CHAPTER V. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT(113). I. WITNESS OF THE

EARLY FATHERS.

§ 1. Involuntary Evidence of Dr. Hort.

Our readers will have observed, that the chief obstacle in the way of an unprejudiced and candid examination of the sound and comprehensive system constructed by Dean Burgon is found in the theory of Dr. Hort. Of the internal coherence and the singular ingenuity displayed in Dr. Hort’s treatise, no one can doubt: and I hasten to pay deserved and sincere respect to the memory of the highly accomplished author whose loss the students of Holy Scripture are even now deploring. It is to his arguments sifted logically, to the judgement exercised by him upon texts and readings, upon manuscripts and versions and Fathers, and to his collisions with the record of history, that a higher duty than appreciation of a Theologian however learned and pious compels us to demur.

But no searching examination into the separate links and details of the argument in Dr. Hort’s Introduction to his Edition of the New Testament will be essayed now. Such a criticism has been already made by Dean Burgon in the 306th number of the Quarterly Review, and has been republished in The Revision Revised(114). The object here pursued is only to remove the difficulties which Dr. Hort interposes in the development of our own treatise. Dr. Hort has done a valuable service to the cause of Textual Criticism by supplying the rationale of the attitude of the School of Lachmann. We know what it really means, and against what principles we have to contend. He has also displayed a contrast and a background to the true theory; and has shewn where the drawing and colouring are either ill-made or are defective. More than all, he has virtually destroyed his own theory.

The parts of it to which I refer are in substance briefly the following:

“The text found in the mass of existing MSS. does not date further back than the middle of the fourth century. Before that text was made up, other forms of text were in vogue, which may be termed respectively Neutral, Western, and Alexandrian. The text first mentioned arose in Syria and more particularly at Antioch. Originally there had been in Syria an Old-Syriac, which after Cureton is to be identified with the Curetonian. In the third century, about 250 A.D., ‘an authoritative revision, accepted by Syriac Christendom,’ was made, of which the locality would be either Edessa or Nisibis, or else Antioch itself. ‘This revision was grounded probably upon an authoritative revision at Antioch’ (p. 137) of the Greek texts which called for such a recension on account of their ‘growing diversity and confusion.’ Besides these two, a second revision of the Greek texts, or a third counting the Syriac revision, similarly authoritative, was completed at Antioch ‘by 350 or thereabouts’; but what was now ‘the Vulgate Syriac’ text, that is the Peshitto, did not again undergo any corresponding revision. From the last Greek revision issued a text which was afterwards carried to Constantinople—‘Antioch being the true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople’—and thenceforward became the Text dominant in Christendom till the present century. Nevertheless, it is not the true Text, for that is the ‘Neutral’ text, and it may be called ‘Syrian.’ Accordingly, in investigations into the character and form of the true Text, ‘Syrian’ readings are to be ‘rejected at once, as proved to have a relatively late origin.’ ”

A few words will make it evident to unprejudiced judges that Dr. Hort has given himself away in this part of his theory.

1. The criticism of the Canon and language of the Books of the New Testament is but the discovery and the application of the record of Testimony borne in history to those books or to that language. For a proof of this position as regards the Canon, it is sufficient to refer to Bishop Westcott’s admirable discussion upon the Canon of the New Testament. And as with the Books generally, so with the details of those Books—their paragraphs, their sentences, their clauses, their phrases, and their words. To put this dictum into other terms:—The Church, all down the ages, since the issue of the original autographs, has left in Copies or in Versions or in Fathers manifold witness to the books composed and to the words written. Dr. Hort has had the unwisdom from his point of view to present us with some fifteen centuries, and—I must in duty say it—the audacity to label those fifteen centuries of Church Life with the title “Syrian,” which as used by him I will not characterize, for he has made it amongst his followers a password to contemptuous neglect. Yet those fifteen centuries involve everything. They commenced when the Church was freeing herself from heresy and formulating her Faith. They advanced amidst the most sedulous care of Holy Scripture. They implied a consentient record from the first, except where ignorance, or inaccuracy, or carelessness, or heresy, prevailed. And was not Dr. Hort aware, and do not his adherents at the present day know, that Church Life means nothing arbitrary, but all that is soundest and wisest and most complete in evidence, and most large-minded in conclusions? Above all, did he fancy, and do his followers imagine, that the HOLY GHOST who inspired the New Testament could have let the true Text of it drop into obscurity during fifteen centuries of its life, and that a deep and wide and full investigation (which by their premisses they will not admit) must issue in the proof that under His care the WORD of GOD has been preserved all through the ages in due integrity?—This admission alone when stripped of its disguise, is plainly fatal to Dr. Hort’s theory.

2. Again, in order to prop up his contention, Dr. Hort is obliged to conjure up the shadows of two or three “phantom revisions,” of which no recorded evidence exists(115). We must never forget that subjective theory or individual speculation are valueless, when they do not agree with facts, except as failures leading to some better system. But Dr. Hort, as soon as he found that he could not maintain his ground with history as it was, instead of taking back his theory and altering it to square with facts, tampered with historical facts in order to make them agree with his theory. This is self-evident: no one has been able to adduce, during the quarter of a century that has elapsed since Dr. Hort published his book, passages to shew that Dr. Hort was right, and that his supposed revisions really took place. The acute calculations of Adams and Leverrier would have been very soon forgotten, if Neptune had not appeared to vindicate their correctness.

