The old Latin (as distinct from Jerome"s revised) version of the Gospels and with them of a considerable portion of the New Testament was, I think it may be said, undoubtedly used by Tertullian and by the Latin translator of Irenaeus, who appears to be quoted by Tertullian, and in that case could not be placed later than 200 A.D.
[Endnote 320:1] On this point I shall quote authorities that will hardly be questioned. And first that of a writer who is accustomed to weigh, with the accuracy of true science, every word that he puts down, and who upon this subject is giving the result of a most minute and careful investigation. Speaking of the Latin translation of the New Testament as found in Tertullian he says: "Although single portions of this, especially pa.s.sages which are translated in several different ways, may be due to Tertullian himself, still it cannot be doubted that in by far the majority of cases he has followed the text of a version received in his time by the Africans and specially the Carthaginian Christians, and made perhaps long before his time, and that consequently his quotations represent the form of the earliest Latinized Scriptures accepted in those regions" [Endnote 320:2].
Again: "In the first place we may conclude from the writings of Tertullian, that remarkable Carthaginian presbyter at the close of the second century, that in his time there existed several, perhaps many, Latin translations of the Bible ... Tertullian himself frequently quotes in his writings one and the same pa.s.sage of Scripture in entirely different forms, which indeed in many cases may be explained by his quoting freely from memory, but certainly not seldom has its ground in the diversity of the translations used at the time" [Endnote 321:1]. On this last point, the unity of the Old Latin version, there is a difference of opinion among scholars, but none as to its date. Thus Dr. Tregelles writes: "The expressions of Tertullian have been rightly rested on as showing that he knew and recognised _one translation_, and that this version was in several places (in his opinion) opposed to what was found "in Graeco authentico."
This version must have been made a sufficiently long time before the age when Tertullian wrote, and before the Latin translator of Irenaeus, for it to have got into general circulation. This leads us back _towards_ the middle of the second century at the latest: how much _earlier_ the version may have been we have no proof; for we are already led back into the time when no records tell us anything respecting the North African Church" [Endnote 321:2]. Dr. Tregelles, it should be remembered, is speaking as a text critic, of which branch of science his works are one of the n.o.blest monuments, and not directly of the history of the Canon. His usual opponent in text critical matters, but an equally exact and trustworthy writer, Dr. Scrivener, agrees with him here both as to the unity of the version and as to its date from the middle of the century [Endnote 321:3]. Dr. Westcott too writes in his well-known and valuable article on the Vulgate in Smith"s Dictionary [Endnote 321:4]: "Tertullian distinctly recognises the general currency of a Latin Version of the New Testament, though not necessarily of every book at present included in the Canon, which even in his time had been able to mould the popular language. This was characterised by a "rudeness" and "simplicity," which seems to point to the nature of its origin." I do not suppose that the currency at the end of the second century of a Latin version, containing the four Gospels and no others, will be questioned [Endnote 322:1].
With regard to the Syriac version there is perhaps a somewhat greater room to doubt, though Dr. Tregelles begins his account of this version by saying: "It may stand as an admitted fact that a version of the New Testament in Syriac existed in the second century" [Endnote 322:2]. Dr. Scrivener also says [Endnote 322:3]: "The universal belief of later ages, and the very nature of the case, seem to render it unquestionable that the Syrian Church was possessed of a translation both of the Old and New Testament, which it used habitually, and for public worship exclusively, from the second century of our era downwards: as early as A.D. 170 [Greek: ho Syros] is cited by Melito on Genesis xxii. 13." The external evidence, however, does not seem to be quite strong enough to bear out any very positive a.s.sertion. The appeal to the Syriac by Melito [Endnote 322:4] is pretty conclusive as to the existence of a Syriac Old Testament, which, being of Christian origin, would probably be accompanied by a translation of the New.
But on the other hand, the language of Eusebius respecting Hegesippus ([Greek: ek te tou kath" Hebraious euangeliou kai tou Syriakou ... tina t.i.thaesin]) seems to be rightly interpreted by Routh as having reference not to any "_version_ of the Gospel, but to a separate Syro-Hebraic (?) Gospel" like that according to the Hebrews. In any case the Syriac Scriptures "were familiarly used and claimed as his national version by Ephraem of Edessa"
(299-378 A.D.) as well as by Aphraates in writings dating A.D. 337 and 344 [Endnote 323:1].
