vii. 52,--whereby the reader, having read on to the end of that verse,
was directed to skip all that followed down to the words [Greek: kai mêketi hamartane] in ch. viii. 11: after which he found himself instructed to 'recommence' ([Greek: arxai]). Again I ask (and this time does not the riddle admit of only one solution?),--When and how does the reader suppose that the narrative of 'the woman taken in adultery' first found its way into the _middle of the lesson for Pentecost_? I pause for an answer: I shall perforce be told that it never 'found its way' into the lection at all: but having once crept into St. John's Gospel, however that may have been effected, and established itself there, it left those ancient men who devised the Church's Lectionary without choice. They could but direct its omission, and employ for that purpose the established liturgical formula in all similar cases.
But first,--How is it that those who would reject the narrative are not struck by the essential foolishness of supposing that twelve fabricated verses, purporting to be an integral part of the fourth Gospel, can have so firmly established themselves in every part of Christendom from the second century downwards, that they have long since become simply ineradicable? Did the Church then, _pro hac vice_, abdicate her function of being 'a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ'? Was she all of a sudden forsaken by the inspiring Spirit, who, as she was promised, should 'guide her into all Truth'? And has she been all down the ages guided into the grievous error of imputing to the disciple whom Jesus loved a narrative of which he knew nothing? For, as I remarked at the outset, this is not merely an assimilated expression, or an unauthorized nominative, or a weakly-supported clause, or any such trifling thing. Although be it remarked in passing, I am not aware of a single such trifling excrescence which we are not able at once to detect and to remove. In other words, this is not at all a question, like the rest, about the genuine text of a passage. Our inquiry is of an essentially different kind, viz. Are these twelve consecutive verses Scripture at all, or not? Divine or human? Which? They claim by their very structure and contents to be an integral part of the Gospel. And such a serious accession to the Deposit, I insist, can neither have 'crept into' the Text, nor have 'crept out' of it. The thing is unexampled,--is unapproached,--is impossible.
Above all,--(the reader is entreated to give the subject his sustained attention),--Is it not perceived that the admission involved in the hypothesis before us is fatal to any rational pretence that the passage is of spurious origin? We have got back in thought at least to the third or fourth century of our era. We are among the Fathers and Doctors of the Eastern Church in conference assembled: and they are determining what shall be the Gospel for the great Festival of Pentecost. 'It shall begin' (say they) 'at the thirty-seventh verse of St. John vii, and conclude with the twelfth verse of St. John viii. But so much of it as relates to the breaking up of the Sanhedrin,--to the withdrawal of our Lord to the Mount of Olives,--and to His return next morning to the Temple,--had better not be read. It disturbs the unity of the narrative. So also had the incident of the woman taken in adultery better not be read. It is inappropriate to the Pentecostal Festival.' The Authors of the great Oriental Liturgy therefore admit that they find the disputed verses in their copies: and thus they vouch for their genuineness. For none will doubt that, had they regarded them as a spurious accretion to the inspired page, they would have said so plainly. Nor can it be denied that if in their corporate capacity they had disallowed these twelve verses, such an authoritative condemnation would most certainly have resulted in the perpetual exclusion from the Sacred Text of the part of these verses which was actually adopted as a Lection. What stronger testimony on the contrary can be imagined to the genuineness of any given portion of the everlasting Gospel than that it should have been canonized or recognized as part of Inspired Scripture by the collective wisdom of the Church in the third or fourth century?
And no one may regard it as a suspicious circumstance that the present Pentecostal lection has been thus maimed and mutilated in respect of twelve of its verses. There is nothing at all extraordinary in the treatment which St. John vii. 37-viii. 12 has here experienced. The phenomenon is even of perpetual recurrence in the Lectionary of the East,--as will be found explained below[614].
Permit me to suppose that, between the Treasury and Whitehall, the remote descendant of some Saxon thane occupied a small tenement and garden which stood in the very middle of the ample highway. Suppose further, the property thereabouts being Government property, that the road on either side of this estate had been measured a hundred times, and jealously watched, ever since Westminster became Westminster. Well, an act of Parliament might no doubt compel the supposed proprietor of this singular estate to surrender his patrimony; but I submit that no government lawyer would ever think of setting up the plea that the owner of that peculiar strip of land was an impostor. The man might have no title-deeds to produce, to be sure; but counsel for the defendant would plead that neither did he require any. 'This man's title' (counsel would say) 'is--occupation for a thousand years. His evidences are--the allowance of the State throughout that long interval. Every procession to St. Stephen's--every procession to the Abbey--has swept by defendant's property--on this side of it and on that,--since the days of Edward the Confessor. And if my client refuses to quit the soil, I defy you--except by violence--to get rid of him.'
In this way then it is that the testimony borne to these verses by the Lectionary of the East proves to be of the most opportune and convincing character. The careful provision made for passing by the twelve verses in dispute:--the minute directions which fence those twelve verses off on this side and on that, directions issued we may be sure by the highest Ecclesiastical authority, because recognized in every part of the ancient Church,--not only establish them effectually in their rightful place, but (what is at least of equal importance) fully explain the adverse phenomena which are ostentatiously paraded by adverse critics; and which, until the clue has been supplied, are calculated to mislead the judgement.
For now, for the first time, it becomes abundantly plain why Chrysostom and Cyril, in publicly commenting on St. John's Gospel, pass straight from ch. vii. 52 to ch. viii. 12. Of course they do. Why should they,--how could they,--comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation? The same thing is related (in a well-known 'scholium') to have been done by Apolinarius and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Origen also, for aught I care,--though the adverse critics have no right to claim him, seeing that his commentary on all that part of St. John's Gospel is lost;--but Origen's name, as I was saying, for aught I care, may be added to those who did the same thing. A triumphant refutation of the proposed inference from the silence of these many Fathers is furnished by the single fact that Theophylact must also be added to their number. Theophylact, I say, ignores the _pericope de adultera_--passes it by, I mean,--exactly as do Chrysostom and Cyril. But will any one pretend that Theophylact,--writing in A.D. 1077,--did not know of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11? Why, in nineteen out of every twenty copies within his reach, the whole of those twelve verses must have been to be found.
