It was only to have been antic.i.p.ated that the Author of the Everlasting Gospel-that masterpiece of Divine Wisdom, that miracle of superhuman skill-would shew Himself supremely careful for the protection and preservation of His own chiefest work. Every fresh discovery of the beauty and preciousness of the Deposit in its essential structure does but serve to deepen the conviction that a marvellous provision must needs have been made in G.o.d's eternal counsels for the effectual conservation of the inspired Text.

Yet it is not too much to a.s.sert that nothing which man's inventive skill could have devised nearly comes up to the actual truth of the matter. Let us take a slight but comprehensive view of what is found upon investigation, as I hold, to have been the Divine method in respect of the New Testament Scriptures.

I. From the very necessity of the case, copies of the Gospels and Epistles in the original Greek were multiplied to an extraordinary extent all down the ages and in every part of the Christian Church. The result has been that, although all the earliest have perished, there remains to this day a prodigious number of such transcripts; some of them of very high antiquity. On examining these with care, we discover that they must needs have been (_a_) produced in different countries, (_b_) executed at intervals during the s.p.a.ce of one thousand years, (_c_) copied from originals no longer in existence. And thus a body of evidence has been acc.u.mulated as to what is the actual text of Scripture, such as is wholly unapproachable with respect to any other writings in the world(16). More than two thousand ma.n.u.script copies are now (1888) known to exist(17).

It should be added that the practice of reading Scripture aloud before the congregation-a practice which is observed to have prevailed from the Apostolic age-has resulted in the increased security of the Deposit: for (1) it has led to the multiplication, by authority, of books containing the Church Lessons; and (2) it has secured a living witness to the _ipsissima verba_ of the Spirit-in all the Churches of Christendom. The ear once thoroughly familiarized with the words of Scripture is observed to resent the slightest departure from the established type. As for its tolerating important changes, that is plainly out of the question.

II. Next, as the Gospel spread from land to land, it became translated into the several languages of the ancient world. For, though Greek was widely understood, the commerce and the intellectual predominance of the Greeks, and the conquests of Alexander having caused it to be spoken nearly all over the Roman Empire, Syriac and Latin Versions were also required for ordinary reading, probably even in the very age of the Apostles. And thus those three languages in which "the t.i.tle of His accusation" was written above His cross-not to insist upon any absolute ident.i.ty between the Syriac of the time with the then "Hebrew" of Jerusalem-became from the earliest time the depositaries of the Gospel of the World's Redeemer. Syriac was closely related to the vernacular Aramaic of Palestine and was spoken in the adjoining region: whilst Latin was the familiar idiom of all the Churches of the West.

Thus from the first in their public a.s.semblies, orientals and occidentals alike habitually read aloud the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles.

Before the fourth and fifth centuries the Gospel had been further translated into the peculiar idioms of Lower and Upper Egypt, in what are now called the Bohairic and the Sahidic Versions,-of Ethiopia and of Armenia,-of Gothland. The text thus embalmed in so many fresh languages was clearly, to a great extent, protected against the risk of further change; and these several translations remain to this day as witnesses of what was found in copies of the New Testament which have long since perished.

III. But the most singular provision for preserving the memory of what was anciently read as inspired Scriptures remains to be described. Sacred Science boasts of a literature without a parallel in any other department of human knowledge. The Fathers of the Church, the Bishops and Doctors of primitive Christendom, were in some instances voluminous writers, whose works have largely come down to our times. These men often comment upon, freely quote, habitually refer to, the words of Inspiration: whereby it comes to pa.s.s that a host of unsuspected witnesses to the truth of Scripture are sometimes producible. The quotations of pa.s.sages by the Fathers are proofs of the readings which they found in the copies used by them. They thus testify in ordinary quotations, though it be at second hand: and sometimes their testimony has more than usual value when they argue or comment upon the pa.s.sage in question. Indeed, very often the ma.n.u.scripts in their hands, which so far live in their quotations, are older-perhaps centuries older-than any copies that now survive. In this way, it will be perceived that a three-fold security has been provided for the integrity of the Deposit:-Copies,-Versions,-Fathers. On the relation of each of which heads to one another something particular has now to be delivered.

