(2) LITERATURE.—See especially Gebhardt (_Urt._, p. 16). Ed. Reuss,

_Geschichte der h. Schriften des N. T._, Braunschweig, 1887, § 351

ff. S. P. Tregelles, _An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of

the N.T._ (= vol. iv. of Horne’s _Introduction_, 1877). F. H. A.

Scrivener (see above, p. 6); also _Adversaria Critica Sacra_, edited

by Miller, Cambr. 1893. B. F. Westcott, _The New Testament_ in

Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. ii., London, 1863. C. E.

Hammond, _Outlines of Textual Criticism_, Oxford, 1890.

Westcott-Hort, vol. ii. (see p. 21). B. B. Warfield, _Introduction

to the Textual Criticism of the N. T._, New York, 1887; London,

1893. J. W. Burgon, _Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to

St. Mark_, Oxford and London, 1871; also _The Traditional Text of

the Holy Gospels vindicated and established_, edited by Miller,

London, 1896; also, _The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional

Text of the Holy Gospels_, edited by Miller, London and Cambridge,

1896. _The Oxford Debate on the Textual Criticism of the N. T. held

at New College on May 6, 1897_; with a preface (by Miller)

explanatory of the Rival Systems, 1897, pp. xvi. 43. Ed. Miller,

_The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy

Gospels_ (see above, p. 152).

Martin (Abbé J. P.), _Introduction à la Critique textuelle du N.T._,

in five volumes, with plates and facsimiles: vol. i. pp. xxxvi. 327,

Paris, 1884, 25 fr.; vol. ii. pp. ix. 554, 1884, 40 fr.; vol. iii.

pp. vi. 512, 1885, 40 fr.; vol. iv. pp. vi. 549, 1886, 40 fr.; vol.

v. pp. xi. 248 and 50 pp. of facsimiles, 1886, 20 fr. Also by the

same author, _Description technique des manuscrits grecs relatifs au

N.T. conservés dans les Bibliothèques de Paris_. Supplement to the

foregoing, Paris, 1884, pp. xix. 205, with facsimiles, 20 fr.;

_Quatre manuscrits importants du N.T. auxquels on peut en ajouter un

cinquième_, Paris, 1886, pp. 62, 3 fr.; _Les plus anciens mss. grecs

du N.T., leur origine, leur véritable caractère_, in the _Revue des

Quest. Hist._, 1884, No. 71, pp. 62-109; _Origène et la Critique

textuelle du N.T._, Paris. Reprinted from the _Rev. des Quest.

Hist._ for Jan. 1885, No. 73, pp. 5-62.

Th. Zahn, _Geschichte des N.T. Kanons_: vol. i., _Das N.T. vor

Origenes_, Part 1, 1888; Part 2, 1889. Vol. ii., _Urkunden und

Belege zum ersten und dritten Band_, Part 1, 1890; Part 2, 1892. The

third vol. has not yet appeared. The order of the books of the N.T.

is discussed in vol. ii. p. 343 ff., and the conclusion of Mark’s

Gospel in the same vol., p. 910 ff.

Salmon (Geo.), _Some thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N.T._,

London, 1897, pp. xv. 162. Blass, _Philology of the Gospels_,

London, 1898, pp. viii. 250. Ada Bryson, _Recent Literature on the

text of the N.T._ in the _Expository Times_ for April 1899, pp.

294-300. M. Vincent, _History of the Textual Criticism of the N.T._,

1900. G. L. Cary, _The Synoptic Gospels, with a chapter on the

Textual Criticism of the N.T._, New York, 1900. See also Prof.

Jannaris in the _Expositor_, vol. viii. of Series V. There is an

article in the _American Journal of Theology_, 1897, iv. p. 927 ff.,

entitled _Alexandria and the N.T._, which I have not been able to

consult.

In attempting to restore the text of the New Testament as nearly as

possible to its original form, it is essential to remember that the New

Testament, as we have it to-day, is not all of one piece, but consists

of twenty-seven separate documents now arranged in five groups, and that

every several document and every several group has had its own peculiar

history. Of these groups the most complicated, perhaps, is the one with

which the New Testament opens—viz. the Gospels.

[Sidenote: Gospels.]

It is quite uncertain when our four Gospels were first written together

in one volume and arranged in the order that is now common. The

Muratorian Fragment on the Canon[130] is defective at the beginning, but

seems to imply this arrangement. It was supposed that the Gospels were

written in the following order—viz. Matthew first and John last. The

order, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, which is found in nearly all the Greek

and Syriac manuscripts, was made popular by Eusebius and Jerome. The

former followed it in his _Canons_, which were afterwards adopted by

Jerome in his Latin Bible. According to Eusebius (_Eccl. Hist._, vi.

25),[131] Origen knew this order, though he very frequently cites the

Gospels in the order Matthew, Luke, Mark.

The following arrangements are also found:—

[Transcriber’s Note: The following list begins with (2).]

(2) Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, in the earlier (Curetonian) Syriac and in

the Canon Mommsenianus, a catalogue of the Books of the Bible and of the

works of Cyprian, originating in Latin Africa about the year 360, and

first published by Mommsen.[132]

(3) Matthew, Luke, Mark, John, in the so-called Ambrosiaster and in a

Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books.

(4) Matthew, John, Mark, Luke—_i.e._ the two Apostles put before the two

pupils of Apostles, in the Codex Claromontanus.[133] This order occurs

also in the Arabic writer Masudi’s _Meadows of Gold_.[134]

(5) Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, in Codd. D and X, in the _Apostolic

Constitutions_, in Ulfilas, and especially in the Old Latin Manuscripts;

see Corssen, _Monarchianische Prologe_, p. 65, in _TU._ xv. 1.[135]

(6) John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, in Codex k.

(7) John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, in the Vocabularies of the Egyptian

versions.

(8) John, Matthew, Luke, Mark, in Tertullian and cod. 19. See Arthur

Wright, _Some New Testament Problems_, p. 196 ff.[136]

This very variety shows that for a long time, perhaps till the third

century, at all events much longer than the Pauline Epistles, the

Gospels were propagated singly, perhaps on rolls, and only afterwards

incorporated in a codex. And this makes it probable that the text of our

manuscripts was not taken from a single copy of the first

Tetraevangelium. More than probable we cannot call it, seeing that a

copyist may have had any sort of reasons of his own for disarranging the

order of the books given in his exemplar, as may still be gathered

luckily from the position occupied by Hebrews in Codex B. The

probability is heightened, however, by the fact that our manuscripts

display a considerably greater amount of textual variation in the

Gospels than in the Pauline Epistles, though not in all to the same

extent as in D which contains an entirely peculiar recension, especially

in Luke. One of the most remarkable indications of this is afforded by

the discovery made by E. Lippelt, a pupil of Professor Blass. The order

of the books in D is Matthew, John, Luke, Mark, Acts, where it will be

seen that the two portions of the book inscribed to Theophilus are

separated by Mark. Now Lippelt observed that while the name Johannes is

regularly spelt with two ν’s (Ἰωάννης) in Matthew, John, and Mark, it is

just as regularly spelt with one (Ἰωάνης) in Luke and Acts, sundered

though these two books are by Mark, where the other spelling

prevails.[137] This shows an accuracy of tradition which is surprising,

but till now it has only been traced in this one manuscript. The others

write the name throughout with two _ν_’s and B as consistently with one.

In this connection the question naturally arises whether certain

liberties were not taken with the books on the occasion of their

collection and arrangement. Resch, _e.g._, thinks that it was then that

the second Gospel received the conclusion or appendix which is found in

most of our manuscripts, and Rohrbach holds a similar opinion.[138] I

have elsewhere expressed the idea that the peculiar opening of Mark is

to be accounted for in this way.[139] Zahn, however, doubts whether the

use of ἀρχή and τέλος for ἄρχεται and ἐτελέσθη, _incipit_ and

_explicit_, can be established for early times.[140] I have found it in

Greek Psalters, though not very early, I admit, where αρχη των ωδων

occurs instead of ωδαι as the superscription of the Hymns at the end of

the Psalter.[141] However, there is no need to dwell further on this

point. Zahn (p. 174) is quite right in his contention that the usual

titles κατὰ Μαθθαῖον, etc.,[142] imply a collection of the Gospels of

which Εὐαγγέλιον is the general title.

If, then, for the sake of simplicity, we take as our goal the first

manuscript of the Tetraevangelium, one would think it must be possible

with the means at our command gradually to work back to it. Even the

latest of our manuscripts is surely copied from an earlier one, and that

one from another, and so on always further and further back, so that all

we have to do is to establish their genealogy, pretty much as Reuss has

done for the printed editions of the New Testament; and seeing we have

manuscripts as old as the fourth and fifth century, that means that the

entire period of a thousand years prior to the invention of printing is

bridged over at once, so that the task would appear to be simply that of

throwing a bridge over the first few centuries of the Christian era. And

by going on comparing the witnesses and always eliminating those that

prove unreliable, it must be possible, one would suppose, in this way to

arrive at the original. But a little experience will shortly moderate

our expectations.

At the outset it is very much against us that we have no really

serviceable text for comparison. The text of our present critical

editions is a patchwork of many colours, more wonderful than the cloak

of Child Roland of old. In fact it is a text that never really existed

at all. In the preparation of my _Supplement_, which I undertook with

the object of making the text of Codex Bezae easily accessible to every

one, I compared the text of that manuscript with that of

Tischendorf-Gebhardt’s edition, and I saw clearly that my work would

necessarily present a very confused appearance indeed. I also issued an

interleaved edition of my Stuttgart New Testament with a similar

object—viz. to furnish a convenient means of comparing the text of

manuscripts and of Patristic quotations, but that, too, labours under

the same disadvantage. Whoever intends really to further the textual

criticism of the New Testament will have to issue a copy of a single

manuscript printed in such a way as will make it practically convenient

for the comparison of different texts, something like Tischendorf’s

edition of Codex Sinaiticus (_Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum_, 1863),

which, however, is of little use for other purposes, or like Schjøtt’s

edition of the New Testament (see above, p. 24). But as these are in the

hands of very few, there is nothing for it at present but to take one of

our most common texts, always bearing in mind its composite character.

This feature of the text appears at the very outset in the title. In א B

(D) it is κατα Μαθθαιον. Codex D is defective at the beginning down to

c. i. 20, but κατ Μαθθαιον is found regularly as the title at the top of

the pages, a fact which Tischendorf has overlooked. Most other

manuscripts, C E K M etc., have Ευαγγελιον κατα Ματθαιον. If this latter

is held as incorrect, then all these manuscripts should for the future

be dropped out of account and א B D alone be regarded as authoritative.

Again, in verse 2, א* has Ισακ twice, while the others have Ισαακ, so

that א too would drop out, leaving B standing alone. But then in verse 3

our editors forthwith reject B, which reads Ζαρε, and decide in favour

of the others which have Ζαρα. Whether this may not be a little

premature, seeing that there are other places where ε is found for final

ח,[143] and that one manuscript, 56, has deliberately corrected Ζαρα

into Ζαρε in Gen. xxxviii. 30, where a third has Ζαρε, we do not pause

to determine. The point is simply this, that in these first three verses

there is no manuscript that is always right in the judgment of our

editors. True, the cases we have been considering are trifling, the

differences being of an orthographical nature merely, and one must not

be too particular in such matters, though at the same time the

oft-quoted maxim, _minima non curat praetor_, is nowhere less applicable

than in textual criticism. But the same state of things reappears

immediately where we have differences involving important matters of

fact. What is the fact in verse 11? Did Josias beget Jechoniah, or did

he beget Joachim and Joachim Jechoniah? Verse 16 has already been

referred to: in this case our oldest Greek manuscripts would give no

occasion to mention the verse. But in verse 25 we have again to ask

which is correct, ἔτεκεν υἱόν or ἔτεκεν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον?

[Sidenote: Dogmatic influence.] And when we hear Jerome say—Ex hoc loco

quidam perversissime suspicantur et alios filios habuisse Mariam,

dicentes primogenitum non dici nisi qui habeat et fratres, we learn

already how dogmatic motives may have some influence upon the form of

the text. And, moreover, when we call to mind the words of Luke ii. 7,

we are made aware of another thing that may exert a disturbing influence

in the Gospels—viz. the tendency to alter the text in conformity with

the parallel passage. [Sidenote: Parallel passages.] Apart from the

stylistic peculiarities of Codex D, we meet with no materially important

variants in our Greek manuscripts of Matthew till we come to the Sermon

on the Mount. The only thing is in iii. 15, where two Latin witnesses

have an addition which is evidently taken from a Greek source: et cum

baptizaretur, lumen ingens circumfulsit de aqua ita ut timerent omnes

qui advenerant (congregati erant). This interpolation, however, does not

concern the criticism of the text of the New Testament, seeing that it

is derived from some source outside the Canon.

On the other hand, there is a great question as to the order of the

first three Beatitudes in Matthew v. 3-5, whether they are to be read in

the order given in the common text, πτωχοί ... πενθοῦντες ... πραεῖς

..., or as our recent editors prefer πτωχοί ... πραεῖς ...

πενθοῦντες.[144] The latter arrangement is attested by only two Greek

manuscripts—D and 33. Now, if their evidence is accepted here in spite

of its apparent weakness, how can we justify the refusal to acknowledge

the authority of D in other similar cases? Verse 22, but a short way

down, is a case in point. Here D, with most authorities, exhibits the

sorely-contested εἰκῇ. But our modern critics will have nothing to do

with it, going by א B, Origen, Jerome, and Athanasius. Merx (_Die vier

kanonischen Evangelien_, pp. 231-237) has recently come forward as a

strong supporter of it, on the ground that Syr^{sin} also has it,[145]

but how is its omission, especially by Jerome, to be explained? The

Vulgate itself shows that it was easier to insert it than to omit it,

because out of twenty-four manuscripts collated in W.-W. three have it,

though it certainly does not belong to the text of the Vulgate.[146]

In view of these illustrations, which serve to show the somewhat

haphazard way in which the text of our editions hitherto has been

arrived at, the question becomes very important how the original text is

to be restored in disputed or doubtful cases.

[Sidenote: Conjectural emendation.]

