ON THE STATE OF THE CANON IN THE LAST QUARTER OF THE SECOND CENTURY.
I should not be very much surprised if the general reader who may
have followed our enquiry so far should experience at this point a
certain feeling of disappointment. If he did not know beforehand
something of the subject-matter that was to be enquired into, he
might not unnaturally be led to expect round assertions, and
plain, pointblank, decisive evidence. Such evidence has not been
offered to him for the simple reason that it does not exist. In
its stead we have collected a great number of inferences of very
various degrees of cogency, from the possible and hypothetical, up
to strong and very strong probability. Most of our time has been
taken up in weighing and testing these details, and in the
endeavour to assign to each as nearly as possible its just value.
It could not be thought strange if some minds were impatient of
such minutiae; and where this objection was not felt, it would
still be very pardonable to complain that the evidence was at best
inferential and probable.
An inference in which there are two or three steps may be often
quite as strong as that in which there is only one, and
probabilities may mount up to a high degree of what is called
moral or practical certainty. I cannot but think that many of
those which have been already obtained are of this character. I
cannot but regard it as morally or practically certain that
Marcion used our third Gospel; as morally or practically certain
that all four Gospels were used in the Clementine Homilies; as
morally or practically certain that the existence of three at
least out of our four Gospels is implied in the writings of
Justin; as probable in a lower degree that the four were used by
Basilides; as not really disputable (apart from the presumption
afforded by earlier writers) that they were widely used in the
interval which separates the writings of Justin from those of
Irenaeus.
All of these seem to me to be tolerably clear propositions. But
outside these there seems to be a considerable amount of
convergent evidence, the separate items of which are less
convincing, but which yet derive a certain force from the mere
fact that they are convergent. In the Apostolic Fathers, for
example, there are instances of various kinds, some stronger and
some weaker; but the important point to notice is that they
confirm each other. Every new case adds to the total weight of the
evidence, and helps to determine the bearing of those which seem
ambiguous.
It cannot be too much borne in mind that the evidence with which
we have been dealing is cumulative; and as in all other cases of
cumulative evidence the subtraction of any single item is of less
importance than the addition of a new one. Supposing it to be
shown that some of the allusions which are thought to be taken
from our Gospels were merely accidental coincidences of language,
this would not materially affect the part of the evidence which
could not be so explained. Supposing even that some of these
allusions could be definitely referred to an apocryphal source,
the possibility would be somewhat, but not so very much, increased
that other instances which bear resemblance to our Gospels were
also in their origin apocryphal. But on the other hand, if a
single instance of the use of a canonical Gospel really holds
good, it is proof of the existence of that Gospel, and every new
instance renders the conclusion more probable, and makes it more
and more difficult to account for the phenomena in any other way.
The author of 'Supernatural Religion' seems to have overlooked
this. He does not seem to have considered the mutual support which
the different instances taken together lend to each other. He
summons them up one by one, and if any sort of possibility can be
shown of accounting for them in any other way than by the use of
our Gospels he dismisses them altogether. He makes no allowance
for any residual weight they may have. He does not ask which is
the more probable hypothesis. If the authentication of a document
is incomplete, if the reference of a passage is not certain, he
treats it as if it did not exist. He forgets the old story of the
faggots, which, weak singly, become strong when combined. His
scales will not admit of any evidence short of the highest.
Fractional quantities find no place in his reckoning. If there is
any flaw, if there is any possible loophole for escape, he does
not make the due deduction and accept the evidence with that
deduction, but he ignores it entirely, and goes on to the next
item just as if he were leaving nothing behind him.
