§ 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School.
What is the real truth about the existence of an Alexandrian Text? Are
there, or are there not, sufficient elements of an Alexandrian character,
and of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy
Gospels to be designated by that name?
So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the standard of the
Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to have attributed to his Neutral text
much of the native products of Alexandria(182), speaks more of readings
than of text. The question must be decided upon the evidence of the case,
which shall now be in the main produced.
The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as Alexandrian in the
period under consideration are the following:—
_Traditional._ _Neologian._
Heracleon 1 7
Clement of Alexandria 82 72
Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5
Theognosius 0 1
Peter of Alexandria 7 8
Arius 2 1
Athanasius (c. Arianos) 57 56
—— ——
161 150
Under the thirty places already examined, Clement, the most important of
these writers, witnesses 8 times for the Traditional reading and 14 times
for the Neologian. Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this
school, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order stated.
The Version which was most closely connected with Lower Egypt was the
Bohairic, and under the same thirty passages gives the ensuing evidence:—
1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has “her first-born son”.
2. " v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add in the margin.
3. " vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.
4. " vii. 13. All have it.
5. " ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin: 12 omit, besides the 3 just
mentioned.
6. " xi. 27. All have βούληται.
7. " xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or interlined: 11
omit wholly.
8. " xviii. 11. Only 4 have it.
9. " xix. 16. Only 7 have “good,” besides a few corrections: 12 omit.
" " 17. Only 1 has it.
10. " xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.
11. " xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the correction. All
the rest have οἶνον(183).
12. " xxviii. 2. All have it.
13. " " 19. All have it.
14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, Ἠσαΐᾳ.
15. " xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.
16. Luke i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.
17. " ii. 14. All have εὐδοκία.
18. " x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων δὲ (3 omit) ἐστὶ χρεία ἢ ἑνός: 1 omits ἢ ἑνός. 2
corrected add “of them.”
19. " xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18(184).
20. " xxiii. 34. All omit(185).
21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5(186) (?).
22. " " 45. All have ἐκλιπόντος(187).
23. " xxiv. 40. All have it.
24. " " 42. All omit(188).
25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at οὐδὲ ἕν) have it. The
Sahidic is the other way.
26. " " 18. All have Θεός(189).
27. " iii. 13. Omitted by 9.
28. " x. 14. All have “mine know me.” The Bohairic has no passive: hence
the error(190).
29. " xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express οὕς: hence the error(191).
30. " xxi. 25. All have it.
The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.
No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact we are
considering the ante-manuscriptal period. All reference therefore to
manuscripts would be consequent upon, not a factor in, the present
investigation.
It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most striking
characteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic wabbles
from side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places
but mostly against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence in
all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention.
Origen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the Neologian readings
on the thirty passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his
habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of
Origen, who indeed changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his
habit was to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in
preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St. Ambrose
(in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John i. 3-4, “without
Him was not anything made: that which was made was life in Him,” says that
Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted
everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said
that Origen was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no
one can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.
Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian Philosophy
which under the name of the Catechetical School has made Alexandria for
ever celebrated in the early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen
was a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the text of the New
Testament, besides his great labours on the Old, because he found it
disfigured as he says by corruptions “some arising from the carelessness
of scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary
omissions and interpolations(192).” Such a sitting in judgement, or as
perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen such a pursuit of
inquiry, involved weighing of evidence on either side, of which there are
many indications in his works. The connexion of this school with the
school set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have brought
his manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to
sympathetic successors, will be carried out and described more fully in
the next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the
Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province extended with
the reputation of his other writings long after his death. “When a writer
speaks of the ‘accurate copies,’ what he actually means is the text of
Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen(193).” Indeed it was an
elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit
with evidence of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original,
as for example in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of
St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration of
passages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and habit
there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or
in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which were rejected in
later ages took their rise there. Specimens of the former of these
peculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the
Bohairic Version. The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the
Caesarean school which now invites our consideration.
§ 2. Caesarean School.
In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally left Alexandria.
His head-quarters thenceforward may be said to have been Caesarea in
Palestine, though he travelled into Greece and Arabia and stayed at
Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus.
He had previously visited Rome: so that he must have been well qualified
by his experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection of
MSS. to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text. But
unfortunately his whole career marks him out as a man of uncertain
judgement. Like some others, he was a giant in learning, but ordinary in
the use of his learning. He was also closely connected with the
philosophical school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued.
The leading figures in this remarkable School of Textual Criticism at
Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius, besides Pamphilus who forms the link
between the two. The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library
in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied by Origen, so
far as the books in it escaped the general destruction of MSS. that
occurred in the persecution of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although
there seems little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were amongst
the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the next chapter, the
witness of the writings of both Origen and Eusebius is so favourable as it
is to the Traditional Text. In the case of Origen there is as already
stated(194) not far from an equality between the totals on either side,
besides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important texts: and the
numbers for Eusebius are respectively 315 to 214, and 41 to 11.