A nearer approximation of date would be obtained by determining the age of the version represented by the celebrated Curetonian fragments. There is a strong tendency among critics, which seems rapidly approaching to a consensus, to regard this as bearing the same relation to the Pes.h.i.to that the Old Latin does to Jerome"s Vulgate, that of an older unrevised to a later revised version. The strength of the tendency in this direction may be seen by the very cautious and qualified opinion expressed in the second edition of his Introduction by Dr. Scrivener, who had previously taken a decidedly antagonistic view, and also by the fact that Mr. M"Clellan, who is usually an ally of Dr. Scrivener, here appears on the side of his opponents [Endnote 323:2]. All the writers who have hitherto been mentioned place either the Curetonian Syriac or the Pes.h.i.to in the second century, and the majority, as we have seen, the Curetonian.
Dr. Tregelles, on a comparative examination of the text, affirms that "the Curetonian Syriac presents such a text as we might have concluded would be current in the second century" [Endnote 323:3].
English text criticism is probably on the whole in advance of Continental; but it may be noted that Bleek (who however was imperfectly acquainted with the Curetonian form of the text) yet a.s.serts that the Syriac version "belongs without doubt to the second century A.D." [Endnote 324:1] Reuss [Endnote 324:2] places it at the beginning, Hilgenfeld towards the end [Endnote 324:3], of the third century.
The question as to the age of the version is not necessarily identical with that as to the age of the particular form of it preserved in Cureton"s fragments. This would hold the same sort of relation to the original text of the version that (e.g.) a, or b, or c--any primitive codex of the version--holds to the original text of the Old Latin. It also appears that the translation into Syriac of the different Gospels, conspicuously of St. Matthew"s, was made by different hands and at different times [Endnote 324:4]. Bearing these considerations in mind, we should still be glad to know what answer those who a.s.sign the Curetonian text to the second century make to the observation that it contains the reading [Greek: Baethabara] in John i. 28 which is generally a.s.sumed to be not older than Origen [Endnote 324:5]. On the other hand, the Curetonian, like the Old Latin, still has in John vii. 8 [Greek: ouk] for [Greek: oupo]--a change which, according to Dr.
Scrivener [Endnote 324:6], "from the end of the third century downwards was very generally and widely diffused." This whole set of questions needs perhaps a more exhaustive discussion than it has obtained hitherto [Endnote 324:7].
The third version that may be mentioned is the Egyptian. In regard to this Dr. Lightfoot says [Endnote 325:1], that "we should probably not be exaggerating if we placed one or both of the princ.i.p.al Egyptian versions, the Memphitic and the Thebaic, or at least parts of them, before the close of the second century." In support of this statement he quotes Schwartz, the princ.i.p.al authority on the subject, "who will not be suspected of any theological bias." The historical notices on which the conclusion is founded are given in Scrivener"s "Introduction." If we are to put a separate estimate upon these, it would be perhaps that the version was made in the second century somewhat more probably than not; it was certainly not made later than the first half of the third [Endnote 325:2].
Putting this version however on one side, the facts that have to be explained are these. Towards the end of the second century we find the four Gospels in general circulation and invested with full canonical authority, in Gaul, at Rome, in the province of Africa, at Alexandria, and in Syria. Now if we think merely of the time that would be taken in the transcription and dissemination of MSS., and of the struggle that works such as the Gospels would have to go through before they could obtain recognition, and still more an exclusive recognition, this alone would tend to overthrow any such theory as that one of the Gospels, the fourth, was not composed before 150 A.D., or indeed anywhere near that date.
But this is not by any means all. It is merely the first step in a process that, quite independently of the other external evidence, thrusts the composition of the Gospels backwards and backwards to a date certainly as early as that which is claimed for them.
Let us define a little more closely the chronological bearings of the subject. There is a decidedly preponderant probability that the Muratorian fragment was not written much later than 170 A.D.
Irenaeus, as we have seen, was writing in the decade 180-190 A.D.
But his evidence is surely valid for an earlier date than this. He is usually supposed to have been born about the year 140 A.D.
