§ 1(288).
The nature of Tradition is very imperfectly understood in many quarters;
and mistakes respecting it lie close to the root, if they are not
themselves the root, of the chief errors in Textual Criticism. We must
therefore devote some space to a brief explanation of this important
element in our present inquiry.
Tradition is commonly likened to a stream which, as is taken for granted,
contracts pollution in its course the further it goes. Purity is supposed
to be attainable only within the neighbourhood of the source: and it is
assumed that distance from thence ensures proportionally either greater
purity or more corruption.
Without doubt there is much truth in this comparison: only, as in the case
of nearly all comparisons there are limits to the resemblance, and other
features and aspects are not therein connoted, which are essentially bound
up with the subject believed to be illustrated on all points in this
similitude.
In the first place, the traditional presentment of the New Testament is
not like a single stream, but resembles rather a great number of streams
of which many have remained pure, but some have been corrupted. One
cluster of bad streams was found in the West, and, as is most probable,
the source of very many of them was in Syria: another occurred in the East
with Alexandria and afterwards Caesarea as the centre, where it was joined
by the currents from the West. A multitude in different parts of the
Church were kept wholly or mainly clear of these contaminants, and
preserved the pure and precise utterance as it issued from the springs of
the Written Word.
But there is another pitfall hidden under that imperfect simile which is
continually employed on this subject either by word of mouth or in
writing. The Tradition of the Church does not take shape after the model
of a stream or streams rolling in mechanical movement and unvaried flow
from the fountain down the valley and over the plain. Like most mundane
things, it has a career. It has passed through a stage when one manuscript
was copied as if mechanically from another that happened to be at hand.
Thus accuracy except under human infirmity produced accuracy; and error
was surely procreative of error. Afterwards came a period when both bad
and good exemplars offered themselves in rivalry, and the power of
refusing the evil and choosing the good was in exercise, often with much
want of success. As soon as this stage was accomplished, which may be said
roughly to have reached from Origen till the middle of the fourth century,
another period commenced, when a definite course was adopted, which was
followed with increasing advantage till the whole career was fixed
irrevocably in the right direction. The period of the two Gregories,
Basil, Chrysostom, and others, was the time when the Catholic Church took
stock of truth and corruption, and had in hand the duty of thoroughly
casting out error and cleansing her faith. The second part of the Creed
was thus permanently defined; the third part which, besides the Divinity
of the Holy Ghost, relates to His action in the Church, to the Written
Word, inclusive both of the several books generally and the text of those
books, to the nature of the Sacraments, to the Ministry, to the character
of the unity and government of the Church, was on many points delayed as
to special definition by the ruin soon dealt upon the Roman Empire, and by
the ignorance of the nations which entered upon that vast domain: and
indeed much of this part of the Faith remains still upon the battlefield
of controversy.
But action was taken upon what may be perhaps termed the Canon of St.
Augustine(289): “What the Church of the time found prevailing throughout
her length and breadth, not introduced by regulations of Councils, but
handed down in unbroken tradition, that she rightly concluded to have been
derived from no other fount than Apostolic authority.” To use other words,
in the accomplishment of her general work, the Church quietly and without
any public recension examined as to the written Word the various streams
that had come down from the Apostles, and followed the multitude that were
purest, and by gradual filtration extruded out of these nearly all the
corruption that even the better lines of descent had contracted.
We have now arrived at the period, when from the general consentience of
the records, it is discovered that the form of the Text of the New
Testament was mainly settled. The settlement was effected noiselessly, not
by public debate or in decrees of general or provincial councils, yet none
the less completely and permanently. It was the Church’s own operation,
instinctive, deliberate, and in the main universal. Only a few witnesses
here and there lifted up their voices against the prevalent decisions,
themselves to be condemned by the dominant sense of Christendom. Like the
repudiation of Arianism, it was a repentance from a partial and temporary
encouragement of corruption, which was never to be repented of till it was
called in question during the general disturbance of faith and doctrine in
the nineteenth century. Doubtless, the agreement thus introduced has not
attained more than a general character. For the exceeding number of
questions involved forbids all expectation of an universal coincidence of
testimony extending to every single case.
But in the outset, as we enter upon the consideration of the later
manuscripts, our way must be cleared by the removal of some fallacies
which are widely prevalent amongst students of Sacred Textual Criticism.
It is sometimes imagined (1) that Uncials and Cursives differ in kind; (2)
that all Cursives are alike; (3) that all Cursives are copies of Codex A,
and are the results of a general Recension; and (4) that we owe our
knowledge of the New Testament entirely to the existing Uncials. To these
four fallacies must be added an opinion which stands upon a higher footing
than the preceding, but which is no less a fallacy, and which we have to
combat in this chapter, viz. that the Text of the later Uncials and
especially the Text of the Cursives is a debased Text.
