EARLY FATHERS.
§ 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.
Our readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle in the way of an
unprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and comprehensive system
constructed by Dean Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the
internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in Dr. Hort’s
treatise, no one can doubt: and I hasten to pay deserved and sincere
respect to the memory of the highly accomplished author whose loss the
students of Holy Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments
sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon texts and
readings, upon manuscripts and versions and Fathers, and to his collisions
with the record of history, that a higher duty than appreciation of a
Theologian however learned and pious compels us to demur.
But no searching examination into the separate links and details of the
argument in Dr. Hort’s Introduction to his Edition of the New Testament
will be essayed now. Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon
in the 306th number of the Quarterly Review, and has been republished in
The Revision Revised(114). The object here pursued is only to remove the
difficulties which Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own
treatise. Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of Textual
Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude of the School of
Lachmann. We know what it really means, and against what principles we
have to contend. He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the
true theory; and has shewn where the drawing and colouring are either
ill-made or are defective. More than all, he has virtually destroyed his
own theory.
The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly the following:
“The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not date further back
than the middle of the fourth century. Before that text was made up, other
forms of text were in vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral,
Western, and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria and more
particularly at Antioch. Originally there had been in Syria an Old-Syriac,
which after Cureton is to be identified with the Curetonian. In the third
century, about 250 A.D., ‘an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac
Christendom,’ was made, of which the locality would be either Edessa or
Nisibis, or else Antioch itself. ‘This revision was grounded probably upon
an authoritative revision at Antioch’ (p. 137) of the Greek texts which
called for such a recension on account of their ‘growing diversity and
confusion.’ Besides these two, a second revision of the Greek texts, or a
third counting the Syriac revision, similarly authoritative, was completed
at Antioch ‘by 350 or thereabouts’; but what was now ‘the Vulgate Syriac’
text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo any corresponding
revision. From the last Greek revision issued a text which was afterwards
carried to Constantinople—‘Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of
Constantinople’—and thenceforward became the Text dominant in Christendom
till the present century. Nevertheless, it is not the true Text, for that
is the ‘Neutral’ text, and it may be called ‘Syrian.’ Accordingly, in
investigations into the character and form of the true Text, ‘Syrian’
readings are to be ‘rejected at once, as proved to have a relatively late
origin.’ ”
A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that Dr. Hort has
given himself away in this part of his theory.
1. The criticism of the Canon and language of the Books of the New
Testament is but the discovery and the application of the record of
Testimony borne in history to those books or to that language. For a proof
of this position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to Bishop
Westcott’s admirable discussion upon the Canon of the New Testament. And
as with the Books generally, so with the details of those Books—their
paragraphs, their sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their
words. To put this dictum into other terms:—The Church, all down the ages,
since the issue of the original autographs, has left in Copies or in
Versions or in Fathers manifold witness to the books composed and to the
words written. Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view to
present us with some fifteen centuries, and—I must in duty say it—the
audacity to label those fifteen centuries of Church Life with the title
“Syrian,” which as used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it
amongst his followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those
fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when the Church was
freeing herself from heresy and formulating her Faith. They advanced
amidst the most sedulous care of Holy Scripture. They implied a
consentient record from the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy,
or carelessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort aware, and do
not his adherents at the present day know, that Church Life means nothing
arbitrary, but all that is soundest and wisest and most complete in
evidence, and most large-minded in conclusions? Above all, did he fancy,
and do his followers imagine, that the HOLY GHOST who inspired the New
Testament could have let the true Text of it drop into obscurity during
fifteen centuries of its life, and that a deep and wide and full
investigation (which by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in
the proof that under His care the WORD of GOD has been preserved all
through the ages in due integrity?—This admission alone when stripped of
its disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.
2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is obliged to
conjure up the shadows of two or three “phantom revisions,” of which no
recorded evidence exists(115). We must never forget that subjective theory
or individual speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with
facts, except as failures leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as
soon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it
was, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with
facts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his
theory. This is self-evident: no one has been able to adduce, during the
quarter of a century that has elapsed since Dr. Hort published his book,
passages to shew that Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions
really took place. The acute calculations of Adams and Leverrier would
have been very soon forgotten, if Neptune had not appeared to vindicate
their correctness.