[Endnote 326:1], and the way in which he describes his relations to Polycarp will not admit of a date many years later. But his strong sense of the continuity of Church doctrine and the exceptional veneration that he accords to the Gospels seem alone to exclude the supposition that any of them should have been composed in his own lifetime. He is fond of quoting the "Presbyters," who connected his own age with that, if not of the Apostles, yet of Apostolic men. Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, whom he succeeded, was more than ninety years old at the time of his martyrdom in the persecution of A.D. 177 [Endnote 326:2], and would thus in his boyhood be contemporary with the closing years of the last Evangelist. Irenaeus also had before him a number of writings--some, e.g. the works of the Marcosians, in addition to those that have been discussed in the course of this work--in which our Gospels are largely quoted, and which, to say the least, were earlier than his own time of writing.
Clement of Alexandria began to flourish, ([Greek: egnorizeto]) [Endnote 327:1], in the reign of Commodus (180-190 A.D.), and had obtained a still wider celebrity as head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria in the time of Severus [Endnote 327:2] (193- 211). The opinions therefore to which he gives expression in his works of this date were no doubt formed at a earlier period. He too appeals to the tradition of which he had been himself a recipient. He speaks of his teachers, "those blessed and truly memorable men," one in Greece, another in Magna Graecia, a third in Coele-Syria, a fourth in Egypt, a fifth in a.s.syria, a sixth in Palestine, to whom the doctrine of the Apostles had been handed down from father to son [Endnote 327:3].
Tertullian is still bolder. In his controversy with Marcion he confidently claims as on his side the tradition of the Apostolic Churches. By it is guaranteed the Gospel of St. Luke which he is defending, and not only that, but the other Gospels [Endnote 327:4]. In one pa.s.sage Tertullian even goes so far as to send his readers to the Churches of Corinth, Philippi, &c. for the very autographs ("authenticae literae") of St. Paul"s Epistles [Endnote 327:5]. But this is merely a characteristic flourish of rhetoric.
All for which the statements of Tertullian may safely be said to vouch is, that the Gospels had held their "prerogative" position within his memory and that of most members of the Church to which he belonged.
But the evidence of the Fathers is most decisive when it is unconscious. That the Gospels as used by the Christian writers at the end of the first century, so far from being of recent composition, had already a long history behind them, is nothing less than certain. At this date they exhibit a text which bears the marks of frequent transcription and advanced corruption.
"Origen"s," says Dr. Scrivener [Endnote 328:1], "is the highest name among the critics and expositors of the early Church; he is perpetually engaged in the discussion of various readings of the New Testament, and employs language in describing the then state of the text, which would be deemed strong if applied even to its present condition with the changes which sixteen more centuries must needs have produced ... Respecting the sacred autographs, their fate or their continued existence, he seems to have had no information, and to have entertained no curiosity: they had simply pa.s.sed by and were out of his reach. Had it not been for the diversities of copies in all the Gospels on other points (he writes) he should not have ventured to object to the authenticity of a certain pa.s.sage (Matt. xix. 19) on internal grounds: "But now," saith he, "great in truth has become the diversity of copies, be it from the negligence of certain scribes, or from the evil daring of some who correct what is written, or from those who in correcting add or take away what they think fit."" This is respecting the MSS. of one region only, and now for another [Endnote 328:2]: "It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed; that Irenaeus and the African Fathers and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior ma.n.u.scripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."
Possibly this is an exaggeration, but no one will maintain that it is a very large exaggeration of the facts.
I proceed to give a few examples which serve to bring out the antiquity of the text. And first from Irenaeus.
There is a very remarkable pa.s.sage in the work Against Heresies [Endnote 329:1], bearing not indeed directly upon the Gospels, but upon another book of the New Testament, and yet throwing so much light upon the condition of the text in Irenaeus" time that it may be well to refer to it here. In discussing the signification of the number of the beast in Rev. xiii. 18, Irenaeus already found himself confronted by a variety of reading: some MSS. with which he was acquainted read 616 ([Greek: chis"]) for 666 ([Greek: chxs"]).
Irenaeus himself was not in doubt that the latter was the true reading. He says that it was found in all the "good and ancient copies," and that it was further attested by "those who had seen John face to face." He thinks that the error was due to the copyists, who had subst.i.tuted by mistake the letter [Greek: i]
for [Greek: x]. He adds his belief that G.o.d would pardon those who had done this without any evil motive.
Here we have opened out a kind of vista extending back almost to the person of St. John himself. There is already a multiplicity of MSS., and of these some are set apart "as good and ancient"
([Greek: en pasi tois spoudaiois kai archaiois antigraphois]). The method by which the correct reading had to be determined was as much historical as it is with us at the present day.