1. The real difference between Uncials and Cursives is patent to all
people who have any knowledge of the subject. Uncials form a ruder kind of
manuscripts, written in capital letters with no space between them till
the later specimens are reached, and generally with an insufficient and
ill-marked array of stops. Cursives show a great advance in workmanship,
being indited, as the name suggests, in running and more easily flowing
letters, with “a system of punctuation much the same as in printed books.”
As contrasted with one another, Uncials as a class enjoy a great
superiority, if antiquity is considered; and Cursives are just as much
higher than the sister class, if workmanship is to be the guiding
principle of judgement. Their differences are on the surface, and are such
that whoso runs may read.
But Textual Science, like all Science, is concerned, not with the
superficial, but with the real;—not with the dress in which the text is
presented, but with the text itself;—not again with the bare fact of
antiquity, since age alone is no sure test of excellence, but with the
character of the testimony which from the nature of the subject-matter is
within reach. Judging then the later Uncials, and comparing them with the
Cursives, we make the discovery that the texts of both are mainly the
same. Indeed, they are divided by no strict boundary of time: they overlap
one another. The first Cursive is dated May 7, 835(290): the last Uncials,
which are Lectionaries, are referred to the eleventh, and possibly to the
twelfth, century(291). One, Codex Λ, is written partly in uncials, and
partly in cursive letters, as it appears, by the same hand. So that in the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries both uncials and cursives must have
issued mainly and virtually from the same body of transcribers. It follows
that the difference lay in the outward investiture, whilst, as is found by
a comparison of one with another, there was a much more important
similarity of character within.
2. But when a leap is made from this position to another sweeping
assertion that all cursives are alike, it is necessary to put a stop to so
illicit a process. In the first place, there is the small handful of
cursive copies which is associated with B and א. The notorious 1,—handsome
outwardly like its two leaders but corrupt in text,—33, 118, 131, 157,
205, 209(292), and others;—the Ferrar Group, containing 13, 69, 124, 346,
556, 561, besides 348, 624, 788;—these are frequently dissentients from
the rest of the Cursives. But indeed, when these and a few others have
been subtracted from the rest and set apart in a class by themselves, any
careful examination of the evidence adduced on important passages will
reveal the fact that whilst almost always there is a clear majority of
Cursives on one side, there are amply enough cases of dissentience more or
less to prove that the Cursive MSS. are derived from a multiplicity of
archetypes, and are endued almost severally with what may without
extravagance be termed distinct and independent personality. Indeed, such
is the necessity of the case. They are found in various countries all over
the Church. Collusion was not possible in earlier times when
intercommunication between countries was extremely limited, and publicity
was all but confined to small areas. The genealogies of Cursive MSS., if
we knew them, would fill a volume. Their stems must have been extremely
numerous; and like Uncials, and often independently of Uncials, they must
have gone back to the vast body of early papyrus manuscripts.
3. And as to the Cursives having been copies of Codex A, a moderate
knowledge of the real character of that manuscript, and a just estimate of
the true value of it, would effectually remove such a hallucination. It is
only the love of reducing all knowledge of intricate questions to the
compass of the proverbial nutshell, and the glamour that hangs over a very
old relic, which has led people, when they had dropped their grasp of B,
to clutch at the ancient treasure in the British Museum. It is right to
concede all honour to such a survival of so early a period: but to lift
the pyramid from its ample base, and to rest it upon a point like A, is a
proceeding which hardly requires argument for its condemnation. And next,
when the notion of a Recension is brought forward, the answer is, What and
when and how and where? In the absence of any sign or hint of such an
event in records of the past, it is impossible to accept such an
explanation of what is no difficulty at all. History rests upon research
into documents which have descended to us, not upon imagination or
fiction. And the sooner people get such an idea out of their heads as that
of piling up structures upon mere assumption, and betake themselves
instead to what is duly attested, the better it will be for a Science
which must be reared upon well authenticated bases, and not upon phantom
theories.
4. The case of the Cursives is in other respects strangely misunderstood,
or at least is strangely misrepresented. The popular notion seems to be,
that we are indebted for our knowledge of the true text of Scripture to
the existing Uncials entirely; and that the essence of the secret dwells
exclusively with the four or five oldest of those Uncials. By consequence,
it is popularly supposed that since we are possessed of such Uncial
Copies, we could afford to dispense with the testimony of the Cursives
altogether. A more complete misconception of the facts of the case can
hardly be imagined. For the plain truth is that all the phenomena
exhibited by the Uncial MSS. are reproduced by the Cursive Copies. A small
minority of the Cursives, just as a small minority of the Uncials, are
probably the depositaries of peculiar recensions.