But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident that Dr. Hort is
confuted out of his own mouth. The fifteen centuries of dominant evidence,
which he admits to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that
had passed previously, because the Catholic Church of Christ is ever
consistent with itself, and are thus virtually decisive of the
controversy; besides the collapse of his theory when superimposed upon the
facts of history and found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove
from the surviving records of the first three or four centuries, during
the long period that elapsed between the copying of the Vatican and
Sinaitic MSS. and the days of the Evangelists, that the evidence of
Versions and Fathers is on our side.
And first of the Fathers.
§ 2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom Writers.
No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the
quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D.
400 and in public documents written prior to that date. The consequence is
that many statements have been promulgated respecting them which are
inconsistent with the facts of the case. Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has
offended more than once in this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up
by Dean Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the utmost avail
in any exhaustive examination of Patristic evidence upon any given text,
are in this respect of little use, the question here being, What is the
testimony of all the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every
separate Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the controversy
waged between the maintainers of the Traditional Text on the one side, and
on the other the defenders of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of such
an examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the Gospels, but
in the series of quotations from them found in the works of the collective
or individual Fathers of the period under consideration.
I must here guard myself. In order to examine the text of any separate
passage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no evidence if possible
should be left out. The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort
states that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it “the Syrian,” does not
go back to the earliest times, that is as he says, not before the middle
of the fourth century. In proving my position that it can be traced to the
very first, it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the evidence
is half on our side and half on the other. It is really found to be much
more favourable to us. We fully admit that corruption prevailed from the
very first(116): and so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries
require for their justification. At all events the question is of a
general character, and does not depend upon a little more evidence or a
little less. And the argument is secondary in its nature: it relates to
the principles of the evidence, not directly to the establishment of any
particular reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely
exhaustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the
whole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as far
as my power would admit, having gone over the whole field a second time,
and having employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could command.
The way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows:—A
standard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a
copy of Dr. Scrivener’s Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the
disputed passages are printed in black type, although the Text there
presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as
revised by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many
passages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record, though
not unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our opponents’
column. I have used copies of the Fathers in which the quotations were
marked, chiefly those in Migne’s Series, though I have also employed other
editions where I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne.
Each passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book
upon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell on either
side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented. But all
doubtful quotations (under which head were included all that were not
absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the
comparison that was being made; and all instances too of mere spelling,
because these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists
or editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages
when the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The fact
also that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than
undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the
opposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose I generally decided
questions against my own contention, and have omitted to record many
smaller instances favourable to us which I should have entered in the
other column. From various reasons the large majority of passages proved
to be irrelevant to this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred
in them, or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were
favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of St.
John’s Gospel, “I and My Father are one,” “I am the way, the truth, and
the life,” “No man knoweth the Father but the Son,” and many others. In
Latin books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, because the
verdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original
language.
An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the
Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately
with the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil,
and of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read
constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious
Houses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day
familiar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to
which they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This fact
was perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found
to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1,
whereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about
8:3.
For the same reason I have not included Marcion’s edition of St. Luke’s
Gospel, or Tatian’s Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because
such representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to
have been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgement
of those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were
self-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned
the list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet
our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the
Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can
afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion(117).
And the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness
of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that
of the other works of Basil on the other, suggests that too much
variation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of
readings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence
of any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the
spelling, as they issued originally from the author’s pen(118). Variant
readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are
found, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have
been supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the
Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other
prints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it.
Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general
trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation of authorities
from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual Critics shews that they
have always been taken to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that
we may be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on both sides,
and a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.
In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations have generally
been neglected (except in the case of St. Irenaeus(119)), because the
witness of a version is secondhand, and Latin translators often employed a
rendering with which they were familiar in representing in Latin passages
cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and
especially of the later Fathers before A.D. 400, it is not certain whether
the translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time
prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he used a Text or
Texts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his
own Greek writing, than where some one else has translated his words into
Latin. Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest
evidence has been admitted. Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been
rejected, and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made
in the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process like
this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result, and it is of
the greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building
should be sound.