This is really part and parcel of what was pointed out at the
outset as the fundamental mistake of his method. It is much too
forensic. It takes as its model, not the proper canons of
historical enquiry, but the procedure of English law. Yet the
inappropriateness of such a method is seen as soon as we consider
its object and origin. The rules of evidence current in our law
courts were constructed specially with a view to the protection of
the accused, and upon the assumption that it is better nine guilty
persons should escape, than that one innocent person should be
condemned. Clearly such rules will be inapplicable to the
historical question which of two hypotheses is most likely to be
true. The author forgets that the negative hypothesis is just as
much a hypothesis as the positive, and needs to be defended in
precisely the same manner. Either the Gospels were used, or they
were not used. In order to prove the second side of this
alternative, it is necessary to show not merely that it is
_possible_ that they were not used, but that the theory is
the _more probable_ of the two, and accounts better for the
facts. But the author of 'Supernatural Religion' hardly professes
or attempts to do this. If he comes across a quotation apparently
taken from our Gospels he is at once ready with his reply, 'But it
may be taken from a lost Gospel.' Granted; it may. But the extant
Gospel is there, and the quotation referable to it; the lost
Gospel is an unknown entity which may contain anything or nothing.
If we admit that the possibility of quotation from a lost Gospel
impairs the certainty of the reference to an extant Gospel, it is
still quite another thing to argue that it is the more probable
explanation and an explanation that the critic ought to accept. In
very few cases, I believe, has the author so much as attempted to
do this.
We might then take a stand here, and on the strength of what can
be satisfactorily proved, as well as of what can be probably
inferred, claim to have sufficiently established the use and
antiquity of the Gospels. This is, I think, quite a necessary
conclusion from the data hitherto collected.
But there is a further objection to be made to the procedure in
'Supernatural Religion.' If the object were to obtain clear and
simple and universally appreciable evidence, I do not hesitate to
say that the enquiry ends just where it ought to have begun.
Through the faulty method that he has employed the author forgets
that he has a hypothesis to make good and to carry through. He
forgets that he has to account on the negative theory, just as we
account on the positive, for a definite state of things. It may
sound paradoxical, but there is really no great boldness in the
paradox, when we affirm that at least the high antiquity of the
Gospels could be proved, even if not one jot or tittle of the
evidence that we have been discussing had existed. Supposing that
all those fragmentary remains of the primitive Christian
literature that we have been ransacking so minutely had been swept
away, supposing that the causes that have handed it down to us in
such a mutilated and impaired condition had done their work still
more effectually, and that for the first eighty years of the
second century there was no Christian literature extant at all;
still I maintain that, in order to explain the phenomena that we
find after that date, we should have to recur to the same
assumptions that our previous enquiry would seem to have
established for us.
Hitherto we have had to grope our way with difficulty and care;
but from this date onwards all ambiguity and uncertainty
disappears. It is like emerging out of twilight into the broad
blaze of day. There is really a greater disproportion than we
might expect between the evidence of the end of the century and
that which leads up to it. From Justin to Irenaeus the Christian
writings are fragmentary and few, but with Irenaeus a whole body
of literature seems suddenly to start into being. Irenaeus is
succeeded closely by Clement of Alexandria, Clement by Tertullian,
Tertullian by Hippolytus and Origen, and the testimony which these
writers bear to the Gospel is marvellously abundant and unanimous.
I calculate roughly that Irenaeus quotes directly 193 verses of
the first Gospel and 73 of the fourth. Clement of Alexandria and
Tertullian must have quoted considerably more, while in the extant
writings of Origen the greater part of the New Testament is
actually quoted [Endnote 315:1].
But more than this; by the time of Irenaeus the canon of the four
Gospels, as we understand the word now, was practically formed. We
have already seen that this was the case in the fragment of
Muratori. Irenaeus is still more explicit. In the famous passage
[Endnote 315:2] which is so often quoted as an instance of the
weak-mindedness of the Fathers, he lays it down as a necessity of
things that the Gospels should be four in number, neither less nor
more:--
'For as there are four quarters of the world in which we live, as
there are also four universal winds, and as the Church is
scattered over all the earth, and the Gospel is the pillar and
base of the Church and the breath (or spirit) of life, it is
likely that it should have four pillars breathing immortality on
every side and kindling afresh the life of men. Whence it is
evident that the Word, the architect of all things, who sitteth
upon the cherubim and holdeth all things together, having been
made manifest unto men, gave to us the Gospel in a fourfold shape,
but held together by one Spirit. As David, entreating for His
presence, saith: Thou that sittest upon the Cherubim show thyself.