But I shall not leave matters here, though it is evident that Dr. Hort is confuted out of his own mouth. The fifteen centuries of dominant evidence, which he admits to have been on our side, involve the other centuries that had passed previously, because the Catholic Church of Christ is ever consistent with itself, and are thus virtually decisive of the controversy; besides the collapse of his theory when superimposed upon the facts of history and found not to coincide with them. I proceed to prove from the surviving records of the first three or four centuries, during the long period that elapsed between the copying of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. and the days of the Evangelists, that the evidence of Versions and Fathers is on our side.

And first of the Fathers.

§ 2. Testimony of the Ante-Chrysostom Writers.

No one, I believe, has till now made a systematic examination of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers who died before A.D. 400 and in public documents written prior to that date. The consequence is that many statements have been promulgated respecting them which are inconsistent with the facts of the case. Dr. Hort, as I shall shew, has offended more than once in this respect. The invaluable Indexes drawn up by Dean Burgon and those who assisted him, which are of the utmost avail in any exhaustive examination of Patristic evidence upon any given text, are in this respect of little use, the question here being, What is the testimony of all the Fathers in the first four centuries, and of every separate Father, as to the MSS. used by them or him, upon the controversy waged between the maintainers of the Traditional Text on the one side, and on the other the defenders of the Neologian Texts? The groundwork of such an examination evidently lies not in separate passages of the Gospels, but in the series of quotations from them found in the works of the collective or individual Fathers of the period under consideration.

I must here guard myself. In order to examine the text of any separate passage, the treatment must be exhaustive, and no evidence if possible should be left out. The present question is of a different kind. Dr. Hort states that the Traditional Text, or as he calls it “the Syrian,” does not go back to the earliest times, that is as he says, not before the middle of the fourth century. In proving my position that it can be traced to the very first, it would be amply sufficient if I could shew that the evidence is half on our side and half on the other. It is really found to be much more favourable to us. We fully admit that corruption prevailed from the very first(116): and so, we do not demand as much as our adversaries require for their justification. At all events the question is of a general character, and does not depend upon a little more evidence or a little less. And the argument is secondary in its nature: it relates to the principles of the evidence, not directly to the establishment of any particular reading. It need not fail therefore if it is not entirely exhaustive, provided that it gives a just and fair representation of the whole case. Nevertheless, I have endeavoured to make it exhaustive as far as my power would admit, having gone over the whole field a second time, and having employed all the care in either scrutiny that I could command.

The way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows:—A standard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a copy of Dr. Scrivener’s Cambridge Greek Testament, A.D. 1887, in which the disputed passages are printed in black type, although the Text there presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as revised by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many passages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record, though not unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our opponents’ column. I have used copies of the Fathers in which the quotations were marked, chiefly those in Migne’s Series, though I have also employed other editions where I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne. Each passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book upon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell on either side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented. But all doubtful quotations (under which head were included all that were not absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the comparison that was being made; and all instances too of mere spelling, because these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists or editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The fact also that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the opposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose I generally decided questions against my own contention, and have omitted to record many smaller instances favourable to us which I should have entered in the other column. From various reasons the large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred in them, or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of St. John’s Gospel, “I and My Father are one,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” “No man knoweth the Father but the Son,” and many others. In Latin books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, because the verdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original language.

An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately with the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious Houses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day familiar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to which they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1, whereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about 8:3.

For the same reason I have not included Marcion’s edition of St. Luke’s Gospel, or Tatian’s Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because such representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to have been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgement of those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were self-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion(117). And the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that of the other works of Basil on the other, suggests that too much variation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of readings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author’s pen(118). Variant readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are found, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have been supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other prints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it. Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation of authorities from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual Critics shews that they have always been taken to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that we may be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on both sides, and a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.

In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations have generally been neglected (except in the case of St. Irenaeus(119)), because the witness of a version is secondhand, and Latin translators often employed a rendering with which they were familiar in representing in Latin passages cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and especially of the later Fathers before A.D. 400, it is not certain whether the translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he used a Text or Texts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his own Greek writing, than where some one else has translated his words into Latin. Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest evidence has been admitted. Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been rejected, and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made in the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process like this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result, and it is of the greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building should be sound.

The general results will appear in the annexed Table. The investigation was confined to the Gospels. For want of a better term, I have uniformly here applied the title “Neologian” to the Text opposed to ours.

