
actual documents to the beginning of the golden period of Syriac
Literature in the fifth century, when it is found to be firm in its
sway, and it is far from being deserted by testimony sufficient to
151 This position is demonstrated in full in an article in the Church Quarterly
Review for April, 1895, on“The Text of the Syriac Gospels,” pp. 123-5.
152 The Text of the Syriac Gospels, pp. 113-4: also Church Times, Jan. 11,
1895. This position is established in both places.
153 Yet some people appear to think, that the worse a text is the more reason
there is to suppose that it was close to the Autograph Original. Verily this is
evolution run wild.
[128][129]
146 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
track it into the earlier ages of the Church.
The Peshitto in our own days is found in use amongst the
Nestorians who have always kept to it154, by the Monophysites
on the plains of Syria, the Christians of St. Thomas in Malabar,
and by“the Maronites on the mountain-terraces of Lebanon155
”
.
Of these, the Maronites take us back to the beginning of the
eighth century when they as Monothelites separated from the
Eastern Church; the Monophysites to the middle of the fifth
century; the Nestorians to an earlier date in the same century.
Hostile as the two latter were to one another, they would not have
agreed in reading the same Version of the New Testament if that
had not been well established at the period of their separation.
Nor would it have been thus firmly established, if it had not by
that time been generally received in the country for a long series
of years.
But the same conclusion is reached in the indubitable proof
afforded by the MSS. of the Peshitto Version which exist, dating
from the fifth century or thereabouts. Mr. Gwilliam in the third
volume of Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica156 mentions two MSS.
dating about 450 A.D., besides four of the fifth or sixth century,
one of the latter, and three which bear actual dates also of the
sixth. These, with the exception of one in the Vatican and one
belonging to the Earl of Crawford, are from the British Museum
alone157. So that according to the manuscriptal evidence the
154 Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed.,“Syriac Literature,” by Dr. W. Wright,
now published separately under the same title.
155 Dr. Scrivener, Introduction (4th Edition), II. 7.
156 See also Miller’s Edition of Scrivener’s Introduction (4th), II. 12.
157 Another very ancient MS. of the Peshitto Gospels is the Cod. Philipp.
1388, in the Royal Library, Berlin (in Miller’s Scrivener the name is spelt
PHILLIPPS{FNS). Dr. Sachau ascribes it to the fifth, or the beginning of the
sixth century, thus making it older than the Vatican Tetraevangelicum, No.
3, in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12. A full description will be found in Sachau’s
Catalogue of the Syr. MSS. in the Berlin Library.
The second was collated by Drs. Guidi and Ugolini, the third, in St. John,147
treasures of little more than one library in the world exhibit a
very apparatus criticus for the Peshitto, whilst the Curetonian
can boast only one manuscript and that in fragments, though of
the fifth century. And it follows too from this statement, that
whereas only seven uncials of any size can be produced from
all parts of the world of the Greek Text of the New Testament
before the end of the sixth century, no less than eleven or rather
twelve of the Peshitto can be produced already before the same
date. Doubtless the Greek Text can boast certainly two, perhaps
three, of the fourth century: but the fact cannot but be taken
to be very remarkable, as proving, when compared with the
universal Greek original, how strongly the local Peshitto Version
was established in the century in which“commences the native
historical literature of Syria158
”
.
The commanding position thus occupied leads back virtually a
long way. Changes are difficult to introduce in“the unchangeable
East.” Accordingly, the use of the Peshitto is attested in the [130]
fourth century by Ephraem Syrus and Aphraates. Ephraem“in
the main used the Peshitto text”—is the conclusion drawn by
Mr. F. H. Woods in the third volume of Studia Biblica159
.
by Dr. Sachau. The readings of the second and third are in the possession of
Mr. Gwilliam, who informs me that all three support the Peshitto text, and
are free from all traces of any pre-Peshitto text, such as according to Dr. Hort
and Mr. Burkitt the Curetonian and Lewis MSS. contain. Thus every fresh
accession of evidence tends always to establish the text of the Peshitto Version
more securely in the position it has always held until quite recent years.
The interesting feature of all the above-named MSS. is the uniformity of
their testimony to the text of the Peshitto. Take for example the evidence of
No. 10 in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 13, No. 3, in Miller’s Scrivener, II. 12, and
Cod. Philipp. 1388. The first was collated by P. E. Pusey, and the results are
published in Studia Biblica, vol. i,“A fifth century MS.”
158 Dr. W. Wright’s article in Encyclopaedia Britannica. Dr. Hort could not
have been aware of this fact when he spoke of“the almost total extinction of
Old Syriac MSS.”: or else he lamented a disappearance of what never appeared.
159 p. 107.[131]
148 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
And as far as I may judge from a comparison of readings160
,
Aphraates witnesses for the Traditional Text, with which the
Peshitto mainly agrees, twenty-four times as against four. The
Peshitto thus reckons as its supporters the two earliest of the
Syrian Fathers.
But the course of the examination of all the primitive Fathers
as exhibited in the last section of this work suggests also another
and an earlier confirmation of the position here taken. It is
well known that the Peshitto is mainly in agreement with the
Traditional Text. What therefore proves one, virtually proves
the other. If the text in the latter case is dominant, it must also
be in the former. If, as Dr. Hort admits, the Traditional Text
prevailed at Antioch from the middle of the fourth century, is it
not more probable that it should have been the continuance of
the text from the earliest times, than that a change should have
been made without a record in history, and that in a part of the
world which has been always alien to change? But besides the
general traces of the Traditional Text left in patristic writings in
other districts of the Church, we are not without special proofs
in the parts about Syria. Though the proofs are slight, they
occur in a period which in other respects was for the present
purpose almost“a barren and dry land where no water is.”
Methodius, bishop of Tyre in the early part of the fourth century,
Archelaus, bishop in Mesopotamia in the latter half of the third,
the Synodus Antiochena in A.D. 265, at a greater distance Gregory
Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea in Pontus who flourished about
243 and passed some time at Caesarea in Palestine, are found to
have used mainly Traditional MSS. in Greek, and consequently
witness to the use of the daughter text in Syriac. Amongst those
who employed different texts in nearly equal proportions were
Origen who passed his later years at Caesarea and Justin who
issued from the site of Sychar. Nor is there reason, whatever has
160 See Patrologia Syriaca, Graffin, P. I. vol. ii. Paris, 1895.149
been said, to reject the reference made by Melito of Sardis about
A.D. 170 in the words A£{¡ø¬. At the very least, the Peshitto falls
more naturally into the larger testimony borne by the quotations
in the Fathers, than would a text of such a character as that which
we find in the Curetonian or the Lewis Codex.
But indeed, is it not surprising that the petty Curetonian with
its single fragmentary manuscript, and at the best its short history,
even with so discreditable an ally as the Lewis Codex, should try
conclusions with what we may fairly term the colossal Peshitto?
How is it possible that one or two such little rills should fill so
great a channel?
But there is another solution of the difficulty which has been
advocated by the adherents of the Curetonian in some quarters
since the discovery made by Mrs. Lewis. It is urged that there is
an original Syriac Text which lies at the back of the Curetonian
and the Codex Lewisianus, and that this text possesses also
the witness of the Diatessaron of Tatian:—that those MSS.
themselves are later, but that the Text of which they give similar
yet independent specimens is the Old Syriac,—the first Version
made from the Gospels in the earliest ages of the Church.
The evidence advanced in favour of this position is of a
speculative and vague nature, and moreover is not always
advanced with accuracy. It is not“the simple fact that no
purely‘Antiochene’[i.e. Traditional] reading occurs in the Sinai
Palimpsest161
.
”It is not true that“in the Diatessaron Joseph and Mary are never spoken of as husband and wife,” because in St.
Matt. i. 19 Joseph is expressly called“her husband,” and in
verse 24 it is said that Joseph“took unto him Mary his wife.” It
should be observed that besides a resemblance between the three
161 See in St. Matt. alone (out of many instances) v. 22 (the translation of µ0 ),
ix. 13 (of µ0¬ ºµƒqø±), xi. 23 (“which art exalted”), xx. 16 (of ¿øªªøv q¡
µ0 ªƒøw, @ªwø ¥r ªµƒøw), xxvi. 42 (¿øƒu¡ø), 28 (± ¬); besides
St. Luke ii. 14 (µP¥øw±), xxiii. 45 ( øƒw ), John iii. 13 (though“from
heaven”), xxi. 25 (the verse).
[132][133]
150 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
documents in question, there is much divergence. The Cerinthian
heresy, which is spread much more widely over the Lewis Codex
than its adherents like to acknowledge, is absent from the other
two. The interpolations of the Curetonian are not adopted by the
remaining members of the trio. The Diatessaron, as far as we can
judge,—for we possess no copy either in Greek or in Syriac, but
are obliged to depend upon two Arabic Versions edited recently
by Agostino Ciasca, a Latin Translation of a commentary on
it by Ephraem Syrus, and quotations made by Aphraates or
Jacobus Nisibenus—, differs very largely from either. That there
is some resemblance between the three we admit: and that the
two Codexes are more or less made up from very early readings,
which we hold to be corrupt, we do not deny. What we assert
is, that it has never yet been proved that a regular Text in Syriac
can be constructed out of these documents which would pass
muster as the genuine Text of the Gospels; and that, especially
in the light shed by the strangely heretical character of one of
the leading associates, such a text, if composed, cannot with any
probability have formed any stage in the transmission of the pure
text of the original Version in Syriac to the pages of the Peshitto.
If corruption existed in the earliest ages, so did purity. The Word
of GOD could not have been dragged only through the mire.
We are thus driven to depend upon the leading historical facts
of the case. What we do know without question is this:—About
the year 170 A.D., Tatian who had sojourned for some time at
Rome drew up his Diatessaron, which is found in the earlier
half of the third century to have been read in Divine service at
Edessa162. This work was current in some parts of Syria in the
time of Eusebius163, to which assertion some evidence is added
by Epiphanius164. Rabbkla, bishop of Edessa, A.D. 412-435165
,
162 Doctrine of Addai, xxxv. 15-17.
163 H. E. iv. 29.
164 Haer. xlvi. 1.
165 Canons.151
ordered the presbyters and deacons of his diocese to provide
copies of the distinct or M pharr she Gospels. Theodoret,
Bishop of Cyrrhus near the Euphrates166, writes in 453 A.D.,
that he had turned out about two hundred copies of Tatian’s
Diatessaron from his churches, and had put the Gospels of the
four Evangelists in their place. These accounts are confirmed by
the testimony of many subsequent writers, whose words together
with those to which reference has just been made may be seen
in Mr. Hamlyn Hill’s book on the Diatessaron167. It must be
added, that in the Curetonian we find“The M pharr sha Gospel
of Matthew168
,
” and the Lewis Version is termed“The Gospel
of the M pharr she four books”; and that they were written in
the fifth century.
Such are the chief facts: what is the evident corollary? Surely,
that these two Codexes, which were written at the very time when
the Diatessaron of Tatian was cast out of the Syrian Churches,
were written purposely, and possibly amongst many other MSS.
made at the same time, to supply the place of it—copies of the
M pharr she, i.e. Distinct or Separate169 Gospels, to replace the
M hall te or Gospel of the Mixed. When the sockets are found
to have been prepared and marked, and the pillars lie fitted and
labelled, what else can we do than slip the pillars into their own
sockets? They were not very successful attempts, as might have been expected, since the Peshitto, or in some places amongst
the Jacobites the Philoxenian or Harkleian, entirely supplanted
them in future use, and they lay hidden for centuries till sedulous
inquiry unearthed them, and the ingenuity of critics invested
them with an importance not their own170
.
166 Haer. i. 20.
167 The Earliest Life of Christ, Appendix VIII.
168 The MS. is mutilated at the beginning of the other three Gospels.
169 It appears almost, if not quite, certain that this is the true meaning. Payne
Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus, coll. 3303-4.
170 The Lewis Codex was in part destroyed, as not being worth keeping, while
[134][135]
152 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
What was the origin of the mass of floating readings, of
which some were transferred into the text of these two Codexes,
will be considered in the next section. Students should be
cautioned against inferring that the Diatessaron was read in
service throughout Syria. There is no evidence to warrant such
a conclusion. The mention of Edessa and Cyrrhus point to
the country near the upper Euphrates; and the expression of
Theodoret, relating to the Diatessaron being used“in churches
of our parts,” seems to hint at a circumscribed region. Plenty
of room was left for a predominant use of the Peshitto, so far
as we know: and no reason on that score can be adduced to
counterbalance the force of the arguments given in this section in
favour of the existence from the beginning of that great Version.
Yet some critics endeavour to represent that the Peshitto
was brought first into prominence upon the supersession of the
Diatessaron, though it is never found under the special title of
M pharr sha. What is this but to disregard the handposts of
history in favour of a pet theory?
the leaves which escaped that fate were used for other writing. Perhaps others
were treated in similar fashion, which would help to account for the fact
mentioned in note 2, p. 129.Chapter VII. The Antiquity Of The
Traditional Text. III. Witness of the
Western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text.
There are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text
of the New Testament, which have not yet, as I believe, received
satisfactory treatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener171
,
have too readily accepted Wiseman’s conclusion172, that the
numerous Latin Texts all come from one stem, in fact that there
was originally only one Old-Latin Version, not several.
That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind
of the inquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the
general cast and flow of the sentences, are so similar in these
texts, that it seems at the outset extremely difficult to resist
the inference that all of them began from the same translation,
and that the differences between them arose from the continued
effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them and from
a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better
acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to
be guided by first appearances. And before investigating these,
we may note that there are some considerations of a general
character which take the edge off this phenomenon. Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they
must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expression:
intercourse between Christians who used different translations
171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44.
172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the controversy
concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more ingenious than
powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.
[136]154 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[137]
of a single original must, in unimportant points at least, have
led them to greater agreement. Besides this, the identity of
the venerated original in all the cases, except where different
readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a constant
likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same
language and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there
were numerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have
descended to us there must have been a survival of the fittest.
But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for
the answers to all problems must depend upon that, and upon
nothing but that.
The first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a
generic difference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin.
The former are in each case one, with no suspicion of various
origination. Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian (though the
joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and others), Ethiopic,
Slavonic:—each is one Version and came from one general
source without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that
is merely within the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has
nothing to do with the making of the Version. But there is
no preeminent Version in the Old-Latin field. Various texts
compete with difference enough to raise the question. Upon
disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts. And this
discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying
MSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater
and more irregular discrepancy. Their varied character may
be seen in the following Table including the Texts employed
by Tischendorf, which has been constructed from that scholar’s
notes upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute, as revealed
in the text of the Revised Version throughout the Gospels, the
standard being the Textus Receptus:—155
Brixianus, f 286/54173
= about
16/3
Monacensis, q 255/97 =
5/2 +
Claromontanus, h (only in St.
46/26 =
Matt.)
5/3 +
Colbertinus, c 165/152
= about
14/13
6/6 = 1
Fragm. Sangall. n Veronensis, b 124/184
= 2/3 +
Sangermanensis II, g2 24/36 =
2/3
Corbeiensis II, ff2 113/180
= 2/3 –
Sangermanensis I, g2 27/46 =
3/5 –
Rehdigeranus, I 104/164
= 5/8 +
Vindobonensis, i 37/72 =
1/2 +
Vercellensis, a 100/214
= 1/2 –
Corbeiensis I, ff1 37/73 =
1/2 –
0 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout
the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected passages
with the Textus Receptus: the denominator, when it witnesses to the Neologian
Text.[138]
156 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Speculum, m 8/18 =
1/2 –
Palatinus, e 48/130 =
1/3 +
Frag. Ambrosiana, s 2/6 = 1/3
Bobiensis, k 25/93 =
1/4 +
Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely
observe that these MSS. shade off from one another by intervals
of a somewhat similar character. They do not fall readily into
classes: so that if the threefold division of Dr. Hort is adopted, it
must be employed as not meaning very much. The appearances
are against all being derived from the extreme left or from the
extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be
guarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid
down as an axiom which all critics would admit, that k might be
taken as the representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would
be about as true as if Mr. Labouchere at the present day were said
to represent in opinion the Members of the House of Commons.
The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if
we take the thirty passages which helped us in the second section
of this chapter. The attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS.
will help still more in the exhibition of their character.
Traditional. Neologian.
St. Matt.
i. 25 v. 44 f. ff1. g2. q. (1) c. f. h. b. c. g1. k.
a. b. ff1. g1.2. k.
l.
vi. 13 vii. 13 (2) a. b. c. f. h.
f. g1. q. f. ff2. g1.2. q. a. b. c. ff1. g2. l.
a. b. c. h. k. m.157
ix. 13 c. g1.2. a. b. f. ff1. h. k.
l. q.
xi. 27 All.
xvii. 21“Most” a. b. c. e. ff1. (?) g1
.
xviii. 11 e. ff1
.
xix. 17
(1) ±s b. c. f. ff2. a. e. ff1. g1.2. h.
(2) ƒw ºµ
¡…ƒ ¬
.ƒ.ª.
(3) µ6¬ ƒ. A
.
xxiii. 38.
(Lk. xiii. 35)
xxvii. 34 f. q. q.
a. b. c. e. ff1.2
.
g1. h. l. (Vulg.)
f. g1. m. q. b.c.ff1.2. g1. h.
l. (Vulg.)
All—except ff2
.
c. f. h. q. a. b. ff1.2. g1.2
.
l. (Vulg.)
xxviii. 2 f. h. a. b. c. ff1.2
.
g1.2. l. n.
” 19 All.
St. Mark
i. 2 All.
xvi. 9-20 All—except k.
St. Luke
i. 28 All.
ii. 14 All.
x. 41-42 f. g1.2. q.
(Vulg.)
xxii. 43-44 a. b. c. e. ff2
.
l.
f.
g1.2. i. l. q.
xxiii. 34 c. e. f. ff2. l. a. b. d.
” 38 All—except a.
a. b. c. e. ff2. i.158 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
” 45 a. b. c. e. f. ff2
.
l. q.
xxiv. 40 c. f. q. ” 42 a. b. f. ff2. l. q. e.
St. John
” 18 a. b. d. e. ff2. l.
i. 3-4 c. (Vulg.) a. b. e. ff2. q.
a. b. c. e. f. ff2
.
l. q.
iii. 13 All.
x. 14 All.
xvii. 24 All (Vulg.) Vulg. MSS.
xxi. 25 All.
It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-
Latin MSS. witness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except
in three on the Traditional side and six on the Neologian side,
making nine in all against twenty-one. In this respect they stand
in striking contrast with all the Versions in other languages as
exhibiting a discordance in their witness which is at the very
least far from suggesting a single source, if it be not wholly
inconsistent with such a supposition.
Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great
that they could not have arisen except from variety of origin.
Copyists do not insert ad libitum different modes of expression.
For example, Mr. White has remarked that ¿ƒº is translated
“in no less than eleven different ways,” or adding arguere, in
twelve, viz. by
admonereemendare minari praecipere
comminarimperare obsecrare prohibere
corripere174 increpare objurgare arguere
(r).
0 Once in k by comperire probably a slip for corripere. Old Latin Texts, III.
pp. xxiv-xxv.159
It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but
the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with
descent from a single prototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings,
but not in the same way. Similarly ¥øæq…, which occurs, [140]
as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the Gospels, is rendered
by clarifico, glorifico, honorem accipio, honorifico, honoro,
magnifico, some passages presenting four variations. So again,
it is impossible to understand how ø«uin the phrase ø«u
ˆ (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by
compressio (Vercellensis, a), occursus (Brixianus, f), pressura
(others), conflictio (Bezae, d), if they had a common descent.
They represent evidently efforts made by independent translators
to express the meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with
possidebo and haereditabo for ª¡øøºu… (St. Luke x. 25)
lumen and lux for ˆ¬ (St. John i. 9), ante galli cantum and
antequam gallus cantet for ¿¡v ªsƒø¡± … ± (St. Matt.
xxvi. 34), locum and praedium and in agro for «…¡wø (xxvi.
35), transfer a me calicem istum and transeat a me calix iste
for ¿±¡µªsƒ… ¿ ºøÊ ƒx ¿øƒu¡ø ƒøʃø (xxvi. 39);—when
we fall upon vox venit de caelis, vox facta est de caelis, vox
de caelo facta est, vox de caelis, and the like; or qui mihi bene
complacuisti, charissimus in te complacui, dilectus in quo bene
placuit mihi, dilectus in te bene sensi (St. Mark i. 11), or
adsumpsit (autem… duodecim), adsumens, convocatis (St. Luke
xviii. 31) it is clear that these and the instances of the same
sort occurring everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken
as finger-posts pointing in many directions. Various readings in
Greek Codexes present, not a parallel, but a sharp contrast. No
such profusion of synonyms can be produced from them.
The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply internally
about themselves are confirmed exactly by the direct evidence
borne by St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The well-known words of
those two great men who must be held to be competent deponents
as to what they found around them, even if they might fall into[141]
160 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
error upon the events of previous ages, prove (1) that a very
large number of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly
from one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and
(4) that translators worked on their own independent lines175
.
But there is the strongest reason for inferring that Augustine
was right when he said, that“in the earliest days of the faith
whenever any Greek codex fell into the hands of any one who
thought that he had slight familiarity (aliquantulum facultatis)
with Greek and Latin, he was bold enough to attempt to make
a translation176
.
” For what else could have happened than what
St. Augustine says actually did take place? The extraordinary
value and influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament
became apparent soon after their publication. They were most
potent forces in converting unbelievers: they swayed the lives
and informed the minds of Christians: they were read in the
services of the Church. But copies in any number, if at all, could
not be ordered at Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, or Alexandria.
And at first no doubt translations into Latin were not to be had.
Christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of
the HOLY GHOST: there were no administrative means of making
provision. But the Roman Empire was to a great extent bilingual.
Many men of Latin origin were acquainted more or less with
Greek. The army which furnished so many converts must have
reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers or as ordinary soldiers,
a large number who were accomplished Greek scholars. All
evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new Books
to those who did not understand Greek. The steps were but
short from oral to written teaching, from answering questions
and giving exposition to making regular translations in fragments
175 “Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,” Jerome, Epistola ad
Damascum.“Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” “interpretum
numerositas,” “nullo modo numerari possunt,” De Doctrina Christiana, ii.
16, 21.
176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.161
or books and afterwards throughout the New Testament. The
resistless energy of the Christian faith must have demanded such
offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions, fragmentary and
complete. Given the two languages side by side, under the stress
of the necessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the
Words of Life, the information given by St. Augustine must have
been amply verified. And the only wonder is, that scholars have
not paid more attention to the witness of that eminent Father, and
have missed seeing how natural and true it was.
It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came chiefly, if
I mistake not, from two ingenious letters of Cardinal Wiseman,
then a young man, and from the familiarity which they displayed
with early African Literature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, followed
him. Yet an error lies at the root of Wiseman’s argument which,
if the thing had appeared now, scholars would not have let pass
unchallenged and uncorrected.
Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of
Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, Wiseman assumed
that not only that text, but also the dialectic forms involved in
it, were peculiar to Africa and took their rise there. But as Mr.
White has pointed out177
,
“that is because during this period
we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin
Literature.”Moreover, as every accomplished Latin scholar who
is acquainted with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin
took rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula
sprang into prominence upon the commencement of the decay of
the pure Latin race, occurring through civil and foreign wars and
the sanguinary proscriptions, and from the consequent lapse in
the predominance in literature of the pure Latin Language. True,
that the pure Latin and the Low-Latin continued side by side for
177 Scrivener’s Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.
[142][143]
162 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
a long time, the former in the best literature, and the latter in
ever increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question,
the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, and
Walachia, consisted mainly of Italian blood which was not pure
Latin, as is shewn especially in the veteran soldiers who from
time to time received grants of land from their emperors or
generals. The six Romance Languages are mainly descended
from the provincial dialects of the Italian Peninsula. It would be
contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so strong
a change of language should have been effected in an outlying
province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue
altogether. It is in the highest degree improbable that a new form
of Latin should have grown up in Africa, and should have thence
spread across the Mediterranean, and have carried its forms of
speech into parts of the extensive Roman Empire with which the
country of its birth had no natural communication. Low-Latin
was the early product of the natural races in north and central
Italy, and from thence followed by well-known channels into
Africa and Gaul and elsewhere178. We shall find in these truths
much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our darkness upon
the Western text.
The best part of Wiseman’s letters occurs where he proves
that St. Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to what the great
Bishop of Hippo terms the“Itala,”and pronounces to be the best
of the Latin Versions. Evidently the“Itala”was the highest form
of Latin Version—highest, that is, in the character and elegance
of the Latin used in it, and consequently in the correctness of its
178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction to
the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also Abel
Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9.“The
Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has once for
all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless
crop up from time to time.” Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French
Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp. 165,
&c., &c.163
rendering. So here we now see our way. Critics have always had some difficulty about Dr. Hort’s“European” class, though there
is doubtless a special character in b and its following. It appears
now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment about the
intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing the text supposed to
be African we have the Low-Latin Text prevailing over the less
educated parts of Italy, over Africa, and over Gaul, and other
places away from Rome and Milan and the other chief centres.
[144]
Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually
downwards, till we reach the lowest of all. There is thus no
bar in the way of connecting that most remarkable product of the
Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with any others, because the
Latin Version of it stands simply as one of the Low-Latin group.
Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most
interesting and valuable contributions to Sacred Textual Criticism
that have come from the fertile conception and lucid argument
of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the proof of a closer connexion
between the Low-Latin Text, as I must venture to call it, and the
form of Syrian Text exhibited in the Curetonian Version, which
he has given in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek MSS.
Of course the general connexion between the two has been long
known to scholars. The resemblance between the Curetonian
and Tatian’s Diatessaron, to which the Lewis Codex must now
be added, on the one hand, and on the other the less perfect
Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace in Textual Criticism. But Mr.
Harris has also shewn that there was probably a Syriacization
of the Codex Bezae, a view which has been strongly confirmed
on general points by Dr. Chase: and has further discovered
evidence that the text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found
its way into and out of Syriac and carried back, according to
Mr. Harris’ ingenious suggestion, traces of its sojourn there.
Dr. Chase has very recently shed more light upon the subject [145][146]
164 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
in his book called“The Syro-Latin Element of the Gospels179
”
.
So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the connexion
between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, not so
much with the entire body of Western Texts, but as I contend
with the Low-Latin part of them in its wide circulation, there
is no difficulty in understanding how such a connexion arose.
The Church in Rome shot up as noiselessly as the Churches
of Damascus and Antioch. How and why? The key is given
in the sixteenth chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.