The proposed inference from the silence of certain of the Fathers is therefore invalid. The argument _e silentio_--always an insecure argument,--proves inapplicable in this particular case. When the antecedent facts have been once explained, all the subsequent phenomena become intelligible. But a more effectual and satisfactory reply to the difficulty occasioned by the general silence of the Fathers, remains to be offered.
There underlies the appeal to Patristic authority an opinion,--not expressed indeed, yet consciously entertained by us all,--which in fact gives the appeal all its weight and cogency, and which must now by all means be brought to the front. The fact that the Fathers of the Church were not only her Doctors and Teachers, but also the living voices by which alone her mind could be proclaimed to the world, and by which her decrees used to be authoritatively promulgated;--this fact, I say, it is which makes their words, whenever they deliver themselves, so very important: their approval, if they approve, so weighty; their condemnation, if they condemn, so fatal. But then, in the present instance, they do not condemn. They neither approve nor condemn. They simply say nothing. They are silent: and in what precedes, I have explained the reason why. We wish it had been otherwise. We would give a great deal to persuade those ancient oracles to speak on the subject of these twelve verses: but they are all but inexorably silent. Nay, I am overstating the case against myself. Two of the greatest Fathers (Augustine and Ambrose) actually do utter a few words; and they are to the effect that the verses are undoubtedly genuine:--'Be it known to all men' (they say) 'that this passage _is_ genuine: but the nature of its subject-matter has at once procured its ejection from MSS., and resulted in the silence of Commentators.' The most learned of the Fathers in addition practically endorses the passage; for Jerome not only leaves it standing in the Vulgate where he found it in the Old Latin version, but relates that it was supported by Greek as well as Latin authorities.
To proceed however with what I was about to say.
It is the authoritative sentence of the Church then on this difficult subject that we desiderate. We resorted to the Fathers for that: intending to regard any quotations of theirs, however brief, as their practical endorsement of all the twelve verses: to infer from their general recognition of the passage, that the Church in her collective capacity accepted it likewise. As I have shewn, the Fathers decline, almost to a man, to return any answer. But,--Are we then without the Church's authoritative guidance on this subject? For this, I repeat, is the only thing of which we are in search. It was only in order to get at this that we adopted the laborious expedient of watching for the casual utterances of any of the giants of old time. Are we, I say, left without the Church's opinion?
Not so, I answer. The reverse is the truth. The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach,--and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence we felt to be embarrassing,--the Eastern Church has selected nine out of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8. A more significant circumstance it would be impossible to adduce in evidence. Any pretence to fasten a charge of spuriousness on a portion of Scripture so singled out by the Church for honour, were nothing else but monstrous. It would be in fact to raise quite a distinct issue: viz. to inquire what amount of respect is due to the Church's authority in determining the authenticity of Scripture? I appeal not to an opinion, but to _a fact_: and that fact is, that though the Fathers of the Church for a very sufficient reason are very nearly silent on the subject of these twelve verses, the Church herself has spoken with a voice of authority so loud that none can affect not to hear it: so plain, that it cannot possibly be misunderstood. And let me not be told that I am hereby setting up the Lectionary as the true standard of appeal for the Text of the New Testament: still less let me be suspected of charging on the collective body of the faithful whatever irregularities are discoverable in the Codexes which were employed for the public reading of Scripture. Such a suspicion could only be entertained by one who has hitherto failed to apprehend the precise point just now under consideration. We are not examining the text of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11. We are only discussing whether those twelve verses _en bloc_ are to be regarded as an integral part of the fourth Gospel, or as a spurious accretion to it. And that is a point on which the Church in her corporate character must needs be competent to pronounce; and in respect of which her verdict must needs be decisive. She delivered her verdict in favour of these twelve verses, remember, at a time when her copies of the Gospels were of papyrus as well as 'old uncials' on vellum.--Nay, before 'old uncials' on vellum were at least in any general use. True, that the transcribers of Lectionaries have proved themselves just as liable to error as the men who transcribed Evangelia. But then, it is incredible that those men forged the Gospel for St. Pelagia's day: impossible, if it were a forgery, that the Church should have adopted it. And it is the significancy of the Church having adopted the _pericope de adultera_ as the lection for October 8, which has never yet been sufficiently attended to: and which I defy the Critics to account for on any hypothesis but one: viz. that the pericope was recognized by the ancient Eastern Church as an integral part of the Gospel.
Now when to this has been added what is implied in the rubrical direction that a ceremonious respect should be shewn to the Festival of Pentecost by dropping the twelve verses, I submit that I have fully established my second position, viz. That by the very construction of her Lectionary the Church in her corporate capacity and official character has solemnly recognized the narrative in question, as an integral part of St. John's Gospel, and as standing in its traditional place, from an exceedingly remote time.
For,--(I entreat the candid reader's sustained attention),--the circumstances of the present problem altogether refuse to accommodate themselves to any hypothesis of a spurious original for these verses; as I proceed to shew.
Repair in thought to any collection of MSS. you please; suppose to the British Museum. Request to be shewn their seventy-three copies of St. John's Gospel, and turn to the close of his seventh chapter. At that particular place you will find, in sixty-one of these copies, these twelve verses: and in thirty-five of them you will discover, after the words [Greek: Prophêtês ek tês Galilaias ouk eg.] a rubrical note to the effect that 'on Whitsunday, these twelve verses are to be dropped; and the reader is to go on at ch. viii. 12.' What can be the meaning of this respectful treatment of the Pericope in question? How can it ever have come to pass that it has been thus ceremoniously handled all down the ages? Surely on no possible view of the matter but one can the phenomenon just now described be accounted for. Else, will any one gravely pretend to tell me that at some indefinitely remote period, (1) These verses were fabricated: (2) Were thrust into the place they at present occupy in the sacred text: (3) Were unsuspectingly believed to be genuine by the Church; and in consequence of which they were at once passed over by her direction on Whitsunday as incongruous, and appointed by the Church to be read on October 8, as appropriate to the occasion?