-- 3.

Ma.n.u.script copies are commonly divided into Uncial, i.e. those which are written in capital letters, and Cursive or "minuscule," i.e. those which are written in "running" or small hand. This division though convenient is misleading. The earliest of the "Cursives" are more ancient than the latest of the "Uncials" by full one hundred years(18). The later body of the Uncials belongs virtually, as will be proved, to the body of the Cursives. There is no merit, so to speak, in a MS. being written in the uncial character. The number of the Uncials is largely inferior to that of the Cursives, though they usually boast a much higher antiquity. It will be shewn in a subsequent chapter that there is now, in the face of recent discoveries of Papyrus MSS. in Egypt, much reason for inferring that Cursive MSS. were largely derived from MSS. on Papyrus, just as the Uncials themselves were, and that the prevalence for some centuries of Uncials took its rise from the local library of Caesarea. For a full account of these several Codexes, and for many other particulars in Sacred Textual Criticism, the reader is referred to Scrivener's Introduction, 1894.

Now it is not so much an exaggerated, as an utterly mistaken estimate of the importance of the Textual decrees of the five oldest of these Uncial copies, which lies at the root of most of the criticism of the last fifty years. We are constrained in consequence to bestow what will appear to some a disproportionate amount of attention on those five Codexes: viz.

the Vatican Codex B, and the Sinaitic Codex ?, which are supposed to be both of the fourth century: the Alexandrian Codex A, and the fragmentary Parisian Codex C, which are a.s.signed to the fifth: and lastly D, the Codex Bezae at Cambridge, which is supposed to have been written in the sixth.

To these may now be added, as far as St. Matthew and St. Mark are concerned, the Codex Beratinus F, and the Rossanensian Codex S, both of which are of the early part of the sixth century or end of the fifth. But these two witness generally against the two oldest, and have not yet received as much attention as they deserve. It will be found in the end that we have been guilty of no exaggeration in characterizing B, ?, and D at the outset, as three of the most corrupt copies in existence. Let not any one suppose that the age of these five MSS. places them upon a pedestal higher than all others. They can be proved to be wrong time after time by evidence of an earlier period than that which they can boast.

Indeed, that copies of Scripture, as a cla.s.s, are the most important instruments of Textual Criticism is what no competent person will be found to deny. The chief reasons of this are their continuous text, their designed embodiment of the written Word, their number, and their variety.

But we make also such great account of MSS., because (1) they supply unbroken evidence to the text of Scripture from an early date throughout history until the invention of printing; (2) they are observed to be dotted over every century of the Church after the first three; (3) they are the united product of all the patriarchates in Christendom. There can have been no collusion therefore in the preparation of this cla.s.s of authorities. The risk of erroneous transcription has been reduced to the lowest possible amount. The prevalence of fraud to a universal extent is simply a thing impossible. Conjectural corrections of the text are pretty sure, in the long run, to have become effectually excluded. On the contrary, the testimony of Fathers is fragmentary, undesigned, though often on that account the more valuable, and indeed, as has been already said, is often not to be found; yet occasionally it is very precious, whether from eminent antiquity or the clearness of their verdict: while Versions, though on larger details they yield a most valuable collateral evidence, yet from their nature are incapable of rendering help upon many important points of detail. Indeed, in respect of the _ipsissima verba_ of Scripture, the evidence of Versions in other languages must be precarious in a high degree.

Undeniable it is, that as far as regards Primitiveness, certain of the Versions, and not a few of the Fathers, throw Ma.n.u.scripts altogether in the shade. We possess no actual copies of the New Testament so old as the Syriac and the Latin Versions by probably more than two hundred years.

