§ 1.
The object of Textual Criticism, when applied to the Scriptures of the New
Testament, is to determine what the Apostles and Evangelists of Christ
actually wrote—the precise words they employed, and the very order of
them. It is therefore one of the most important subjects which can be
proposed for examination; and unless handled unskilfully, ought to prove
by no means wanting in living interest. Moreover, it clearly takes
precedence, in synthetical order of thought, of every other department of
Sacred Science, so far as that rests upon the great pillar of Holy
Scripture.
Now Textual Criticism occupies itself chiefly with two distinct branches
of inquiry. (1) Its first object is to collect, investigate, and arrange
the evidence supplied by Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers. And this is an
inglorious task, which demands prodigious labour, severe accuracy,
unflagging attention, and can never be successfully conducted without a
considerable amount of solid learning. (2) Its second object is to draw
critical inferences; in other words, to discover the truth of the text—the
genuine words of Holy Writ. And this is altogether a loftier function, and
calls for the exercise of far higher gifts. Nothing can be successfully
accomplished here without large and exact knowledge, freedom from bias and
prejudice. Above all, there must be a clear and judicial understanding.
The logical faculty in perfection must energize continually: or the result
can only be mistakes, which may easily prove calamitous.
My next step is to declare what has been hitherto effected in either of
these departments, and to characterize the results. In the first-named
branch of the subject, till recently very little has been attempted: but
that little has been exceedingly well done. Many more results have been
added in the last thirteen years: a vast amount of additional evidence has
been discovered, but only a small portion of it has been thoroughly
examined and collated. In the latter branch, a great deal has been
attempted: but the result proves to be full of disappointment to those who
augured much from it. The critics of this century have been in too great a
hurry. They have rushed to conclusions, trusting to the evidence which was
already in their hands, forgetting that only those conclusions can be
scientifically sound which are drawn from all the materials that exist.
Research of a wider kind ought to have preceded decision. Let me explain
and establish what I have been saying.
§ 2.
It was only to have been anticipated that the Author of the Everlasting
Gospel—that masterpiece of Divine Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman
skill—would shew Himself supremely careful for the protection and
preservation of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discovery of the beauty
and preciousness of the Deposit in its essential structure does but serve
to deepen the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been
made in God’s eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the
inspired Text.
Yet it is not too much to assert that nothing which man’s inventive skill
could have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter. Let
us take a slight but comprehensive view of what is found upon
investigation, as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of the
New Testament Scriptures.
I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the Gospels and Epistles
in the original Greek were multiplied to an extraordinary extent all down
the ages and in every part of the Christian Church. The result has been
that, although all the earliest have perished, there remains to this day a
prodigious number of such transcripts; some of them of very high
antiquity. On examining these with care, we discover that they must needs
have been (_a_) produced in different countries, (_b_) executed at
intervals during the space of one thousand years, (_c_) copied from
originals no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has been
accumulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, such as is wholly
unapproachable with respect to any other writings in the world(16). More
than two thousand manuscript copies are now (1888) known to exist(17).
It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture aloud before the
congregation—a practice which is observed to have prevailed from the
Apostolic age—has resulted in the increased security of the Deposit: for
(1) it has led to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing
the Church Lessons; and (2) it has secured a living witness to the
_ipsissima verba_ of the Spirit—in all the Churches of Christendom. The
ear once thoroughly familiarized with the words of Scripture is observed
to resent the slightest departure from the established type. As for its
tolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the question.
II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it became translated
into the several languages of the ancient world. For, though Greek was
widely understood, the commerce and the intellectual predominance of the
Greeks, and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be spoken
nearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and Latin Versions were also
required for ordinary reading, probably even in the very age of the
Apostles. And thus those three languages in which “the title of His
accusation” was written above His cross—not to insist upon any absolute
identity between the Syriac of the time with the then “Hebrew” of
Jerusalem—became from the earliest time the depositaries of the Gospel of
the World’s Redeemer. Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic
of Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region: whilst Latin was the
familiar idiom of all the Churches of the West.
Thus from the first in their public assemblies, orientals and occidentals
alike habitually read aloud the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.
Before the fourth and fifth centuries the Gospel had been further
translated into the peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are
now called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions,—of Ethiopia and of
Armenia,—of Gothland. The text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages
was clearly, to a great extent, protected against the risk of further
change; and these several translations remain to this day as witnesses of
what was found in copies of the New Testament which have long since
perished.