The first case, or, if we like to call it, the last, but at all events

the one most easy of settlement, is when the correct reading is no

longer found in any of our witnesses, neither in Greek manuscript,

version, nor patristic quotation. Here we must simply have recourse to

=conjecture=. Not long ago philologists evinced such a fondness for

conjectural emendation that the question might not unreasonably be asked

why they did not rather themselves write the text that they took in hand

to explain. At the same time, the aversion to this method of criticism

which till recently prevailed and still to some extent prevails,

especially in the matter of the New Testament text, is just as

unreasonable. Tischendorf, _e.g._, did not admit a single emendation of

this nature into his text, while Westcott and Hort consider it to be

necessary in only a very few cases, such as Colossians ii. 18, though

they also decline to adopt any conjectural readings in their text. For

ΑΕΟΡΑΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ in this passage, which Weizsäcker renders “pluming

himself upon his visions,” they would read ΑΕΡΑ ΚΕΝΕΜΒΑΤΕΥΩΝ, which is

obtained by the omission of a single letter and a different division of

the words. In Holland conjectural criticism is freely indulged in,[147]

the example of Cobet and his school being followed by such critics as S.

A. Naber, W. C. van Manen, W. H. van de Sande-Bakhuyzen, van de Becke

Callenfels, D. Harting, S. S. de Koe, H. Franssen, J. M. S. Baljon, J.

H. A. Michelsen, and J. Cramer.[148] Baljon has adopted a great number

of such conjectural emendations in his edition of the text published in

1898 (see above, p. 24). In place of πολλοὶ διδάσκαλοι, _e.g._, in James

iii. 1, Lachmann would read πῶλοι δύσκολοι, Naber πλανοδιδάσκαλοι, while

Junius, de Hoop-Scheffer, and Bakhuyzen prefer πολυλάλοι on the ground

that m^{64} has _nolite multiloqui esse_.[149] So far, therefore, this

last is not pure conjecture. For κρινέτω in Col. ii. 16 Lagarde wished

to read κιρνάτω, because the verb דוד found in the Peshitto at this

place is elsewhere used to translate θροεῖν (Matt. xxiv. 6), ταράσσειν

(John xiv. 1, 27), ἐγκόπτειν (Gal. v. 7), and also διαστρέφειν (Eccl.

vii. 18; xii. 3). My proposal to read ἐπὶ πόντον in Apoc. xviii. 17, a

reading adopted by Baljon in his text, instead of ἐπὶ τόπον or ἐπὶ

πλοίων as given in our manuscripts, was a pure conjecture, but it has

the support of _super mare_ in Primasius.[150] There is therefore no

objection on principle to the method of conjecture, nor to the adoption

of conjectural readings in the text, though it is only to be resorted to

as the _ultima ratio regis_ and with due regard to all the

considerations involved, transcriptional, linguistic, and

otherwise.[151] There is no essential difficulty in supposing, _e.g._,

that κιρνάτω in Col. ii. 16 was first corrupted into κρινάτω and then

into κρινέτω. Such a transposition of the liquid is quite common in all

languages.[152] But we must see if κιρνάτω has the sense required in the

passage. There is no doubt a reference to drinking here, and so far,

therefore, the word seems to suit the context better. It is also true

that evidence is not wanting of the metaphorical use of the word

proposed to be inserted. Passow, _e.g._, gives τὸ τῆς φύσεως σκληρὸν

κιρνᾶν from Polybius iv. 21, 3, and τὴν πόλιν κιρνᾶν from Aristophanes

i. 1. In spite of this, however, I have considerable misgivings whether

this sense of the word is in harmony with Pauline usage and is suitable

to the context of the passage. If it is sought to justify a conjectural

reading on transcriptional grounds, then, as has been observed (p. 82),

a strict account must be taken of the manner of writing prevalent at the

time when the corruption is supposed to have originated. Luke’s

handwriting must have been very bad indeed if we are to suppose that the

scribe of D or the parent manuscript mistook ἠρνήσασθε for the

enigmatical ἐβαρύνατε in Acts iii. 14, though it is quite conceivable

how he came to write δόξῃ instead of δεξιᾷ in v. 31, or conversely wrote

ἐδέξαντο instead of ἐδόξασαν in xiii. 48, or that ΚΑΙΤΟΥΤΩΣΥΝΦΩΝΟΥΣΙΝ

was made into ΚΑΙΟΥΤΩΣΣΥΝΦΩΝΗΣΟΥΣΙΝ or _vice versa_.[153] A slight

experience in the reading of ancient manuscripts shows how easy it is to

make mistakes of this sort. And if we wish to see what mistakes of this

sort actually do occur in Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus,

and Ephraemi, we have only to look into Morrish’s _Handy Concordance of

the Septuagint_,[154] though of course the examples there are all from

the Old Testament. We have, _e.g._, ἀγαπάω for ἀπατάω; ἀγάπη for ἀπάτη;

ἁγιάζω for ἀγοράζω; ἅγιος for αἴγειος, ἀγγεῖον, ἀγρός, γῆ; ἀδιάλυτος for

διάλυτος; βάλλω and its compounds for λαμβάνω and its compounds; λαός

for ναός, etc.

[Sidenote: Eclectic method.]

It is more difficult to answer the question how the text is to be

restored in cases where there is no lack of external evidence. We have

already seen that critics have hitherto adopted an =eclectic= mode of

procedure. In general, whenever Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agree, editors,

Tischendorf as well as Westcott and Hort, give the preference to their

testimony. But if they do not agree, what is to be done? And what if a

third reading seems on internal grounds to be better than either? In his

_Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament_, Salmon very

pungently, but not altogether incorrectly, describes Westcott and Hort’s

method on the lines of an anecdote told of Cato by Cicero: “To the

question what authorities should be followed, Hort answers, Follow B א.

But if B is not supported by א? Still follow B, if it has the support of

any other manuscript. But suppose B stands quite alone? Even then it is

not safe to reject B unless it is clearly a clerical error. But suppose

B is defective? Then follow א. And what about D? What about killing a

man!” Lagarde has said that the gag is the modern equivalent of the

stake. Codex D has not been gagged outright, to be sure, but it has been

shoved aside, and only now and then with remarkable inconsistency has

its evidence been accepted as trustworthy. For one must surely call it

inconsistent to follow one side as a rule and then all at once to take

sides with that which is diametrically opposed to the first. In his

_Introduction_, Hort, in the most brilliant manner one must admit, has

established the principle that the restoration of the text must be

grounded on the study of its history, and no one has studied that

history as carefully as Hort has done. But the question remains whether

he has not interpreted the history wrongly, whether what he calls the

Neutral text is really the original, and whether that which he rejects

as a Western Corruption is really to be regarded as such.

[Sidenote: History of transmission.]

I cannot presume to judge; but I have the feeling that the history of

the transmission of our New Testament text must be studied in quite

another way from that in which it has been done hitherto, and in a

twofold direction:—

(1) The manuscripts and their relation to each other must be subjected

to a still more searching investigation, and

(2) The works of the ecclesiastical writers, especially the Commentaries

and the Catenæ, must be thoroughly explored for any information they may

have to give regarding the history of the text of the New Testament, and

these two results must then be set in relation with each other.

With regard to the former task, it might not be essential to make such a

minute collation of the manuscripts as Ferrar, Hoskier, and other

investigators deemed necessary, and as is certainly the right thing to

do in the case of the oldest documents. With such a mode of procedure,

the task could not be accomplished in any conceivable time. But suppose

the work was organised the way that Reuss did with the printed editions,

by selecting say a thousand passages for comparison, it would be

possible, and in a very short time we should be much better informed

than we are at present as to the state of the text in our manuscripts,

and especially in the minuscules.

Such a task, moreover, must be preceded by a fresh scientific statement

of the way in which the text was propagated previous to the invention of

printing, on the lines laid down by Hort in the first fourteen

paragraphs of his _Introduction_.[155] A necessary preliminary to this

is the study of genealogy, in which we have an excellent guide in

Ottokar Lorenz’s _Lehrbuch der gesamten wissenschaftlichen Genealogie_

(Berlin, 1898). See especially the first chapter of Part I. on the

distinction between Genealogical Tree (Table of genealogy) and Table of

Ancestors, and the third chapter of Part II. on the problem of Loss of

Ancestors.

All the ideas pertaining to the genealogy of living creatures, such as

crossing, heredity, and so forth, fall to be considered also in the

genealogy of manuscripts, the only difference being that in the latter

case new features make their appearance. It has been asserted somewhere

that if an Englishman, a Dutchman, a German, a Frenchman, and an

American meet in a company, the nationality of each is at once

recognisable, but it is impossible to determine their exact genealogical

relationships, and that the same impossibility exists in the case of the

manuscripts of the New Testament. That is perhaps an exaggeration, but

it is certainly a surprising fact that so few even of our latest

manuscripts can be proved with certainty to be copies of manuscripts

still in existence, or at least to be derived from a common original.

[Sidenote: Analogous works.]

It will be a very great help, particularly to those beginning work in

this field, to compare the method and results of investigations pursued

in similar and perhaps easier departments of study. Apart from the works

of classical philologists, or works like the new edition of Luther’s

writings, a great deal of most valuable research has been carried on of

late years in the matter of textual criticism, some of it very

extensive, some of it less so. Ed. Wölfflin, _e.g._, devoted his

attention to the Rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who died some time

after the year 542. [Sidenote: Rule of Benedict.] His Rule, which

extends only to eighty-five pages of the Teubner size, is extant in

manuscripts dating as far back as the seventh and eighth centuries. By a

comparison of these, Wölfflin was convinced that we still possess the

Rule essentially in the identical wording of the original vulgar Latin,

that Benedict himself had afterwards made certain alterations and

additions, and that we have therefore to distinguish several (fortasse

tres) editions.[156] Wölfflin purported to give the text of that

recension which he took to be the earliest. But we had no more than time

to congratulate ourselves on the satisfactory result arrived at by this

experienced philologist, when behold, another totally different

conclusion was announced by a younger worker in the same field. Wölfflin

had done little more than compare the manuscripts, but Lud. Traube

applied also the external evidence afforded by the history of the text,

and discovered that certain manuscripts that Wölfflin had thrown aside

possessed a greater claim to originality.[157]

[Sidenote: De Viris Illustribus.]

Similarly, E. C. Richardson gave several years to an examination of all

the accessible manuscripts of the _De Viris Illustribus_ of Jerome and

Gennadius, a work not much larger than the Rule of Benedict. These

manuscripts, about 120 in number, he grouped, and then framed his text

in accordance with them.[158] While his work was in the press, an

edition was published by C. A. Bernoulli, based on some of the

manuscripts that Richardson also had used.[159] But from the very first

sentence onwards, the two editors follow contradictory authorities, so

that while one gives _parvam_ as the correct reading, the other reads

_non parvam_. But more than that, the same Part of _Texte und

Untersuchungen_ that gave us Richardson’s laborious work contained a

second piece of work on the same material—viz., O. v. Gebhardt’s edition

of the so-called Greek Sophronius, which is an old version of Jerome’s

book. And the last chapter of this version, which is autobiographical,

contains indications, according to v. Gebhardt’s Introduction, that

Jerome issued two editions of his book, so that, if this be so, an

entirely new grouping of the manuscripts becomes necessary.

[Sidenote: Julian’s Letters.]

In the case of Holl’s researches on the _Sacra Parallela_ of John

Damascene, published in the same Collection,[160] matters are too

complicated for beginners in textual criticism, but of non-biblical

texts mention may be made of the _Recherches sur la tradition manuscrite

des lettres de l’Empereur Julien_ by S. Bidez and Fr. Cumont (Brussels,

1898), as showing how much can be attained by combining the internal and

external history of the transmission of literary texts.[161] [Sidenote:

Latin New Testament.] In the field of Biblical texts, and particularly

of the New Testament, the study of Wordsworth and White’s _Epilogus_ to

the first volume of their _Novum Testamentum Latine_ is to be specially

recommended, particularly c. iv. _De Patria et Indole Codicum

nostrorum_, c. v. _De Textus Historia_, and c. vi. _De Regulis a nobis

in Textu constituendo adhibitis_. As was said before, Jerome undertook

his revision of the Gospels in the year 383; his work was of an entirely

uniform texture, apart from a few passages where a correction may have

occurred even in the original manuscript; and there is a sufficiency of

manuscripts extant, some of them going back to the sixth century. One of

these, which formerly belonged to the Church of St. Willibrord at

Echternach, contains a note dated 558, and copied into it from the

parent manuscript, to the effect: proemendavi ut potui secundum codicem

in bibliotheca Eugipi presbyteri, quem ferunt fuisse sancti Hieronymi.

(See above, p. 122.) In these circumstances it must surely be possible,

one would think, to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion. And yet, in

spite of all this, and in spite of long years of labour, many a problem

remains to perplex the editor of the Vulgate. To begin with, there is

one striking circumstance. Jerome executed his work at Rome, in

obedience to the commission of Pope Damasus. One would therefore expect

to find the best manuscripts in Rome, or at least originating from Rome.

But that is by no means the case: “praeter expectationem accidit ut

pauci vel nulli ex codicibus optimis et antiquissimis originem Romanam

clare ostendant.” The manuscript that editors consider the best—viz.

Codex Amiatinus, now at Florence—was certainly at Rome for a long time,

but it was sent there as a present from beyond the Alps; indeed, it came

from England. And on the other hand it was not from Rome that the Latin

Bible came to England, or to Canterbury in particular, although

Augustine was sent thither by Pope Gregory the Great, but from the South

of Italy; in fact, it was from Naples. Codex Fuldensis, which may have

been brought to Fulda by Boniface, formerly belonged to Bishop Victor of

Capua; the Echternach manuscript referred to above came from the

Lucullan Monastery at Naples, while the manuscript from which Codex

Amiatinus was copied was written by Cassiodorus of Vivarium, and

therefore came from Calabria. The history of the transmission of the

Latin Bible reveals many other facts as strange as these in connection

with the locality to which manuscripts belong. We must be prepared,

therefore, for similar surprises in the case of Greek manuscripts also,

and need not be astonished to hear that the Greek-Latin Codex Bezae, so

much decried as “Western,” takes us back to Smyrna or Ephesus by way of

Lyons and by means of Irenæus.[162]

It is also very instructive to observe that after long years of the most

thorough study of their manuscripts, Wordsworth and White refrain from

constructing =stemmata= or genealogies of these. All they venture to do

is to distinguish certain large classes or =families=, and within these

again to bring certain manuscripts into somewhat closer relationship

with each other. They distinguish two main classes. In the first they

reckon five, or it may be four, Italian-Northumbrian manuscripts, A Δ H*

S Y, two Canterbury O X, three Italian J M P, the two mentioned already

from Capua-Fulda F and Lucullan-Echternach EP, and the Harleian Z, so

called from a former possessor and now in the British Museum. To the

second class belong five Celtic D E L Q R, three French B BF G, and two

Spanish C T. After these come the witnesses to the history of the text

in the stricter sense of the term, the recensions made by Theodulf (H^c

Θ) and Alcuin (KV M̅), and, for the form which the text assumed in the

later manuscripts and in the printed editions, the Salisbury Codex W. We

should have great reason to congratulate ourselves, could we arrive at

like certain results in the region of the far older and more diversified

history of the transmission of the Greek text, but there too we shall

encounter the same general features—viz., a form of the text in the

printed editions, in the later manuscripts, in the Recensions, the dates

of which are still to be determined (Lucian, Hesychius?, Pamphilus), and

in the families, which are only to be classified in a general way.

