"On voit que le texte du papyrus est herisse des fautes les plus graves. _Le plus recent et le plus mauvais de nos ma.n.u.scrits d'Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,-faite, il y a deux mille ans, dans le pays ou florissaient l'erudition h.e.l.lenique et la Critique des textes._"(745)-(p. 17.)

"Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing concerning Codex B!"

(3) _S. O._ "Yes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that sc.r.a.p of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be a _school-boy's exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not impossible."

_Q. R._ "Not 'impossible' certainly: but surely highly improbable.

However, let it drop. You insist on Christian evidence. You shall have it.

What think you then of the following statement of a very ancient Father (Caius(746)) writing against the heresy of Theodotus and others who denied the Divinity of CHRIST? He is bearing his testimony to the liberties which had been freely taken with the Text of the New Testament in his own time, viz. about A.D. 175-200:-

"The Divine Scriptures," he says, "these heretics have audaciously _corrupted_: ... laying violent hands upon them under pretence of _correcting_ them. That I bring no false accusation, any one who is disposed may easily convince himself. He has but to collect the copies belonging to these persons severally; then, to compare one with another; and he will discover that their discrepancy is extraordinary. Those of Asclepiades, at all events, will be found discordant from those of Theodotus. Now, plenty of specimens of either sort are obtainable, inasmuch as these men's disciples have industriously multiplied the (so-called) '_corrected_' copies of their respective teachers, which are in reality nothing else but '_corrupted_' copies. With the foregoing copies again, those of Hermophilus will be found entirely at variance. As for the copies of Apollonides, they even contradict one another. Nay, let any one compare the fabricated text which these persons put forth in the first instance, with that which exhibits their _latest_ perversions of the Truth, and he will discover that the disagreement between them is even excessive.

"Of the enormity of the offence of which these men have been guilty, they must needs themselves be fully aware. Either they do not believe that the Divine Scriptures are the utterance of the HOLY GHOST,-in which case they are to be regarded as unbelievers: or else, they account themselves wiser than the HOLY GHOST,-and what is that, but to have the faith of devils? As for their denying their guilt, the thing is impossible, seeing that the copies under discussion are their own actual handywork; and they know full well that not such as these are the Scriptures which they received at the hands of their catechetical teachers. Else, let them produce the originals from which they made their transcripts. Certain of them indeed have not even condescended to falsify Scripture, but entirely reject Law and Prophets alike."(747)

"Now, the foregoing statement is in a high decree suggestive. For here is an orthodox Father _of the IInd century_ inviting attention to four well-known families of falsified ma.n.u.scripts of the Sacred Writings;-complaining of the hopeless divergences which they exhibit (being not only inconsistent with one another, but _with themselves_);-and insisting that such _corrected_, are nothing else but shamefully _corrupted_ copies. He speaks of the phenomenon as being in his day notorious: and appeals to Recensions, the very names of whose authors-Theodotus, Asclepiades, Hermophilus, Apollonides-have (all but the first) long since died out of the Church's memory. You will allow therefore, (will you not?), that by this time the claim of the _oldest existing copies_ of Scripture to be the purest, has been effectually disposed of. For since there once prevailed such a mult.i.tude of corrupted copies, we have no security whatever that the oldest of our extant MSS.

are not derived-remotely if not directly-from some of _them_."

(4) _S. O._ "But at all events the chances are even. Are they not?"

_Q. R._ "By no means. A copy like codex B, once _recognized_ as belonging to a corrupt family,-once _known_ to contain a depraved exhibition of the Sacred Text,-was more likely by far to remain unused, and so to escape destruction, than a copy highly prized and in daily use.-As for Codex ?, it carries on its face its own effectual condemnation; aptly ill.u.s.trating the precept _fiat experimentum in corpore vili_. It exhibits the efforts of many generations of men to restore its Text,-(which, 'as proceeding from the first scribe,' is admitted by one of its chief admirers to be '_very rough_,(748)')-to something like purity. '_At least ten different Revisers_,' from the IVth to the XIIth century, are found to have tried their hands upon it.(749)-Codex C, after having had 'at least three correctors very busily at work upon it'(750) (in the VIth and IXth centuries), finally (in the XIIth) was fairly _obliterated_,-literally _sc.r.a.ped out_,-to make room for the writings of a Syrian Father.-I am therefore led by _a priori_ considerations to augur ill of the contents of B ? C. But when I find them hopelessly at variance _among themselves_: above all, when I find (1) _all other Ma.n.u.scripts_ of whatever date,-(2) the _most ancient Versions_,-and (3), the _whole body of the primitive Fathers_, decidedly opposed to them,-I am (to speak plainly) at a loss to understand how any man of sound understanding, acquainted with all the facts of the case and accustomed to exact reasoning, can hesitate to regard the unsupported (or the _slenderly_ supported) testimony of one or other of them as _simply worthless_. The craven homage which the foremost of the three habitually receives at the hands of Drs. Westcott and Hort, I can only describe as a weak superst.i.tion. It is something more than unreasonable. It becomes even ridiculous.-Tischendorf's preference (in his last edition) for the _betises_ of his own codex ?, can only be defended on the plea of parental partiality. But it is not on that account the less foolish. His 'exaggerated preference for the single ma.n.u.script which he had the good fortune to discover, _has betrayed him_'-(in the opinion of Bishop Ellicott)-'_into an almost child-like infirmity of critical judgment_' "(751)

