The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

II. The term “various readings” conveys an entirely incorrect impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of documents—of which Codexes B-? of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of the eighth, are the most conspicuous samples—and the Traditional Text of the New Testament. The expression “various readings” belongs to secular literature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those exhibited by the copies just mentioned. Not but what “various readings,” properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes. One has but to inspect Scrivener's Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But when we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes as B?DL, we find ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by phenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has undergone apparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation; has been manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the judgement. The result is simply calamitous. There are evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of words and clauses, but of entire sentences. The substitution of one expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of words, are phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last that what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient recension of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as the name may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice, or tasteless assiduity [pg 033] on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in a long series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we have alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking, there may have been little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But, as will be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest the inference, that they are in fact indebted for their preservation to their hopeless character. Thus it would appear that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times; and has procured that they should survive to our own, long after multitudes which were much better had perished in the Master's service. Let men think of this matter as they will,—whatever in fact may prove to be the history of that peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. B?DL, in some copies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations,—all must admit, as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially from the Traditional Text, and is no mere variation of it.

But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article? Why may not the “Traditional Text” be the fabrication?

1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The consent without concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,—of every date from the fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging to every region of ancient Christendom,—is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-century manuscripts closely resembling one another, yet standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree:—such [pg 034] a preference, I say, apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well founded, is surely not entitled to be accepted as conclusive.

2. Next,—Because,—although for convenience we have hitherto spoken of Codexes B?DL as exhibiting a single text,—it is in reality not one text but fragments of many, which are to be met with in the little handful of authorities enumerated above. Their witness does not agree together. The Traditional Text, on the contrary, is unmistakably one.

3. Further,—Because it is extremely improbable, if not impossible, that the Traditional Text was or could have been derived from such a document as the archetype of B-?: whereas the converse operation is at once obvious and easy. There is no difficulty in producing a short text by omission of words, or clauses, or verses, from a fuller text: but the fuller text could not have been produced from the shorter by any development which would be possible under the facts of the case21. Glosses would account for changes in the archetype of B-?, but not conversely22.

4. But the chief reason is,—Because, on making our appeal unreservedly to Antiquity—to Versions and Fathers as well as copies,—the result is unequivocal. The Traditional Text becomes triumphantly established,—the eccentricities of B?D and their colleagues become one and all emphatically condemned.

[pg 035]

All these, in the mean time, are points concerning which something has been said already, and more will have to be said in the sequel. Returning now to the phenomenon adverted to at the outset, we desire to explain that whereas “Various Readings,” properly so called, that is to say, the Readings which possess really strong attestation—for more than nineteen-twentieths of the “Various Readings” commonly quoted are only the vagaries of scribes, and ought not to be called “Readings” at all—do not require classification into groups, as Griesbach and Hort have classified them; “Corrupt Readings,” if they are to be intelligently handled, must by all means be distributed under distinct heads, as will be done in the Second Part of this work.

III. “It is not at all our design” (remarks Dr. Scrivener) “to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance23.” From which it is plain that in this excellent writer's opinion, the truth of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance at the hands of the older uncials: that only when these yield conflicting testimony may we resort to the “confessedly secondary evidence” of the later uncials: and that only so may we proceed to inquire for the testimony of the great mass of the cursive copies. It is not difficult to foresee what would be the result of such a method of procedure.

I venture therefore respectfully but firmly to demur to the spirit of my learned friend's remarks on the present, and on many similar occasions. His language is calculated to countenance the popular belief (1) That the authority of an uncial codex, because it is an uncial, is necessarily greater than that of a codex written in the cursive character: an imagination which upon proof I hold to be groundless. [pg 036] Between the text of the later uncials and the text of the cursive copies, I fail to detect any separative difference: certainly no such difference as would induce me to assign the palm to the former. It will be shewn later on in this treatise, that it is a pure assumption to take for granted, or to infer, that cursive copies were all descended from the uncials. New discoveries in palaeography have ruled that error to be out of court.