The general results will appear in the annexed Table. The investigation
was confined to the Gospels. For want of a better term, I have uniformly
here applied the title “Neologian” to the Text opposed to ours.
_Fathers._ _Traditional _Neologian._
Text._
Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4
Epistle to Diognetus 1 0
Papias 1 0
Justin Martyr 17 20
Heracleon 1 7
Gospel of Peter 2 0
Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0
Athenagoras 3 1
Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek) 63 41
Hegesippus 2 0
Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4
Testament of Abraham 4 0
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium 1 0
Clement of Alexandria 82 72
Tertullian 74 65
Clementines 18 7
Hippolytus 26 11
Callixtus (Pope) 1 0
Pontianus (Pope) 0 2
Origen 460 491
Julius Africanus 1 1
Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3
Novatian 6 4
Cornelius (Pope) 4 1
Synodical Letter 1 2
Cyprian 100 96
Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Synodus Antiochena 3 1
Acta Pilati 5 1
Theognostus 0 1
Archelaus (Manes) 11 2
Pamphilus 5 1
Methodius 14 8
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0
Lactantius 0 1
Juvencus 1 2
Arius 2 1
Acta Philippi 2 1
Apostolic Canons and Constitutions 61 28
Eusebius (Caesarea) 315 214
Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0
Athanasius 179 119
Firmicus Maternus 3 1
Julius (Pope) 1 2
Serapion 5 1
Eustathius 7 2
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus(120) 36 17
Hilary (Poictiers) 73 39
Candidus Arianus 0 1
Eunomius 1 0
Didymus 81 36
Victorinus of Pettau 4 3
Faustinus 4 0
Zeno 3 5
Basil 272 105
Victorinus Afer 14 14
Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20
Titus of Bostra 44 24
Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32
Pacianus 2 2
Optatus 10 3
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test 13 6
Gregory of Nyssa 91 28
Philastrius 7 6
Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4
Amphilochius 27 10
Epiphanius 123 78
Ambrose 169 77
Macarius Magnes 11 5
Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0
Evagrius Ponticus 4 0
Esaias Abbas 1 0
Nemesius 0 1
Philo of Carpasus(121) 9 2
——
2630 1753
The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, according to
the issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2.
But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here
quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important
passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen
that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as
against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats
its opponent in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a
fair idea of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of
unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as δέδωκα for
ἔδωκα, ὁ οὐράνιος for ὁ εν οὐρανοῖς, φοβεῖσθε for φοβηθῆτε,
disarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles, besides of
course greater omissions of more or less importance. In fact, a great deal
of the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the
Church had not become familiar with the true readings, the _verba
ipsissima_, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was
spread around. It will be readily understood how easily the text of the
Holy Gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from
the pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded
themselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians of the
day, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out. That they
were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving
zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great though by no means the
sole cause of corruption. But before going further, it will be best to
exhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most
important passages in dispute. They have been selected with care: several
which were first chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their
absence from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course,
the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in this
list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches, The Last Twelve
Verses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific
of apposite passages. A reference here and there has been added from
Resch’s Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig,
1894-5.
1. St. Matt. i. 25. Πρωτότοκον.
On the Traditional side:—
Tatian (Diatessaron).
Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20; ii. 15).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in S. Xti. Gen. 5; i. 392; ii. 599, 600).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9).
Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229).
Ephraem Syras (Commentary on Diatessaron).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5; III. lxxxviii. 17, &c.—5 times).
Ambrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89)(122).
Against:—I can discover nothing.
2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses).
Traditional:—Separate clauses are quoted by—
Didachè (§ I).
Polycarp (x.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11).
Tertullian (De Patient, vi.).
Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8; Strom. iv. 14; vii. 14).
Origen (De Orat. i.; Cels. viii. 35; 41).
Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7; Comment, in Isai. 66; Comment. in Ps. 3;
108).
Athanasius (De Incarnat. c. Arian. 3; 13).