It is at least as reasonable to assert that we can afford entirely to
disregard the testimony of the Uncials, as to pretend that we can afford
entirely to disregard the testimony of the Cursives. In fact of the two,
the former assertion would be a vast deal nearer to the truth. Our
inductions would in many cases be so fatally narrowed, if we might not
look beyond one little handful of Uncial Copies.
But the point to which the reader’s attention is specially invited is
this:—that so far from our being entirely dependent on Codexes BאCD, or on
some of them, for certain of the most approved corrections of the Received
Text, we should have been just as fully aware of every one of those
readings if neither B nor א, C nor D, had been in existence. Those
readings are every one to be found in one or more of the few Cursive
Codexes which rank by themselves, viz. the two groups just mentioned and
perhaps some others. If they are not, they may be safely disregarded; they
are readings which have received no subsequent recognition(293).
Indeed, the case of the Cursives presents an exact parallel with the case
of the Uncials. Whenever we observe a formal consensus of the Cursives for
any reading, there, almost invariably, is a grand consensus observable for
the same reading of the Uncials.
The era of greater perfection both in the outer presentment and in the
internal accuracy of the text of copies of the New Testament may be said,
as far as the relics which have descended to us are concerned, to have
commenced with the Codex Basiliensis or E of the Gospels. This beautiful
and generally accurate Codex must have been written in the seventh
century(294). The rest of the later Uncials are ordinarily found together
in a large or considerable majority: whilst there is enough dissent to
prove that they are independent witnesses, and that error was condemned,
not ignored. Thus the Codex Regius (L, eighth century), preserved at
Paris, generally follows B and א: so does the Codex Sangallensis (Δ, ninth
century), the Irish relic of the monastery of St. Gall, in St. Mark alone:
and the Codex Zacynthius (Ξ, an eighth century palimpsest) now in the
Library of the Bible Society, in St. Luke(295). The isolation of these few
from the rest of their own age is usually conspicuous. The verdict of the
later uncials is nearly always sustained by a large majority. In fact, as
a rule, every principal reading discoverable in any of the oldest Uncials
is also exhibited in one, two, or three of the later Uncials, or in one or
more of the small handful of dissentient Cursives already enumerated.
Except indeed in very remarkable instances, as in the case of the last
twelve verses of St. Mark, such readings are generally represented: yet in
the later MSS. as compared with the oldest there is this additional
feature in the representation, that if evidence is evidence, and weight,
number, and variety are taken into account, those readings are altogether
condemned.
§ 2(296).
But we are here confronted with the contention that the text of the
Cursives is of a debased character. Our opponents maintain that it is such
that it must have been compounded from other forms of text by a process of
conflation so called, and that in itself it is a text of a character
greatly inferior to the text mainly represented by B and א.
Now in combating this opinion, we are bound first to remark that the
burden of proof rests with the opposite side. According to the laws which
regulate scientific conclusions, all the elements of proof must be taken
into consideration. Nothing deserves the name of science in which the
calculation does not include all the phenomena. The base of the building
must be conterminous with the facts. This is so elementary a principle
that it seems needless to insist more upon it.
But then, this is exactly what we endeavour to accomplish, and our
adversaries disregard. Of course they have their reasons for dismissing
nineteen-twentieths of the evidence at hand: but—this is the point—it
rests with them to prove that such dismissal is lawful and right. What
then are their arguments? Mainly three, viz. the supposed greater
antiquity of their favourite text, the superiority which they claim for
its character, and the evidence that the Traditional Text was as they
maintain formed by conflation from texts previously in existence.
Of these three arguments, that from antiquity has been already disposed
of, and illustration of what has been already advanced will also be at
hand throughout the sequel of this work. As to conflation, a proof against
its possible applicability to the Traditional Text was supplied as to
particles and other words in the last chapter, and will receive
illustration from instances of words of a greater size in this. Conflation
might be possible, supposing for a moment that other conditions favoured
it, and that the elements to be conflated were already in existence in
other texts. But inasmuch as in the majority of instances such elements
are found nowhere else than in the Traditional Text, conflation as
accounting for the changes which upon this theory must have been made is
simply impossible. On the other hand, the Traditional Text might have been
very easily chipped and broken and corrupted, as will be shewn in the
second part of this Treatise, into the form exhibited by B and א(297).
Upon the third argument in the general contention, we undertake to say
that it is totally without foundation. On the contrary, the text of the
Cursives is greatly the superior of the two. The instances which we
proceed to give as specimens, and as specimens only, will exhibit the
propriety of language, and the taste of expression, in which it is
pre-eminent(298). Let our readers judge fairly and candidly, as we doubt
not that they will, and we do not fear the result.