(3) But further. How is it proposed to explain why _one_ of St. John's after-thoughts should have fared so badly at the Church's hands;--another, so well? I find it suggested that perhaps the subject-matter may sufficiently account for all that has happened to the _pericope_ de adultera: And so it may, no doubt. But then, once admit _this_, and the hypothesis under consideration becomes simply nugatory: fails even to _touch_ the difficulty which it professes to remove. For if men were capable of thinking scorn of these twelve verses when they found them in the 'second and improved edition of St. John's Gospel,' why may they not have been just as irreverent in respect of the same verses, when they appeared in the _first_ edition? How is it one whit more probable that every Greek Father for a thousand years should have systematically overlooked the twelve verses in dispute when they appeared in the second edition of St. John's Gospel, than that the same Fathers should have done the same thing when they appeared in the first[615]?
(4) But the hypothesis is gratuitous and nugatory: for it has been invented in order to account for the phenomenon that whereas twelve verses of St. John's Gospel are found in the large majority of the later Copies,--the same verses are observed to be absent from all but one of the five oldest Codexes. But how, (I wish to be informed,) is that hypothesis supposed to square with these phenomena? It cannot be meant that the 'second edition' of St. John did not come abroad until after Codd. [Symbol: Aleph]ABCT were written? For we know that the old Italic version (a document of the second century) contains all the three portions of narrative which are claimed for the second edition. But if this is not meant, it is plain that some further hypothesis must be invented in order to explain why certain Greek MSS. of the fourth and fifth centuries are without the verses in dispute. And this fresh hypothesis will render that under consideration (as I said) nugatory and shew that it was gratuitous.
What chiefly offends me however in this extraordinary suggestion is its _irreverence_. It assumes that the Gospel according to St. John was composed like any ordinary modern book: capable therefore of being improved in the second edition, by recension, addition, omission, retractation, or what not. For we may not presume to limit the changes effected in a second edition. And yet the true Author of the Gospel is confessedly God the Holy Ghost: and I know of no reason for supposing that His works are imperfect when they proceed forth from His Hands.
The cogency of what precedes has in fact weighed so powerfully with thoughtful and learned Divines that they have felt themselves constrained, as their last resource, to cast about for some hypothesis which shall at once account for the absence of these verses from so many copies of St. John's Gospel, and yet retain them for their rightful owner and author,--St. John. Singular to relate, the assumption which has best approved itself to their judgement has been, that there must have existed two editions of St. John's Gospel,--the earlier edition without, the later edition with, the incident under discussion. It is I presume, in order to conciliate favour to this singular hypothesis, that it has been further proposed to regard St. John v. 3, 4 and the whole of St. John xxi, (besides St. John vii. 53-viii. 11), as after-thoughts of the Evangelist.
1. But this is unreasonable: for nothing else but _the absence_ of St. John vii. 53-viii. 11, from so many copies of the Gospel has constrained the Critics to regard those verses with suspicion. Whereas, on the contrary, there is not known to exist a copy in the world which omits so much as a single verse of chap. xxi. Why then are we to assume that the whole of that chapter was away from the original draft of the Gospel? Where is the evidence for so extravagant an assumption?
2. So, concerning St. John v. 3, 4: to which there really attaches no manner of doubt, as I have elsewhere shewn[616]. Thirty-two precious words in that place are indeed omitted by [Symbol: Aleph]BC: twenty-seven by D. But by this time the reader knows what degree of importance is to be attached to such an amount of evidence. On the other hand, they are found in _all other copies_: are vouched for by the Syriac[617] and the Latin versions: in the Apostolic Constitutions, by Chrysostom, Cyril, Didymus, and Ammonius, among the Greeks,--by Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine among the Latins. Why a passage so attested is to be assumed to be an after-thought of the Evangelist has never yet been explained: no, nor ever will be.
(5) Assuming, however, just for a moment the hypothesis correct for argument's sake, viz. that in the second edition of St. John's Gospel the history of the woman taken in adultery appeared for the first time. Invite the authors of that hypothesis to consider what follows. The discovery that five out of six of the oldest uncials extant (to reckon here the fragment T) are without the verses in question; which yet are contained in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the despised cursives:--what other inference can be drawn from such premisses, but that the cursives fortified by other evidence are by far the more trustworthy witnesses of what St. John in his old age actually entrusted to the Church's keeping?
[The MS. here leaves off, except that a few pencilled words are added in an incomplete form. I have been afraid to finish so clever and characteristic an essay.]
FOOTNOTES:
[576] Compare 1 Sam. xxiv. 22:--'And Saul went home: _but David and his men gat them up into the hold_.' 1 Kings xviii. 42:--'So Ahab went up to eat and to drink: _and Elijah went up to the top of Carmel, and he cast himself down upon the earth, and put his face between his knees_.' Esther iii. 15:--'And the king and Haman sat down to drink; _but the city of Shushan was perplexed_.' Such are the idioms of the Bible.
[577] Ammonius (Cord. Cat. p. 216), with evident reference to it, remarks that our Lord's words in verses 37 and 38 were intended as a _viaticum_ which all might take home with them, at the close of this, 'the last, the great day of the feast.'
[578] So Eusebius:--- [Greek: Ote kata to auto synachthentes hoi tôn Ioudaiôn ethnous archontes epi tês Hierousalêm, synedrion epoiêsanto kai skepsin opôs auton apolesôsin en hô hoi men thanaton autou katepsêphisanto; heteroi de antelegon, ôs ho Nikodêmos, k.t.l.] (in Psalmos, p. 230 a).
[579] Westcott and Hort's prefatory matter (1870) to their revised Text of the New Testament, p. xxvii.
[580] So in the LXX. See Num. v. 11-31.
[581] Ver. 17. So the LXX.
[582] 2 Cor. iv. 7: v. 1.
[583] Compare ch. vi. 6, 71: vii. 39: xi. 13, 51: xii. 6, 33: xiii. 11, 28: xxi. 19.