How could he have known intimately so many of the leading
Roman Christians, unless they had carried his teaching along
the road of commerce from Antioch to Rome? Such travellers,
and they would by no means be confined to the days of St.
Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The stories and
books, told or written in Aramaic, must have gone through all
Syria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the
authorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the
earliest times translations must have been made from Aramaic or
Syriac into Latin, as afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion
between the Italian and Syrian Churches, and also between the
teaching given in the two countries, must have lain embedded
in the foundations of their common Christianity, and must have
exercised an influence during very many years after.
This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-Latin
readings leads us on to what must have been at first the chief
origin of corruption.“The rulers derided Him”: “the common
people heard Him gladly.” It does not, I think, appear probable
that the Gospels were written till after St. Paul left Jerusalem
for Rome. Literature of a high kind arose slowly in the Church,
and the great missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely
impossible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have
seen one another’s writings, because in that case they would not
179 “Syro-Latin” is doubtless an exact translation of“Syro-Latinus”: but as we
do not say“Syran” but“Syrian,”it is not idiomatic English.165
have differed so much from one another180. The effort of St.
Luke (Pref.), made probably during St. Paul’s imprisonment at
Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may not have completed his
Gospel then, most likely stimulated St. Matthew. Thus in time
the authorized Gospels were issued, not only to supply complete
and connected accounts, but to become accurate and standard
editions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or
longer narratives, and with more or less correctness or error.
Indeed, it is clear that before the Gospels were written many
erroneous forms of the stories which made up the oral or written
Gospel must have been in vogue, and that nowhere are these
more likely to have prevailed than in Syria, where the Church
took root so rapidly and easily. But the readings thus propagated,
of which many found their way, especially in the West, into
the wording of the Gospels before St. Chrysostom, never could
have entered into the pure succession. Here and there they were
interlopers and usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants,
had to some extent the appearance of having sprung from the
genuine stock. But they were ejected during the period elapsing
from the fourth to the eighth century, when the Text of the New
Testament was gradually purified.
This view is submitted to Textual students for verification.
We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the earliest
times. The witness of the early Fathers has established the
conclusion that there is not the slightest uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a piece of pure assumption. It rests
upon the record of facts. Nor is there any reason for hesitation
in concluding that the career of the Peshitto dates back in like
manner. The Latin Texts, like others, are of two kinds: both the
[147]
180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in
supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another’s
books.166 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Traditional Text and the forms of corruption find a place in them.
So that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and Latin,
is added to the testimony of the Fathers. There are no grounds for
doubting that the causeway of the pure text of the Holy Gospels,
and by consequence of the rest of the New Testament, has stood
far above the marshes on either side ever since those sacred
Books were written. What can be the attraction of those perilous
quagmires, it is hard to understand.“An highway shall be there,
and a way”; “the redeemed shall walk there”; “the wayfaring
men, though fools, shall not err therein181
”
.
[148]
181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.Chapter VIII. Alexandria and
Caesarea.
§ 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the
Alexandrian School.
What is the real truth about the existence of an Alexandrian Text?
Are there, or are there not, sufficient elements of an Alexandrian
character, and of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, to constitute a
Text of the Holy Gospels to be designated by that name?
So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the
standard of the Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to have
attributed to his Neutral text much of the native products of
Alexandria182, speaks more of readings than of text. The question
must be decided upon the evidence of the case, which shall now
be in the main produced.
The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed
as Alexandrian in the period under consideration are the
following:—
Traditional.Neologian.
Heracleon 1 7
Clement of Alexandria 82 72
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Theognosius 0 1
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
182 Introduction, pp. 127, &c.168 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Arius 2 1
Athanasius (c. Arianos) 57 56
—— ——
161 150
[149]
Under the thirty places already examined, Clement, the most
important of these writers, witnesses 8 times for the Traditional
reading and 14 times for the Neologian. Origen, who in his
earlier years was a leader of this school, testifies 44 and 27 times
respectively in the order stated.
The Version which was most closely connected with Lower
Egypt was the Bohairic, and under the same thirty passages gives
the ensuing evidence:—
1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has“her
first-born son”
.
2. ” v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add in the
margin.
3. ” vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.
4. ” vii. 13. All have it.
5. ” ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin: 12 omit, besides the 3 just
mentioned.
6. ” xi. 27. All have ø{ªƒ±.
7. ” xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or
interlined: 11 omit wholly.
8. ” xviii. 11. Only 4 have it.
9. ” xix. 16. Only 7 have“good,” besides a few corrections: 12
omit.
” ” 17. Only 1 has it.
10. ” xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.
11. ” xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the
correction. All the rest have ø6ø183
.
183 Probably Alexandrian reading.Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. 169
12. ” xxviii. 2. All have it.
13. ” ” 19. All have it.
14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, (±”.
15. ” xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.
16. Luke i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.
17. ” ii. 14. All have µP¥øw±.
18. ” x. 41-2. Hªw… ¥r(3 omit) ƒv«¡µw± ” y¬: 1 omits “
y¬. 2 corrected add“of them.”
19. ” xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18184
.
20. ” xxiii. 34. All omit185
. [150]
21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5186 (?).
22. ” ” 45. All have ª¿yƒø¬187
.
23. ” xxiv. 40. All have it.
24. ” ” 42. All omit188
.
25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at øP¥r ) have it.
The Sahidic is the other way.
26. ” ” 18. All have òµy¬189
.
27. ” iii. 13. Omitted by 9.
28. ” x. 14. All have“mine know me.” The Bohairic has no
passive: hence the error190
.
29. ” xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express øU¬: hence the
error191
.
30. ” xxi. 25. All have it.
The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.
No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact
we are considering the ante-manuscriptal period. All reference
184 Probably Alexandrian reading.
185 Probably Alexandrian reading.
186 Probably Alexandrian reading.
187 Probably Alexandrian reading.
188 Probably Alexandrian reading.
189 Probably Alexandrian reading.
190 Probably Alexandrian reading.
191 Probably Alexandrian reading.[151]
170 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
therefore to manuscripts would be consequent upon, not a factor
in, the present investigation.
It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most
striking characteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic
wabbles from side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon
the thirty places but mostly against the Traditional text, whilst
his collected evidence in all cases yields a slight majority to the
latter side of the contention. Origen on the contrary by a large
majority rejects the Neologian readings on the thirty passages, but
acknowledges them by a small one in his habitual quotations. It
is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of Origen, who indeed
changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his habit was
to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in
preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St.
Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John
i. 3-4,“without Him was not anything made: that which was
made was life in Him,” says that Alexandrians and Egyptians
follow the reading which is now adopted everywhere except by
Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said that Origen
was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no one
can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.
Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian
Philosophy which under the name of the Catechetical School has
made Alexandria for ever celebrated in the early annals of the
Christian Church. Indeed Origen was a Textual Critic. He spent
much time and toil upon the text of the New Testament, besides
his great labours on the Old, because he found it disfigured
as he says by corruptions“some arising from the carelessness
of scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from
arbitrary omissions and interpolations192
.
” Such a sitting in
judgement, or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to
Origen such a pursuit of inquiry, involved weighing of evidence
192 In Matt. xv. 14, quoted and translated by Dr. Bigg in his Bampton Lectures
on The Christian Platonists of Alexandria, p. 123.Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. 171
on either side, of which there are many indications in his works.
The connexion of this school with the school set up at Caesarea,
to which place Origen appears to have brought his manuscripts,
and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to sympathetic
successors, will be carried out and described more fully in the
next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in
the Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province
extended with the reputation of his other writings long after his
death.“When a writer speaks of the‘accurate copies,’ what he
actually means is the text of Scripture which was employed or
approved by Origen193
.
” Indeed it was an elemental, inchoate
school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit with evidence
of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original, as for
example in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration
of passages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and
habit there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at
Alexandria or in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling
which were rejected in later ages took their rise there. Specimens
of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the table of
readings just given from the Bohairic Version. The chief effects
of Alexandrian study occurred in the Caesarean school which
now invites our consideration.
[152]
§ 2. Caesarean School.
In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally left
Alexandria. His head-quarters thenceforward may be said to
have been Caesarea in Palestine, though he travelled into Greece
and Arabia and stayed at Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia with his
193 Burgon, Last Twelve Verses, p. 236, and note z.[153]
172 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
friend and pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus. He had previously
visited Rome: so that he must have been well qualified by his
experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection
of MSS. to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of
the text. But unfortunately his whole career marks him out as a
man of uncertain judgement. Like some others, he was a giant
in learning, but ordinary in the use of his learning. He was also
closely connected with the philosophical school of Alexandria,
from which Arianism issued.
The leading figures in this remarkable School of Textual
Criticism at Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius, besides
Pamphilus who forms the link between the two. The ground-
work of the School was the celebrated library in the city which
was formed upon the foundation supplied by Origen, so far as the
books in it escaped the general destruction of MSS. that occurred
in the persecution of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although
there seems little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were
amongst the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the next
chapter, the witness of the writings of both Origen and Eusebius
is so favourable as it is to the Traditional Text. In the case
of Origen there is as already stated194 not far from an equality
between the totals on either side, besides a majority of 44 to 27
on the thirty important texts: and the numbers for Eusebius are
respectively 315 to 214, and 41 to 11.
Palestine was well suited from its geographical position to
be the site of the junction of all the streams. The very same
circumstances which adapted it to be the arena of the great drama
in the world’s history drew to its shores the various elements in
the representation in language of the most characteristic part of
the Word of God. The Traditional Text would reach it by various
routes: the Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria: the
Alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in
194 Above, p. 100.Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. 173
his travels would help to assemble all. The various alien streams
would thus coalesce, and the text of B and would be the result.
But the readings of MSS. recorded by Origen and especially
by Eusebius prove that in this broad school the Traditional
Text gained at least a decided preponderance according to the
private choice of the latter scholar. Yet, as will be shewn,
he was probably, not the writer of B and of the six conjugate
leaves in , yet as the executor of the order of Constantine the
superintendent also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he
then influenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts
as he thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? Or is
it not more in consonance with the facts of the case—especially
as interpreted by the subsequent spread in Constantinople of the Traditional Text195
—, that we should infer that the fifty MSS.
sent included a large proportion of Texts of another character?
Eusebius, the Homoiousian or Semi-Arian, would thus be the
collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions, and
his scholar and successor Acacius, the Homoean, would more
probably be the writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves of
196. The trimming character of the latitudinarian, and the
violent forwardness of the partisan, would appear to render such
a supposition not unreasonable. Estimating the school according
to principles of historical philosophy, and in consonance with
both the existence of the Text denoted by B and and also
the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transitional in
character, including two distinct and incongruous solutions, of
which one was afterwards proved to be the right by the general
acceptation in the Church that even Dr. Hort acknowledges to
have taken place.
An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the
two celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it that we possess
195 Hort, Introduction, p. 143.
196 Eusebius suggested the Homoean theory, but his own position, so far as he
had a position, is best indicated as above.
[154][155]
174 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
no MSS. of the New Testament of any considerable size older
than those, or at least no other such MSS. as old as they are?
Besides the disastrous results of the persecution of Diocletian,
there is much force in the reply of Dean Burgon, that being
generally recognized as bad MSS. they were left standing on the
shelf in their handsome covers, whilst others which were more
correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the
discoveries made since the Dean’s death enables me to suggest
another answer which will also help to enlarge our view on these
matters.
The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The first
mention of it that we meet with occurs in the 58th chapter
of the 5th book of Herodotus, where the historian tells us that
the Ionians wrote on the skins of sheep and goats because they
could not get“byblus,” or as we best know it, papyrus. Vellum
remained in comparative obscurity till the time of Eumenes II,
King of Pergamum. That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge
his library and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out
of jealousy to supply him with papyrus, improved the skins of
his country197, and made the“charta Pergamena,” from whence
the term parchment has descended to us. It will be remembered
that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for“the books, especially the
parchments198
.
” There is evidence that vellum was used at
Rome: but the chief materials employed there appear to have
been waxen tablets and papyrus. Martial, writing towards the
end of the first century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil,
Cicero, and Ovid199. But if such MSS. had prevailed generally,
more would have come down to us. The emergence of vellum
into general use is marked and heralded by the products of the
library at Caesarea, which helped by the rising literary activity
197 Sir E. Maunde Thompson, Greek and Latin Palaeography, p. 35. Plin. at.
Hist. xiii. 11.
198 ƒpªw±, ºqªƒ± ƒp¬ ºµº¡q±¬, 2 Tim. iv. 13.
199 Palaeography, p. 36.Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. 175
in Asia and by the building of Constantinople, was probably
the means of the introduction of an improved employment of
vellum. It has been already noticed200, that Acacius and Euzoius,
successively bishops of Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended
the copying of papyrus manuscripts upon vellum. Greek uncials
were not unlike in general form to the square Hebrew letters
used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in Asiatic
Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum. It
would seem that in moving there Origen deserted papyrus for the
more durable material. [156]
A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been in constant
use over the Roman Empire during the first three centuries and
a third which elapsed before B and were written, there ought
to have been in existence some remains of a material so capable
of resisting the tear and wear of use and time. As there are
no vellum MSS. at all except the merest fragments dating from
before 330 A.D., we are perforce driven to infer that a material for
writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before that
period. Now not only had papyrus been for“long the recognized
material for literary use,”but we can trace its employment much
later than is usually supposed. It is true that the cultivation of the
plant in Egypt began to wane after the capture of Alexandria by
the Mahommedans in 638 A.D., and the destruction of the famous
libraries: but it continued in existence during some centuries
afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily and Italy.“In France
papyrus was in common use in the sixth century.”Sir E. Maunde
Thompson enumerates books now found in European Libraries
of Paris, Genoa, Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far
down as the tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease
in Egypt till the tenth century. The use of papyrus did not lapse
finally till paper was introduced into Europe by the Moors and
Arabs201, upon which occurrence all writing was executed upon
200 See above, p. 2.
201 Palaeography, pp. 27-34. Paper was first made in China by a man named[157]
176 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
tougher substances, and the cursive hand drove out uncial writing
even from parchment.
The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which any
one may satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s
admirable book, and of the employment of the cursive hand before
Christ, must modify many of the notions that have been widely
entertained respecting the old Uncials.
1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive
MSS. are not by any means the descendants of the Uncials. If
the employment of papyrus in the earliest ages of the Christian
Church was prevalent over by far the greater part of the Roman
Empire, and that description is I believe less than the facts would
warrant—then more than half of the stems of genealogy must
have originally consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further,
if the use of papyrus continued long after the date of B and ,
then it would not only have occupied the earliest steps in the
lines of descent, but much later exemplars must have carried on
the succession. But in consequence of the perishable character
of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and live only in
their cursive posterity. This aspect alone of the case under
consideration invests the Cursives with much more interest and
value than many people would nowadays attribute to them.
2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the
subject by the fact now established beyond question, that cursive
handwriting existed in the world some centuries before Christ202
.
Ts’ai Lun, who lived about A.D.{FNS 90. He is said to have used the bark
of a tree; probably Broussonetia papyrifera, Vent. from which a coarse kind
of paper is still made in northern China. The better kinds of modern Chinese
paper are made from the bamboo, which is soaked and pounded to a pulp. See
Die Erfindung des Papiers in China, von Friedrich Hirth. Published in Vol. I.
of the T’oung Pao (April, 1890). S. J. Brille: Leide. (Kindly communicated by
Mr. H. A. Giles, H. B. M. Consul at Ningpo, author of“A Chinese-English
Dictionary.” &c., through my friend Dr. Alexander Prior of Park Terrace, N.
W., and Halse House, near Taunton.)
202
…
“the science of palaeography, which now stands on quite a differentChapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea. 177
For square letters (of course in writing interspersed with circular
lines) we go to Palestine and Syria, and that may not impossibly
be the reason why uncial Greek letters came out first, as far as
the evidence of extant remains can guide us, in those countries.
The change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth century is most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen from
the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained,
and from the cursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on
vellum and introducing their more easy and rapid style of writing
into that class of manuscripts203? If so, the phenomenon shews
itself, that by the very manner in which they are written, Cursives
mutely declare that they are not solely the children of the Uncials.
Speaking generally, they are the progeny of a marriage between
the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear to have been the
better half.
Such results as have been reached in this chapter and the last
have issued from the advance made in discovery and research
during the last ten years. But these were not known to Tischendorf
or Tregelles, and much less to Lachmann. They could not have
been embraced by Hort in his view of the entire subject when
he constructed his clever but unsound theory some forty years
ago204. Surely our conclusion must be that the world is leaving
footing from what it had twenty, or even ten, years ago. Instead of beginning
practically in the fourth century of our era, with the earliest of the great vellum
codices of the Bible, it now begins in the third century before Christ….”Church
Quarterly Review for October, 1894, p. 104.
203
…
“it is abundantly clear that the textual tradition at about the beginning
of the Christian era is substantially identical with that of the tenth or eleventh
century manuscripts, on which our present texts of the classics are based.
Setting minor differences aside, the papyri, with a very few exceptions,
represent the same texts as the vellum manuscripts of a thousand years later.”
Church Quarterly, pp. 98, 99. What is here represented as unquestionably
the case as regards Classical manuscripts is indeed more than what I claim
for manuscripts of the New Testament. The Cursives were in great measure
successors of papyri.
204 Introduction, p. 16. He began it in the year 1853, and as it appears chiefly
[158]178 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
that school gradually behind.
[159]
upon Lachmann’s foundation.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The
Influence Of Origen.
§ 1205
.
Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation,
and has been maintained upon the throne by what has strangely
amounted to a positive superstition. The text of this MS. was
not accurately known till the edition of Tischendorf appeared in
1867206: and yet long before that time it was regarded by many
critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci,
of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though
they far surpassed Mai’s two first editions. Yet the prejudice
in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue
decrees from the Vatican207 did not wait till the clear light of
criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations.
The same spirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has
remained since more has been disclosed of the real nature of this
Codex208
.
A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex .
It was perhaps to be expected that human infirmity should have
205 By the Editor.
206 Tischendorf’s fourteen brief days’ work is a marvel of accuracy, but must
not be expected to be free from all errors. Thus he wrongly gives ª…
instead of ¥…, as Vercellone pointed out in his Preface to the octavo
ed. of Mai in 1859, and as may be seen in the photographic copy of B.
207 Cf. Scrivener’s Introduction, (4th ed.) II. 283.
208 See Kuenen and Cobet’s Edition of the Vatican B, Introduction.[161]
180 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[160]
influenced Tischendorf in his treatment of the treasure-trove
by him: though his character for judgement could not but be
seriously injured by the fact that in his eighth edition he altered
the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than 3,572209
instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved
Sinaitic guide.
Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even
more strongly against . It adds to the number of the blunders
of its associate: it is conspicuous for habitual carelessness or
licence: it often by itself deviates into glaring errors210. The
elevation of the Sinaitic into the first place, which was effected
by Tischendorf as far as his own practice was concerned, has
been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is hardly
conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would
critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout
the New Testament for themselves.
The fact is that B and were the products of the school of
philosophy and teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian
or Homoean opinions. The proof of this position is somewhat
difficult to give, but when the nature of the question and the
producible amount of evidence are taken into consideration, is
nevertheless quite satisfactory.
In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date
of these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism
or some other form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East,
and to all outward appearance swayed the Universal Church. In
the last years of his rule, Constantine was under the domination
of the Arianizing faction; and the reign of Constantius II over
all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, during
which encouragement was given to the great heretical schools
of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth
209 Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s 8th Ed. of New Testament, (I) p.
286.
210 See Appendix V.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 181
century211. It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to
suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin
under a predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very
least, careful investigation is necessary to see whether those
copies were in fact free from that influence which has met with
universal condemnation.
Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most
remarkable coincidence, which also as has been before noticed
is admitted on all hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of
the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their
favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when
the text of B and sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side
under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme:
so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to assume with our
opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance were
inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text,
and afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in
hand? That such ill-matched couples graced the history of the
Church? That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of
the written standard of reference, there was precision of text when
heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in power, but that
the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox had things
their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and
undefiled Word of GOD we must search, not amongst those great
men who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and
settled for ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of
Holy Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable
to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties in
creed and policy have been the despair of the historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too much
to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific
conclusions.
211 Constantine died in 337, and Constantius II reigned till 360.
[162][163]
182 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes
B and were produced in such untoward times212, and fell into
neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text
was permanently received. But the case in hand rests also upon
evidence more direct than this.
The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on
the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of
his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast
Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of
Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early
Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for
the profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost
all. It must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his
speculations to the verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness;
unwarrantedly confident in his assertions; deficient in sobriety;
in his critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well
as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable
value, but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange
speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their
wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the
orthodox Fathers of the Church.
But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks
have tended) Origen’s ruling passion is found to have been textual
criticism213. This was at once his forte and his foible. In the
library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many
Codexes that had belonged to him, and the autograph of his
212 In his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, pp. 291-4, Dean Burgon argued
that a lapse of about half a century divided the date of from that of B. But
it seems that afterwards he surrendered the opinion which he embraced on the
first appearance of in favour of the conclusion adopted by Tischendorf and
Scrivener and other experts, in consequence of their identifying the writing of
the six conjugate leaves of with that of the scribe of B. See above, pp. 46,
52.
213 The Revision Revised, p. 292.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 183
Hexapla, which was seen and used by St. Jerome214. In fact,
the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the gathering
of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen,
became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies
in the persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text
radiated in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum
was assiduously prosecuted there215. Constantine applied to
Eusebius for fifty handsome copies216, amongst which it is not
improbable that the manuscripts (…º±ƒw±) B and were to
be actually found217. But even if that is not so, the Emperor
would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that bishop had
not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact
carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend
Pamphilus, and in which the latter must have followed the path
pursued by Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to
this quarter218, and various entries in MSS. prove that others did
the same219. It is clear that the celebrated library of Pamphilus
exercised great influence in the province of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the operations
214 The above passage, including the last paragraph, is from the pen of the
Dean.
215 See above, Introduction, p. 2.
216 It is remarkable that Constantine in his Semi-Arian days applied to Eusebius,
whilst the orthodox Constans sent a similar order afterwards to Athanasius.
Apol. ad Const. § 4 (Montfaucon, Vita Athan. p. xxxvii), ap. Wordsworth’s
Church History, Vol. II. p. 45.
217 See Canon Cook’s ingenious argument. Those MSS. are handsome enough
for an imperial order. The objection of my friend, the late Archdeacon Palmer
(Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 119, note), which I too hastily adopted on other
grounds also in my Textual Guide, p. 82, note 1, will not stand, because
…º±ƒw± cannot mean “collections [of writings],” but simply, according to
the frequent usage of the word in the early ages of the Church,“vellum
manuscripts.” The difficulty in translating ƒ¡p ±v ƒµƒ¡±q“of three or
four columns in a page” is not insuperable.
218 Scrivener, Vol. II. 269 (4th ed.).
219 Scrivener, Vol. I. 55 (4th ed.).
[164][165]
184 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually into
disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth
General Council in A.D. 553.
But in connecting B and with the Library at Caesarea we
are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known
colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in by the
third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of
Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was compared with a copy
“corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,” which
itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen220
.
And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of
Ezra. It is added that the Codex Sinaiticus (ƒy¥µ ƒx ƒµÊ«ø¬) and
the Codex Pamphili (ƒx±Pƒx¿±ª±}ƒ±ƒø ªwø) manifested
great agreement with one another. The probability that was thus
at least in part copied from a manuscript executed by Pamphilus
is established by the facts that a certain“Codex Marchalianus”
is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius;
and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he
published no edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great
reputation. On the books of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions
manuscripts executed by Origen with great care, which were
published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H of St.
Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the
library of Caesarea“which was written by the hand of the holy
Pamphilus221
.
”These notices added to the frequent reference by
St. Jerome and others to the critical ( ¡ ) MSS., by which we
are to understand those which were distinguished by the approval
of Origen or were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew
220 The colophon is given in full by Wilhelm Bousset in a number of the
well-known“Texte und Untersuchungen,” edited by Oscar von Gebhardt and
Adolf Harnack, entitled“Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament,” p. 45.
II. Der Kodex Pamphili, 1894, to which my notice was kindly drawn by Dr.
Sanday.
221 Miller’s Scrivener, I. 183-4. By Euthalius, the Deacon, afterwards Bp. of
Sulci.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 185
evidently the position in criticism which the Library at Caesarea
and its illustrious founder had won in those days. And it is quite
in keeping with that position that should have been sent forth
from that“school of criticism.”
But if was, then B must have been;—at least, if the
supposition certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that
the six conjugate leaves of were written by the scribe of B. So
there is a chain of reference, fortified by the implied probability
which has been furnished for us from the actual facts of the case.
Yet Dr. Hort is“inclined to surmise that B and were both
written in the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of
B were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual
sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the ancestors
of were in great part Alexandrian, again in the geographical,
not the textual sense222
.
” For this opinion, in which Dr. Hort
stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but“surmise”
founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just
brought forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides
that the connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or
Readings, which has been recently confirmed in a very material
degree, must weaken the force of some of his arguments.
§ 2223
.
The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are
(1) the extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the
ancients: and (2) the curious discovery that Codexes , and [166]
to some extent D, either belong to the same class as those with
which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else have been anciently
222 Introduction, p. 267. Dr. Hort controverts the notion that B and were
written at Alexandria (not Caesarea), which no one now maintains.
223 By the Dean.[167]
186 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
manipulated into conformity with Origen’s teaching. The former
seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference
equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly
B , are not to be regarded as wholly independent authorities,
but constitute a class.
The proof of this position is to be found in various passages
where the influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the
omission of •1øÊ ƒøÊ òµøÊ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i.
1224; and of s Û—“at Ephesus”—in Eph. i. 1225; in the
substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for Bethany226; in the
omission of the second part of the last petition the Lord’s Prayer
in St. Luke227, of º¿¡øs ºø søµ in John i. 27228
.
He is also the cause why the important qualification µ0
(“without a cause”) is omitted by B from St. Matt. v. 22; and
hence, in opposition to the whole host of Copies, Versions229
,
Fathers, has been banished from the sacred Text by Lachmann,
Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers230. To the same influence,
I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission from a little
handful of copies (viz. A, B- , D*, F-G, and 17*) of the
clause ƒ« ªµw ºt ¿µwµ± (“that you should not obey the
224 See Appendix IV, and Revision Revised, p. 132. Origen, c. Celsum, Praef.
ii. 4; Comment. in John ix. Followed here only by *.