For the Cherubim are of fourfold visage, and their visages are
symbols of the economy of the Son of man.... And the Gospels
therefore agree with them over which presideth Jesus Christ. That
which is according to John declares His generation from the Father
sovereign and glorious, saying thus: In the beginning was the
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And, All
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made....
But the Gospel according to Luke, as having a sacerdotal
character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense unto
God.... But Matthew records His human generation, saying, The book
of the generation of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of
Abraham.... Mark took his beginning from the prophetic Spirit
coming down as it were from on high among men. The beginning, he
says, of the Gospel according as it is written in Esaias the
prophet, &c.'
Irenaeus also makes mention of the origin of the Gospels, claiming
for their authors the gift of Divine inspiration [Endnote 316:1]:--
'For after that our Lord rose from the dead and they were endowed
with the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon them from on high,
they were fully informed concerning all things, and had a perfect
knowledge: they went out to the ends of the earth, preaching the
Gospel of those good things that God hath given to us and
proclaiming heavenly peace to men, having indeed both all in equal
measure and each one singly the Gospel of God. So then Matthew
among the Jews put forth a written Gospel in their own tongue
while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and
founding the Church. After their decease (or 'departure'), Mark,
the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself too has handed down
to us in writing the subjects of Peter's preaching. And Luke, the
companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him.
Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon
His breast, likewise published his Gospel while he dwelt at
Ephesus in Asia.'
We have not now to determine the exact value of these traditions;
what we have rather to notice is the fact that the Gospels are at
this time definitely assigned to their reputed authors, and that
they are already regarded as containing a special knowledge
divinely imparted. It is evident that Irenaeus would not for a
moment think of classing any other Gospel by the side of the now
strictly canonical four.
Clement of Alexandria, who, Eusebius says, 'was illustrious for
his writings,' in the year 194 gives a somewhat similar, but not
quite identical, account of the composition of the second Gospel
[Endnote 317:1]. He differs from Irenaeus in making St. Peter
cognisant of the work of his follower. Neither is he quite
consistent with himself; in one place he makes St. Peter
'authorise the Gospel to be read in the churches;' in another he
says that the Apostle 'neither forbade nor encouraged it' [Endnote
317:2]. These statements have both of them been preserved for us
by Eusebius, who also alleges, upon the authority of Clement, that
the 'Gospels containing the genealogies were written first.'
'John,' he says, 'who came last, observing that the natural
details had been set forth clearly in the Gospels, at the instance
of his friends and with the inspiration of the Spirit ([Greek:
pneumati theophoraethenta]), wrote a spiritual Gospel' [Endnote
317:3].
Clement draws a distinct line between the canonical and
uncanonical Gospels. In quoting an apocryphal saying supposed to
have been given in answer to Salome, he says, expressly: 'We do
not find this saying in the four Gospels that have been handed
down to us, but in that according to the Egyptians' [Endnote
317:4].
Tertullian is still more exclusive. He not only regards the four
Gospels as inspired and authoritative, but he makes no use of any
extra-canonical Gospel. The Gospels indeed held for him precisely
the same position that they do with orthodox Christians now. He
says respecting the Gospels: 'In the first place we lay it down
that the evangelical document (evangelicum instrumentum [Endnote
318:1]) has for its authors the Apostles, to whom this office of
preaching the Gospel was committed by the Lord Himself. If it has
also Apostolic men, yet not these alone but in company with
Apostles and after Apostles. For the preaching of disciples might
have been suspected of a desire for notoriety if it were not
supported by the authority of Masters, nay of Christ, who made the
Apostles Masters. In fine, of the Apostles, John and Matthew first
implant in us faith, Luke and Mark renew it, starting from the
same principles, so far as relates to the one God the Creator and
His Christ born of the virgin, to fulfil the law and the prophets'
[Endnote 318:2]. He grounds the authority of the Gospels upon the
fact that they proceed either from Apostles or from those who held
close relation to Apostles, like Mark, 'the interpreter of Peter,'
and Luke, the companion of Paul [Endnote 318:3]. In another
passage he expressly asserts their authenticity [Endnote 318:4],
and he claimed to use them and them alone as his weapons in the
conflict with heresy [Endnote 318:5].
