The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 4

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 mult.i.tudes 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 a.s.similation 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 a.s.sume until I find that I 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. ?BD(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.

There is an obscure expression in the Epistle to the Hebrews,-Alford speaks of it as "almost a _locus desperatus_"-which ill.u.s.trates 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 Pes.h.i.tto and of the Latin versions(31).

Accordingly, the discovery that ? also exhibits s???e?e?ase??? determined Tischendorf, who however stands alone with Scholz, to retain in this place the singular participle. 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 expression(32). All the known copies but four(33) read not s???e??a???? but -?????. So do all the Fathers who are known to quote the place(34):-Macarius(35), Chrysostom(36), Theodorus of Mopsuestia(37), Cyril(38), Theodoret(39), Damascene(40), Photius(41), Theophylactus(42), Oec.u.menius(43). 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 effect(44). 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 mult.i.tude of witnesses: in other words that it has the note of Number as well(45).

And let no one cherish a secret suspicion that because the Syriac and the Latin versions are such venerable doc.u.ments 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 pa.s.sage, 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.

No one can doubt, for it stands to reason, that Variety distinguishing witnesses ma.s.sed together must needs const.i.tute a most powerful argument for believing such Evidence to be true. 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 a.s.sembly 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 to 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 Truth(46). 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 cla.s.s of confirmatory evidence is most valuable. Thus, when it is perceived that Codd. ?BCD are the only uncials which contain the clause ?e????? ??e??ete 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 pa.s.sage supplies what is wanted(47). Speaking generally, 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 pa.s.sed 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 ent.i.tled 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 one general and the other special. In the general sense, Weight includes all the notes of truth,-it may relate to the entire ma.s.s of evidence;-or else it may be employed as concerning the value of an individual ma.n.u.script, 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 doc.u.ments 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 a.n.a.logous 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 cla.s.sification 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 a.s.sumed by men who have no authority to dogmatize, is only accepted by weak minds who find a relief when they are able

"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 ent.i.tling 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. Claromonta.n.u.s(49)" 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 itself(50).

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, Jerome(51),"-to which were added "Epiphanius and Caesarius(52),"-"Hesychius of Jerusalem and Euthymius(53)." In this enumeration, the names of Gregory, Victor, Severus, Epiphanius and Caesarius were introduced in error. There remains Eusebius,-whose exaggeration (_a_) Jerome translates, (_b_) Hesychius (sixth century) copies, and (_c_) Euthymius (A.D. 1116) refers to(54) and Eusebius himself neutralizes(55). The evidence therefore (such as it is) collapses hopelessly: being reducible probably to a random statement in the lost treatise of Origen on St. Mark(56), which Eusebius repudiates, even while in his lat.i.tudinarian 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 s?st?ef????? d?

a?t?? 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 considerations should be attached to F and G of St. Paul, as being "independent transcripts of the same venerable archetype(57)," and to Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, 556, 561, and perhaps 348, 624, 788(58), as being also the representatives of only one anterior ma.n.u.script 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 doc.u.ments, 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 cla.s.s which prevailed in the earliest age of all, a cla.s.s from which some of the Latin translations were made(59).

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 Pes.h.i.tto, 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 elsewhere(60) that, in and by itself, the testimony of any first-rate Father, where it can be had, must be held to outweigh the solitary testimony of any single Codex which can be named.

The circ.u.mstance 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?C 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 a.s.sign a definite amount of credibility, whereas in the estimate of the former cla.s.s 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 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 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 a.s.signed, when _quod semper_ was added to _quod ubique et quod ab omnibus_. So there is a Catholicity of time, as well as of s.p.a.ce 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 ma.s.s 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 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 doc.u.ment of what is already attested by doc.u.ments of the fourth century to be the true reading of any given place of Scripture, yet it is a highly improbable circ.u.mstance 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 ill.u.s.trated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the Cursives and later Uncials(61).