225 See Last Twelve Verses, pp. 93-99. Also pp. 66, note, 85, 107, 235.
226 Migne, viii. 96 d. §±Êƒ± sµƒø í±w. E± ¥r ƒˆ ƒ¡q…
¡sƒµ¡ø «µ, í±±¡, ; ! p¡ í±w± øP«v ¿s¡± ƒøÊ
8ø¡¥qø, øP¥r ¿v ƒ ¬ ¿uºø & ; ªª {¬ ¿ø ƒˆ 9µ¡øøª{º…. This
speedily assumed the form of a scholium, as follows:—ß¡t¥r }µ, Eƒ
ƒp¡ ƒˆ ƒ¡q… í±±¡ ¿µ¡s«µ; ! p¡ í±w± øP«v¿s¡±
ƒøÊ 8ø¡¥qø, ªª {¬ ¿ø ƒˆ 9µ¡øøª{º…:—which is quoted by the
learned Benedictine editor of Origen in M. iv. 401 (at top of the left hand
column),—evidently from Coisl. 23, our Evan. 39,—since the words are found
in Cramer, Cat. ii. 191 (line 1-3).
227 Origen, i. 265; coll. 1. 227, 256.
228 Origen, Comment. in John vi.
229 The word is actually transliterated into Syriac letters in the Peshitto.
230 See The Revision Revised, pp. 358-61.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 187
truth”) Gal. iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while
commenting on St. Matthew’s Gospel231; but when he comes
to the place in Galatians232, he is observed, first to admit that
the clause“is found in some copies,” and straightway to add
that“inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of Adamantius233
,
he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his own
statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen
his guide234. And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.
For:—
C Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.
Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.
Orig. ii. 373.
Cyril Al. ii. 737.
Ephr. Syr. iii. 203.
Macarius Magnes (or rather the heathen philosopher with whom
he disputed),—128.
ps.-Athanas. ii. 454.
Theodoret ii. 40.
J. Damascene ii. 163.
Theodorus Studita,—433, 1136.
Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in quibusdam codicibus,“Quis vos
fascinavit non credere veritati?” Sed hoc, quia in
exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus.
Against:—
231 vii. 52.
232 vii. 418.
233 A name by which Origen was known.
234 Imbecillitatem virium mearum sentiens, Origenis Commentarios sum
sequatus. Scripsit ille vir in epistolam Pauli ad Galatas quinque
proprie volumina, et decimum Stromatum suorum librum commatico super
explanatione ejus sermone complevit.—Praefatio, vii. 370.188 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[168]
*FG 17*.
d e f g—fu.
Peshitto, Bohairic.
Chrys.
Euthal. cod.
Exemplaria Adamantii.
Cyril 429.
Theodoret i. 658 (=Mai vii2 150).
Theodorus Mops.
Hier. vii. 418. c.
In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition
of our LORD‘S two miracles of feeding235; drawing marvellous
inferences, as his manner is, from the details of either miracle.
We find that Hilary236, that Jerome237, that Chrysostom238, had
Origen’s remarks before them when they in turn commented on
the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the feeding of the 5000,
Origen points out that our LORD “commands the multitude to sit
down” (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the 4000, He
does not“command” but only“directs” them to sit down. (St.
Matt. xv. 35239) … From which it is plain that Origen did not
read as we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, ±v sªµµ ƒø÷¬ D«ªø¬—but
¿±¡uµªµ ƒ˜ D«ªÛ ±¿µµ÷ ; which is the reading of the
parallel place in St. Mark (viii. 6). We should of course have
assumed a slip of memory on Origen’s part; but that are found
235 iii. 509-10.
236 686-7.
237 vii. 117-20.
238 vii. 537 seq.
239 I endeavour in the text to make the matter in hand intelligible to the English
reader. But such things can scarcely be explained in English without more
words than the point is worth. Origen says:— µ÷ ºr µªµ{µ ƒøz¬ D«ªø¬
±ª ± (Matt. xiv. 19), “±¿µµ÷ ¿vƒøÊ«y¡ƒø. (±v p¡ Aõø ¬
(ix. 14) ±ƒ±ªw±ƒµ ±Pƒø{¬, s¡±»µ; ±v A úq¡ø¬ (vi. 39), ¿sƒ±æµ,
w , ±Pƒø÷¬ ¿qƒ±¬ ±ª÷±😉 q¥µ ¥r øP µªµ{µ, ªªp ¿±¡±sªªµ
ƒ˜D«ªÛ±ª ±. iii. 509 f, 510 a.Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 189
to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in conformity with
Origen240. He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he has
before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what
proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the
text.
Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,—“It is not
written‘He it is to whom I shall give the sop’; but with the
addition of‘I shall dip’: for it says,‘I shall dip the sop and give
it.’” This is the reading of BCL and is adopted accordingly by
some Editors. But surely it is a depravation of the text which
may be ascribed with confidence to the officiousness of Origen
himself. Who, at all events, on such precarious evidence would
surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed to as it
is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The grounds on which Tischendorf reads q»… ƒø »…ºwø ±v¥}…
±Pƒ˜, are characteristic, and in their way a curiosity241
.
Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain,
from the consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour
rejected the Temptation which stands second in St. Luke’s Gospel
with the words,—“Get thee behind Me, Satan242
.
” But Origen
officiously points out that this (quoting the words) is precisely
what our LORD did not say. He adds a reason,—“He said to
Peter,‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’; but to the Devil,‘Get thee
hence,’ without the addition‘behind Me’; for to be behind Jesus
is a good thing243 300. Retro vade Satana, ps.-Tatian (Lu.), 49.
240 The only other witnesses are from Evan. 1, 33, and the lost archetype
of 13, 124, 346. The Versions do not distinguish certainly between µªµ{…
and ¿±¡±sªª…. Chrysostom, the only Father who quotes this place, exhibits
sªµµ… ±vª±} (vii. 539 c).
241 Lectio ab omni parte commendatur, et a correctore alienissima: ±»… ±
¥…… ab usu est Johannis, sed elegantius videbatur ±»±¬ µ¿¥…… vel ¥…….
242 Luke iv. 8.
243 †¡x¬ ºr ƒx †sƒ¡ø µ6¿µ; U¿±µ @¿w… ºø, £±ƒ± ; ¿¡x¬ ¥r ƒx
¥qøªø. U¿±µ, £±ƒ± , «}¡¬ ƒ ¬ @¿w… ºø ¿¡øu¬; ƒx p¡ @¿w…
ƒøÊ 8øÊ µ6± ±y ƒ. iii. 540. I believe that Origen is the sole cause
[169]190 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Athanasius, i. 272 d, 537 c, 589 f. Nestorius ap. Marium Merc.
(Galland. viii. 647 c) Vade retro S. but only Vade S. viii. 631 c.
Idatius (A.D.{FNS 385) apud Athanas. ii. 605 b. Chrys. vii. 172
bis (Matt.) J. Damascene, ii. 450. ps.-Chrys. x. 734, 737. Opus
Imperf. ap. Chrys. vi. 48 bis. Apocryphal Acts, Tisch. p. 250.
”
[170]
.
Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38)
thus addressed his wicked countrymen:—“I speak that which I
have seen with My Father; and ye likewise do that which you
have seen with your father.” He contrasts His own gracious
doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to their
respective“Fathers,”—to “My Father,”that is, GOD; and to“your
Ambrose, i. 671; so Jerome, vi. 809 e; redi retro S., Aug. iv. 47 e; redi post me
S., Aug. iii. 842 g. Theodoret, ii. 1608. So Maximus Taur., Vigil. Tapa. Vade
retro S. ap. Sabattier.“Vade post me Satana. Et sine dubio ire post Deum servi
est.” Et iterum quod ait ad ilium,“Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et ipsi soli
servies.”Archelaus et Man. disput. (Routh, Reliqq. v. 120), A.D.{FNS 277. St.
Antony the monk, apud Athanas.“Vita Ant.” i. 824 c d (= Galland. iv. 647 a).
A.D.{FNS
of the perplexity. Commenting on Matt. xvi. 23 ¿±µ ø¿… ºø £±ƒ±±
(the words addressed to Simon Peter), he explains that they are a rebuke to
the Apostle for having for a time at Satan’s instigation desisted from following
Him. Comp. (he says) these words spoken to Peter (¿. ø¿. ºø £.) with
those addressed to Satan at the temptation without the ø¿… ºø“for to be
behind Christ is a good thing.” … I suppose he had before him a MS. of St.
Mat., without the ø¿… ºø. This gloss is referred to by Victor of Antioch
(173 Cat. Poss., i. 348 Cramer). It is even repeated by Jerome on Matt. vii.
21 d e: Non ut plerique putant eâdem Satanas et Apostolus Petrus sententiâ
condemnantur. Petro enim dicitur,“Vade retro me, Satana;” id est“Sequere
me, qui contrarius es voluntati meae.” Hic vero audit,“Vade Satana:” et non
ei dicitur“retro me,
” ut subaudiatur,“vade in ignem aeternum.” Vade Satana
(Irenaeus, 775, also Hilary, 620 a). Peter Alex, has ¿±µ £±ƒ±±, µ¡±¿ƒ±
±¡, ap. Routh, Reliqq. iv. 24 (on p. 55). Audierat diabolus a Domino, RecedeChapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen. 191
father,” that is, the Devil244. That this is the true sense of the
place appears plainly enough from the context.“Seen with” and
“heard from245”are the expressions employed on such occasions,
because sight and hearing are the faculties which best acquaint a
man with the nature of that whereof he discourses.
Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD is
the“Father” spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who,
in order to support this view, erased“My” and“your”; and in
the second member of the sentence, for“seen with,” substituted
“heard from”;—as if a contrast had been intended between the
manner of the Divine and of the human knowledge,—which
would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in reality
a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant
precept:“I speak the things which I have seen with the Father.”
“Do ye the things which ye have heard from the Father,”—which
is how Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the
place. Cyril Alex. employed a text thus impaired. Origen also
puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept ( ƒs… ¿øµ÷ƒµ); but he [171]
has all the Fathers246 (including himself),—all the Versions,—all
the copies against him, being supported only by B.
But the evidence against“the restored reading” to which
Alford invites attention, (viz. omitting ºø and substituting
ø{±ƒµ ¿±¡pƒøʆ±ƒ¡y¬ for …¡q±ƒµ ¿±¡pƒ˜†±ƒ¡vQºˆ .)
is overwhelming. Only five copies (BCLTX) omit ºø: only four
Sathanas, scandalum mihi es. Scriptum est, Dominum Deum tuum adorabis
et illi soli servies, Tertullian, Scorp. c. 15. üP µ6¿µ ]¿±µ @¿w… ºø;
øP p¡ Q¿øƒ¡s»± ø7y¬ ƒµ; ªªq; ]¿±µ £±ƒ±, ø6¬ ¿µªsæ….
—Epist.
ad Philipp. c. xii. Ignat. Interpol. According to some Critics (Tisch., Treg.,
W.-Hort) there is no ¿±µ ø¿… ºø £. in Lu. iv. 8, and only ¿±µ £. in
Matt. iv. 10, so that ¿±µ ø¿… ºø £±ƒ±± occurs in neither accounts of
the temptation. But I believe ¿±µ ø¿… ºø £. is the correct reading in both
places. Justin M. Tryph. ii. 352. Origen interp. ii. 132 b (Vade retro), so 244 See ver. 44.
245 St. John viii. 40; xv. 15.
246 Orig., Euseb., Epiph., both Cyrils, Didymus, Basil, Chrysostom.[172]
192 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
(BLT, 13) omit Qºˆ : a very little handful are for substituting
ø{±ƒµ with the genitive for …¡q±ƒµ. Chrys., Apolinaris,
Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of good
repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39,
only five read ƒs ( ): while ¿øµ÷ƒµ is found only in Cod. B.
Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ¿øµ÷ƒµ, which
however is only found in .
“The reading is remarkable” says
Alford. Yes, and clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.
§ 3.
Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a
connexion subsisting between the readings which they contain
and Origen, the sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic
manuscripts affords a strong proof of the alliance between them
and the Origenistic School. It must be borne in mind that Origen
was not answerable for all the tenets of the School which bore his
name, even perhaps less than Calvin was responsible for all that
Calvinists after him have held and taught. Origenistic doctrines
came from the blending of philosophy with Christianity in the
schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most eminent of the
teachers engaged247
.
247 For the sceptical passages in B and see Appendix V.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex
D.
§ 1248
.
It is specially remarkable that the Canon of Holy Scripture, which
like the Text had met with opposition, was being settled in the
later part of the century in which these two manuscripts were
produced, or at the beginning of the next. The two questions
appear to have met together in Eusebius. His latitudinarian
proclivities seem to have led him in his celebrated words249 to
lay undue stress upon the objections felt by some persons to a
few of the Books of the New Testament; and cause us therefore
not to wonder that he should also have countenanced those who
wished without reason to leave out portions of the Text. Now
the first occasion, as is well known, when we find all the Books
of the New Testament recognized with authority occurred at the
248 By the Editor.
249 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25) divides the writings of the Church into three
classes:—
1. The Received Books (Aºøªøø{ºµ±), i.e. the Four Gospels, Acts, the
Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, and the Revelation (?).
2. Doubtful ( ƒªµyºµ±), i.e. James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude (cf. ii.
23 fin.).
3. Spurious ( y±), Acts of St. Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Revelation of St.
Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the so-called «±w, Revelation of St. John (?).
This division appears to need confirmation, if it is to be taken as representing
the general opinion of the Church of the time.[173]
194 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Council of Laodicea in 363 A.D., if the passage is genuine250
,
which is very doubtful; and the settlement of the Canon which
was thus initiated, and was accomplished by about the end of the
century, was followed, as was natural, by the settlement of the
Text. But inasmuch as the latter involved a large multitude of
intricate questions, and corruption had crept in and had acquired
a very firm hold, it was long before universal acquiescence
finally ensued upon the general acceptance effected in the time
of St. Chrysostom. In fact, the Nature of the Divine Word,
and the character of the Written Word, were confirmed about
the same time:—mainly, in the period when the Nicene Creed
was re-asserted at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D.; for
the Canon of Holy Scripture was fixed and the Orthodox Text
gained a supremacy over the Origenistic Text about the same
time:—and finally, after the Third Council of Constantinople in
680 A.D., at which the acknowledgement of the Natures of the
Son of Man was placed in a position superior to all heresy; for it
was then that the Traditional Text began in nearly perfect form
to be handed down with scarce any opposition to future ages of
the Church.
Besides the multiplicity of points involved, three special
causes delayed the complete settlement of the Text, so far as
the attainment was concerned all over the Church of general
accuracy throughout the Gospels, not to speak of all the New
Testament.
1. Origenism, going beyond Origen, continued in force till
it was condemned by the Fifth General Council in 553 A.D.,
and could hardly have wholly ended in that year. Besides this,
controversies upon fundamental truths agitated the Church, and
implied a sceptical and wayward spirit which would be ready
to sustain alien variations in the written Word, till the censure
passed upon Monothelitism at the Sixth General Council in 680
250 See Westcott, Canon, &c. pp. 431-9.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 195
A.D.
2. The Church was terribly tried by the overthrow of the
Roman Empire, and the irruption of hordes of Barbarians: and consequently Churchmen were obliged to retire into extreme
borders, as they did into Ireland in the fifth century251, and to
spend their energies in issuing forth from thence to reconquer
countries for the Kingdom of Christ. The resultant paralysis
of Christian effort must have been deplorable. Libraries and
their treasures, as at Caesarea and Alexandria under the hands of
Mahommedans in the seventh century, were utterly destroyed.
Rest and calmness, patient and frequent study and debate, books
and other helps to research, must have been in those days hard
to get, and were far from being in such readiness as to favour
general improvement in a subject of which extreme accuracy is
the very breath and life.
3. The Art of Writing on Vellum had hardly passed its youth
at the time when the Text advocated by B and fell finally
into disuse. Punctuation did but exist in the occasional use of
the full stop: breathings or accents were perhaps hardly found:
spelling, both as regards consonants and vowels, was uncertain
and rudimental. So that the Art of transcribing on vellum even so
far as capital letters were concerned, did not arrive at anything
like maturity till about the eighth century.
But it must not be imagined that manuscripts of substantial
accuracy did not exist during this period, though they have not
descended to us. The large number of Uncials and Cursives
of later ages must have had a goodly assemblage of accurate
predecessors from which they were copied. It is probable that
the more handsome and less correct copies have come into our
251 See particularly Haddan’s Remains, pp. 258-294, Scots on the Continent.
The sacrifice of that capable scholar and excellent churchman at a comparatively
early age to the toil which was unavoidable under want of encouragement of
ability and genius has entailed a loss upon sacred learning which can hardly be
over-estimated.
[174][175]
196 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
hands, since such would have been not so much used, and
might have been in the possession of the men of higher station
whose heathen ancestry had bequeathed to them less orthodox
tendencies, and the material of many others must have been
too perishable to last. Arianism prevailed during much of the
sixth century in Italy, Africa, Burgundy, and Spain. Ruder
and coarser volumes, though more accurate, would be readily
surrendered to destruction, especially if they survived in more
cultured descendants. That a majority of such MSS. existed,
whether of a rougher or more polished sort, both in vellum and
papyrus, is proved by citations of Scripture found in the Authors
of the period. But those MSS. which have been preserved are
not so perfect as the others which have come from the eighth and
following centuries.
Thus Codex A, though it exhibits a text more like the
Traditional than either B or , is far from being a sure guide.
Codex C, which was written later in the fifth century, is only
a fragmentary palimpsest, i.e. it was thought to be of so little
value that the books of Ephraem the Syrian were written over
the Greek: it contains not more than two-thirds of the New
Testament, and stands as to the character of its text between
A and B. Codex Q, a fragment of 235 verses, and Codex I of
135, in the same century, are not large enough to be taken into
consideration here. Codexes ¶ and £, recently discovered, being
products of the end of the fifth or beginning of the sixth, and
containing St. Matthew and St. Mark nearly complete, are of a
general character similar to A, and evince more advancement in
the Art. It is unfortunate indeed that only a fragment of either of
them, though that fragment in either case is pretty complete as far
as it goes, has come into our hands. After them succeeds Codex
D, or Codex Bezae, now in the Cambridge Library, having been
bequeathed to the University by Theodore Beza, whose name it
bears. It ends at Acts xxii. 29.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 197
[176]
§ 2. Codex D252
.
No one can pretend fully to understand the character of this
Codex who has not been at the pains to collate every word of
it with attention. Such an one will discover that it omits in the
Gospels alone no less than 3,704 words; adds to the genuine text
2,213; substitutes 2,121; transposes 3,471, and modifies 1,772.
By the time he has made this discovery his esteem for Cod.
D will, it is presumed, have experienced serious modification.
The total of 13,281 deflections from the Received Text is a
formidable objection to explain away. Even Dr. Hort speaks of
“the prodigious amount of error which D contains253
”
.
But the intimate acquaintance with the Codex which he has
thus acquired has conducted him to certain other results, which
it is of the utmost importance that we should particularize and
explain.
I. And first, this proves to be a text which in one Gospel is often
assimilated to the others. And in fact the assimilation is carried
sometimes so far, that a passage from one Gospel is interpolated
into the parallel passage in another. Indeed the extent to which
in Cod. D interpolations from St. Mark’s Gospel are inserted into
the Gospel according to St. Luke is even astounding. Between
verses 14 and 15 of St. Luke v. thirty-two words are interpolated
from the parallel passage in St. Mark i. 45-ii. 1: and in the
10th verse of the vith chapter twelve words are introduced from
St. Mark ii. 27, 28. In St. Luke iv. 37, ! øu,
“the report,”
252 The reader is now in the Dean’s hands. See Mr. Rendel Harris’ ingenious
and suggestive“Study of Codex Bezae” in the Cambridge Texts and Studies,
and Dr. Chase’s“The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezae.” But
we must demur to the expression“Old Syriac.”
253 Introduction, p. 149.[177]
198 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
from St. Mark i. 28, is substituted for &«ø¬,
“the sound,” which
is read in the other manuscripts. Besides the introduction into
St. Luke i. 64 of ª{ from St. Mark vii. 35, which will
be described below, in St. Luke v. 27 seven words are brought
from the parallel passage in St. Mark ii. 14, and the entire
passage is corrupted254. In giving the Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke
xi. 2, the scribe in fault must needs illustrate the Lord’s saying by
interpolating an inaccurate transcription of the warning against
“vain repetitions” given by Him before in the Sermon on the
Mount. Again, as to interpolation from other sources, grossly
enough, St. Matt. ii. 23 is thrust in at the end of St. Luke ii. 39;
that is to say, the scribe of D, or of some manuscript from which
D was copied, either directly or indirectly, thought fit to explain
the carrying of the Holy Child to Nazareth by the explanation
given by St. Matthew, but quoting from memory wrote“by
the prophet” in the singular, instead of“by the prophets” in the
plural255. Similarly, in St. Luke iv. 31 upon the mention of the
name of Capernaum, D must needs insert from St. Matt. iv.
13,“which is upon the sea-coast within the borders of Zabulon
and Nephthalim”(ƒ ¿±¡±±ª±ø (sic) µ ø¡ø¬ ñ±øª…
± ùµ±ªµº). Indeed, no adequate idea can be formed of
the clumsiness, the coarseness of these operations, unless some
instances are given: but a few more must suffice.
1. In St. Mark iii. 26, our LORD delivers the single statement,
“And if Satan is risen against himself ( sƒµ ±ƒx ) and is
divided (±vºµºs¡ƒ±) he cannot stand, but hath an end ( ªªp
ƒsªø¬ «µ).” Instead of this, D exhibits,“And if Satan cast out
254 The same wholesale corruption of the deposit prevails in what follows, viz.
the healing of the paralytic borne of four (v. 17-26), and the call of St. Matthew
(27-34): as well as in respect of the walk through the cornfields on the Sabbath
day (vi. 1-5), and the healing of the man with the withered hand (6-11). Indeed
it is continued to the end of the call of the Twelve (12-19). The particulars are
too many to insert here.
255 ±…¬ µ¡µ ¥± ƒø ¿¡øƒø, instead of E¿…¬ ¿ª¡…« ¥p ƒˆ
¿¡øƒˆ.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 199
Satan, he is divided against himself: his kingdom cannot stand,
but hath the end ( ªªp ƒx ƒsªø¬ «µ).” Now this is clearly an [178]
imitation, not a copy, of the parallel place in St. Matt. xii. 26,
where also a twofold statement is made, as every one may see.
But the reply is also a clumsy one to the question asked in St.
Mark, but not in St. Matthew,“How can Satan cast out Satan?”
Learned readers however will further note that it is St. Matthew’s
ºµ¡w , where St. Mark wrote ºµºs¡ƒ±, which makes the
statement possible for him which is impossible according to the
representation given by D of St. Mark.
2. At the end of the parable of the pounds, the scribe of D,
or one of those whom he followed, thinking that the idle servant
was let off too easily, and confusing with this parable the other
parable of the talents,—blind of course to the difference between
the punishments inflicted by a“lord” and those of a new-made
king,—inserts the 30th verse of St. Matt. xxv. at the end of St.
Luke xix. 27.
3. Again, after St. Matt. xx. 28, when the LORD had rebuked
the spirit of ambition in the two sons of Zebedee, and had directed
His disciples not to seek precedence, enforcing the lesson from
His own example as shewn in giving His Life a ransom for
many, D inserts the following tasteless passage:“But ye seek
to increase from a little, and from the greater to be something
less256
.
” Nor is this enough:—an addition is also made from St.
Luke xiv. 8-10, being the well-known passage about taking the
lowest room at feasts. But this additional interpolation is in style
and language unlike the words of any Gospels, and ends with the
vapid piece of information,“and this shall be useful to thee.” It
is remarkable that, whereas D was alone in former errors, here
it becomes a follower in one part or other of the passage of
twelve Old Latin manuscripts257: and indeed the Greek in the
256 •ºµ¬ ¥µ ƒµƒµ µ º¡ø ±æ±, ± µ ºµøø¬ µª±ƒƒø µ±.
257 I.e. a b c d e ff1.2 g1.2 h m n.[180]
200 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[179]
passage in D is evidently a version of the Syrio-Low-Latin. The
following words, or forms of words or phrases, are not found
in the rest of the N.T.: ¿±¡±ªsƒµ¬ (aor. part. rogati or
vocati), ±ªwµµ (recumbite), æs«øƒ±¬ (eminentioribus),
¥µ¿øªuƒ…¡ (invitator caenae), ƒ qƒ… «}¡µ (adhuc infra
accede), %ƒƒø± ƒy¿ø (loco inferiori), %ƒƒ… (inferior), {±µ
ƒ … (collige adhuc superius). These Latin expressions are
taken from one or other of the twelve Old Latin MSS. Outside
of the Latin, the Curetonian is the sole ally, the Lewis being
mutilated, of the flighty Old Uncial under consideration.
These passages are surely enough to represent to the reader
the interpolations of Codex D, whether arising from assimilation
or otherwise. The description given by the very learned editor
of this MS. is in the following words:—“No known manuscript
contains so many bold and extensive interpolations (six hundred,
it is said, in the Acts alone), countenanced, where they are
not absolutely unsupported, chiefly by the Old Latin and the
Curetonian version258
”
.
II. There are also traces of extreme licentiousness in this copy
of the Gospels which call for distinct notice. Sometimes words or
expressions are substituted: sometimes the sense is changed, and
utter confusion introduced: delicate terms or forms are ignored:
and a general corruption ensues.
I mean for example such expressions as the following, which
are all found in the course of a single verse (St. Mark iv. 1).
St. Mark relates that once when our SAVIOUR was teaching
“by the sea-side” (¿±¡q) there assembled so vast a concourse of
persons that“He went into the ship, and sat in the sea,” all the
multitude being“on the land, towards the sea”: i.e. with their
faces turned in the direction of the ship in which He was sitting.
258 Scrivener’s Introduction, I. 130 (4th ed.). The reader will recollect the
suggestion given above in Chapter VII that some of these corruptions may
have come from the earliest times before the four Gospels were written. The
interpolation just noticed may very well have been such a survival.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 201
Was a plain story ever better told?
But according to D the facts of the case were quite different.
First, it was our SAVIOUR who was teaching“towards the sea”
(¿¡y¬). Next, in consequence of the crowd, He crossed over,
and“sat on the other side of the sea” (¿s¡±). Lastly, the
multitude—followed Him, I suppose; for they also—“were on
the other side of the sea”(¿s¡±) … Now I forgive the scribe for
his two transpositions and his ungrammatical substitution of A
ª±y¬ for D«ªø¬. But I insist that a MS. which circulates incidents
after this fashion cannot be regarded as trustworthy. Verse 2
begins in the same licentious way. Instead of,—“And He taught
them many things (¿øªªq) in parables,” we are informed that
“He taught them in many parables”(¿øªª±÷¬). Who will say that
we are ever safe with such a guide?