No less decided is the assertion of Origen, who writes: 'As I have
learnt from tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are
undisputed in the Church of God under heaven, that the first in
order of the scripture is that according to Matthew, who was once
a publican but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ ... The
second is that according to Mark, who wrote as Peter suggested to
him ... The third is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended
by Paul ... Last of all that according to John' [Endnote 319:1].
And again in his commentary upon the Preface to St. Luke's Gospel
he expressly guards against the possibility that it might be
thought to have reference to the other (Canonical) Gospels: 'In
this word of Luke's "_have taken in hand_" there is a latent
accusation of those who without the grace of the Holy Spirit have
rushed to the composing of Gospels. Matthew, indeed, and Mark, and
John, and Luke, have not "_taken in hand_" to write, but
_have written_ Gospels, being full of the Holy Spirit ... The
Church has four Gospels; the Heresies have many' [Endnote 319:2].
But besides the Fathers, and without going beyond the bounds of
the second century, there is other evidence of the most distinct
and important kind for the existence of a canon of the Gospels.
Among the various translations of the New Testament one certainly,
two very probably, and three perhaps probably, were made in the
course of the second century.
The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome's revised) version of the
Gospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament
was, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by
the Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by
Tertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D.
[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will
hardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to
weigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts
down, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute
and careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the
New Testament as found in Tertullian he says: 'Although single
portions of this, especially passages which are translated in several
different ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be
doubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text
of a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the
Carthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and
that consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest
Latinized Scriptures accepted in those regions' [Endnote 320:2].
Again: 'In the first place we may conclude from the writings of
Tertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of
the second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps
many, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself
frequently quotes in his writings one and the same passage of
Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases
may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly
not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used
at the time' [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the
Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars,
but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: 'The expressions
of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew
and recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several
places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico."
This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the
age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus,
for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_
the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_
the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led
back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the
North African Church' [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be
remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science
his works are one of the noblest monuments, and not directly of the
history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters,
but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees
with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date
from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too
writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in
Smith's Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: 'Tertullian distinctly recognises
the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though
not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which
even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This
was characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to
point to the nature of its origin.' I do not suppose that the currency
at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the
four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1].
With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat
greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of
this version by saying: 'It may stand as an admitted fact that a
version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second
century' [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]:
'The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the
case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was
possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament,
which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from
the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170
[Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13.' The
external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong
enough to bear out any very positive assertion. The appeal to the
Syriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the
existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian
origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New.
But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting
Hegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath' Hebraious euangeliou kai tou
Syriakou ... tina tithaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by
Routh as having reference not to any '_version_ of the Gospel,
but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel' like that according to
the Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures 'were familiarly
used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa'
(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337
and 344 [Endnote 323:1].
A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the
age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian
fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems
rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the
same relation to the Peshito that the Old Latin does to Jerome's
Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The
strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very
cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his
Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly
antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M'Clellan, who is
usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his
opponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been
mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Peshito in the
second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian.
Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that
'the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have
concluded would be current in the second century' [Endnote 323:3].
English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of
Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was
imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet
asserts that the Syriac version 'belongs without doubt to the second
century A.D.' [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the
beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third
century.
The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily
identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it
preserved in Cureton's fragments. This would hold the same sort of
relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b,
or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original
text of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into
Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew's,
was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote
324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be
glad to know what answer those who assign the Curetonian text to
the second century make to the observation that it contains the
reading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally
assumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other
hand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8
[Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr.
Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], 'from the end of the third century
downwards was very generally and widely diffused.' This whole set
of questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it
has obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7].
The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard
to this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that 'we should
probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the
principal Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at
least parts of them, before the close of the second century.' In
support of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the principal
authority on the subject, 'who will not be suspected of any
theological bias.' The historical notices on which the conclusion
is founded are given in Scrivener's 'Introduction.' If we are to
put a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the
version was made in the second century somewhat more probably than
not; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the
third [Endnote 325:2].
Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have to
be explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we
find the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with
full canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of
Africa, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the
time that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of
MSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would
have to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still
more an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow
any such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not
composed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date.