(5) _O. S._ "Well but,-be all _that_ as it may,-Caius, remember, is speaking of _heretical_ writers. When I said 'I want Christian evidence,'

I meant _orthodox_ evidence, of course. You would not a.s.sert (would you?) that B and ? exhibit traces of _heretical_ depravation?"

_Q. R._ "Reserving my opinion on that last head, good Sir, and determined to enjoy the pleasure of your company on any reasonable terms,-(for convince you, I both can and will, though you prolong the present discussion till tomorrow morning,)-I have to ask a little favour of you: viz. that you will bear me company in an imaginary expedition.

"I request that the clock of history may be put back seventeen hundred years. This is A.D. 183, if you please: and-(indulge me in the supposition!)-you and I are walking in Alexandria. We have reached the house of one Clemens,-a learned Athenian, who has long been a resident here. Let us step into his library,-he is from home. What a queer place!

See, he has been reading his Bible, which is open at S. Mark x. Is it not a well-used copy? It must be at least 50 or 60 years old. Well, but suppose only 30 or 40. It was executed therefore _within fifty years of the death of S. John the Evangelist_. Come, let us transcribe two of the columns(752) (se??de?) as faithfully as we possibly can, and be off.... We are back in England again, and the clock has been put right. Now let us sit down and examine our curiosity at leisure.(753)... It proves on inspection to be a transcript of the 15 verses (ver. 17 to ver. 31) which relate to the coming of the rich young Ruler to our LORD.

"We make a surprising discovery. There are but 297 words in those 15 verses,-according to the traditional Text: of which, in the copy which belonged to Clemens Alexandrinus, 39 prove to have been left out: 11 words are added: 22, subst.i.tuted: 27, transposed: 13, varied; and the phrase has been altered at least 8 times. Now, 112 words out of a total of 297, is 38 per cent. What do you think of _that_?"

(6) _S. O._ "Think? O but, I disallow your entire proceeding! You have no business to collate with 'a text of late and degenerate type, such as is the Received Text of the New Testament.' When _this_ 'is taken as a standard, any doc.u.ment belonging to a purer stage of the Text must by the nature of the case have the appearance of being guilty of omissions: and the nearer the doc.u.ment stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be the omissions laid to its charge.' I learnt that from Westcott and Hort.

See page 235 of their luminous _Introduction_."

_Q. R._ "Be it so! Collate the pa.s.sage then for yourself with the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort: which, (remember!) aspires to reproduce 'the autographs themselves' 'with the utmost exactness which the evidence permits' (pp. 288 and 289).(754) You will find that _this_ time the words omitted amount to 44. The words added are 13: the words subst.i.tuted, 23: the words transposed, 34: the words varied 16. And the phrase has been altered 9 times at least. But, 130 on a total of 297, is 44 per cent. You will also bear in mind that Clement of Alexandria is one of our princ.i.p.al authorities for the Text of the Ante-Nicene period.(755)

"And thus, I venture to presume, the imagination has been at last effectually disposed of, that _because_ Codices B and ? are the two oldest Greek copies in existence, the Text exhibited by either must _therefore_ be the purest Text which is anywhere to be met with. _It is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is contained in a doc.u.ment full two centuries older than either _B_ or ?,-itself the property of one of the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers._"

LVI.-(7) At this stage of the argument, the Reviewer finds himself taken aside by a friendly Critic [_F. C._], and privately remonstrated with somewhat as follows:-

_F. C._ "Do you consider, Sir, what it is you are about? Surely, you have been proving a vast deal too much! If the foregoing be a fair sample of the Text of the N. T. with which Clemens Alex. was best acquainted, it is plain that the testimony to the Truth of Scripture borne by one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers, is absolutely worthless. Is _that_ your own deliberate conviction or not?"

_Q. R._ "Finish what you have to say, Sir. After that, you shall have a full reply."