_Fathers._ _Traditional _Neologian._ Text._ Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4 Epistle to Diognetus 1 0 Papias 1 0 Justin Martyr 17 20 Heracleon 1 7 Gospel of Peter 2 0 Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0 Athenagoras 3 1 Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek) 63 41 Hegesippus 2 0 Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4 Testament of Abraham 4 0 Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium 1 0 Clement of Alexandria 82 72 Tertullian 74 65 Clementines 18 7 Hippolytus 26 11 Callixtus (Pope) 1 0 Pontianus (Pope) 0 2 Origen 460 491 Julius Africanus 1 1 Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3 Novatian 6 4 Cornelius (Pope) 4 1 Synodical Letter 1 2 Cyprian 100 96 Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4 Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5 Synodus Antiochena 3 1 Acta Pilati 5 1 Theognostus 0 1 Archelaus (Manes) 11 2 Pamphilus 5 1 Methodius 14 8 Peter of Alexandria 7 8 Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0 Lactantius 0 1 Juvencus 1 2 Arius 2 1 Acta Philippi 2 1 Apostolic Canons and Constitutions 61 28 Eusebius (Caesarea) 315 214 Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0 Athanasius 179 119 Firmicus Maternus 3 1 Julius (Pope) 1 2 Serapion 5 1 Eustathius 7 2 Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus(120) 36 17 Hilary (Poictiers) 73 39 Candidus Arianus 0 1 Eunomius 1 0 Didymus 81 36 Victorinus of Pettau 4 3 Faustinus 4 0 Zeno 3 5 Basil 272 105 Victorinus Afer 14 14 Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20 Titus of Bostra 44 24 Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32 Pacianus 2 2 Optatus 10 3 Quaestiones ex Utroque Test 13 6 Gregory of Nyssa 91 28 Philastrius 7 6 Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4 Amphilochius 27 10 Epiphanius 123 78 Ambrose 169 77 Macarius Magnes 11 5 Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0 Evagrius Ponticus 4 0 Esaias Abbas 1 0 Nemesius 0 1 Philo of Carpasus(121) 9 2 —— 2630 1753

The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, according to the issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a fair idea of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as δέδωκα for ἔδωκα, ὁ οὐράνιος for ὁ εν οὐρανοῖς, φοβεῖσθε for φοβηθῆτε, disarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles, besides of course greater omissions of more or less importance. In fact, a great deal of the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the Church had not become familiar with the true readings, the _verba ipsissima_, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was spread around. It will be readily understood how easily the text of the Holy Gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded themselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians of the day, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out. That they were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great though by no means the sole cause of corruption. But before going further, it will be best to exhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most important passages in dispute. They have been selected with care: several which were first chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their absence from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course, the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in this list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches, The Last Twelve Verses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific of apposite passages. A reference here and there has been added from Resch’s Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig, 1894-5.

1. St. Matt. i. 25. Πρωτότοκον.

On the Traditional side:— Tatian (Diatessaron). Athanasius (c. Apoll. i. 20; ii. 15). Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. (291); in S. Xti. Gen. 5; i. 392; ii. 599, 600). Didymus (Trin. iii. 4). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 9). Gregory Nyss. (ii. 229). Ephraem Syras (Commentary on Diatessaron). Epiphanius (Haer. II. li. 5; III. lxxxviii. 17, &c.—5 times). Ambrose (De Fid. I. xiv. 89)(122).

Against:—I can discover nothing.

2. St. Matt. v. 44 (some of the clauses).

Traditional:—Separate clauses are quoted by— Didachè (§ I). Polycarp (x.). Justin M. (Apol. i. 15). Athenagoras (Leg. pro Christian. 11). Tertullian (De Patient, vi.). Theophilus Ant. (Ad Autolycum). Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8; Strom. iv. 14; vii. 14). Origen (De Orat. i.; Cels. viii. 35; 41). Eusebius (Praep. Ev. xiii. 7; Comment, in Isai. 66; Comment. in Ps. 3; 108). Athanasius (De Incarnat. c. Arian. 3; 13). Apost. Const, (i. 1, all the clauses; vii. I). Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 124). Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.; In S. Stephanum). Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.). Philo of Carpasus (I. 7). Pacianus (Epist. ii.). Hilary (Tract. in Ps. cxviii. 9. 9; 10. 16). Ambrose (De Abrahamo ii. 30; In Ps. xxxviii. 10; In Ps. cxviii. 12. 51). Aphraates (Dem. ii.). Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (p. 89).

Against:— Cyprian (De Bono Patient, v.; De Zelo xv.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 49). Irenaeus (Haer. III. xviii. 5). Origen (Comment. on St. John XX. xv.; xxvii.). Eusebius (Dem. Evan. xiii. 7). Gregory Nyss. (In Bapt. Christ.).

3. St. Matt. vi. 13. Doxology.

Traditional:— Didachè (viii, with variation). Apostol. Const. (iii. 18; vii. 25, with variation). Ambrose (De Sacr. vi. 5. 24).

Against (?), i.e. generally silent about it:— Tertullian (De Orat. 8). Cyprian (De Orat. Dom. 27). Origen (De Orat. 18). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xxiii., Myst. 5, 18). Gregory Nyss. is doubtful (De Orat. Dom. end).

4. St. Matt. vii. 13, 14. Ἡ πύλη.

Traditional:— Hippolytus (In Susannam v. 18). Testament of Abraham(5 times). Origen (Select. in Ps. xvi.; Comment. in Matt. xii. 12). Ambrose (Epist. I. xxviii. 6). Esaias Abbas. Philo of Carpasus (iii. 73).

Against:— Hippolytus (Philosoph. v. 1. 1—bis). Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Select. in Ps. xlv. 2; cxvii.; c. Haeres. v. 8). Cyprian (De Hab. Virg. xxi.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 6). Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. iii. 4; Comment. in Ps. 3). Clemens Alex. (Strom. IV. ii.; vi.; v. 5; Cohort. ad Gent. p. 79). Basil (Hom. in Ps. xxxiii. 4; xlv. 2). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. iii. 7). Gregory Nyss. (c. Fornicarios). Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. iv. 37). Philo of Carpasus (i. 7). Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. xxviii.). Lucifer (De Athan. ii.; Moriendum esse).