But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a
process that, quite independently of the other external evidence,
thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to
a date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them.
Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of
the subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that
the Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D.
Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D.
But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He
is usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D.
[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations
to Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his
strong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the
exceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone
to exclude the supposition that any of them should have been
composed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the
'Presbyters,' who connected his own age with that, if not of the
Apostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he
succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his
martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and
would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years
of the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of
writings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to
those that have been discussed in the course of this work--in
which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least,
were earlier than his own time of writing.
Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto])
[Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had
obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical
School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193-
211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his
works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He
too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a
recipient. He speaks of his teachers, 'those blessed and truly
memorable men,' one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third
in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in Assyria, a sixth in
Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed
down from father to son [Endnote 327:3].
Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he
confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic
Churches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is
defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote
327:4]. In one passage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his
readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very
autographs ('authenticae literae') of St. Paul's Epistles [Endnote
327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric.
All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to
vouch is, that the Gospels had held their 'prerogative' position
within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which
he belonged.
But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is
unconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at
the end of the first century, so far from being of recent
composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing
less than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears
the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption.
'Origen's,' says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], 'is the highest
name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is
perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the
New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state
of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its
present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries
must needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs,
their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no
information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply
passed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the
diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he
writes) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity
of a certain passage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: "But
now," saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity of
copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the
evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who
in correcting add or take away what they think fit."' This is
respecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another
[Endnote 328:2]: 'It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in
sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has
ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it
was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole
Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior
manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens
thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus.'
Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it
is a very large exaggeration of the facts.
I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the
antiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus.
There is a very remarkable passage in the work Against Heresies
[Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but
upon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much
light upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus' time that it may
be well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of
the number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found
himself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which
he was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis']) for 666 ([Greek: chxs']).
Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the
true reading. He says that it was found in all the 'good and
ancient copies,' and that it was further attested by 'those who
had seen John face to face.' He thinks that the error was due to
the copyists, who had substituted by mistake the letter [Greek: i]
for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that God would pardon those who
had done this without any evil motive.
Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to
the person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of
MSS., and of these some are set apart 'as good and ancient'
([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The
method by which the correct reading had to be determined was as
much historical as it is with us at the present day.
A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly
in regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek
MSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae
genesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The
Greek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the
best codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac,
'Christi autem generatio sic erat' (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus
quotes this passage three times. In the first passage [Endnote 330:1]
the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of
Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius
Sinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of
Germanus corresponds to that of the great mass of MSS. This however is
almost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has
'Christi autem generatio,' and it was extremely natural for a copyist to
substitute the generally received text, especially in a combination of
words that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own
reading on the next occasion when he quotes the passage, as he does
twice over. Here he says expressly: 'Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus:
_Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus
depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum
ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_' [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus
founds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed
that the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the
son of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In
opposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are
one and the same person.
There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of
the two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach,
Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the
reading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M'Clellan
prefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old
Latin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same
time it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence
of the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing
the marks of heretical depravation.
It is unfortunate that fuller illustration cannot be given from
Irenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of
which the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have
only the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual
text of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised.
For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus
whether the words 'without a cause' ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa)
in the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the
original text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in
the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities
generally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and 'in the
true copies' according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from
the sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and
M'Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their
retention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at
the end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus
and omitted by Tertullian.
The elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix.
16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical
text. They are both indeed found in a passage (Adv. Haer. i. 20.
2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and
various approximations are met with, as we have seen, under
ambiguous circumstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and
Marcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus
himself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our
Gospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date
is proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the
second very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1]
A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental
seemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical
parties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the
victory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and
was finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS.
were written.
These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text
already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do
not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been
given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I
do not wish to seem to assume the truth of any particular view.
For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used
satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin
version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those
comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved,
it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we
have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of
the text might be obliterated.
Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of
Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament
quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I
shall illustrate what has been said respecting the corruptions
introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following
may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a
variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian's
text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate
partial support.
Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10).
[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33,
a, g'2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met].
B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff'1, Syr. Hcl.,
Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the
singular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both
readings in his copies.]
Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order 'beati lugentes' and 'beati
mites' is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Rönsch p. 589 and Tisch.,
correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f,
Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33,
Vulg., a, c, ff'1, g'1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus.,
Hil.
Matt. v. 16. 'Luceant opera vestra' for 'luceat lux vestra,' Tert.
(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against
all MSS. and versions.
Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is
cited six times by Tertullian, and Rönsch says (p. 590) that 'in
these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is
represented.'
Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois],
Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E'2, rel., b, c, d,
g'1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew:
Aleph symbol], B, D'2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc.
Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting
'sicut.' So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, 'some codices').
Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore.
'The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt.
xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the
words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae
form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon
en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]'
(Rönsch, p. 608).
Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasômai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta],
I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew:
Aleph symbol], rel.
Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin],
D, a, b, c, ff, g'1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin
kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g'2, k, Orig.
There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly
identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be
noticed:--
Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L,
[Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis
ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr.
Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f,
Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c,
ff'1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where
Tertullian's reading has somewhat stronger support.]
The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps
sufficiently illustrated in the chapter on Marcion. We may
therefore omit this Gospel and pass to St. John. A very remarkable
reading meets us at the outset.
John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex
voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS.
and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is
[Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ
that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian.
Tertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the
right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a
falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as
proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same
text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo-
Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St.
Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex
has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural
[Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary.
John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: meneî], for [Greek: ménei]). So b,
e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f,
ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc.
John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of
the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS.
It is also found in the mass of MSS., in the Old Latin and
Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is
omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr.
Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the
pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the
authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha,
baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found.
John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So
a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer.
John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an
addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt.
John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea
est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew:
Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes,
hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two
clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]),
B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth.,
Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae
ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou
zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc.
John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]),
with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.),
Hil., Victorin.; Rönsch].
The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all,
false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only
as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few
of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain
modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds
support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf
and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I
leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between
Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The passage
omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan,
with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion'
(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot,
Westcott and Hort. In the same passage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann
(margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of
Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the
approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles,
Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist
in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then
it should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true
reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong.
Let us now proceed to analyse roughly these erroneous (in three
cases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1]
that Tertullian--
_Agrees with_ _Differs from_
x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48,
i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv.
| 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13,
| v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.
A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13,
Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.
B (Codex Vaticanus) in John |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi.
v. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26,
| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
| v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.
C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii.
fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7,
(vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39.
D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48,
places wanting) in Matt. vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7,
10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43.
51), xii. 30. |
|
GREEK FATHERS. |
Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. |
v. 16, v. 48. |
Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26),
i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- |
lator), (vi. 51). |
Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark |
i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). |
|
LATIN FATHERS. |
Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8.
i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. |
Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). |
Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. |
Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. |
Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), |
John xii. 30. |
Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, |
John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. |
|
VERSIONS. |
Old Latin-- |
a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11,
(iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36.
51), xii. 30. |
b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11,
v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24.
Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, |
iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, |
(vi. 51), xii. 30. |
c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11,
v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.
f (Codex Brixianus), in Matt. |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48,
xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark
| i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3,
| 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30.
Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8,
vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11,
iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39,
| vi. 51, xii. 30.
Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,
v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26,
(_fuld._). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
| iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39.
Syriac-- |
Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10,
Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles)
(xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43.
vi. 39, (vi. 51.). |
Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark
Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51),
| xii. 30
[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it
is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.]
Egyptian--
Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,
| Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4.
Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v.
iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John
| v. 3, 4, vi. 51.
Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this
kind:--
UNCIAL MSS.
[Hebrew: A B C D
Alef]
Agreement 2 2 2 1 5
Difference 13 5 14 9 10
GREEK FATHERS.
Clement
of
Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius.
Agreement 1 4 3
Difference 0 2 0
LATIN FATHERS.
Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others.
Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5
Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0
VERSIONS.
OLD LATIN. VULGATE.
a b c f rel.
Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4
Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12
SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN.
Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph.
Agreement 7 5 1 2
Difference 7 5 4 6
Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to
touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward.
It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over
a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases
where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything
like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought
to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate
kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be
perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough
and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.
Tert. b
\ /
\/ O.L. (a.c. &c.)