Something similar is perhaps to be said of the Versions made into the languages of Lower and Upper Egypt, which may be of the third century(19).

Reasonable also it is to a.s.sume that in no instance was an ancient Version executed from a single Greek exemplar: consequently, Versions enjoyed both in their origin and in their acceptance more publicity than of necessity attached to any individual copy. And it is undeniable that on countless occasions the evidence of a translation, on account of the clearness of its testimony, is every bit as satisfactory as that of an actual copy of the Greek.

But I would especially remind my readers of Bentley's golden precept, that "The real text of the sacred writers does not now, since the originals have been so long lost, lie in any MS. or edition, but is dispersed in them all." This truth, which was evident to the powerful intellect of that great scholar, lies at the root of all sound Textual Criticism. To abide by the verdict of the two, or five, or seven oldest Ma.n.u.scripts, is at first sight plausible, and is the natural refuge of students who are either superficial, or who wish to make their task as easy and simple as possible. But to put aside inconvenient witnesses is contrary to all principles of justice and of science. The problem is more complex, and is not to be solved so readily. Evidence of a strong and varied character may not with safety be cast away, as if it were worthless.

-- 4.

We are constrained therefore to proceed to the consideration of the vast ma.s.s of testimony which lies ready to our hands. And we must just as evidently seek for principles to guide us in the employment of it. For it is the absence of any true chart of the ocean that has led people to steer to any barren island, which under a guise of superior antiquity might at first sight present the delusive appearance of being the only safe and sure harbour.

1. We are all, I trust, agreed at least in this,-That the thing which we are always in search of is the Text of Scripture as it actually proceeded from the inspired writers themselves. It is never, I mean, "ancient readings" which we propose as the ultimate object of our inquiries. It is always the oldest Reading of all which we desire to ascertain; in other words, the original Text, nothing else or less than the very words of the holy Evangelists and Apostles themselves.

And axiomatic as this is, it requires to be clearly laid down. For sometimes critics appear to be engrossed with the one solicitude to establish concerning the readings for which they contend, that at least they must needs be very ancient. Now, since all readings must needs be very ancient which are found in very ancient doc.u.ments, nothing has really been achieved by proving that such and such readings existed in the second century of our era:-unless it can also be proved that there are certain other attendant circ.u.mstances attaching to those readings, which const.i.tute a fair presumption, that they must needs be regarded as the only genuine wording of the pa.s.sage in question. The Holy Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.

2. I trust it may further be laid down as a fundamental principle that of two possible ways of reading the Text, that way which is found on examination to be the better attested and authenticated-by which I mean, the reading which proves on inquiry to be supported by the better evidence-must in every instance be of necessity presumed to be the actual reading, and is to be accepted accordingly by all students.

3. I will venture to make only one more postulate, viz. this: That hitherto we have become acquainted with no single authority which is ent.i.tled to dictate absolutely on all occasions, or even on any one occasion, as to what shall or shall not be regarded as the true Text of Scripture. We have here no one infallible witness, I say, whose solitary dictum is competent to settle controversies. The problem now to be investigated, viz. what evidence is to be held to be "the best," may doubtless be stated in many ways: but I suppose not more fairly than by proposing the following question,-Can any rules be offered whereby in any case of conflicting testimony it may be certainly ascertained which authorities ought to be followed? The court is full of witnesses who contradict one another. How are we to know which of them to believe?

Strange to say, the witnesses are commonly, indeed almost invariably, observed to divide themselves into two camps. Are there no rules discoverable by which it may be probably determined with which camp of the two the truth resides?

I proceed to offer for the reader's consideration seven Tests of Truth, concerning each of which I shall have something to say in the way of explanation by-and-by. In the end I shall ask the reader to allow that where these seven tests are found to conspire, we may confidently a.s.sume that the evidence is worthy of all acceptance, and is to be implicitly followed. A reading should be attested then by the seven following.

NOTES OF TRUTH.