§ 3.
All are aware that the two Evangelical accounts of our LORD‘S
human descent exhibit certain distinctive features. St. Matthew
distributes the 42 names in“the book of the generations of
JESUS CHRIST, the son of David, the son of Abraham,” into three
fourteens; and requires us to recognize in the 8µ«øw±¬ of ver. 11
a different person (viz. Jehoiakim) from the 8µ«øw±¬ of ver. 12
(viz. Jehoiachin). Moreover, in order to produce this symmetry
of arrangement, he leaves out the names of 3 kings,—Ahaziah,
Joash, Amaziah: and omits at least 9 generations of Zorobabel’s
descendants259. The mystical correspondence between the 42
steps in our SAVIOUR‘S human descent from Abraham, and the
42 stations of the Israelites on their way to Canaan260, has been often remarked upon. It extends to the fact that the stations also
259 The number of the generations in St. Luke’s Gospel is 18.
260 Num. xxxiii. coll. xxi. 18, 19 and Deut. x. 6, 7.
[181][182]
202 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
were, historically, far more than 42. And so much for what is
contained in St. Matthew’s Gospel.
St. Luke, who enumerates the 77 steps of his genealogy in
backward order, derives the descent of“JESUS, the son of Joseph”
from“Adam, the son of GOD.
” He traces our LORD‘S descent
from David and again from Zorobabel through a different line
of ancestry from that adopted by St. Matthew. He introduces a
second“Cainan” between Arphaxad and Sala (ver. 35, 36). The
only names which the two tables of descent have in common are
these five,—David, Salathiel, Zorobabel, Joseph, JESUS.
But Cod. D—(from which the first chapter of St. Matthew’s
Gospel has long since disappeared)—in St. Luke iii. exhibits
a purely fabricated table of descent. To put one name for
another,—as when A writes“Shem” instead of Seth: to misspell
a name until it ceases to be recognizable,—as when writes
“Balls” for Boaz: to turn one name into two by cutting it
in half,—as where writes“Admin” and“Adam” instead of
Aminadab: or again, in defiance of authority, to leave a name
out,—as when A omits Mainan and Pharez; or to put a name
in,—as when Verona Lat. (b) inserts“Joaram”after Aram:—with
all such instances of licence the“old Uncials” have made us
abundantly familiar. But we are not prepared to find that in
place of the first 18 names which follow those of“JESUS” and
“Joseph” in St. Luke’s genealogy (viz. Heli to Rhesa inclusive),
D introduces the 9 immediate ancestors of Joseph (viz. Abiud
to Jacob) as enumerated by St. Matthew,—thus abbreviating
St. Luke’s genealogy by 9 names. Next,—“Zorobabel” and
“Salathiel” being common to both genealogies,—in place of the
20 names found in St. Luke between Salathiel and David (viz.
Neri to Nathan inclusive), Cod. D presents us with the 15
royal descendants of David enumerated by St. Matthew (viz.
Solomon to Jehoiachin261 inclusive);—infelicitously inventing
261 Note, that whereas the 8µ«øw±¬ of St. Matt. i. 11 is Jehoiakim, and the
8µ«øw±¬ of ver. 12, Jehoiachin,—Cod. D writes them respectively ô…±µºChapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 203
an imaginary generation, by styling Jehoiakim“the son of
Eliakim,”—being not aware that“Jehoiakim” and“Eliakim” are
one and the same person: and, in defiance of the first Evangelist,
supplying the names of the 3 kings omitted by St. Matthew (i.
8), viz. Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah. Only 34 names follow
in Cod. D; the second“Cainan” being omitted. In this way, the
number of St. Luke’s names is reduced from 77 to 66. A more
flagrant instance of that licentious handling of the deposit which
was a common phenomenon in Western Christendom is seldom
to be met with262 of Adam’s being) the number of the names is
77. So Basil made it; so Greg. Naz. and his namesake of Nyssa;
so Jerome and Augustine.
. This particular fabrication is happily the peculiar property
of Cod. D; and we are tempted to ask, whether it assists
in recommending that singular monument of injudicious and
arbitrary textual revision to the favour of one of the modern
schools of Critics.
§ 4.
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
and ôµ«ø±¬.
262 Cureton’s Syriac is the only known copy of the Gospels in which the three
omitted kings are found in St. Matthew’s Gospel: which, I suppose, explains
why the learned editor of that document flattered himself that he had therein
discovered the lost original of St. Matthew’s Gospel. Cureton (Pref., p. viii)
shews that in other quarters also (e.g. by Mar Yakub the Persian, usually
known as Aphraates) 63 generations were reckoned from Adam to JESUS{FNS
exclusive: that number being obtained by adding 24 of St. Matthew’s names
and 33 of St. Luke’s to the 3 names common to both Evangelists (viz. David,
Salathiel, and Zorobabel); and to these, adding the 3 omitted kings.
The testimony of MSS. is not altogether uniform in regard to the
number of names in the Genealogy. In the Textus Receptus (including
our SAVIOUR‘S{FNS name and the name of the Divine AUTHOR{FNS[184]
204 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
[183]
to be understood by those who will be at the pains to study its
readings throughout. Constantly to substitute the wrong word
for the right one; or at all events to introduce a less significant
expression: on countless occasions to mar the details of some
precious incident; and to obscure the purpose of the Evangelist
by tastelessly and senselessly disturbing the inspired text,—this
will be found to be the rule with Cod. D throughout. As another
example added to those already cited:—In St. Luke xxii, D omits
verse 20, containing the Institution of the Cup, evidently from
a wish to correct the sacred account by removing the second
mention of the Cup from the record of the third Evangelist.
St. Mark (xv. 43) informs us that, on the afternoon of the
first Good Friday, Joseph of Arimathaea“taking courage went
in (µ0 ªµ) to Pilate and requested to have the body ( ˆº±) of
Jesus”: that“Pilate wondered ( ±{º±µ) [at hearing] that He
was dead (ƒsµ) already: and sending for the centurion [who
had presided at the Crucifixion] inquired of him if [JESUS] had
been dead long?” (µ0¿qª± ¿s±µ.)
But the author of Cod. D, besides substituting“went”(&ªµ)
for“went in,
”—“corpse” (¿ƒˆº±) for“body” (which by the
way he repeats in ver. 45),—and a sentiment of“continuous
wonder”( ±{º±µ) for the fact of astonishment which Joseph’s
request inspired,—having also substituted the prosaic ƒµuµ
for the graphic ƒsµ of the Evangelist,—represents Pilate as
inquiring of the centurion“if [indeed JESUS] was dead already?”
(µ0$¥ ƒµuµ; 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.
Now it must not be supposed that I have fastened unfairly on
an exceptional verse and a half (St. Mark xv. half of v. 43Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 205
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 ±±ƒµªªøƒø¬ for
±ƒµwª±ƒø¬), or actually blundered (2, as by writing µ¡«øƒ±
ºø for ¡«øƒ± !º÷ ). 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 ±v ±ªs»±± µ…¡øÊ Eƒ ¿øµ{ªƒ± A ªwø¬,
what else but a licentious paraphrase is the following,—µ¡«øƒ± [185]
263 ! ¥r ú±¡w± (D— ) ú±¥±ªt ±v ú±¡w± 8… (D ô±…ø) µ}¡ø
(D µµ±±ƒø) ¿øÊ (D ø¿ø) ƒwµƒ± (D ƒµµƒ±). ö±v ¥±µøºsø ƒøÊ
±qƒø, ú±¡w± ! ú±¥±ªt ±v ú±¡w± ! ƒøÊ 8±}ø ±v £±ª}º (D
omits the foregoing thirteen words) (D + ¿ø¡µµ±) y¡±± ¡}º±ƒ±, 5±
ªøʱ (D—µªø±) ªµw»… ±Pƒy (D ±ƒ. ±ªµ».) ±v(D + µ¡«ø¡ƒ±)
ªw± (D—ª±) ¿¡…“ƒ ¬ (D—ƒ¬) º ¬ ±qƒ… (D ±±ƒø) ¡«øƒ± (D
see above) ¿v ƒx ººµ÷ø, ±ƒµwª±ƒø¬ (D ±±ƒµªªøƒø¬) ƒøÊ !ªwø. ±v
ªµø ¿¡x¬ ±ƒp¬ (D µ±ƒø¬), §w¬ ¿øªwµ !º÷ (D ºø ±¿ø.) ƒx
ªwø (D ±¿ø) ƒ ¬ {¡±¬ ƒøÊ ººµwø? (D + ±¡ ºµ±¬ ø¥¡±). ö±v
±ªs»±± µ…¡øÊ (D µ¡«øƒ± ± µ¡ø) Eƒ ¿øµwªƒ± A
ªwø¬ (D ±¿øµªºµø ƒø ªø). & p¡ ºs±¬ y¥¡±. (D see above.)
±v… µ6¥ø µ±wø (D µ±. µ¥.) ±uºµø…. ±v æµ±ºu±
(D µ±±). A ¥r ªsµ ±Pƒ±÷¬ (D ± ªµµ ±ƒø¬) (D + ø ±µªø¬).
út ±ºµ÷µ (D øµ±) (D + ƒø) 8øÊ ƒµ÷ƒµ ƒx ù±±¡x
(D—ƒø ù±.) … 4¥µ (D µ¥µƒµ) A ƒy¿ø¬ (D µµ ƒø¿ø ±ƒø) E¿ø ±
±Pƒy. ªª (D ±ªª±) Q¿qµƒµ (D + ±) µ4¿±ƒµ… Eƒ (D + ¥ø) ¿¡øqµ (D
¿¡ø±…) Qº ¬ µ0¬ ƒt 챪ª±w±; µ÷±Pƒx (D º) D»µøµ, ±|¬ µ6¿µ (D
µ¡±) Qº÷ . St. Mark xv. 47-xvi. 7.206 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
± µ¡ø ±¿øµªºµø ƒø ªø? This is in fact
a fabricated, not an honestly transcribed text: and it cannot be
too clearly understood that such a text (more or less fabricated, I
mean) is exhibited by Codexes B throughout.
[186]
§ 5.
It is remarkable that whenever the construction is somewhat
harsh or obscure, D and the Latin copies are observed freely to
transpose,—to supply,—and even slightly to paraphrase,—in
order to bring out the presumed meaning of the original.
An example is furnished by St. Luke i. 65, where the
Evangelist, having related that Zacharias wrote—“His name
is John,” adds,—“and all wondered. And his mouth was opened
immediately, and his tongue, and he spake praising GOD.
” The
meaning of course is that his tongue“was loosed.” Accordingly
D actually supplies ª{ ,—the Latin copies,“resoluta est.”But
D does more. Presuming that what occasioned the“wonder”was
not so much what Zacharias wrote on the tablet as the restored
gift of speech, it puts that clause first,—ingeniously transposing
the first two words (¿±¡±«¡º± ±); the result of which is the
following sentence:—“And immediately his tongue was loosed;
and all wondered. And his mouth was opened, and he spake
praising GOD”…. In the next verse it is related that“fear came
upon all who dwelt round about them.”But the order of the words
in the original being unusual (±v sµƒø ¿v¿qƒ±¬ yø¬ ƒøz¬
¿µ¡øøʃ±¬ ±Pƒø{¬), D and the Latin copies transpose them:
(indeed the three Syriac do the same): but D b c gratuitously
introduce an epithet,—± µµµƒø øø¬ ºµ±¬ µ¿ ¿±ƒ±¬ ƒø¬
¿µ¡øøƒ±¬ ±ƒø…. In ver. 70, the expression ƒˆ ¿
±0ˆø¬ ¿¡øƒˆ ±PƒøÊ appearing harsh was (by transposing
the words) altered into this, which is the easy and more obvious
order: ¿¡øƒ… ±ƒø ƒ… ±¿ ±…ø¬…. So again in ver.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 207
71: the phrase …ƒ¡w± æ «¡ˆ seeming obscure, the words
«µ¡y¬ (which follow) were by D substituted for æ. The
result (…ƒ¡w± «µ¡x¬ «¡ˆ !ºˆ [compare ver. 74],
±v ¿qƒ… ƒˆ ºø{ƒ… !º ¬) is certainly easier reading:
but—like every other change found in the same context—it
labours under the fatal condemnation of being an unauthorized
human gloss.
The phenomenon however which perplexes me most in Cod.
D is that it abounds in fabricated readings which have nothing
whatever to recommend them. Not contented with St. Luke’s
expression“to thrust out a little (@ªwø) from the land” (v. 3),
the scribe writes øø øø. In ver. 5, instead of“I will let down
the net” («±ªq… ƒx ¥wƒø) he makes St. Peter reply,“I will
not neglect to obey” (ø º ¿±¡±øøº±). So, for“and when
they had this done,”he writes“and when they had straightway let
down the nets”: and immediately after, instead of ¥µ¡¡uƒø
¥r ƒx ¥wƒø ±Pƒˆ we are presented with …ƒµ ƒ± ¥ƒ±
¡µ±. It is very difficult to account for this, except on an
hypothesis which I confess recommends itself to me more and
more: viz. that there were in circulation in some places during
the earliest ages of the Church Evangelical paraphrases, or at
least free exhibitions of the chief Gospel incidents,—to which
the critics resorted; and from which the less judicious did not
hesitate to borrow expressions and even occasionally to extract
short passages. Such loose representations of passages must have
prevailed both in Syria, and in the West where Greek was not so
well understood, and where translators into the vernacular Latin
expressed themselves with less precision, whilst they attempted
also to explain the passages translated.
This notion, viz. that it is within the province of a Copyist to
interpret the original before him, clearly lies at the root of many
a so-called“various reading.” [187]
Thus for the difficult ¿±ª| ª±µ (in St. Mark xiv. 72),
“when he thought thereon” (i.e.“when in self-abandonment he[188]
208 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
flung himself upon the thought”),“he wept,” D exhibits ±v
$¡æ±ƒø ª±wµ,
“and he began to weep,” a much easier and a
very natural expression, only that it is not the right one, and
does not express all that the true words convey. Hence also the
transposition by D and some Old Latin MSS. of the clause &
p¡ ºs±¬ y¥¡±“for it was very great” from xvi. 4, where it
seems to be out of place, to ver. 3 where it seems to be necessary.
Eusebius is observed to have employed a MS. similarly corrupt.
Hence again the frequent unauthorized insertion of a
nominative case to determine the sense: e.g. A µªø¬“the
angel,” xvi. 6, A ¥r 8…u“Joseph,” xv. 46, or the substitution
of the name intended for the pronoun,—as ƒ¬ 缾µ¥ (sic) for
±Pƒ ¬ in St. Luke i. 41.
Hence in xvi. 7, instead of,“He goeth before you into
Galilee, there shall ye see Him as He said unto you,”—D
exhibits,—“Behold, I go before you into Galilee, there shall ye
see Me, as I told you.” As if it had been thought allowable to
recall in this place the fact that our SAVIOUR had once (St. Matt.
xxvi. 32, St. Mark xiv. 28) spoken these words in His own
person.
And in no other way can I explain D’s vapid substitution, made
as if from habit, of“a Galilean city”for“a city of Galilee, named
Nazareth” in St. Luke i. 26.
Hence the frequent insertion of a wholly manufactured clause
in order to impart a little more clearness to the story—as of the
words ƒx Døº± ±PƒøÊ“his name” (after ªuµƒ± “shall be
called”)—into St. Luke i. 60.
These passages afford expressions of a feature in this
Manuscript to which we must again invite particular attention. It
reveals to close observation frequent indications of an attempt,
not to supply a faithful representation of the very words of Holy
Scripture and nothing more than those words, but to interpret, to
illustrate,—in a word,—to be a Targum. Of course, such a design
or tendency is absolutely fatal to the accuracy of a transcriber.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 209
Yet the habit is too strongly marked upon the pages of Codex D
to admit of any doubt whether it existed or not264
.
In speaking of the character of a MS. one is often constrained
to distinguish between the readings and the scribe. The readings
may be clearly fabricated: but there may be evidence that
the copyist was an accurate and painstaking person. On the
other hand, obviously the scribe may have been a considerable
blunderer, and yet it may be clear that he was furnished with
an admirable archetype. In the case of D we are presented with
the alarming concurrence of a fabricated archetype and either a
blundering scribe, or a course of blundering scribes.
But then further,—One is often obliged (if one would be
accurate) to distinguish between the penman who actually
produced the MS., and the critical reader for whom he toiled. It
would really seem however as if the actual transcriber of D, or
the transcribers of the ancestors of D, had invented some of those
monstrous readings as they went on. The Latin version which
is found in this MS. exactly reflects, as a rule, the Greek on the
opposite page: but sometimes it bears witness to the admitted
truth of Scripture, while the Greek goes off in alia omnia265
.
§ 6.
It will of course be asked,—But why may not D be in every
respect an exact copy,—line for line, word for word, letter for
letter,—of some earlier archetype? To establish the reverse of [189]
264 So for example at the end of the same passage in St. Luke, the difficult
±Uƒ ! ¿ø¡±t ¿¡}ƒ sµƒø (ii. 2) becomes ±ƒ µµµƒø ±¿ø¡±
¿¡…ƒ; ¿ªu± is changed into the simpler µƒµªµ±; yø¬ ºs±¬
(ii. 9) after øu± into ø¥¡±; ± (ii. 10) is inserted before ¿±ƒv ƒ˜
ª±˜.
265 Yet not unfrequently the Greek is unique in its extravagance, e.g. Acts v. 8;
xiii. 14; xxi. 28, 29.[190]
210 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
this, so as to put the result beyond the reach of controversy, is
impossible. The question depends upon reasons purely critical,
and is not of primary importance. For all practical purposes,
it is still Codex D of which we speak. When I name“Codex
D” I mean of course nothing else but Codex D according to
Scrivener’s reprint of the text. And if it be a true hypothesis that
the actual Codex D is nothing else but the transcript of another
Codex strictly identical with itself, then it is clearly a matter of
small importance of which of the two I speak. When“Codex D”
is cited, it is the contents of Codex D which are meant, and no
other thing.
And upon this point it may be observed, that D is chiefly
remarkable as being the only Greek Codex266 which exhibits the
highly corrupt text found in some of the Old Latin manuscripts,
and may be taken as a survival from the second century.
The genius of this family of copies is found to have been—
1. To substitute one expression for another, and generally to
paraphrase.
2. To remove difficulties, and where a difficult expression
presented itself, to introduce a conjectural emendation of the
text. For example, the passage already noticed about the Publican
going down to his house“justified rather than the other”is altered
into“justified more than that Pharisee” (º±ªªø ¿±¡ µµø
ƒø ¶±¡±ø. St. Luke xviii. 14)267
.
3. To omit what might seem to be superfluous. Thus the verse,
“Lord, he hath ten pounds” (St. Luke xix. 25) is simply left
out268
.
Enough has been surely said to prove amply that the text
of Codex D is utterly untrustworthy. Indeed, the habit of
interpolation found in it, the constant tendency to explain rather
266 Cureton’s Syriac is closely allied to D, and the Lewis Codex less so.
267 See b c e f ff2 i l q Vulg.
268 So b e g2 Curetonian, Lewis.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 211
than to report, the licentiousness exhibited throughout, and the
isolation in which this MS. is found, except in cases where some
of the Low-Latin Versions and Cureton’s Syriac, and perhaps the
Lewis, bear it company, render the text found in it the foulest in
existence. What then is to be thought of those critics who upon the
exclusive authority of this unstable offender and of a few of the
Italic copies occasionally allied with it, endeavour to introduce
changes in face of the opposition of all other authorities? And
since their ability is unquestioned, must we not seek for the
causes of their singular action in the theory to which they are
devoted?
§ 7.
Before we take leave of the Old Uncials, it will be well to invite
attention to a characteristic feature in them, which is just what the
reader would expect who has attended to all that has been said,
and which adds confirmation to the doctrine here propounded.
The clumsy and tasteless character of some at least of the Old
Uncials has come already under observation. This was in great
measure produced by constantly rubbing off delicate expressions
which add both to the meaning and the symmetry of the Sacred
Record. We proceed to give a few examples, not to prove our
position, since it must surely be evident enough to the eyes of any
accomplished scholar, but as specimens, and only specimens, of
the loss which the Inspired Word would sustain if the Old Uncials
were to be followed. Space will not admit of a full discussion of
this matter.
An interesting refinement of expression, which has been
hopelessly obscured through the proclivity of to fall into error,
is found in St. Matt. xxvi. 71. The Evangelist describing the
second of St. Peter’s denials notes that the damsel who saw [191]
him said to the bystanders,“This man too (±v) was with Jesus212 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of Nazareth.” The three MSS. just mentioned omit the ±v. No
other MS., Uncial or Cursive, follows them. They have only the
support of the unstable Sahidic269. The loss inflicted is patent:
comment is needless.
Another instance, where poverty of meaning would be the
obvious result if the acceptance by some critics of the lead of
the same trio of Uncials were endorsed, may be found in the
description of what the shepherds did when they had seen the
Holy Child in the manger. Instead of“they made known abroad”
(¥µ}¡±), we should simply have“they made known”
( }¡±). We are inclined to say,“Why this clipping and
pruning to the manifest disadvantage of the sacred deposit.”
Only the satellite L and û and six Cursives with a single passage
from Eusebius are on the same side. The rest in overwhelming
majority condemn such rudeness270
.
§ 8.
The undoubtedly genuine expression ±vƒw¬ ƒ, ö¡µ (which is
the traditional reading of St. John ix. 36), loses its characteristic
öëô in Cod. *AL,—though it retains it in the rest of the
uncials and in all the cursives. The ±w is found in the
Complutensian,—because the editors followed their copies: it is
not found in the Textus Receptus only because Erasmus did not
as in cases before mentioned follow his. The same refinement of
expression recurs in the Traditional Text of ch. xiv. 22 (ö{¡µ,
269 St. Chrysostom (vii. 84. d), Origen (iii. 902. d int.), Victor of Antioch (335)
insert the ±w.
270 So too ±µºsø¬ (BCLî. 42) for ±±µºsø¬ (St. Mark vi. 26):
omit ¥r( *Lî. six curs.) in ±vªª± ¥r¿ªø÷± (iv. 36): µw¡ø ( *C*î†.
few curs.) for ¥µµw¡ø (iv. 38): µ ( 2DL. few curs.) for ±ƒsµ
(xv. 46): ºs±ª± ( *etc 6BD*L) for ºµ±ªµ÷± (St. Luke i. 49): ±¿µ}
( cBC*KLX†* few curs.) for ¿¿µ} (St. John xiii. 25): &c., &c.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 213
öë⁄ ƒw søµ), and experienced precisely the same fate at [192]
the hands of the two earliest editors of the printed Greek Text.
It is also again faithfully upheld in its integrity by the whole
body of the cursives,—always excepting“33”. But (as before)
in uncials of bad character, as BDL (even by AEX) the ±w
is omitted,—for which insufficient reason it has been omitted
by the Revisers likewise,—notwithstanding the fact that it is
maintained in all the other uncials. As is manifest in most of
these instances, the Versions, being made into languages with
other idioms than Greek, can bear no witness; and also that
these delicate embellishments would be often brushed off in
quotations, as well as by scribes and so-called correctors.
We have not far to look for other instances of this. St. Matthew
(i. 18) begins his narrative,—ºƒµµw¬ ì ° ƒ ¬ ºƒ¡x¬
±PƒøÊ ú±¡w±¬ ƒ˜ 8…u . Now, as readers of Greek are aware,
the little untranslated (because untranslateable) word exhibited
in capitals271 stands with peculiar idiomatic force and propriety
immediately after the first word of such a sentence as the
foregoing, being employed in compliance with strictly classical
usage272: and though it might easily come to be omitted through
the carelessness or the licentiousness of copyists, yet it could not
by any possibility have universally established itself in copies
of the Gospel—as it has done—had it been an unauthorized
accretion to the text. We find it recognized in St. Matt. i. 18 by
Eusebius273, by Basil274, by Epiphanius275, by Chrysostom276
,
271 Owing to differences of idiom in other languages, it is not represented here
in so much as a single ancient Version.
272 “Est enim ƒøÊìë° officium inchoare narrationem.
”Hoogeveen, De Partic.
Cf. Prom. Vinct. v. 666. See also St. Luke ix. 44.
273 Dem. Ev. 320 b.
274 ii. 597: 278.
275 i. 1040 b.
276 viii. 314 a: (Eclog.) xii. 694 d.[193]
214 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
by Nestorius277, by Cyril278, by Andreas Cret.279: which is even
extraordinary; for the q¡ is not at all required for purposes of
quotation. But the essential circumstance as usual is, that q¡ is
found besides in the whole body of the manuscripts. The only
uncials in fact which omit the idiomatic particle are four of older
date, viz. B *Z.
This same particle ( q¡) has led to an extraordinary amount
of confusion in another place, where its idiomatic propriety has
evidently been neither felt nor understood,—viz. in St. Luke
xviii. 14.“This man” (says our LORD)“went down to his house
justified rather than” (” q¡)“the other.” Scholars recognize
here an exquisitely idiomatic expression, which in fact obtains
so universally in the Traditional Text that its genuineness is
altogether above suspicion. It is vouched for by 16 uncials
headed by A, and by the cursives in the proportion of 500 to
1. The Complutensian has it, of course: and so would the
Textus Receptus have it, if Erasmus had followed his MS.: but
“praefero” (he says)“quod est usitatius apud probos autores.
”
Uncongenial as the expression is to the other languages of
antiquity, ” q¡ is faithfully retained in the Gothic and in the
Harkleian Version280. Partly however, because it is of very
rare occurrence and was therefore not understood281, and partly
because when written in uncials it easily got perverted into
something else, the expression has met with a strange fate. óìë°
is found to have suggested, or else to have been mistaken for, both
277 Ap. Cyril, v2. 28 a.
278 v1. 676 e.
279 30 b (=Gall. xiii. 109 d).
280 So, in Garnier’s MSS. of Basil ii. 278 a, note. Also in Cyril apud Mai ii.
378.
281 So Mill, Prolegg. 1346 and 1363.—Beza says roundly,“Quod plerique
Graeci codices scriptum habent ” p¡ µø¬, sane non intelligo; nisi dicam
q¡ redundare.”Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 215
ó¿ï°282 and •†ï°283. The prevailing expedient however was, to
get rid of the ó—to turn ìë° into †ë°,—and, for µ÷ø¬ to write
µ÷ø284. The uncials which exhibit this strange corruption [194]
of the text are exclusively that quaternion which have already
come so often before us,—viz. B . But D improves upon the
blunder of its predecessors by writing, like a Targum, º ªªø
ìë° ±0µ÷ø (sic), and by adding (with the Old Latin and the
Peshitto) ƒx ¶±¡±÷ø,—an exhibition of the text which (it is
needless to say) is perfectly unique285
.