But before entering upon the character of the later text, a few words are
required to remind our readers of the effect of the general argument as
hitherto stated upon this question. The text of the later Uncials is the
text to which witness is borne, not only by the majority of the Uncials,
but also by the Cursives and the Versions and the Fathers, each in greater
numbers. Again, the text of the Cursives enjoys unquestionably the support
of by very far the largest number among themselves, and also of the
Uncials and Versions and Fathers. Accordingly, the text of which we are
now treating, which is that of the later Uncials and the Cursives
combined, is incomparably superior under all the external Notes of Truth.
It possesses in nearly all cases older attestation(299): there is no sort
of question as to the greater number of witnesses that bear evidence to
its claims: nor to their variety: and hardly ever to the explicit proof of
their continuousness; which indeed is also generally—nay,
universally—implied owing to the nature of the case: their weight is
certified upon strong grounds: and as a matter of fact, the context in
nearly all instances testifies on their side. The course of doctrine
pursued in the history of the Universal Church is immeasurably in their
favour. We have now therefore only to consider whether their text, as
compared with that of BאD and their allies, commends itself on the score
of intrinsic excellence. And as to this consideration, if as has been
manifested the text of B-א, and that of D, are bad, and have been shewn to
be the inferior, this must be the better. We may now proceed to some
specimen instances exhibiting the superiority of the Later Uncial and
Cursive text.
§ 3.
Our SAVIOUR’S lament over Jerusalem (“If thou hadst known, even thou, at
least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace!”) is just
one of those delicately articulated passages which are safe to suffer by
the process of transmission. Survey St. Luke’s words (xix. 42), Εἰ ἔγνως
καὶ σύ, καί γε ἐν τῇ ἡμερᾳ σου ταύτῃ, τὰ πρὸς εἰρήνην σου,—and you will
perceive at a glance that the vulnerable point in the sentence, so to
speak, is καὶ σύ, καί γε. In the meanwhile, attested as those words are by
the Old Latin(300) and by Eusebius(301), as well as witnessed to by the
whole body of the copies beginning with Cod. A and including the lost
original of 13-69-124-346 &c.,—the very _order_ of those words is a thing
quite above suspicion. Even Tischendorf admits this. He retains the
traditional reading in every respect. Eusebius however twice writes καί γε
σύ(302); once, καὶ σύ γε(303); and once he drops καί γε entirely(304).
Origen drops it 3 times(305). Still, there is at least a general
_consensus_ among Copies, Versions and Fathers for beginning the sentence
with the characteristic words, εἰ ἔγνως καὶ σύ; the phrase being witnessed
to by the Latin, the Bohairic, the Gothic, and the Harkleian Versions; by
Irenaeus(306),—by Origen(307),—by ps.-Tatian(308),—by Eusebius(309),—by
Basil the Great(310),—by Basil of Seleucia(311),—by Cyril(312).
What then is found in the three remaining Uncials, for C is defective
here? D exhibits ει εγνως και συ, εν τη ημερα ταυτη, τα προς ειρηνην σοι:
being supported only by the Latin of Origen in one place(313). Lachmann
adopts this reading all the same. Nothing worse, it must be confessed, has
happened to it than the omission of καί γε, and of the former σου. But
when we turn to Bא, we find that they and L, with Origen once(314), and
the Syriac heading prefixed to Cyril’s homilies on St. Luke’s Gospel(315),
exclusively exhibit,—ει εγνως εν τη ημερα ταυτη και συ τα προς ειρηνην:
thus, not only omitting καί γε, together with the first and second σου,
but by transposing the words καὶ σύ—ἐν τῇ ἡμερᾳ ταύτῃ, obliterating from
the passage more than half its force and beauty. This maimed and mutilated
exhibition of our LORD’S words, only because it is found in Bא, is adopted
by W.-Hort, who are in turn followed by the Revisers(316). The Peshitto by
the way omits καὶ σύ, and transposes the two clauses which remain(317).
The Curetonian Syriac runs wild, as usual, and the Lewis too(318).
Amid all this conflict and confusion, the reader’s attention is invited to
the instructive fact that the whole body of cursive copies (and all the
uncials but four) have retained in this passage all down the ages
uninjured every exquisite lineament of the inspired archetype. The truth,
I say, is to be found in the cursive copies, not in the licentious BאDL,
which as usual stand apart from one another and from A. Only in respect of
the first σου is there a slight prevarication on the part of a very few
witnesses(319). Note however that it is overborne by the consent of the
Syriac, the Old Latin and the Gothic, and further that the testimony of
ps.-Tatian is express on this head(320). There is therefore nothing to be
altered in the traditional text of St. Luke xix. 42, which furnishes an
excellent instance of fidelity of transmission, and of an emphatic
condemnation of B-א.
§ 4.
It is the misfortune of inquiries like the present that they sometimes
constrain us to give prominence to minute details which it is difficult to
make entertaining. Let me however seek to interest my reader in the true
reading of St. Matt. xx. 22, 23: from which verses recent critical Editors
reject the words, “and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with,” καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὃ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθῆναι.