\ /
\/ Syr. Crt.
\ /
Tert. O.L.\ /
\/
Greek Fathers. /
\ Tert. O.L./
\ Syr. Crt./
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ /
\ \ / Western.
\ /
\ Greek Fathers /
\ Memph. Theb. /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
||
Alexandrine. || Western.
||
/\
The Sacred Autographs.
In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the
history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian,
thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for
some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the
points included in the above analysis. Gradually a few errors slip
in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in
the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time
a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more
rapid. We reach at last that strange document which, through more
or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac
on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines
severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its
copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a
close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of
manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself
most frequently and habitually used.
Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree.
The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There
is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines.
Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian
with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to
be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a
point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be
accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the
Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed
rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would
increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had
really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it
is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best
editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard
to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for
the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat
more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the
different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one
instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to
derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the
Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and
most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian
Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of
Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin
(approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?
The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer
here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable.
Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by
the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an
unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It
is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in
Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right
reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all
except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone
wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less,
and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we
might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used
a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies
most elements of the problem.
But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show
that the Tübingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late
origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text
into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian,
a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I
doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though
we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an
advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena
that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as
might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are
spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the
gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the
history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a
point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that;
another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies
there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in;
recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text
is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text
that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find
accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A
still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to
judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat
more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.
It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only
venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if
the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters
of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and
Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with
which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the
latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first
century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus
confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think
we may say, within approximate limits, established.
But we must not forget that there is a double challenge to be met.
The first part of it--that which relates to the evidence for the
existence of the Gospels--has been answered. It remains to
consider how far the external evidence for the Gospels goes to
prove their authenticity. It may indeed well be asked how the
external evidence can be expected to prove the authenticity of
these records. It does so, to a considerable extent, indirectly by
throwing them back into closer contact with the facts. It also
tends to establish the authority in which they were held,
certainly in the last quarter of the second century, and very
probably before. By this time the Gospels were acknowledged to be
all that is now understood by the word 'canonical.' They were
placed upon the same footing as the Old Testament Scriptures. They
were looked up to with the same reverence and regarded as
possessing the same Divine inspiration. We may trace indeed some
of the steps by which this position was attained. The [Greek:
gegraptai] of the Epistle of Barnabas, the public reading of the
Gospels in the churches mentioned by Justin, the [Greek: to
eiraemenon] of Tatian, the [Greek: guriakai graphai] of Dionysius
of Corinth, all prepare the way for the final culmination in the
Muratorian Canon and Irenaeus. So complete had the process been
that Irenaeus does not seem to know of a time when the authority
of the Gospels had been less than it was to him. Yet the process
had been, of course, gradual. The canonical Gospels had to compete
with several others before they became canonical. They had to make
good their own claims and to displace rival documents; and they
succeeded. It is a striking instance of the 'survival of the
fittest.' That they were really the fittest is confirmed by nearly
every fragment of the lost Gospels that remains, but it would be
almost sufficiently proved by the very fact that they survived.
In this indirect manner I think that the external evidence bears
out the position assigned to the canonical Gospels. It has
preserved to us the judgment of the men of that time, and there is
a certain relative sense in which the maxim, 'Securus judicat
orbis terrarum,' is true. The decisions of an age, especially
decisions such as this where quite as much depended upon pious
feeling as upon logical reasoning, are usually sounder than the
arguments that are put forward to defend them. We should hardly
endorse the arguments by which Irenaeus proves _a priori_ the
necessity of a 'four-fold Gospel,' but there is real weight in the
fact that four Gospels and no more were accepted by him and others
like him. It is difficult to read without impatience the rough
words that are applied to the early Christian writers and to
contrast the self-complacency in which our own superior knowledge
is surveyed. If there is something in which they are behind us,
there is much also in which we are behind them. Among the many
things for which Mr. Arnold deserves our gratitude he deserves it
not least for the way in which he has singled out two sentences,
one from St. Augustine and the other from the Imitation, 'Domine
fecisti nos ad te et irrequietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat
in te,' and, 'Esto humilis et pacificus et erit tecum, Jesus.' The
men who could write thus are not to be despised.