And how has the place fared at the hands of some Textual
critics? Lachmann and Tregelles (forsaken by Tischendorf) of
course follow Codd. B . The Revisers (with Dr. Hort)—not
liking to follow B , and unable to adopt the Traditional
Text, suffer the reading of the Textus Receptus (” µ÷ø¬) to
stand,—though a solitary cursive (Evan. 1) is all the manuscript
authority that can be adduced in its favour. In effect, ” µ÷ø¬
may be said to be without manuscript authority286
.
The point to be noticed in all this is, that the true reading of
282 ¿µ¡ µ÷ø¬ is exhibited by the printed text of Basil ii. 278 a.
283 Q¿r¡ ±Pƒy is found in Basil ii. 160 b:—Q¿r¡ µ÷ø, in Dorotheus
(A.D.{FNS 596) ap. Galland. xii. 403 d:—Q¿r¡ ƒx ¶±¡±÷ø, in Chrysostom
iv. 536 a; vi. 142 d—(where one of the Manuscripts exhibits ¿±¡p ƒx
¶±¡±÷ø).—Nilus the Monk has the same reading (Q¿r¡ ƒx ¶±¡±÷ø),—i.
280.
284 Accordingly, ¿±¡ µ÷ø is found in Origen i. 490 b. So also reads
the author of the scholium in Cramer’s Cat. ii. 133,—which is the same
which Matthaei (in loc.) quotes out of Evan. 256. And so Cyril (ap.
Mai, ii. 180),—¿±¡ µ÷ø ƒx ¶±¡±÷ø.
—Euthymius (A.D.{FNS 1116),
commenting on the traditional text of Luke xviii. 14 (see Matthaei’s Praefat. i.
177), says ìë° Eµ÷ø¬ “ø øP µ÷ø¬.
285 The º ªªø is obviously added by way of interpretation, or to help out
the meaning. Thus, in Origen (iv. 124 d) we meet with º ªªø ±PƒøÊ:—in
Chrysostom (i. 151 c), º ªªø Q¿r¡ ƒx ¶±¡±÷ø: and in Basil Sel. (p. 184
c), º ªªø “A¶±¡±÷ø¬.
286 It is found however in ps.-Chrysostom (viii. 119 c):—in Antiochus Mon.
(p. 1102 = ed. Migne, vol. 89, p. 1579 c): and in Theophylact (i. 433 c). At p.
435 b, the last-named writes “µ÷ø¬, ƒvƒøʆë°Cµ÷ø¬.216 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
St. Luke xviii. 14 has been faithfully retained by the MSS. in all
countries and all down the ages, not only by the whole body of
the cursives, but by every uncial in existence except four. And
[195]
those four are B .
But really the occasions are without number when minute
words have dropped out of and their allies,—and yet have
been faithfully retained, all through the centuries, by the later
Uncials and despised Cursive copies. In St. John xvii. 2, for
instance, we read—¥yæ±y ø ƒx 1y , 5± öë⁄ A 1y¬ £ü•
¥øæq s: where ±wis omitted by : and ø (after A 1y¬) by
. Some critics will of course insist that, on the contrary, both
words are spurious accretions to the text of the cursives; and they
must say so, if they will. But does it not sensibly impair their
confidence in to find that it, and it only, exhibits ªµªqªµ
(for ªqªµ) in ver. 1,—¥}… ±Pƒ˜(for ¥} ±Pƒø÷¬) in ver.
2, while are peculiar in writing 8øʬ without the article in
ver. 1?
Enough has surely been said to exhibit and illustrate this
rude characteristic of the few Old Copies which out of the vast
number of their contemporaries are all that we now possess.
The existence of this characteristic is indubitable and undoubted:
it is in a measure acknowledged by Dr. Hort in words on
which we shall remark in the ensuing chapter287. Our readers
should observe that the“rubbing off” process has by no means
been confined to particles like ±w and q¡, but has extended
to tenses, other forms of words, and in fact to all kinds of
delicacies of expression. The results have been found all through
the Gospels: sacred and refined meaning, such as accomplished
scholars will appreciate in a moment, has been pared off and
cast away. If people would only examine B, and D in their
bare unpresentableness, they would see the loss which those
MSS. have sustained, as compared with the Text supported by
287 Introduction, p. 135.Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D. 217
the overwhelming mass of authorities: and they would refuse to
put their trust any longer in such imperfect, rudimentary, and
ill-trained guides.
[196][197]
Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And
The Cursives.
§ 1288
.
The nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood in many
quarters; and mistakes respecting it lie close to the root, if they are
not themselves the root, of the chief errors in Textual Criticism.
We must therefore devote some space to a brief explanation of
this important element in our present inquiry.
Tradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is taken
for granted, contracts pollution in its course the further it goes.
Purity is supposed to be attainable only within the neighbourhood
of the source: and it is assumed that distance from thence ensures
proportionally either greater purity or more corruption.
Without doubt there is much truth in this comparison: only,
as in the case of nearly all comparisons there are limits to the
resemblance, and other features and aspects are not therein
connoted, which are essentially bound up with the subject
believed to be illustrated on all points in this similitude.
In the first place, the traditional presentment of the New
Testament is not like a single stream, but resembles rather a great
number of streams of which many have remained pure, but some
have been corrupted. One cluster of bad streams was found in
the West, and, as is most probable, the source of very many of
them was in Syria: another occurred in the East with Alexandria
288 For all this section except the early part of“4”the Editor is responsible.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 219
and afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined by
the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts of the
Church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these contaminants,
and preserved the pure and precise utterance as it issued from the
springs of the Written Word.
But there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect simile
which is continually employed on this subject either by word of
mouth or in writing. The Tradition of the Church does not take
shape after the model of a stream or streams rolling in mechanical
movement and unvaried flow from the fountain down the valley
and over the plain. Like most mundane things, it has a career.
It has passed through a stage when one manuscript was copied
as if mechanically from another that happened to be at hand.
Thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced accuracy;
and error was surely procreative of error. Afterwards came a
period when both bad and good exemplars offered themselves in
rivalry, and the power of refusing the evil and choosing the good
was in exercise, often with much want of success. As soon as
this stage was accomplished, which may be said roughly to have
reached from Origen till the middle of the fourth century, another
period commenced, when a definite course was adopted, which
was followed with increasing advantage till the whole career was
fixed irrevocably in the right direction. The period of the two
Gregories, Basil, Chrysostom, and others, was the time when
the Catholic Church took stock of truth and corruption, and had
in hand the duty of thoroughly casting out error and cleansing
her faith. The second part of the Creed was thus permanently
defined; the third part which, besides the Divinity of the Holy
Ghost, relates to His action in the Church, to the Written Word, inclusive both of the several books generally and the text of those
books, to the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the
character of the unity and government of the Church, was on
many points delayed as to special definition by the ruin soon dealt
upon the Roman Empire, and by the ignorance of the nations
[198][199]
220 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
which entered upon that vast domain: and indeed much of this
part of the Faith remains still upon the battlefield of controversy.
But action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed the
Canon of St. Augustine289: “What the Church of the time found
prevailing throughout her length and breadth, not introduced by
regulations of Councils, but handed down in unbroken tradition,
that she rightly concluded to have been derived from no other
fount than Apostolic authority.” To use other words, in the
accomplishment of her general work, the Church quietly and
without any public recension examined as to the written Word
the various streams that had come down from the Apostles, and
followed the multitude that were purest, and by gradual filtration
extruded out of these nearly all the corruption that even the better
lines of descent had contracted.
We have now arrived at the period, when from the general
consentience of the records, it is discovered that the form of the
Text of the New Testament was mainly settled. The settlement
was effected noiselessly, not by public debate or in decrees of
general or provincial councils, yet none the less completely and
permanently. It was the Church’s own operation, instinctive,
deliberate, and in the main universal. Only a few witnesses
here and there lifted up their voices against the prevalent
decisions, themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense
of Christendom. Like the repudiation of Arianism, it was
a repentance from a partial and temporary encouragement of
corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was called in
question during the general disturbance of faith and doctrine in
the nineteenth century. Doubtless, the agreement thus introduced
has not attained more than a general character. For the exceeding
number of questions involved forbids all expectation of an
universal coincidence of testimony extending to every single
case.
289 See above, p. 61, note.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 221
But in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of the
later manuscripts, our way must be cleared by the removal of
some fallacies which are widely prevalent amongst students of
Sacred Textual Criticism.
It is sometimes imagined (1) that Uncials and Cursives differ
in kind; (2) that all Cursives are alike; (3) that all Cursives are
copies of Codex A, and are the results of a general Recension; and
(4) that we owe our knowledge of the New Testament entirely
to the existing Uncials. To these four fallacies must be added an
opinion which stands upon a higher footing than the preceding,
but which is no less a fallacy, and which we have to combat in
this chapter, viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and especially
the Text of the Cursives is a debased Text.
1. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is patent
to all people who have any knowledge of the subject. Uncials
form a ruder kind of manuscripts, written in capital letters with
no space between them till the later specimens are reached,
and generally with an insufficient and ill-marked array of stops.
Cursives show a great advance in workmanship, being indited,
as the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing letters,
with“a system of punctuation much the same as in printed
books.”As contrasted with one another, Uncials as a class enjoy
a great superiority, if antiquity is considered; and Cursives are
just as much higher than the sister class, if workmanship is to be
the guiding principle of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are such that whoso runs may read.
But Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not with
the superficial, but with the real;—not with the dress in which the
text is presented, but with the text itself;—not again with the bare
fact of antiquity, since age alone is no sure test of excellence, but
with the character of the testimony which from the nature of the
subject-matter is within reach. Judging then the later Uncials,
and comparing them with the Cursives, we make the discovery
that the texts of both are mainly the same. Indeed, they are
[200][201]
222 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
divided by no strict boundary of time: they overlap one another.
The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835290: the last Uncials, which
are Lectionaries, are referred to the eleventh, and possibly to the
twelfth, century291. One, Codex õ, is written partly in uncials,
and partly in cursive letters, as it appears, by the same hand.
So that in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials
and cursives must have issued mainly and virtually from the
same body of transcribers. It follows that the difference lay in
the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by a comparison of
one with another, there was a much more important similarity of
character within.
2. But when a leap is made from this position to another
sweeping assertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary to
put a stop to so illicit a process. In the first place, there is the
small handful of cursive copies which is associated with B and .
The notorious 1,—handsome outwardly like its two leaders but
corrupt in text,—33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209292, and others;—the
Ferrar Group, containing 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, besides 348,
624, 788;—these are frequently dissentients from the rest of the
Cursives. But indeed, when these and a few others have been
subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by themselves,
any careful examination of the evidence adduced on important
passages will reveal the fact that whilst almost always there is a
clear majority of Cursives on one side, there are amply enough
cases of dissentience more or less to prove that the Cursive
MSS. are derived from a multiplicity of archetypes, and are
endued almost severally with what may without extravagance be
termed distinct and independent personality. Indeed, such is the
necessity of the case. They are found in various countries all over
the Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times when
290 481 of the Gospels: from St. Saba, now at St. Petersburg.
291 The Evangelistaria 118, 192. Scrivener, Introduction, I. pp. 335, 340.
292 Scrivener, I. App. F, p. 398*. Of these, 205 and 209 are probably from the
same original. Burgon, Letters in Guardian to Dr. Scrivener.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 223
intercommunication between countries was extremely limited,
and publicity was all but confined to small areas. The genealogies
of Cursive MSS., if we knew them, would fill a volume. Their
stems must have been extremely numerous; and like Uncials,
and often independently of Uncials, they must have gone back to
the vast body of early papyrus manuscripts.
3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of Codex A, a
moderate knowledge of the real character of that manuscript, and
a just estimate of the true value of it, would effectually remove
such a hallucination. It is only the love of reducing all knowledge
of intricate questions to the compass of the proverbial nutshell,
and the glamour that hangs over a very old relic, which has led
people, when they had dropped their grasp of B, to clutch at the
ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is right to concede
all honour to such a survival of so early a period: but to lift
the pyramid from its ample base, and to rest it upon a point
like A, is a proceeding which hardly requires argument for its
condemnation. And next, when the notion of a Recension is
brought forward, the answer is, What and when and how and
where? In the absence of any sign or hint of such an event in records of the past, it is impossible to accept such an explanation
of what is no difficulty at all. History rests upon research into
documents which have descended to us, not upon imagination or
fiction. And the sooner people get such an idea out of their heads
as that of piling up structures upon mere assumption, and betake
themselves instead to what is duly attested, the better it will
be for a Science which must be reared upon well authenticated
bases, and not upon phantom theories.
4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely
misunderstood, or at least is strangely misrepresented. The
popular notion seems to be, that we are indebted for our
knowledge of the true text of Scripture to the existing Uncials
entirely; and that the essence of the secret dwells exclusively
with the four or five oldest of those Uncials. By consequence, it
[202][203]
224 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
is popularly supposed that since we are possessed of such Uncial
Copies, we could afford to dispense with the testimony of the
Cursives altogether. A more complete misconception of the facts
of the case can hardly be imagined. For the plain truth is that all
the phenomena exhibited by the Uncial MSS. are reproduced by
the Cursive Copies. A small minority of the Cursives, just as a
small minority of the Uncials, are probably the depositaries of
peculiar recensions.
It is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford entirely
to disregard the testimony of the Uncials, as to pretend that we
can afford entirely to disregard the testimony of the Cursives.
In fact of the two, the former assertion would be a vast deal
nearer to the truth. Our inductions would in many cases be so
fatally narrowed, if we might not look beyond one little handful
of Uncial Copies.
But the point to which the reader’s attention is specially
invited is this:—that so far from our being entirely dependent
on Codexes B , or on some of them, for certain of the most
approved corrections of the Received Text, we should have been
just as fully aware of every one of those readings if neither B nor
, C nor D, had been in existence. Those readings are every one
to be found in one or more of the few Cursive Codexes which rank
by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned and perhaps
some others. If they are not, they may be safely disregarded; they
are readings which have received no subsequent recognition293
.
293 I am not of course asserting that any known cursive MS. is an exact
counterpart of one of the oldest extant Uncials. Nor even that every reading
however extraordinary, contained in Codd. B , is also to be met with in one of
the few Cursives already specified. But what then? Neither do any of the oldest
Uncials contain all the textual avouchings discoverable in the same Cursives.
The thing asserted is only this: that, as a rule, every principal reading
discoverable in any of the five or seven oldest Uncials, is also exhibited in one
or more of the Cursives already cited or in others of them; and that generally
when there is consent among the oldest of the Uncials, there is also consent
among about as many of the same Cursives. So that it is no exaggeration to sayChapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 225
Indeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact parallel with
the case of the Uncials. Whenever we observe a formal consensus
of the Cursives for any reading, there, almost invariably, is a
grand consensus observable for the same reading of the Uncials.
The era of greater perfection both in the outer presentment and
in the internal accuracy of the text of copies of the New Testament
may be said, as far as the relics which have descended to us are
concerned, to have commenced with the Codex Basiliensis or E
of the Gospels. This beautiful and generally accurate Codex must
have been written in the seventh century294. The rest of the later
Uncials are ordinarily found together in a large or considerable majority: whilst there is enough dissent to prove that they
are independent witnesses, and that error was condemned, not
ignored. Thus the Codex Regius (L, eighth century), preserved at
Paris, generally follows B and : so does the Codex Sangallensis
(î, ninth century), the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall,
in St. Mark alone: and the Codex Zacynthius (û, an eighth
century palimpsest) now in the Library of the Bible Society, in
St. Luke295. The isolation of these few from the rest of their
own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the later uncials
is nearly always sustained by a large majority. In fact, as a rule,
every principal reading discoverable in any of the oldest Uncials
that we find ourselves always concerned with the joint testimony of the same
little handful of Uncial and Cursive documents: and therefore, as was stated at
the outset, if the oldest of the Uncials had never existed, the readings which
they advocate would have been advocated by MSS. of the eleventh, twelfth,
thirteenth, and fourteenth centuries.
294 Manuscript Evangelia in foreign Libraries, Letters in the Guardian from
Dean Burgon to Dr. Scrivener, Guardian, Jan. 29, 1873.“You will not be
dating it too early if you assign it to the seventh century.”
295 The other uncials which have a tendency to consort with B and are of
earlier date. Thus T (Codex Borgianus I) of St. Luke and St. John is of the
fourth or fifth century, R of St. Luke (Codex Nitriensis in the British Museum)
is of the end of the sixth, Z of St. Matthew (Codex Dublinensis), a palimpsest,
is of the sixth: Q and P, fragments like the rest, are respectively of the fifth and
sixth.
[204]226 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
is also exhibited in one, two, or three of the later Uncials, or in
one or more of the small handful of dissentient Cursives already
enumerated. Except indeed in very remarkable instances, as in
the case of the last twelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are
generally represented: yet in the later MSS. as compared with the
oldest there is this additional feature in the representation, that if
evidence is evidence, and weight, number, and variety are taken
into account, those readings are altogether condemned.
§ 2296
.
[205]
But we are here confronted with the contention that the text of
the Cursives is of a debased character. Our opponents maintain
that it is such that it must have been compounded from other
forms of text by a process of conflation so called, and that in
itself it is a text of a character greatly inferior to the text mainly
represented by B and .
Now in combating this opinion, we are bound first to remark
that the burden of proof rests with the opposite side. According
to the laws which regulate scientific conclusions, all the elements
of proof must be taken into consideration. Nothing deserves the
name of science in which the calculation does not include all the
phenomena. The base of the building must be conterminous with
the facts. This is so elementary a principle that it seems needless
to insist more upon it.
But then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accomplish, and
our adversaries disregard. Of course they have their reasons for
dismissing nineteen-twentieths of the evidence at hand: but—this
is the point—it rests with them to prove that such dismissal is
lawful and right. What then are their arguments? Mainly
three, viz. the supposed greater antiquity of their favourite
296 By the Editor.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 227
text, the superiority which they claim for its character, and the
evidence that the Traditional Text was as they maintain formed
by conflation from texts previously in existence.
Of these three arguments, that from antiquity has been already
disposed of, and illustration of what has been already advanced
will also be at hand throughout the sequel of this work. As
to conflation, a proof against its possible applicability to the
Traditional Text was supplied as to particles and other words in
the last chapter, and will receive illustration from instances of
words of a greater size in this. Conflation might be possible,
supposing for a moment that other conditions favoured it, and
that the elements to be conflated were already in existence in
other texts. But inasmuch as in the majority of instances such
elements are found nowhere else than in the Traditional Text,
conflation as accounting for the changes which upon this theory
must have been made is simply impossible. On the other hand,
the Traditional Text might have been very easily chipped and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the second part of this
Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and 297
.
Upon the third argument in the general contention, we
undertake to say that it is totally without foundation. On the
contrary, the text of the Cursives is greatly the superior of the
two. The instances which we proceed to give as specimens, and
as specimens only, will exhibit the propriety of language, and the
taste of expression, in which it is pre-eminent298. Let our readers
judge fairly and candidly, as we doubt not that they will, and we
do not fear the result.
But before entering upon the character of the later text, a few
words are required to remind our readers of the effect of the
general argument as hitherto stated upon this question. The text
of the later Uncials is the text to which witness is borne, not only
by the majority of the Uncials, but also by the Cursives and the
297 Above, pp. 80-81.
298 Hort, Introduction, p. 135.
[206][207]
228 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Versions and the Fathers, each in greater numbers. Again, the
text of the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support of by very
far the largest number among themselves, and also of the Uncials
and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text of which we are
now treating, which is that of the later Uncials and the Cursives
combined, is incomparably superior under all the external Notes
of Truth. It possesses in nearly all cases older attestation299:
there is no sort of question as to the greater number of witnesses
that bear evidence to its claims: nor to their variety: and hardly
ever to the explicit proof of their continuousness; which indeed
is also generally—nay, universally—implied owing to the nature
of the case: their weight is certified upon strong grounds: and
as a matter of fact, the context in nearly all instances testifies
on their side. The course of doctrine pursued in the history of
the Universal Church is immeasurably in their favour. We have
now therefore only to consider whether their text, as compared
with that of B and their allies, commends itself on the score of
intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has been
manifested the text of B- , and that of D, are bad, and have been
shewn to be the inferior, this must be the better. We may now
proceed to some specimen instances exhibiting the superiority of
the Later Uncial and Cursive text.
§ 3.
Our SAVIOUR‘S lament over Jerusalem (“If thou hadst known,
even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto
thy peace!”) is just one of those delicately articulated passages
which are safe to suffer by the process of transmission. Survey St.
Luke’s words (xix. 42), ï0…¬ ±v {, ±wµ ƒ«!ºµ¡ ø
ƒ±{ƒ , ƒp¿¡x¬ µ0¡u ø,—and you will perceive at a glance
299 Chapters V, VI, VII.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 229
that the vulnerable point in the sentence, so to speak, is ±v {,
±wµ. In the meanwhile, attested as those words are by the Old
Latin300 and by Eusebius301, as well as witnessed to by the whole
body of the copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost
original of 13-69-124-346 &c.,—the very order of those words is
a thing quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits this. He
retains the traditional reading in every respect. Eusebius however
twice writes ±wµ {302; once, ±v {µ303; and once he drops
±w µ entirely304. Origen drops it 3 times305. Still, there is at
least a general consensus among Copies, Versions and Fathers
for beginning the sentence with the characteristic words, µ0…¬
±v {; the phrase being witnessed to by the Latin, the Bohairic, [208]
the Gothic, and the Harkleian Versions; by Irenaeus306
,—by
Origen307
,—by ps.-Tatian308
,—by Eusebius309
,—by Basil the
Great310
,—by Basil of Seleucia311
,—by Cyril312
.
What then is found in the three remaining Uncials, for C
is defective here? D exhibits µ µ…¬ ± , µ ƒ ºµ¡±
ƒ±ƒ, ƒ± ¿¡ø¬ µ¡ ø: being supported only by the Latin
of Origen in one place313. Lachmann adopts this reading all the
300 Vercell.:—Si scires tu, quamquam in hac tuâ die, quae ad pacem tuam.
So Amiat. and Aur.:—Si cognovisses et tu, et quidem in hâc die tuâ, quae ad
pacem tibi.
301 Mai, iv. 129.
302 Ibid., and H. E. iii. 7.
303 Montf. ii. 470.
304 Montf. i. 700.
305 iii. 321; interp. 977; iv. 180.
306 i. 220: also the Vet. interp.,
“Si cognovisses et tu.”And so ap. Epiph. i. 254
b.
307 iii. 321, 977.
308 Evan. Conc. 184, 207.
309 In all 5 places.
310 Mor. ii. 272 b.
311 205.
312 In Luc. (Syr.) 686.
313 Int. iii. 977.[209]
230 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, has happened to it
than the omission of ±w µ, and of the former ø. But when
we turn to B , we find that they and L, with Origen once314
,
and the Syriac heading prefixed to Cyril’s homilies on St. Luke’s
Gospel315, exclusively exhibit,—µ µ…¬ µ ƒ ºµ¡± ƒ±ƒ
± ƒ± ¿¡ø¬ µ¡: thus, not only omitting ±wµ, together
with the first and second ø, but by transposing the words ±v
{— ƒ«!ºµ¡ ƒ±{ƒ , obliterating from the passage more than
half its force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated exhibition
of our LORD‘S words, only because it is found in B , is adopted
by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the Revisers316. The
Peshitto by the way omits ±v {, and transposes the two clauses
which remain317. The Curetonian Syriac runs wild, as usual, and
the Lewis too318
.
Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader’s attention
is invited to the instructive fact that the whole body of cursive
copies (and all the uncials but four) have retained in this passage
all down the ages uninjured every exquisite lineament of the
inspired archetype. The truth, I say, is to be found in the cursive
copies, not in the licentious B , which as usual stand apart from
one another and from A. Only in respect of the first ø is there a
slight prevarication on the part of a very few witnesses319. Note
however that it is overborne by the consent of the Syriac, the Old
Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony of ps.-Tatian
314 iv. 180.
315 In Luc. (Syr.) 607.
316 In their usual high-handed way, these editors assume, without note or
comment, that B are to be followed here. The“Revisers” of 1881 do the
same. Is this to deal honestly with the evidence and with the English reader?
317 Viz.—µ0…¬ ƒp¿¡x¬ µ0¡u ø, ±wµ ƒ«!ºs¡ ø ƒ±{ƒ.
318 Viz.—µ0±v ƒ«!ºs¡ ƒ±{ƒ …¬ ƒt µ0¡u ø.
319 It is omitted by Eus. iv. 129, Basil ii. 272, Cod. A, Evann. 71, 511, Evst.
222, 259. For the second ø still fewer authorities exhibit ø, while some
few (as Irenaeus) omit it altogether.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 231
is express on this head320. There is therefore nothing to be altered
in the traditional text of St. Luke xix. 42, which furnishes an
excellent instance of fidelity of transmission, and of an emphatic
condemnation of B- .
§ 4.
It is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they
sometimes constrain us to give prominence to minute details
which it is difficult to make entertaining. Let me however seek
to interest my reader in the true reading of St. Matt. xx. 22, 23:
from which verses recent critical Editors reject the words,“and
to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with,” ±v ƒx
q¿ƒº± C |±¿ƒwøº± ±¿ƒ ±.
About the right of the same words to a place in the
corresponding part of St. Mark’s Gospel (x. 38), there is
no difference of opinion: except that it is insisted that in St. Mark
the clause should begin with $instead of ±w.
Next, the reader is requested to attend to the following
circumstance: that, except of course the four ( ) and Z which
omit the place altogether and one other (S), all the Uncials
together with the bulk of the Cursives, and the Peshitto and [210]
Harkleian and several Latin Versions, concur in reading ” ƒx
q¿ƒº± in St. Matthew: all the Uncials but eight ( î£),
together with the bulk of the Cursives and the Peshitto, agree in
reading ±v ƒx q¿ƒº± in St. Mark. This delicate distinction
between the first and the second Gospel, obliterated in the
Received Text, is faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty
of the Cursive Copies.
In the meantime we are assured on the authority of—with
most of the Latin Copies, including of course Hilary and
320 “Hanc diem tuam. Si ergo dies ejus erat, quanto magis et tempus ejus!” p.
184, and so 207.[211]
232 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Jerome, the Cureton, the Lewis, and the Bohairic, besides
Epiphanius,—that the clause in question has no right to its place
in St. Matthew’s Gospel. So confidently is this opinion held,
that the Revisers, following Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf,
Tregelles, Alford, have ejected the words from the Text. But are
they right? Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.
