Readings,” is discovered to subsist between these 5 codices? for _that_,
after all, is the practical question. We answer,—A has been already shown
to stand alone twice: B, 6 times: א, 8 times: C, 15 times; D, 93 times.—We
have further to state that A B stand together by themselves once: B א, 4
times: B C, 1: B D, 1: א C, 1: C D, 1.—A א C conspire 1: B א C, 1: B א D,
1: A B א C, _once_ (viz. in reading ἐρώτησεν, which Tischendorf admits to
be a corrupt reading): B א C D, also _once_.—The 5 “old uncials” therefore
(A B א C D) combine, and again stand apart, with singular
impartiality.—Lastly, they are _never once_ found to be in accord in
respect of _any single _“various Reading”.—Will any one, after a candid
survey of the premisses, deem us unreasonable, if we avow that such a
specimen of the _concordia discors_ which everywhere prevails between the
oldest uncials, but which especially characterizes א B D, indisposes us
greatly to suffer their unsupported authority to determine for us the Text
of Scripture?
Let no one at all events obscure the one question at issue, by
asking,—“Whether we consider the _Textus Receptus_ infallible?” The merit
or demerit of the Received Text has absolutely _nothing whatever to do
with the question_. We care nothing about it. _Any_ Text would equally
suit our present purpose. _Any_ Text would show the “old uncials”
perpetually at discord _among themselves_. To raise an irrelevant
discussion, at the outset, concerning the _Textus Receptus_:—to describe
the haste with which Erasmus produced the first published edition of the
N. T.:—to make sport about the copies which he employed:—all this kind of
thing is the proceeding of one who seeks to mislead his readers:—to throw
dust into their eyes:—to divert their attention from the problem actually
before them:—_not_—(as we confidently expect when we have to do with such
writers as these)—the method of a sincere lover of Truth. To proceed,
however.
II. and III. Nothing has been said as yet concerning the Text exhibited by
the earliest of the VERSIONS and by the most ancient of the FATHERS. But,
for the purpose we have just now in hand, neither are such details
necessary. We desire to hasten forward. A somewhat fuller review of
certain of our oldest available materials might prove even more
discouraging. But _that_ would only be because it is impossible, within
such narrow limits as the present, to give the reader any idea at all of
the wealth of our actual resources; and to convince him of the extent to
which the least trustworthy of our guides prove in turn invaluable helps
in correcting the exorbitances of their fellows. The practical result in
fact of what has been hitherto offered is after all but this, that we have
to be on our guard against pinning our faith exclusively on two or
three,—least of all on one or two ancient documents; and of adopting
_them_ exclusively for our guides. We are shown, in other words, that it
is utterly out of the question to rely on any single _set_ or _group_ of
authorities, much less on any single document, for the determination of
the Text of Scripture. Happily, our MANUSCRIPTS are numerous: most of them
are in the main trustworthy: _all_ of them represent far older documents
than themselves. Our VERSIONS (two of which are more ancient by a couple
of centuries than any sacred codex extant) severally correct and check one
another. Lastly, in the writings of a host of FATHERS,—the principal being
Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Didymus, Epiphanius,
Chrysostom, the Cyrils, Theodoret,—we are provided with contemporaneous
evidence which, whenever it can be had, becomes an effectual safeguard
against the unsupported decrees of our oldest codices, A B א C D, as well
as the occasional vagaries of the Versions. In the writings of Irenæus,
Clemens Alex., Origen, Dionysius Alex., Hippolytus, we meet with older
evidence still. No more precarious foundation for a reading, in fact, can
be named, than the unsupported advocacy of a single Manuscript, or
Version, or Father; or even of two or three of these combined.