Apost. Const, (i. 1, all the clauses; vii. I).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.; In S. Stephanum).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Philo of Carpasus (I. 7).
Pacianus (Epist. ii.).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9; 10. 16).
Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; In Ps. xxxviii. 10; In Ps. cxviii. 12. 51).
Aphraates (Dem. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (p. 89).
Against:—
Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v.; De Zelo xv.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 49).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Origen (Comment. on St. John XX. xv.; xxvii.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).
3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.
Traditional:—
Didachè (viii, with variation).
Apostol. Const. (iii. 18; vii. 25, with variation).
Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).
Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it:—
Tertullian (De Orat. 8).
Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27).
Origen (De Orat. 18).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 18).
Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De Orat. Dom. end).
4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. Ἡ πύλη.
Traditional:—
Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18).
Testament of Abraham(5 times).
Origen (Select. in Ps. xvi.; Comment. in Matt. xii. 12).
Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6).
Esaias Abbas.
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73).
Against:—
Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. 1. 1—bis).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Select. in Ps. xlv. 2; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8).
Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 6).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4; Comment. in Ps. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; v. 5; Cohort. ad Gent. p. 79).
Basil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4; xlv. 2).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 37).
Philo of Carpasus (i. 7).
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.).
Lucifer (De Athan. ii.; Moriendum esse).
5. St. Matt. ix. 13. εἰς μετάνοιαν. Mark ii. 17.
Traditional:—
Barnabas (5).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 15).
Irenaeus (III. v. 2).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. xxviii. 16).
Eusebius (Comment. in Ps. cxlvi.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Basil (De Poenitent. 3; Hom. in Ps. xlviii. 1; Epist. Class. I. xlvi. 6).
Against:—
Clemens Rom. (ii. 2).
Hilary (in Mark ii. 17).
6. St. Matt. xi. 27. βούληται ἀποκάλυψαι.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. 1).
Archelaus—Manes (xxxvii.).
Clementines (Recog. ii. 47; Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13).
Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27—commenting upon it; De Incarn. c. Arian. 7; 13;
47; 48; c. Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell. Greg. 4).
Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 15).
Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201; De Spir. S. II. xi. 123).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; De Trin. ii. 10; vi. 26; ix. 50; Frag.
xv.).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (124).
Against:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3; II. vi. I; IV. vi. 3).
Clemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent. i. end; Paed. i. 5; Strom. i. 28; v. 13;
vii. 10; 18; Quis Div. Salv. viii.).
Justin M. (Apol. i. 63—bis; Dial. c. Tryph. 100).
Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in Joh. i. 42).
Synodus Antiochena.
Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii.; c. Arian. i. 12; 39; iv. 23; Serm. Maj. de
Fide, 28).
Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11; De Eccles. Theol. I. xv; xvi.).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. 1).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34. 18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 4; 29;
Ancor. 67).
7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Clement Alex. Ἐκλογαι ἐκ τ. προφ xv.
Origen (Comment. in Matt. xiii. 7; Hom. i.).
Athanasius (De Virg. vii.).
Basil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9; Reg. fus. tract. xviii.; Hom, de Jejun. iii.).
Juveneus (iii. vv. 381-2).
Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9; Epist. Class. I. xlii. 11).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc).
Against:—none, so far as I can find.
8. St. Matt. xviii. 11. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Origen (ii. 147; Conc. v. 675). Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. 9).
Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. ii. 4; Expos. in Luc. vii. 209; De Fid.
Res. II. 6)(123).
Against:—none, so far as I can find.
9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. ἀγαθέ, and περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.
Traditional:—
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 10).
Origen—ἀγαθέ (Comment. in Matt. xv. 10).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 7).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30).
Gregory Naz. (i. 529).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 34. 18).
Macarius Magnes (i. 9)(124).
Against:—
Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; Comment. in Matt. xv. 10.—bis).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21).
Novatian (De Trin. xxx.).
Hilary—omits ἀγαθέ (Comment. in loc.).
10. St. Matt. xxiii. 38. ἔρημος. St. Luke xiii. 35.
Traditional:—
Cyprian (Test. ad Jud. i. 6).
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 8; xxxvii. 5).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeone et Anna).