If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew’s Gospel,
how will you possibly account for its presence in every MS. in
the world except 7, viz. 5 uncials and 2 cursives? It is pretended
that it crept in by assimilation from the parallel place in St. Mark.
But I reply,—
1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring improbability of
such an hypothesis? Why should the Gospel most in vogue have
been assimilated in all the Copies but seven to the Gospel least
familiarly known and read in the Churches?
2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale
falsification of the MSS. took place? The Peshitto Syriac as
usual sides with the bulk of the Cursives: but it has been shewn
to be of the second century. Some of the Latin Copies also
have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and Basil of Seleucia
also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance of the evidence is
overwhelmingly one way. But then
3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from
St. Mark’s Gospel,—for the very conclusive reason that the two
places are delicately discriminated,—as on the testimony of the
Cursives and the Peshitto has been shewn already. And
4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction
on the part of any but the advocates of the popular theory that, on
the contrary, it is St. Matthew’s Gospel which has been corrupted
from St. Mark’s. A conclusive note of the assimilating process is
discernible in St. Mark’s Gospel where ” has intruded,—not in
St. Matthew’s.
5. Why St. Matthew’s Gospel was maimed in this place, I am
not able to explain. Demonstrable it is that the Text of the GospelsChapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 233
at that early period underwent a process of Revision at the hands
of men who apparently were as little aware of the foolishness as
of the sinfulness of all they did: and that Mutilation was their
favourite method. And, what is very remarkable, the same kind
of infatuation which is observed to attend the commission of
crime, and often leads to its detection, is largely recognizable
here. But the Eye which never sleeps has watched over the
Deposit, and provided Himself with witnesses.
§ 5.
Singular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon and
Andrew, James and John were on the last occasion called to
Apostleship (St. Matt. iv. 17-22: St. Mark i. 14-20: St. Luke
v. 1-11) have never yet been explained321. The facts were as
follows.
It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were moored to the shore. The fishermen having“toiled all the night and
taken nothing322
,
‘—’were gone out of them and had washed out
( ¿s¿ª±) their nets (ƒp ¥wƒ±)323
.
” But though fishing in
deep water had proved a failure, they knew that by wading into
the shallows, they might even now employ a casting-net with
advantage. Accordingly it was thus that our SAVIOUR, coming
by at this very juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed
( qªªøƒ±¬ ºwªƒ¡ø)324. Thereupon, entering Simon’s
321 “Having been wholly unsuccessful [in their fishing], two of them, seated
on the shore, were occupying their time in washing,—and two, seated in their
boat … were mending—their nets.” (Farrar’s Life of Christ, i. 241-2.) The
footnote appended to this“attempt to combine as far as it is possible in one
continuous narrative” the“accounts of the Synoptists,”is quite a curiosity.
322 St. Luke v. 5.
323 Ibid., verses 1, 2.
324 St. Matt. iv. 18-St. Mark i. 16.
[212]234 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
boat,“He prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the
land325
.
” The rest requires no explanation.
Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story
is the graphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the
well-known usage of the language which gives to the aorist tense
on such occasions as the present a pluperfect signification326
.
The Translators of 1611, not understanding the incident, were
content, as Tyndale, following the Vulgate327, had been before
them, to render ¿s¿ª± ƒp ¥wƒ±,
—“were washing their
nets.” Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let alone, no
serious harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not
only retaining the incorrect translation“were washing their nets,”
but, by making the Greek tally with the English—by substituting
in short ¿ªø for ¿s¿ª±,—have so effectually darkened
the Truth as to make it simply irrecoverable by ordinary students.
The only point in the meantime to which the reader’s attention is
just now invited is this:—that the compound verb in the aorist
tense ( ¿s¿ª±) has been retained by the whole body of the
[213]
Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages: while the barbarous
¿ªø is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials
BD328 and a single cursive (Evan. 91)329
.
§ 6.
325 St. Luke v. 3.
326 As in St. Matt, xxvii. 2, 60; St. Luke v. 4; xiii. 16; St. John xviii. 24; xxi.
15; Acts xii. 17; Heb. iv. 8, &c., &c.
327 lavabant retia, it. vulg. The one known exception is (1) the Cod.
Rehdigeranus [VII] (Tischendorf).
328 The same pair of authorities are unique in substituting ±¿ƒw±ƒµ¬ (for
±¿ƒwøƒµ¬) in St. Matt. xxviii. 19; i.e. the Apostles were to baptize people
first, and make them disciples afterwards.
329 exhibit ¿ª±: A (by far the purest of the five“old uncials”) retains
the traditional text.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 235
“How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom
of Heaven,” exclaimed our LORD on a memorable occasion. The
disciples were amazed. Replying to their thoughts,—“Children,”
He added,“how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter
into the Kingdom of GOD.
” (St. Mark x. 23, 24). Those
familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all the cursives,
are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions support
them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what
is so well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf
and Westcott and Hort eject ƒøz¬ ¿µ¿øyƒ±¬ ¿vƒø÷¬ «¡uº±
from the text, on the sole ground that the clause in question is
omitted by î, one copy of the Italic (k), and one copy of the
Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding requires an apology,—“I
think it unsafe,” says Tischendorf,“to forsake in this place the
very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow”: i.e.
Codexes and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does
the critic mean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his
meaning, then let him be reminded that Clemens330, a more
ancient authority than by 150 years,—not to say the Latin and
the Syriac Versions, which are more ancient still,—recognizes
the words in question331. Does however the learned critic mean
no more than this,—That it is with him a fundamental principle
of Textual Criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of B and ? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.
For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately after
he has thus (in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of ,
Tischendorf is constrained to reject the combined evidence of
î. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate the absurd reading
ªsøƒµ¬ ¿¡x¬ 땧üù ö±v ƒw¬ ¥{±ƒ± … ±; whereas it
was evidently to themselves (¿¡x¬ ±ƒø{¬) that the disciples
said it. Aware that this time the“antiquissimae quas sequi
solet auctoritates”stand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously
330 P. 938.
331 So does Aphraates, a contemporary of B and , p. 392.
[214][215]
236 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
avowing the fact, Tischendorf grounds his rejection of ¿¡ø¬
±ƒø on the consideration that“Mark never uses the expression
ªµµ ¿¡ø¬ ±ƒø.
”Just as if the text of one place in the Gospel is
to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist in another
place,—and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present
instance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!
Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but
four,—all the versions but one (the Bohairic),—may be in error:
but that B- , C, and Cod. î which is curious in St. Mark, must
needs be in the right.
§ 7.
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 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 ( ªw¿ƒµ), conveying the image of one
fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the wordChapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 237
used in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of
Ishmael, and of Isaac, and of Jacob332
.
But instead of this, † with AX present us with µª¿
or µªµ¿,—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 ªw¿ƒµ. Cyril appears to
have known both readings348
. [216]
His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his
ii. 349, line 11 from bottom). In Mai, ii. 380, Cyril’s reading is certainly
ªw¿ƒµ.
332 Gen. xxv. 8, 17; xxxv. 29; xlix. 33. Also Jer. xlii. 17, 22; Lament. i. 20;
Job xiii. 19; Ps. ciii. 30.
333 268, 661.
334 942, 953 (Lat Tr.).
335 162, 338 (Lat. Tr.), 666.
336 ap. Phot. 791.
337 i. 353.
338 iii. 120.
339 i. 861.
340 280.
341 i. 920; iii. 344; iv. 27; vi. 606.
342 vi. 520.
343 i. 859 b.
344 3. 772.
345 Mai, 2.
346 i. 517.
347 388.
348 In one place of the Syriac version of his Homilies on St. Luke (Luc. 110),
the reading is plainly 5± Eƒ± ªw¿ƒµ: but when the Greek of the same238 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
fragmentary remains; and“divination” is a faculty to which I
make no pretence.
In p. 349, after ¥µ÷ ¥r ¿qƒ…¬ ±Pƒøz¬ ¿ø¿µµ÷
ƒ ¬ ø0øøºw±¬ ¿¿¥ˆƒø¬ ±qƒø, ±v ƒˆ ± !º ¬
¿¡±ºqƒ… 浪yƒø¬. ¥qƒø p¡ ¡}¿Û ¿±ƒv ƒøÊ
±qƒø ƒx ªwø,—Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower
down) Eƒ± ±Pƒøz¬ A ¿wµø¬ ªµwƒ †õü•§ü£, 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, ¿ø¿µøʃ± ¿qƒ…¬ ƒ ¬ ø0øøºw±¬ ¿¿¥ˆƒø¬
±Pƒø÷¬ ƒøÊ ±qƒø (lines 21-3), we are presented with Eƒ±
±Pƒøz¬ ! ¿wµø¬ ªµw¿ø ñ…u, which clearly reverses the
testimony. If Cyril wrote that, he read (like every other Father)
ªw¿ƒµ. It is only right to add that ªw¿ 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.
§ 8.
There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration
concerning the guiding and illuminating office of the Holy
Ghost, than our Lord’s promise that“when He, the Spirit of Truth
shall come, He shall guide you into all the Truth”: A¥uµ
Qº ¬ µ0¬ ¿ ± ƒt ªuµ± (St. John xvi. 13). Now, the six
words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary
amount of perturbation; far more than can be due to the fact that
they happen to be the concluding words of a lection. To be
passage is exhibited by Mai (ii. 196, line 28-38) it is observed to be destitute
of the disputed clause. On the other hand, at p. 512 of the Syriac, the reading
is ªw¿ . But then the entire quotation is absent from the Greek original (Mai,Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 239
brief,—every known variety in reading this passage may be brought under one of three heads:—
1. With the first,—which is in fact a gloss, not a reading
(¥uµƒ± Qº÷ ƒt ªuµ± ¿ ±),—we need not delay
ourselves. Eusebius in two places349, Cyril Jer.350, copies of the
Old Latin351, and Jerome352 in a certain place, so read the place.
Unhappily the same reading is also found in the Vulgate353. It
meets with no favour however, and may be dismissed.
2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our Lord’s
meaning, might have been as unceremoniously dealt with, the
reading namely of Cod. L (A¥uµ Qº ¬ ƒ«ªµw¿q ),
but that unhappily it has found favour with Tischendorf,—I
suppose, because with the exception of ¿q it is the reading of
[217]
his own Cod. 354. It is thus that Cyril Alex.355 thrice reads
the place: and indeed the same thing practically is found in D356;
while so many copies of the Old Latin exhibit in omni veritate,
or in veritate omni357, that one is constrained to inquire, How is
ªµw¿± to be accounted for?
We have not far to look. A¥µ÷ followed by occurs in the
LXX, chiefly in the Psalms, more than 16 times. Especially must
the familiar expression in Ps. xxiv. 5 (A¥u y ºµ ƒ«ªµw
ø, Dirige me in veritate tua), by inopportunely suggesting itself
to the mind of some early copyist, have influenced the text of St.
John xvi. 13 in this fatal way. One is only astonished that so
349 Eus.mare 330, -ps 251 (—¿ ±).
350 Cyrhr 270.
351 e, inducet vobis veritatem omnem: m, disseret vobis omnem veritatem.
352 docebit vos omnem veritatem (ii. 301).
353 Cod. am. (which exhibits docebit vos in omnem, &c.) clearly confuses two
distinct types.
354 om. ¿q.
355 Cyr. Alex. iv. 347; v. 369, 593.
356 D, µ÷ø¬ Qº ¬ A¥uµ ƒ«ªµw¿q.
357 So Cod. b, deducet vos in veritate omni. Cod. c, docebit vos in veritate
omni.[218]
240 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
acute a critic as Tischendorf should have overlooked so plain a
circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in Divine Service,
and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting therefrom,
explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in this as in other
places its phraseology must have influenced the memory.
3. The one true reading of the place (A¥uµ Qº ¬
µ0¬ ¿ ± ƒt ªuµ±) is attested by 12 of the uncials
(EGHIbKMSUìîõ†), the whole body of the cursives, and by
the following Fathers,—Didymus358, Epiphanius359, Basil360
,
Chrysostom361, Theodotus, Bp. of Antioch362, Cyril Alex.363
,
Theodoret364; besides Tertullian in five places, Hilary and Jerome
in two365
.
But because the words ¿ ± ƒt ªuµ± are found
transposed in ABY alone of manuscripts, and because Peter
Alex.366, and Didymus367 once, Origen368 and Cyril Alex.369
in two places, are observed to sanction the same infelicitous
arrangement (viz. ƒt ªuµ± ¿ ±),—Lachmann, Tregelles,
Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without hesitation this order
of the words370. It cannot of course be maintained. The candid
358 Did. 278, 446, 388 (¿¡ø), 443 (—ƒ).
359 Epiph. i. 898; ii. 78.
360 Bas. iii. 42 (¿¡ø): and so Evan. 249. Codd. of Cyril Alex. ( ¿w).
361 Chrys. viii. 527: also 460, 461 (—ƒ).
362 Theod.ant 541, ap. Wegn.
363 Cyr. Alex.txt iv. 923: v. 628.
364 Thdt. iii. 15 ( µ÷. ø¬ Qº. A¥.).
365 Tert. i. 762, 765, 884; ii. 11, 21. Hil. 805, 959. Jer. ii. 140. 141. There
are many lesser variants:—“(diriget vos Tert. i. 884, deducet vos Tert. ii.
21, Vercell. vos deducet; i. 762 vos ducet: Hil. 805, vos diriget) in omnem
veritatem.” Some few (as D, Tert. i. 762; ii. 21. Cod. a, Did. 388. Thdrt. iii.
15) prefix µ÷ø¬.
366 Pet. Alex. ap. Routh, p. 9.
367 Did. 55.
368 Orig. i. 387, 388.
369 Cyr. Alex. iv. 925, 986.
370 µ0¬ ƒt ªu. ¿ ± L., Tr., W.-H.: ƒ«ª. ¿q T.Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 241
reader in the meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth
has been preserved neither by A nor B nor D: least of all by
: but comes down to us unimpaired in the great mass of MS.
authorities, uncial and cursive, as well as in the oldest Versions
and Fathers.
§ 9.
It may have been anticipated by the readers of these pages that
the Divine Author of Scripture has planted here and there up
and down the sacred page—often in most improbable places
and certainly in forms which we should have least of all
imagined—tests of accuracy, by attending to which we may form
an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of
the sacred Text. This is a discovery which at first astonished me:
but on mature reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently
anticipated. Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom—which
is observed to have made such abundant provision for the safety
of the humblest forms of animal life, for the preservation of
common seeds, often seeds of noxious plants,—should yet have
omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed of His own
Everlasting Word?
For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of which every
one may convince himself by opening a copy of the Gospels
furnished with a sufficient critical apparatus), that although in
relating the healing of the centurion’s servant (St. Matt. viii.
5-13) the Evangelist writes µ±ƒøƒ±¡«ü£ in verses 5 and 8, he
writes µ±ƒøƒ±¡«ó instead of –ß© in ver. 13. This minute
variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and cursives alike.
Only one uncial (viz. ) has ventured to assimilate the two
places, writing µ±ƒøƒ±¡«¬ throughout. With the blindness
[219][221]
[222]
242 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
proverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows ,
though the carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all
who examine it.
The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap of a
ballad which identified the murderer, another scrap of it being
found with the bullet in the body of the murdered man.
§ 10.
The instances which have been given in this chapter of the
superiority of the text exhibited in the later Uncials and the
Cursives might have been increased in number to almost any
extent out of the papers left by Dean Burgon. The reader will find
many more illustrations in the rest of these two volumes. Even
Dr. Hort admits that the Traditional Text which is represented by
them is“entirely blameless on either literary or religious grounds
as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction371
,
” while“repeated
and diligent study” can only lead, if conducted with deep and
wide research, to the discovery of beauties and meanings which
have lain unrevealed to the student before.
Let it be always borne in mind, that (a) the later Uncials and
Cursives are the heirs in succession of numerous and varied lines
of descent spread throughout the Church; that (b) their verdict
is nearly always decisive and clear; and that nevertheless (c)
such unanimity or majority of witnesses is not the testimony of
mechanical or suborned testifiers, but is the coincidence, as facts
unquestionably prove, except in certain instances of independent
deponents to the same story.
371 Introduction, p. 135. The rest of his judgement is unfounded in fact.
Constant and careful study combined with subtle appreciation will not reveal
“feebleness” or “impoverishment” either in“sense” or “force.”Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives. 243
Let me be allowed to declare372 in conclusion that no person
is competent to pronounce concerning the merits or demerits of
cursive copies of the Gospels, who has not himself, in the first
instance, collated with great exactness at least a few of them.
He will be materially assisted, if it has ever fallen in his way
to familiarize himself however partially with the text of vast
numbers. But nothing can supply the place of exact collation
of at least a few copies: of which labour, if a man has had no
experience at all, he must submit to be assured that he really has
no right to express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He
argues, not from facts, but from his own imagination of what the
facts of the case will probably be. Those only who have minutely
collated several copies, and examined with considerable attention
a large proportion of all the Sacred Codexes extant, are entitled
to speak with authority here. Further, I venture to assert that no
conviction will force itself so irresistibly on the mind of him who
submits to the labour of exactly collating a few Cursive copies
of the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been
executed with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and skill.
That history confirms this conviction, we have only to survey the elaborate arrangements made in monasteries for carrying on
the duty, and perfecting the art, of copying the Holy Scriptures.
If therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared by
the excellence of its text, by the evident pains bestowed upon
its production, as well as by the consentience with it of other
evidence, to possess high characteristics; if it represents the
matured settlement of many delicate and difficult questions by
the Church which after centuries of vacillation more or less,
and indeed less rather than more, was to last for a much larger
number of centuries; must it not require great deference indeed
from all students of the New Testament? Let it always be
remembered, that no single Cursive is here selected from the rest
372 These are the Dean’s words to the end of the paragraph.
[223]244 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
or advanced to any position whatsoever which would invest its
verdicts with any special authority. It is the main body of the
Cursives, agreeing as they generally do with the exception of
a few eccentric groups or individuals, which is entitled to such
respect according to the measure of their agreement. And in point
of fact, the Cursives which have been collated are so generally
consentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which needs
collation will agree similarly. Doubtless, the later Uncials and
the Cursives are only a class of the general evidence which is
now before us: but it is desirable that those Textual Students
who have been disposed to undervalue this class should weigh
with candour and fairness the arguments existing in favour of it,
which we have attempted to exhibit in this chapter.
[224]Chapter XII. Conclusion.
The Traditional Text has now been traced, from the earliest
years of Christianity of which any record of the New Testament
remains, to the period when it was enshrined in a large number of
carefully-written manuscripts in main accord with one another.
Proof has been given from the writings of the early Fathers,
that the idea that the Traditional Text arose in the middle of
the fourth century is a mere hallucination, prompted by only
a partial acquaintance with those writings. And witness to the
existence and predominance of that form of Text has been found
in the Peshitto Version and in the best of the Latin Versions,
which themselves also have been followed back to the beginning
of the second century or the end of the first. We have also
discovered the truth, that the settlement of the Text, though
mainly made in the fourth century, was not finally accomplished
till the eighth century at the earliest; and that the later Uncials,
not the oldest, together with the cursives express, not singly,
not in small batches or companies, but in their main agreement,
the decisions which had grown up in the Church. In so doing,
attention has been paid to all the existing evidence: none has been
omitted. Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus, has been
the underlying principle. The foundations of the building have
been laid as deeply and as broadly as our power would allow. No
other course would be in consonance with scientific procedure.
The seven notes of truth have been made as comprehensive as possible. Antiquity, number, variety, weight, continuity, context,
and internal evidence, include all points of view and all methods
of examination which are really sound. The characters of the
Vatican, Sinaitic, and Bezan manuscripts have been shewn to be
[225][226]
246 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
bad, and the streams which led to their production from Syrio-
Old-Latin and Alexandrian sources to the temporary school of
Caesarea have been traced and explained. It has been also shewn
to be probable that corruption began and took root even before
the Gospels were written. The general conclusion which has
grown upon our minds has been that the affections of Christians
have not been misdirected; that the strongest exercise of reason
has proved their instincts to have been sound and true; that the
Text which we have used and loved rests upon a vast and varied
support; that the multiform record of Manuscripts, Versions,
and Fathers, is found to defend by large majorities in almost all
instances those precious words of Holy Writ, which have been
called in question during the latter half of this century.
We submit that it cannot be denied that we have presented
a strong case, and naturally we look to see what has been said
against it, since except in some features it has been before the
World and the Church for some years. We submit that it has
not received due attention from opposing critics. If indeed the
opinions of the other School had been preceded by, or grounded
upon, a searching examination, such as we have made in the
case of B and , of the vast mass of evidence upon which
we rest,—if this great body of testimony had been proved to
be bad from overbalancing testimony or otherwise,—we should
have found reason for doubt, or even for a reversal of our
decisions. But Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf laid down
principles chiefly, if not exclusively, on the score of their
intrinsic probability. Westcott and Hort built up their own theory
upon reasoning internal to it, without clearing the ground first
by any careful and detailed scrutiny. Besides which, all of
them constructed their buildings before travellers by railways
and steamships had placed within their reach the larger part of
the materials which are now ready for use. We hear constantly
the proclamation made in dogmatic tones that they are right: no
proof adequate to the strength of our contention has been workedChapter XII. Conclusion. 247
out to shew that we are wrong.
Nevertheless, it may be best to listen for a moment to such
objections as have been advanced against conclusions like these,
and which it may be presumed will be urged again.
1.“After all it cannot be denied that B and are the oldest
manuscripts of the New Testament in existence, and that they
must therefore be entitled to the deference due to their age.”
Now the earlier part of this allegation is conceded by us entirely:
prima facie it constitutes a very strong argument. But it is really
found on examination to be superficial. Fathers and Versions are
virtually older, and, as has been demonstrated, are dead against
the claim set up on behalf of those ancient manuscripts, that they
are the possessors of the true text of the Gospels. Besides which
antiquity is not the sole note of truth any more than number is.
So much has been already said on this part of the subject, that it
is needless to enter into longer discussion here.
2.“The testimony of witnesses ought to be weighed before
it is reckoned.” Doubtless: this also is a truism, and allowance
has been made for it in the various“notes of truth.” But this
argument, apparently so simple, is really intended to carry a
huge assumption involved in an elaborate maintenance of the
(supposed) excellent character of B and and their associates.
After so much that has been brought to the charge of those two MSS. in this treatise, it is unnecessary now to urge more
than that they appeared in strange times, when the Church was
convulsed to her centre; that, as has been demonstrated, their
peculiar readings were in a very decided minority in the period
before them; and, as all admit, were rejected in the ages that
passed after the time of their date.
3. It is stated that the Traditional is a conflate text, i.e. that
passages have been put together from more than one other text, so
that they are composite in construction instead of being simple.
We have already treated this allegation, but we reply now that it
has not been established: the opinion of Canon Cooke who anal-
[227][228]
248 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
ysed all the examples quoted by Hort373, of Scrivener who said
they proved nothing374, and of many other critics and scholars has
been against it. The converse position is maintained, that the text
of B and is clipped and mutilated. Take the following passage,
which is fairly typical of the large class in question:“For we are
members of His Body” (writes St. Paul375)“of His flesh and of
His bones”( ƒ ¬ ±¡x¬ ±Pƒøʱv ƒˆ @ƒs… ±0ƒøÊ). But
those last 9 words are disallowed by recent editors, because they
are absent from B- , A, 8, and 17, and the margin of 67, besides
the Bohairic version. Yet are the words genuine. They are found
in DFGKLP and the whole body of the cursives: in the Old Latin
and Vulgate and the two Syriac versions: in Irenaeus376
,—in
Theodorus of Mopsuestia377
,—in Nilus378
,—in Chrysostom379
more than four times,—in Severianus380
,—in Theodoret381
,—in
Anastasius Sinaita382
,—and in John Damascene383. They
were probably read by Origen384 and by Methodius385
.
373 Revised Version, &c., pp. 205-218.
374 Introduction, i. 292-93.
375 Ephes. v. 30.
376 718 (Mass. 294), Gr. and Lat.
377 In loc. ed. Swete, Gr. and Lat.
378 i. 95, 267.
379 iii. 215 b, 216 a; viii. 272 c; xi. 147 a b c d.
380 Ap. Cramer, vi. 205, 208.
381 iii. 434.
382 (A.D.{FNS 560), 1004 a, 1007 a.
383 ii. 190 e.
384 Rufinus (iii. 61 c) translates,—“quia membra sumus corporis ejus, et
reliqua.
”What else can this refer to but the very words in dispute?
385 Ap. Galland. iii. 688 c:—Eµ A ¿yƒøªø¬ µP yª…¬ µ0¬ ß¡ƒx
yƒµ ƒp ±ƒp ƒx ¥qº; øUƒ…¬ p¡ ºqªƒ± ƒˆ @ƒˆ ±PƒøÊ
±v ƒ ¬ ±¡x¬ ƒt ªw± º…uµ µøs±. And lower down
(e, and 689 a):—E¿…¬ ±Pæˆ ø1 ±Pƒ˜ ø0ø¥øºsƒµ¬ ¿±ƒµ¬, ø1
µµºsø ¥pƒøʪøƒ¡øÊ, ƒˆ @ƒˆ ±v ƒ ¬ ±¡y¬, ƒøƒsƒ
ƒ ¬ …{¬ ±PƒøÊ, ±v ƒ ¬ ¥yæ¬ ¿¡øµªyƒµ¬; @ƒ p¡ ±v q¡±
£øw±¬ A ªs… µ6± {µ ±v ¡µƒu, @¡yƒ±ƒ± ªsµ. From this it is
plain that Methodius read Ephes. v. 30 as we do; although he had before quotedChapter XII. Conclusion. 249
Many Latin Fathers, viz. Ambrose386
,—Pacian387
,—Esaias
abb.388
,—Victorinus389
,—Jerome390
,—Augustine391
—and Leo
P.392 recognise them.
Such ample and such varied attestation is not to be set aside by
the vapid and unsound dictum“Western and Syrian,”—or by the
weak suggestion that the words in dispute are an unauthorized
gloss, fabricated from the LXX version of Gen. ii. 23. That
St. Paul’s allusion is to the oracular utterance of our first father
Adam, is true enough: but, as Alford after Bengel well points
out, it is incredible that any forger can have been at work here.
