CHAPTER VII. THE ANTIQUITY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT. III. WITNESS OF THE

WESTERN OR SYRIO-LOW-LATIN TEXT.

There are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text of the New Testament, which have not yet, as I believe, received satisfactory treatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener(171), have too readily accepted Wiseman’s conclusion(172), that the numerous Latin Texts all come from one stem, in fact that there was originally only one Old-Latin Version, not several.

That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the inquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the general cast and flow of the sentences, are so similar in these texts, that it seems at the outset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began from the same translation, and that the differences between them arose from the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them and from a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be guided by first appearances. And before investigating these, we may note that there are some considerations of a general character which take the edge off this phenomenon.

Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expression: intercourse between Christians who used different translations of a single original must, in unimportant points at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides this, the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except where different readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a constant likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same language and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there were numerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to us there must have been a survival of the fittest.

But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for the answers to all problems must depend upon that, and upon nothing but that.

The first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic difference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin. The former are in each case one, with no suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and others), Ethiopic, Slavonic:—each is one Version and came from one general source without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that is merely within the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to do with the making of the Version. But there is no preeminent Version in the Old-Latin field. Various texts compete with difference enough to raise the question. Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts. And this discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying MSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater and more irregular discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the following Table including the Texts employed by Tischendorf, which has been constructed from that scholar’s notes upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute, as revealed in the text of the Revised Version throughout the Gospels, the standard being the _Textus Receptus_:—

Brixianus, f 286/54(173) = about 16/3 Monacensis, q 255/97 = 5/2 + Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.) 46/26 = 5/3 + Colbertinus, c 165/152 = about 14/13 Fragm. Sangall. n 6/6 = 1 Veronensis, b 124/184 = 2/3 + Sangermanensis II, g2 24/36 = 2/3 Corbeiensis II, ff2 113/180 = 2/3 - Sangermanensis I, g2 27/46 = 3/5 - Rehdigeranus, I 104/164 = 5/8 + Vindobonensis, i 37/72 = 1/2 + Vercellensis, a 100/214 = 1/2 - Corbeiensis I, ff1 37/73 = 1/2 - Speculum, m 8/18 = 1/2 - Palatinus, e 48/130 = 1/3 + Frag. Ambrosiana, s 2/6 = 1/3 Bobiensis, k 25/93 = 1/4 +

Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely observe that these MSS. shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar character. They do not fall readily into classes: so that if the threefold division of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not meaning very much. The appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left or from the extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be guarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an axiom which all critics would admit, that _k_ might be taken as the representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would be about as true as if Mr. Labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the Members of the House of Commons.

The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if we take the thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter. The attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the exhibition of their character.

_Traditional._ _Neologian._ St. Matt. i. 25 f. ff1. g2. q. b. c. g1. k. v. 44 (1) c. f. h. a. b. ff1. g1.2. k. l. (2) a. b. c. f. h. vi. 13 f. g1. q. a. b. c. ff1. g2. l. vii. 13 f. ff2. g1.2. q. a. b. c. h. k. m. ix. 13 c. g1.2. a. b. f. ff1. h. k. l. q. xi. 27 All. xvii. 21 “Most” a. b. c. e. ff1. (?) g1. xviii. 11 e. ff1. xix. 17 (1) ἀγαθέ b. c. f. ff2. a. e. ff1. g1.2. h. q. (2) τί με f. q. a. b. c. e. ff1.2. g1. h. ἐρωτᾷς l. (Vulg.) κ.τ.λ. (3) εἶς ἐστ. f. g1. m. q. b.c.ff1.2. g1. h. l. ὁ ἀγ. (Vulg.) xxiii. 38. All—except ff2. (Lk. xiii. 35) xxvii. 34 c. f. h. q. a. b. ff1.2. g1.2. l. (Vulg.) xxviii. 2 f. h. a. b. c. ff1.2. g1.2. l. n. " 19 All. St. Mark i. 2 All. xvi. 9-20 All—except k. St. Luke i. 28 All. ii. 14 All. x. 41-42 f. g1.2. q. (Vulg.) a. b. c. e. ff2. i. l. xxii. 43-44 a. b. c. e. ff2. g1.2. i. f. l. q. xxiii. 34 c. e. f. ff2. l. a. b. d. " 38 All—except a. " 45 a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q. xxiv. 40 c. f. q. a. b. d. e. ff2. l. " 42 a. b. f. ff2. l. q. e. St. John i. 3-4 c. (Vulg.) a. b. e. ff2. q. " 18 a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q. iii. 13 All. x. 14 All. xvii. 24 All (Vulg.) Vulg. MSS. xxi. 25 All.

It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-Latin MSS. witness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except in three on the Traditional side and six on the Neologian side, making nine in all against twenty-one. In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness which is at the very least far from suggesting a single source, if it be not wholly inconsistent with such a supposition.

Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they could not have arisen except from variety of origin. Copyists do not insert _ad libitum_ different modes of expression. For example, Mr. White has remarked that ἐπιτιμᾷν is translated “in no less than eleven different ways,” or adding _arguere_, in twelve, viz. by

admonere emendare minari praecipere comminari imperare obsecrare prohibere corripere(174) increpare objurgare arguere (r).

It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single prototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings, but not in the same way. Similarly δοξάζω, which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the Gospels, is rendered by _clarifico_, _glorifico_, _honorem accipio_, _honorifico_, _honoro_, _magnifico_, some passages presenting four variations. So again, it is impossible to understand how συνοχή in the phrase συνοχή ἐθνῶν (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by compressio (Vercellensis, _a_), _occursus_ (Brixianus, _f_), _pressura_ (others), _conflictio_ (Bezae, _d_), if they had a common descent. They represent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with _possidebo_ and _haereditabo_ for κληρονομήσω (St. Luke x. 25) _lumen_ and _lux_ for φῶς (St. John i. 9), _ante galli cantum_ and _antequam gallus cantet_ for πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), _locum_ and _praedium_ and _in agro_ for χωρίον (xxvi. 35), _transfer a me calicem istum_ and _transeat a me calix iste_ for παρελθέτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο (xxvi. 39);—when we fall upon _vox venit de caelis_, _vox facta est de caelis_, _vox de caelo facta est_, _vox de caelis_, and the like; or _qui mihi bene complacuisti_, _charissimus in te complacui_, _dilectus in quo bene placuit mihi_, _dilectus in te bene sensi_ (St. Mark i. 11), or _adsumpsit_ (_autem_ ... _duodecim_), _adsumens_, _convocatis_ (St. Luke