[584] Consider ch. xix. 19, 20, 21, 22: xx. 30, 31: xxi. 24, 25.--1 John i. 4: ii. 1, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 21, 26: v. 13.--2 John 5, 12.--3 John 9, 13.--Rev. _passim_, especially i. 11, 19: ii. 1, &c.: x. 4: xiv. 13: xvii. 8: xix. 9: xx. 12, 15: xxi. 5, 27: xxii. 18, 19.
[585] Westcott and Hort, ibid. pp. xxvii, xxvi.
[586] Novum Testamentum, 1869, p. 829.
[587] Plain Introduction, 1894, ii. 364.
[588] Printed Texts, 1854, p. 341.
[589] Developed Criticism, p. 82.
[590] Outlines, &c., p. 103.
[591] Nicholson's Gospel according to the Hebrews, p. 141.
[592] Scrivener, ut supra, ii. 368.
[593] I insert this epithet on sufficient authority. Mr. Edw. A. Guy, an intelligent young American,--himself a very accurate observer and a competent judge,--collated a considerable part of Cod. A in 1875, and assured me that he scarcely ever found any discrepancy between the Codex and Woide's reprint. One instance of _italicism_ was in fact all that had been overlooked in the course of many pages.
[594] It is inaccurate also. His five lines contain eight mistakes. Praefat. p. xxx, § 86.
[595] ii. 630, addressing Rufinus, A.D. 403. Also ii. 748-9.
[596] i. 291, 692, 707, 1367: ii. 668, 894, 1082: iii. 892-3, 896-7.
[597] i. 30: ii. 527, 529-30: iii^{1}. 774: iii^{2}. 158, 183, 531-2 (where he quotes the place largely and comments upon it): iv. 149, 466 (largely quoted), 1120: v. 80, 1230 (largely quoted in both places): vi. 407, 413: viii. 377, 574.
[598] Pacian (A.D. 372) refers the Novations to the narrative as something which all men knew. 'Nolite in Evangelio legere quod pepercerit Dominus etiam adulterae confitenti, quam nemo damnarat?' Pacianus, Op. Epist. iii. Contr. Novat. (A.D. 372). _Ap._ Galland. vii. 267.
[599] _Ap._ Augustin. viii. 463.
[600] In his translation of Eusebius. Nicholson, p. 53.
[601] Chrysologus, A.D. 433, Abp. of Ravenna. Venet. 1742. He mystically explains the entire incident. Serm. cxv. § 5.
[602] Sedulius (A.D. 435) makes it the subject of a poem, and devotes a whole chapter to it. _Ap._ Galland. ix. 553 and 590.
[603] 'Promiss.' De Promissionibus dimid. temp. (saec. iv). Quotes viii. 4, 5, 9. P. 2, c. 22, col. 147 b. Ignot. Auct., De Vocatione omnium Gentium (circa, A.D. 440), _ap._ Opp. Prosper. Aquit. (1782), i. p. 460-1:--'Adulteram ex legis constitutione lapidandam ... liberavit ... cum executores praecepti de conscientiis territi, trementem ream sub illius iudicio reliquissent.... Et inclinatus, id est ad humana dimissus ... "digito scribebat in terram," ut legem mandatorum per gratiae decreta vacuaret,' &c.
[604] Wrongly ascribed to Idacius.
[605] Gelasius P. A.D. 492. Conc. iv. 1235. Quotes viii. 3, 7, 10, 11.
[606] Cassiodorus, A.D. 514. Venet. 1729. Quotes viii. 11. See ii. p. 96, 3, 5-180.
[607] Dialogues, xiv. 15.
[608] ii. 748:--In evangelio secundum Ioannem in multis et Graecis et Latinis codicibus invenitur de adultera muliere, quae accusata est apud Dominum.
[609] [Greek: henos hekastou autôn tas hamartias]. Ev. 95, 40, 48, 64, 73, 100, 122, 127, 142, 234, 264, 267, 274, 433, 115, 121, 604, 736.
[610] Appendix, p. 88.
[611] vi. 407:--Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, (credo metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis), illud quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis: quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit, 'Iam deinceps noli peccare;' aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani. De coniug. adult. ii. cap. 7. i. 707:--Fortasse non mediocrem scrupulum movere potuit imperitis Evangelii lectio, quae decursa est, in quo advertistis adulteram Christo oblatam, eamque sine damnatione dimissam. Nam profecto si quis en auribus accipiat otiosis, incentivum erroris incurrit, cum leget quod Deus censuerit adulterium non esse damnandum.
[612] Epist. 58. Quid scribebat? nisi illud Propheticum (Jer. xxii. 29-30), _Terra, terra, scribe hos vivos abdicatos_.
[613] Constt. App. (Gen. in. 49). Nicon (Gen. iii. 250). I am not certain about these two references.
[614] Two precious verses (viz. the forty-third and forty-fourth) used to be omitted from the lection for Tuesday before Quinquagesima,--viz. St. Luke xxii. 39-xxiii. 1.
The lection for the preceding Sabbath (viz. St. Luke xxi. 8-36) consisted of only the following verses,--ver. 8, 9, 25-27, 33-36. All the rest (viz. verses 10-24 and 28-32) was omitted.
On the ensuing Thursday, St. Luke xxiii was handled in a similar style: viz. ver. 1-31, 33, 44-56 alone were read,--all the other verses being left out.
On the first Sabbath after Pentecost (All Saints'), the lesson consisted of St. Matt. x. 32, 33, 37-38: xix. 27-30.
On the fifteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 1-9, 13 (leaving out verses 10, 11, 12).
On the sixteenth Sabbath after Pentecost, the lesson was St. Matt. xxiv. 34-37, 42-44 (leaving out verses 38-41).
On the sixth Sabbath of St. Luke,--the lesson was ch. viii. 26-35 followed by verses 38 and 39.
[615] 'This celebrated paragraph ... was probably not contained in the first edition of St. John's Gospel but added at the time when his last chapter was annexed to what had once been the close of his narrative,--xx. 30, 31.' Scrivener's Introduction to Cod. D, p. 50.