Such questions however, as we must again and again insist,
are not to be determined by internal considerations: no,—nor
by dictation, nor by prejudice, nor by divination, nor by any
subjective theory of conflation on which experts and critics
may be hopelessly at issue: but by the weight of the definite
evidence actually producible and produced on either side. And [229]
when, as in the present instance, Antiquity, Variety of testimony,
Respectability of witnesses, and Number are overwhelmingly in
it (iii. 614 b) without the clause in dispute. Those who give their minds to these
studies are soon made aware that it is never safe to infer from the silence of a
Father that he disallowed the words he omits,—especially if those words are
in their nature parenthetical, or supplementary, or not absolutely required for
the sense. Let a short clause be beside his immediate purpose, and a Father is
as likely as not to omit it. This subject has been discussed elsewhere: but it is
apt to the matter now in hand that I should point out that Augustine twice (iv.
297 c, 1438 c) closes his quotation of the present place abruptly:“Apostolo
dicente, Quoniam membra sumus corporis ejus.
”And yet, elsewhere (iii. 794),
he gives the words in full.
It is idle therefore to urge on the opposite side, as if there were anything in
it, the anonymous commentator on St. Luke in Cramer’s Cat. p. 88.
386 i. 1310 b. Also Ambrosiaster, ii. 248 d.
387 Ap. Galland. vii. 262 e (A.D.{FNS 372).
388 Ibid. 314 c.
389 Mai, iii. 140.
390 vii. 659 b.
391 See above, end of note 2.
392 Concil. iv. 50 b.[230]
250 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
favour of the Traditional Text, what else is it but an outrage on the
laws of evidence to claim that the same little band of documents
which have already come before us so often, and always been
found in error, even though aided by speculative suppositions,
shall be permitted to outweigh all other testimony?
To build therefore upon a conflate or composite character in
a set of readings would be contrary to the evidence:—or at any
rate, it would at the best be to lay foundations upon ground which
is approved by one school of critics and disputed by the other in
every case. The determination of the text of Holy Scripture has
not been handed over to a mere conflict of opposite opinions, or
to the uncertain sands of conjecture.
Besides, as has been already stated, no amount of conflation
would supply passages which the destructive school would
wholly leave out. It is impossible to“conflate” in places where
B and their associates furnish no materials for the supposed
conflation. Bricks cannot be made without clay. The materials
actually existing are those of the Traditional Text itself. But in
fact these questions are not to be settled by the scholarly taste or
opinions of either school, even of that which we advocate. They
must rest upon the verdict found by the facts in evidence: and
those facts have been already placed in array.
4. Again, stress is laid upon Genealogy. Indeed, as Dean
Burgon himself goes on to say, so much has lately been written
about“the principle” and“the method” “of genealogy,” that it
becomes in a high degree desirable that we should ascertain
precisely what those expressions lawfully mean. No fair
controversialist would willingly fail to assign its legitimate
place and value to any principle for which he observes an
opponent eagerly contending. But here is a“principle” and
here is a“method” which are declared to be of even paramount
importance.“Documents … are all fragments, usually casual
and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree of transmission,
sometimes of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactlyChapter XII. Conclusion. 251
we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and
to determine the places of the several documents among the
branches, the more secure will be the foundations laid for a
criticism capable of distinguishing the original text from its
successive corruptions393
”
.
The expression is metaphorical; belonging of right to families
of men, but transferred to Textual Science as indicative that
similar phenomena attend families of manuscripts. Unfortunately
the phenomena attending transmission,—of Natures on the one
hand, of Texts on the other,—are essentially dissimilar. A
diminutive couple may give birth to a race of giants. A genius
has been known to beget a dunce. A brood of children exhibiting
extraordinary diversities of character, aspect, ability, sometimes
spring from the same pair. Nothing like this is possible in
the case of honestly-made copies of MSS. The analogy breaks
down therefore in respect of its most essential feature. And yet,
there can be no objection to the use of the term“Genealogy”
in connexion with manuscripts, provided always that nothing
more is meant thereby than derivation by the process of copying:
nothing else claimed but that“Identity of reading implies identity
of origin394
”
.
Only in this limited way are we able to avail ourselves of the
principle referred to. Of course if it were a well-ascertained fact
concerning three copies (XYZ), that Z was copied from Y, and
Y from X, XYZ might reasonably be spoken of as representing
three descents in a pedigree; although the interval between Z and
Y were only six months,—the interval between Y and X, six hundred years. Moreover, these would be not three independent
authorities, but only one. Such a case, however,—(the fact cannot
be too clearly apprehended),—is simply non-existent. What is
known commonly lies on the surface:—viz. that occasionally
between two or more copies there exists such an amount of
393 Hort, Introduction, p. 40.
394 Ibid. p. 46.
[231][232]
252 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
peculiar textual affinity as to constrain us to adopt the supposition
that they have been derived from a common original. These
peculiarities of text, we tell ourselves, cannot be fortuitous.
Taking our stand on the true principle that“identity of reading
implies identity of origin,”we insist on reasoning from the known
to the unknown: and (at our humble distance) we are fully as
confident of our scientific fact as Adams and Le Verrier would
have been of the existence of Neptune had they never actually
obtained sight of that planet.
So far are we therefore from denying the value and importance
of the principle under discussion that we are able to demonstrate
its efficacy in the resolution of some textual problems which
have been given in this work. Thus E, the uncial copy of St.
Paul, is“nothing better,”says Scrivener,“than a transcript of the
Cod. Claromontanus” D.“The Greek is manifestly worthless,
and should long since have been removed from the list of
authorities395
.
” Tischendorf nevertheless, not Tregelles, quotes
it on every page. He has no business to do so, Codexes D and
E, to all intents and purposes, being strictly one Codex. This
case, like the two next, happily does not admit of diversity of
opinion. Next, F and G of St. Paul’s Epistles, inasmuch as they
are confessedly derived from one and the same archetype, are
not to be reckoned as two authorities, but as one.
Again, the correspondence between the nine MSS. of the
Ferrar group—Evann. 13 at Paris, 69 at Leicester, 124 at
Vienna, 346 at Milan, 556 in the British Museum, 561 at Bank
House, Wisbech,—and in a lesser degree, 348 at Milan, 624 at
Crypta Ferrata, 788 at Athens,—is so extraordinary as to render
it certain that these copies are in the main derived from one
common archetype396. Hence, though one of them (788) is of the
tenth century, three (348, 561, 624) are of the eleventh, four (13,
124, 346, 556) of the twelfth, and one (69) of the fourteenth, their
395 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. p. 177.
396 Introduction, I. Appendix F, p. 398*.Chapter XII. Conclusion. 253
joint evidence is held to be tantamount to the recovery of a lost
uncial or papyrus of very early date,—which uncial or papyrus,
by the way, it would be convenient to indicate by a new symbol,
as Fr. standing for Ferrar, since ¶ which was once attributed to
them is now appropriated to the Codex Beratinus. If indicated
numerically, the figures should at all events be connected by a
hyphen (13-69-124-346-&c.); not as if they were independent
witnesses, as Tischendorf quotes them. And lastly, B and are
undeniably, more than any other two Codexes which can be
named, the depositaries of one and the same peculiar, all but
unique, text.
I propose to apply the foregoing remarks to the solution of one
of the most important of Textual problems. That a controversy
has raged around the last twelve verses of St. Mark’s Gospel
is known to all. Known also it is that a laborious treatise
was published on the subject in 1871, which, in the opinion
of competent judges, has had the effect of removing the“Last
Twelve Verses of St. Mark” beyond the reach of suspicion.
Notwithstanding this, at the end of ten years an attempt was
made to revive the old plea. The passage, say Drs. Westcott
and Hort,“manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority; but
is doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age,”
of which the“precise date must remain unknown.” It is“a very
early interpolation” (pp. 51, 46). In a word,“the last twelve [233]
verses” of St. Mark’s Gospel, according to Drs. Westcott and
Hort, are spurious. But what is their ground of confidence? for
we claim to be as competent to judge of testimony as they. It
proves to be“the unique criterion supplied by the concord of the
independent attestations of and B” (p. 46).
“Independent attestations”! But when two copies of the Gospel
are confessedly derived from one and the same original, how can
their“attestations” be called“independent”? This is however
greatly to understate the case. The non-independence of B and
in respect of St. Mark xvi. 9-20 is absolutely unique: for,[234]
254 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
strange to relate, it so happens that the very leaf on which the end
of St. Mark’s Gospel and the beginning of St. Luke’s is written
(St. Mark xvi. 2-Luke i. 56), is one of the six leaves of Cod.
which are held to have been written by the scribe of Cod. B.
“The inference,” remarks Scrivener,“is simple and direct, that
at least in these leaves Codd. B make but one witness, not
two397
”
.
The principle of Genealogy admits of a more extended and a
more important application to this case, because B and do not
stand quite alone, but are exclusively associated with three or four
other manuscripts which may be regarded as being descended
from them. As far as we can judge, they may be regarded as the
founders, or at least as prominent members of a family, whose
descendants were few, because they were generally condemned
by the generations which came after them. Not they, but other
families upon other genealogical stems, were the more like to
the patriarch whose progeny was to equal the stars of heaven in
multitude.
Least of all shall I be so simple as to pretend to fix the precise
date and assign a definite locality to the fontal source, or sources,
of our present perplexity and distress. But I suspect that in the
little handful of authorities which have acquired such a notoriety
in the annals of recent Textual Criticism, at the head of which
stand Codexes B and , are to be recognized the characteristic
features of a lost family of (once well known) second or third-
century documents, which owed their existence to the misguided
zeal of some well-intentioned but utterly incompetent persons
who devoted themselves to the task of correcting the Text of
Scripture; but were entirely unfit for the undertaking398
.
397 Introduction, II. 337, note 1. And for Dean Burgon’s latest opinion on the
date of see above, pp. 46, 52, 162. The present MS., which I have been
obliged to abridge in order to avoid repetition of much that has been already
said, was one of the Dean’s latest productions. See Appendix VII.
398 Since Dean Burgon’s death, there has been reason to identify this set ofChapter XII. Conclusion. 255
Yet I venture also to think that it was in a great measure at
Alexandria that the text in question was fabricated. My chief
reasons for thinking so are the following: (1) There is a marked
resemblance between the peculiar readings of B and the two
Egyptian Versions,—the Bohairic or Version of Lower Egypt
especially. (2) No one can fail to have been struck by the evident
sympathy between Origen,—who at all events had passed more
than half his life at Alexandria,—and the text in question. (3)
I notice that Nonnus also, who lived in the Thebaid, exhibits
considerable sympathy with the text which I deem so corrupt.
(4) I cannot overlook the fact that Cod. was discovered in a
monastery under the sway of the patriarch of Alexandria, though
how it got there no evidence remains to point out. (5) The
licentious handling so characteristic of the Septuagint Version of
the O. T.,—the work of Alexandrian Jews,—points in the same
direction, and leads me to suspect that Alexandria was the final
source of the text of B- . (6) I further observe that the sacred
Text (µwºµø) in Cyril’s Homilies on St. John is often similar [235]
to B- ; and this, I take for granted, was the effect of the school
of Alexandria,—not of the patriarch himself. (7) Dionysius of
Alexandria complains bitterly of the corrupt Codexes of his day:
and certainly (8) Clemens habitually employed copies of a similar
kind. He too was of Alexandria399
.
Such are the chief considerations which incline me to suspect
that Alexandria contributed largely to our Textual troubles.
The readings of B- are the consequence of a junction of two
or more streams and then of derivation from a single archetype.
This inference is confirmed by the fact that the same general
text which B exhibits is exhibited also by the eighth-century
readings with the Syrio-Low-Latin Text, the first origin of which I have traced
to the earliest times before the Gospels were written—by St. Matthew, St.
Mark, and St. Luke, and of course St. John.
399 So with St. Athanasius in his earlier days. See above, p. 119, note 2.[236]
256 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
Codex L, the work probably of an Egyptian scribe400: and by the
tenth-century Codex 33: and by the eleventh-century Codex 1:
and to some extent by the twelfth-century Codex 69.
We have already been able to advance to another and a very
important step. There is nothing in the history of the earliest
times of the Church to prove that vellum manuscripts of the
New Testament existed in any number before the fourth century.
No such documents have come down to us. But we do know,
as has been shewn above401, that writings on papyrus were
transcribed on vellum in the library of Caesarea. What must we
then conclude? That, as has been already suggested, papyrus
MSS. are mainly the progenitors of the Uncials, and probably of
the oldest Uncials. Besides this inference, we have seen that it
is also most probable that many of the Cursives were transcribed
directly from papyrus books or rolls. So that the Genealogy of
manuscripts of the New Testament includes a vast number of
descendants, and many lines of descent, which ramified from
one stem on the original start from the autograph of each
book. The Vatican and the Sinaitic do not stand pre-eminent
because of any great line of parentage passing through them to a
multitudinous posterity inheriting the earth, but they are members
of a condemned family of which the issue has been small. The
rejected of the fourth century has been spurned by succeeding
centuries. And surely now also the fourth century, rich in a roll
of men conspicuous ever since for capacity and learning, may be
permitted to proclaim its real sentiments and to be judged from
its own decisions, without being disfranchised by critics of the
nineteenth.
The history of the Traditional Text, on the contrary, is
continuous and complete under the view of Genealogy. The
pedigree of it may be commended to the examination of the
Heralds’ College. It goes step by step in unbroken succession
400 Miller’s Scrivener, Introduction, I. 138.
401 pp. 2, 155.Chapter XII. Conclusion. 257
regularly back to the earliest time. The present printed editions
may be compared for extreme accuracy with the text passed
by the Elzevirs or Beza as the text received by all of their
time. Erasmus followed his few MSS. because he knew them
to be good representatives of the mind of the Church which had
been informed under the ceaseless and loving care of mediaeval
transcribers: and the text of Erasmus printed at Basle agreed
in but little variation with the text of the Complutensian editors
published in Spain, for which Cardinal Ximenes procured MSS.
at whatever cost he could. No one doubts the coincidence in all
essential points of the printed text with the text of the Cursives.
Dr. Hort certifies the Cursive Text as far back as the middle
of the fourth century. It depends upon various lines of descent,
and rests on the testimony supplied by numerous contemporary
Fathers before the year 1000 A.D., when co-existing MSS. failed
to bear witness in multitudes. The acceptance of it by the
Church of the fifth century, which saw the settlement of the
great doctrinal controversies either made or confirmed, proves that the seal was set upon the validity of the earliest pedigrees
by the illustrious intellects and the sound faith of those days.
And in the fifth chapter of this work, contemporary witness is
carried back to the first days. There is thus a cluster of pedigrees,
not in one line but in many parallel courses of descent, not
in one country but in several, ranging over the whole Catholic
Church where Greek was understood, attested by Versions, and
illustrated copiously by Fathers, along which without break in
the continuity the Traditional Text in its main features has been
transmitted. Doubtless something still remains for the Church
to do under the present extraordinary wealth of authorities in
the verification of some particulars issuing in a small number of
alterations, not in challenging or changing like the other school
anything approaching to one-eighth of the New Testament402:
402 Hort, Introduction, p. 2.
[237][238]
258 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
for that we now possess in the main the very Words of the Holy
Gospels as they issued from their inspired authors, we are taught
under the principle of Genealogy that there is no valid reason to
doubt.
To conclude, the system which we advocate will be seen to
contrast strikingly with that which is upheld by the opposing
school, in three general ways:
I. We have with us width and depth against the narrowness
on their side. They are conspicuously contracted in the fewness
of the witnesses which they deem worthy of credence. They are
restricted as to the period of history which alone they consider to
deserve attention. They are confined with regard to the countries
from which their testimony comes. They would supply Christians
with a shortened text, and educate them under a cast-iron system.
We on the contrary champion the many against the few: we
welcome all witnesses, and weigh all testimony: we uphold all
the ages against one or two, and all the countries against a narrow
space. We maintain the genuine and all-round Catholicism of
real Christendom against a discarded sectarianism exhumed from
the fourth century. If we condemn, it is because the evidence
condemns. We cling to all the precious Words that have come
down to us, because they have been so preserved to our days
under verdicts depending upon overwhelming proof.
II. We oppose facts to their speculation. They exalt B and
and D because in their own opinion those copies are the best.
They weave ingenious webs, and invent subtle theories, because
their paradox of a few against the many requires ingenuity and
subtlety for its support. Dr. Hort revelled in finespun theories and
technical terms, such as“Intrinsic Probability,” “Transcriptional
Probability,”“Internal evidence of Readings,”“Internal evidence
of Documents,” which of course connote a certain amount of
evidence, but are weak pillars of a heavy structure. EvenChapter XII. Conclusion. 259
conjectural emendation403 and inconsistent decrees404 are not
rejected. They are infected with the theorizing which spoils
some of the best German work, and with the idealism which
is the bane of many academic minds, especially at Oxford and
Cambridge. In contrast with this sojourn in cloudland, we are
essentially of the earth though not earthy. We are nothing, if
we are not grounded in facts: our appeal is to facts, our test lies
in facts, so far as we can we build testimonies upon testimonies
and pile facts on facts. We imitate the procedure of the courts
of justice in decisions resulting from the converging product of
all the evidence, when it has been cross-examined and sifted. As
men of business, not less than students, we endeavour to pursue
the studies of the library according to the best methods of the
world.
III. Our opponents are gradually getting out of date: the world
is drifting away from them. Thousands of manuscripts have [239]
been added to the known stores since Tischendorf formed his
system, and Hort began to theorize, and their handful of favourite
documents has become by comparison less and less. Since the
deaths of both of those eminent critics, the treasures dug up in
Egypt and elsewhere have put back the date of the science of
palaeography from the fourth century after the Christian era to
at least the third century before, and papyrus has sprung up into
unexpected prominence in the ancient and mediaeval history of
writing. It is discovered that there was no uncial period through
which the genealogy of cursives has necessarily passed. Old
theories on those points must generally be reconstructed if they
are to tally with known facts. But this accession of knowledge
which puts our opponents in the wrong, has no effect on us except
to confirm our position with new proof. Indeed, we welcome
the unlocking of the all but boundless treasury of ancient wealth,
since our theory, being as open as possible, and resting upon the
403 Hort, Introduction, p. 7.
404 Quarterly Review, No. 363, July, 1895.260 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
visible and real, remains not only uninjured but strengthened. If
it were to require any re-arrangement, that would be only a re-
ordering of particulars, not of our principles which are capacious
enough to admit of any addition of materials of judgement. We
trust to the Church of all the ages as the keeper and witness
of Holy Writ, we bow to the teaching of the HOLY GHOST, as
conveyed in all wisdom by facts and evidence: and we are
certain, that, following no preconceived notions of our own, but
led under such guidance, moved by principles so reasonable and
comprehensive, and observing rules and instructions appealing
to us with such authority, we are in all main respects
STANDING UPON THE ROCK.
[240]Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿x
ºµªwø ¡wø.
[The Dean left positive instructions for the publication of this
Dissertation, as being finished for Press.]
I propose next to call attention to the omission from St.
Luke xxiv. 42 of a precious incident in the history of our Lord’s
Resurrection. It was in order effectually to convince the Disciples
that it was Himself, in His human body, who stood before them
in the upper chamber on the evening of the first Easter Day, that
He inquired, [ver. 41]“Have ye here any meat? [ver. 42] and
they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, AND OF AN HONEYCOMB.
”
But those four last words (±v ¿x ºµªwø ¡wø) because
they are not found in six copies of the Gospel, are by Westcott
and Hort ejected from the text. Calamitous to relate, the Revisers
of 1881 were by those critics persuaded to exclude them also.
How do men suppose that such a clause as that established itself
universally in the sacred text, if it be spurious?“How do you
suppose,” I shall be asked in reply,“if it be genuine, that such a
clause became omitted from any manuscript at all?”
I answer,—The omission is due to the prevalence in the earliest
age of fabricated exhibitions of the Gospel narrative; in which,
singular to relate, the incident recorded in St. Luke xxiv. 41-43
was identified with that other mysterious repast which St. John
describes in his last chapter405. It seems incredible, at first sight, that an attempt would ever be made to establish an enforced
harmony between incidents exhibiting so many points of marked
contrast: for St. Luke speaks of (1)“broiled fish [0«{ø¬ @¿ƒøÊ]
405 St. John xxi. 9-13.
[241]262 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
and honeycomb,” (2) which“they gave Him,
” (3)“and He did
eat” (4) on the first Easter Day, (5) at evening, (6) in a chamber,
(7) at Jerusalem:—whereas St. John specifies (1)“bread, and
fish [@»q¡ø] likewise,” (2) which He gave them, (3) and of
which it is not related that Himself partook. (4) The occasion
was subsequent: (5) the time, early morning: (6) the scene, the
sea-shore: (7) the country, Galilee.
Let it be candidly admitted on the other hand, in the way of
excuse for those ancient men, that“broiled fish”was common to
both repasts; that they both belong to the period subsequent to
the Resurrection: that the same parties, our LORD namely and His
Apostles, were concerned in either transaction; and that both are
prefaced by similar words of inquiry. Waiving this, it is a plain
fact that Eusebius in his 9th Canon, makes the two incidents
parallel; numbering St. Luke (xxix. 41-3), § 341; and St. John
(xxi. 9, 10, 12, first half, and 13), severally §§ 221, 223, 225.
The Syriac sections which have hitherto escaped the attention of
critical scholars406 are yet more precise. Let the intention of their
venerable compiler—whoever he may have been—be exhibited
in full. It has never been done before:—
“(ST. LUKE xxiv.)“(ST. JOHN xxi.)”
Ҥ 397. [Jesus] said
Ҥ 255. Jesus saith
unto them, Have ye
unto them, Children,
here any meat? (ver.
have ye any meat?
41.)
They answered Him,
No. (ver. 5.)
406 In Studia Biblica et Eccles. II. vi. (G. H. Gwilliam), published two years
after the Dean’s death, will be found a full description of this form of sections.Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 263
“Id.…
Ҥ 398. And they
gave Him a piece of
a broiled fish and of an
honeycomb. (ver. 42.)
Ҥ 399. And He took
it and did eat before
them. (ver. 43.)”
“§ 259 … As soon
then as they were come
to land, they saw a
fire of coals there, and
fish laid thereon, and
bread. (ver. 9.)
Ҥ 264. Jesus then
cometh and taketh
bread, and giveth
them, and fish like-
wise. (ver. 13.)
Ҥ 262. Jesus saith
unto them, Come and
dine. (ver. 12.)”
The intention of all this is unmistakable. The places are
deliberately identified. But the mischief is of much older date
than the Eusebian Canons, and must have been derived in the first
instance from a distinct source. Eusebius, as he himself informs
us, did but follow in the wake of others. Should the Diatessaron
cf Ammonius or that of Tatian ever be recovered, a flood of light
will for the first time be poured over a department of evidence
where at present we must be content to grope our way407
.
But another element of confusion I suspect is derived from
that lost Commentary on the Song of Solomon in which Origen
is said to have surpassed himself408. Certain of the ancients insist
on discovering in St. Luke xxiv. 42 the literal fulfilment of
the Greek version of Cant. v. 1,“I ate my bread with honey.
”
Cyril of Jerusalem remarks that those words of the spouse“were
407 As far as we know at present about Tatian’s Diatessaron, he kept these
occurrences distinct.—ED.{FNS
408 “Origenes, quum in caeteris libris omnes vicerit, in Cantico Canticorum
ipse se vicit.”—Hieron. Opp. iii. 499; i. 525.[242]
264 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
fulfilled” when“they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of
an honeycomb409”: while Gregory Nyss. points out (alluding to
the same place) that“the true Bread,” when He appeared to His
Disciples,“was by honeycomb made sweet410
.
” Little did those
Fathers imagine the perplexity which at the end of 15 centuries
their fervid and sometimes fanciful references to Scripture would
occasion!
I proceed to shew how inveterately the ancients have confused
these two narratives, or rather these two distinct occasions.“Who
knows not,” asks Epiphanius,“that our SAVIOUR ate, after His
Resurrection from the dead? As the holy Gospels of Truth have
it,‘There was given unto Him’[which is a reference to St. Luke],
‘bread and part of a broiled fish.’[but it is St. John who mentions
the bread];—‘and He took and ate’ [but only according to St.
Luke],‘and gave to His disciples,’ [but only according to St.
John. And yet the reference must be to St. Luke’s narrative,
for Epiphanius straightway adds,]‘as He also did at the sea
of Tiberias; both eating,’ [although no eating on His part is
recorded concerning that meal,]‘and distributing411
.
’”Ephraem
Syrus makes the same mis-statement.“If He was not flesh,” he
asks,“who was it, at the sea of Tiberias, who ate412?” “While
Peter is fishing,” says Hesychius413, (with plain reference to the
409 After quoting Luke xxiv. 41, 42 in extenso, he proceeds,—ªs¿µ¬ ¿ˆ¬
¿µ¿ªu¡…ƒ± ƒy; ±ø ¡ƒø ºø ºµƒp ºsªƒø¬ ºø (p. 210 b): and ±v
ºµƒp ƒt ±ƒ± ªµµ, ±ø ƒx ¡ƒø ºµƒp ºsªƒø¬ ºø. ¥…±
p¡ ±Pƒ˜¿xºµªwø ¡wø (p. 341 a).
410 ¡ƒø¬ wµƒ±, øP sƒ ¿v ¿¡w¥… yºµø¬… ªª D»ø ±ƒ˜ ƒx
ºsª ¿øø{ºµø¬. And, Aºµƒpƒt qƒ± ¿¡ø±µv¬ ƒø÷¬ º±ƒ±÷¬ ¡ƒø¬
ƒw, ƒ˜ ¡wÛ ƒøÊ ºsªƒø¬ !¥yºµø¬,—i. 624 a b. See more concerning
this quotation below, p. 249 note.
411 Epiph. i. 143.
412 Ephr. Syr. ii. 48 e.
413 Or whoever else was the author of the first Homily of the Resurrection,
wrongly ascribed to Gregory Nyss. (iii. 382-99). Hesychius was probably
the author of the second Homily. (Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 57-9.) Both
are compilations however, into which precious passages of much older FathersAppendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 265
narrative in St. John),“behold in the LORD‘S hands bread and
honeycomb414”: where the“honeycomb”has clearly lost its way,
and has thrust out the“fish.” Epiphanius elsewhere even more
fatally confuses the two incidents.“JESUS”(he says)“on a second
occasion after His Resurrection ate both a piece of a broiled fish
and some honeycomb415
.
” One would have set this down to
sheer inadvertence, but that Jerome circumstantially makes the [243]
self-same assertion:—“In John we read that while the Apostles
were fishing, He stood upon the shore, and ate part of a broiled
fish and honeycomb. At Jerusalem He is not related to have done
anything of the kind416
.
