The Gospels in the Second Century Part 27

Tertullian (_De Carne Christ._ 19, 24), though he also had the right reading before him, boldly accuses the Valentinians of a falsification, and lays stress upon the reading which he adopts as proof of the veritable birth of Christ from a virgin. The same text is found in b (Codex Veronensis) of the Old Latin, Pseudo- Athanasius, the Latin translator of Origen's commentary on St.

Matthew, in Augustine, and three times in Irenaeus. The same codex has, like Tertullian, the singular ex sanguine for the plural [Greek: ex ahimaton]: so Eusebius and Hilary.

John iii. 36. Manebit (=[Greek: menei], for [Greek: menei]). So b, e, g, Syr. Pst., Memph., Aeth., Iren., Cypr.; against a, c, d, f, ff, Syrr. Crt. and Hcl., etc.

John v. 3, 4. The famous paragraph which describes the moving of the waters of the pool of Bethesda was found in Tertullian's MS.

It is also found in the ma.s.s of MSS., in the Old Latin and Vulgate, in Syrr. Pst. and Jer., and in some MSS. of Memph. It is omitted in [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, D (v. 4), f, l, Syr.

Crt., Theb., Memph. (most MSS.). Tertullian gives the name of the pool as Bethsaida with B, Vulg., c, Syr. Hcl., Memph. Most of the authorities read [Greek: baethesda]. [Greek: baethzatha, baezatha], Berzeta, Belzatha, and Betzeta are also found.

John v. 43. Recepistis, perf. for pres. ([Greek: lambanete]). So a, b, Iren., Vigil., Ambr., Jer.

John vi. 39. Non perdam ex eo quicquam. Here 'quicquam' is an addition (=[Greek: maeden]), found in D, a, b, ff, Syr. Crt.

John vi. 51. Et panis quem ego dedero pro salute mundi, caro mea est. This almost exactly corresponds with the reading of [Hebrew: Aleph], [Greek: ho artos hon ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes, hae sarx mou estin]. Similarly, but with inversion of the last two clauses ([Greek: hae sarx mou estin huper taes tou kosmou zoaes]), B, C, D and T, 33, Vulg., a, b, c, e, m, Syr. Crt., Theb., Aeth., Orig., Cypr. The received text is [Greek: kai ho artos [de] dae ego doso, hae sarx mou estin aen ego doso huper taes tou kosmou zoaes], after E, G, H, K, M, S, etc.

John xii. 30. Venit (= [Greek: aelthen] for [Greek: gegonen]), with D (Tregelles), [also a, b, l, n (?), Vulg. (_fuld_.), Hil., Victorin.; Ronsch].

The instances that have been here given are all, or nearly all, false readings on the part of Tertullian. It is, of course, only as such that they are in point for the present enquiry. Some few of those mentioned have been admitted into the text by certain modern editors. Thus, on Matt. v. 4, 5 Tertullian's reading finds support in Westcott and Hort: and M'Clellan, against Tischendorf and Tregelles. [This instance perhaps should not be pressed. I leave it standing, because it shows interesting relations between Tertullian and the various forms of the Old Latin.] The pa.s.sage omitted in John v. 3, 4 is argued for strenuously by Mr. M'Clellan, with more hesitation by Dr. Scrivener, and in 'Supernatural Religion'

(sixth edition), against Tregelles, Tischendorf, Milligan, Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort. In the same pa.s.sage Bethsaida is read by Lachmann (margin) and by Westcott and Hort. In John vi. 51 the reading of Tertullian and the Sinaitic Codex is defended by Tischendorf; the approximate reading of B, C, D, &c. is admitted by Lachmann, Tregelles, Milligan, Westcott and Hort, and the received text has an apologist in Mr. M'Clellan (with Tholuck and Wordsworth). On these points then it should be borne in mind that Tertullian _may_ present the true reading; on all the others he is pretty certainly wrong.

Let us now proceed to a.n.a.lyse roughly these erroneous (in three cases _doubtfully_ erroneous) readings. We shall find [Endnote 336:1]

that Tertullian--

_Agrees with_ _Differs from_ x (Codex Sinaiticus) in Mark | in Matt. iii. 18, v. 16, v. 48, i. 2 4, John vi. 51. | vi. 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv.

| 26, Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | v. 3, 43, v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.