[616] In an unpublished paper.
[617] It is omitted in some MSS. of the Peshitto.
APPENDIX II.
CONFLATION AND THE SO-CALLED NEUTRAL TEXT.
Some of the most courteous of our critics, in reviewing the companion volume to this, have expressed regret that we have not grappled more closely than we have done with Dr. Hort's theory. I have already expressed our reasons. Our object has been to describe and establish what we conceive to be the true principles of Sacred Textual Science. We are concerned only in a secondary degree with opposing principles. Where they have come in our way, we have endeavoured to remove them. But it has not entered within our design to pursue them into their fastnesses and domiciles. Nevertheless, in compliance with a request which is both proper and candid, I will do what I can to examine with all the equity that I can command an essential part of Dr. Hort's system, which appears to exercise great influence with his followers.
§ 1.
CONFLATION.
Dr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on pp. 93-107. The want of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample 'Contents,' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to be well described in his words on p. 133:--'Now however the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to a text different from all.' In other words, by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, and 'Neutral' Texts--'the great lines of transmission ... to all appearance exclusively divergent,'--the 'Syrian' text was constructed in a form different from any one and all of the other three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on every occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving the 'posteriority of Syrian to Western ... and other ... readings.' And in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements represented, and in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of the first and second[618].
Perhaps I may present Dr. Hort's theory under the form of a diagram:--
Western Readings. Other Readings. | | --------------------- | Syrian Text.
Our theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterly repudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according to Dr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of the original readings. Our diagram in rough presentation will therefore assume this character:--
Traditional Text.--|- |-Western Readings. |-w |-x |-y |-z |-etc. |-Alexandrian Readings.
It should be added, that w, x, y, z, &c., denote forms of corruption. We do not recognize the 'Neutral' at all, believing it to be a Caesarean combination or recension, made from previous texts or readings of a corrupt character.
The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?
The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory are:--
(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their origin by analysis to X.
(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections.
(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original text of the Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries before; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time.
But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.
He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18; xxiv. 53.
1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage be found in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the Traditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequent occurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be--to admit for a moment its existence--nothing more than an occasional incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly 'Conflation' had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so round a choice.
2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide [Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 556 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflation has been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c, read [Greek: ton siton kai ta agatha mou] which Dr. Hort[619] considers to be made by Conflation into [Greek: ta genêmata mou kai ta agatha mou], because [Greek: ta genêmata mou] is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended to include with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitely what substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur is cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it could not account for any large number of variations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.
3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to examine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture.
(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side of the lake, ran together ([Greek: synedramon]) from all their cities to the point which He was making for ([Greek: ekei]), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers ([Greek: proêlthon autous]), and on His approach came in a body to Him ([Greek: synêlthon pros auton]). And on disembarking ([Greek: kai exelthôn]), i.e. ([Greek: ek tou ploiou], ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was 'a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going: and up to what I have described as the disembarkation (ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and on their reaching the heights above the place of landing watching His approach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He is going to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. Though condensed (what would a modern history have made of it?), it is all natural and in due place.
Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause ([Greek: kai proêlthon autous]) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another ([Greek: kai synêlthon autou] or [Greek: êlthon autou], which is very different from the 'Syrian' [Greek: synêlthon pros auton]) by some Western documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received Text, [Greek: kai proêlthon autous, kai synêlthon pros auton], was formed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments he candidly admits, that 'it is evident that either [Symbol: delta] (the Received Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and [Symbol: beta] (Western), or [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] are independent simplifications of [Symbol: delta]'; and that 'there is nothing in the sense of [Symbol: delta] that would tempt to alteration,' and that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy.' But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the difference between [Greek: autou] and [Greek: pros auton] is really in his favour, chiefly because [Greek: autou] would very likely _if_ it had previously existed been changed into [Greek: pros auton]--which no one can doubt; and that '[Greek: synêlthon pros auton] is certainly otiose after [Greek: synedramon ekei],' which shews that he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms 'Intrinsic Probability' leads to a similar inference. For simply [Greek: exelthôn] cannot mean that 'He "came out" of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas [Greek: ploion] is; nor can [Greek: ekei] denote 'the desert region.' Indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.
Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' _not_ 'in favour of [Symbol: delta] from [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta],' _but_ 'of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta] from [Symbol: delta].' The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence.
(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space.' So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that require attention.
St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, ([Symbol: alpha]) neither to enter into that place, [Greek: mêde eis tên kômên eiselthês], nor ([Symbol: beta]) to tell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida ([Greek: mêde eipês tini en tê kômê]). Either some one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained that [Greek: tini en tê kômê] must mean some one who was at the moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omitted from the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only by one cursive and a half (the first reading of 1 being afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACN[Symbol: Sigma] and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of which six with [Symbol: Phi] read a consolidation of both clauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading.
But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here [Symbol: alpha] is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar [Greek: Mêde] has the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening into [Greek: Mê] by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said however that [Symbol: alpha] is bald as well as simple, and that the very difficulty in [Symbol: beta] makes it probable that that clause was not invented. To take [Greek: tini en tê kômê] Hebraistically for [Greek: tini tôn en tê kômê], like the [Greek: tis en hymin] of St. James v. 19[620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second [Greek: mêde] _nor even_. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support a great theory.
(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, ([Symbol: beta]) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him ([Symbol: alpha]) because he followeth not us.'
Here the authority for [Symbol: alpha] is [Symbol: Aleph]BCL[Symbol: Delta], four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For [Symbol: beta] there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, A[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes [Symbol: alpha]) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions ([Symbol: alpha] ix. 533, and [Symbol: beta] III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, quote the passage.
Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading.
(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For ([Symbol: alpha]) every one shall be salted with fire, ([Symbol: beta]) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' The authorities are--
[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Delta], fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.
[Symbol: beta]. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).
Trad. Text. AC[Symbol: Phi][Symbol: Sigma]N and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).
This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.