A not dissimilar state of things is indicated somewhat less explicitly in regard to the first Gospel. In the text of Matt. i. 18 all the Greek MSS., with one exception, read, [Greek: tou de Iaesou Christou hae genesis outos aen], B alone has [Greek: tou de Christou Iaesou]. The Greek of D is wanting at this point, but the Latin, d, reads with the best codices of the Old Latin, the Vulgate, and the Curetonian Syriac, "Christi autem generatio sic erat" (or an equivalent). Now Irenaeus quotes this pa.s.sage three times. In the first pa.s.sage [Endnote 330:1]
the original Greek text of Irenaeus has been preserved in a quotation of Germa.n.u.s, Patriarch of Constantinople (the context also by Anastasius Sinaita, but these words appear to be omitted); and the reading of Germa.n.u.s corresponds to that of the great ma.s.s of MSS. This however is almost certainly false, as the ancient Latin translation of Irenaeus has "Christi autem generatio," and it was extremely natural for a copyist to subst.i.tute the generally received text, especially in a combination of words that was so familiar. Irenaeus leaves no doubt as to his own reading on the next occasion when he quotes the pa.s.sage, as he does twice over. Here he says expressly: "Ceterum, potuerat dicere Matthaeus: _Jesu vero generatio sic erat_; sed praevidens Spiritus sanctus depravatores, et praemuniens contra fraudulentiam eorum, per Matthaeum ait: _Christi autem generatio sic erat_" [Endnote 330:2]. Irenaeus founds an argument upon this directed against the heretics who supposed that the Christus and Jesus were not identical, but that Jesus was the son of Mary, upon whom the aeon Christus afterwards descended. In opposition to these Irenaeus maintains that the Christus and Jesus are one and the same person.
There is a division of opinion among modern critics as to which of the two readings is to be admitted into the text; Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf (eighth edition), and Scrivener support the reading of the MSS.; Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and M"Clellan prefer that of Irenaeus. The presence of this reading in the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac proves its wide diffusion. At the same time it is clear that Irenaeus himself was aware of the presence of the other reading in some copies which he regarded as bearing the marks of heretical depravation.
It is unfortunate that fuller ill.u.s.tration cannot be given from Irenaeus, but the number of the quotations from the Gospels of which the Greek text still remains is not large, and where we have only the Latin interpretation we cannot be sure that the actual text of Irenaeus is before us. Much uncertainty is thus raised.
For instance, a doubt is expressed by the editors of Irenaeus whether the words "without a cause" ([Greek: eikae]--sine caussa) in the quotation of Matt. v. 22 [Endnote 331:1] belong to the original text or not. Probably they did so, as they are found in the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac and in Western authorities generally. They are wanting however in B, in Origen, and "in the true copies" according to Jerome, &c. The words are expunged from the sacred text by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, and M"Clellan. There is a less weight of authority for their retention. In any case the double reading was certainly current at the end of the second century, as the words are found in Irenaeus and omitted by Tertullian.
The elaborately varied readings of Matt. xi. 25-27 and Matt. xix.
16, 17 there can be little doubt are taken from the canonical text. They are both indeed found in a pa.s.sage (Adv. Haer. i. 20.
2, 3) where Irenaeus is quoting the heretical Marcosians; and various approximations are met with, as we have seen, under ambiguous circ.u.mstances in Justin, the Clementine Homilies, and Marcion. But similar approximations are also found in Irenaeus himself (speaking in his own person), in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Epiphanius, who are undoubtedly quoting from our Gospels; so that the presence of the variations at that early date is proved, though in the first case they receive none, and in the second very limited, support from the extant MSS. [Endnote 332:1]
A variety of reading that was in the first instance accidental seemed to afford a handle either to the orthodox or to heretical parties, and each for a time maintained its own; but with the victory of the orthodox cause the heretical reading gave way, and was finally suppressed before the time at which the extant MSS.
were written.
These are really conspicuous instances of the confusion of text already existing, but I forbear to press them because, though I do not doubt myself the correctness of the account that has been given of them, still there is just the ambiguity alluded to, and I do not wish to seem to a.s.sume the truth of any particular view.
For minor variations the text of Irenaeus cannot be used satisfactorily, because it is always doubtful whether the Latin version has correctly reproduced the original. And even in those comparatively small portions where the Greek is still preserved, it has come down to us through the medium of other writers, and we have just had an instance how easily the distinctive features of the text might be obliterated.
