The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Part 37

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, Pes.h.i.+tto, 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 grat.i.tude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of G.o.d, 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 grat.i.tude 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 cla.s.ses 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 ill.u.s.tration 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 pa.s.sage 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 p.r.o.noun, 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: autes ton prototokon] and [Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]

and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek: kophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten metera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek: ta paraptomata auton]; 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 spa.r.s.ely 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: Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro prosopou 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: memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek: ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or [Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas 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: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or [Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton aiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos, k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5) v. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton]; (6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek: ei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en auto]. 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 ant.i.thetical 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 pa.s.sages under dispute. This glaring contrast is increased by the disagreement among themselves of the supporters of that Text, or cla.s.s 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 fas.h.i.+on 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 cla.s.s of readings represented by B and [Symbol: Aleph]. It is interesting to trace further, though very summarily, the connexion between this cla.s.s 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 a.n.a.lysis 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 repet.i.tion. 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 cla.s.s, 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 relations.h.i.+p 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 const.i.tuents. 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 a.s.saults 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.

THE END.