About the right of the same words to a place in the corresponding part of
St. Mark’s Gospel (x. 38), there is no difference of opinion: except that
it is insisted that in St. Mark the clause should begin with ἤ instead of
καί.
Next, the reader is requested to attend to the following circumstance:
that, except of course the four (אBDL) and Z which omit the place
altogether and one other (S), all the Uncials together with the bulk of
the Cursives, and the Peshitto and Harkleian and several Latin Versions,
concur in reading ἢ τὸ βάπτισμα in St. Matthew: all the Uncials but eight
(אBCDLWΔΣ), together with the bulk of the Cursives and the Peshitto, agree
in reading καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα in St. Mark. This delicate distinction between
the first and the second Gospel, obliterated in the Received Text, is
faithfully maintained in nineteen out of twenty of the Cursive Copies.
In the meantime we are assured on the authority of אBDLZ—with most of the
Latin Copies, including of course Hilary and Jerome, the Cureton, the
Lewis, and the Bohairic, besides Epiphanius,—that the clause in question
has no right to its place in St. Matthew’s Gospel. So confidently is this
opinion held, that the Revisers, following Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, have ejected the words from the Text. But
are they right? Certainly not, I answer. And I reason thus.
If this clause has been interpolated into St. Matthew’s Gospel, how will
you possibly account for its presence in every MS. in the world except 7,
viz. 5 uncials and 2 cursives? It is pretended that it crept in by
assimilation from the parallel place in St. Mark. But I reply,—
1. Is this credible? Do you not see the glaring improbability of such an
hypothesis? Why should the Gospel most in vogue have been assimilated in
all the Copies but seven to the Gospel least familiarly known and read in
the Churches?
2. And pray when is it pretended that this wholesale falsification of the
MSS. took place? The Peshitto Syriac as usual sides with the bulk of the
Cursives: but it has been shewn to be of the second century. Some of the
Latin Copies also have the clause. Codex C, Chrysostom and Basil of
Seleucia also exhibit it. Surely the preponderance of the evidence is
overwhelmingly one way. But then
3. As a matter of fact the clause cannot have come in from St. Mark’s
Gospel,—for the very conclusive reason that the two places are delicately
discriminated,—as on the testimony of the Cursives and the Peshitto has
been shewn already. And
4. I take upon myself to declare without fear of contradiction on the part
of any but the advocates of the popular theory that, on the contrary, it
is St. Matthew’s Gospel which has been corrupted from St. Mark’s. A
conclusive note of the assimilating process is discernible in St. Mark’s
Gospel where ἢ has intruded,—not in St. Matthew’s.
5. Why St. Matthew’s Gospel was maimed in this place, I am not able to
explain. Demonstrable it is that the Text of the Gospels at that early
period underwent a process of Revision at the hands of men who apparently
were as little aware of the foolishness as of the sinfulness of all they
did: and that Mutilation was their favourite method. And, what is very
remarkable, the same kind of infatuation which is observed to attend the
commission of crime, and often leads to its detection, is largely
recognizable here. But the Eye which never sleeps has watched over the
Deposit, and provided Himself with witnesses.
§ 5.
Singular to relate, the circumstances under which Simon and Andrew, James
and John were on the last occasion called to Apostleship (St. Matt. iv.
17-22: St. Mark i. 14-20: St. Luke v. 1-11) have never yet been
explained(321). The facts were as follows.
It was morning on the Sea of Galilee. Two boats were moored to the shore.
The fishermen having “toiled all the night and taken nothing(322),‘—’were
gone out of them and had washed out (ἀπέπλυναν) their nets (τὰ
δίκτυα)(323).” But though fishing in deep water had proved a failure, they
knew that by wading into the shallows, they might even now employ a
casting-net with advantage. Accordingly it was thus that our SAVIOUR,
coming by at this very juncture, beheld Simon and Andrew employed
(βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον)(324). Thereupon, entering Simon’s boat, “He
prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land(325).” The rest
requires no explanation.
Now, it is plain that the key which unlocks this interesting story is the
graphic precision of the compound verb employed, and the well-known usage
of the language which gives to the aorist tense on such occasions as the
present a pluperfect signification(326). The Translators of 1611, not
understanding the incident, were content, as Tyndale, following the
Vulgate(327), had been before them, to render ἀπέπλυναν τὰ δίκτυα,—“were
washing their nets.” Of this rendering, so long as the Greek was let
alone, no serious harm could come. The Revisers of 1881, however, by not
only retaining the incorrect translation “were washing their nets,” but,
by making the Greek tally with the English—by substituting in short
ἔπλυνον for ἀπέπλυναν,—have so effectually darkened the Truth as to make
it simply irrecoverable by ordinary students. The only point in the
meantime to which the reader’s attention is just now invited is this:—that
the compound verb in the aorist tense (ἀπέπλυναν) has been retained by the
whole body of the Cursives, as transmitted all down the ages: while the
barbarous ἔπλυνον is only found at this day in the two corrupt uncials
BD(328) and a single cursive (Evan. 91)(329).