Palestine was well suited from its geographical position to be the site of
the junction of all the streams. The very same circumstances which adapted
it to be the arena of the great drama in the world’s history drew to its
shores the various elements in the representation in language of the most
characteristic part of the Word of God. The Traditional Text would reach
it by various routes: the Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria:
the Alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in his
travels would help to assemble all. The various alien streams would thus
coalesce, and the text of B and א would be the result. But the readings of
MSS. recorded by Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this
broad school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided preponderance
according to the private choice of the latter scholar. Yet, as will be
shewn, he was probably, not the writer of B and of the six conjugate
leaves in א, yet as the executor of the order of Constantine the
superintendent also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then
influenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts as he
thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? Or is it not more in
consonance with the facts of the case—especially as interpreted by the
subsequent spread in Constantinople of the Traditional Text(195)—, that we
should infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of Texts
of another character? Eusebius, the Homoiousian or Semi-Arian, would thus
be the collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions, and his
scholar and successor Acacius, the Homoean, would more probably be the
writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves of א(196). The trimming
character of the latitudinarian, and the violent forwardness of the
partisan, would appear to render such a supposition not unreasonable.
Estimating the school according to principles of historical philosophy,
and in consonance with both the existence of the Text denoted by B and א
and also the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transitional
in character, including two distinct and incongruous solutions, of which
one was afterwards proved to be the right by the general acceptation in
the Church that even Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place.
An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the two
celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it that we possess no MSS. of the
New Testament of any considerable size older than those, or at least no
other such MSS. as old as they are? Besides the disastrous results of the
persecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the reply of Dean
Burgon, that being generally recognized as bad MSS. they were left
standing on the shelf in their handsome covers, whilst others which were
more correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the
discoveries made since the Dean’s death enables me to suggest another
answer which will also help to enlarge our view on these matters.
The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The first mention of it
that we meet with occurs in the 58th chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus,
where the historian tells us that the Ionians wrote on the skins of sheep
and goats because they could not get “byblus,” or as we best know it,
papyrus. Vellum remained in comparative obscurity till the time of Eumenes
II, King of Pergamum. That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his
library and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of jealousy to
supply him with papyrus, improved the skins of his country(197), and made
the “charta Pergamena,” from whence the term parchment has descended to
us. It will be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for “the books,
especially the parchments(198).” There is evidence that vellum was used at
Rome: but the chief materials employed there appear to have been waxen
tablets and papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first
century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid(199).
But if such MSS. had prevailed generally, more would have come down to us.
The emergence of vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the
products of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the rising literary
activity in Asia and by the building of Constantinople, was probably the
means of the introduction of an improved employment of vellum. It has been
already noticed(200), that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops of
Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of papyrus manuscripts
upon vellum. Greek uncials were not unlike in general form to the square
Hebrew letters used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in
Asiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum. It would
seem that in moving there Origen deserted papyrus for the more durable
material.
A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been in constant use over the
Roman Empire during the first three centuries and a third which elapsed
before B and א were written, there ought to have been in existence some
remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and wear of use and
time. As there are no vellum MSS. at all except the merest fragments
dating from before 330 A.D., we are perforce driven to infer that a
material for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before
that period. Now not only had papyrus been for “long the recognized
material for literary use,” but we can trace its employment much later
than is usually supposed. It is true that the cultivation of the plant in
Egypt began to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahommedans in
638 A.D., and the destruction of the famous libraries: but it continued in
existence during some centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily
and Italy. “In France papyrus was in common use in the sixth century.” Sir
E. Maunde Thompson enumerates books now found in European Libraries of
Paris, Genoa, Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the
tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in Egypt till the tenth
century. The use of papyrus did not lapse finally till paper was
introduced into Europe by the Moors and Arabs(201), upon which occurrence
all writing was executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand
drove out uncial writing even from parchment.
The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which any one may
satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde Thompson’s admirable book, and
of the employment of the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of
the notions that have been widely entertained respecting the old Uncials.
1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive MSS. are not
by any means the descendants of the Uncials. If the employment of papyrus
in the earliest ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far the
greater part of the Roman Empire, and that description is I believe less
than the facts would warrant—then more than half of the stems of genealogy
must have originally consisted of papyrus manuscripts. And further, if the
use of papyrus continued long after the date of B and א, then it would not
only have occupied the earliest steps in the lines of descent, but much
later exemplars must have carried on the succession. But in consequence of
the perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and
live only in their cursive posterity. This aspect alone of the case under
consideration invests the Cursives with much more interest and value than
many people would nowadays attribute to them.
2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the subject by the fact
now established beyond question, that cursive handwriting existed in the
world some centuries before Christ(202). For square letters (of course in
writing interspersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria,
and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial Greek letters came
out first, as far as the evidence of extant remains can guide us, in those
countries. The change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth
century is most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen from
the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained, and from the
cursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on vellum and introducing
their more easy and rapid style of writing into that class of
manuscripts(203)? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the very
manner in which they are written, Cursives mutely declare that they are
not solely the children of the Uncials. Speaking generally, they are the
progeny of a marriage between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear
to have been the better half.
Such results as have been reached in this chapter and the last have issued
from the advance made in discovery and research during the last ten years.
But these were not known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to
Lachmann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in his view of the
entire subject when he constructed his clever but unsound theory some
forty years ago(204). Surely our conclusion must be that the world is
leaving that school gradually behind.