(8) _F. C._ "Well then. Pray understand, I nothing doubt that in your main contention you are right; but I yet cannot help thinking that this bringing in of a famous ancient Father-_obiter_-is a very damaging proceeding. What else is such an elaborate exposure of the badness of the Text which Clemens (A.D. 150) employed, but the hopeless perplexing of a question which was already sufficiently th.o.r.n.y and difficult? You have, as it seems to me, imported into these 15 verses an entirely fresh crop of 'Various Readings.' Do you seriously propose them as a contribution towards ascertaining the _ipsissima verba_ of the Evangelist,-the true text of S. Mark x. 17-31?"

_Q. R._ "Come back, if you please, Sir, to the company. Fully appreciating the friendly spirit in which you just now drew me aside, I yet insist on so making my reply that all the world shall hear it. Forgive my plainness: but you are evidently profoundly unacquainted with the problem before you,-in which however you do not by any means enjoy the distinction of standing alone.

"The foulness of a Text which must have been penned within 70 or 80 years of the death of the last of the Evangelists, is a matter of fact-which must be loyally accepted, and made the best of. The phenomenon is surprising certainly; and may well be a warning to all who (like Dr.

Tregelles) regard as oracular the solitary unsupported dicta of a Writer,-provided only he can claim to have lived in the IInd or IIIrd century. To myself it occasions no sort of inconvenience. You are to be told that the exorbitances of a _single_ Father,-as Clemens; a _single_ Version,-as the Egyptian: a _single_ Copy,-as cod. B, are of no manner of significancy or use, except as warnings: are of no manner of interest, except as ill.u.s.trating the depravation which systematically a.s.sailed the written Word in the age which immediately succeeded the Apostolic: _are, in fact, of no __ importance whatever_. To make them the basis of an induction is preposterous. It is not allowable to infer the universal from the particular. If the bones of Goliath were to be discovered to-morrow, would you propose as an induction therefrom that it was the fashion to wear four-and-twenty fingers and toes on one's hands and feet in the days of the giant of Gath? All the wild readings of the lost Codex before us may be unceremoniously dismissed. The critical importance and value of this stray leaf from a long-since-vanished Copy is entirely different, and remains to be explained.

"You are to remember then,-perhaps you have yet to learn,-that there are but 25 occasions in the course of these 15 verses, on which either Lachmann (L.), or Tischendorf (T.), or Tregelles (Tr.), or Westcott and Hort (W. H.), or our Revisionists (R. T.), advocate a departure from the Traditional Text. To those 25 places therefore our attention is now to be directed,-on them, our eyes are to be riveted,-exclusively. And the first thing which strikes us as worthy of notice is, that the 5 authorities above specified fall into no fewer than _twelve_ distinct combinations in their advocacy of certain of those 25 readings: holding all 5 together _only 4 times_.(756) The one question of interest therefore which arises, is this,-What amount of sanction do any of them experience at the hands of Clemens Alexandrinus?

"I answer,-_Only on 3 occasions does he agree with any of them._(757) The result of a careful a.n.a.lysis shows further that _he sides with the Traditional Text_ 17 _times:-witnessing against Lachmann, 9 times: against Tischendorf, 10 times: against Tregelles, 11 times: against Westcott and Hort, 12 times._(758)

"So far therefore from admitting that 'the Testimony of Clemens Al.-one of the most ancient and most famous of the Fathers-is absolutely worthless,'-I have proved it to be _of very great value_. Instead of 'hopelessly perplexing the question,' his Evidence is found to have _simplified matters considerably_. So far from 'importing into these 15 verses a fresh crop of Various Readings,' he has _helped us to get rid of no less than_ 17 of the existing ones.... 'Damaging' his evidence has certainly proved: but _only to Lachmann_, _Tischendorf_, _Tregelles_, _Westcott and Hort and our ill-starred Revisionists_. And yet it remains undeniably true, that 'it is impossible to produce a fouler exhibition of S. Mark x. 17-31 than is met with in a doc.u.ment full two centuries older than either B or ?,-the property of one of the most famous of the Fathers.'(759) ... Have you anything further to ask?"

(9) _F. C._ "I should certainly like, in conclusion, to be informed whether we are to infer that the nearer we approach to the date of the sacred Autographs, the more corrupt we shall find the copies. For, if so, pray-Where and when did purity of Text begin?"