§ 6.
“How hardly shall they that _have riches_ enter into the Kingdom of
Heaven,” exclaimed our LORD on a memorable occasion. The disciples were
amazed. Replying to their thoughts,—“Children,” He added, “how hard is it
for them that _trust in riches_ to enter into the Kingdom of GOD.” (St.
Mark x. 23, 24). Those familiar words, vouched for by 16 uncials and all
the cursives, are quite above suspicion. But in fact all the Versions
support them likewise. There is really no pretext for disturbing what is
so well attested, not to say so precious. Yet Tischendorf and Westcott and
Hort eject τοὺς πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τοῖς χρήμασιν from the text, on the sole
ground that the clause in question is omitted by אBΔ, one copy of the
Italic (k), and one copy of the Bohairic. Aware that such a proceeding
requires an apology,—“I think it unsafe,” says Tischendorf, “to forsake in
this place the very ancient authorities which I am accustomed to follow”:
i.e. Codexes א and B. But of what nature is this argument? Does the critic
mean that he must stick to antiquity? If this be his meaning, then let him
be reminded that Clemens(330), a more ancient authority than אB by 150
years,—not to say the Latin and the Syriac Versions, which are more
ancient still,—recognizes the words in question(331). Does however the
learned critic mean no more than this,—That it is with him a fundamental
principle of Textual Criticism to uphold at all hazards the authority of B
and א? He cannot mean that; as I proceed to explain.
For the strangest circumstance is behind. Immediately after he has thus
(in ver. 24) proclaimed the supremacy of אB, Tischendorf is constrained to
reject the combined evidence of אBCΔ. In ver. 26 those 4 copies advocate
the absurd reading λέγοντες πρὸς ΑΥΤΟΝ Καὶ τίς δύναται σωθῆναι; whereas it
was evidently to themselves (πρὸς ἑαυτούς) that the disciples said it.
Aware that this time the “antiquissimae quas sequi solet auctoritates”
stand self-condemned, instead of ingenuously avowing the fact, Tischendorf
grounds his rejection of προς αυτον on the consideration that “Mark never
uses the expression λεγειν προς αυτον.” Just as if the text of one place
in the Gospel is to be determined by the practice of the same Evangelist
in another place,—and not by its own proper evidence; which in the present
instance is (the reader may be sure) simply overwhelming!
Westcott and Hort erroneously suppose that all the copies but four,—all
the versions but one (the Bohairic),—may be in error: but that B-א, C, and
Cod. Δ which is curious in St. Mark, must needs be in the right.
§ 7.
There are many occasions—as I remarked before,—where the very logic of the
case becomes a powerful argument. Worthless in and by themselves,—in the
face, I mean, of general testimony,—considerations derived from the very
reason of the thing sometimes vindicate their right to assist the
judgement wherever the evidence is somewhat evenly balanced. But their
cogency is felt to be altogether overwhelming when, after a careful survey
of the evidence alone, we entertain no doubt whatever as to what must be
the right reading of a place. They seem then to sweep the field. Such an
occasion is presented by St. Luke xvi. 9,—where our LORD, having shewn
what provision the dishonest steward made against the day when he would
find himself houseless,—the Divine Speaker infers that something analogous
should be done by ourselves with our own money,—“in order” (saith He)
“that _when ye fail_, ye may be received into the everlasting
tabernacles.” The logical consistency of all this is as exact, as the
choice of terms in the Original is exquisite: the word employed to
designate Man’s departure out of this life (ἐκλίπητε), conveying the image
of one fainting or failing at the end of his race. It is in fact the word
used in the LXX to denote the peaceful end of Abraham, and of Ishmael, and
of Isaac, and of Jacob(332).
But instead of this, אBDLRΠ with AX present us with εκλιπη or
εκλειπη,—shewing that the author of this reading imagined without
discrimination, that what our LORD meant to say was that when at last our
money “fails” us, we may not want a home. The rest of the Uncials to the
number of twelve, together with two correctors of א, the bulk of the
Cursives, and the Old Latin copies, the Vulgate, Gothic, Harkleian, and
Ethiopic Versions, with Irenaeus(333), Clemens Alex.(334), Origen(335),
Methodius(336), Basil(337), Ephraem Syrus(338), Gregory Naz.(339),
Didymus(340), Chrysostom(341), Severianus(342), Jerome(343),
Augustine(344), Eulogius(345), and Theodoret(346), also Aphraates (A.D.
