MADE BY EARLY ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS, ESPECIALLY BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.
1. We might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous
quotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers
of the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our
era downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for
enabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in
those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come
down to us(135). Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable
writings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish
the value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at
the commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in
his remarkable volume entitled the “Revision Revised(136),” has shown
scholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate
attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of
the New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now
extant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its
own. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of
versions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish
for information: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics;
they sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage
than their immediate purpose required; and what they actually wrote has
been found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors.
But when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due
limitations to be witnesses to the readings found in the codices which
they used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many
cases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire
text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony.
And the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when
the issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large
number of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the
testimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be
seen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous
codices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is
no doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later
than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no
question; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable
readings(137). In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character
from the Father who uses it(138). On the other hand, the same author
perpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in
the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three
earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural
quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they
may safely be disregarded altogether. An _express_ citation, however, by a
really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for
example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the
best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates
the reading which it favours(139). In fact, like Versions, Patristic
citations cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are
often invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether
by proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming
body of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and
in many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of
unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or
in smaller number.
2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the
reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reasonable, that all who
have written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it,
from Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in
four out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When
Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek
Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text,
he expressly rejected “S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro
recepto more laudata,” from which the toil of such a task did not so much
deter him, “quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem
insistere.” (N. T. 1675, Praef.). “Venerandi enim illi scriptores,” he
adds, “de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoriâ quae ad
institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de
priscâ lectione ex illorum scriptis nil ferè certi potuerit hauriri.” It
is certainly to the credit of Mill’s sagacity that he did not follow his
patron’s example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and
compendious a manner(140). Nevertheless, no one can study Mill’s
“Prolegomena” without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of
them relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical
writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers
which stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts,
the result of some years’ labour (N. T. Proleg. § 1513): yet these are
just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least
satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. A
whole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched; each cited passage
must be patiently examined; the help of _indices_ should be employed
critically and warily; the best editions must be used, and even then the
text of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be, by the
collation of other manuscripts(141).
3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the earliest editor of
the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who acted upon the principle,
that it is far more profitable as well as more scholarlike to do one thing
well, than to attempt more than can be performed completely and with
accuracy. He was led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which
we shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works of
Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The result,
published in the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting
monument both of his industry and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless
in point of correctness, deserves to be taken as a model by his
successors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak,
has evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic citations; to Eusebius
of Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have been
recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention: but
besides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously neglected, although
the subjects of a large portion of his writings, the early date of some of
his codices(142), the extensive collations of Matthaei, and the excellent
modern editions of most of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend
him to our particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and
adopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf), of recording
the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer quoted, and in important
cases of copying his very words, cannot be too much praised: we would
suggest, however, the expediency of further indicating, by an asterisk or
some such mark, those passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to
the reading adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from
others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.
4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of Patristic
testimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since his much lamented death
the results of his labours have been made public. In the early stages of
his studies in Sacred Textual Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme
value—afterwards recognized by Dr. Scrivener—of an exhaustive use of
citations from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors; and after a
conversation with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set
himself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testament
quotations occurring in the books of those writers. “This involved his
looking through all the Greek and Latin folios of the Fathers, and marking
the texts in the margin. Then the folios passed into the hands of his
assistants, who arranged the references in the order of the Books of the
New Testament, and copied them out; so that it might be only the work of a
minute to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted
such a text(143),” and how many times it was quoted by the Father in
question. They were revised and enlarged some years after their first
collection. The striking use to which Burgon put his own indices has been
already noticed. After his death the sixteen stout volumes containing them
were acquired by the authorities of the British Museum, where they have
been found to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already taken
for the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with Dean Burgon’s
other works on this great subject.
5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the
ecclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other languages
(with the usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often
cited in critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin authors are
printed in italics, and unless they happen to appeal unequivocally to the
evidence of Greek codices, are available only for the correction of their
vernacular translation. The dates annexed generally indicate the death of
the persons they refer to, except when “fl.” ( = _floruit_) is prefixed.
_Alcimus_ (Avitus), fl. 360.
_Ambrose_, Bp. of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.).
_Ambrosiaster_, the false Ambrose, perhaps _Hilary_ the Deacon, of the
fourth century (Ambrst.).
Ammonius of Alexandria, circa 438 (Ammon.) _in Catenis_.
Amphilochius, fl. 380.
Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 650.
Anastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.
Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth century? (And.)
Andreas of Crete, seventh century.
Antiochus, monk, fl. 614.
Antipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.
Aphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.
Archelaus and Manes, fl. 278.
Arethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth century? (Areth.)
Aristides, fl. 139.
Arius, fl. 325.
_Arnobius_ of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).
Asterius, fourth century.
Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.).
Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).
_Augustine_, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).
Barnabas, first or second century? (Barn.)
Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).
Basil of Cilicia, fl. 497.
Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).
_Bede_, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).
Caesarius of Arles, fl. 520.
Caesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople, 340 (Caes.).
Candidus Isaurus, fl. 500.
Capreolus, fl. 430.
Carpathius, John, fl. 490.
Cassianus, fl. 415.
_Cassiodorus_, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)
_Chromatius_, Bp. of Aquileia, fl. 390 (Chrom.).
Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.).
Chrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth century.
Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).
Clement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.).
Clementines, the, second century.
Corderius,
Cosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.).
_Cyprian_, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).
Dalmatius, fl. 450.
Damascenus, John, 730 (Dam.)(144).
Damasus, Pope, fl. 366.
Didache, 80-120.
Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.).
Diodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380.
Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.).
Dionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-), third century.
Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth century (Dion. Areop.).
Dionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).
Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).
Ephraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Ephraim, Bp. of Cherson.
Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.).
Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.
Erechthius, fl. 440.
Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.
Eulogius, sixth century.
Eusebius of Alexandria,
Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.).
Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.
Eustathius, monk,
Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).
Eutherius, fl. 431.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).
Eutychius, fl. 553.
Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).
Evagrius Scholasticus, the historian, fl. 492.
_Facundus_, fl. 547.
_Faustus_, fl. 400.
Ferrandus, fl. 356.
_Fulgentius_ of Ruspe, fl. 508 (Fulg.).
_Gaudentius_, fl. 405 (Gaud.).
Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.
Gennadius, fl. 459.
Germanus of Constantinople, fl. 715.
Gregentius, fl. 540.
Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp. of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).
Gregory Naz. (Pseudo-).
Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.).
_Gregory_ the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605 (Greg.).
_Haymo_, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth century (Haym.).
Hegesippus, fl. 180.
Hermas, second century.
_Hieronymus_ (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or (Jer.).
_Hilary_, Bp. of Arles, 429.
_Hilary_, Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).
_Hilary_, the deacon, fourth century.
Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220 (Hip.).
Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).
Ignatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version
(Iren.).
Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).
Jacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.
Jobius, sixth century.
Julian, heretic, fl. 425.
Julius Africanus, fl. 220.
Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.).
Justin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Justinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.
_Juvencus_, fl. 320 (Juv.).
_Lactantius_, 306 (Lact.).
_Leo_ the Great, fl. 440.
Leontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.
Liberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.
_Lucifer_, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.).
Macarius Magnes, third or fourth century.
Macarius Magnus, fourth century.
Manes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.
Marcion the heretic, 139 (Mcion.), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and by
_Tertullian_ (Mcion-t).
Maxentius, sixth century.
Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf).
_Maximus_ Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.).
Mercator, Marius, fl. 218.
Methodius, 311 (Meth.).
Modestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh century.
Nestorius of C. P., fifth century.
Nicephorus, fl. 787.
_Nicetas_ of Aquileia, fifth century.
Nicetas of Byzantium, 1120.
Nilus, monk, fl. 430.
Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).
_Novatianus_, fl. 251 (Novat.).
Oecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth century? (Oecu.)
_Optatus_, fl. 371.
Origen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).
Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.
Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).
Papias, fl. 160.
_Paschasius_, the deacon?
Paulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.
Paulus, patriarch of Constantinople, fl. 648.
Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).
_Petrus_ Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, fl. 440.
_Petrus_, Deacon, fl. sixth century.
Petrus Siculus, fl. 790.
Philo of Carpasus, fourth century.
_Phoebadius_, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.
Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.).
Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).
Porphyrius, fl. 290.
_Primasius_, Bp. of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.).
_Prosper_ of Aquitania, fl. 431.
_Prudentius_, 406 (Prud.).
_Rufinus_ of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.).
Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).
Severus of Antioch, fl. 510.
Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.).
Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.).
Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.).
Symeon, fl. 1000.
_Symmachus_, fourth century.
Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).
Tatian (Pseudo-), third century.
_Tertullian_ of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)(145).
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.).
Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus in Commagene, 458 (Thdrt.).
Theodorus of Heracleia, fl. 336.
Theodorus, Lector, fl. 525.
Theodorus Studita, fl. 794.
Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.
Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.
Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.).
Theophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl. 1077 (Theophyl.).
_Tichonius_ the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).
Timotheus of Antioch, fifth century.
Timotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.
Titus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.).
Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)(146).
_Victor_, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.).
_Victorinus_, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.).
_Victorinus_ of Rome, fl. 361.
_Vigilius_ of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).
Vincentius Lirinensis, fl. 434.
Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl. 614.
Zacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.
Zeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.
Besides the writers, the following anonymous works contain quotations from
the New Testament:—
_Auctor libri de xlii. mansionibus_ (auct. mans.), fourth century.
_Auctor libri de Promissionibus dimid. temporis_ (Prom.), third century.
_Auctor libri de Rebaptismate_ (Rebapt.), fourth century.
_Auctor libri de singularitate clericorum_ (auct. sing. cler.), fourth
century.
_Auctor libri de Vocatione gentium_ (Vocat.), fourth century.
Acta Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.
Acta Philippi, fourth century.
Acta Pilati, third or fourth century.
Anaphora Pilati, fifth century.
Apocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)
Apocryphal Gospels, second century, &c.
Apostolic Canons, third to fifth century.
Apostolic Constitutions, third and fourth centuries.
Chronicon Paschale, 628.
Concilia, Labbè or Mansi.
Cramer’s Catena.
Dialogus, fourth or fifth century.
Eastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.
Gospel of Peter, about 165.
_Opus Imperfectum_, fifth century.
_Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento_, fourth century(147).