The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 5

-- 6. Context.

A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to which the present volume is devoted, may be thus described. In 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 s.p.a.ce 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 pa.s.sage 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 t? ? ?a?t?? instead of t?

?a?t??, 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 pa.s.sage 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 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 pa.s.sage 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 Origen(62). 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 pa.s.sage, 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 pa.s.sage 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 Revisers(63); in two more by the Revisers(64); and of the remaining four, it is supported in two by only ? and severally by one or six Cursives, and in the other two by only ? and D with severally four or five Cursive copies(65).

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" (d?? t?? a??t??

a?t??) with the inquiry, "Art Thou He that should come(66), or are we to look for another (?te???)?" 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. 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" (d?? t????) of them, and "sent them to JESUS": thus emphasizing, while he repeats, the record of the earlier Evangelist. Inasmuch however as ?te??? means, in strictness, "the other _of two_," in order not to repeat himself, he subst.i.tutes ????? for it. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest amongst our ma.n.u.script authorities. It in no wise surprises us to find that t???? has disappeared from D, the Pes.h.i.tto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic.

The word has disappeared from our English version also. But it offends us greatly to discover that (1) ?BLRX? (with Cyril) obliterate ????? from St.

Luke vii. 19, and thrust ?te??? into its place,-as clear an instance of vicious a.s.similation as could anywhere be found: while (2) for d?? (in St.

Matt. xi. 3) ?BCDPZ? write d??: which is acquiesced in by the Pes.h.i.tto, Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian Versions. The Old Latin Versions prevaricate as usual: two read, _mittens duos ex discipulis suis_: all the rest,-_mittens discipulos suos_,-which is the reading of Cureton's Syriac and the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS.(67) Lastly (3) for ??s??? in St. Luke, BLR? subst.i.tute ??????. 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 particulars(68).

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 a.s.siduity 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 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 p??t?? (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 d???e?? (feminine); and that of ?a?d?a??

(2 Cor. iii. 3) according to the witness of A?BCDEGLP on the score of its utter impossibility(69). Geographical reasons are sufficiently strong against reading with Codd. ?IKN? ??at?? ?a? ??????ta 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 a?t?? (?BDL?) to be read for a?t?? (St. Mark vi. 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 suspicion(70). There is doubtless some reason in the Canon which a.s.serts 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 de?te??p?t? (St. Luke vi. 1) must receive additional justification. But people are ordinarily so const.i.tuted, 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 pa.s.sages 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. Circ.u.mstantial 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 weatherc.o.c.k according to changing winds 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.

CHAPTER IV. THE VATICAN AND SINAITIC Ma.n.u.sCRIPTS.

-- 1.

No progress is possible in the department of "Textual Criticism" until the superst.i.tion-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 a.s.signed 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_ (F), at the end of the fifth, and [7] the _Codex Rossanensis_ (S), 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 ma.n.u.script, may reasonably be claimed to exhibit the truth of scripture, in defiance of the combined evidence of all other doc.u.ments to the contrary. Let a reading be advocated by B and ?

in conjunction, and it is a.s.sumed as a matter of course that 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 it(71).

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 a.s.sign 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 a.s.sured I should now adopt it(72).-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.

_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.

_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 ent.i.tled to decide about disputed pa.s.sages what they were or were not. Corruption largely infected the several writings(74), as I shall shew at some length in some subsequent chapters, during the great interval to which I have alluded.