§ 1(205).
Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been
maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive
superstition. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the
edition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867(206): and yet long before that
time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The
collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not
trustworthy, though they far surpassed Mai’s two first editions. Yet the
prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue
decrees from the Vatican(207) did not wait till the clear light of
criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same
spirit, biassed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more
has been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex(208).
A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex א. It was perhaps
to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in
his treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for
judgement could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his
eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less
than 3,572(209) instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his
beloved Sinaitic guide.
Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly
against א. It adds to the number of the blunders of its associate: it is
conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself
deviates into glaring errors(210). The elevation of the Sinaitic into the
first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice
was concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is
hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would
critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New
Testament for themselves.
The fact is that B and א were the products of the school of philosophy and
teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or Homoean opinions. The proof
of this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the
question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into
consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.
In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of
these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other
form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward
appearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule,
Constantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the
reign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that
spoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical
schools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth
century(211). It is a circumstance that cannot fail to give rise to
suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a
predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful
investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free
from that influence which has met with universal condemnation.
Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable
coincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all
hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from
oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene
controversy was also the time when the text of B and א sank into
condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became
permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to
assume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance
were inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and
afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such
ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so
fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference,
there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy
were in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox
had things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and
undefiled Word of GOD we must search, not amongst those great men who
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the
main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst
the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose
fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the
historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too
much to assert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific
conclusions.
It is therefore a circumstance full of significance that Codexes B and א
were produced in such untoward times(212), and fell into neglect on the
revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received.
But the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.
The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church
is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour
of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into
the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of
early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the
profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must
at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the
verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his
assertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A
prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have
been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated
with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes
adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the
orthodox Fathers of the Church.
But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended)
Origen’s ruling passion is found to have been textual criticism(213). This
was at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend
Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him,
and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St.
Jerome(214). In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the
gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen,
became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the
persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in
various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was assiduously
prosecuted there(215). Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome
copies(216), amongst which it is not improbable that the manuscripts
(σωματία) B and א were to be actually found(217). But even if that is not
so, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that
bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact
carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and
in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again,
Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter(218), and various entries
in MSS. prove that others did the same(219). It is clear that the
celebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province
of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the
operations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually
into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General
Council in A.D. 553.
But in connecting B and א with the Library at Caesarea we are not left
only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the
end of the book of Esther in א by the third corrector, it is stated that
from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was
compared with a copy “corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,”
which itself was written and corrected after the Hexapla of Origen(220).
And a similar colophon may be found attached to the book of Ezra. It is
added that the Codex Sinaiticus (τόδε τὸ τεῦχος) and the Codex Pamphili
(τὸ αὐτὸ παλαιώτατον βιβλίον) manifested great agreement with one another.
The probability that א was thus at least in part copied from a manuscript
executed by Pamphilus is established by the facts that a certain “Codex
Marchalianus” is often mentioned which was due to Pamphilus and Eusebius;
and that Origen’s recension of the Old Testament, although he published no
edition of the Text of the New, possessed a great reputation. On the books
of Chronicles, St. Jerome mentions manuscripts executed by Origen with
great care, which were published by Pamphilus and Eusebius. And in Codex H
of St. Paul it is stated that that MS. was compared with a MS. in the
library of Caesarea “which was written by the hand of the holy
Pamphilus(221).” These notices added to the frequent reference by St.
Jerome and others to the critical (ἀκριβῆ) MSS., by which we are to
understand those which were distinguished by the approval of Origen or
were in consonance with the spirit of Origen, shew evidently the position
in criticism which the Library at Caesarea and its illustrious founder had
won in those days. And it is quite in keeping with that position that א
should have been sent forth from that “school of criticism.”
But if א was, then B must have been;—at least, if the supposition
certified by Tischendorf and Scrivener be true, that the six conjugate
leaves of א were written by the scribe of B. So there is a chain of
reference, fortified by the implied probability which has been furnished
for us from the actual facts of the case.
Yet Dr. Hort is “inclined to surmise that B and א were both written in the
West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B were wholly Western (in
the geographical, not the textual sense) up to a very early time indeed;
and that the ancestors of א were in great part Alexandrian, again in the
geographical, not the textual sense(222).” For this opinion, in which Dr.