5. St. Matt. ix. 13. εἰς μετάνοιαν. Mark ii. 17.

Traditional:— Barnabas (5). Justin M. (Apol. i. 15). Irenaeus (III. v. 2). Origen (Comment. in Joh. xxviii. 16). Eusebius (Comment. in Ps. cxlvi.). Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.). Basil (De Poenitent. 3; Hom. in Ps. xlviii. 1; Epist. Class. I. xlvi. 6).

Against:— Clemens Rom. (ii. 2). Hilary (in Mark ii. 17).

6. St. Matt. xi. 27. βούληται ἀποκάλυψαι.

Traditional:— Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. vi. 1). Archelaus—Manes (xxxvii.). Clementines (Recog. ii. 47; Hom. xvii. 4; xviii. 4; 13). Athanasius (Matt. xi. 27—commenting upon it; De Incarn. c. Arian. 7; 13; 47; 48; c. Arianos iii. 26; 49; c. Sabell. Greg. 4). Didymus (De Trin. iii. 36). Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 314). Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium i. 15). Ambrose (De Fide V. xvi. 201; De Spir. S. II. xi. 123). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i.). Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; De Trin. ii. 10; vi. 26; ix. 50; Frag. xv.). Quaestiones ex N. T. (124).

Against:— Irenaeus (c. Haeres. I. xx. 3; II. vi. I; IV. vi. 3). Clemens Alex. (Cohort. ad Gent. i. end; Paed. i. 5; Strom. i. 28; v. 13; vii. 10; 18; Quis Div. Salv. viii.). Justin M. (Apol. i. 63—bis; Dial. c. Tryph. 100). Origen (Cels. vi. 17; Comm. in Joh. i. 42). Synodus Antiochena. Athanasius (Hist. Arian. xii.; c. Arian. i. 12; 39; iv. 23; Serm. Maj. de Fide, 28). Didymus (De Trin. ii. 16). Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. i. 11; De Eccles. Theol. I. xv; xvi.). Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 311). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vi. 6; x. 1). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. i. 34. 18; ii. 54. 4; iii. 65. 4; 76. 4; 29; Ancor. 67).

7. St. Matt. xvii. 21. The Verse.

Traditional:— Clement Alex. Ἐκλογαι ἐκ τ. προφ xv. Origen (Comment. in Matt. xiii. 7; Hom. i.). Athanasius (De Virg. vii.). Basil (De Jejun. Hom. i. 9; Reg. fus. tract. xviii.; Hom, de Jejun. iii.). Juveneus (iii. vv. 381-2). Ambrose (In Ps. xlv. 9; Epist. Class. I. xlii. 11). Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc).

Against:—none, so far as I can find.

8. St. Matt. xviii. 11. The Verse.

Traditional:— Origen (ii. 147; Conc. v. 675). Tertullian (Pudic. 9; Resurr. 9). Ambrose (De Interpell. Dav. IV. ii. 4; Expos. in Luc. vii. 209; De Fid. Res. II. 6)(123).

Against:—none, so far as I can find.

9. St. Matt. xix. 16, 17. ἀγαθέ, and περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ.

Traditional:— Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 10). Origen—ἀγαθέ (Comment. in Matt. xv. 10). Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21). Athanasius (De Incarn. c. Arian. 7). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xviii. 30). Gregory Naz. (i. 529). Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 34. 18). Macarius Magnes (i. 9)(124).

Against:— Origen (Praep. Evan. xi. 19; Comment. in Matt. xv. 10.—bis). Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 21). Novatian (De Trin. xxx.). Hilary—omits ἀγαθέ (Comment. in loc.).

10. St. Matt. xxiii. 38. ἔρημος. St. Luke xiii. 35.

Traditional:— Cyprian (Test. ad Jud. i. 6). Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xxxvi. 8; xxxvii. 5). Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 9). Methodius (Serm. de Simeone et Anna). Origen (Hom. in Jerem. vii.— bis; X.; xiii.; Select. in Jeremiam xv.; in Threnos iv. 6). Apostol. Const. (vi. 5). Eusebius (Dem. Evan. II. iv. (38)—four times; IV. xvi. (189); VI. (291); viii. (401); x. (481); Eclog. Proph. IV. i.; Comment. in Ps. 73—bis; 77; 79; in Isaiam 7-8; De Theophan. vii.—tris). Basil (Comment. in Isaiam i. 20). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 32). Philo of Carpasus (iii. 83). Ambrose (In Ps. xliii. 69; In Cant. Cant. iv. 54).

Against:— Didymus (Expos. in Ps. 67). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. I. iii. 40). Zeno (xiv. 2).

11. St. Matt. xxvii. 34. Ὄξος and οἶνον.

Traditional:— Gospel of Peter (§ 5). Acta Philippi (§ 26). Barnabas (§ 7). Irenaeus. Tertullian. Celsus. Origen. Eusebius of Emesa. Theodore of Heraclea. Didymus. Gregory Naz. Gregory Nyss. Ephraem Syrus. Titus of Bostra.

Against:— Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Macarius Magnes (ii. 12). Gospel of Nicodemus(125).

12. St. Matt. xxviii. 2. ἀπὸ τῆς θύρας.

Traditional:— Gospel of Nicodemus. Aeta Philippi. Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles. Eusebius (ad Marinum, ii. 4). Greg. Nyss. (De Christ. Resurr. I. 390, 398)(126)?

