However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it.
What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father
(Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied
the Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which
had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time,
viz. about A.D. 175-200:—
“The Divine Scriptures,” he says, “these heretics have audaciously
_corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of
_correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who
is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the
copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one
with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is
extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found
discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of
either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men’s disciples have
industriously multiplied the (so-called) ‘_corrected_’ copies of
their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but
‘_corrupted_’ copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of
Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies
of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one
compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the
first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_
perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the
disagreement between them is even excessive.
“Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been
guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do
not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the
HOLY GHOST,—in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers:
or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,—and
what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their
denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the
copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they
know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which
they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else,
let them produce the originals from which they made their
transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to
falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets
alike.”(747)
“Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is
an orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four
well-known families of falsified manuscripts of the Sacred
Writings;—complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit
(being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);—and
insisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully
_corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day
notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose
authors—Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides—have (all but the
first) long since died out of the Church’s memory. You will allow
therefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest
existing copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually
disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a multitude of corrupted
copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS.
are not derived—remotely if not directly—from some of _them_.”
(4) _S. O._ “But at all events the chances are even. Are they not?”
_Q. R._ “By no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging
to a corrupt family,—once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the
Sacred Text,—was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape
destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.—As for Codex א,
it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly illustrating
the precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts
of many generations of men to restore its Text,—(which, ‘as proceeding
from the first scribe,’ is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be
‘_very rough_,(748)’)—to something like purity. ‘_At least ten different
Revisers_,’ from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried
their hands upon it.(749)—Codex C, after having had ‘at least three
correctors very busily at work upon it’(750) (in the VIth and IXth
centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,—literally
_scraped out_,—to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.—I am
therefore led by _à priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of
B א C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_:
above all, when I find (1) _all other Manuscripts_ of whatever date,—(2)
the _most ancient Versions_,—and (3), the _whole body of the primitive
Fathers_, decidedly opposed to them,—I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to
understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the
facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to
regard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or
other of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost
of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I
can only describe as a weak superstition. It is something more than
unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.—Tischendorf’s preference (in his
last edition) for the _bêtises_ of his own codex א, can only be defended
on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less
foolish. His ‘exaggerated preference for the single manuscript which he
had the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_’—(in the opinion of
Bishop Ellicott)—‘_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical
judgment_’ ”(751)
(5) _O. S._ “Well but,—be all _that_ as it may,—Caius, remember, is
speaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said ‘I want Christian evidence,’
I meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not assert (would you?)
that B and א exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?”
_Q. R._ “Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined
to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,—(for
convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present
discussion till tomorrow morning,)—I have to ask a little favour of you:
viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.
“I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred
years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and—(indulge me in the
supposition!)—you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the
house of one Clemens,—a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident
here. Let us step into his library,—he is from home. What a queer place!
See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not
a well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but
suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of
the death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the
columns(752) (σελίδες) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We
are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us
sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on
inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which
relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.
“We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15
verses,—according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which
belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words
are added: 22, substituted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has
been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38
per cent. What do you think of _that_?”
(6) _S. O._ “Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no
business to collate with ‘a text of late and degenerate type, such as is
the Received Text of the New Testament.’ When _this_ ‘is taken as a
standard, any document belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the
nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and
the nearer the document stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be
the omissions laid to its charge.’ I learnt that from Westcott and Hort.
See page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_.”
_Q. R._ “Be it so! Collate the passage then for yourself with the Text of
Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce ‘the
autographs themselves’ ‘with the utmost exactness which the evidence
permits’ (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words
omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words substituted, 23:
the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been
altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You
will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our principal
authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)
“And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last
effectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and א are the two oldest
Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_
be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to
produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a
document full two centuries older than either _B_ or א,—itself the
property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._”
LVI.—(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken
aside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with
somewhat as follows:—
_F. C._ “Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have
been proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of
the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is
plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the
most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is
_that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?”
_Q. R._ “Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a
full reply.”
(8) _F. C._ “Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main
contention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this
bringing in of a famous ancient Father—_obiter_—is a very damaging
proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the
Text which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a
question which was already sufficiently thorny and difficult? You have, as
it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of
‘Various Readings.’ Do you seriously propose them as a contribution
towards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,—the true
text of S. Mark x. 17-31?”
_Q. R._ “Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating
the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on
so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness:
but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before
you,—in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of
standing alone.
“The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years
of the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact—which
must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is
surprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr.
Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a
Writer,—provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd
century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be
told that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,—as Clemens; a _single_
Version,—as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,—as cod. B, are of no manner of
significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest,
except as illustrating the depravation which systematically assailed the
written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are,
in fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an
induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from
the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow,
would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to
wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one’s hands and feet in the days
of the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us
may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of
this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and
remains to be explained.
“You are to remember then,—perhaps you have yet to learn,—that there are
but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either
Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and
Hort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the
Traditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be
directed,—on them, our eyes are to be riveted,—exclusively. And the first
thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities
above specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in
their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together
_only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises,
is this,—What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of
Clemens Alexandrinus?