But (2) especially do I demur to the popular notion, to which I regret to find that Dr. Scrivener lends his powerful sanction, that the text of Scripture is to be sought in the first instance in the oldest of the uncials. I venture to express my astonishment that so learned and thoughtful a man should not have seen that before certain “elder brethren” are erected into a supreme court of judicature, some other token of fitness besides that of age must be produced on their behalf. Whence, I can but ask—, whence is it that no one has yet been at the pains to establish the contradictory of the following proposition, viz. that Codexes B?CD are the several depositaries of a fabricated and depraved text: and that B?D, for C is a palimpsest, i.e., has had the works of Ephraem the Syrian written over it as if it were of no use, are probably indebted for their very preservation solely to the fact that they were anciently recognized as untrustworthy documents? Do men indeed find it impossible to realize the notion that there must have existed such things as refuse copies in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries as well as in the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh? and that the Codexes which we call B?CD may possibly, if not as I hold probably, have been of that class24?

Now I submit that it is a sufficient condemnation of [pg 037] Codd. B?CD as a supreme court of judicature (1) That as a rule they are observed to be discordant in their judgements: (2) That when they thus differ among themselves it is generally demonstrable by an appeal to antiquity that the two principal judges B and ? have delivered a mistaken judgement: (3) That when these two differ one from the other, the supreme judge B is often in the wrong: and lastly (4) That it constantly happens that all four agree, and yet all four are in error.

Does any one then inquire,—But why at all events may not resort be had in the first instance to Codd. B?ACD?—I answer,—Because the inquiry is apt to prejudice the question, pretty sure to mislead the judgement, only too likely to narrow the issue and render the Truth hopelessly difficult of attainment. For every reason, I am inclined to propose the directly opposite method of procedure, as at once the safer and the more reasonable method. When I learn that doubt exists, as to the reading of any particular place, instead of inquiring what amount of discord on the subject exists between Codexes AB?CD (for the chances are that they will be all at loggerheads among themselves), I inquire for the verdict as it is given by the main body of the copies. This is generally unequivocal. But if (which seldom happens) I find this a doubtful question, then indeed I begin to examine the separate witnesses. Yet even then it helps me little, or rather it helps me nothing, to find, as I commonly do, that A is on one side and B on the other,—except by the way that wherever ?B are seen together, or when D stands apart with only a few allies, the inferior reading is pretty sure to be found there also.

Suppose however (as commonly happens) there is no serious division,—of course, significance does not attach itself to any handful of eccentric copies,—but that there is a practical unanimity among the cursives and later uncials: I cannot see that a veto can rest with such unstable and [pg 038] discordant authorities, however much they may singly add to the weight of the vote already tendered. It is as a hundred to one that the uncial or uncials which are with the main body of the cursives are right, because (as will be shown) in their consentience they embody the virtual decision of the whole Church; and that the dissentients—be they few or many—are wrong. I inquire however,—What say the Versions? and last but not least,—What say the Fathers?

The essential error in the proceeding I object to is best illustrated by an appeal to elementary facts. Only two of the “five old uncials” are complete documents, B and ?: and these being confessedly derived from one and the same exemplar, cannot be regarded as two. The rest of the “old uncials” are lamentably defective.—From the Alexandrian Codex (A) the first twenty-four chapters of St. Matthew's Gospel are missing: that is, the MS. lacks 870 verses out of 1,071. The same Codex is also without 126 consecutive verses of St. John's Gospel. More than one-fourth of the contents of Cod. A are therefore lost25.—D is complete only in respect of St. Luke: wanting 119 verses of St. Matthew,—5 verses of St. Mark,—166 verses of St. John.—On the other hand, Codex C is chiefly defective in respect of St. Luke's and St. John's Gospel; from the former of which it omits 643 (out of 1,151) verses; from the latter, 513 (out of 880), or far more than the half in either case. Codex C in fact can only be described as a collection of fragments: for it is also without 260 verses of St. Matthew, and without 116 of St. Mark.

The disastrous consequence of all this to the Textual Critic is manifest. He is unable to compare “the five old uncials” together except in respect of about one verse in three. Sometimes he finds himself reduced to the testimony of A?B: for many pages together of St. John's [pg 039] Gospel, he is reduced to the testimony of ?BD. Now, when the fatal and peculiar sympathy which subsists between these three documents is considered, it becomes apparent that the Critic has in effect little more than two documents before him. And what is to be said when (as from St. Matt. vi. 20 to vii. 4) he is reduced to the witness of two Codexes,—and those, ?B? Evident it is that whereas the Author of Scripture hath bountifully furnished His Church with (speaking roughly) upwards of 2,30026 copies of the Gospels, by a voluntary act of self-impoverishment, some Critics reduce themselves to the testimony of little more than one: and that one a witness whom many judges consider to be undeserving of confidence.

[pg 040]

Clyx.com