It is also instructive to find that in the case of several manuscripts,

Wordsworth and White are obliged to observe that they seem to have been

corrected from the Greek, H* (p. 709), M (p. 711), EP* (p. 712), D R L

(pp. 714, 716), which suggests the possibility of Greek manuscripts also

having been influenced by one of the versions, be it Latin or Syriac.

Finally, when we enquire as to the relationship between Jerome and the

Greek manuscript or manuscripts used by him, we find that that

manuscript must have been most nearly related to the Sinaiticus, while

it had no sort of connection with Codex D. Whether this result tells in

favour of א or the reverse, we will not pronounce at present: Jerome

certainly avers that he made use of a Graecorum codicum emendata

conlatione ... sed veterum (p. 108), only _veterum_ is a comparative

term, and it might quite well happen that to Jerome that form of text

appeared to be the best which was most recent or most widely circulated

in his neighbourhood, and that he would have nothing to do with such a

singular form of text as D exhibits, even supposing he was acquainted

with it, a point we cannot decide. The intimate connection in various

passages between his text and that of the cursive 473 (2^{pe}) is

remarkable, and especially the many points of resemblance between the

Irish manuscripts (D L R) and the members of the Ferrar Group.

And this brings us back from our survey of the history of the Latin text

to that of the Greek, where we seem to have got at least one fixed point

to begin with in this perplexing chaos, for that is the first impression

we gain on glancing at the mass of Greek manuscripts before us. But here

again our too sanguine hopes are likely to be disappointed, and we shall

learn only too soon that even this is no Archimedean point from which we

are able to regulate this world of disorder.

[Sidenote: Ferrar Group.]

If we find that in a certain number of manuscripts the passage usually

indicated as John vii. 53-viii. 11 occurs in Luke, and in exactly the

same place in each one—viz. after Luke xxi. 38—we must needs conclude

that the manuscripts exhibiting this common peculiarity are intimately

connected with each other. This is the case with the cursives 13, 69,

124, 346, 624, 626. Whether the others that are reckoned in this group

have this same peculiarity, I am not perfectly sure. Now one would

naturally expect that these manuscripts would also coincide in the other

peculiarities characteristic of this group. [Sidenote: Variation.] But

on the contrary, they part company over the very first and most

conspicuous of these—viz. Matthew i. 16. Here, unfortunately, 13 and 69

are defective, but we can compare 124 and 346. And we find that whereas

the former has the usual text, the latter, with the support of 556, 624,

626, exhibits in place of τὸν ἄνδρα ... Χριστός, the reading already

mentioned, ᾧ μνηστευθεῖσα παρθένος Μαριὰμ ἐγέννησεν Ἰησοῦν τὸν λεγόμενον

Χριστόν. Which of these readings is right, or whether both of them may

not be wrong, we need not enquire at present. It is sufficient to point

out that one and the same mother may give birth to very different

children. The specific difference will be inherited from the other of

the two parents, in this case represented by the copyist, and will

depend on whether he is painstaking, careless, violent, arbitrary,

well-informed, or the reverse. But the mother herself has a great number

of hereditary or acquired peculiarities which, the latter no less than

the former, may be transmitted to the children in a variety of ways.

There is perhaps no manuscript in existence which is entirely free from

corrections, while, on the other hand, there are many so overlaid with

corrections that the original writing is scarcely now recognisable.

Codex B, on the whole, is in a very good state of preservation, but it

was supposed lately (see _ThLz._, 1899, col. 176) that its first hand

wrote in John viii. 57, “and Abraham saw thee” instead of “and hast thou

seen Abraham,” as all our editors read in that passage.[163] The

supposition proved to be incorrect, but if that could possibly happen

with B, what must have happened in the case of manuscripts that are so

full of corrections as א and D, if they came to be copied in later

times? Suppose that one scribe took the trouble to copy the text of the

first hand, while another thought it his duty to follow the corrections,

the result would be two manuscripts whose common origin would be

scarcely recognisable. And in the course of centuries how often may not

this process have been repeated. No wonder, therefore, that so few

manuscripts have as yet been clearly made out to be the descendants of

our oldest codices, so as to permit of their being removed from the

board with one sweep, as having no independent testimony to contribute,

as is the case with E_{3} which is merely a bad copy of D_{2} (p. 77),

or that scholars cannot agree as to the relationship existing between

two manuscripts like F_{2} and G_{3} (p. 77).[164] Nor need we be

surprised to find that some of our most peculiar witnesses seem to have

remained absolutely childless, while a less valuable race is perpetuated

in many copies. The words of Homer—οἵη περ φύλλων γενεή, τοίη δὲ καὶ

ἀνδρῶν—may be applied conversely to the leaves to which we entrust our

immortality: habent sua fata libelli. The only unfortunate thing is that

we are so little able to follow the course of these fates by means of

external testimony.

[Sidenote: External testimony.]

When the Emperor Constantine _e.g._ asks Eusebius to supply him with

fifty copies of the Scriptures at once, we cannot but suppose that these

became authoritative over a large area. But in which of the classes into

which our manuscripts have hitherto been divided are we to look for

these now?[165] And conversely if, in another locality, heathen

persecution was directed specially against the Bibles of the Christians,

this cannot have been without some effect. According to C. Hülsen

(_Bilder aus der Geschichte des Kapitols_, Rome, 1899), even the Roman

Bishop Marcellinus, with his deacons Strabo and Cassianus, in the year

304, burned, in front of the temple of Juno Moneta, those Gospels which

ten years later were made the law of Christian Rome by the Emperor

Constantine. These scattered notices must be much more carefully

collected and considered than hitherto, and combined with the results

obtained from the collation of the manuscripts.

[Sidenote: Recensions.]

Most of our information with respect to the =recensions= of the Bible

comes from the Syrian Church, and is concerned rather with the Old

Testament than with the New; but the recensions of the former may throw

some light on those of the latter.

[Sidenote: Lucian.]

(_a_) As the result of their researches, Westcott and Hort have made it

very probable, on internal grounds, that a recension of an official

nature was undertaken in Syria, perhaps at Antioch, about the fourth

century, and that to this recension are due the origin and propagation

of that form of the text of the New Testament which was widely

disseminated in the Byzantine Empire, now represented in our later

minuscules, and made the _textus receptus_ by means of the first printed

editions.

=Lucian=, the celebrated founder of the Antiochean school of exegesis,

suffered martyrdom in the year 311 or 312, most probably the latter. Of

all the names that we know, none has a better claim than his to be

associated with such a recension, and the conjecture derives some

support from the passage of Jerome cited above (p. 85).[166] It is,

perhaps, even better supported by what we know of Lucian’s recension of

the Old Testament. In his preface to the Chronicles, Jerome wrote:

“Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium laudat auctorem,

Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat,

mediae inter has provinciae Palaestinae (_v.l._ Palaestinos) codices

legunt, quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt;

totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat.” Now it is

true that the words of a man like Jerome must not be pressed too far,

and what may have been true in his day might be quite different in a

comparatively short time—think _e.g._ of the fifty copies of the Bible

that Eusebius Pamphili had sent to Constantine, or the Bible or Bibles

sent by Athanasius to Constans[167]—at the same time it has been

established beyond all doubt by Field and Lagarde, that it is to Lucian

we must refer a peculiar recension of the Greek Old Testament preserved

in a good many manuscripts, the one found in the unfortunately small

remnant of the Gothic Old Testament and especially in the numerous

Biblical quotations of the famous theologian John of Antioch, better

known as Chrysostom of Constantinople, who was a pupil of Lucian. The

probability, therefore, is very great that the same thing will hold good

of the New Testament portion of the Bible of Ulfilas and Chrysostom. As

regards the former, Kauffmann has expressed a decided opinion to this

effect in his work on the Gothic Bible cited above (p. 139). The

supposition would be converted into something like certainty if it could

be proved on palæographic grounds that this or that New Testament

manuscript belongs to this or that Old Testament manuscript of Lucianic

derivation as part of what was originally one and the same complete

Bible. This is a point which I am not in a position personally to

investigate, and I must therefore content myself with throwing out this

suggestion, and with adding in support of it that we have the express

testimony of the Menologies for saying that Lucian bequeathed to his

pupils a copy of the Old _and New_ Testaments written in three columns

with his own hand.

There is a statement in the Pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis,[168] which

seems, however, to refer only to the Old Testament portion, to the

effect that it was discovered in a concealed cupboard (πυργίσκος) in the

house of a Jew at Nicomedia in the time of Constantine. Long ago Hug and

Eichhorn attributed the “Asiatic” or “Byzantine” recension to Lucian,

and no decided objection can be established to the view of Hort, which

Gregory also is inclined to accept (_TiGr._, p. 814).[169]

[Sidenote: Hesychius.]

(_b_) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out how

matters stand with regard to the recension of =Hesychius=. Jerome

commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testament, but

contemptuously rejects it for the New; and accordingly, in the decree of

Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels “quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha,

evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha” (c. vi. 14, 15).

Considering the important position of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast

number of manuscripts referred with more or less certainty to that

locality, it is the more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have

as yet been discovered of the recension of which “Alexandria et Aegyptus

... Hesychium laudat auctorem,” and that till the present moment the

most divergent views have been held with regard to it. And this is true

of the Old Testament no less than of the New. One view, for which a good

deal can be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)—viz. that we

have the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. [Sidenote: Codex B.] Rahlfs,

who was the first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (_lib.

cit._, p. 78, note 7); “If we care to trust ourselves to pure

hypothesis, we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex,

manifestly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was

prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The locality in

which the manuscript was produced supports this conjecture, while the

time is not inconsistent with it.” I am not aware if Rahlfs knew that

Athanasius had executed πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν for Constans, and I am

not sufficiently acquainted with the minutiæ of the ecclesiastical

history of that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to

hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius for the

Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every Church History

records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum and Italy, and that

Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius II., which would help to explain how

Codex B comes to be in that city.[170] I cannot ascertain however from

the books at my command, whether any particular resemblance has been

observed between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical quotations

found in those writings of Athanasius that belong to this period of his

life, that is, prior to the year 350. And, besides, one has always to

take into consideration how very little reliance can be placed as yet on

the text of the Biblical quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In

the Book of Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text

which is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and Origen,

nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was employed first by Cyril of

Alexandria, and which is the basis of the Sahidic version. This fact may

have an important bearing on the question as to the text of the New

Testament as well.[171] As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion

that the Sahidic version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very

little information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in

particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that name.

Here also, the evidence afforded by palæography would need to be

examined with a view to ascertaining whether or not any of the

manuscripts agreeing with B in the Book of Judges—viz. G (Brit. Mus.,

20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58, 63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena

Nicephori—has a counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On

Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschütz (_ThLz._,

1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts Λ and 566^{evv.}

(Greg).[172] According to the latter, the difference in size precludes

the supposition that Λ and 566 are the New Testament portion of the

manuscript described by Rahlfs (_loc. cit._). But if they are not

written by the same scribe, they both undoubtedly come from the same

school of copyists. At most, however, Λ-566 would only possess

importance for the recension of Hesychius if the text they, or rather

it, follows were different from that with which it was collated. Its

subscription shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were

collated with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important bearing

on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 648.

[Sidenote: Eusebius-Pamphilus.]

(_c_) We have nearly as little certain information regarding the third,

and perhaps most important, of the recensions mentioned by Jerome in

connection with the Old Testament, that of =Eusebius= and =Pamphilus=,

which goes back to Origen.[173] [Sidenote: Origen.] So far as I know,

the references which Origen makes in his extant writings to his own

labours in the field of textual criticism, relate only to the Old

Testament. At the same time his complaint as to the evil condition of

the manuscripts of his day refers to the New Testament, and to the

Gospels in particular. Νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι, he says, in his _Commentary on

Matthew_, Bk. xv. 14, πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ

ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως

τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει

προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.[174] He tells us in the same place how, θεοῦ

διδόντος, he found ways and means of remedying the evil by the

employment of the critical symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus

and asterisk, τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης

διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι. According to his own express

declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved, for it is

only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism at that time at

least was confined to the Old Testament: in exemplaribus autem Novi

Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von

Gebhardt consequently says (_Urt._, 25) that this statement from

Origen’s own mouth should have kept anyone from ascribing a formal

recension of the New Testament text to him, alluding to Hug’s system of

recensions; but at the same time he will not deny that the works of

Origen, who was a man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the

highest importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testament.

As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal chiefly to Origen’s

manuscripts of the Old Testament, but several references are also found

to his New Testament manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii.

418): legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non credere

veritati? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three words only) quia

in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. The words are a gloss

interpolated from ch. v. 7, but they are also found in Origen, though

only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our

Greek manuscripts, in C D^c E K L P, and likewise in most codices of the

Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The same writer says on

Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum

est “neque filius,” quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii

exemplaribus hoc non habeatur additum; sed quia in nonnullis legitur,

disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no doubt the

Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after the Diocletian

persecution. He was styled “the younger Origen” on account of his

learning, and was perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, _Viri Ill._,

76; Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, vii. 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is

a surname of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact

that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen’s exemplar are

found in a certain passage of his works also extant only in Latin, and

there expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that

he had them in his text, and, moreover, had no conception of their

omission in other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this

fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up the question

where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars of Pierius. I suppose it

would be in Caesarea, where he also saw the (Bible?) volumes of Origen

transcribed by Pamphilus with his own hand, and actually obtained

possession of his copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets.[175]

Even supposing that what is meant by _exemplaria Adamantii_ is not

really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply the copy that

Origen used most or used last, that copy might have been authoritative

for Pamphilus if not for Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes

necessary for us to try and discover the Origenic text in the New

Testament as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our

manuscripts go back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of the Pauline

Epistles. In addition to a very practical suggestion as to the lending

of books,[176] and a notice of its preparation and of the original

writer, this manuscript has also the following note: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ

βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου

χειρὶ γεγραμμένον (αὐτοῦ). From this subscription Field (_Hexapla_, i.

p. xcix) has concluded that the library of Pamphilus was still in

existence in the sixth century, but it is doubtful whether the

subscription may not have been found in the original of H and copied

into it along with the text, as is the case with a similar note copied

into the minuscules 15, 83, 173. [Sidenote: Euthalius.] In any case this

manuscript is our principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or,

as it used to be called, the recension of =Euthalius=.[177] I have no

intention of discussing the question whether it should be Euthalius or

Evagrius: Von Dobschütz (_Euthaliusstudien_, p. 152 n. 1) has promised

to give us further particulars as to the Syriac texts relating to the

subject. I would merely call attention to two facts, viz.—

[Sidenote: Harklean.]

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the exemplar of

Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean Syriac published by

Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).

[Sidenote: Evagrius.]

(2) That the name =Evagrius=, which Ehrhard proposes to read in place of

Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found associated with the library of

Pamphilus in another manuscript of the Old Testament. In his _Notitia

editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici_ (Lipsiæ, 1860), pp. 73-122,

Tischendorf published “Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori

Siculi; Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis.” The latter he took

from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe’s _Report ... on the

Greek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant_ (1858, p. 61), professed to

contain “Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis” after the Philocalia. In reality

they are Origen’s Scholia on the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published

in a different form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the _Nova Patrum

Bibliotheca_, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia proper are

prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on the use of the obelus

and the asterisk, and on the different arrangement of the chapters in

the Hebrew and Greek texts, followed by another explanation of the same

sort under the title Εὐαγρίου σχόλιον.[178] Who they are that are

referred to in the scholion as having collated the book (τῶν

ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον) we learn from the subscription, which says:

μετελήφθησαν ἀφ’ ὧν εὕρομεν ἑξαπλῶν καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ χειρὶ (_leg._

αὐτόχειρι) Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο. This subscription, which

Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago from that Patmos

manuscript,[179] should be added to those usually cited—viz. those

appended to Ezra and Esther in א, to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex

Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in

Codex Chisianus 88.

With what has been said the student should compare what Von der Goltz

tells us of a critical work upon the text of the New Testament belonging

partly to the tenth and partly to the sixth century.[180] This, too,

goes back to Origen, and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part

of which is unfortunately erased, the work mentions “a manuscript

written by the hand of St. Eusebius.” As Zahn elsewhere shows, the

writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his own work on this Codex

of Eusebius, and in one passage he expressly contrasts it with the text

of Origen which he follows. In spite of this, however, this Athos

manuscript must be taken into account in dealing with the recension of

Pamphilus. Still more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according

to Conybeare and von Dobschütz.[181] Even the Latin manuscripts may

contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has shown that the table

of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex Fuldensis and in a manuscript

indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9, is nothing but a translation of the

corresponding part of “Euthalius.”[182] Unfortunately the relics of the

literary activity of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the

Scriptures,[183] are exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is

extant only in a Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt

to specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible by

means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.

[Sidenote: Later revisers.]

(_d_) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive at the

oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take account of the

labours of any later individuals in the formation of the Greek New

Testament. Among these were Emperors and Empresses like Constantine and

Constans, who exerted themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures,

and perhaps even made copies of them with their own hands, but these we

may disregard.[184] The work of _Andreas_ and _Arethas_ on the

Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of that book. One

naturally turns here to Krumbacher’s _History of Byzantine Literature_,

but the index to the first edition of that work contains only two

references to the New Testament, neither of them bearing on our present

subject. The matter is one which may be commended to those who have the

time and the opportunity and the willingness to investigate it, and

considering the ardour with which the study of Byzantine antiquities is

being prosecuted at present, it may suffice merely to throw out this

hint.

[Sidenote: Pre-Origenic texts.]

(_e_) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much

uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have already

considered—those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, and the Ferrar Group.

Considering the amount of evidence at our command—how the external

testimony points in the same direction as the manuscripts themselves,

and, indeed, how probable is the whole nature of the operation in

question—one would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of

all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks without any

hesitation of “the official recensions originating subsequent to the

time of Origen” (_ThLbl._, 1899, 180). The vagueness of our conclusions

with respect to these recensions does not look very promising for the

result of our investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen,

when activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to

run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further difficulty that

some of the writers who fall to be considered in this period came in

later times more or less justly under the imputation of heresy, with the

consequence that the results of their labours were less widely

disseminated, if not deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like

these any attempted revision of the text must have been equally

mischievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or from the

opposite. That there were διορθωταί who were supposed to correct the

text in the interests of orthodoxy we have already learned from

Epiphanius. Indeed, from our point of view the action of the orthodox

correctors must be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the

books without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange,

and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of style it

seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands that the Gospels

received that reserved and solemn tone which we would not now willingly

part with, and which can be compared to nothing so much as to those

solemn pictures of Christ that we see painted on a golden background in

Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the slightest doubt

that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly, was originally narrated in

a much more vivacious style. Just consider this, for example. In all our

present authorities—Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac,

Egyptian, and so forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception,

so far as I am aware—we read the beautiful words: “your Father knoweth

what things ye have need of before ye ask Him,” πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι

αὐτόν (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with this what we find singly and solely in

Codex D and the Old Latin h, πρὸ τοῦ ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα, antequam os

aperiatis, “before ever you open your mouth.” To me it is a striking

indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality is

wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott and Hort

among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor even cited by Baljon in

his critical apparatus, and that our commentators have not a single

syllable about it, so that our students and preachers know nothing

whatever of this form of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New

Testament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who

previously were unacquainted with them, I should consider it had done no

small service. But take another illustration from the parable of the

Barren Fig Tree. “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground,”—that is how

our ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant

husbandman in Luke xiii. 7: ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ.

Here again, the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no

variation worth mentioning, except that a good many (A L T etc.) insert

a very prosy οὖν after the imperative, while B 80 read τὸν τόπον for τὴν

γῆν. And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), “till I shall dig

about it and dung it,” there is again no various reading in our ordinary

witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of (βάλω)

κόπρια, κοπρίαν, and κόπρον. What a difference do we find here also in

the text of D: “bring the axe,” φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην, adfers securem; and, “I

will throw in a basket of dung,” βάλω κόφινον κοπρίων, mittam qualum (=

squalum) stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff^2 i l q, from

which it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the Alcuinian

recension of the Vulgate written in gold.[185] Here again, our editors

and commentators for the most part take no notice. “Bring the axe” is

omitted by Weiss, father and son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by

Baljon, while Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of

course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof

of greater originality. But the whole question is raised as to the

principles by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative

value of the witnesses. One might be inclined to regard such

peculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom D or its

parent manuscript was written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort,

and most recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite

the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In the

latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case,

because as yet we have no other testimony to φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην than D d.

But it is not so likely in the case of Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the

testimony of D is supported by that of h. To justify our neglect of

these witnesses, we should require to prove either that h is derived

from D or D from h.[186] So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet

maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is an

impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to the

fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century (see p.

113).[187] The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second and

independent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of

Matt. vi. 8 read, “before you open your mouth.” But it is quite

impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke xiii. 8 (κόφινον

κοπρίων). Here too, of course, one might take exception and say that as

D is bilingual, its Greek text might be derived from the Latin.

Fortunately, however, it happens that the Latin of D, that is, d,

differs from all the other eight Latin witnesses in reading not

_cophinus_ but _qualus_, and it is _cophinus_ that is a loan word from

the Greek[188]; so that this objection, actually raised against D in the

case of other readings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be

observed, moreover—a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in

Westcott and Hort—viz., that Origen also seems to have read “basket.”

The passage is again one that is extant only in the Latin translation of

Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or. 3, 452 among the witnesses supporting

κόπρια; but Westcott and Hort expressly mention that Origen’s context

appears to support the reading κόφινον (“Lev. lat. Ruf., 190, apparently

with context”).

Here, then, we have these three stages:—

(1) D d alone, φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην—_i.e._ one solitary Greek manuscript.

(2) D supported by h, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα—_i.e._ the same solitary

Greek manuscript with the addition of one representative of a

version.

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen, κόφινον

κοπρίων—_i.e._ the same solitary Greek manuscript with the addition

of eight representatives of one version and one not absolutely

certain quotation.

What then? Can it be allowable to judge a reading’s claim to be

mentioned and considered from the number of the witnesses supporting it,

and like Westcott and Hort and Baljon to mention the third only, and

take no notice of the other two? I think not. For just as in certain

circumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any

manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in another case the

truth may have only one solitary representative left to support it

against a whole world of adversaries (Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary

witness either a manuscript, a version, or a quotation. On the other

hand, it may have a whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and

supporting it. In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with

the case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The true man is

willing and able to stand alone, and to many a witness of this sort we

must apply the words of Socrates: ἃ μὲν συνῆκα γενναῖα· οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ἃ

μὴ συνῆκα. If we have been able to verify the word of a witness once,

several times, frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in

cases where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must make

allowance for human fallibility—quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; least

of all in matters of this kind must we look for inerrancy. A manuscript

whose testimony was decisive on every point would be even a greater

miracle than a book printed without a single error at the time of the

Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have regarded as an

eighth wonder of the world. But how to estimate the character of such a

witness, seeing that the subjective feeling, the instinctive perception

of what is original, is as little to be trusted as the number of the

witnesses—that is the difficulty. And what is the point that our

discussion has brought us to? From the “official recensions of the text”

made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to similar works of

earlier times, and we found that the original text may have suffered as

much at the hands of orthodox revisers and correctors, who toned down

and obscured the fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands

of heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.[189]

Unfortunately very little definite information has come down to us from

those early times, and as that relates more to the history of the canon

than of the text, reference must be made here to the monumental work of

Zahn.[190] Two figures, however, emerge from this chaos who have left

their traces on the history of the text as well, =Tatian= and =Marcion=,

the former chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the

Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more than once in

the chapter on the “Materials” (Tatian, p. 97 f.; Marcion, pp. 76, 87),

and both will require careful consideration here in our treatment of the

principles involved in the reconstruction of the text. How much would be

achieved could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the

Gospels, or the _Gospel_ and the _Apostle_ of Marcion!

[Sidenote: Heretics.]

(_f_) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a few less

important notices to be gleaned from their own and the preceding time.

Nearly all the =heretics= were in turn accused of falsifying the

Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true, “jedere

ketter heeft zijn letter” (every heretic has his letter, his text of the

Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the Jews with such

falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde was sometimes inclined

to suspect that the Massoretic numbers in Genesis had been manipulated

by the opponents of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently

made against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when we

glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical

writings,[191] it is abundantly evident that at various times there was

a good deal of falsification—_i.e._, a good deal written under false

names. At the same time it cannot be denied that alterations were also

made on early Christian works and the books of Scripture in the

interests of dogma. These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from

quite harmless changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections,

and, it may be, even wilful corruptions.[192] But most assuredly the

heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this offence: Iliacos

intra muros peccatur et extra.

As Jülicher (_Einl._, 378) points out, the orthodox Church teachers were

very fond of making this charge against the heretics: παραλλάσσειν,

παραχαράσσειν, ῥᾳδιουργεῖν, διαφθείρειν, ἐξαιρεῖν, ἀφανίζειν, κατορθοῦν

(ironically), ἀποκόπτειν, παρακόπτειν, περικόπτειν, μετατιθέναι,

προστιθέναι, interpolare, adulterare, violare, corrodere, dissecare,

auferre, delere, emendare (ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere,

these are some of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion

gave occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke and

the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics, especially

the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Novatians, Arians, and

Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the same accusation is made as

was formerly brought against the Jews. Even within the pale of the

Church one party attributed such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster,

_e.g._, believed that in the case of important discrepancies between the

Greek and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the presumption

of the Greek writers who had interpolated spurious matter. Jerome was

afraid this would be said of him if he ventured to make the slightest

alteration: quis doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in

vocem, me falsarium, me, clamans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in

veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in Apoc. xxii. 18

f. was also referred to the “falsifiers,” who thought it more convincing

and more reverent to observe the rules of grammar and logic than to

abide by all the peculiar expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of

Cyprian bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting the

verse John v. 8, substituted for κράβαττος the better Greek word

σκίμπους, another shouted to him in the hearing of all the multitude,

“Art thou better than he who said κράβαττος that thou art ashamed to use

his words?”[193] And it is a well-known fact that in the time of

Augustine there was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation

over Jonah’s “gourd” (cucurbita) or Jonah’s “ivy” (hedera). A few

references at least may be collected here:—

(1) On a certain Sunday[194] in the year 170 or thereabouts,

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome

through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the

following among other passages (_Eccl. Hist._, iv. 23):—Ἐπιστολὰς

γὰρ ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων με γράψαι ἔγραψα. Καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου

ἀπόστολοι[195] ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ

προστιθέντες. Οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται.[196] Οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα,[197] εἰ καὶ

τῶν Κυριακῶν ῥᾳδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὁπότε καὶ ταῖς

οὐ τοιαύταις ἐπιβεβουλεύκασι. The κυριακαὶ γραφαὶ are in all

likelihood the Gospels (the Syriac renders “the writings of our

Lord”), but may also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we

are to take the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would

appear that these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted

by means of “additions” and “omissions.” The last sentence, if it is

put correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us

to infer that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his

surprise that the writings of the Lord should have been falsified.