But indeed the principle involved in the foregoing remarks admits of being
far more broadly stated. It even stands to reason that we may safely
reject any reading which, out of the whole body of available
authorities,—Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers,—finds support nowhere save in
one and the same little handful of suspicious documents. For we resolutely
maintain, that _external Evidence_ must after all be our best, our only
safe guide; and (to come to the point) we refuse to throw in our lot with
those who, disregarding the witness of _every other_ known Codex—_every
other_ Version—_every other_ available Ecclesiastical Writer,—insist on
following the dictates of a little group of authorities, of which nothing
whatever is known with so much certainty as that often, when they concur
exclusively, it is to mislead. We speak of codices B or א or D; the
IXth-century codex L, and such cursives(50) as 13 or 33; a few copies of
the old Latin and one of the Egyptian versions: perhaps Origen.—Not theory
therefore:—not prejudice:—not conjecture:—not unproved assertion:—not any
single codex, and _certainly_ not codex B:—not an imaginary “Antiochene
Recension” of another imaginary “Pre-Syrian Text:”—not antecedent fancies
about the affinity of documents:—neither “the [purely arbitrary] method of
genealogy,”—nor one man’s notions (_which may be reversed by another man’s
notions_) of “Transcriptional Probability:”—not “instinctive processes of
Criticism,”—least of all “the individual mind,” with its “supposed power
of divining the Original Text”—of which no intelligible account can be
rendered:—nothing of this sort,—(however specious and plausible it may
sound, especially when set forth in confident language; advocated with a
great show of unintelligible learning; supported by a formidable array of
cabalistic symbols and mysterious contractions; above all when recommended
by justly respected names,)—nothing of this sort, we say, must be allowed
to determine for us the Text of Scripture. The very proposal should set us
on our guard against the _certainty_ of imposition.
We deem it even axiomatic, that, in every case of doubt or
difficulty—supposed or real—our critical method must be the same: namely,
after patiently collecting _all_ the available evidence, then, without
partiality or prejudice, to adjudicate between the conflicting
authorities, and loyally to accept that verdict for which there is clearly
the preponderating evidence. _The best supported Reading_, in other words,
must always be held to be _the true Reading_: and nothing may be rejected
from the commonly received Text, except on evidence which shall _clearly_
outweigh the evidence for retaining it. We are glad to know that, so far
at least, we once had Bp. Ellicott with us. He announced (in 1870) that
the best way of proceeding with the work of Revision is, “_to make the
Textus Receptus the standard_,—departing from it _only when_ critical or
grammatical considerations _show that it is clearly necessary_.”(51) We
ourselves mean no more. Whenever the evidence is about evenly balanced,
few it is hoped will deny that the Text which has been “in possession” for
three centuries and a half, and which rests on infinitely better
manuscript evidence than that of any ancient work which can be
named,—should, for every reason, be let alone.(52)
But, (we shall perhaps be asked,) has any critical Editor of the N. T.
seriously taught the reverse of all this? Yes indeed, we answer. Lachmann,
Tregelles, Tischendorf,—the most recent and most famous of modern
editors,—have all three adopted a directly opposite theory of textual
revision. With the first-named, fifty years ago (1831), virtually
originated the principle of recurring exclusively to a few ancient
documents to the exclusion of the many. “LACHMANN’S text seldom rests on
more than four Greek codices, very often on three, not unfrequently on
two, _sometimes on only one_.”(53) Bishop Ellicott speaks of it as “a text
composed _on the narrowest and most exclusive principles_.”(54) Of the
Greek Fathers (Lachmann says) he employed _only Origen_.(55) Paying
extraordinary deference to the Latin Version, he entirely disregarded the
coëval Syriac translation. The result of such a system must needs prove
satisfactory to no one except its author.
Lachmann’s leading fallacy has perforce proved fatal to the value of the
text put forth by DR. TREGELLES. Of the scrupulous accuracy, the
indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted
scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of
conscientious labour, his edition of the N. T. (1857-72) passes praise,
and will _never_ lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that
Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of
our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and
lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its
primitive purity,(56)—to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must
needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher. _Why_ he should have
condescended to employ no patristic authority later than Eusebius [fl.
A.D. 320], he does not explain. “His critical principles,” (says Bishop
Ellicott,) “especially his general principles of estimating and regarding
modern manuscripts, are now perhaps justly called in question.”(57)
“The case of DR. TISCHENDORF” (proceeds Bp. Ellicott) “is still more
easily disposed of. _Which_ of this most inconstant Critic’s texts are we
to select? Surely not the last, in which an exaggerated preference for a
single Manuscript which he has had the good fortune to discover, has
betrayed him into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment.
Surely also not his seventh edition, which ... exhibits all the
instability which a comparatively recent recognition of the authority of
cursive manuscripts might be supposed likely to introduce.”(58) With Dr.