III. But the most singular provision for preserving the memory of what was
anciently read as inspired Scriptures remains to be described. Sacred
Science boasts of a literature without a parallel in any other department
of human knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops and Doctors of
primitive Christendom, were in some instances voluminous writers, whose
works have largely come down to our times. These men often comment upon,
freely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspiration: whereby it
comes to pass that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of
Scripture are sometimes producible. The quotations of passages by the
Fathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used by
them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though it be at second
hand: and sometimes their testimony has more than usual value when they
argue or comment upon the passage in question. Indeed, very often the
manuscripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations, are
older—perhaps centuries older—than any copies that now survive. In this
way, it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided for
the integrity of the Deposit:—Copies,—Versions,—Fathers. On the relation
of each of which heads to one another something particular has now to be
delivered.
§ 3.
Manuscript copies are commonly divided into Uncial, i.e. those which are
written in capital letters, and Cursive or “minuscule,” i.e. those which
are written in “running” or small hand. This division though convenient is
misleading. The earliest of the “Cursives” are more ancient than the
latest of the “Uncials” by full one hundred years(18). The later body of
the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to the body of the
Cursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in a MS. being written in the
uncial character. The number of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of
the Cursives, though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It will
be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in the face of recent
discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, much reason for inferring that
Cursive MSS. were largely derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the
Uncials themselves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of
Uncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea. For a full
account of these several Codexes, and for many other particulars in Sacred
Textual Criticism, the reader is referred to Scrivener’s Introduction,
1894.
Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly mistaken estimate of
the importance of the Textual decrees of the five oldest of these Uncial
copies, which lies at the root of most of the criticism of the last fifty
years. We are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear to
some a disproportionate amount of attention on those five Codexes: viz.
the Vatican Codex B, and the Sinaitic Codex א, which are supposed to be
both of the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the fragmentary
Parisian Codex C, which are assigned to the fifth: and lastly D, the Codex
Bezae at Cambridge, which is supposed to have been written in the sixth.
To these may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are
concerned, the Codex Beratinus Φ, and the Rossanensian Codex Σ, both of
which are of the early part of the sixth century or end of the fifth. But
these two witness generally against the two oldest, and have not yet
received as much attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end
that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, א, and D
at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not
any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. places them upon a
pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after
time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast.
Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a class, are the most important
instruments of Textual Criticism is what no competent person will be found
to deny. The chief reasons of this are their continuous text, their
designed embodiment of the written Word, their number, and their variety.
But we make also such great account of MSS., because (1) they supply
unbroken evidence to the text of Scripture from an early date throughout
history until the invention of printing; (2) they are observed to be
dotted over every century of the Church after the first three; (3) they
are the united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom. There can
have been no collusion therefore in the preparation of this class of
authorities. The risk of erroneous transcription has been reduced to the
lowest possible amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent is
simply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of the text are pretty
sure, in the long run, to have become effectually excluded. On the
contrary, the testimony of Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though
often on that account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already
said, is often not to be found; yet occasionally it is very precious,
whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of their verdict: while
Versions, though on larger details they yield a most valuable collateral
evidence, yet from their nature are incapable of rendering help upon many
important points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the _ipsissima verba_ of
Scripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages must be precarious
in a high degree.
Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, certain of the
Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw Manuscripts altogether in
the shade. We possess no actual copies of the New Testament so old as the
Syriac and the Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years.
Something similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions made into the
languages of Lower and Upper Egypt, which may be of the third century(19).
Reasonable also it is to assume that in no instance was an ancient Version
executed from a single Greek exemplar: consequently, Versions enjoyed both
in their origin and in their acceptance more publicity than of necessity
attached to any individual copy. And it is undeniable that on countless
occasions the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness of
its testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of
the Greek.
But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley’s golden precept, that
“The real text of the sacred writers does not now, since the originals
have been so long lost, lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in
them all.” This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of that
great scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual Criticism. To abide
by the verdict of the two, or five, or seven oldest Manuscripts, is at
first sight plausible, and is the natural refuge of students who are
either superficial, or who wish to make their task as easy and simple as
possible. But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all
principles of justice and of science. The problem is more complex, and is
not to be solved so readily. Evidence of a strong and varied character may
not with safety be cast away, as if it were worthless.
§ 4.
We are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of the vast
mass of testimony which lies ready to our hands. And we must just as
evidently seek for principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it
is the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led people to steer
to any barren island, which under a guise of superior antiquity might at
first sight present the delusive appearance of being the only safe and
sure harbour.
1. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this,—That the thing which we
are always in search of is the Text of Scripture as it actually proceeded
from the inspired writers themselves. It is never, I mean, “ancient
readings” which we propose as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is
always the oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain; in other
words, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very words of the
holy Evangelists and Apostles themselves.
And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. For
sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude to
establish concerning the readings for which they contend, that at least
they must needs be very ancient. Now, since all readings must needs be
very ancient which are found in very ancient documents, nothing has really
been achieved by proving that such and such readings existed in the second
century of our era:—unless it can also be proved that there are certain
other attendant circumstances attaching to those readings, which
constitute a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the
only genuine wording of the passage in question. The Holy Scriptures are
not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.
2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental principle that of
two possible ways of reading the Text, that way which is found on
examination to be the better attested and authenticated—by which I mean,
the reading which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better
evidence—must in every instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual
reading, and is to be accepted accordingly by all students.
3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. this: That
hitherto we have become acquainted with no single authority which is
entitled to dictate absolutely on all occasions, or even on any one
occasion, as to what shall or shall not be regarded as the true Text of
Scripture. We have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary
dictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem now to be
investigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to be “the best,” may
doubtless be stated in many ways: but I suppose not more fairly than by
proposing the following question,—Can any rules be offered whereby in any
case of conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which
authorities ought to be followed? The court is full of witnesses who
contradict one another. How are we to know which of them to believe?
Strange to say, the witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably,
observed to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules
discoverable by which it may be probably determined with which camp of the
two the truth resides?
I proceed to offer for the reader’s consideration seven Tests of Truth,
concerning each of which I shall have something to say in the way of
explanation by-and-by. In the end I shall ask the reader to allow that
where these seven tests are found to conspire, we may confidently assume
that the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be implicitly
followed. A reading should be attested then by the seven following.
NOTES OF TRUTH.
1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness;
2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number;
3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity;
4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight;
5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition;
6. Evidence of the Entire Passage, or Context;
7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.
§ 5.
The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be postponed to the
next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions of a more general character
demand immediate attention.
I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail nothing. A reading
is to be adopted not because it is old, but because it is the best
attested, and therefore the oldest. There may seem to be paradox on my
part: but there is none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it, that
the oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of: for that
must of necessity be what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer
himself. But, as a rule, fifty years, more or less, must be assumed to
have intervened between the production of the inspired autographs and the
earliest written representation of them now extant. And precisely in that
first age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in
guarding the Deposit,—least critically exact in their way of quoting
it;—whilst the enemy was most restless, most assiduous in procuring its
depravation. Strange as it may sound,—distressing as the discovery must
needs prove when it is first distinctly realized,—the earliest shreds and
scraps—for they are at first no more—that come into our hands as
quotations of the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only
disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character,
their vagueness; but they are often demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to
give one example out of many.
“My God, My God, wherefore hast thou forsaken me?” μὲ ἐγκατέλιπες; So it
is in St. Matt. xxvii. 46: so in St. Mark xv. 34. But because, in the
latter place, אB, one Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions,
besides Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the order of
the last two words, the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing.
They have yet older authority, however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D.
164) and the Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore as
antiquity goes, the evidence for reading ἐγκατέλιπές με is really wondrous
strong.
And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is considered, is
perceived to be overwhelming(20). Add the discovery that ἐγκατέλιπές με is
the established reading of the familiar Septuagint, and we have no
hesitation whatever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the
secret is out. אB were sure to follow the Septuagint, which was so dear to
Origen. Further discussion of the point is superfluous.
I shall of course be asked,—Are we then to understand that you condemn the
whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy? And if you do, to what
other authorities would you have us resort?
I answer:—So far from regarding the whole body of ancient authorities as
untrustworthy, it is precisely “the whole body of ancient authorities” to
which I insist that we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we
must eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more than reverence. I
submit to their decision unreservedly. Doubtless I refuse to regard any
one of those same most ancient manuscripts—or even any two or three of
them—as oracular. But why? Because I am able to demonstrate that every one
of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence
older than itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of
those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the whole body of
ancient authorities is unworthy of credit.
It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal: and further, I insist
that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity shall be accepted. But then,
inasmuch as by “Antiquity” I do not even mean any one single ancient
authority, however ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all
the rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely “the body of
ancient authorities” which I propose as the arbiters. Thus, I do not mean
by “Antiquity” either (1) the Peshitto Syriac: or (2) Cureton’s Syriac: or
(3) the Old Latin Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5) the Egyptian, or
indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions:—not (7) Origen, nor (8)
Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10) Cyril,—nor indeed (11) any other
ancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod. A,—nor (13) Cod. B,—nor
(14) Cod. C,—nor (15) Cod. D,—nor (16) Cod. א,—nor in fact (17) any other
individual Codex that can be named. I should as soon think of confounding
the cathedral hard by with one or two of the stones which compose it. By
Antiquity I understand the whole body of documents which convey to me the
mind of Antiquity,—transport me back to the primitive age, and acquaint
me, as far as is now possible, with what was its verdict.
And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept as decisive the
verdict of any two or three of these in defiance of the ascertained
authority of all, or a majority of the rest.
In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, arbitrarily broken
off, in lieu of the entire mass of ancient witnesses. And further than
this, I recognize other Notes of Truth, as I have stated already; and I
shall prove this position in my next chapter.
§ 6.
II. The term “various readings” conveys an entirely incorrect impression
of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of
documents—of which Codexes B-א of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of
the eighth, are the most conspicuous samples—and the Traditional Text of
the New Testament. The expression “various readings” belongs to secular
literature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those
exhibited by the copies just mentioned. Not but what “various readings,”
properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes. One
has but to inspect Scrivener’s Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But
when we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes as BאDL, we
find ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by
phenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has undergone
apparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation; has been
manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have been demonstrably at
work which altogether perplex the judgement. The result is simply
calamitous. There are evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of
words and clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one
expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of words, are
phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last
that what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient
recension of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the
usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as the name
may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice, or
tasteless assiduity on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in
a long series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we have
alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age
is known to have been fruitful in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking,
there may have been little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil
motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But, as
will be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much licentiousness or
carelessness as to suggest the inference, that they are in fact indebted
for their preservation to their hopeless character. Thus it would appear
that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times; and has
procured that they should survive to our own, long after multitudes which
were much better had perished in the Master’s service. Let men think of
this matter as they will,—whatever in fact may prove to be the history of
that peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. BאDL, in some
copies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to
a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations,—all must admit,
as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially from the Traditional
Text, and is no mere variation of it.
But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article? Why may not
the “Traditional Text” be the fabrication?
1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The consent
without concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,—of every date from
the fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging to every region of
ancient Christendom,—is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount
of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-century manuscripts closely
resembling one another, yet standing apart in every page so seriously that
it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree:—such a preference, I say,
apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well
founded, is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive.
2. Next,—Because,—although for convenience we have hitherto spoken of
Codexes BאDL as exhibiting a single text,—it is in reality not one text
but fragments of many, which are to be met with in the little handful of
authorities enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together. The
Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.
3. Further,—Because it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, that
the Traditional Text was or could have been derived from such a document
as the archetype of B-א: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious
and easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of
words, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text: but the fuller text
could not have been produced from the shorter by any development which
would be possible under the facts of the case(21). Glosses would account
for changes in the archetype of B-א, but not conversely(22).
4. But the chief reason is,—Because, on making our appeal unreservedly to
Antiquity—to Versions and Fathers as well as copies,—the result is
unequivocal. The Traditional Text becomes triumphantly established,—the
eccentricities of BאD and their colleagues become one and all emphatically
condemned.
All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which something has
been said already, and more will have to be said in the sequel. Returning
now to the phenomenon adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that
whereas “Various Readings,” properly so called, that is to say, the
Readings which possess really strong attestation—for more than
nineteen-twentieths of the “Various Readings” commonly quoted are only the
vagaries of scribes, and ought not to be called “Readings” at all—do not
require classification into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified
them; “Corrupt Readings,” if they are to be intelligently handled, must by
all means be distributed under distinct heads, as will be done in the
Second Part of this work.
III. “It is not at all our design” (remarks Dr. Scrivener) “to seek our
readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass
of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence
in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly
at variance(23).” From which it is plain that in this excellent writer’s
opinion, the truth of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance at
the hands of the older uncials: that only when these yield conflicting
testimony may we resort to the “confessedly secondary evidence” of the
later uncials: and that only so may we proceed to inquire for the
testimony of the great mass of the cursive copies. It is not difficult to
foresee what would be the result of such a method of procedure.
I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the spirit of my
learned friend’s remarks on the present, and on many similar occasions.
His language is calculated to countenance the popular belief (1) That the
authority of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily
greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character: an
imagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless. Between the text of
the later uncials and the text of the cursive copies, I fail to detect any
separative difference: certainly no such difference as would induce me to
assign the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this treatise,
that it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or to infer, that
cursive copies were all descended from the uncials. New discoveries in
palaeography have ruled that error to be out of court.
But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to which I regret to
find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful sanction, that the text of
Scripture is to be sought in the first instance in the oldest of the
uncials. I venture to express my astonishment that so learned and
thoughtful a man should not have seen that before certain “elder brethren”
are erected into a supreme court of judicature, some other token of
fitness besides that of age must be produced on their behalf. Whence, I
can but ask—, whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to
establish the contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that
Codexes BאCD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved
text: and that BאD, for C is a palimpsest, i.e., has had the works of
Ephraem the Syrian written over it as if it were of no use, are probably
indebted for their very preservation solely to the fact that they were
anciently recognized as untrustworthy documents? Do men indeed find it
impossible to realize the notion that there must have existed such things
as refuse copies in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries as
well as in the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh? and that the Codexes
which we call BאCD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been of
that class(24)?
Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of Codd. BאCD as a
supreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are observed to be
discordant in their judgements: (2) That when they thus differ among
themselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the
two principal judges B and א have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That
when these two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in
the wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree,
and yet all four are in error.
Does any one then inquire,—But why at all events may not resort be had in
the first instance to Codd. BאACD?—I answer,—Because the inquiry is apt to
prejudice the question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too
likely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly difficult of
attainment. For every reason, I am inclined to propose the directly
opposite method of procedure, as at once the safer and the more reasonable
method. When I learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any
particular place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the
subject exists between Codexes ABאCD (for the chances are that they will
be all at loggerheads among themselves), I inquire for the verdict as it
is given by the main body of the copies. This is generally unequivocal.
But if (which seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then indeed
I begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even then it helps me
little, or rather it helps me nothing, to find, as I commonly do, that A
is on one side and B on the other,—except by the way that wherever אB are
seen together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, the inferior
reading is pretty sure to be found there also.
Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no serious division,—of
course, significance does not attach itself to any handful of eccentric
copies,—but that there is a practical unanimity among the cursives and
later uncials: I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and
discordant authorities, however much they may singly add to the weight of
the vote already tendered. It is as a hundred to one that the uncial or
uncials which are with the main body of the cursives are right, because
(as will be shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual decision
of the whole Church; and that the dissentients—be they few or many—are
wrong. I inquire however,—What say the Versions? and last but not
least,—What say the Fathers?
The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best illustrated by
an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of the “five old uncials” are
complete documents, B and א: and these being confessedly derived from one
and the same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of the “old
uncials” are lamentably defective.—From the Alexandrian Codex (A) the
first twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel are missing: that is,
the MS. lacks 870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without 126
consecutive verses of St. John’s Gospel. More than one-fourth of the
contents of Cod. A are therefore lost(25).—D is complete only in respect
of St. Luke: wanting 119 verses of St. Matthew,—5 verses of St. Mark,—166
verses of St. John.—On the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective in
respect of St. Luke’s and St. John’s Gospel; from the former of which it
omits 643 (out of 1,151) verses; from the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far
more than the half in either case. Codex C in fact can only be described
as a collection of fragments: for it is also without 260 verses of St.
Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.
The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual Critic is manifest.
He is unable to compare “the five old uncials” together except in respect
of about one verse in three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the
testimony of AאB: for many pages together of St. John’s Gospel, he is
reduced to the testimony of אBD. Now, when the fatal and peculiar sympathy
which subsists between these three documents is considered, it becomes
apparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two documents
before him. And what is to be said when (as from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii.
4) he is reduced to the witness of two Codexes,—and those, אB? Evident it
is that whereas the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His
Church with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,300(26) copies of the Gospels,
by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment, some Critics reduce themselves
to the testimony of little more than one: and that one a witness whom many
judges consider to be undeserving of confidence.