To which Dionysius replies that certain letters of his own had been

falsified also, and that it was therefore no wonder if they did the

same to the writings of the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or,

_even_) with those that were inferior to them. The simplest

explanation of the words is, undoubtedly, that Dionysius sought to

console himself over the fate that had befallen his letters, by

reflecting that it was not surprising that they had falsified his

letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed to do the same

_even_ to the writings of the Lord. On the first interpretation, one

would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger expression to

describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred writings

than the mere οὐ θαυμαστόν. Who are meant by τινές? One most

naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account, Soter,

whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed a book

against the Montanists.

[Sidenote: Artemonites.]

(2) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical

History (c. xxviii.), entitled Περὶ τῶν τὴν Ἀρτέμωνος αἵρεσιν

ἐξαρχῆς προβεβλημένων· οἷοί τε τὸν τρόπον γεγόνασι καὶ ὅπως τὰς

ἁγίας γραφὰς διαφθεῖραι τετολμήκασιν, Eusebius quotes the following

complaint from an earlier source, entitled the _Little Labyrinth_ (±

235):—Γραφὰς μὲν θείας ἀφόβως ῥερᾳδιουργήκασιν, πίστεως δὲ ἀρχαίας

κανόνα ἠθετήκασι, Χριστὸν δὲ ἠγνοήκασιν, οὐ τί αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι

γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες, but occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry,

Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Galen, ταῖς τῶν ἀπίστων

τέχναις, τὴν ἁπλῆν τῶν θείων γραφῶν πίστιν καπηλεύοντες ... διὰ

τοῦτο ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἀφόβως ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας, _λέγοντες

αὐτὰς διωρθωκέναι_. Καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο μὴ καταψευδόμενος αὐτῶν λέγω, ὁ

βουλόμενος δύναται μαθεῖν. Εἰ γάρ τις θελήσει συγκομίσας αὐτῶν

ἑκάστου _τὰ ἀντίγραφα_ ἐξετάζειν πρὸς ἄλληλα, κατὰ πολὺ ἂν εὕροι

διαφωνοῦντα. Ἀσύμφωνα γοῦν ἔσται τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῖς Θεοδότου·

Πολλῶν δὲ ἔστιν εὐπορῆσαι διὰ τὸ φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι τοὺς μαθητὰς

αὐτῶν τὰ ὑφ’ ἑκάστου αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ καλοῦσι _κατωρθωμένα_ τουτέστιν

ἠφανισμένα. Πάλιν δὲ τούτοις τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου οὐ συνᾴδει. Τὰ γὰρ

Ἀπολλωνίδου οὐδὲ αὐτὰ ἑαυτοῖς ἐστι σύμφωνα. Ἔνεστι γὰρ συγκρῖναι τὰ

πρότερον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν[198] κατασκευασθέντα τοῖς ὕστερον πάλιν

ἐπιδιαστραφεῖσι, καὶ εὑρεῖν κατὰ πολὺ ἀπᾴδοντα. Ὅσης δὲ τόλμης ἐστὶ

τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εἰκὸς μηδὲ ἐκείνους ἀγνοεῖν. Ἢ γὰρ οὐ πιστεύουσιν

Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι λελέχθαι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, καί εἰσιν ἄπιστοι· ἢ

ἑαυτοὺς ἡγοῦνται σοφωτέρους τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τί

ἕτερον ἢ δαιμονῶσιν; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρνήσασθαι δύνανται ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τὸ

τόλμημα, ὁπόταν καὶ τῇ αὐτῶν χειρὶ ᾖ γεγραμμένα, καὶ παρ’ ὧν

κατηχήθησαν μὴ τοιαύτας παρέλαβον τὰς γραφάς· καὶ δεῖξαι ἀντίγραφα,

ὅθεν αὐτὰ μετεγράψαντο, μὴ ἔχωσιν. Ἔνιοι δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ παραχαράσσειν

ἠξίωσαν αὐτὰς, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ἀρνησάμενοι τόν τε νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας

ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας προφάσει χάριτος, εἰς ἔσχατον ἀπωλείας

ὄλεθρον κατωλίσθησαν.

The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the

writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because

their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts,

“each one’s emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are

corruptions,” as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not

quite certain that κατωρθωμένα really means corrected manuscripts of

the Bible, and not the heretics’ own works—_i.e._, whether we should

understand ἀντίγραφα τῶν θείων γραφῶν after τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου, τὰ

Θεοδότου, τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου, τὰ Ἀπολλωνίδου and not rather γράμματα or

συντάγματα. In the former case we shall have to search for a

recension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in the

case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a later.

This interpretation of the words does certainly receive support from

the positive way in which the historian argues from the conduct of

these heretics, that they either did not believe in any inspiration

of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better

themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive τὰς

γραφάς in that form (τοιαύτας) from their (Christian) instructors,

and were not able to show any older copies from which their own were

transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we may

conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius

mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii.

9, Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii.

22, 1 Tim. ii. 5; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground

that in John i. 14, it is not τὸ πνεῦμα but ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. No

sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T.

passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The most

probable instance is Luke i. 35. “If we may trust the statement of

Epiphanius,” says Harnack (_Monarchianismus_, PRE^3, x. 188),

“Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from

the first (διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς

Θεοῦ),[199] as if the words διὸ καὶ were wanting, which makes the

sentence imply that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his

approving himself. But perhaps Theodotus omitted διὸ καὶ altogether,

just as he seems to have read πνεῦμα κυρίου instead of πνεῦμα ἅγιον,

in order to obviate all ambiguity.” The latter reading is not

mentioned in Tischendorf, and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion

amounts to this, that whereas he understood ἅγιον to be the subject

of the sentence, Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it

from γεννώμενον.[200]

[Sidenote: Marcosians.]

(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,[201] Irenæus says (92):—Ἔνια δὲ καὶ

τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ κειμένων εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χαρακτῆρα μεθαρμόζουσιν ...

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι· πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι ἕνα τῶν λόγων

καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον τὸν ἐροῦντα, ἐμφαίνοντός φασι δεῖν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸν

ἀληθῶς ἕνα Θεόν. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii.

17, but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words

of Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text

itself.[202] The still earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to

be taken as referring to this practice, ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ

Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν

[εἶναι], οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. For the exposition of the

passage see Zahn, _GK._ i. 842.

[Sidenote: Basilides.]

(4) That Basilides[203] altered the text of the Gospels as received

by the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical

views, and incorporated them in their altered form in his

_Evangelium_, is shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (_GK._ i. 771).

He shows also that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic

narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that Simon the

Cyrenian was crucified instead of Jesus, if this was really his

doctrine.

[Sidenote: Noëtus.]

(5) Hippolytus says of Noëtus (Lagarde’s edition, 45, 19): ὁπόταν

γὰρ θελήσωσιν πανουργεύεσθαι, _περικόπτουσι_ τὰς γραφάς. He means by

this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quotations,

and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying regard to

the context. But compare _ibid._, line 7 ff., αἱ μὲν γὰρ γραφαὶ

ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἂν καὶ Νόητος νοῇ· οὐκ ἤδη δὲ εἰ Νόητος μὴ

νοεῖ, παρὰ τοῦτο _ἔκβλητοι_ αἱ γραφαί.

[Sidenote: Valentinians.]

(6) Heracleon,[204] the Valentinian, is said to have read πέντε

instead of ἕξ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration

himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly

made out. There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon,

or in our commentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, _Introd._, ii.

260, n. 3, where reference is made to Lightfoot’s _Colossians_, p.

336, n. 1. Origen, commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in

support of the reading “Bethany,” which, he says, “is found in

almost all the manuscripts.”

In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the

Scriptures, Irenæus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12):

scripturas quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt,

quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6): καὶ

οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς

ἀποδείξεις ποιεῖσθαι παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες

τὰς ἐξηγήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν. But in i. 11, 9 he

says of them: Illi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... suas conscriptiones

proferentes, plura habere gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia,

siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim

scriptum est, “veritatis evangelium” titulent, in nihilo conveniens

apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec evangelium sit apud eos sine

blasphemia. For the continuation and discussion of the passage, see

Zahn, _GK._ ii. 748. See also Westcott, _Canon_, p. 298 ff.

Zahn (_GK._ ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text

of the manuscripts, by the omission of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, _e.g._, in 1 Cor.

xv. 29, and the insertion of θεότητες in Col. i. 16.

In i. 8, 1, Irenæus accuses them of ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες καὶ τὸ

δὴ λεγόμενον ἐξ ἄμμου σχοίνια πλέκεις ἐπιτηδεύοντες. The proverb is

from Ahikar.

The well-known charge made by Celsus (_Orig. con. Cels._, 2, 27;

Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the

re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration: Μετὰ ταῦτά

τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν (Celsus) ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ

ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς _μεταχαράττειν_ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον

τριχῇ καὶ τετραχῇ καὶ πολλαχῇ, ἵν’ ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους

ἀρνεῖσθαι. Μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα ἢ τοὺς

ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ

Λουκιάνου. Τοῦτο δὲ λεγόμενον οὐ τοῦ λόγου ἐστὶν ἔγκλημα ἀλλὰ τῶν

τολμησάντων ῥᾳδιουργῆσαι τὰ εὐαγγέλια. Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ φιλοσοφίας

ἔγκλημά εἰσιν οἱ σοφισταὶ ἢ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι ἢ οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ ἢ

οἵτινές ποτ’ ἂν ὦσιν οἱ ψευδοδοξοῦντες, οὕτως οὐ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ

χριστιανισμοῦ ἔγκλημα οἱ μεταχαράττοντες τὰ εὐαγγέλια καὶ αἱρέσεις

ξένας ἐπεισάγοντες τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Ἰησοῦ διδασκαλίας.

[Sidenote: Gnostics.]

(7) Clement (_Strom._, iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics

corrupted the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing

the emphasis (in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in

copying manuscripts?); see Zahn, _GK._ i. 424. On Tertullian’s

complaint as to the way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see

below, p. 276.

(8) Clement (_Strom._, iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. 10_a_, to which he

annexes the reason found in verse 9_b_, and then goes on to say, ἢ

ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ

δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὲρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι. Zahn

(_GK._ i. p. 411) makes the surmise that when Clement spoke of

certain persons who “transposed” or altered the Gospels—_i.e._, took

liberties with the text, he may have been thinking of Tatian, whose

personal intercourse he may have enjoyed for a length of time, and

with whose Greek writings he shows himself to be familiar.

[Sidenote: Simon Magus and the Marcionites.]

(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene

Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the

Scriptures by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as

addressing the Fathers at Nicæa, and enjoining them, in dealing with

heretics, to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the

holy Scriptures and those who merely interpret them falsely. The

arch-heretic Simon Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious

Scripture. His sect possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which

they gave the title “Liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi.” The

Phocalites (Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the

Church’s New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in

which the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the

Marcionites: Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt

addideruntque Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in

locis, quaedam vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio

omnino sustulerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret

opinionibus ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt “Librum propositi

finis.” See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi,

_Conc. Coll._, ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele,

_Conciliengeschichte_, 2nd. ed., i. 361-368, 282 f.; Harnack, _Der

Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Maruta von Maipherkat_, _TU._ (New

Series), iv., 1899; _ThLz._, 1899, 2.

[Sidenote: Arians.]

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (_De Spiritu_, iii. 10): Quem locum

ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de

vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de

Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae

infidelitatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque

occupaverat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus

suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium

vestrum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc

etiam in oriente fecistis.

[Sidenote: Greeks.]

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, xvii.

100 f.): Et tamen sic (_i.e._ μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες) praescribitur nobis

de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod

facit studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti

non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi

verba legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere

videatur. Constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus

graecis translatos (esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas

temporum servavit et probat: postquam autem a concordia animis

discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus

coeperunt, multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc

contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi

Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et

ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur: nam hodie quae in

latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus

posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correction “hodie

quae” for “hodieque” in the last sentence is due to Haussleiter,

_Forschungen_, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as being the

earliest instance known to me of the collocation of _ratio_ and

_auctoritas_ as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Compare

the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier

polemics—_e.g._ against Prierias, and also later in his protest at

Worms.

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. 1, with reference to Acts xv.

20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a

sanguine abstinendum _adulterant_ scripturam, quartum mandatum

addentes “et a suffocatis observandum,” quod puto nec ne Dei nutu

intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.

[Sidenote: Marcion.]

(_g_) =Marcion.=—We have more exact information in regard to Marcion’s

great undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism.

Here there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the Greek and Latin

Fathers. It must be confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been

directed more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally than

to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here again, the works of

Zahn throw most light upon the subject; in other works, like the PRE

_e.g._, this side of Marcion’s activity is very superficially treated.

Several points have already been referred to here and there in the

previous part of this work, but the question must now be treated as a

whole.[205]

In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion’s New Testament,

Zahn avers that no church teacher of the second century occupies such an

important position in the history of the ecclesiastical canon as does

that early writer. If this is really so, it becomes all the more

important for us to inquire whether traces of his influence may not be

discoverable also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.

[Sidenote: His New Testament.]

Marcion’s New Testament, which was at the same time his entire Bible,

consisted of two books of moderate compass—viz. a _Gospel-Book_, which

he seems to have called Εὐαγγέλιον simply, and a collection of _ten

Pauline Epistles_ called, probably by himself, τὸ Ἀποστολικὸν (_sc._

βιβλίον). The Epistles were arranged in an order which was evidently

thought to correspond to that of their composition—viz., Gal., 1 and 2

Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos (= Ephes.), Col., Phil., Phm. He

was unanimously accused by the Church teachers of having mutilated the

ecclesiastical Bible in the manufacture of his own, and also of having

corrupted the text here and there by means of interpolations,

particularly in the case of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted.

They complained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it

for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are employed

nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted not words merely but

whole pages. They compared his work upon the manuscripts to that of a

mouse.[206] And as for his disciples! Every day they were improving

their Gospel. Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the

writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work, and

removed whatever did not concur with their views.[207] But according to

testimony extending over a long stretch of time, their text of the

Scriptures seems to have undergone fewer alterations during that period

than that of the Catholic Church (Zahn, _GK._ i. 613). In comparing the

text of these two collections “it should be clearly understood that the

Church’s text, whose treatment by Marcion is in question, is not to be

identified with that of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of

Epiphanius, but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church

or in the Roman community about the year 150. The text of the

ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his labours can no longer

be restored in every word, but sufficient means are at our command to

give us a general idea of the form which the text of the Pauline

Epistles presented in the second century, and at the same time to

ascertain in many separate instances what text Marcion had before him.