Hort stands alone amongst authorities, there is nothing but “surmise”
founded upon very dark hints. In contrast with the evidence just brought
forward there is an absence of direct testimony: besides that the
connexion between the Western and Syrian Texts or Readings, which has been
recently confirmed in a very material degree, must weaken the force of
some of his arguments.
§ 2(223).
The points to which I am anxious rather to direct attention are (1) the
extent to which the works of Origen were studied by the ancients: and (2)
the curious discovery that Codexes אB, and to some extent D, either belong
to the same class as those with which Origen was chiefly familiar; or else
have been anciently manipulated into conformity with Origen’s teaching.
The former seems to me the more natural supposition; but either inference
equally satisfies my contention: viz. that Origen, and mainly BאD, are not
to be regarded as wholly independent authorities, but constitute a class.
The proof of this position is to be found in various passages where the
influence of Origen may be traced, such as in the omission of Υἱοῦ τοῦ
Θεοῦ—“The Son of God”—in Mark i. 1(224); and of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ—“at Ephesus”—in
Eph. i. 1(225); in the substitution of Bethabara (St. John i. 28) for
Bethany(226); in the omission of the second part of the last petition the
Lord’s Prayer in St. Luke(227), of ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν in John i.
27(228).
He is also the cause why the important qualification εἰκῆ (“without a
cause”) is omitted by Bא from St. Matt. v. 22; and hence, in opposition to
the whole host of Copies, Versions(229), Fathers, has been banished from
the sacred Text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, W. Hort and the Revisers(230).
To the same influence, I am persuaded, is to be attributed the omission
from a little handful of copies (viz. A, B-א, D*, F-G, and 17*) of the
clause τῇ ἀληθείᾳ μὴ πείθεσθαι (“that you should not obey the truth”) Gal.
iii. 1. Jerome duly acknowledges those words while commenting on St.
Matthew’s Gospel(231); but when he comes to the place in Galatians(232),
he is observed, first to admit that the clause “is found in some copies,”
and straightway to add that “inasmuch as it is not found in the copies of
Adamantius(233), he omits it.” The clue to his omission is supplied by his
own statement that in writing on the Galatians he had made Origen his
guide(234). And yet the words stand in the Vulgate.
For:—
C Dc E K L P, 46 Cursives.
Vulg. Goth. Harkl. Arm. Ethiop.
Orig. ii. 373.
Cyril Al. ii. 737.
Ephr. Syr. iii. 203.
Macarius Magnes (or rather the heathen philosopher with whom he
disputed),—128.
ps.-Athanas. ii. 454.
Theodoret ii. 40.
J. Damascene ii. 163.
Theodorus Studita,—433, 1136.
Hieron. vii. 418. c. Legitur in quibusdam codicibus, “Quis vos fascinavit
non credere veritati?” Sed hoc, quia in exemplaribus Adamantii
non habetur, omisimus.
Against:—
אABD*FG 17*.
d e f g—fu.
Peshitto, Bohairic.
Chrys.
Euthal. cod.
Exemplaria Adamantii.
Cyril 429.
Theodoret i. 658 (=Mai vii2 150).
Theodorus Mops.
Hier. vii. 418. c.
In a certain place Origen indulges in a mystical exposition of our LORD’S
two miracles of feeding(235); drawing marvellous inferences, as his manner
is, from the details of either miracle. We find that Hilary(236), that
Jerome(237), that Chrysostom(238), had Origen’s remarks before them when
they in turn commented on the miraculous feeding of the 4000. At the
feeding of the 5000, Origen points out that our LORD “commands the
multitude to sit down” (St. Matt. xiv. 19): but at the feeding of the
4000, He does not “command” but only “directs” them to sit down. (St.
Matt. xv. 35(239)) ... From which it is plain that Origen did not read as
we do in St. Matt. xv. 35, καὶ ἐκέλευσε τοῖς ὄχλοις—but παρήνγειλε τῷ ὄχλῳ
ἀναπεσεῖν; which is the reading of the parallel place in St. Mark (viii.