But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else
the early Fathers could be expected to do. They could not prove--
at least their written remains that have come down to us could not
prove--that the Gospels were really written by the authors
traditionally assigned to them. When we say that the very names of
the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may
be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before
170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other
elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be
inconclusive. If the author of 'Supernatural Religion' undertook
to show this, he undertook a superfluous task. So much at least,
Mr. Arnold was right in saying, 'might be stated in a sentence and
proved in a page.' There is a presumption in favour of the
tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to
Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong
one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer
evidence than this. The cases are not quite parallel, and the
difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if
Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125
A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St.
Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the
direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel
to the Apostle St. John.
These are points for a different set of arguments to determine.
The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the
position of its author. For the conclusion that he was a
Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction
of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his
people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes,
there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly
difficult to resist. As I have gone into this subject at length
elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new
element has been introduced into the question by 'Supernatural
Religion,' I shall not break the unity of the present work by
considering the objections brought in detail. I am very ready to
recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it
is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial
critic. There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in
excess of the premisses. An observation, true in itself with a
certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified
form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated. Above all,
wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of
the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification,
the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in
guilty either of ignorance or deception. I have no hesitation in
saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth
Gospel--not only by the author of 'Supernatural Religion,' but by
some other writers of repute, such as Dr. Scholten--were applied
to ordinary history or to the affairs of every-day life, much that
is known actually to have happened could be shown on _a priori_
grounds to be impossible. It is time that the extreme negative
school should justify more completely their canons of criticism.
As it is, the laxity of these repels many a thoughtful mind quite
as firmly convinced as they can be of the necessity of free
enquiry and quite as anxious to reconcile the different sides
of knowledge. The question is not one merely of freedom or
tradition, but of reason and logic; and until there is more
agreement as to what is reasonable and what the laws of logic
demand, the arguments are apt to run in parallel lines that never
meet [Endnote 348:1].
But, it is said, 'Miracles require exceptional evidence.' True:
exceptional evidence they both require and possess; but that evidence is
not external. Incomparably the strongest attestation to the Gospel
narratives is that which they bear to themselves. Miracles have
exceptional evidence because the non-miraculous portions of the
narrative with which they are bound up are exceptional. These carry
their truth stamped upon their face, and that truth is reflected back
upon the miracles. It is on the internal investigation of the Gospels
that the real issue lies. And this is one main reason why the belief of
mankind so little depends upon formal apologetics. We can all feel the
self- evidential force of the Gospel story; but who shall present it
adequately in words? We are reminded of the fate of him who thought the
ark of God was falling and put out his hand to steady it--and, for his
profanity, died. It can hardly be said that good intentions would be a
sufficient justification, because that a man should think himself fit
for the task would be in itself almost a sufficient sign that he was
mistaken. It is not indeed quite incredible that the qualifications
should one day be found. We seem almost to see that, with a slight
alteration of circumstances, a little different training in early life,
such an one has almost been among us. There are passages that make us
think that the author of 'Parochial and Plain Sermons' might have
touched even the Gospels with cogency that yet was not profane. But the
combination of qualities required is such as would hardly be found for
centuries together. The most fine and sensitive tact of piety would be
essential. With it must go absolute sincerity and singleness of purpose.
Any dash of mere conventionalism or self-seeking would spoil the whole.
There must be that clear illuminated insight that is only given to those
who are in a more than ordinary sense 'pure in heart.' And on the other
hand, along with these unique spiritual qualities must go a sound and
exact scientific training, a just perception of logical force and
method, and a wide range of knowledge. One of the great dangers and
drawbacks to the exercise of the critical faculty is that it tends to
destroy the spiritual intuition. And just in like manner the too great
reliance upon this intuition benumbs and impoverishes the critical
faculty. Yet, in a mind that should present at all adequately the
internal evidence of the Gospels, both should co-exist in equal balance
and proportion. We cannot say that there will never be such a mind,
but the asceticism of a life would be a necessary discipline for it
to go through, and that such a life as the world has seldom seen.
In the meantime the private Christian may well be content with what he
has. 'If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether
it be of God.'