Compare also Acta Pilati (ἀπὸ τοῦ στόματος τοῦ σπηλαίου, and ἐκ τοῦ μνημείου), and Gospel of Peter (ἐπὶ τῆς θύρασ—ἐπὶ τῆς θύρας).

Against:— Dionysius Alex. (Epist. Canon. ad Basilidem). Origen (c. Celsum, ii. 70). Apostol. Can. (vii. 1).

13. St. Matt. xxviii. 19. βαπτίζοντες.

Traditional:— Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xvii. 1). Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noet. 14). Apostolic Canons (pp. 29; 43; 49 (Lagarde); Const. ii. 26; iv. 1; vii. 22). Concilia Carthaginiensia (vii.—tris). Ps. Justin (Expos. Rect. Fid. v.). Tertullian (De Baptismo xiii.). Cyprian (Epist. ad Jubaianum v.; xxv. 2 tingentes; lxiii. 18; ad Novatianum Heret. iii.—3rd cent.; Testimon. II. xxvi. tingentes). Eusebius (c. Marcell. I. i.). Athanasius (Epist. Encycl. i.; Epist. ad Serap. i. 6; 28; ii. 6; iii. 6; iv. 5; de Syn. 23; De Titulis Ps. 148). Basil (Adv. Eunom. v. 299; De Fide 4; De Bapt. I. 1; ii. 6; Epist. Class. I. viii. 11; II. ccx. 3). Didymus (De Trin. i. 30; 36; ii. 5; iii. 23). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xvi. 4). Hilary (Comment. in Matt. ad loc.; c. Auxentium 14; De Syn. xxix.; De Trin. ii. 1). Amphilochius (Epist. Synod.). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xi.; In Bapt. Christ.; In Christ. Resurr.—bis; Epist. v.; xxiv.). Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. i. 15). Optatus (De Schism. Don. v. 5). Firmicus Maternus (De Error. Profan. Relig. xxv.). Ambrose (De Joseph. xii. 71). Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium iv. 18). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. iii. 73. 3; 74. 5; ἀνακεφαλαίωσις, end).

Against:—none.

14. St. Mark i. 2. τοῖς προφήταις ... Ησαΐᾳ.

Traditional:— Titus of Bostra. Origen. Porphyry. Irenaeus (III. xvi. 3). Eusebius. Ambrose(127).

Against:— Irenaeus (III. xi. 8). Origen (Cels. ii. 4; Comment. in John i. 14). Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manich. iii. 4). Epiphanius. Basil (Adv. Eunom. ii. 15). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. i. 51). Serapion. Victorinus of Pettau (In Apoc. S. Joann.).

15. St. Mark xvi. 9-20. Last Twelve Verses.

Traditional:— Papias (Eus. H. E. iii. 39). Justin Martyr (Tryph. 53; Apol. i. 45). Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. x. 6; iv. 56). Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn. xxxvii.; Adv. Praxeam xxx.). Clementines (Epit. 141). Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. _ad fin._). Vincentius (2nd Council of Carthage—Routh, Rell. Sacr. iii. p. 124). Acta Pilati (xiv. 2). Apost. Can. and Const. (can. 1; v. 7; 19; vi. 15; 30; viii. 1). Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiv. 27). Syriac Table of Canons. Macarius Magnes (iii. 16; 24). Aphraates (Dem. i.—bis). Didymus (Trin. ii. 12). Syriac Acts of the Apostles. Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. I. xliv. 6). Gregory Nyss. (In Christ. Resurr. ii.). Apocryphal Acts of the Gospel—Wright (4; 17; 24). Ambrose (Hexameron vi. 38; De Interpell. ii. 5; Apol. proph. David II. iv. 26; Luc. vii. 81; De Poenit. I. viii. 35; De Spir. S. II. xiii. 151).

Against:— Eusebius (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect. i. p. 1)(128).

16. St. Luke i. 28. εὐλογημένη, κ.τ.λ.

Traditional:— Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. vi.). Eusebius (Dem. Evan. vii. 329). Aphraates (Dem. ix.). Ambrose (Exposit. in loc.).

Against:— Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in loc.; Adv. Manich. iii.).

17. St. Luke ii. 14. Εὐδοκία.

Traditional:— Irenaeus (III. x. 4). Origen (c. Celsum i. 60; Selecta in Ps. xlv.; Comment. in Matt. xvii.; Comment. in Joh. i. 13). Apostol. Const. (vii. 47; viii. 12). Methodius (Serm. de Simeon. et Anna). Eusebius (Dem. Ev. iv. (163); vii. (342)). Gregory Thaumaturgus (De Fid. Cap. 12). Aphraates (Dem. ix.; xx.). Titus of Bostra (Expos. in Luc. ad loc). Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. cxlviii.). Didymus (De Trin. i. 27; Expos. in Ps. lxxxiv.). Basil (In S. Christ. Gen. 5). Gregory Naz. (Or. xlv. i.). Philo of Carpasus (iii. 167). Epiphanius (Haer. I. 30. 29; III. 78. 15). Gregory Nyss. (In Ps. xiv.; In Cant. Cant. xv.; In Diem Nat. Christ. 1138; De Occurs. Dom. 1156). Ephraem Syr.(129) (Gr. iii. 434).