Tischendorf,—(whom one vastly his superior in learning, accuracy, and
judgment, has generously styled “the first Biblical Critic in
Europe”(59))—“_the evidence of codex_ א, supported or even unsupported by
one or two other authorities of any description, is sufficient to outweigh
any other witnesses,—whether Manuscripts, Versions, or ecclesiastical
Writers.”(60) We need say no more. Until the foregoing charge has been
disproved, Dr. Tischendorf’s last edition of the N. T., however precious
as a vast storehouse of materials for criticism,—however admirable as a
specimen of unwearied labour, critical learning, and first-rate
ability,—must be admitted to be an utterly unsatisfactory exhibition of
the inspired Text. It has been ascertained that his discovery of codex א
caused his 8th edition (1865-72) to differ from his 7th in no less than
3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as
well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency.”(61)
But, in fact, what is to be thought of a Critic who,—because the last
verse of S. John’s Gospel, in א, seemed to himself to be _written with a
different pen_ from the rest,—has actually _omitted that verse_ (xxi. 25)
entirely, in defiance of _every known Copy, every known Version_, and the
explicit testimony of _a host of Fathers_? Such are Origen (in 11
places),—Eusebius (in 3),—Gregory Nyss. (in 2),—Gregory
Nazian.,—ps.-Dionys. Alex.,(62)—Nonnus,—Chrysostom (in 6
places),—Theodoras Mops. (in 2),—Isidorus,—Cyril Alex. (in 2),—Victor
Ant.,—Ammonius,—Severus,—Maximus,—Andreas
Cretensis,—Ambrose,—Gaudentius,—Philastrius,— Sedulius,—Jerome,—Augustine
(in 6 places). That Tischendorf was a critic of amazing research, singular
shrewdness, indefatigable industry; and that he enjoyed an unrivalled
familiarity with ancient documents; no fair person will deny. But (in the
words of Bishop Ellicott,(63) whom we quote so perseveringly for a reason
not hard to divine,) his “great inconstancy,”—his “natural want of
sobriety of critical judgment,”—and his “unreasonable deference to the
readings found in his own codex Sinaiticus;”—to which should be added
“_the utter absence in him of any intelligible fixed critical
principles_;”—all this makes Tischendorf one of the worst of guides to the
true Text of Scripture.
The last to enter the field are DRS. WESTCOTT and HORT, whose
beautifully-printed edition of “the New Testament in the original
Greek”(64) was published _within five days_ of the “Revised Authorized
Version” itself; a “confidential” copy of their work having been already
entrusted to every member of the New Test. company of Revisionists to
guide them in their labours,—under pledge that they should neither show
nor communicate its contents to any one else.—The learned Editors candidly
avow, that they “have deliberately chosen on the whole to rely for
documentary evidence on the stores accumulated by their predecessors, and
to confine themselves to their proper work of editing the text
itself.”(65) Nothing therefore has to be enquired after, except the
critical principles on which they have proceeded. And, after assuring us
that “the study of Grouping is the foundation of all enduring
Criticism,”(66) they produce their secret: viz. That in “every one of our
witnesses” _except codex_ B, the “corruptions are innumerable;”(67) and
that, in the Gospels, the one “group of witnesses” _of _“incomparable
value”, is codex B in “combination with another primary Greek manuscript,
as א B, B L, B C, B T, B D, B Ξ, A B, B Z, B 33, and in S. Mark B Δ.”(68)
This is “Textual Criticism made easy,” certainly. Well aware of the
preposterous results to which such a major premiss must inevitably lead,
we are not surprised to find a plea straightway put in for “_instinctive
processes of Criticism_” of which _the foundation _“needs perpetual
correction and recorrection”. But our confidence fairly gives way when, in
the same breath, the accomplished Editors proceed as follows:—“But _we are
obliged to come to the individual mind_ at last; and canons of Criticism
are useful only as warnings against _natural illusions_, and aids to
circumspect consideration, not as absolute rules to prescribe the final
decision. It is true that no _individual mind_ can ever work with perfect
uniformity, or free itself completely from _its own idiosyncrasies_. Yet a
clear sense of the danger of _unconscious caprice_ may do much towards
excluding it. We trust also that the present Text has escaped some risks
of this kind by being the joint production of two Editors of different
habits of mind”(69) ... A somewhat insecure safeguard surely! May we be
permitted without offence to point out that the “idiosyncrasies” of an
“individual mind” (to which we learn with astonishment “we are obliged to
come at last”) are probably the very worst foundation possible on which to
build the recension of an inspired writing? With regret we record our
conviction, that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a
Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists
than any which has appeared since the invention of printing. When full
Prolegomena have been furnished we shall know more about the matter;(70)
but to judge from the Remarks (in pp. 541-62) which the learned Editors
(Revisionists themselves) have subjoined to their elegantly-printed
volume, it is to be feared that the fabric will be found to rest too
exclusively on vague assumption and unproved hypothesis. In other words, a
painful apprehension is created that their edition of “The New Testament
in the original Greek” will be found to partake inconveniently of the
nature of a work of the Imagination. As codex א proved fatal to Dr.