“I answer,—_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The
result of a careful analysis shows further that _he sides with the
Traditional Text_ 17 _times:—witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against
Tischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and
Hort, 12 times._(758)
“So far therefore from admitting that ‘the Testimony of Clemens Al.—one of
the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers—is absolutely
worthless,’—I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of
‘hopelessly perplexing the question,’ his Evidence is found to have
_simplified matters considerably_. So far from ‘importing into these 15
verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,’ he has _helped us to get rid of
no less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... ‘Damaging’ his evidence has
certainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_,
_Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains
undeniably true, that ‘it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of
S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a document full two centuries older
than either B or א,—the property of one of the most famous of the
Fathers.’(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?”
(9) _F. C._ “I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed
whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the
sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so,
pray—Where and when did purity of Text begin?”
_Q. R._ “You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference
from the premisses. The purest documents of all existed perforce in the
first century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at
its source. My whole contention has been, and is,—That there is nothing at
all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth
century,—coming down to our own times without a history and without a
character,—_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does
not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you
delivered it as your opinion that ‘_the oldest Manuscript we possess, if
it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.’ I asserted, in
reply, that ‘it does not by any means follow, _because_ a manuscript is
very ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure’ (p. 321); and
all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the
truth of my assertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit,
calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient
documents generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for
the inferences suggested by them.
“At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely
erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference
to _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as
not to say concerning me that I ‘_count_’ instead of ‘_weighing_’ my
witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have
understood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_
it is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its
sentence, and I require that you shall do the same.
“You and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of
Antiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles
worshipped ‘codex B.’ But ‘codex B’ is not ‘Antiquity’!—Tischendorf
assigned the place of honour to ‘codex א.’ But once more, ‘codex א’ is not
‘Antiquity’!—You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,—and
of the VIIIth-century-codex L,—and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century
codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are
‘Antiquity’? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more!
But then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you
regardless of _all other_ COPIES?—So, with respect to VERSIONS, and
FATHERS. You single out one or two,—the one or two which suit your
purpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,—The
_Coptic_ version is not ‘Antiquity,’—neither is _Origen_ ‘Antiquity.’ The
_Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,—_Irenæus_ more than
counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient
authorities must confessedly be AN ‘ancient Reading:’ but it does not
therefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is
THE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who
sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of
Antiquity_,—(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest
documents,)—will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to
the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey
of the whole field of Evidence.”
_F. C._ “Well but,—you have once and again admitted that the phenomena
before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pass
that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously
corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?”
_Q. R._ “You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And
I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able.
You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will
remain,—however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to
yourself. My view of the matter then—(think what you will about it!)—is as
follows:—
LVII. “Vanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle
malice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,—_hence_ the
extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel.
First, heretical assailants of Christianity,—then, orthodox defenders of
the Truth,—lastly and above all, self-constituted Critics, who (like Dr.
Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to ‘instinctive processes’
of Criticism; and who, at first as well as ‘at last,’ freely made their
appeal ‘to the individual mind:’—_such_ were the corrupting influences
which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years
after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known
anything approaching to it,—can show nothing at all like it. Satan’s arts
were defeated indeed through the Church’s faithfulness, because,—(the good
Providence of GOD had so willed it,)—the perpetual multiplication, in
every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,—not to say the
solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to
retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,—proved
a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this
was not all.
“The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the ‘Witness and
Keeper of Holy Writ.’(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in
largest measure, ‘the SPIRIT of Truth;’ and pledge Himself that it should
be that SPIRIT’S special function to ‘guide’_ her children _‘into all the
Truth’(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Manuscripts would be
protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever
sort,—was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But
the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless—as a matter of
fact—been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies
which once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an
amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children
that they carry their ‘treasure in earthen vessels,’—as well as to
stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and
integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath
there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted
mischief,—any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These
are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such
copies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the
scars remained,—nay, the scars are discernible still.
“What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides—those
deluded ones—who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those
same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back
in quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church
_in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is
‘happening unto them according to the true proverb’—which S. Peter sets
down in his 2nd Epistle,—chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.
“As for Clemens,—he lived at the very time and in the very country where
the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his
era, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese
consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz.
Theodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less
than 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,—(Tatian’s date
being A.D. 173,)—honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret’s)
diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762)
Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the
works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the
Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired
Scripture:(763) and—with corrupted copies always at hand and before him—he
is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and
straightway to volunteer the assurance that he found it ‘so written in the
Gospel according to S. Mark.’(764) The archetype of Codices B and
א,—especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,—is discovered to
have experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source
which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil
Origen after him) were most familiar.—And thus you have explained to you
the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these
last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an
unlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they
are the inspired Verity itself,—providentially recovered from a neglected
shelf in the Vatican,—rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to
Mount Sinai.”
_F. C._ “Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us
proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?”