Against:— Irenaeus (III. x. 4). Optatus (De Schism. Don. iv. 4). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xii. 72). Ambrose (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc.). Juvencus (II. v. 174).

18. St. Luke x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων χρεία ἐστίν, ἢ ἑνός.

Traditional:— Basil (Const. Monast. i. 1). Macarius Aegypt. (De Orat.). Evagrius Ponticus.

Against:— Titus of Bostra (Exposit. in Luc. ad loc. But μεριμνᾷς).

19. St. Luke xxii. 43-4. Ministering Angel and Agony.

Traditional:— Justin M. (Tryph. 103). Irenaeus (Haer. III. xxii. 2; IV. xxxv. 3). Tatian (Ciasca, 556). Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 5; 18). Marcion (ad loc.). Dionysius Alex. (Hermen. in Luc. ad loc.). Eusebius (Sect. 283). Athanasius (Expos. in Ps. lxviii.). Ephraem Syrus (ap. Theodor. Mops.). Gregory Naz. (xxx. 16). Didymus (Trin. iii. 21). Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc.). Epiphanius (Haer. II. (2) lxix. 19; 59; Ancor. 31; 37). Arius (Epiph. Haer. lxix. 19; 61)(130).

Against:—none.

20. St. Luke xxiii. 34. Our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers.

Traditional:— Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. ii. 23). Ps. Justin (Quaest. et Respons. 108—bis). Irenaeus (c. Haer. III. xviii. 5). Archelaus (xliv.). Marcion (in loc.). Hippolytus (c. Noet. 18). Clementines (Recogn. vi. 5; Hom. xi. 20). Apost. Const. (ii. 16; v. 14). Athanasius (De Tit. Pss., Ps. cv.). Eusebius (canon x.). Didymus (Trin. iii. 21). Amphilochius (Orat. in d. Sabbati). Hilary (De Trin. i. 32). Ambrose (De Joseph, xii. 69; De Interpell. III. ii. 6; In Ps. CXVIII. iii. 8; xiv. 28; Expos. Luc. v. 77; x. 62; Cant. Cant. i. 46). Gregory Nyss. (De Perf. Christ. anim. forma—bis). Titus of Bostra (Comment. Luc. ad loc.—bis). Acta Pilati (x. 5). Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 290). Gregory Naz. (Orat. iv. 78). Ephraem Syr. (ii. 321). Acta Philippi (§ 26). Quaestiones ex Utroque Test. (N.T. 67; Mixtae II. (1) 4). Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright), 11; (16)(131).

Against:—none.

21. St. Luke xxiii. 38. The Superscription.

Traditional:— Marcion (ad loc.). Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. II. xiv.). Gospel of Peter (i. 11). Acta Pilati (x. 1). Gregory Nyss. (In Cant. Cant. vii.). Titus of Bostra (In Luc. ad loc).

Against:—none.

22. St. Luke xxiii. 45. ἐσκοτίσθη.

Traditional:— Marcion (ad loc.). Gospel of Peter (§ 5). Acta Pilati. Anaphora Pilati (§ 7). Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 18). Tertullian (Adv. Jud. xiii.). Athanasius (De Incarn. Verb. 49; ad Adelph. 3; ap. Epiph. i. 1006). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. xiii. 24). Macarius Magnes (iii. 17). Julius Africanus (Chronicon, v. 1). Apocryphal Acts of the Gospels (Wright, p. 16). Ephraem Syrus (ii. 48).

Against:— Origen (Cels. ii. 35). Acta Pilati.

Eusebius mentions the reading ἐκλιπόντος, but appears afterwards to condemn it(132).

23. St. Luke xxiv. 40. The Verse.

Traditional:— Marcion (ad loc.). Tertullian (De Carne Christi 5). Athanasius (ad Epictet. 7; quoted by Epiph. i. 1003). Eusebius (ap. Mai, ii. 294). Ambrose (ap. Theodoret, iv. 141). Epiphanius (Haer. III. lxxvii. 9)(133).

Against:—none.

24. St. Luke xxiv. 42. ἀπὸ μελισσίου κηρίου.

Traditional:— Marcion (ad loc.). Justin Martyr (bis). Clemens Alex. Tertullian. Athanasius (c. Arian. iv. 35). Cyril Jerus. (bis). Gregory Nyss. Epiphanius.

Against:— Clemens Alex. Paed. i. 5(134).

25. St. John i. 3-4. Full stop at the end of the Verse?

Traditional:— Athanasius (Serm. in Nativ. Christ. iii.). Eusebius (Praep. Evan. xi. 19). Didymus (De Trin. I. xv.). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. i. p. 348—bis; ii. p. 450; p. 461; p. 468; iv. p. 584; v. p. 591). Epiphanius (Haer. I. (xliii.) 1; II. (li.) 12; (lxv.) 3; (lxix.) 56; Ancoratus lxxv.). Alexandrians and Egyptians (Ambrose In Ps. 36).