A (Codex Alexandrinus) in |A in Mark i. 24, John i. 13, Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4. | v. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.

B (Codex Vatica.n.u.s) in John |B in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, vi.

v. 2, (vi. 51). | 10, xi. 11, xiii. 15, xv. 26, | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, | v. 3,4, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.

C (Codex Ephraemi--somewhat |C in Matt. iii. 8, xi. 11, xiii.

fragmentary) in John | 15, xv. 26, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, (vi. 51). | John i. 13, v. 3, 4, vi. 39.

D (Codex Bezae--in some |D in Matt. (iii. 8), v. 16, v. 48, places wanting) in Matt. vi. | xiii. 15, Mark i. 24, ix. 7, 10, Xi. 11, (xv. 26), John (vi. | John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 4, v. 43.

51), xii. 30. | | GREEK FATHERS. | Clement of Alexandria, in Matt. | v. 16, v. 48. | Origen, in Matt. (xv. 26), Mark |Origen, in Matt. iii. 8, (xv. 26), i. 24, John i. 13 (Latin trans- | lator), (vi. 51). | Eusebius, in Matt. xv. 26, Mark | i. 24, John i. 13 (partially). | | LATIN FATHERS. | Irenaeus, in Mark i. 24, John |Irenaeus in Matt. iii. 8.

i. 13 (ter), iii. 36, v. 43. | Cyprian, in John iii. 36, (vi. 51). | Augustine, in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10. | Ambrose, in Matt. v. 16, John v. 43. | Hilary, in Matt. v. 16, (xv. 26), | John xii. 30. | Others, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, | John i. 13, v. 43, xii. 30. | | VERSIONS. | Old Latin-- | a (Codex Vercellensis), in Matt. |a, in Matt. v. 16, v. 48, xi. 11, (iii. 8), vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, 26), John v. 3, 4, v. 43, (vi. | iii. 36.

51), xii. 30. | b (Codex Veronensis), in Matt. |b, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 36), | Mark i. 24.

Mark ix. 7, John i. 13, | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, | (vi. 51), xii. 30. | c (Codex Colbertinus), in Matt. |c, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, xi. 11, v. 48, vi. 10, xiii. 15, (xv. 26), | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, John v. 3, 4, (vi. 51). | iii. 36, V. 43, vi. 39, xii. 30.

f (Codex Brixia.n.u.s), in Matt. |f, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 48, xiii. 15, Mark ix. 7. | vi. 10, xi. 10, xv. 26, Mark | i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3, | 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30.

Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39, | vi. 51, xii. 30.

Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26, (_fuld._). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13, | iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39.

Syriac-- | Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10, Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles) (xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43.

vi. 39, (vi. 51.). | Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51), | xii. 30

[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.]

Egyptian-- Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16, | Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4.

Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in Matt. iii. 8, v.

iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John | v. 3, 4, vi. 51.

Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this kind:--

UNCIAL MSS.

[Hebrew: A B C D Alef]

Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 Difference 13 5 14 9 10

GREEK FATHERS.

Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius.

Agreement 1 4 3 Difference 0 2 0

LATIN FATHERS.

Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others.

Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0

VERSIONS.

OLD LATIN. VULGATE.

a b c f rel.

Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12

SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN.

Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph.

Agreement 7 5 1 2 Difference 7 5 4 6

Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward.

It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.

Tert. b / / O.L. (a.c. &c.) / / Syr. Crt.

/ Tert. O.L. / / Greek Fathers. / Tert. O.L./ Syr. Crt./ / / / / Best Alexandrine Authorities. / / Western.

/ Greek Fathers / Memph. Theb. / / / / / / / / || Alexandrine. || Western.

|| / The Sacred Autographs.

In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the points included in the above a.n.a.lysis. Gradually a few errors slip in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more rapid. We reach at last that strange doc.u.ment which, through more or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of ma.n.u.scripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself most frequently and habitually used.

Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree.

The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines.

Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would increase the probability that these ma.n.u.scripts and Tertullian had really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin (approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?

The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable.

Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used a ma.n.u.script in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies most elements of the problem.

But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show that the Tubingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a point and spreads over all the ma.n.u.scripts that start from that; another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; recourse is had to the best standard ma.n.u.scripts, and a purer text is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.

It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later ma.n.u.scripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may say, within approximate limits, established.