Neither of these elements of uncertainty exists in the case of Tertullian; and therefore, as the text of his New Testament quotations has been edited in a very exact and careful form, I shall ill.u.s.trate what has been said respecting the corruptions introduced in the second century chiefly from him. The following may be taken as a few of the instances in which the existence of a variety of reading can be verified by a comparison of Tertullian"s text with that of the MSS. The brackets (as before) indicate partial support.
Matt. iii. 8. Dignos poenitentiae fructus (_Pudic_. 10).
[Greek: Karpous axious taes metanoias] Textus Receptus, L, U, 33, a, g"2, m, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., etc. [Greek: Karpon axion t. met].
B, C (D), [Greek: D], 1, etc.; Vulg., b, c, d, f, ff"1, Syr. Hcl., Memph., Theb., Iren., Orig., etc. [Tertullian himself has the singular in _Hermog._ 12, so that he seems to have had both readings in his copies.]
Matt. v. 4, 5. The received order "beati lugentes" and "beati mites" is followed in _Pat_. 11 [Ronsch p. 589 and Tisch., correcting Treg.], So [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, C, rel., b, f, Syrr. Pst. and Hcl., Memph., Arm., Aeth. Order inverted in D, 33, Vulg., a, c, ff"1, g"1.2, h, k, l, Syr. Crt., Clem., Orig., Eus., Hil.
Matt. v. 16. "Luceant opera vestra" for "luceat lux vestra," Tert.
(bis). So Hil., Ambr., Aug., Celest. [see above, p. 134] against all MSS. and versions.
Matt. v. 28. Qui viderit ad concupiscentiam, etc. This verse is cited six times by Tertullian, and Ronsch says (p. 590) that "in these six citations almost every variant of the Greek text is represented."
Matt. v. 48. Qui est in caelis: [Greek: ho en tois ouranois], Textus Receptus, with [Greek: Delta symbol], E"2, rel., b, c, d, g"1, h, Syrr. Crt. and Pst., Clem., [Greek: ho ouranios], [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], B, D"2, Z, and i, 33, Vulg., a, f, etc.
Matt. vi. 10. Fiat voluntas tua in caelis et in terra, omitting "sicut." So D, a, b, c, Aug. (expressly, "some codices").
Matt. xi. ii. Nemo major inter natos feminarum Joanne baptizatore.
"The form of this citation, which neither corresponds with Matt.
xi. 11 nor with Luke vii. 28, coincides almost exactly with the words which in both the Greek and Latin text of the Codex Bezae form the conclusion of Luke vii. 26, [Greek: [hoti] oudeis meizon en gennaetois gunaikon [prophaetaes] Ioannou tou baptistou]"
(Ronsch, p. 608).
Matt. xiii. 15. Sanem: [Greek: iasomai], K, U, X, [Greek: Delta], I; Latt. (exc. d), Syr. Crt.; [Greek: iasomai], B, C, D, [Hebrew: Aleph symbol], rel.
Matt. xv. 26. Non est (only), so Eus. in Ps. 83; [Greek: exestin], D, a, b, c, ff, g"1, 1, Syr. Crt., Orig., Hil.; [Greek: ouk estin kalon], B, C, [Hebrew aleph], rel., Vulg., c, f, g"2, k, Orig.
There are of course few quotations that can be distinctly identified as taken from St. Mark, but among these may be noticed:--
Mark i. 24. Scimus: [Greek: oidamen se], [Hebrew aleph], L, [Greek: Delta], Memph., Iren., Orig., Eus.; [Greek: oida se tis ei], A, B, C, D, rel., Latt., Syrr.
Mark ix. 7. Hunc audite: [Greek: autou akouete], A, X, rel., b, f, Syrr.; [Greek: akouete autou], [Hebrew: aleph] B, C, D, L, a, c, ff"1, etc. [This may be however from Matt. xvii. 5, where Tertullian"s reading has somewhat stronger support.]
The variations in quotations from St. Luke have been perhaps sufficiently ill.u.s.trated in the chapter on Marcion. We may therefore omit this Gospel and pa.s.s to St. John. A very remarkable reading meets us at the outset.
John i. 13. Non ex sanguine nec ex voluntate carnis nec ex voluntate viri, sed ex deo natus est. The Greek of all the MSS.
and Versions, with the single exception of b of the Old Latin, is [Greek: oi egennaethaesan]. A sentence is thus applied to Christ that was originally intended to be applied to the Christian.