” From whom can Jerome have derived
that wild statement417? It is certainly not his own. It occurs in
his letter to Hedibia where he is clearly a translator only418. In
another place, Jerome says,“He sought fish broiled upon the
coals, in order to confirm the faith of His doubting Apostles, who
were afraid to approach Him, because they thought they saw a
spirit,—not a solid body419”: which is a mixing up of St. John’s
narrative with that of St Luke. Clemens Alex., in a passage which
has hitherto escaped notice, deliberately affirms that“the LORD
blessed the loaves and the broiled fishes with which He feasted
His Disciples420
.
” Where did he find that piece of information?
One thing more in connexion with the“broiled fish
and honeycomb.
” Athanasius—and Cyril Alex.421 after
have been unscrupulously interwoven,—to the infinite perplexity of every
attentive reader.
414 Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 399 d.
415 Epiph. i. 652 d.
416 In Joanne legimus quod piscantibus Apostolis, in littore steterit, et partem
assi piscis, favumque comederit, quae verae resurrectionis indicia sunt. In
Jerusalem autem nihil horum fecisse narratur.—Hieron. i. 825 a.
417 Not from Eusebius’ Qu. ad Marinum apparently. Compare however Jerome,
i. 824 d with Eusebius (ap. Mai), iv. 295 (cap. x).
418 See Last Twelve Verses, &c., pp. 51-6.
419 i. 444 b.
420 P. 172.
421 iv. 1108 c.[244]
266 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
him—rehearse the incident with entire accuracy; but Athanasius
adds the apocryphal statement that“He took what remained over,
and gave it unto them422”: which tasteless appendix is found
besides in Cureton’s Syriac [not in the Lewis],—in the Bohairic,
Harkleian, Armenian, and Ethiopic Versions; and must once
have prevailed to a formidable extent, for it has even established
itself in the Vulgate423 404).
. It is witnessed to, besides, by two ninth-century uncials (ö†)
and ten cursive copies424. The thoughtful reader will say to
himself,—“Had only Cod. B joined itself to this formidable
conspiracy of primitive witnesses, we should have had this also
thrust upon us by the new school as indubitable Gospel: and
remonstrances would have been in vain!”
Now, as all must see, it is simply incredible that these
many Fathers, had they employed honestly-made copies of St.
Luke’s and of St. John’s Gospel, could have fallen into such
frequent and such strange misrepresentations of what those
Evangelists actually say. From some fabricated Gospel—from
some “Diatessaron” or “Life of Christ,” once famous in the
Church, long since utterly forgotten,—from some unauthentic
narrative of our Saviour’s Death and Resurrection, I say, these
several depravations of the sacred story must needs have been
imported into St. Luke’s Gospel. And lo, out of all that farrago,
the only manuscript traces which survive at this distant day, are
, with A, D, L, and †,—one copy each
422 Athanas. i. 644: ±v ±| }¿ø ±Pƒˆ , õëí©ù §ë ï†ôõüô†ë
¿s¥…µ ±Pƒø÷¬. This passage reappears in the fragmentary Commentary
published by Mai (ii. 582), divested only of the words ±v¿xºµª. ¡.
—The
characteristic words (in capitals) do not appear in Epiphanius (i. 143 c), who
merely says ±v ¥…µ ƒø÷¬ º±ƒ±÷¬,—confusing the place in St. Luke with
the place in St. John.
423 Aug. iii. P. 2, 143 (A.D.{FNS 400); viii. 472 (A.D.{FNS
424 To the 9 specified by Tisch.—(Evann. 13, 42, 88 (ƒ± ¿µ¡µº±ƒ±), 130
(ƒø µ¿±±ªµµ), 161, 300, 346, 400, 507),—add Evan. 33, in which the
words ±vƒp¿wªø¿± ¥…µ ±Pƒø÷¬ have been overlooked by Tregelles.
found in the notorious B- Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 267
of the Old Latin (e) and the Bohairic [and the Lewis],—which
exclusively enjoy the unenviable distinction of omitting the
incident of the“honeycomb”: while the confessedly spurious
appendix,“He gave them what remained over,”enjoys a far more
ancient, more varied, and more respectable attestation,—and yet
has found favour with no single Editor of the Sacred Text: no,
nor have our Revisers seen fit by a marginal note to apprize
the ordinary English reader that“many uncial authorities” are
disfigured in this particular way. With this latter accretion to
the inspired verity, therefore, we need not delay ourselves: but
that, so many disturbing influences having resulted, at the [245]
end of seventeen centuries, in the elimination of the clause ±v
¿x ºµªwø ¡wø from six corrupt copies of St. Luke’s
Gospel,—a fixed determination or a blundering tendency should
now be exhibited to mutilate the Evangelical narrative in respect
of the incident which those four words embody,—this may well
create anxiety. It makes critical inquiry an imperative duty: not
indeed for our own satisfaction, but for that of others.
Upon ourselves, the only effect produced by the sight of half
a dozen Evangelia,—whether written in the uncial or in the
cursive character we deem a matter of small account,—opposing
themselves to the whole body of the copies, uncial and cursive
alike, is simply to make us suspicious of those six Evangelia.
Shew us that they have been repeatedly tried already and as
often have been condemned, and our suspicion becomes intense.
Add such evidence of the operation of a disturbing force as has
been already set before the reader; and further inquiry in our
own minds we deem superfluous. But we must answer those
distinguished Critics who have ruled that Codexes B- , D, L,
can hardly if ever err.
The silence of the Fathers is really not of much account.
Some critics quote Clemens Alexandrinus. But let that Father be
allowed to speak for himself. He is inveighing against gluttony.
“Is not variety consistent with simplicity of diet?”(he asks); and[246]
268 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
he enumerates olives, vegetables, milk, cheese, &c. If it must be
flesh, he proceeds, let the flesh be merely broiled.“‘Have ye here
any meat?’said our Lord to His disciples after His Resurrection.
Whereupon, having been by Him taught frugality in respect of
diet,‘they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish.’… Yet may the fact
not be overlooked that those who sup as The Word approves may
partake besides of‘honeycomb.’ The fittest food, in a word, we
consider to be that which requires no cooking: next, as I began
by explaining, cheap and ordinary articles of diet425
.
” Shall I be
thought unreasonable if I insist that so far from allowing that
Clemens is“silent” concerning the“honeycomb,” I even regard
his testimony to the traditionary reading of St. Luke xxiv. 42 as
express? At the end of 1700 years, I am as sure that“honeycomb”
was found in his copy, as if I had seen it with my eyes.
Origen, who is next adduced, in one place remarks concerning
our SAVIOUR—“It is plain that after His Resurrection, He ate of
a fish426
.
” The same Father elsewhere interprets mystically the
circumstance that the Disciples“gave Him a piece of a broiled
fish427
.
” Eusebius in like manner thrice mentions the fact that
our LORD partook of“broiled fish428” after His Resurrection.
And because these writers do not also mention“honeycomb,”
it is assumed by Tischendorf and his school that the words ±v
¿x ºµªwø ¡wø cannot have existed in their copies of St.
Luke429. The proposed inference is plainly inadmissible. Cyril,
after quoting accurately St. Luke xxiv. 36 to 43 (“honeycomb”
and all)430, proceeds to remark exclusively on the incident of
425 †¡x¬ ƒø{ƒø¬ øP¥r ƒ¡±ºqƒ… ¡w… ºøw¡ø¬ ¿µ¡ø¡±ƒsø ƒøz¬
¥µ¿øʃ±¬ ±ƒpõyø.
—p. 174.
426 i. 384.
427 iii. 477.
428 Apud Mai, iv. 294, 295 bis.
429 “Ibi ƒx ¡wø praeterire non poterat [sc. Origenes] si in exemplis suis
additamentum reperisset.” (From Tischendorf’s note on Luke xxiv. 42.)
430 iv. 1108 b c.Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 269
the“fish”431. Ambrose and Augustine certainly recognized the
incident of“the honeycomb”: yet the latter merely remarks that
“to eat fish with the LORD is better than to eat lentiles with
Esau432;”while the former draws a mystical inference from“the
record in the Gospel that JESUS ate broiled fishes433
.
” Is it not [247]
obvious that the more conspicuous incident,—that of the“broiled
fish,”—being common to both repasts, stands for all that was
partaken of on either occasion? in other words, represents the
entire meal? It excludes neither the“honeycomb” of the upper
chamber, nor the“bread” which was eaten beside the Galilean
lake. Tertullian434, intending no slight either to the“broiled fish”
or to the“bread,”makes mention only of our Lord’s having“eaten
honeycomb” after His Resurrection. And so Jerome, addressing
John, bishop of Jerusalem, exclaims—“Why did the Lord eat
honeycomb? Not in order to give thee licence to eat honey, but in
order to demonstrate the truth of His Resurrection435
.
” To draw
inferences from the rhetorical silence of the Fathers as if we were
dealing with a mathematical problem or an Act of Parliament,
can only result in misconceptions of the meaning of those ancient
men.
As for Origen, there is nothing in either of the two places
commonly cited from his writings436, where he only mentions
the partaking of“fish,” to preclude the belief that Origen knew
of the“honeycomb” also in St. Luke xxiv. 42. We have but
fragments of his Commentary on St. Luke437, and an abridged
431 ö±ƒµ¥u¥øµ p¡ ƒx¿¡øøºr 0«{¥ø, $ƒø ƒxµæ ±Pƒøʺs¡ø¬.
—Ibid.
d. Similarly in the fragments of Cyril’s Commentary on St. Luke, he is observed
to refer to the incident of the piece of broiled fish exclusively. (Mai, ii. 442,
443, which reappears in P. Smith, p. 730.)
432 iii. P. i. p. 51. For the honeycomb, see iii. P. ii. p. 143 a: viii. 472 d.
433 i. 215.
434 “Favos post fella gustavit.”—De Coronâ, c. 14 (i. p. 455).
435 ii. 444 a.
436 i. 384; iii. 477.
437 Opp. iii. 932-85: with which comp. Galland. xiv. Append. 83-90 and270 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
translation of his famous Commentary on Canticles. Should these
works of his be hereafter recovered in their entirety, I strongly
suspect that a certain scholium in Cordier’s Catena on St. Luke438
,
which contains a very elaborate recognition of the“honeycomb,”
will be found to be nothing else but an excerpt from one or other
of them. At foot the learned reader will be gratified by the sight of
the original Greek of the scholium referred to439 Quite evident
is it that, besides Gregory of Nyssa, HESYCHIUS{FNS (or whoever
else was the author of the first Homily on the Resurrection) had
the same original before him when he wrote as follows:— ªª
¿µ¥tA¿¡xƒøÊ¿q«± ÷ƒø¬ Aºø¬, D»ø ƒt ¿¡w¥± «µ,
4¥…ºµ ƒw !¥yº±ƒ A ºµƒp ƒt qƒ± ¡ƒø¬ !¥{µƒ±.
A¡ ¬ ƒøʆsƒ¡ø ªµ{øƒø¬ ƒ±÷¬ «µ¡øvƒøÊ¡wø ¡ƒø ±v
¡wø ºsªƒø¬ yø ƒwø !¿¡w± ƒøÊ wø ±ƒ±µqµƒ±.
øPøÊ ±ƒqƒµ¬ ±v!ºµ÷¬ ƒ ¬ ƒˆ ªy… ªµw±¬, $¥ ƒ˜
¡ƒÛ ¿¡ø¥¡qº…ºµ, B ±ƒ±ª±wµ ƒx ¡wø ƒ ¬ ± ¬
91-109.
438 Cat. (1628), p. 622. Cordier translates from“Venet. 494” (our“Evan.
466”).
439 What follows is obtained (June 28, 1884) by favour of Sig. Veludo, the
learned librarian of St. Mark’s, from the Catena on St. Luke’s Gospel at Venice
(cod. 494 = our Evan. 466), which Cordier (in 1628) translated into Latin. The
Latin of this particular passage is to be seen at p. 622 of his badly imagined
and well-nigh useless work. The first part of it ( s±µ… ±¿ø¡q»øƒ±)
is occasionally found as a scholium, e.g. in Cod. Marc. Venet. 27 (our Evan.
210), and is already known to scholars from Matthaei’s N. T. (note on Luc.
xxiv. 42). The rest of the passage (which now appears for the first time)
I exhibit for the reader’s convenience parallel with a passage of Gregory of
Nyssa’s Christian Homily on Canticles. If the author of what is found in the
second column is not quoting what is found in the first, it is at least certain that
both have resorted to, and are here quoting from the same lost original:—
£s±µ ¥r ±v ƒ˜ @¿ƒ˜ 0«{Û (sic) ƒx ¡wø ƒøÊ ºsªƒø¬; ¥ªˆ
a¬ ø1 ¿¡…sƒµ¬ ¥p ƒ ¬ µw±¬ ±¡…¿uµ…¬ ±v ºµƒ±«yƒµ¬ ±PƒøÊ ƒ ¬
µyƒƒø¬, a¬ ºsª ºµƒ ¿ºw±¬ ƒp¬ ƒøªp¬ ±PƒøÊ ¿±¡±¥sæøƒ±; ¡˜
d¿µ¡ ƒøz¬ yºø¬ ±¿ø¡q»±ƒµ¬; Eƒ Aºr ƒøÊ¿q«±
[Transcriber’s Note: The following two paragraphs were side-by-side
columns in the original.]Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 271
ª¿w¥ø¬. (ap. Greg. Nyss. Opp. iii. 399 c d.)
, which Cordier so infelicitously exhibits in Latin. He will at [248]
least be made aware that if it be not Origen who there speaks to
us, it is some other very ancient father, whose testimony to the
genuineness of the clause now under consideration is positive
evidence in its favour which greatly outweighs the negative
evidence of the archetype of B- . But in fact as a specimen
of mystical interpretation, the passage in question is quite in
Origen’s way440
—has all his fervid wildness,—in all probability
is actually his. [249]
The question however to be decided is clearly not whether
certain ancient copies of St. Luke were without the incident of
the honeycomb; but only whether it is reasonable to infer from
the premisses that the Evangelist made no mention of it. And I
venture to anticipate that readers will decide this question with
me in the negative. That, from a period of the remotest antiquity,
certain disturbing forces have exercised a baneful influence over
this portion of Scripture is a plain fact: and that their combined
agency should have resulted in the elimination of the incident of
the“honeycomb” from a few copies of St. Luke xxiv. 42, need
create no surprise. On the other hand, this Evangelical incident
¡ƒø¬ ¿v¿¡w¥… wµƒø ±vA yºø¬ ¥µµªµ{ƒø;
¿¡x¬ p¡ ƒx¿±¡x !¿¡w±;
A¥rºµƒpƒt qƒ± ¡ƒø¬ ƒ˜¡wÛƒøʺsªƒø¬ !¥{µƒø;
D»ø p¡ ±ƒø÷¬ ƒx ºsª ¿øyºµ±, Eƒ± ƒ˜ 0¥wÛ ¡˜ A ±¡¿x¬ ƒ ¬
¡µƒ ¬ ±ƒ±ª±wµ ƒpƒ ¬ »« ¬ ±0ƒu¡±.
ANON.{FNS apud Corderium (fol. 58): see above.
… ¡ƒø¬… øP sƒ ¿v¿¡w¥… yºµø¬, a¬ A yºø¬ ¥±µªµ{µƒ±;
¿¡x¬ p¡ ƒx¿±¡y ƒ !¿¡w¬;
(… A ºµƒp ƒt qƒ± ƒøÊ ¡wø ¿¡ø±µv¬ ƒø÷¬ º±ƒ±÷¬ ¡ƒø¬ ƒw,
ƒ˜¡wÛƒøʺsªƒø¬ !¥yºµø¬.)
ªª D»ø ±ƒ˜ ƒx ºsª ¿øø{ºµø¬, Eƒ± ƒ˜ 0¥wÛ ±¡˜ A ±¡¿x¬ ƒ ¬
¡µƒ ¬ ±ƒ±ª±w ƒpƒ ¬ »« ¬ ±0ƒu¡±.
GREG. NYSS.{FNS in Cant. (Opp. i. a); the sentence in brackets being
transposed.
440 So Matthaei:“Haec interpretatio sapit ingenium Origenis.” (N.T. iii. 498.)[250]
272 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
is attested by the following witnesses:—
In the second century, by Justin M.441
,—by Clemens
Alexandrinus442
,—by Tertullian443
,—by the Old-Latin,—and by
the Peshitto Version:
In the third century, by Cureton’s Syriac,—and by the Bohairic:
In the fourth century, by Athanasius444
,—by Gregory of
Nyssa445
,—by Epiphanius446
,—by Cyril of Jerusalem447
,—by
Jerome448
,—by Augustine449
,—and by the Vulgate:
In the fifth century, by Cyril of Alexandria450
,—by
Proclus451
,—by Vigilius Tapsensis452
,—by the Armenian,—and
Ethiopic Versions:
In the sixth century, by Hesychius and Cod. N453:
In the seventh century, by the Harkleian Version.
Surely an Evangelical incident attested by so many, such
respectable, and such venerable witnesses as these, is clearly
above suspicion. Besides its recognition in the ancient scholium
to which attention has been largely invited already454, we find
the incident of the“honeycomb” recognized by 13 ancient
Fathers,—by 8 ancient Versions,—by the unfaltering Tradition
of the universal Church,—above all, by every copy of St. Luke’s
Gospel in existence (as far as is known), uncial as well as
441 ö±v±µ ¡wø ±v0«{ ,—ii. 240. From the fragment De Resurrectione
preserved by John Damascene,—ii. 762a.
442 See above, note 1, p. 247.
443 See above, note 1, p. 248.
444 i. 644 (see above, p. 244, n. 7).
445 i. 624 (see above, p. 242, n. 3).
446 pp. 210, 431 (see above, p. 243).
447 i. 652 d (see above, p. 247).
448 i. 825 a; ii. 444 a.
449 See above, note 1, p. 245.
450 iv. 1108.
451 Apud Galland. ix. 633.
452 Varim. i. 56.
453 Apud Greg. Nyss. iii. 399.
454 See above, p. 248, note 6.Appendix I. Honeycomb— ¿xºµªwø ¡wø. 273
cursive—except six. That it carries on its front the impress of its
own genuineness, is what no one will deny455. Yet was Dr. Hort
for dismissing it without ceremony.“A singular interpolation
evidently from an extraneous source, written or oral,” he says.
A singular hallucination, we venture to reply, based on ideal
grounds and“a system [of Textual Criticism] hopelessly self-
condemned456;” seeing that that ingenious and learned critic has
nothing to urge except that the words in dispute are omitted by B-
,—by A seldom found in the Gospels in such association,—by
D of the sixth century,—by L of the eighth,—by † of the ninth.
I have been so diffuse on this place because I desire to exhibit
an instance shewing that certain perturbations of the sacred Text
demand laborious investigation,—have a singular history of their
own,—may on no account be disposed of in a high-handed
way, by applying to them any cut and dried treatment,—nay I
must say, any arbitrary shibboleth. The clause in dispute enjoys
in perfection every note of a genuine reading: viz. number,
antiquity, variety, respectability of witnesses, besides continuity
of attestation: every one of which notes are away from that
exhibition of the text which is contended for by my opponents457
.
Tischendorf conjectures that the“honeycomb” may have been [251]
first brought in from the“Gospel of the Hebrews.”What if, on the
contrary, by the Valentinian“Gospel of Truth,”—a composition
455 “The words could hardly have been an interpolation.”(Alford, in loc).
456 Scrivener’s Introd. II. p. 358.
457 It is well known that Dean Burgon considered B, , and D to be bad
manuscripts. When I wrote my Textual Guide, he was angry with me for not
following him in this. Before his death, the logic of facts convinced me that he
was right and I was wrong. We came together upon independent investigation.
I find that those MSS. in disputed passages are almost always wrong—mainly,
if not entirely, the authors of our confusion. What worse could be said of them?
And nothing less will agree with the facts from our point of view. Compromise
on this point which might be amiable shrinks upon inquiry before a vast array
of facts.—E. M.274 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels
of the second century,—the“honeycomb” should have been
first thrust out458? The plain statement of Epiphanius (quoted
above459) seems to establish the fact that his maimed citation
was derived from that suspicious source.
Let the foregoing be accepted as a specimen of the injury
occasionally sustained by the Evangelical text in a very remote
age from the evil influence of the fabricated narratives, or
Diatessarons, which anciently abounded. The genuineness of the
clause ±v¿xºµªwø ¡wø, it is hoped, will never more be
seriously called in question. Surely it has been demonstrated to
be quite above suspicion460
.
[252]
458 Compare Epiphanius (i. 143 c) ut supra (Haer. xxx. c. 19) with Irenaeus (iii.
c. ii, § 9):“Hi vero qui sunt a Valentino … in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti
quod ab his non olim conscriptum est Veritatis Evangelium titulent.”
459 See above, p. 243.
460 There is reason for thinking that the omission was an Alexandrian reading.
Egyptian asceticism would be alien to so sweet a food as honeycomb. See
above, p. 150. The Lewis Cod. omits the words. But it may be remembered
that it restricts St. John Baptist’s food to locusts“and the honey of the
mountain.”—E. M.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¡ººsø ø6ø, Mark xv. 23.
462 Læø¬ ºµƒp«øª ¬ ºµººsø, Matt. xxvii. 34 (= Luke xxiii. 37).
463 †ªu±ƒµ¬ ¿yø Dæø¬, ±vQ }¿Û¿µ¡sƒµ¬, 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” (ø6ø 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 ø6ø 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±vµ0 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 Ver-
sion,—Barnabas469
,—Irenaeus470
,—Tertullian471
,—Celsus472
,—Origen473
Sibylline verses in two places474 (quoted by Lactantius),—and
,—the
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¥wµ ƒ˜ 8øÊ,—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 B-
belong,) 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¿øp«øª«ƒµ ±vDæµ ¥q¡ø«ø¬, ø5± ø18ø¥±÷ø ƒ˜µPµ¡sƒ ƒt
ªøƒw± ¥µ{ºµø ¥p ƒøÊ ±ªqºø ¿¡øƒµwø.
—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
ø6ø) 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][260]
Appendix III. The Rich Young Man.
The eternal Godhead of CHRIST was the mark at which, in the
earliest age of all, Satan persistently aimed his most envenomed
shafts. St. John, in many a well-known place, notices this;
begins and ends his Gospel by proclaiming our Saviour’s Eternal
Godhead502; denounces as“deceivers,”“liars,”and“antichrists,”
the heretical teachers of his own day who denied this503;—which
shews that their malice was in full activity before the end of the
first century of our era; ere yet, in fact, the echoes of the Divine
Voice had entirely died out of the memory of very ancient men.
These Gnostics found something singularly apt for their purpose
in a famous place of the Gospel, where the blessed Speaker
seems to disclaim for Himself the attribute of“goodness,”—in
fact seems to distinguish between Himself and GOD. Allusion
is made to an incident recorded with remarkable sameness of
expression by St. Matthew (xix. 16, 17), St. Mark (x. 17, 18)
and St. Luke (xviii. 18, 19), concerning a certain rich young
Ruler. This man is declared by all three to have approached
our LORD with one and the same question,—to have prefaced it
with one and the same glozing address,“Good Master!”—and
to have been checked by the object of his adulation with one
and the same reproof;—“Why dost thou [who takest me for
an ordinary mortal like thyself504] call me good? No one is
502 St. John i. 1-3, 14; xx. 31.
503 1 St. John ii. 18, 22, 23; iv. 1, 2, 3, 15; v. 10, 11, 12, 20; 2 St. John ver. 7,
9, 10. So St. Jude ver. 4.
504 So Athanasius excellently:—A µx¬ ±¡ºu±¬ ±ƒx ºµƒp ƒˆ
¡}¿…, ±ƒp ƒt q¡± ±PƒøÊ ƒøʃø µ6¿µ, ±v ¿¡x¬ ƒx øÊ ƒøÊ
¿¡øµªyƒø¬ ±Pƒ˜; µ÷ø¬ p¡ ¡…¿ø ±Pƒx yºµ ºyø ±v øP
µy , ±v ƒøʃø «µ ƒx øÊ ! ¿y¡¬. ï0 ºr p¡ ¡…¿ø, wAppendix III. The Rich Young Man. 283
good [essentially good505] save one,” that is“GOD.
” … See,
said some old teachers, fastening blindly on the letter,—He
disclaims being good: ascribes goodness exclusively to the
Father: separates Himself from very and eternal God506…. The
place was accordingly eagerly fastened on by the enemies of the
Gospel507: while, to vindicate the Divine utterance against the
purpose to which it was freely perverted, and to establish its true
meaning, is found to have been the endeavour of each of the most
illustrious of the Fathers in turn. Their pious eloquence would
fill a volume508. Gregory of Nyssa devotes to this subject the
eleventh book of his treatise against Eunomius509
.
In order to emphasize this impious as well as shallow gloss the
heretic Valentinus (A.D. 120),—with his disciples, Heracleon and [261]
Ptolemaeus, the Marcosians, the Naassenes, Marcion (A.D. 150),
and the rest of the Gnostic crew,—not only substituted“One is
good” for“No one is good but one,”—but evidently made it a
great point besides to introduce the name of the FATHER, either in
øºwµ¬ ºµ ±v øP µy , ºu ºµ ªsµ ±y ; øP¥µv¬ p¡ ±y¬; øP p¡
¥±s¡µ [is not an attribute or adornment of] ¡…¿w {µ ƒx ±y ,
ªªpµ˜.
—i. 875 a. So Macarius Magnes, p. 13.—See also below, note 2, p.
262.
505 So, excellently Cyril Alex. V. 310 d, Suicer’s Thesaurus; see Pearson on
the Creed, on St. Matt. xix. 17.
506 So Marcion (ap. Epiph.),—µ6¿s ƒ ¿¡x¬ ±Pƒy ; ¥¥q±ªµ ±s, ƒw
¿øuø¬ …t ±0}ø ª¡øøºu…; A ¥s, ºu ºµ ªsµƒµ ±y , µ6¬ ƒ
±y¬, Aòµx¬ A†±ƒu¡ [i. 339 a]. Note, that it was thus Marcion exhibited St.
Luke xviii. 18, 19. See Hippol. Phil. 254,—§w ºµ ªsµƒµ ±y ; µ6¬ ƒ
±y¬.
507 So Arius (ap. Epiphanium),—µ6ƒ± ¿qª v A º±}¥¬ ¡µwø¬, ¿ˆ¬
µ6¿µ A ö{¡ø¬, §w ºµ ªsµ¬ ±y ; µ6¬ ƒ ±x¬ A òµy¬. a¬ ±PƒøÊ
¡øºsø ƒt ±yƒƒ± [i. 742 b].—From this, Arius inferred a separate
