WESTERN OR SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT.
There are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text of the New
Testament, which have not yet, as I believe, received satisfactory
treatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener(171), have too readily
accepted Wiseman’s conclusion(172), that the numerous Latin Texts all come
from one stem, in fact that there was originally only one Old-Latin
Version, not several.
That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the
inquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the general cast and
flow of the sentences, are so similar in these texts, that it seems at the
outset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began
from the same translation, and that the differences between them arose
from the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them
and from a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better
acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be
guided by first appearances. And before investigating these, we may note
that there are some considerations of a general character which take the
edge off this phenomenon.
Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they must have
gravitated towards more uniformity of expression: intercourse between
Christians who used different translations of a single original must, in
unimportant points at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides
this, the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except
where different readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a
constant likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same
language and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there were
numerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to us
there must have been a survival of the fittest.
But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for the answers
to all problems must depend upon that, and upon nothing but that.
The first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic
difference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin. The former are in
each case one, with no suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic,
Sahidic, Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and
others), Ethiopic, Slavonic:—each is one Version and came from one general
source without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that is merely
within the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to do with
the making of the Version. But there is no preeminent Version in the
Old-Latin field. Various texts compete with difference enough to raise the
question. Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts.
And this discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying
MSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater and more
irregular discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the following
Table including the Texts employed by Tischendorf, which has been
constructed from that scholar’s notes upon the basis of the chief passages
in dispute, as revealed in the text of the Revised Version throughout the
Gospels, the standard being the _Textus Receptus_:—
Brixianus, f 286/54(173) =
about 16/3
Monacensis, q 255/97 = 5/2 +
Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.) 46/26 = 5/3 +
Colbertinus, c 165/152 = about
14/13
Fragm. Sangall. n 6/6 = 1
Veronensis, b 124/184 = 2/3 +
Sangermanensis II, g2 24/36 = 2/3
Corbeiensis II, ff2 113/180 = 2/3 -
Sangermanensis I, g2 27/46 = 3/5 -
Rehdigeranus, I 104/164 = 5/8 +
Vindobonensis, i 37/72 = 1/2 +
Vercellensis, a 100/214 = 1/2 -
Corbeiensis I, ff1 37/73 = 1/2 -
Speculum, m 8/18 = 1/2 -
Palatinus, e 48/130 = 1/3 +
Frag. Ambrosiana, s 2/6 = 1/3
Bobiensis, k 25/93 = 1/4 +
Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely observe that
these MSS. shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar
character. They do not fall readily into classes: so that if the threefold
division of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not meaning very
much. The appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left
or from the extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be
guarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an
axiom which all critics would admit, that _k_ might be taken as the
representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would be about as true as if
Mr. Labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the
Members of the House of Commons.
The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if we take
the thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter.
The attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the
exhibition of their character.
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
St. Matt.
i. 25 f. ff1. g2. q. b. c. g1. k.
v. 44 (1) c. f. h. a. b. ff1. g1.2. k. l.
(2) a. b. c. f. h.
vi. 13 f. g1. q. a. b. c. ff1. g2. l.
vii. 13 f. ff2. g1.2. q. a. b. c. h. k. m.
ix. 13 c. g1.2. a. b. f. ff1. h. k. l. q.
xi. 27 All.
xvii. 21 “Most” a. b. c. e. ff1. (?) g1.
xviii. 11 e. ff1.
xix. 17
(1) ἀγαθέ b. c. f. ff2. a. e. ff1. g1.2. h. q.
(2) τί με f. q. a. b. c. e. ff1.2. g1. h.
ἐρωτᾷς l. (Vulg.)
κ.τ.λ.
(3) εἶς ἐστ. f. g1. m. q. b.c.ff1.2. g1. h. l.
ὁ ἀγ. (Vulg.)
xxiii. 38. All—except ff2.
(Lk. xiii.
35)
xxvii. 34 c. f. h. q. a. b. ff1.2. g1.2. l.
(Vulg.)
xxviii. 2 f. h. a. b. c. ff1.2. g1.2. l.
n.
" 19 All.
St. Mark
i. 2 All.
xvi. 9-20 All—except k.
St. Luke
i. 28 All.
ii. 14 All.
x. 41-42 f. g1.2. q. (Vulg.) a. b. c. e. ff2. i. l.
xxii. 43-44 a. b. c. e. ff2. g1.2. i. f.
l. q.
xxiii. 34 c. e. f. ff2. l. a. b. d.
" 38 All—except a.
" 45 a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
xxiv. 40 c. f. q. a. b. d. e. ff2. l.
" 42 a. b. f. ff2. l. q. e.