325)(347), support the reading ἐκλίπητε. Cyril appears to have known both
readings(348).
His testimony, such as it is, can only be divined from his fragmentary
remains; and “divination” is a faculty to which I make no pretence.
In p. 349, after δεῖ δὲ πάντως αὐτοὺς ἀποπεσεῖν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐπιπηδῶντος
θανάτου, καὶ τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾳς πραγμάτων ἐξελκότος. ἀδιάφυκτον γὰρ ἀνθρώπῳ
παντὶ τοῦ θανάτου τὸν λίνον,—Cyril is represented as saying (6 lines lower
down) ὅταν αὐτοὺς ὁ ἐπίγειος ἐκλείτῃ ΠΛΟΥΤΟΣ, with which corresponds the
Syriac of Luc. 509. But when we encounter the same passage in Cramer’s
Catena (p. 122), besides the reference to death, ἀποπεσοῦνται πάντως τῆς
οἰκονομίας ἐπιπηδῶντος αὐτοῖς τοῦ θανάτου (lines 21-3), we are presented
with ὅταν αὐτοὺς ἡ ἐπίγειος ἐκλείποι Ζωή, which clearly reverses the
testimony. If Cyril wrote _that_, he read (like every other Father)
ἐκλίπητε. It is only right to add that ἐκλίπῃ is found besides in pp. 525,
526 (= Mai ii. 358) and 572 of Cyril’s Syriac Homilies on St. Luke. This
however (like the quotation in p. 506) may well be due to the Peshitto. I
must avow that amid so much conflicting evidence, my judgement concerning
Cyril’s text is at fault.
§ 8.
There is hardly to be found a more precious declaration concerning the
guiding and illuminating office of the Holy Ghost, than our Lord’s promise
that “when He, the Spirit of Truth shall come, He shall guide you into all
the Truth”: ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν (St. John xvi. 13). Now,
the six words just quoted are found to have experienced an extraordinary
amount of perturbation; far more than can be due to the fact that they
happen to be the concluding words of a lection. To be brief,—every known
variety in reading this passage may be brought under one of three heads:—
1. With the first,—which is in fact a gloss, not a reading (διηγήσεται
ὑμῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν),—we need not delay ourselves. Eusebius in two
places(349), Cyril Jer.(350), copies of the Old Latin(351), and
Jerome(352) in a certain place, so read the place. Unhappily the same
reading is also found in the Vulgate(353). It meets with no favour
however, and may be dismissed.
2. The next, which even more fatally darkens our Lord’s meaning, might
have been as unceremoniously dealt with, the reading namely of Cod. L
(ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ), but that unhappily it has found favour
with Tischendorf,—I suppose, because with the exception of πάσῃ it is the
reading of his own Cod. א(354). It is thus that Cyril Alex.(355) thrice
reads the place: and indeed the same thing practically is found in D(356);
while so many copies of the Old Latin exhibit _in omni veritate_, or _in
veritate omni_(357), that one is constrained to inquire, How is ἐν ἀληθείᾳ
πασῃ to be accounted for?
We have not far to look. ὁδηγεῖν followed by ἐν occurs in the LXX, chiefly
in the Psalms, more than 16 times. Especially must the familiar expression
in Ps. xxiv. 5 (ὁδήγησόν με ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σου, _Dirige me in veritate
tua_), by inopportunely suggesting itself to the mind of some early
copyist, have influenced the text of St. John xvi. 13 in this fatal way.
One is only astonished that so acute a critic as Tischendorf should have
overlooked so plain a circumstance. The constant use of the Psalm in
Divine Service, and the entire familiarity with the Psalter resulting
therefrom, explains sufficiently how it came to pass, that in this as in
other places its phraseology must have influenced the memory.
3. The one true reading of the place (ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν
ἀλήθειαν) is attested by 12 of the uncials (EGHIbKMSUΓΔΛΠ), the whole body
of the cursives, and by the following Fathers,—Didymus(358),
Epiphanius(359), Basil(360), Chrysostom(361), Theodotus, Bp. of
Antioch(362), Cyril Alex.(363), Theodoret(364); besides Tertullian in five
places, Hilary and Jerome in two(365).
But because the words πᾶσαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν are found transposed in ABY alone
of manuscripts, and because Peter Alex.(366), and Didymus(367) once,
Origen(368) and Cyril Alex.(369) in two places, are observed to sanction
the same infelicitous arrangement (viz. τὴν ἀλήθειαν πᾶσαν),—Lachmann,
Tregelles, Alford, Westcott and Hort, adopt without hesitation this order
of the words(370). It cannot of course be maintained. The candid reader in
the meantime will not fail to note that as usual the truth has been
preserved neither by A nor B nor D: least of all by א: but comes down to
us unimpaired in the great mass of MS. authorities, uncial and cursive, as
well as in the oldest Versions and Fathers.