_Q. R._ "You are not at liberty, logically, to draw any such inference from the premisses. The purest doc.u.ments of all existed perforce in the first century: _must_ have then existed. The spring is perforce purest at its source. My whole contention has been, and is,-That there is nothing at all unreasonable in the supposition that two stray copies of the IVth century,-coming down to our own times without a history and without a character,-_may_ exhibit a thoroughly depraved text. _More_ than this does not follow lawfully from the premisses. At the outset, remember, you delivered it as your opinion that '_the oldest Ma.n.u.script we possess, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest_.' I a.s.serted, in reply, that 'it does not by any means follow, _because_ a ma.n.u.script is very ancient, that _therefore_ its text will be very pure' (p. 321); and all that I have been since saying, has but had for its object to prove the truth of my a.s.sertion. Facts have been incidentally elicited, I admit, calculated to inspire distrust, rather than confidence, in very ancient doc.u.ments generally. But I am neither responsible for these facts; nor for the inferences suggested by them.

"At all events, I have to request that you will not carry away so entirely erroneous a notion as that I am the advocate for _Recent_, in preference to _Ancient_, Evidence concerning the Text of Scripture. Be so obliging as not to say concerning me that I '_count_' instead of '_weighing_' my witnesses. If you have attended to the foregoing pages, and have understood them, you must by this time be aware that _in every instance_ it is to ANTIQUITY that I persistently make my appeal. I abide by its sentence, and I require that you shall do the same.

"You and your friends, on the contrary, reject _the Testimony of Antiquity_. You set up, instead, some idol of your own. Thus, Tregelles worshipped 'codex B.' But 'codex B' is not 'Antiquity'!-Tischendorf a.s.signed the place of honour to 'codex ?.' But once more, 'codex ?' is not 'Antiquity'!-You rejoice in the decrees of the VIth-century-codex D,-and of the VIIIth-century-codex L,-and of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth century codices, 1, 33, 69. But will you venture to tell me that any of these are 'Antiquity'? _Samples_ of Antiquity, at best, are any of these. No more!

But then, it is demonstrable that they are _unfair_ samples. Why are you regardless of _all other_ COPIES?-So, with respect to VERSIONS, and FATHERS. You single out one or two,-the one or two which suit your purpose; and you are for rejecting all the rest. But, once more,-The _Coptic_ version is not 'Antiquity,'-neither is _Origen_ 'Antiquity.' The _Syriac_ Version is a full set-off against the former,-_Irenaeus_ more than counterbalances the latter. Whatever is found in one of these ancient authorities must confessedly be AN 'ancient Reading:' but it does not therefore follow that it is THE ancient Reading of the place. Now, it is THE _ancient Reading_, of which we are always in search. And he who sincerely desires to ascertain what actually is _the Witness of Antiquity_,-(_i.e._, what is the prevailing testimony of all the oldest doc.u.ments,)-will begin by casting his prejudices and his predilections to the winds, and will devote himself conscientiously to an impartial survey of the whole field of Evidence."

_F. C._ "Well but,-you have once and again admitted that the phenomena before us are extraordinary. Are you able to explain how it comes to pa.s.s that such an one as Clemens Alexandrinus employed such a scandalously corrupt copy of the Gospels as we have been considering?"

_Q. R._ "You are quite at liberty to ask me any question you choose. And I, for my own part, am willing to return you the best answer I am able.

You will please to remember however, that the phenomena will remain,-however infelicitous my attempts to explain them may seem to yourself. My view of the matter then-(think what you will about it!)-is as follows:-

LVII. "Vanquished by THE WORD_ Incarnate_, Satan next directed his subtle malice against _the Word written_. Hence, as I think,-_hence_ the extraordinary fate which befel certain early transcripts of the Gospel.

First, heretical a.s.sailants of Christianity,-then, orthodox defenders of the Truth,-lastly and above all, self-const.i.tuted Critics, who (like Dr.

Hort) imagined themselves at liberty to resort to 'instinctive processes'

of Criticism; and who, at first as well as 'at last,' freely made their appeal 'to the individual mind:'-_such_ were the corrupting influences which were actively at work throughout the first hundred and fifty years after the death of S. John the Divine. Profane literature has never known anything approaching to it,-can show nothing at all like it. Satan's arts were defeated indeed through the Church's faithfulness, because,-(the good Providence of G.o.d had so willed it,)-the perpetual multiplication, in every quarter, of copies required for Ecclesiastical use,-not to say the solicitude of faithful men in diverse regions of ancient Christendom to retain for themselves unadulterated specimens of the inspired Text,-proved a sufficient safeguard against the grosser forms of corruption. But this was not all.

