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”
Πᾶσι Τοῖς Ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
PHIL. i. 1
London
George Bell And Sons
Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.
1896
CONTENTS
Preface.
Introduction.
Chapter I. Preliminary Grounds.
Chapter II. Principles.
Chapter III. The Seven Notes Of Truth.
Chapter IV. The Vatican And Sinaitic Manuscripts.
Chapter V. The Antiquity of the Traditional Text. I. Witness of the Early
Fathers.
Chapter VI. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. II. Witness of the
Early Syriac Versions.
Chapter VII. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. III. Witness of the
Western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text.
Chapter VIII. Alexandria and Caesarea.
Chapter IX. The Old Uncials. The Influence Of Origen.
Chapter X. The Old Uncials. Codex D.
Chapter XI. The Later Uncials And The Cursives.
Chapter XII. Conclusion.
Appendix I. Honeycomb—ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου.
Appendix II. Ὄξος—Vinegar.
Appendix III. The Rich Young Man.
Appendix IV. St. Mark i. 1.
Appendix V. The Sceptical Character Of B And א.
Appendix VI. The Peshitto And Curetonian.
Appendix VII. The Last Twelve Verses Of St. Mark’s Gospel.
Appendix VIII. New Editions Of The Peshitto-Syriac And The
Harkleian-Syriac Versions.
General Index.
Index II. Passages Of The New Testament Commented On.
Footnotes
“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 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 ὄξος 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 encounter
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 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.
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-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 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?
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!
Edward Miller.
9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:
_Epiphany 1896_.
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, 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 Euzoius(1), 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 א, 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 א 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 א 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 began to rise
again. The career of it may be divided into four stages, which may be
termed respectively, Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity(2).
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 upon each separate reading.
Tischendorf, the discoverer of א, 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 א are the chief exponents “the Neutral Text,” and
held that that text can be traced back to the genuine Autographs(4).
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
quarters(5). 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
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 Burgon(6), 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.
CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
§ 1.
In the ensuing pages I propose to discuss a problem of the highest dignity
and importance(7): 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 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 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 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 certainly 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 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 another(8). 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 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 them(9),” but also to “guide” His Church “into all
the Truth,” or, “the whole Truth(10)” (πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν). 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 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 of 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 centuries(11).” 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 elsewhere(13).” 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 א) belong. There is observed to exist in Church
Lectionaries precisely the same phenomenon. They have prevailed in
unintermitted agreement in other respects from very early times, probably
from the days of St. Chrysostom(14), 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 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 regions 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 ABאCD 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. א, 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 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 them 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 wrong(15).