1. Antiquity, or Primitiveness; 2. Consent of Witnesses, or Number; 3. Variety of Evidence, or Catholicity; 4. Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight; 5. Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition; 6. Evidence of the Entire Pa.s.sage, or Context; 7. Internal Considerations, or Reasonableness.

-- 5.

The full consideration of these Tests of Truth must be postponed to the next chapter. Meanwhile, three discussions of a more general character demand immediate attention.

I. Antiquity, in and by itself, will be found to avail nothing. A reading is to be adopted not because it is old, but because it is the best attested, and therefore the oldest. There may seem to be paradox on my part: but there is none. I have admitted, and indeed insist upon it, that the oldest reading of all is the very thing we are in search of: for that must of necessity be what proceeded from the pen of the sacred writer himself. But, as a rule, fifty years, more or less, must be a.s.sumed to have intervened between the production of the inspired autographs and the earliest written representation of them now extant. And precisely in that first age it was that men evinced themselves least careful or accurate in guarding the Deposit,-least critically exact in their way of quoting it;-whilst the enemy was most restless, most a.s.siduous in procuring its depravation. Strange as it may sound,-distressing as the discovery must needs prove when it is first distinctly realized,-the earliest shreds and sc.r.a.ps-for they are at first no more-that come into our hands as quotations of the text of the New Testament Scriptures are not only disappointing by reason of their inexactness, their fragmentary character, their vagueness; but they are often demonstrably inaccurate. I proceed to give one example out of many.

"My G.o.d, My G.o.d, wherefore hast thou forsaken me?" ? ???at???pe?; So it is in St. Matt. xxvii. 46: so in St. Mark xv. 34. But because, in the latter place, ?B, one Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Bohairic Versions, besides Eusebius, followed by L and a few cursives, reverse the order of the last two words, the editors are unanimous in doing the same thing.

They have yet older authority, however, for what they do. Justin M. (A.D.

164) and the Valentinians (A.D. 150) are with them. As far therefore as antiquity goes, the evidence for reading ???at???p?? e is really wondrous strong.

And yet the evidence on the other side, when it is considered, is perceived to be overwhelming(20). Add the discovery that ???at???p?? e is the established reading of the familiar Septuagint, and we have no hesitation whatever in retaining the commonly Received Text, because the secret is out. ?B were sure to follow the Septuagint, which was so dear to Origen. Further discussion of the point is superfluous.

I shall of course be asked,-Are we then to understand that you condemn the whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy? And if you do, to what other authorities would you have us resort?

I answer:-So far from regarding the whole body of ancient authorities as untrustworthy, it is precisely "the whole body of ancient authorities" to which I insist that we must invariably make our appeal, and to which we must eventually defer. I regard them therefore with more than reverence. I submit to their decision unreservedly. Doubtless I refuse to regard any one of those same most ancient ma.n.u.scripts-or even any two or three of them-as oracular. But why? Because I am able to demonstrate that every one of them singly is in a high degree corrupt, and is condemned upon evidence older than itself. To pin my faith therefore to one, two, or three of those eccentric exemplars, were indeed to insinuate that the whole body of ancient authorities is unworthy of credit.

It is to Antiquity, I repeat, that I make my appeal: and further, I insist that the ascertained verdict of Antiquity shall be accepted. But then, inasmuch as by "Antiquity" I do not even mean any one single ancient authority, however ancient, to the exclusion of, and in preference to, all the rest, but the whole collective body, it is precisely "the body of ancient authorities" which I propose as the arbiters. Thus, I do not mean by "Antiquity" either (1) the Pes.h.i.tto Syriac: or (2) Cureton's Syriac: or (3) the Old Latin Versions: or (4) the Vulgate: or (5) the Egyptian, or indeed (6) any other of the ancient Versions:-not (7) Origen, nor (8) Eusebius, nor (9) Chrysostom, nor (10) Cyril,-nor indeed (11) any other ancient Father standing alone: neither (12) Cod. A,-nor (13) Cod. B,-nor (14) Cod. C,-nor (15) Cod. D,-nor (16) Cod. ?,-nor in fact (17) any other individual Codex that can be named. I should as soon think of confounding the cathedral hard by with one or two of the stones which compose it. By Antiquity I understand the whole body of doc.u.ments which convey to me the mind of Antiquity,-transport me back to the primitive age, and acquaint me, as far as is now possible, with what was its verdict.