6). We should of course have assumed a slip of memory on Origen’s part;
but that אBD are found to exhibit the text of St. Matt. xv. 35 in
conformity with Origen(240). He is reasoning therefore from a MS. which he
has before him; and remarking, as his unfortunate manner is, on what
proves to be really nothing else but a palpable depravation of the text.
Speaking of St. John xiii. 26, Origen remarks,—“It is not written ‘He it
is to whom I shall give the sop’; but with the addition of ‘I shall dip’:
for it says, ‘I shall dip the sop and give it.’ ” This is the reading of
BCL and is adopted accordingly by some Editors. But surely it is a
depravation of the text which may be ascribed with confidence to the
officiousness of Origen himself. _Who_, at all events, on such precarious
evidence would surrender the established reading of the place, witnessed
to as it is by every other known MS. and by several of the Fathers? The
grounds on which Tischendorf reads βάψω το ψωμίον καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ, are
characteristic, and in their way a curiosity(241).
Take another instance of the same phenomenon. It is plain, from the
consent of (so to speak) all the copies, that our Saviour rejected the
Temptation which stands second in St. Luke’s Gospel with the words,—“Get
thee behind Me, Satan(242).” But Origen officiously points out that this
(quoting the words) is precisely what our LORD did not say. He adds a
reason,—“He said to Peter, ‘Get thee behind Me, Satan’; but to the Devil,
‘Get thee hence,’ without the addition ‘behind Me’; for to be behind Jesus
is a good thing(243).”
Our Saviour on a certain occasion (St. John viii. 38) thus addressed his
wicked countrymen:—“I speak that which I have seen with My Father; and ye
likewise do that which you have seen with your father.” He contrasts His
own gracious doctrines with their murderous deeds; and refers them to
their respective “Fathers,”—to “My Father,” that is, GOD; and to “your
father,” that is, the Devil(244). That this is the true sense of the place
appears plainly enough from the context. “Seen with” and “heard from(245)”
are the expressions employed on such occasions, because sight and hearing
are the faculties which best acquaint a man with the nature of that
whereof he discourses.
Origen, misapprehending the matter, maintains that GOD is the “Father”
spoken of on either side. He I suspect it was who, in order to support
this view, erased “My” and “your”; and in the second member of the
sentence, for “seen with,” substituted “heard from”;—as if a contrast had
been intended between the manner of the Divine and of the human
knowledge,—which would be clearly out of place. In this way, what is in
reality a revelation, becomes converted into a somewhat irrelevant
precept: “I speak the things which I have seen with the Father.” “Do ye
the things which ye have heard from the Father,”—which is how Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford exhibit the place. Cyril Alex. employed a
text thus impaired. Origen also puts ver. 39 into the form of a precept
(ἐστέ ... ποιεῖτε); but he has all the Fathers(246) (including
himself),—all the Versions,—all the copies against him, being supported
only by B.
But the evidence against “the restored reading” to which Alford invites
attention, (viz. omitting μου and substituting ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός
for ἑωράκατε παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ ὑμῶν.) is overwhelming. Only five copies
(BCLTX) omit μου: only four (BLT, 13) omit ὑμῶν: a very little handful are
for substituting ἠκούσατε with the genitive for ἑωράκατε. Chrys.,
Apolinaris, Cyril Jerus., Ammonius, as well as every ancient version of
good repute, protest against such an exhibition of the text. In ver. 39,
only five read ἐστέ (אBDLT): while ποιεῖτε is found only in Cod. B.
Accordingly, some critics prefer the imperfect ἐποιεῖτε, which however is
only found in אDLT. “The reading is remarkable” says Alford. Yes, and
clearly fabricated. The ordinary text is right.
§ 3.
Besides these passages, in which there is actual evidence of a connexion
subsisting between the readings which they contain and Origen, the
sceptical character of the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts affords a
strong proof of the alliance between them and the Origenistic School. It
must be borne in mind that Origen was not answerable for all the tenets of
the School which bore his name, even perhaps less than Calvin was
responsible for all that Calvinists after him have held and taught.
Origenistic doctrines came from the blending of philosophy with
Christianity in the schools of Alexandria where Origen was the most
eminent of the teachers engaged(247).