It turns out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion’s text to

one who compares it with the _textus receptus_, or with one of our

modern critical editions, without knowing much about the history of the

text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but was pretty common in the

West in early times. Now it is quite inconceivable, in view of the

implacable hostility of the Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned

as it was unceasingly as being heretical and spurious, should have

exerted any positive influence on that of the Church.[208] It follows,

accordingly, that all those things in Marcion’s Bible that seem to the

uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are attested by

Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers, were not invented

by Marcion, but taken by him from the Church’s Bible of that time, or

from one such Bible at all events, and were only gradually ousted from

the text used by the Church.”[209] All this, which is taken word for

word, with the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from

Zahn’s dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at that time

have been self-evident, but, like Zahn’s further statements in the same

place, has not yet been sufficiently attended to, especially in our

commentaries on Luke and the Pauline Epistles. He points out, _e.g._,

that Tertullian, in speaking of the change of the address “ad Ephesios”

to “Laodicenos,” credits Marcion with the intention of being “et in isto

diligentissimus explorator,” so that it is possible that he compared

several manuscripts in order to discover the original wording.[210] In

such cases, therefore, the question may be asked whether Marcion may not

really have preserved the original text, and whether his text, so far as

it is corroborated by any independent tradition, should not be estimated

much higher than it is by the textual critics of the present.[211] Zahn

deserves all the more credit for giving such careful attention to

questions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his

investigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt chiefly

with those passages in which Marcion’s intentional alterations have been

preserved. [Sidenote: His “Emendations.”] Reference may be made, _e.g._,

to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled _Minor

Emendations_, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his hostility to the

Old Testament with its God of Righteousness, omitted the quotations from

the Old Testament altogether, or dropped the introductory formula of

quotation in Rom. i. 17, xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13; excluded all the

references to Abraham in Galatians except in iv. 22; altered ἀγνοοῦντες

τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην in Rom. x. 3 to ἀγνοοῦντες τὸν θεόν; removed

the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον from Gal. iv. 4;

changed the active construction into the passive in 1 Cor. iii. 17; and

elsewhere strove after greater condensation, lucidity, and brevity of

expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had good grounds for believing that the

text of the Scriptures had not remained unchanged during the century

that had elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with

more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles; but to

attempt to rid the Apostle’s text of all supposed corruptions with no

regard to any sort of critical material whatever, but depending simply

and solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely Christian

and apostolic, was the undertaking of a giant, as Irenæus calls Marcion.

And his disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have

exceeded the intention of the master and editor, “just as many Lutherans

at the present day look upon Luther’s translation, with all its faults,

as the very word of God, and hardly capable of improvement.”

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone still more

carefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text.[212]

His main conclusions will hardly be contested. Among these are the

following:—

[Sidenote: Marcion and the Western Text.]

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although his text

displays various elements belonging to Matthew and Mark;

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the

ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the same or

similar features;

3. That Marcion’s text shows[213] none of those small “apocryphal

additions” which we find combined with the contents of our Gospels in

Justin and Tatian.

Zahn also calls attention frequently to the different manuscripts which

still exhibit a text agreeing with that credited to Marcion, and which

are precisely the Western witnesses, the Old Latin manuscripts, and D of

the Greek.[214] Compare, _e.g._, on Luke v. 14, 34, 39; vi. 25 f., 31,

37; viii. 45; ix. 6, 16, 22; x. 22, 25; xi. 20, 41; xii. 14, 31, 58 f.;

xviii. 35; xx. 36; xxi. 27, 30; xxiv. 6, 26, 37. But there are also

passages where Marcion parts company with D and its associates—_e.g._,

vi. 22, 26, 29; xi. 4. In Paul, too, the number of passages displaying

agreement between Marcion and D_{2} G_{2} preponderates: Gal. ii. 5;

iii. 14_b_; v. 1, 14, 24; 1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. v. 4; 1 Thess. iv. 16;

Eph. i. 9, 13; iii. 10; iv. 6; v. 28 ff. The agreement between Marcion’s

text and that of the minuscule 157 was previously emphasised by

Zahn—_e.g._, in Luke xvi. 12, where the reading τὸ ἐμόν instead of τὸ

ὑμέτερον (ἡμέτερον B L) is supported as yet by this Greek manuscript

alone and three old Latin (e i l), and in xxi. 30, where only one other

of the minuscules collated by Scrivener supports D 157 in reading

προβάλωσιν τὸν καρπὸν αὐτῶν.[215] In Luke xxiv. 26, D and Marcion are

our only witnesses for the reading ὅτι instead of οὐχί. How is this to

be explained? Zahn, _e.g._, holds that it is a mere coincidence that

Marcion’s reading, “prophetas suos,”[216] in 1 Thess. ii. 15 agrees with

τοὺς ἰδίους προφήτας read by D_{2} E_{2} K_{2} L_{2}, _i.e._, the

representatives of the Antiochean recension, with which Marcion

elsewhere very seldom agrees, seeing he founds throughout upon a Western

text. In the great majority of cases the explanation seems to be simple

enough. Marcion began his career at Rome, so that we may naturally

expect him to give us a Western text. So far, therefore, one might be

tempted simply to ignore that text as hitherto, although a text attested

by Marcion and the Church in common is surely entitled, even in respect

of its antiquity, to much more consideration than has been paid to it

heretofore. The importance, and at the same time the difficulty, of the

problem is increased by the fact that we find the same text as his, or

at all events one of a similar sort, represented in a totally different

quarter—viz. in Tatian.[217]

[Sidenote: Tatian.]

(_h_) =Tatian=[218] has already been referred to in a general way above

(p. 97 ff.): we shall now give the testimony of the early church

regarding him verbatim. If we leave out of account the somewhat doubtful

reference in Hegesippus (p. 96), and an equally uncertain allusion to

the title of his Harmony in Origen,[219] the testimony from purely Greek

sources is confined to a few sentences in Eusebius,[220] a notice in

Epiphanius,[221] and a scholion in a manuscript of the Gospels.[222]

For more exact information we are indebted solely to the Syrian church.

The Greek writer Theodoret gives us most details.[223] The notices

contained in Syriac and Arabic sources are more numerous than the Greek,

but they are shorter and must be omitted here.[224] It becomes

necessary, therefore, to consider very carefully whether any vestiges of

Tatian’s work are preserved in our witnesses for the text, and how these

may, and indeed must, be used in its criticism. I assume as having been

demonstrated by Zahn, that Tatian’s Diatessaron was a Syriac work, and I

take it as very probable that the Curetonian Syriac and the Lewis Syriac

present us with two works based on, or at least influenced by, that of

Tatian. To what extent the same is true of the Peshitto as well need not

be considered here, the main problem being to elucidate the connection

between Tatian and the _Western_ witnesses. And here we are at once

confronted with a matter of great uncertainty—viz., whether there might

not also have been a _Greek_ Harmony of the Gospels either antecedent to

the Diatessaron or contemporary with it, which Tatian himself made or

employed. Zahn thinks not, mainly because from the side of the Greek

Church we have almost no notice whatever of the existence of anything of

this sort, nor of Tatian’s own work either. Harnack seems not to be

convinced of the correctness of Zahn’s position.[225] He even declares

that Harris’s _Preliminary Study_[226] has only confirmed his

“conviction that Tatian composed a Greek Harmony of the Gospels.”[227]

That treatise is accompanied by a facsimile of the fragment of Mark in

Codex W^d, “the contents of which display an affinity with the text of

the Diatessaron (with the original text?).”[228] At all events Harnack

is of opinion that Harris’s conclusions with regard to a Pre-Tatian and

a very early Harmony of the narrative of the Passion are very premature,

and in his judgment should either not have been put forward at all in a

_Preliminary Study_ or suggested with more deliberation. G. Krüger also

puts “this Combined Gospel written in Syriac (Greek?)” in his _History

of Early Christian Literature_, § 37. On the other hand, Hogg in § 12 of

his Introduction,[229] _Non-Syriac Texts of the Diatessaron_, says

nothing of a Greek text, and in § 19, where he raises the question, “In

what language was it written?”, he speaks only of the “view favoured by

an increasing majority of scholars, that it was written in Syriac,” and

then asks, on this view, “was it a translation or simply a compilation?”

and lastly, which is the main question, “what precisely is its relation

to ... the Western text generally?”

In his first work, written prior to the publication of the Arabic text,

Zahn very frequently pointed to the fact that the so-called =Western=

witnesses—_i.e._, Codex D and the Old Latin manuscripts, agree so often

with Tatian.[230] His explanation of this phenomenon is very

simple—viz., that Tatian returned from Rome to his old home in Syria

about the year 172, and took with him from the West his text, which was

just the Western text. [Sidenote: Tatian and the Western Text.] This

view would present no difficulty if it were only the case that the

Diatessaron shared the peculiarities of the Western text, but is the

fact not rather the converse of this—viz., that D, the leading

representative of that text, shares the peculiarities of a Harmony of

the Gospels, might we say, in short, of the Diatessaron? Not only are

certain readings the same in both texts, but the Western text seems

actually to exhibit features which can scarcely be regarded otherwise

than as the outcome of a Harmony. I have given expression to this

opinion ere now; it struck me forcibly when I was collating the Codex

Bezae for my _Supplementum Novi Testamenti Graeci_. In order to afford a

more convenient survey of the vast number of variants, I followed the

paragraphing of Westcott and Hort’s edition. Now look at the variants

there. Whereas the majority consist of quite separate and disconnected

readings, I was obliged at the beginning of the pericopæ regularly to

copy half a line or even a whole line from D, its text differed so much

from that of our present editions at the beginnings of the pericopæ, and

there only to the same extent. See, _e.g._, Luke v. 17, 27; vii. 1, 18;

ix. 37; x. 1, 25; xi. 14; xii. 1 to the end; xxiv. 13. It is true this

phenomenon is most frequently observed in Luke, where I had previously

explained its appearance in another way by supposing like Blass that it

was due to the author having issued two editions of that Gospel. But

neither is it altogether absent from the other Gospels. It occurs most

seldom, as might be expected, in Matthew, but examples may be seen in

xvii. 22, 24; xx. 29. In Mark see iii. 19; iv. 1; vi. 7. There are other

features besides this which are difficult of explanation on any other

grounds. For these I may briefly refer to the second of the works

relating to this part of the subject, _The Syro-Latin Text of the

Gospels_, by F. H. Chase,[231] in which a special chapter is devoted to

the question of “Harmonistic Influence” (pp. 76-100). The writer calls

attention there to three points, viz.:—

1. “The text of Codex Bezae shows constant indications of harmonistic

influence.” This, however, is nothing new. Jerome, _e.g._, complains of

amalgamations of this sort. But then,

2. “In such harmonized passages readings occur which we are justified by

other evidence in considering as Tatianic readings.”

3. “There are other signs of the influence of Syriac phraseology in, or

in the neighbourhood of, such readings due to harmonistic influence.”

I waive consideration of this last point, but as regards the second it

is noteworthy, and bears out what I have said above, that Chase in this

connection goes almost entirely by passages from Luke with the exception

of Matt. xxi. 18; xxiv. 31 f.; xxvi. 59 ff.; and Mark viii. 10; xiii. 2;

x. 25 ff. From Luke he instances iii. 23-38; iv. 31; v. 10 f., 14 f.;

vi. 42; viii. 35; xi. 2; xx. 20; xxi. 7; xxiii. 45 ff.; xxiv. 1.

I should like, however, to call attention here to one passage to which

Chase refers in another connection—viz., the extensive interpolation

after Matt. xx. 28 (Chase, pp. 9-14). It is true, as Zahn expressly

points out,[232] that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates, who were our only

sources for the Diatessaron prior to 1881, “shows any traces of this

long and in part apocryphal interpolation, nor yet of Luke xiv. 7-10,

from which the most of it is taken.” But in the Arabic Tatian,[233] Luke

xiv. 1-6 and xiv. 7-11, 12-15 are found after Matt. xx. 1-16 at the end

of § 29 and the beginning of § 30 respectively. The verse Matt. xx. 28,

regarding which Zahn was uncertain whether it was in Tatian or not,

seeing that neither Ephraem nor Aphraates mentions it, is found in § 31,

5 between Mark x. 44 and Luke xiii. 22, while Matt. xx, 29_a_ (+ Mark x.

46_a_) follows a little further down in § 31, 25. So far, indeed, this

result is not favourable to our theory. But I ask myself in vain how

else this interpolation is to be explained except as an attempt at

harmonising. Now, seeing that its text is found in one Syriac, two

Greek, and half a dozen Latin witnesses (the particulars are given in

the critical note, p. 255), the further question arises, Whence comes

it? The most ready answer will be, “it comes from the Greek, whence it

passed to the Latin on the one side and to the Syriac on the other.” As

for the Latin, it is certain that the majority, perhaps even all, of the

Latin forms are derived from the Greek. But are the Syriac as well? Or

is not rather the converse true, however strange it may seem at the

first glance, that the Greek is a translation of the Syriac? There is

the word δειπνοκλήτωρ, _e.g._, which strikes me as it did Chase, as

being particularly strange. I admit that I should not care to build a

hypothesis of this magnitude on this one word and this one passage

alone. I would merely submit it generally as a question to be kept in

view in further investigations. And I would supplement it by another

question whether, in the case of the first being negatived, it may not

be true after all, _pace_ Zahn, that there was a Greek Harmony alongside

the Syriac and probably going back to the same author. May not the close

resemblances traceable between Tatian and the Western text be also

accounted for on the supposition that instead of Tatian being influenced

by the latter, it really goes back to Tatian?

I would ask this question specially in regard to the Western text of the

_Pauline Epistles_. What is meant by the statement of Eusebius cited

above as to Tatian’s treatment of these Epistles? Μεταφράσαι may

certainly mean to translate, but then one translates an entire text and

not φωνάς τινας merely, and, moreover, one does not translate ὡς

ἐπιδιορθούμενος αὐτῶν τὴν τῆς φράσεως σύνταξιν “with a view to improving

the phraseology and syntax.” Do not our Western witnesses present us

with a work of this description? I am well aware that such hypotheses

are like that regarding the author of the _Nibelungenlied_ where there

was a great poem without a name and one or two great names without

poems, and so various combinations were made, for each of which

something could be said, while none of them could be said to be proved.