'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created [Symbol: beta] out of [Symbol: alpha].' But why should not the reminiscence have been our Lord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than the one just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be easily effected.
(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately
[Symbol: alpha]. Into a city called Bethsaida [Greek: (eis polin kaloumenên] B.).
[Symbol: beta]. Into a desert place ([Greek: eis topon erêmon]), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.
Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida.'
The evidence for these readings respectively is--
[Symbol: alpha]. BLX[Symbol: Xi], with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph] (C^{a}), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads [Greek: kômên].
[Symbol: beta]. The first and later readings (C^{b}) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin ([Symbol: beta]^{2}), Peshitto also variant ([Symbol: beta]^{3}).
Trad. Text. A (with [Greek: erêmon topon]) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits [Greek: erêmon]), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i. 33).
Remark the curious character of [Symbol: alpha] and [Symbol: beta]. In Dr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private ([Greek: kat' idian], which the Revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately 'apart') _into the city called Bethsaida_. How could there have been privacy of life _in_ a city in those days? In fact, [Greek: kat' idian] necessitates the adoption of [Greek: topon erêmon], as to which the Peshitto ([Symbol: beta]^{3}) is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under [Symbol: beta] is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that it can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing _how_ the process he advocates might have arisen, not _that_ it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it _did_ so arise.
(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things ([Greek: enedreuontes thêreusai]),
[Symbol: alpha]. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth.
[Symbol: beta]. Seeking to get some opportunity ([Greek: aphormên tina]) for finding out how to accuse Him ([Greek: hina eurôsin katêgorêsai]); or, for accusing Him ([Greek: hina katêgorêsôsin autou]).
Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, _and_ seeking to catch something ([Greek: zêtountes thêreusai ti]) out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him.'
The evidence is--
[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).
[Symbol: beta]. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.
Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which omit [Greek: zêtountes]), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).
As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading [Symbol: Alpha] is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the bargain, [Greek: enedreuontes thêreusai] being very rough, and being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If [Symbol: alpha] was the original, it is hard to see how [Symbol: beta] could have come from it. That the figurative language of [Symbol: alpha] was replaced in [Symbol: beta] by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the derivation of either [Symbol: alpha] or [Symbol: beta] from the Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to [Symbol: beta], the distinguishing [Greek: aphormên tina] would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying [Greek: labein]. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of the mutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here.
(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and there will I bestow all
[Symbol: alpha]. My corn and my goods.
[Symbol: beta]. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]). My fruits ([Greek: tous karpous mou]).
Trad. Text. My crops ([Greek: ta genêmata mou]) and my goods.'
This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr. Hort admitted, in [Symbol: alpha] of the more comprehensive word [Greek: genêmata] for [Greek: siton], and a simple omission of [Greek: kai ta agatha mou] in [Symbol: beta]. And the admission of it into the selected eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in choosing his examples. The evidence is--
[Symbol: alpha]. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.
[Symbol: beta]. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).
Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve, _f_, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) _bis_, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) _bis_.
No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to require justification.
(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple
[Symbol: alpha]. Blessing God ([Greek: eulogountes]).
[Symbol: beta]. Praising God ([Greek: ainountes]).
Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'
The evidence is--
[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.
[Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.
Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact (i. 497).
Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he had got an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed both words in order to emphasize the gratitude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621]. [Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of gratitude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people of His glorious works.
4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theory which was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts or classes of readings. If his eight picked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admit that it is far from being firm, if it does not actually reel and totter. The opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and natural.
But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only eight examples--if they are not in fact only seven--has not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is so common, he might have produced a large number of references without working out more than was enough for illustration as patterns. This question must be investigated further. And I do not know how to carry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instances which come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel.
It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested phrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some passage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be at least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If again there is no Western reading, it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense. And finally, if the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is not to Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such as leaving out a pronoun, and having searched the list with all the care that I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found. Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St. Matthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort's theory be sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St. Mark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceeding will extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total to thirty-two.
A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autês ton prôtotokon] and [Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eikê] and [Greek: tô adelphô autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios] and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek: kôphon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (hê) tên mêtera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo tôn kardiôn hymôn] and [Greek: ta paraptômata autôn]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai) hoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a possibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western element comes in sparsely or appears in favour of both the omission and the retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) are excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11) that it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.
B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek: Iêsou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro prosôpou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous (kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek: agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions. The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ Traditional Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides.
C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek: memnêsteumenê]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhêmati Theou], or [Greek: ep' artô monô]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalôn exô pantas (kai)], or [Greek: kratêsas tês cheiros autês]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hêmas apo tou ponêrou], or [Greek: mê eisenenkês hêmas eis peirasmon]. In all these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnêsteumenê] by the Lewis Codex.
D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: mê apolêtai], or [Greek: echê zôên aiônion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou mê dipsêsê eis ton aiôna], or [Greek: to hydôr ho dôsô autô genêsetai en autô pêgê hydatos, k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho sôtêr tou kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apêngeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5) v. 16, [Greek: kai ezêtoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediôkon auton]; (6) vi. 51, [Greek: hên egô dôsô], or [Greek: hou egô dôsô]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithê]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek: ei ho Theos edoxasthê en autô], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthê en autô]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:--a fact which is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends itself to parallel or antithetical expressions involving the same result in meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced.
How surprising a result:--almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist.
§ 2.
THE NEUTRAL TEXT.
Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr. Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it? What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?
So much has been already advanced upon this subject in the companion volume and in the present, that great conciseness is here both possible and expedient. But it may be useful to bring the sum or substance of those discussions into one focus.
1. The so-called Neutral Text, as any reader of Dr. Hort's Introduction will see, is the text of B and [Symbol: Aleph] and their small following. That following is made up of Z in St. Matthew, [Symbol: Delta] in St. Mark, the fragmentary [Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke, with frequent agreement with them of D, and of the eighth century L; with occasional support from some of the group of Cursives, consisting of 1, 33, 118, 131, 157, 205, 209, and from the Ferrar group, or now and then from some others, as well as from the Latin k, and the Egyptian or other versions. This perhaps appears to be a larger number than our readers may have supposed, but rarely are more than ten MSS. found together, and generally speaking less, and often much less than that. To all general intents and purposes, the Neutral Text is the text of B-[Symbol: Aleph].