Against:— Irenaeus (I. viii. 5 (2); III. xi. 1). Theodotus (ap. Clem. Alex. vi.). Hippolytus (Philosoph. V. i. 8; 17). Clemens Alex. (Paed. ii. 9). Valentinians (ap. Epiph. Haer. I. (xxxi.) 27). Origen (c. Cels. vi. 5; Princip. II. ix. 4; IV. i. 30; In Joh. i. 22; 34; ii. 6; 10; 12; 13—bis; in Rom. iii. 10; 15; c. Haer. v. 151). Eusebius (de Eccles. Theol. II. xiv.). Basil (c. Eunom. V. 303). Gregory Nyss. (De Cant. Cant. Hom. ii.). Candidus Arianus (De Generat. Div.). Victorinus Afer (Adv. Arium I. iv. 33; 41). Hilary (De Trin. i. 10). Ambrose (In Ps. xxxvi. 35 (4); De Fide III. vi. 41-2—tris)(135).

26. St. John i. 18. Ὁ Μονογένης Υἱός.

Traditional:— Irenaeus (c. Haeres. III. xi. 6; IV. xx. 6). Tertullian (Adv. Praxean xv.). Hippolytus (c. Haeres. Noeti 5). Synodus Antiochena. Archelaus (Manes) (xxxii.). Origen (Comment. in Joh. vi. 2; c. Celsum ii. 71). Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. I. ix.; II. xi.; xxiii.). Alexander Alex. (Epist.). Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxix. 17). Cyril Jerus. (Cat. vii. 11). Didymus (In Ps. cix.). Athanasius (De Decr. Nic. Syn. xiii.; xxi.; c. Arianos ii. 62; iv. 26). Titus of Bostra (Adv. Manichaeos iii. 6). Basil (De Spir. S. xi.; Hom. in Ps. xxviii. 3; Epist. ccxxxiv.; Sermons xv. 3). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. ii. p. 522). Hilary (De Trin. iv. 8; 42; vi. 39; 40). Ambrose (De Interpell. I. x. 30; De Benedict, xi. 51; Expos. in Luc. i. 25—bis; ii. 12; De Fide III. iii. 24; De Spir. S. I. i. 26). Eustathius (De Engastr. 18). Faustinus (De Trin. ii. 5—tris). Quaest. ex Utroque Test. (71; 91). Victorinus Afer (De Generat. Verb. xvi.; xx.; Adv. Arium i. 2—bis; iv. 8; 32).

Against:— Irenaeus (IV. xx. 11). Theodotus (ap. Clem. vi.). Clemens Alex. (Strom. v. 12). Origen (Comment, in Joh. II. 29; XXXII. 13). Eusebius (Υἱὸς or Θεός, De Eccles. Theol. I. ix-x.). Didymus (De Trin. i. 15; ii. 5; 16). Arius (ap. Epiph. 73—Tisch.). Basil (De Spiritu Sanct. vi.; c. Eunom. i. p. 623). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. iii. p. 577—bis; 581). Epiphanius (Adv. Haeres. II. (lxv.) 5; III. (lxx.) 7).

27. St. John iii. 13. Ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ Οὐρανῷ.

Traditional:— Hippolytus (c. Haer. Noet. 4). Novatian (De Trin. 13). Athanasius (i. 1275; Frag. p. 1222, apud Panopl. Euthym. Zyg.). Origen (In Gen. Hom. iv. 5; In Rom. viii. 2—bis). Basil (Adv. Eunom. iv. 2). Amphilochius (Sentent. et Excurs. xix.). Didymus (De Trin. III. ix.). Theodorus Heracleensis (In Is. liii. 5). Lucifer (Pro S. Athan. ii.). Epiphanius (Haer. II. lvii. 7). Eustathius (De Engastr. 18). Zeno (xii. I). Hilary (Tract. in Ps. ii. 11; cxxxviii. 22; De Trin. x. 16). Ambrose (In Ps. xxxix. 17; xliii. 39; Expos. in Luc. vii. 74). Aphraates (Dem. viii.).

Against:—some Fathers quote as far as these words and then stop, so that it is impossible to know whether they stopped because the words were not in their copies, or because they did not wish to quote further. On some occasions at least it is evident that it was not to their purpose to quote further than they did, e.g. Greg. Naz. Ep. ci. Eusebius (Eclog. Proph. ii.) is only less doubtful(136). See Revision Revised, p. 134, note.

28. St. John X. 14. γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν.

Traditional:— Macarius Aegypt. (Hom. vi.). Gregory Naz. (orat. xv. end; xxxiii. 15).

Against:— Eusebius (Comment. in Isaiam 8). Basil (Hom. xxi.; xxiii.). Epiphanius (Comm. in Ps. lxvi.)(137).

29. St. John xvii. 24. οὕς (or ὅ).

Traditional:— Irenaeus (c. Haeres. IV. xiv. 1). Cyprian (De Mortal, xxii.; Test. ad Jud. iii. 58)(138). Clemens Alex. (Paed. i. 8). Athanasius (De Tit. Pss. Ps. iii.). Eusebius (De Eccles. Theol. iii. 17—bis; c. Marcell. p. 292). Hilary (Tract. in Ps. lxiv. 5; De Trin. ix. 50). Ambrose (De Bon. Mort. xii. 54; De Fide V. vi. 86; De Spirit. S. II. viii. 76). Quaestiones ex N. T. (75)(139).

Against:— Clemens Alex. (140—Tisch.).