"The Church, remember, hath been from the beginning the 'Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ.'(760) Did not her Divine Author pour out upon her, in largest measure, 'the SPIRIT of Truth;' and pledge Himself that it should be that SPIRIT'S special function to 'guide'_ her children _'into all the Truth'(761)?... That by a perpetual miracle, Sacred Ma.n.u.scripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort,-was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised. But the Church, in her collective capacity, hath nevertheless-as a matter of fact-been perpetually purging herself of those shamefully depraved copies which once everywhere abounded within her pale: retaining only such an amount of discrepancy in her Text as might serve to remind her children that they carry their 'treasure in earthen vessels,'-as well as to stimulate them to perpetual watchfulness and solicitude for the purity and integrity of the Deposit. Never, however, up to the present hour, hath there been any complete eradication of all traces of the attempted mischief,-any absolute getting rid of every depraved copy extant. These are found to have lingered on anciently in many quarters. _A few such copies linger on to the present day._ The wounds were healed, but the scars remained,-nay, the scars are discernible still.

"What, in the meantime, is to be thought of those blind guides-those deluded ones-who would now, if they could, persuade us to go back to those same codices of which the Church hath already purged herself? to go back in quest of those very Readings which, 15 or 1600 years ago, the Church _in all lands_ is found to have rejected with loathing? Verily, it is 'happening unto them according to the true proverb'-which S. Peter sets down in his 2nd Epistle,-chapter ii. verse 22. To proceed however.

"As for Clemens,-he lived at the very time and in the very country where the mischief referred to was most rife. For full two centuries after his era, heretical works were so industriously multiplied, that in a diocese consisting of 800 parishes (viz. Cyrus in Syria), the Bishop (viz.

Theodoret, who was appointed in A.D. 423,) complains that he found no less than 200 copies of the _Diatessaron_ of Tatian the heretic,-(Tatian's date being A.D. 173,)-honourably preserved in the Churches of his (Theodoret's) diocese, and mistaken by the orthodox for an authentic performance.(762) Clemens moreover would seem to have been a trifle too familiar with the works of Basilides, Marcion, Valentinus, Heracleon, and the rest of the Gnostic crew. He habitually mistakes apocryphal writings for inspired Scripture:(763) and-with corrupted copies always at hand and before him-he is just the man to present us with a quotation like the present, and straightway to volunteer the a.s.surance that he found it 'so written in the Gospel according to S. Mark.'(764) The archetype of Codices B and ?,-especially the archetype from which Cod. D was copied,-is discovered to have experienced adulteration largely from the same pestilential source which must have corrupted the copies with which Clement (and his pupil Origen after him) were most familiar.-And thus you have explained to you the reason of the disgust and indignation with which I behold in these last days a resolute attempt made to revive and to palm off upon an unlearned generation the old exploded errors, under the pretence that they are the inspired Verity itself,-providentially recovered from a neglected shelf in the Vatican,-rescued from destruction by a chance visitor to Mount Sinai."

_F. C._ "Will you then, in conclusion, tell us how _you_ would have us proceed in order to ascertain the Truth of Scripture?"

_Q. R._ "To answer that question fully would require a considerable Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I conceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_ that outline, and _ill.u.s.trate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my disposal.

LVIII. "On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the same confident terminology:-'the best doc.u.ments,'-'primary ma.n.u.scripts,'-'first-rate authorities,'-'primitive evidence,'-'ancient readings,'-and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,-cod. C or D-were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had laboriously collated these doc.u.ments (including ?) for ourselves, that we became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become convinced that the supposed 'best doc.u.ments' and 'first-rate authorities'

are in reality among _the worst_:-that these Copies deserve to be called 'primary,' only because in any enumeration of ma.n.u.scripts, they stand foremost;-and that their 'Evidence,' whether 'primitive' or not, is _contradictory_ throughout.-_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are 'ancient.'

"A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered throughout the princ.i.p.al libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, ?, C, D is nothing else but a weak superst.i.tion and a vulgar error:-that the date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the problem:-and that later Copies, so far from 'crumbling down salient points, softening irregularities, conforming differences,'(765) and so forth,-on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,-preserve those delicate lineaments and minute refinements which the 'old uncials' are constantly observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain indications of the existence for ourselves of a far 'more excellent way.'

LIX. "For, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom hath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of His own creative skill,-THE WRITTEN WORD,-be duly considered; and surely a recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days would shut us up within the limits of a very few doc.u.ments to the neglect of all the rest,-as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that the Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:-with twenty Versions-two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with the writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS.

_two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special favour,-to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and Fathers should by them be similarly dealt with,-should be practically set aside in fact in the lump,-we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged by the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to themselves.

LX. "For our method then,-It is the direct contradictory to that adopted by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to directly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading which is supported by only one doc.u.ment,-out of the 1100 (more or less) already specified,-whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a COPY,-stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or enquiry.