Origen (Hom. in Jerem. vii.— bis; X.; xiii.; Select. in Jeremiam xv.; in
Threnos iv. 6).
Apostol. Const. (vi. 5).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. (38)—four times; IV. xvi. (189); VI. (291);
viii. (401); x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV. i.; Comment. in Ps.
73—bis; 77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De Theophan. vii.—tris).
Basil (Comment. in Isaiam i. 20).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83).
Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69; In Cant. Cant. iv. 54).
Against:—
Didymus (Expos. in Ps. 67).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 40).
Zeno (xiv. 2).
11. St. Matt. xxvii. 34. Ὄξος and οἶνον.
Traditional:—
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Barnabas (§ 7).
Irenaeus.
Tertullian.
Celsus.
Origen.
Eusebius of Emesa.
Theodore of Heraclea.
Didymus.
Gregory Naz.
Gregory Nyss.
Ephraem Syrus.
Titus of Bostra.
Against:—
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Macarius Magnes (ii. 12).
Gospel of Nicodemus(125).
12. St. Matt. xxviii. 2. ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας.
Traditional:—
Gospel of Nicodemus.
Aeta Philippi.
Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles.
Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4).
Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. I. 390, 398)(126)?
Compare also Acta Pilati (ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ σπηλαίου, and ἐκ τοῦ
μνημείου), and Gospel of Peter (ἐπὶ τῆς θύρασ—ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας).
Against:—
Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem).
Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70).
Apostol. Can. (vii. 1).
13. St. Matt. xxviii. 19. βαπτίζοντες.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. 1).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 14).
Apostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 49 (Lagarde); Const. ii. 26; iv. 1; vii.
22).
Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii.—tris).
Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.).
Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.).
Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; xxv. 2 tingentes; lxiii. 18; ad
Novatianum Heret. iii.—3rd cent.; Testimon. II. xxvi.
tingentes).
Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.).
Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i.; Epist. ad Serap. i. 6; 28; ii. 6; iii. 6;
iv. 5; de Syn. 23; De Titulis Ps. 148).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299; De Fide 4; De Bapt. I. 1; ii. 6; Epist. Class.
I. viii. 11; II. ccx. 3).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; ii. 5; iii. 23).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4).
Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; c. Auxentium 14; De Syn. xxix.; De
Trin. ii. 1).
Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi.; In Bapt. Christ.; In Christ. Resurr.—bis;
Epist. v.; xxiv.).
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. i. 15).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5).
Firmicus Maternus (De Error. Profan. Relig. xxv.).
Ambrose (De Joseph. xii. 71).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium iv. 18).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 3; 74. 5; ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, end).
Against:—none.
14. St. Mark i. 2. τοῖς προφήταις ... Ησαΐᾳ.
Traditional:—
Titus of Bostra.
Origen.
Porphyry.
Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3).
Eusebius.
Ambrose(127).
Against:—
Irenaeus (III. xi. 8).
Origen (Cels. ii. 4; Comment. in John i. 14).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. iii. 4).
Epiphanius.
Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 51).
Serapion.
Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. S. Joann.).
15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.
Traditional:—
Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39).
Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53; Apol. i. 45).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6; iv. 56).
Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn. xxxvii.; Adv. Praxeam xxx.).
Clementines (Epit. 141).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. _ad fin._).
Vincentius (2nd Council of Carthage—Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. p. 124).
Acta Pilati (xiv. 2).
Apost. Can. and Const. (can. 1; v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. 1).
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27).
Syriac Table of Canons.
Macarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24).
Aphraates (Dem. i.—bis).
Didymus (Trin. ii. 12).
Syriac Acts of the Apostles.
Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 6).
Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. ii.).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel—Wright (4; 17; 24).
Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38; De Interpell. ii. 5; Apol. proph. David II. iv.
26; Luc. vii. 81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35; De Spir. S. II.
xiii. 151).
Against:—
Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1)(128).
16. St. Luke i. 28. εὐλογημένη, κ.τ.λ.
Traditional:—
Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.).
Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.).
Ambrose (Exposit. in loc.).
Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc.; Adv. Manich. iii.).