Tischendorf, so is codex B evidently the rock on which Drs. Westcott and
Hort have split. Did it ever occur to those learned men to enquire how the
Septuagint Version of the _Old_ Testament has fared at the hands of codex
B? They are respectfully invited to address themselves to this very
damaging enquiry.
But surely (rejoins the intelligent Reader, coming fresh to these
studies), the oldest extant Manuscripts (B א A C D) _must_ exhibit the
purest text! Is it not so?
It _ought_ to be so, no doubt (we answer); but it certainly _need not_ be
the case.
We know that Origen in Palestine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt,
“revised” the text of the N. T. Unfortunately, they did their work in an
age when such fatal misapprehension prevailed on the subject, that each in
turn will have inevitably imported a fresh assortment of _monstra_ into
the sacred writings. Add, the baneful influence of such spirits as
Theophilus (sixth Bishop of Antioch, A.D. 168), Tatian, Ammonius, &c., of
whom we know there were very many in the primitive age,—some of whose
productions, we further know, were freely multiplied in every quarter of
ancient Christendom:—add, the fabricated Gospels which anciently abounded;
notably the _Gospel of the Hebrews_, about which Jerome is so
communicative, and which (he says) he had translated into Greek and
Latin:—lastly, freely grant that here and there, with well-meant
assiduity, the orthodox themselves may have sought to prop up truths which
the early heretics (Basilides, A.D. 134, Valentinus, A.D. 140, with his
disciple Heracleon, Marcion, A.D. 150, and the rest,) most perseveringly
assailed;—and we have sufficiently explained how it comes to pass that not
a few of the codices of primitive Christendom must have exhibited Texts
which were even scandalously corrupt. “It is no less true to fact than
paradoxical in sound,” writes the most learned of the Revisionist body,
“that the worst corruptions, to which the New Testament has ever
been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150] 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.”(71)
And what else are codices א B C D but _specimens_—_in vastly_ _different
degrees_—_of the class thus characterized_ by Prebendary Scrivener? Nay,
who will venture to deny that those codices are indebted for their
preservation _solely_ to the circumstance, that they were long since
recognized as the depositories of Readings which rendered them utterly
untrustworthy?
Only by singling out some definite portion of the Gospels, and attending
closely to the handling it has experienced at the hands of A א B C D,—to
the last four of which it is just now the fashion to bow down as to an
oracular voice from which there shall be no appeal,—can the student become
aware of the hopelessness of any attempt to construct the Text of the N.
T. out of the materials which those codices exclusively supply. Let us
this time take S. Mark’s account of the healing of “the paralytic borne of
four” (ch. ii. 1-12),—and confront their exhibition of it, with that of
the commonly received Text. In the course of those 12 verses, (not
reckoning 4 blunders and certain peculiarities of spelling,) there will be
found to be 60 variations of reading,—of which 55 are nothing else but
depravations of the text, the result of inattention or licentiousness.
Westcott and Hort adopt 23 of these:—(18, in which א B conspire to vouch
for a reading: 2, where א is unsupported by B: 2, where B is unsupported
by א: 1, where C D are supported by neither א nor B). Now, in the present
instance, the “five old uncials” _cannot be_ the depositories of a
tradition,—whether Western or Eastern,—because they render inconsistent
testimony _in every verse_. It must further be admitted, (for this is
really not a question of opinion, but a plain matter of fact,) that it is
unreasonable to place confidence in such documents. What would be thought
in a Court of Law of five witnesses, called up 47 times for examination,
who should be observed to bear contradictory testimony _every time_?