St. John
i. 3-4 c. (Vulg.) a. b. e. ff2. q.
" 18 a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
iii. 13 All.
x. 14 All.
xvii. 24 All (Vulg.) Vulg. MSS.
xxi. 25 All.
It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-Latin MSS.
witness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except in three on the
Traditional side and six on the Neologian side, making nine in all against
twenty-one. In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the
Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness
which is at the very least far from suggesting a single source, if it be
not wholly inconsistent with such a supposition.
Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they
could not have arisen except from variety of origin. Copyists do not
insert _ad libitum_ different modes of expression. For example, Mr. White
has remarked that ἐπιτιμᾷν is translated “in no less than eleven different
ways,” or adding _arguere_, in twelve, viz. by
admonere emendare minari praecipere
comminari imperare obsecrare prohibere
corripere(174) increpare objurgare arguere (r).
It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but the variety of
expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single
prototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings, but not in the same way.
Similarly δοξάζω, which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the
Gospels, is rendered by _clarifico_, _glorifico_, _honorem accipio_,
_honorifico_, _honoro_, _magnifico_, some passages presenting four
variations. So again, it is impossible to understand how συνοχή in the
phrase συνοχή ἐθνῶν (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by
compressio (Vercellensis, _a_), _occursus_ (Brixianus, _f_), _pressura_
(others), _conflictio_ (Bezae, _d_), if they had a common descent. They
represent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the
meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with _possidebo_ and
_haereditabo_ for κληρονομήσω (St. Luke x. 25) _lumen_ and _lux_ for φῶς
(St. John i. 9), _ante galli cantum_ and _antequam gallus cantet_ for πρὶν
ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), _locum_ and _praedium_ and _in
agro_ for χωρίον (xxvi. 35), _transfer a me calicem istum_ and _transeat a
me calix iste_ for παρελθέτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο (xxvi. 39);—when
we fall upon _vox venit de caelis_, _vox facta est de caelis_, _vox de
caelo facta est_, _vox de caelis_, and the like; or _qui mihi bene
complacuisti_, _charissimus in te complacui_, _dilectus in quo bene
placuit mihi_, _dilectus in te bene sensi_ (St. Mark i. 11), or
_adsumpsit_ (_autem_ ... _duodecim_), _adsumens_, _convocatis_ (St. Luke
xviii. 31) it is clear that these and the instances of the same sort
occurring everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger-posts
pointing in many directions. Various readings in Greek Codexes present,
not a parallel, but a sharp contrast. No such profusion of synonyms can be
produced from them.
The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply internally about themselves
are confirmed exactly by the direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and
St. Jerome. The well-known words of those two great men who must be held
to be competent deponents as to what they found around them, even if they
might fall into error upon the events of previous ages, prove (1) that a
very large number of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly
from one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and (4) that
translators worked on their own independent lines(175). But there is the
strongest reason for inferring that Augustine was right when he said, that
“in the earliest days of the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the
hands of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity (_aliquantulum
facultatis_) with Greek and Latin, he was bold enough to attempt to make a
translation(176).” For what else could have happened than what St.
Augustine says actually did take place? The extraordinary value and
influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament became apparent soon
after their publication. They were most potent forces in converting
unbelievers: they swayed the lives and informed the minds of Christians:
they were read in the services of the Church. But copies in any number, if
at all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, or
Alexandria. And at first no doubt translations into Latin were not to be
had. Christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the
HOLY GHOST: there were no administrative means of making provision. But
the Roman Empire was to a great extent bilingual. Many men of Latin origin
were acquainted more or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many
converts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers or as
ordinary soldiers, a large number who were accomplished Greek scholars.
All evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new Books to those
who did not understand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to
written teaching, from answering questions and giving exposition to making
regular translations in fragments or books and afterwards throughout the
New Testament. The resistless energy of the Christian faith must have
demanded such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the
Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions, fragmentary and
complete. Given the two languages side by side, under the stress of the
necessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the
information given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified. And the
only wonder is, that scholars have not paid more attention to the witness
of that eminent Father, and have missed seeing how natural and true it
was.
It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came chiefly, if I
mistake not, from two ingenious letters of Cardinal Wiseman, then a young
man, and from the familiarity which they displayed with early African
Literature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener, and
Westcott and Hort, followed him. Yet an error lies at the root of
Wiseman’s argument which, if the thing had appeared now, scholars would
not have let pass unchallenged and uncorrected.
Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of Tertullian,
Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, Wiseman assumed that not only that text,
but also the dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and
took their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out(177), “that is
because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa
for our Latin Literature.” Moreover, as every accomplished Latin scholar
who is acquainted with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin
took rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula sprang
into prominence upon the commencement of the decay of the pure Latin race,
occurring through civil and foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions,
and from the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature of the
pure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin and the Low-Latin continued
side by side for a long time, the former in the best literature, and the
latter in ever increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question,
the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, and Walachia,
consisted mainly of Italian blood which was not pure Latin, as is shewn
especially in the veteran soldiers who from time to time received grants
of land from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Languages are
mainly descended from the provincial dialects of the Italian Peninsula. It
would be contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so
strong a change of language should have been effected in an outlying
province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue altogether. It
is in the highest degree improbable that a new form of Latin should have
grown up in Africa, and should have thence spread across the
Mediterranean, and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the
extensive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth had no natural
communication. Low-Latin was the early product of the natural races in
north and central Italy, and from thence followed by well-known channels
into Africa and Gaul and elsewhere(178). We shall find in these truths
much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our darkness upon the Western
text.
The best part of Wiseman’s letters occurs where he proves that St.
Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to what the great Bishop of Hippo
terms the “Itala,” and pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions.
Evidently the “Itala” was the highest form of Latin Version—highest, that
is, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in it, and
consequently in the correctness of its rendering. So here we now see our
way. Critics have always had some difficulty about Dr. Hort’s “European”
class, though there is doubtless a special character in _b_ and its
following. It appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment
about the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing the text supposed to
be African we have the Low-Latin Text prevailing over the less educated
parts of Italy, over Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from
Rome and Milan and the other chief centres.
Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually downwards, till
we reach the lowest of all. There is thus no bar in the way of connecting
that most remarkable product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with
any others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as one of the
Low-Latin group.
Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most interesting and
valuable contributions to Sacred Textual Criticism that have come from the
fertile conception and lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the
proof of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as I must venture
to call it, and the form of Syrian Text exhibited in the Curetonian
Version, which he has given in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek
MSS. Of course the general connexion between the two has been long known
to scholars. The resemblance between the Curetonian and Tatian’s
Diatessaron, to which the Lewis Codex must now be added, on the one hand,
and on the other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace in
Textual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that there was probably a
Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, a view which has been strongly confirmed
on general points by Dr. Chase: and has further discovered evidence that
the text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into and out of
Syriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris’ ingenious suggestion,
traces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase has very recently shed more light
upon the subject in his book called “The Syro-Latin Element of the
Gospels(179).” So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the
connexion between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, not so
much with the entire body of Western Texts, but as I contend with the
Low-Latin part of them in its wide circulation, there is no difficulty in
understanding how such a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as
noiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch. How and why? The key
is given in the sixteenth chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. How
could he have known intimately so many of the leading Roman Christians,
unless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from
Antioch to Rome? Such travellers, and they would by no means be confined
to the days of St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The
stories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have gone through all
Syria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the
authorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest
times translations must have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin,
as afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the Italian and Syrian
Churches, and also between the teaching given in the two countries, must
have lain embedded in the foundations of their common Christianity, and
must have exercised an influence during very many years after.
This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-Latin readings leads
us on to what must have been at first the chief origin of corruption. “The
rulers derided Him”: “the common people heard Him gladly.” It does not, I
think, appear probable that the Gospels were written till after St. Paul
left Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of a high kind arose slowly in the
Church, and the great missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely
impossible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have seen one
another’s writings, because in that case they would not have differed so
much from one another(180). The effort of St. Luke (Pref.), made probably
during St. Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may
not have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated St. Matthew.
Thus in time the authorized Gospels were issued, not only to supply
complete and connected accounts, but to become accurate and standard
editions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer
narratives, and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is
clear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous forms of the
stories which made up the oral or written Gospel must have been in vogue,
and that nowhere are these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria,
where the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the readings thus
propagated, of which many found their way, especially in the West, into
the wording of the Gospels before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered
into the pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers and
usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had to some extent the
appearance of having sprung from the genuine stock. But they were ejected
during the period elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the
Text of the New Testament was gradually purified.
This view is submitted to Textual students for verification.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the earliest times. The
witness of the early Fathers has established the conclusion that there is
not the slightest uncertainty upon this point. To deny it is really a
piece of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor is there
any reason for hesitation in concluding that the career of the Peshitto
dates back in like manner. The Latin Texts, like others, are of two kinds:
both the Traditional Text and the forms of corruption find a place in
them. So that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and Latin, is
added to the testimony of the Fathers. There are no grounds for doubting
that the causeway of the pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence
of the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the marshes on
either side ever since those sacred Books were written. What can be the
attraction of those perilous quagmires, it is hard to understand. “An
highway shall be there, and a way”; “the redeemed shall walk there”; “the
wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein(181).”