§ 9.
It may have been anticipated by the readers of these pages that the Divine
Author of Scripture has planted here and there up and down the sacred
page—often in most improbable places and certainly in forms which we
should have least of all imagined—tests of accuracy, by attending to which
we may form an unerring judgement concerning the faithfulness of a copy of
the sacred Text. This is a discovery which at first astonished me: but on
mature reflection, I saw that it was to have been confidently anticipated.
Is it indeed credible that Almighty Wisdom—which is observed to have made
such abundant provision for the safety of the humblest forms of animal
life, for the preservation of common seeds, often seeds of noxious
plants,—should yet have omitted to make provision for the life-giving seed
of His own Everlasting Word?
For example, strange to relate, it is a plain fact (of which every one may
convince himself by opening a copy of the Gospels furnished with a
sufficient critical apparatus), that although in relating the healing of
the centurion’s servant (St. Matt. viii. 5-13) the Evangelist writes
εκατονταρχΟΣ in verses 5 and 8, he writes εκατονταρχΗ instead of -ΧΩ in
ver. 13. This minute variety has been faithfully retained by uncials and
cursives alike. _Only_ one uncial (viz. א) has ventured to assimilate the
two places, writing εκατονταρχης throughout. With the blindness
proverbially ascribed to parental love, Tischendorf follows א, though the
carelessness that reigns over that MS. is visible to all who examine it.
The matter is a trifle confessedly. But so was the scrap of a ballad which
identified the murderer, another scrap of it being found with the bullet
in the body of the murdered man.
§ 10.
The instances which have been given in this chapter of the superiority of
the text exhibited in the later Uncials and the Cursives might have been
increased in number to almost any extent out of the papers left by Dean
Burgon. The reader will find many more illustrations in the rest of these
two volumes. Even Dr. Hort admits that the Traditional Text which is
represented by them is “entirely blameless on either literary or religious
grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction(371),” while “repeated
and diligent study” can only lead, if conducted with deep and wide
research, to the discovery of beauties and meanings which have lain
unrevealed to the student before.
Let it be always borne in mind, that (_a_) the later Uncials and Cursives
are the heirs in succession of numerous and varied lines of descent spread
throughout the Church; that (_b_) their verdict is nearly always decisive
and clear; and that nevertheless (_c_) such unanimity or majority of
witnesses is not the testimony of mechanical or suborned testifiers, but
is the coincidence, as facts unquestionably prove, except in certain
instances of independent deponents to the same story.
Let me be allowed to declare(372) in conclusion that no person is
competent to pronounce concerning the merits or demerits of cursive copies
of the Gospels, who has not himself, in the first instance, collated with
great exactness at least a few of them. He will be materially assisted, if
it has ever fallen in his way to familiarize himself however partially
with the text of vast numbers. But nothing can supply the place of exact
collation of at least a few copies: of which labour, if a man has had no
experience at all, he must submit to be assured that he really has no
right to express himself confidently in this subject-matter. He argues,
not from facts, but from his own imagination of what the facts of the case
will probably be. Those only who have minutely collated several copies,
and examined with considerable attention a large proportion of all the
Sacred Codexes extant, are entitled to speak with authority here. Further,
I venture to assert that no conviction will force itself so irresistibly
on the mind of him who submits to the labour of exactly collating a few
Cursive copies of the Gospels, as that the documents in question have been
executed with even extraordinary diligence, fidelity, and skill. That
history confirms this conviction, we have only to survey the elaborate
arrangements made in monasteries for carrying on the duty, and perfecting
the art, of copying the Holy Scriptures.
If therefore this body of Manuscripts be thus declared by the excellence
of its text, by the evident pains bestowed upon its production, as well as
by the consentience with it of other evidence, to possess high
characteristics; if it represents the matured settlement of many delicate
and difficult questions by the Church which after centuries of vacillation
more or less, and indeed less rather than more, was to last for a much
larger number of centuries; must it not require great deference indeed
from all students of the New Testament? Let it always be remembered, that
no single Cursive is here selected from the rest or advanced to any
position whatsoever which would invest its verdicts with any special
authority. It is the main body of the Cursives, agreeing as they generally
do with the exception of a few eccentric groups or individuals, which is
entitled to such respect according to the measure of their agreement. And
in point of fact, the Cursives which have been collated are so generally
consentient, as to leave no doubt that the multitude which needs collation
will agree similarly. Doubtless, the later Uncials and the Cursives are
only a class of the general evidence which is now before us: but it is
desirable that those Textual Students who have been disposed to undervalue
this class should weigh with candour and fairness the arguments existing
in favour of it, which we have attempted to exhibit in this chapter.