30. St. John xxi. 25. The Verse.

Traditional:— Origen (Princ. II. vi.; vol. ii. 1 = 81; In Matt. XIV. 12; In Luc. Hom. xxvii; xxix; In Joh. I. 11; V. ap. Eus. H. E. VI. 25; XIII. 5; XIX. 2; XX. 27; Cat. Corder. p. 474). Pamphilus (Apol. pro Orig. Pref.; iii. ap. Gall. iv. pp. 9, 15). Eusebius (Mai, iv. 297; Eus. H. E. vi. 25; Lat. iii. 964). Gregory Nyss. (c. Eunom. xii.—bis). Gregory Naz. (Orat. xxviii. 20). Ambrose (Expos. Luc. I. 11). Philastrius (Gall. vii. 499)(140).

Against:—none.

As far as the Fathers who died before 400 A.D. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and א, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader.

An objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the Fathers, that the materials of judgement here produced are too scanty. But various characteristic features in their mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as textual criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful and uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a record of readings, but for their own special purpose in view. They may quote an important passage in dispute, or they may leave it wholly unnoticed. They often quote just enough for their purpose, and no more. Some passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they write down over and over again, with unwearied richness of citation, especially from St. John’s Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all critics agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of the Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt, as has been already explained. And the Greek Fathers themselves often work words of the New Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, or a longer passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can be drawn as to the words actually used or the order of them. This is particularly true of St. Gregory of Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also of his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St. Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose and inaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father, as has been known about Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, corruption crept in from the very first.

Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers which are not founded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are described as being remarkable for the absence of Traditional readings in their works(141). Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement witnesses in the list just given 8 times for them to 14 against them; whilst Origen is found 44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the Neologian. Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which must have been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to Traditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too. Hilary of Poictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text, as has been frequently said: though in his commentaries he did not use so Traditional a text as in his De Trinitate and his other works. The texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that exclusively Western character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them(142). Traditional readings occur almost equally with others in Justin’s works, and predominate in the works of the other three.

But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text, the quotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption which prevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away by the vast current of the transmission of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we ascended in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume of the Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister river, so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the texts, or rather clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be careful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not with distinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately composed, nor with any general forms of expression which grew up independently, nor in fact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the word “texts,” when we apply it as it has been used. What is properly meant is that, of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which from whatever cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far as we know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and may be traced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we can use the term Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use of it.

The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to the colour of their testimony, the locality where they flourished, and the age in which they severally lived, under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later Traditional, Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call Caesarean.

I. _Early Traditional._

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ Patres Apostolici and Didachè 11 4 Epistle to Diognetus 1 0 Papias 1 0 Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium 1 0 Hegesippus 2 0 Seniores apud Irenaeum 2 0 Justin(143) 17 20 Athenagoras 3 1 Gospel of Peter 2 0 Testament of Abraham 4 0 Irenaeus 63 41 Clementines 18 7 Hippolytus 26 11 —— —— 151 84

II. _Later Traditional._

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ Gregory Thaumaturgus 11 3 Cornelius 4 1 Synodical Letter 1 2 Archelaus (Manes) 11 2 Apostolic Constitutions and Canons 61 28 Synodus Antiochena 3 1 Concilia Carthaginiensia 8 4 Methodius 14 8 Alexander Alexandrinus 4 0 Theodorus Heracleensis 2 0 Titus of Bostra 44 24 Athanasius(—except Contra Arianos)(144)122 63 Serapion 5 1 Basil 272 105 Eunomius 1 0 Cyril of Jerusalem 54 32 Firmicus Maternus 3 1 Victorinus of Pettau 4 3 Gregory of Nazianzus 18 4 Hilary of Poictiers 73 39 Eustathius 7 2 Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus 36 17 Didymus 81 36 Victorinus Afer 14 14 Gregory of Nyssa 91 28 Faustinus 4 0 Optatus 10 3 Pacianus 2 2 Philastrius 7 6 Amphilochius (Iconium) 27 10 Ambrose 169 77 Diodorus of Tarsus 1 0 Epiphanius 123 78 Acta Pilati 5 1 Acta Philippi 2 1 Macarius Magnes 11 5 Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento 13 6 Evagrius Ponticus 4 0 Esaias Abbas 1 0 Philo of Carpasus 9 2 —— —— 1332 609

III. _Western or Syrio-Low Latin._

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ Theophilus Antiochenus 2 4 Callixtus and Pontianus (Popes) 1 2 Tertullian 74 65 Novatian 6 4 Cyprian 100 96 Zeno, Bishop of Verona 3 5 Lucifer of Cagliari 17 20 Lactantius 0 1 Juvencus (Spain) 1 2 Julius (Pope)? 1 2 Candidus Arianus 0 1 Nemesius (Emesa) 0 1 —— —— 205 203

IV. _Alexandrian._

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ Heracleon 1 7 Clement of Alexandria 82 72 Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5 Theognostus 0 1 Peter of Alexandria 7 8 Arius 2 1 Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos) 57 56 —— —— 161 150

V. _Palestinian or Caesarean._

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ Julius Africanus (Emmaus) 1 1 Origen 460 491 Pamphilus of Caesarea 5 1 Eusebius of Caesarea 315 214 —— —— 781 707

The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now sufficiently clear.

I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.

II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort’s notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch in the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as the Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening any movement in the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.

III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have been so general as the name “Western” would suggest. But this will be a subject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion between some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria.

IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more examination.

V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to meet in Palestine under Origen.

But this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.