17. St. Luke ii. 14. Εὐδοκία.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Origen (c. Celsum i. 60; Selecta in Ps. xlv.; Comment. in Matt. xvii.;
Comment. in Joh. i. 13).
Apostol. Const. (vii. 47; viii. 12).
Methodius (Serm. de Simeon. et Anna).
Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); vii. (342)).
Gregory Thaumaturgus (De Fid. Cap. 12).
Aphraates (Dem. ix.; xx.).
Titus of Bostra (Expos. in Luc. ad loc).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. cxlviii.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 27; Expos. in Ps. lxxxiv.).
Basil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5).
Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.).
Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29; III. 78. 15).
Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv.; In Cant. Cant. xv.; In Diem Nat. Christ. 1138;
De Occurs. Dom. 1156).
Ephraem Syr.(129) (Gr. iii. 434).
Against:—
Irenaeus (III. x. 4).
Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72).
Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc.).
Juvencus (II. v. 174).
18. St. Luke x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων χρεία ἐστίν, ἢ ἑνός.
Traditional:—
Basil (Const. Monast. i. 1).
Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.).
Evagrius Ponticus.
Against:—
Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But μεριμνᾷς).
19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.
Traditional:—
Justin M. (Tryph. 103).
Irenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2; IV. xxxv. 3).
Tatian (Ciasca, 556).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5; 18).
Marcion (ad loc.).
Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in Luc. ad loc.).
Eusebius (Sect. 283).
Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. lxviii.).
Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. Mops.).
Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) lxix. 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37).
Arius (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 19; 61)(130).
Against:—none.
20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers.
Traditional:—
Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23).
Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 108—bis).
Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5).
Archelaus (xliv.).
Marcion (in loc.).
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 18).
Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5; Hom. xi. 20).
Apost. Const. (ii. 16; v. 14).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.).
Eusebius (canon x.).
Didymus (Trin. iii. 21).
Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sabbati).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 32).
Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 69; De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In Ps. CXVIII. iii.
8; xiv. 28; Expos. Luc. v. 77; x. 62; Cant. Cant. i. 46).
Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. anim. forma—bis).
Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. ad loc.—bis).
Acta Pilati (x. 5).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78).
Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321).
Acta Philippi (§ 26).
Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. (N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (1) 4).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright), 11; (16)(131).
Against:—none.
21. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.).
Gospel of Peter (i. 11).
Acta Pilati (x. 1).
Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. vii.).
Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc).
Against:—none.
22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. ἐσκοτίσθη.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Gospel of Peter (§ 5).
Acta Pilati.
Anaphora Pilati (§ 7).
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18).
Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.).
Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 49; ad Adelph. 3; ap. Epiph. i. 1006).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24).
Macarius Magnes (iii. 17).
Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 1).
Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright, p. 16).
Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48).
Against:—
Origen (Cels. ii. 35).
Acta Pilati.
Eusebius mentions the reading ἐκλιπόντος, but appears afterwards to
condemn it(132).
23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5).
Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7; quoted by Epiph. i. 1003).
Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294).
Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 141).
Epiphanius (Haer. III. lxxvii. 9)(133).
Against:—none.
24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου.
Traditional:—
Marcion (ad loc.).
Justin Martyr (bis).
Clemens Alex.
Tertullian.
Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35).
Cyril Jerus. (bis).
Gregory Nyss.
Epiphanius.
Against:—
Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5(134).
25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?
Traditional:—
Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ. Christ. iii.).
Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19).
Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 348—bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; p. 468; iv. p.
584; v. p. 591).
Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) 1; II. (li.) 12; (lxv.) 3; (lxix.) 56;
Ancoratus lxxv.).
Alexandrians and Egyptians (Ambrose In Ps. 36).
Against:—
Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2); III. xi. 1).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.).
Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8; 17).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9).
Valentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. I. (xxxi.) 27).
Origen (c. Cels. vi. 5; Princip. II. ix. 4; IV. i. 30; In Joh. i. 22; 34;
ii. 6; 10; 12; 13—bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c. Haer. v. 151).
Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. xiv.).
Basil (c. Eunom. V. 303).
Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. Hom. ii.).
Candidus Arianus (De Generat. Div.).
Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. iv. 33; 41).