That may be the case here too. But at present I feel disposed to

attribute a considerable share in this peculiar “Western” text to

Tatian. [Sidenote: Syro-Latin.] And as this name “Western,” the

inappropriateness of which has long been recognised, becomes on this

supposition more inappropriate still, I am inclined to recommend the

freer adoption of the nomenclature familiarised by the work of Chase, I

mean that of “Syro-Latin.” In his preface Chase puts in a plea for its

use, citing a sentence from the _Dublin Review_ of July 1894, p. 52, in

which H. Lucas says: “The time is, we hope, not far distant, when the

term Western will give place to the term Syro-Latin, the only one which

truly represents, in our opinion, the facts of the case.” Just as when

we wish to indicate those languages and tribes that extend from the

Indian to the German and Keltic we say Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Keltic, if

we wish to be more exact and avoid wounding the sensibilities of the

French, so the term Syro-Latin would be the best designation for a form

of text whose characteristics are as distinctly traceable among the

Syrians in the East as among the Greeks in the centre and the Latins in

the West. But be that as it may, one thing is clear, that many problems

here await solution. But they will not for ever defy methodical

investigation.

The foregoing was all written before I saw the analysis given by

Zahn in his _Geschichte des Kanons_, i. 383 ff. Reading it, I am

surprised that his conclusions have not been followed up by a

thorough investigation of the subject long ere now. Personally, I am

precluded at this moment from even making an attempt in this

direction. Zahn says: “The quotations of Aphraates frequently

presuppose a different Greek text (of the Pauline Epistles) than

that lying at the foundation of the Peshitto. The repeated

resemblances to Western texts, Claromontanus, Boernerianus (D G),

Tertullian, and other Latin witnesses are particularly striking. In

the earliest Syriac Gospel the same phenomenon appears even more

conspicuously. How is it to be explained? Shall we suppose that this

type of text was dispersed equally throughout _all_ parts of the

Church during the second century? In that case we should have to

regard it as the earliest form at which we can arrive, on the

principle laid down by Tertullian: quod apud multos unum invenitur,

non est erratum sed traditum. But,” says Zahn, “even those who

venerate the Western tradition of the text—_i.e._ those who, like

myself, are of opinion that it does not get nearly its due share of

attention from present-day critics—will decline to assent to this

proposition. Because the result of this view would be to establish

the rule that the so-called Western tradition _invariably_ deserves

the preference over those others, even over our oldest Greek

manuscripts themselves. Even if we limited it to those elements of

the text in which the furthest East agrees with the furthest West,

the result would still be a text to which no cautious critic would

pin his faith. A more natural explanation of this striking condition

of things is required.” Zahn finds this in the supposition that

there was formerly a close intimacy between the Syrian Church and

Rome. “Just as the Princes of Edessa had much direct intercourse

with Rome, so to all appearance had the Church there.” In proof of

this, he points to the early intrusion of Marcion’s doctrines and

Bible into Mesopotamia, to the participation of the Church of Edessa

in the Easter controversy and its agreement in that matter with

Victor of Rome, and to the Abgar Legend which connects Edessa with

Zephyrinus of Rome (199-216) by way of Antioch, and represents Peter

as sending the Epistles of Paul from Rome to Edessa. “Considering

the anachronisms that legends usually exhibit, may we not take this

to be the expression of an historical fact, viz. that a text written

in the West formed the basis of the earliest Syriac version of the

Pauline Epistles? This supposition is confirmed by the earliest

history of the Gospel among the Syrians—viz. by the

Diatessaron.”[234] After a most thorough discussion of all the

questions relating to that book (pp. 387-422), Zahn discovers in

this part also (the Gospels) an intimate connection between the text

on which it is based, and the form assumed by the text of the

Gospels in the West during the second century. And he believes that

it will be difficult to find a more feasible explanation of the

remarkable agreement evidenced by these two texts in the very matter

of their textual corruption and licence than this, that this text

came from Rome to Syria. And so the final question arises, “whether

a connection does not exist between the first Gospel and the first

text of Paul and the Acts in the Syriac, and whether the _entire_ N.

T., as the _Doctrine of Addai_ says, was not a present which Tatian

brought with him from Rome to his countrymen, and adapted for their

use by means of a free translation and revision?” Zahn thinks that a

positive answer cannot be given, but he refers pointedly to what

Eusebius says regarding Tatian’s treatment of the Pauline Epistles,

and is led to suppose that those changes were introduced on the

occasion and in the form of a translation from the Greek into

Syriac, and that the reason why Eusebius had such hazy notions

regarding it as well as the Diatessaron, is most likely that both

the books were in Syriac, and used only in the Syrian Church. A

closer investigation of the Pauline Epistles in the Syriac is needed

to decide these questions.

To these propositions of Zahn I have but the one objection stated

above, that the expressions used by Eusebius point far too plainly

to a revision of the phraseology of the Pauline Epistles, which

could have been done only on the original Greek.[235] Zahn himself

points out that the words of Eusebius remind us of what is elsewhere

said of the Theodotians (_Eccl. Hist._, v. 28, 15. 18; see above, p.

200).[236]

[Sidenote: Western Text.]

(_i_) =The Western Text.=—We thus find ourselves face to face with what

has been called the only burning question of the textual criticism of

the New Testament—the question, namely, of the place to be assigned to

the so-called Western text. Our treatment of the external testimony has

led us back through Lucian, Pamphilus, Hesychius, and Origen, to Marcion

and Tatian, that is, into the middle of the second century. But the

question is now whether we must stop here, or whether it is not possible

to ascend with certainty even somewhat higher by means of an

investigation of the material afforded by the manuscripts themselves.

The “Higher Criticism,” _e.g._, seeks to get behind the Synoptic Gospels

to the documents which the authors or editors used in their composition;

is it not possible for the “Lower Criticism” to recover with certainty

at least the primitive text of the New Testament books? And is that not

most readily found in the so-called Western text? We have been obliged

to make frequent reference to it already; the question for us now is,

“What is the value of Codex Bezae and its associates?”

It was observed by Theodore Beza himself, the scholar whose name the

Codex justly bears, that the text of this manuscript differed in so many

respects from that of others, especially in Luke and Acts, that he could

give no explanation of it satisfactory to himself. He was not led to

suppose that the alterations were due to heretics; nevertheless, like a

cautious man, he thought it more advisable to preserve the Codex than to

publish it. Eight hundred years before, Bede was similarly impressed by

the Codex which we now know by the name of Laudianus, E_{2}. He

indicated “quaedam quae in Graeco sive aliter seu plus aut minus posita

vidimus.” He was uncertain “utrum negligentia interpretis omissa vel

aliter dicta, an incuria librariorum sint depravata sive relicta ...

namque graecum exemplar fuisse falsatum suspicari non audeo.” When the

manuscripts began to be more systematically collated, Bengel declared

that the criticism of the text would be much simplified if one were not

bound to trouble himself with these codices, which, as being written in

Greek and Latin, he called _vere bilingues_. Old students of the

Maulbronn College have told me that Ephorus Bäumlein the most

distinguished philologist of our Institute in this century, and editor

of _Disquisitions on the Greek Particles_ and similar works, was always

referring to the Codex Cantabrigiensis, though they themselves never

rightly understood about this Codex, or indeed about such things at all.

I do not know who it was from whom I myself first heard of it; certainly

there was no particular importance attributed to it in my student days

or at the college where I was. On the other hand, Tischendorf admitted

its claims in opposition to all the other Greek manuscripts in several

passages, such as Mark ii. 22; xi. 6; Luke xxiv. 52, 53, etc. In other

places he did so at first, but changed his opinion afterwards—_e.g._, in

Acts xi. 12, while in others again, like Acts xiii. 45, he was inclined

to accept its testimony, asserting expressly: Ceterum D quantopere

passim inter omnes testes excellat constat. One of the things for which

Westcott and Hort deserve credit is the attention they have directed to

Codex Bezae and its associates. Some of their remarks upon it will be

found in the note below.[237]

[Sidenote: Lagarde.]

That peerless scholar, P. de Lagarde, has even greater claims to

honourable mention in this connection, though but little regard was paid

to his representations during his lifetime. As early as 1857, he said of

Codex Cantabrigiensis: facile patet, quum similibus libris careamus et

ultra Evangelia et Actus nondum cogitem, totius editionis meae quasi

fundamentum futurum esse hunc codicem Cantabrigiensem, sed eum eis

librarii vitiis purgatum quae vitia esse agnita fuerint (_Gesam. Abh._,

p. 98). His chief merit, however, lies not in his having estimated

Cantabrigiensis so highly, but in having assigned a lower value to the

other manuscripts. By comparing D with the earlier versions, and

particularly by relying on the testimony of Epiphanius, he recognised in

it a representative of an “editio emendatorum orthodoxorum temeritate

corrupta” (_ibid._, p. 96). Compare also his _Übersicht über die Bildung

der Nomina_, p. 213, where he instances ἔταξαν ἀναβαίνειν of the

“emendati” for παρήγγειλαν ἀναβαίνειν of D.[238]

[Sidenote: Blass.]

General attention was first directed to the question of the Western

text, when Blass came forward with his view that it was quite wrong to

present the problem in the shape of an alternative between D and A B,

because both groups were right, D and its associates representing a

first edition of the Acts and a second of Luke, and the other group

conversely. I hailed this solution of the difficulty at once as a

veritable Columbus Egg, and to this day I am firmly persuaded that

Blass’s theory is nearer the mark than the previous estimate of the

Western text. [Sidenote: Zahn.] Readers may, perhaps, be struck by the

fact, which Zahn has since made public (_Einl._, ii. 348), that in his

practical class at Erlangen, in the winter of 1885-6, he set as the

subject of the prize essay an “Investigation of the materially important

peculiarities of Codex D in the Acts,” and made a note at the time of

the result which he hoped to see the investigation arrive at—viz.,

“either the author’s first draft before publication or his hand copy

with his own marginal notes inserted afterwards.” Zahn himself got no

further, but he was not surprised when Blass came forward with his

clearly-defined and thoroughly-elaborated hypothesis. In one point,

certainly, Zahn does not agree with Blass, and that is in the

application of the hypothesis to Luke. He holds that the text which

Blass restored as the Roman form or second edition of Luke is

essentially nothing but a bold attempt to restore what is called the

Western text; that the question to which such different answers have

been made as to the value of this type of text—for it is not to be

spoken of as a recension in the proper sense of that term—is by no means

confined to the Third Gospel, but touches the others as well and the

Pauline Epistles also; that the reason why the divergence of the Western

text from that exhibited in the oldest manuscripts and the great

majority of Greek witnesses is more conspicuous in Luke, is simply that

we have the additional testimony of Marcion for that Gospel, but the

question is essentially the same in all the cases; that whereas in Acts

we have two parallel texts both possessing equal authority, in Luke the

case is different, where in determining what the evangelist actually

wrote, we have to choose one or the other of two mutually exclusive

propositions; that this verdict on the text of Luke, however, in no way

invalidates the conclusion come to as regards the text of the Acts. But

further, Zahn, who even before this had avowed himself an “admirer of

the Western text,” stands up determinedly for the view that this same

Western text, which I shall, like Zahn and Blass, indicate henceforward

as β, contains much that is original. He says that just as we must

beware of a superstitious idolatry of what are styled the best

manuscripts,[239] which goes hand in hand with a disparagement of much

older tradition (Marcion, Irenæus), so we have equally to be on our

guard against a morbid preference for every interesting and fanciful

excrescence of the riotous tradition of the second and third centuries.

Such a preference would logically imply that the scholars who took in

hand to revise the text about the beginning of the fourth century simply

corrupted it, somewhat after the fashion of those who set themselves to

“improve” our Church hymns in the age of Rationalism. More than twenty

years ago, when I was a Tutor at Tübingen, I had the impression to which

I frequently enough gave utterance in debate with my colleagues, that

modern textual criticism is going altogether on the wrong tack. The

textual study of the New Testament was out of my province at that time,

and is really so still, were it not that, as Augustine says, it is

necessary for everyone who devotes himself to the holy Scriptures to

take up such studies. Nor am I inclined thus far to fall foul of the

system to which Westcott and Hort devoted the labours of a lifetime, and

in the building up of which they had at their command such an apparatus

as is far beyond the reach of a German, especially of one who is not

attached to any University. And as for the results of Zahn’s researches,

I prefer to look upon myself here as a mere learner and admirer. In the

presence of such doughty warriors I feel like a spectator upon the

battlefield of New Testament textual criticism, and I would beg that

what follows, as well as what has been already said, be regarded as but

suggestions, the acceptance or rejection of which by others may

perchance serve to bring a younger generation nearer to the goal. In

this spirit I have in my _Philologica Sacra_ (1-15th March 1896) taken

as a starting-point the reading in Luke xxii. 52, λαοῦ = ναοῦ = ἱεροῦ,

which is not mentioned at all by Tischendorf, and have sought by means

of one or two analogous cases to show “how frequently D preserves the

correct reading.” I have instanced ἑπταπλασίονα, Luke xviii. 30;

φάντασμα, xxiv. 37; δέρριν καμήλου, Mark i. 6 ; ἠνοιγμένους, i. 10,

which might, however, be inserted from Matt. iii. 16, Luke iii. 21 ;

ὀργισθείς, Mark i. 40; ὁμοιάζει, Matt. xxvi. 73.

In the first sketch of this Introduction, written in the year 1895, I

referred to the addition found in Matt. xxvii. 49, which is manifestly

taken from John xix. 34, and is read by many authorities, among these

being א B C.[240] I said then: “Only two possibilities are conceivable.

Either the passage stood here originally, and was removed at an early

date on account of its variance with John xix. 34, or it is an

interpolation. In the latter case, it must have been inserted at a very

early date, and all the witnesses containing it, which elsewhere are so

frequently and so widely divergent, must then go back to one and the

same exemplar. Because the third possibility—viz. that the same sentence

was inserted in different copies in the same place quite independently

of each other, no one will consider to be at all likely. But if the

second supposition is to be held as correct, then we see just what

amount of importance is to be attached to the concurrence of our oldest

witnesses, particularly our chief manuscripts א B C L. They are not

streams flowing independently from the same fountain of Paradise: they

flowed together for a good part of their course, and were considerably

polluted before they parted company.”

