The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 7

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" (?ABCD) 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 ama.s.s 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 subsist between the Old Uncials and their frequent errors. And first(96), how do they write the "Mary's" of the Gospels, of whom in strictness there are but three?

"The Mother of JESUS(97)," as most of us are aware, was not "Mary" (?a??a) at all; but "_Mariam_" (?a???),-a name strictly identical with that of the sister of Moses(98). 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 Clopas(99), 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 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 possible(100) (viz. in St. Matt. i. 20), exhibits ?a??a instead of ?a???:-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 ?BC, in St. Matt. i. 34, 38, 46,-Codd.

B?D, in ii. 19.

On the other hand, the Virgin's sister (?a??a), is twice written ?a???: viz. by C, in St. Matt xxvii. 56; and by ?, in St. John xix. 25:-while Mary Magdalene is written ?a??? 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 ?A, in St.

John xx. 1,-by ?C, in St. Matt. xxviii. 1,-by ?B, in St. John xx. 16 and 18,-by BC, in St. Mark xv. 40,-by ?BC, in St. Matt. xxvii. 61.

Lastly, Mary (?a??a) the sister of Lazarus, is called ?a??? by Cod. B in St. Luke x. 42: St. John xi. 2: xii. 3;-by BC, in St. Luke xi. 32;-by ?C, in St. Luke x. 39.-I submit that such specimens of licentiousness or inattention are little calculated to conciliate confidence in Codd. B?CD.

It is found that B goes 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?L33 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 reading 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, Pes.h.i.tto and Harkleian Syriac, the Armenian, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions:-besides several of the Fathers, such as Serapion(101),-Basil(102),-Epiphanius(103),-Chrysostom(104),-Asterius(105),-and another (unknown) writer of the fourth century(106):-with Cyril(107) 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 ma.n.u.script has ventured to disturb, what else but irrational is the contention of the modern School that for "Jona" in St.

John i. 42, we are to read "John"? The plain fact evidently 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 fluctuate 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: ??a??? being the reading of _no_ Greek ma.n.u.script in the world except Cod. B(108).

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 place(109).

-- 5.

_B. S._ But(110), 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 blots(111),-? even more so than B. How they could ever have gained the characters which have been given them, is pa.s.sing 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 emanc.i.p.ate themselves and judge with their own eyes, they would soon see the truth of what I say.

_B. S._ I should a.s.sent 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 myself(112),-that however has been withheld under the good Providence of Almighty G.o.d.-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.

CHAPTER V. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT(113). 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 ma.n.u.scripts 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 the Quarterly Review, and has been republished in The Revision Revised(114). 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 att.i.tude 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 ma.s.s 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 Pes.h.i.tto, did not again undergo any corresponding revision. From the last Greek revision issued a 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 t.i.tle "Syrian," which as used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it amongst his followers a pa.s.sword 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 means 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 G.o.d 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 exists(115). 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, pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sed previously, because the Catholic Church of Christ is ever consistent with itself, and are thus virtually decisive of the controversy; besides the collapse 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 doc.u.ments 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 a.s.sisted 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no 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 first(116): 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages. 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 find any of superior excellence as well as Migne.

Each pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages 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 pa.s.sages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to 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.