But the whole of the problem does not by any means lie on the surface. All
that _appears_ is that the five oldest uncials are not trustworthy
witnesses; which singly, in the course of 12 verses separate themselves
from their fellows 33 times: viz. A, twice;—א, 5 times;—B, 6 times;—C,
thrice;—D, 17 times: and which also enter into the 11 following
combinations with one another in opposition to the ordinary Text:—A C,
twice;—א B, 10 times;—א D, once;—C D, 3 times;—א B C, once;—א B D, 5
times;—א C D, once;—B C D, once;—A א C D, once;—A B C D, once;—A א B C D,
once. (Note, that on this last occasion, which is the _only_ time when
they all 5 agree, _they are certainly all 5 wrong_.) But this, as was
observed before, lies on the surface. On closer critical inspection, it is
further discovered that their testimony betrays the baseness of their
origin by its intrinsic worthlessness. Thus, in Mk. ii, 1, the delicate
precision of the announcement ἠκούσθη ὅτι ΕἸΣ ΟἾΚΟΝ ἘΣΤΙ (that “_He has
gone in_”), disappears from א B D:—as well as (in ver. 2) the circumstance
that it became the signal for many “_immediately_” (א B) to assemble about
the door.—In ver. 4, S. Mark explains his predecessor’s concise statement
that the paralytic was “brought to” our SAVIOUR,(72) by remarking that the
thing was “_impossible_” by the ordinary method of approach. Accordingly,
his account of the expedient resorted to by the bearers fills one entire
verse (ver. 4) of his Gospel. In the mean time, א B by exhibiting (in S.
Mark ii. 3,) “bringing unto Him one sick of the palsy” (φέροντες πρὸς
αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν,—which is but a senseless transposition of πρὸς αὐτόν,
παραλυτικὸν φέροντες), do their best to obliterate the exquisite
significance of the second Evangelist’s method.—In the next verse, the
perplexity of the bearers, who, because they could not “_come nigh_ Him”
(προσεγγίσαι αὐτῷ), unroofed the house, is lost in א B,—whose προσενέγκαι
has been obtained either from Matt. ix. 2, or else from Luke v. 18, 19
(εἰσενεγκεῖν, εἰσενέγκωσιν). “The bed WHERE WAS the paralytic” (τὸν
κράββατον ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ ὁ παραλυτικός), in imitation of “the roof WHERE WAS”
Jesus (τὴν στέγην ὍΠΟΥ ἮΝ [ὁ Ἰησοῦς], which had immediately preceded), is
just one of those tasteless depravations, for which א B, and especially D,
are conspicuous among manuscripts.—In the last verse, the _instantaneous
rising_ of the paralytic, noticed by S. Mark (ἠγέρθη εὐθέως), and insisted
upon by S. Luke (“_and immediately he rose up_ before them,”—καὶ παραχρῆμα
ἀναστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν), is obliterated by shifting εὐθέως in א B and C to
a place where εὐθέως is not wanted, and where its significancy disappears.
Other instances of Assimilation are conspicuous. All must see that, in
ver. 5, καὶ ἰδών (א B C) is derived from Matt. ix. 2 and Luke v. 20: as
well as that “Son, _be of good cheer_” (C) is imported hither from Matt.
ix. 2. “_My_ son,” on the other hand (א), is a mere effort of the
imagination. In the same verse, σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι (א B D) is either from
Matt. ix. 5 (_sic_); or else from ver. 9, lower down in S. Mark’s
narrative. Λέγοντες, in ver. 6 (D), is from S. Luke v. 21. Ὕπαγε (א) in
ver. 9, and ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (D), are clearly importations from ver
11. The strange confusion in ver. 7,—“_Because this man thus speaketh, he
blasphemeth_” (B),—and “_Why doth this man thus speak? He blasphemeth_” (א
D),—is due solely to Mtt. ix. 3:—while the appendix proposed by א as a
substitute for “We never saw it on this fashion” (οὐδέποτε οὕτως εἴδομεν),
in ver 12 (viz. “It was never so seen in Israel,” οὐδέποτε οὕτως ἐφάνη ἐν
τῷ Ἰσραήλ), has been transplanted hither from S. Matt. ix. 33.