And by parity of reasoning, I altogether decline to accept as decisive the verdict of any two or three of these in defiance of the ascertained authority of all, or a majority of the rest.

In short, I decline to accept a fragment of Antiquity, arbitrarily broken off, in lieu of the entire ma.s.s of ancient witnesses. And further than this, I recognize other Notes of Truth, as I have stated already; and I shall prove this position in my next chapter.

-- 6.

II. The term "various readings" conveys an entirely incorrect impression of the grave discrepancies discoverable between a little handful of doc.u.ments-of which Codexes B-? of the fourth century, D of the sixth, L of the eighth, are the most conspicuous samples-and the Traditional Text of the New Testament. The expression "various readings" belongs to secular literature and refers to phenomena essentially different from those exhibited by the copies just mentioned. Not but what "various readings,"

properly so called, are as plentiful in sacred as in profane codexes. One has but to inspect Scrivener's Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Ma.n.u.scripts of the Gospels (1853) to be convinced of the fact. But when we study the New Testament by the light of such Codexes as B?DL, we find ourselves in an entirely new region of experience; confronted by phenomena not only unique but even portentous. The text has undergone apparently an habitual, if not systematic, depravation; has been manipulated throughout in a wild way. Influences have been demonstrably at work which altogether perplex the judgement. The result is simply calamitous. There are evidences of persistent mutilation, not only of words and clauses, but of entire sentences. The subst.i.tution of one expression for another, and the arbitrary transposition of words, are phenomena of such perpetual occurrence, that it becomes evident at last that what lies before us is not so much an ancient copy, as an ancient recension of the Sacred Text. And yet not by any means a recension in the usual sense of the word as an authoritative revision: but only as the name may be applied to the product of individual inaccuracy or caprice, or tasteless a.s.siduity on the part of one or many, at a particular time or in a long series of years. There are reasons for inferring, that we have alighted on five specimens of what the misguided piety of a primitive age is known to have been fruitful in producing. Of fraud, strictly speaking, there may have been little or none. We should shrink from imputing an evil motive where any matter will bear an honourable interpretation. But, as will be seen later on, these Codexes abound with so much licentiousness or carelessness as to suggest the inference, that they are in fact indebted for their preservation to their hopeless character. Thus it would appear that an evil reputation ensured their neglect in ancient times; and has procured that they should survive to our own, long after mult.i.tudes which were much better had perished in the Master's service. Let men think of this matter as they will,-whatever in fact may prove to be the history of that peculiar Text which finds its chief exponents in Codd. B?DL, in some copies of the Old Latin, and in the Curetonian Version, in Origen, and to a lesser extent in the Bohairic and Sahidic Translations,-all must admit, as a matter of fact, that it differs essentially from the Traditional Text, and is no mere variation of it.

But why, it will be asked, may it not be the genuine article? Why may not the "Traditional Text" be the fabrication?

1. The burden of proof, we reply, rests with our opponents. The consent without concert of (suppose) 990 out of 1000 copies,-of every date from the fifth to the fourteenth century, and belonging to every region of ancient Christendom,-is a colossal fact not to be set aside by any amount of ingenuity. A predilection for two fourth-century ma.n.u.scripts closely resembling one another, yet standing apart in every page so seriously that it is easier to find two consecutive verses in which they differ than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree:-such a preference, I say, apart from abundant or even definitely clear proof that it is well founded, is surely not ent.i.tled to be accepted as conclusive.