2. Following facts and avoiding speculation, the Neutral Text appears hardly in history except at the Semiarian period. It was almost disowned ever after: and there is no certainty--nothing more than inference which we hold, and claim to have proved, to be imaginary and delusive,--that, except as represented in the corruption which it gathered out of the chaos of the earliest times, it made any appearance.
3. Thus, as a matter of history acknowledged by Dr. Hort, it was mainly superseded before the end of the century of its emergence by the Traditional Text, which, except in the tenets of a school of critics in the nineteenth century, has reigned supreme ever since.
4. That it was not the original text of the Gospels, as maintained by Dr. Hort, I claim to have established from an examination of the quotations from the Gospels made by the Fathers. It has been proved that not only in number, but still more conclusively in quality, the Traditional Text enjoyed a great superiority of attestation over all the kinds of corruption advocated by some critics which I have just now mentioned[622]. This conclusion is strengthened by the verdict of the early versions.
5. The inferiority of the 'Neutral Text' is demonstrated by the overwhelming weight of evidence which is marshalled against it on passages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or class of readings. As to antiquity, number, variety, weight, and continuity, that Text falls hopelessly behind: and by internal evidence also the texts of B and [Symbol: Aleph], and still more the eccentric text of the Western D, are proved to be manifestly inferior.
6. It has been shewn also by evidence, direct as well as inferential, that B and [Symbol: Aleph] issued nearly together from the library or school of Caesarea. The fact of their being the oldest MSS. of the New Testament in existence, which has naturally misled people and caused them to be credited with extraordinary value, has been referred, as being mainly due, to their having been written on vellum according to the fashion introduced in that school, instead of the ordinary papyrus. The fact of such preservation is really to their discredit, instead of resounding to their honour, because if they had enjoyed general approval, they would probably have perished creditably many centuries ago in the constant use for which they were intended.
Such are the main points in the indictment and in the history of the Neutral Text, or rather--to speak with more appropriate accuracy, avoiding the danger of drawing with too definite a form and too deep a shade--of the class of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. It is interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion between this class of readings and the corruptions of the Original Text which existed previously to the early middle of the fourth century. Such brief tracing will lead us to a view of some causes of the development of Dr. Hort's theory.
The analysis of Corruption supplied as to the various kinds of it by Dean Burgon has taught us how they severally arose. This is fresh in the mind of readers, and I will not spoil it by repetition. But the studies of textual critics have led them to combine all kinds of corruption chiefly under the two heads of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin class, and in a less prominent province of the Alexandrian. Dr. Hort's Neutral is really a combination of those two, with all the accuracy that these phenomena admit. But of course, if the Neutral were indeed the original Text, it would not do for it to be too closely connected with one of such bad reputation as the Western, which must be kept in the distance at all hazards. Therefore he represented it--all unconsciously no doubt and with the best intention--as one of the sources of the Traditional, or as he called it the 'Syrian' Text. Hence this imputed connexion between the Western and the Traditional Text became the essential part of his framework of Conflation, which could not exist without it. For any permanent purpose, all this handiwork was in vain. To say no more, D, which is the chief representative of the Western Text, is too constant a supporter of the peculiar readings of B and [Symbol: Aleph] not to prove its near relationship to them. The 'Neutral' Text derives the chief part of its support from Western sources. It is useless for Dr. Hort to disown his leading constituents. And on the other hand, the Syrio-Low-Latin Text is too alien to the Traditional to be the chief element in any process, Conflate or other, out of which it could have been constructed. The occasional support of some of the Old Latin MSS. is nothing to the point in such a proof. They are so fitful and uncertain, that some of them may witness to almost anything. If Dr. Hort's theory of Conflation had been sounder, there would have been no lack of examples.
'Naturam expellas furca: tamen usque recurret.'
He was tempted to the impossible task of driving water uphill. Therefore I claim, not only to have refuted Dr. Hort, whose theory is proved to be even more baseless than I ever imagined, but by excavating more deeply than he did, to have discovered the cause of his error.
No: the true theory is, that the Traditional Text--not in superhuman perfection, though under some superhuman Guidance--is the embodiment of the original Text of the New Testament. In the earliest times, just as false doctrines were widely spread, so corrupt readings prevailed in many places. Later on, when Christianity was better understood, and the Church reckoned amongst the learned and holy of her members the finest natures and intellects of the world, and many clever men of inferior character endeavoured to vitiate Doctrine and lower Christian life, evil rose to the surface, and was in due time after a severe struggle removed by the sound and faithful of the day. So heresy was rampant for a while, and was then replaced by true and well-grounded belief. With great ability and with wise discretion, the Deposit whether of Faith or Word was verified and established. General Councils decided in those days upon the Faith, and the Creed when accepted and approved by the universal voice was enacted for good and bequeathed to future ages. So it was both as to the Canon and the Words of Holy Scripture, only that all was done quietly. As to the latter, hardly a footfall was heard. But none the less, corruption after short-lived prominence sank into deep and still deeper obscurity, whilst the teaching of fifteen centuries placed the true Text upon a firm and lasting basis.
And so I venture to hold, now that the question has been raised, both the learned and the well-informed will come gradually to see, that no other course respecting the Words of the New Testament is so strongly justified by the evidence, none so sound and large-minded, none so reasonable in every way, none so consonant with intelligent faith, none so productive of guidance and comfort and hope, as to maintain against all the assaults of corruption
THE TRADITIONAL TEXT.
FOOTNOTES:
[618] Dr. Hort has represented Neutral readings by [Symbol: alpha], Western by [Symbol: beta], as far as I can understand, 'other' by [Symbol: gamma], and 'Syrian' (=Traditional) by [Symbol: delta]. But he nowhere gives an example of [Symbol: gamma].
[619] Introduction, p. 103.