Hilary (De Trin. i. 10).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4);
De Fide III. vi. 41-2—tris)(135).
26. St. John i. 18. Ὁ Μονογένης Υἱός.
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6; IV. xx. 6).
Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.).
Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5).
Synodus Antiochena.
Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.).
Origen (Comment. in Joh. vi. 2; c. Celsum ii. 71).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. ix.; II. xi.; xxiii.).
Alexander Alex. (Epist.).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17).
Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11).
Didymus (In Ps. cix.).
Athanasius (De Decr. Nic. Syn. xiii.; xxi.; c. Arianos ii. 62; iv. 26).
Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manichaeos iii. 6).
Basil (De Spir. S. xi.; Hom. in Ps. xxviii. 3; Epist. ccxxxiv.; Sermons
xv. 3).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. p. 522).
Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 39; 40).
Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x. 30; De Benedict, xi. 51; Expos. in Luc. i.
25—bis; ii. 12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De Spir. S. I. i. 26).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5—tris).
Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 91).
Victorinus Afer (De Generat. Verb. xvi.; xx.; Adv. Arium i. 2—bis; iv. 8;
32).
Against:—
Irenaeus (IV. xx. 11).
Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.).
Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 12).
Origen (Comment, in Joh. II. 29; XXXII. 13).
Eusebius (Υἱὸς or Θεός, De Eccles. Theol. I. ix-x.).
Didymus (De Trin. i. 15; ii. 5; 16).
Arius (ap. Epiph. 73—Tisch.).
Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi.; c. Eunom. i. p. 623).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. p. 577—bis; 581).
Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. (lxv.) 5; III. (lxx.) 7).
27. St. John iii. 13. Ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ Οὐρανῷ.
Traditional:—
Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4).
Novatian (De Trin. 13).
Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. Zyg.).
Origen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5; In Rom. viii. 2—bis).
Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2).
Amphilochius (Sentent. et Excurs. xix.).
Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.).
Theodorus Heracleensis (In Is. liii. 5).
Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.).
Epiphanius (Haer. II. lvii. 7).
Eustathius (De Engastr. 18).
Zeno (xii. I).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. ii. 11; cxxxviii. 22; De Trin. x. 16).
Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17; xliii. 39; Expos. in Luc. vii. 74).
Aphraates (Dem. viii.).
Against:—some Fathers quote as far as these words and then stop, so that
it is impossible to know whether they stopped because the words were not
in their copies, or because they did not wish to quote further. On some
occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their purpose to quote
further than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz. Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph.
ii.) is only less doubtful(136). See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.
28. St. John X. 14. γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν.
Traditional:—
Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.).
Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end; xxxiii. 15).
Against:—
Eusebius (Comment. in Isaiam 8).
Basil (Hom. xxi.; xxiii.).
Epiphanius (Comm. in Ps. lxvi.)(137).
29. St. John xvii. 24. οὕς (or ὅ).
Traditional:—
Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. 1).
Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 58)(138).
Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8).
Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.).
Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. 17—bis; c. Marcell. p. 292).
Hilary (Tract. in Ps. lxiv. 5; De Trin. ix. 50).
Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De Spirit. S. II. viii.
76).
Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)(139).
Against:—
Clemens Alex. (140—Tisch.).
30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.
Traditional:—
Origen (Princ. II. vi.; vol. ii. 1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; In Luc. Hom.
xxvii; xxix; In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. H. E. VI. 25; XIII. 5;
XIX. 2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. p. 474).
Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15).
Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964).
Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii.—bis).
Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20).
Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11).
Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499)(140).
Against:—none.
As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question
may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as
existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both
as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to
reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it
was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes
this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for
the Text of B and א, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can
equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader.
An objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the
quotations in the writings of the Fathers, that the materials of judgement
here produced are too scanty. But various characteristic features in their
mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as
textual criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful
and uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a
record of readings, but for their own special purpose in view. They may
quote an important passage in dispute, or they may leave it wholly
unnoticed. They often quote just enough for their purpose, and no more.
Some passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they write down
over and over again, with unwearied richness of citation, especially from
St. John’s Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all
critics agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of
the Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt, as
has been already explained. And the Greek Fathers themselves often work
words of the New Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so
that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, or a longer
passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words
actually used or the order of them. This is particularly true of St.
Gregory of Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also
of his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St.
Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose and
inaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father, as has been
known about Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting
manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, corruption crept in
from the very first.
Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers which are not
founded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are described as being
remarkable for the absence of Traditional readings in their works(141).
Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement
witnesses in the list just given 8 times for them to 14 against them;
whilst Origen is found 44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the
Neologian. Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which
must have been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to
Traditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too. Hilary of
Poictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text, as has been
frequently said: though in his commentaries he did not use so Traditional
a text as in his De Trinitate and his other works. The texts of
Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that
exclusively Western character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them(142).
Traditional readings occur almost equally with others in Justin’s works,
and predominate in the works of the other three.
But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text, the
quotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption which
prevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away by the vast
current of the transmission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we
ascended in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume of the
Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister
river, so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the
texts, or rather clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with
one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be
careful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not with
distinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately composed, nor
with any general forms of expression which grew up independently, nor in
fact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the
word “texts,” when we apply it as it has been used. What is properly meant
is that, of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which from
whatever cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far
as we know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and may be
traced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we can use the
term Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use
of it.
The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to the colour of
their testimony, the locality where they flourished, and the age in which
they severally lived, under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later
Traditional, Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call
Caesarean.
I. _Early Traditional._
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4
Epistle to Diognetus 1 0
Papias 1 0
Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium 1 0
Hegesippus 2 0
Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0
Justin(143) 17 20
Athenagoras 3 1
Gospel of Peter 2 0
Testament of Abraham 4 0
Irenaeus 63 41
Clementines 18 7
Hippolytus 26 11
—— ——
151 84
II. _Later Traditional._
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3
Cornelius 4 1
Synodical Letter 1 2
Archelaus (Manes) 11 2
Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 61 28
Synodus Antiochena 3 1
Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4
Methodius 14 8
Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0
Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0
Titus of Bostra 44 24
Athanasius(—except Contra Arianos)(144)122 63
Serapion 5 1
Basil 272 105
Eunomius 1 0
Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32
Firmicus Maternus 3 1
Victorinus of Pettau 4 3
Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4
Hilary of Poictiers 73 39
Eustathius 7 2
Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus 36 17
Didymus 81 36
Victorinus Afer 14 14
Gregory of Nyssa 91 28
Faustinus 4 0
Optatus 10 3
Pacianus 2 2
Philastrius 7 6
Amphilochius (Iconium) 27 10
Ambrose 169 77
Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0
Epiphanius 123 78
Acta Pilati 5 1
Acta Philippi 2 1
Macarius Magnes 11 5
Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento 13 6
Evagrius Ponticus 4 0
Esaias Abbas 1 0
Philo of Carpasus 9 2
—— ——
1332 609
III. _Western or Syrio-Low Latin._
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4
Callixtus and Pontianus (Popes) 1 2
Tertullian 74 65
Novatian 6 4
Cyprian 100 96
Zeno, Bishop of Verona 3 5
Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20
Lactantius 0 1
Juvencus (Spain) 1 2
Julius (Pope)? 1 2
Candidus Arianus 0 1
Nemesius (Emesa) 0 1
—— ——
205 203
IV. _Alexandrian._
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Heracleon 1 7
Clement of Alexandria 82 72
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Theognostus 0 1
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
Arius 2 1
Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos) 57 56
—— ——
161 150
V. _Palestinian or Caesarean._
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Julius Africanus (Emmaus) 1 1
Origen 460 491
Pamphilus of Caesarea 5 1
Eusebius of Caesarea 315 214
—— ——
781 707
The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now
sufficiently clear.
I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list
given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings,
and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the
earliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.
II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers
who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is
continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort’s
notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch
in the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as
the Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and
persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether
impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening any movement in
the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.
III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in
Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have
been so general as the name “Western” would suggest. But this will be a
subject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion
between some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with
part of Syria.
IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the
last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more
examination.
V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to meet in Palestine
under Origen.
But this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must
now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.