[Sidenote: Salmon.]

Two years later, when the first edition was issued, I added: “This too

must now be asserted with far greater emphasis, that the concurrence of

B א, on which so much stress has been laid hitherto by almost all

textual critics, proves nothing at all. In Sirach the common archetype

of B א was younger than the origin of the Latin version, manifestly a

good deal younger, because it already contained errors that had not yet

made their appearance in our other manuscripts (or in their sources).

Salmon (p. 52) is of opinion that the text which Westcott and Hort have

restored is one that was most in favour in Alexandria in the third

century, and that came there, perhaps, in the century previous. This is

not far from Bousset’s view that B perhaps contains the recension of

Hesychius. Salmon calls the results of Westcott and Hort ‘an elaborate

locking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen.’ Burgon’s

paradox, that the reason why B and א have survived is that they were the

worst, seemed to Salmon at first to be a joke, but he now thinks it not

improbable that they were set aside on account of their divergence from

the form of text that acquired ascendancy _at a later time_. If that be

so, then they met the same fate that they themselves prepared for the

primitive form they supplanted; and just as they, with the help of

Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort, dislodged the _Textus Receptus_ of

the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries from the hands of theologians,

and made themselves the _Textus Receptus_ of the end of the nineteenth

century, so perchance will Codex D, which the builders despised, become

the foundation-stone of a new structure. In _Urtext_, p. 54, Oscar v.

Gebhardt alludes to the objections raised partly against the entire

method of Westcott and Hort, partly against their particular estimate of

Codex Vaticanus, and partly also against the position they have assigned

to what they call the Western text, and he too says: ‘If these

objections are valid, then the sure foundation which they seemed at last

to have secured for the text of the New Testament begins once more to

totter.’”

Since this was written, my impressions have been greatly confirmed,

particularly by Zahn’s _Einleitung_; only I must admit that I am now

less in a position than ever to make any definite proposals as to the

way in which the goal of the textual criticism of the New Testament is

to be reached. To follow one witness or one group of witnesses through

thick and thin, which would really be the only consistent course, will

seemingly not do.[241] And the “eclectic method” to which Bousset was

led in his work on the Apocalypse as the only possible one, is surely

the opposite of the genealogical, which we must acknowledge to be in

theory the only correct method. But first of all, a fresh application of

it would require to be made. And as the task is too great for any single

worker, might it not be well if, in the exegetical classes of our

Theological Faculties, the separate witnesses were either examined anew,

or, conversely, selected passages of the text, quite small passages—a

single chapter, or a single epistle like 2 or 3 John or Philemon—were

given out to different students to examine thoroughly all the witnesses

for each passage, and the results then compared with one another?

Furthermore, the critical apparatus would require at once to be

lightened of all those manuscripts which are unmistakably recognised to

be the representatives of a definite recension, and the Lucianic

recension printed separately with or without an apparatus, just as was

done by Lagarde himself for half of the Old Testament. Finally, the

Western text would require to be much more thoroughly examined than has

hitherto been the case. It is true that Weiss has given a special part

of _Texte und Untersuchungen_ to an examination of Codex D in Acts, but

without prejudice one may be quite sure that a solution of the problem

is not to be found in the way in which Weiss seeks it. No doubt he

establishes among other things the fact, that in the Speeches of Peter β

displays almost no variation, but then he makes no attempt to explain

this fact or make any use of it. It is an indication of considerable

progress to find Zahn going so carefully into matters of the text in an

Introduction to the New Testament, and his appreciation of the Western

text is most gratifying. [Sidenote: Luke and Acts in D.] At the same

time the reader will naturally ask whether Zahn’s verdict on the β text

in Luke is not fatal to his own conclusions with regard to Acts. Is it

not true in this connection that “he who says A must also say B”? If you

admit that there were two editions of Acts, you must make the same

admission in the case of Luke. And conversely, if there was no second

edition of the Gospel, must you not then look for some other explanation

of the variations in Acts? For it seems quite certain that the variants

in Luke xxiv. are most closely related to the text of Acts i. Or how

else are the readings in Luke xxiv. 51-53 to be explained? Westcott and

Hort have one way of explaining them. They say that καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς

τὸν οὐρανόν “was evidently inserted from an assumption that a separation

from the disciples at the close of a Gospel must be the Ascension. The

Ascension apparently did not lie within the proper scope of the Gospels,

as seen in their genuine texts; its true place was at the head of the

Acts of the Apostles as the preparation for the Day of Pentecost, and

thus the beginning of the history of the Church.” That is all very well,

and it may also be the case that προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν in v. 52 is the

natural result of the insertion of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν. But

how then are we to account for the interchange of εὐλογοῦντες and

αἰνοῦντες in the next verse, which is found in precisely the same groups

of witnesses?[242]

If this explanation then is insufficient on account of verse 53, it may

be confidently asserted that the omission of the Ascension and the

Worship of the Exalted Lord by any later scribe is all but inconceivable

from the moment that Luke was separated from Acts and placed among the

Gospels. If such a thing were possible at all, it would be in the case

of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν, as there is no express mention in Acts i. of

the disciples worshipping. On the other hand, the omission becomes quite

conceivable as soon as the author added a δεύτερος λόγος to the πρῶτος.

So far these variants appear to me to fit in very well with Blass’s

theory and with no other. Zahn, as far as I can see, has nowhere

expressed any opinion regarding them, certainly he says nothing of the

variation between αἰνοῦντες and εὐλογοῦντες, which is the one of most

importance critically, though it is of least consequence materially.

Graefe, following on the lines of Birt and Rüegg, supposes that the

shorter form was due to want of space, that Luke was glad to get the

shorter form all into his roll at the foot the first time he wrote it

out, and sent off the book to Theophilus in that form, hoping to deal

with the Ascension in the second of his books. In the second edition he

had sufficient space to admit of the insertion of καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν

οὐρανόν, then of προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν, and finally of εὐλογοῦντες.[243]

These additions he made, feeling, rightly enough, that there could be no

more fitting conclusion to his Life of Jesus than a brief allusion to

the Ascension, which he had already described more particularly in the

Acts. At the same time he substituted ἕως εἰς for ἔξω πρὸς. Graefe

thinks that all these changes are connected with the alterations made

also in the introduction to the Acts, though he omits to say what the

connection is.

Weiss, father and son, omit the words καὶ ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν as

“a gloss derived from Acts i.,” and “likewise” the words προσκυνήσαντες

αὐτόν in verse 52 (is this also a gloss from Acts i.?). Which text they

hold to be correct in verse 53 they do not say.[244]

Αἰνεῖν[245] is the specifically Lucan word for “to praise,” while

εὐλογεῖν in this sense does not occur in Acts at all, and only in the

first two chapters of Luke. Further, as any concordance will show,

αἰνεῖν is the regular equivalent of הלל and εὐλογεῖν of ברך, while

αἰνεῖν is rarely used for ברך or εὐλογεῖν for הלל. This confirms the

supposition that αἰνοῦντες, which is preferred by Tischendorf but

rejected by Westcott and Hort, is the original reading.

In order to show the full extent of the difficulty of the problem, we

shall take along with this passage from the end of the Gospel a single

instance from the Acts. How does the Apostolic Decree read in ch. xv.?

“To judge any matter before knowing the facts of the case is

inadmissible.” So Hilgenfeld says in his magazine, adding that the

matter of the Apostolic Council, as it is called, and the Decree have

been so judged. He himself restores the whole text in this passage to

the form that Blass has adopted as the _Forma Romana_—_i.e._, to confine

ourselves to this point of main importance, he omits “things

strangled.”[246] On the other hand, Harnack, in the article to which

reference will be made below, comes to the conclusion that the Eastern,

_i.e._ the common, text is the original, and the Western a later

correction made subsequent to the _Didache_, and not earlier than the

first decade of the second century.[247] The same conclusion is reached

by Zahn in his extremely careful discussion of the question (_Einl._,

ii. 344 ff.): “The two texts are here mutually exclusive, and therefore

cannot both be derived from the same author (xv. 20, 29, xxi. 25).” But

he immediately adds: “The fact that Blass, in this important point, as

in many another of less consequence, declares a certain thing to be an

original element of the text which turns out to be simply an early

corruption in no wise detracts from the correctness of his hypothesis.”

That is quite true and must be borne in mind in connection with the

objection raised by Wendt, that “manifest clerical errors are found in

the actual β text.” The passages are also used by Corssen as an argument

against Blass. The remarks of the latter in reply to the strictures of

Corssen (_Evang. sec. Lucam_, p. xxvi) seem to me to be not without

reason, but in any case it is strange that alterations should have been

made in an official document like the Decree in Acts xv., no matter

whether these were due to the writer himself or a later intermediary.

That there was some method in the alteration is shown by its recurrence

in three places. But again I must emphasise the superiority of Codex D.

Whereas in ch. xv. 20, 29 the shorter text is represented by other

witnesses as well, in ch. xxi. 25 it is supported by D with the sole

addition of Gigas Holmiensis.[248] I have not to decide the question

here; I simply commend it to a searching investigation, in which

attention must be paid to the apparently meaningless differences in the

use of particles and synonyms, of simple and compound words, and

such-like seeming minutiæ. I can only repeat how frequently the thought

occurred to me when I was comparing Scrivener’s edition with that of v.

Gebhardt for my _Supplement_, that here was no alteration of a later

scribe, and what then? The simplest explanation was that both readings

were due to the author himself, who on the one occasion purposely set

down the one reading and on the other the other.

There is another question in connection with the Western text which has

been even more neglected than the former—viz. the amount of importance

to be attached to it in the case of the Pauline Epistles. What about

Eusebius’s reference to Tatian’s work on these Epistles? I frankly

confess that not till the printing of this work was begun did I become

aware, mainly from Zahn’s _Einleitung_, how many problems are here

waiting to be solved, and for this reason as well as others I must for

the present forbear making any attempt in this direction.

Here I can only indicate a few of the most general rules of textual

criticism, and thereafter adduce a number of New Testament passages

which are of interest from a critical point of view.

[Sidenote: Rules of criticism.]

(_k_) =General Rules of Textual Criticism.=—In its essence the task of

the textual critic resembles that of the physician, who must first of

all make a correct diagnosis of the disease before attempting its cure.

Manifestly the first thing to do is to observe the injuries and the

dangers to which a text transmitted by handwriting is liable to be

exposed. A correct treatment must be preceded by a correct diagnosis.

The injuries which a text receives will vary according as it is

multiplied by =Dictation= or by =Copying=. The fifty Bibles which

Eusebius prepared at once for Constantine would be written to dictation.

In the early times of the Church, copying, as has been already

mentioned, would doubtless be the more usual method of multiplication.

Here, however, we must make a single exception in the case of Paul, who

for the most part did not write his Epistles with his own hand. He

evidently dictated them. He certainly did not have them simply written

out from his own rough draft.

[Sidenote: Illegibility.]

(1) In the case of copying, errors originate first of all, though not

most frequently, in a word or group of letters being =illegible=, or in

their being read for some psychological reason otherwise than as they

were intended. However attentive the copyist may be, he may still be in

doubt as to the way in which a word or passage should be read, and may

decide wrongly. Proper names, _e.g._, are often very doubtful.[249] More

frequently however the mistake will be due to inattention. The context

may lead the copyist to expect a certain word; he sees one like it, and

inserts the former in its place.

[Sidenote: Homoioteleuton.]

(2) It frequently happens, particularly in copying the old _scriptio

continua_, that the eye of the scribe jumps from one word or group of

letters to another the same or similar to it, either before or after it.

In the former case the intervening words will be repeated, in the latter

they will be omitted. Scholars designate these errors as =dittography=

and =elision= respectively; printers know them under the name of a

marriage and a funeral. The former mistake is not so serious, because it

is at once detected on reading over the copy. A peep into any manuscript

will show how frequently this error occurs, the repeated words being

enclosed in brackets or surmounted with dots.[250] In Codex B such

passages give us an opportunity of observing the beauty of the original

writing, because the painstaking man who retraced the old writing with

fresh ink in the eighth, or tenth, or eleventh century, or whenever it

was, adding at the same time accents and punctuation marks, left these

untouched. This kind of mistake very often happens in passages where a

group of characters catches the eye for any reason, such as the

occurrence of the abbreviation mark, Θ̅Σ̅, Ι̅Λ̅Η̅Μ̅, Α̅Ν̅Ο̅Σ̅, etc., and

at the transition to a new page or leaf. The omission of a piece of the

text of various length by homoioteleuton is as common, and is more

serious.[251] Any critical apparatus will show the frequency of its

occurrence. We often find there the note “a voce alterutra ... ad

alterutram desunt” or “a voce 1^o ad vocem 2^o (3^o) transilit,” or “vox

... alterutra et intermedia desunt.” Compare, _e.g._, Codex D, Matt.

xviii. 18 from γῆς to γῆς; x. 23; xxiii. 14-16. The result is worst when

the mistake is not discovered till afterwards and the two fragments are

patched together in some way with more or less success. Lacunæ that have

not been doctored are very helpful in determining the relationship

between different texts.[252]

[Sidenote: Confusion.]

(3) As errors of the tongue and the memory[253] rather than of the eye

may be reckoned the =Transposition= and =Confusion= of particular

combinations of letters or entire words. The former occurs so frequently

in connection with a liquid, that in some cases it ceases to be a

mistake. Thus we have on the one hand the confusion of κορκοδειλος with

κροκοδειλος, Καρχηδων with Carthago, and on the other, εβαλον with

ελαβον, βηθαραβα with βηθαβαρα, John i. 28; κιρνατω with κρινετω, ποντον

with τοπον, בכרין, _talent_, Matt. xxv. 14-30, with כרכין, _cities_,

Luke xix. 17, 19. Akin to this is the confusion of vowels with a similar

sound, to which are to be ascribed all cases of =itacism=, as it is

called—ἔγειρε and ἔγειραι, —εσθε and —εσθαι, ἑταίροις and ἑτέροις,

χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος and χριστὸς ὁ κύριος, 2 Cor. xii. 1; φορέσωμεν and

φορέσομεν, ἔχωμεν and ἔχομεν, Rom. v. 1; μετὰ διωγμῶν and μετὰ διωγμόν.

Manifestly mistakes of this sort would occur more readily in dictation

than in copying.