[620] Cp. St. Luke xviii. 2, 3. [Greek: Tis] is used with [Greek: ex], St. Luke xi. 15, xxiv. 24; St. John vi. 64, vii. 25, ix. 16, xi. 37, 46; Acts xi. 20, xiii. 1, &c.
[621] Thus [Greek: epainos] is used for a public encomium, or panegyric.
[622] An attempt in the _Guardian_ has been made in a review full of errors to weaken the effect of my list by an examination of an unique set of details. A correction both of the reviewer's figures in one instance and of my own may be found above, pp. 144-153. There is no virtue in an exact proportion of 3: 2, or of 6: 1. A great majority will ultimately be found on our side.
GENERAL INDEX.
A.
[Symbol: Aleph] or Sinaitic MS., 2, 196.
Accident, 8; pure A., 34-35.
Addition, 166-7, 270.
Ages, earliest, 2.
Alexandrian error, 45; readings, App. II. 268, 284.
Alford, _passim_.
Ammonius, 200.
Antiquity, our appeal always made to, 194-5.
Apolinarius, or-is (or Apoll.), 224, 257.
Arians, 204, 218.
Assimilation, 100-127; what it was, 101-2; must be delicately handled, 115
Attraction, 123-7.
B.
B or Vatican MS., 2, 8, 196; kakigraphy of, 64 note: virtually with [Symbol: Aleph] the 'Neutral' text, 282.
Basilides, 195, 197-9, 218 note 2.
Blunder, history of a, 24-7.
Bohairic Version, 249, and _passim_.
C.
Caesarea, library of, 284.
Cerinthus, 201.
Clement of Alexandria, 193.
Conflation, 266-82.
Correctors of MSS., 21.
Corruption, first origin of, 3-8; classes of 8-9, 23; general, 10-23; prevailed from the first, 12; the most corrupt authorities, 8, 14; in early Fathers, 193-4.
Curetonian Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
Cursive MSS., a group of eccentric, 283; Ferrar group, 282.
D.
D or Codex Bezae, 8.
[Symbol: Delta], or Sangallensis, 8.
Damascus, 5.
Diatessarons, 89, 96-8, 101. _See_ Tatian.
Doxology, in the Lord's Prayer, 81-8.
E.
Eclogadion, 69.
Epiphanius, 305, 211-2.
Erasmus, 10.
Error, slight clerical, 37-31.
Euroclydon, 46.
Evangelistaria (the right name), 67.
F.
Falconer's St. Paul's voyage, 46-7.
Fathers, _passim_; earliest, 193.
Faustinus, 218.
Ferrar group of Cursives, 282.
Field, Dr., 28 note 5, 30 and note 2.
G.
Galilee of the Gentiles, 4-5.
Genealogy, 22. _See_ Traditional Text.
Glosses, 94-5, 98, 172-90; described, 172.
Gospels, the four, probable date of, 7.
Guardian, review in, Pref., 150-2, 283 note.
Gwilliam, Rev. G. H., 115 note.
H.
Harmonistic influence, 89-99.
Heracleon, 190, 202, 204, 215 note 2.
Heretics, corruptions by, 199-210; not always dishonest, 191; very numerous, 199 &c.
Homoeoteleuton, 36-41; explained, 8
I.
Inadvertency, 21, 23.
Internal evidence, Pref.
Interpolations, 166-7.
Irenaeus, St., 193.
Itacism, 8, 56-86.
J.
Justin Martyr, St., 193.
L.
L or Codex Regius, 8.
Lachmann, _passim_.
Last Twelve Verses, 72, 129-30.
Latin MSS., Old, _passim_; Low-Latin, 8. _See_ Traditional Text.
Lectionaries, 67-81; ecclesiastical prefaces to, 71.
Lewis MS., _passim_, 194.
Liturgical influence, 67-88.
M.
Macedonians, 204.
Manes, 207.
Manichaeans, 206.
Manuscripts, six classes of, 12; existing number of, 12; frequent inaccuracies in, 12; more serious faults, 20-1; and _passim_.
Marcion, 70, 195, 197, 199, 200, 219.
Matrimony, 208.
Menologion, 69.
N.
Naaseni, 204.
'Neutral Text,' 267, 282-6.
O.
Omissions, 128-156; the largest of all classes, 128; not 'various readings,' 128; prejudice in favour of, 130-1; proof of, 131-2; natural cause of corruption, 270.
Origen, 53-5, 98, 101, 111-3, 190, 193, 209.
Orthodox, corruption by, 211-31, misguided, 211.
P.
Papyrus MSS., 2. _See_ Traditional Text.
Parallel passages, 95.
Pella, 7.
Pericope de Adultera, 232-65.
Peshitto Version, _passim. See_ Traditional Text.
Porphyry, 114.
R.
Revision, 10-13.
Rose, Rev. W. F., 61 note 3.
S.
[Greek: Sabbatokuriakai], 68.
Sahidic Version, 194.
Saturninue, or Saturnilus, 208 and note 3.
Scrivener's Introduction (4th Ed.), Miller's, _passim_.
Semiarianism, 2.
Substitution, 164-5, 270, 277.
Synaxarion, 69.
T.
Tatian's Diatessaron, 8, 98, 101, 196, 200.
Textualism of the Gospels, different from T. of profane writings, 14.
Theodotus, 205, 214.
Tischendorf, 112-3, 176, 182, and _passim_; misuse of Assimilation, 118.
Traditional Text, 1-4; not = Received Text, 1. _See_ Volume on it.
Transcriptional Mistakes, 55.
Transposition, 157-63; character of, 163, 270.
Tregelles, 34, 136, 138.
U.
Uncials, 42-55.
V.
Valentinus, 197-9, 201, 202-5, 215, 218 note 2.
Various readings, 14-16.
Vellum, 2.
Vercellone, 47 note.
Versions, _passim_.
Victorinus Afer, 218.
W.
Western Readings or Text, 6, 266-85.
Z.
Z or Dublin palimpsest, 8.
INDEX II.
PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DISCUSSED.
St. Matthew: