9. " xix. 16. Only 7 have "good," besides a few corrections: 12 omit.
" " 17. Only 1 has it.
10. " xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.
11. " xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the correction. All the rest have ?????(183).
12. " xxviii. 2. All have it.
13. " " 19. All have it.
14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, ?sa??.
15. " xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.
16. Luke i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.
17. " ii. 14. All have e?d???a.
18. " x. 41-2. ?????? d? (3 omit) ?st? ??e?a ? ????: 1 omits ? ????. 2 corrected add "of them."
19. " xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18(184).
20. " xxiii. 34. All omit(185).
21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5(186) (?).
22. " " 45. All have ????p??t??(187).
23. " xxiv. 40. All have it.
24. " " 42. All omit(188).
25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at ??d? ??) have it. The Sahidic is the other way.
26. " " 18. All have Te??(189).
27. " iii. 13. Omitted by 9.
28. " x. 14. All have "mine know me." The Bohairic has no pa.s.sive: hence the error(190).
29. " xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express ???: hence the error(191).
30. " xxi. 25. All have it.
The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.
No ma.n.u.scripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact we are considering the ante-ma.n.u.scriptal period. All reference therefore to ma.n.u.scripts would be consequent upon, not a factor in, the present investigation.
It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most striking characteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic wabbles from side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places but mostly against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence in all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention.
Origen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the Neologian readings on the thirty pa.s.sages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of Origen, who indeed changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his habit was to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St. Ambrose (in Ps. x.x.xvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John i. 3-4, "without Him was not anything made: that which was made was life in Him," says that Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said that Origen was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no one can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.
Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian Philosophy which under the name of the Catechetical School has made Alexandria for ever celebrated in the early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen was a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the text of the New Testament, besides his great labours on the Old, because he found it disfigured as he says by corruptions "some arising from the carelessness of scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary omissions and interpolations(192)." Such a sitting in judgement, or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen such a pursuit of inquiry, involved weighing of evidence on either side, of which there are many indications in his works. The connexion of this school with the school set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have brought his ma.n.u.scripts, and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to sympathetic successors, will be carried out and described more fully in the next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province extended with the reputation of his other writings long after his death. "When a writer speaks of the "accurate copies," what he actually means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen(193)." Indeed it was an elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit with evidence of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original, as for example in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration of pa.s.sages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and habit there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which were rejected in later ages took their rise there. Specimens of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the Bohairic Version. The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the Caesarean school which now invites our consideration.
-- 2. Caesarean School.
In the year 231, as seems most probable, Origen finally left Alexandria.
His head-quarters thenceforward may be said to have been Caesarea in Palestine, though he travelled into Greece and Arabia and stayed at Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia with his friend and pupil Gregory Thaumaturgus.
He had previously visited Rome: so that he must have been well qualified by his experience as well as probably by his knowledge and collection of MSS. to lay a broad foundation for the future settlement of the text. But unfortunately his whole career marks him out as a man of uncertain judgement. Like some others, he was a giant in learning, but ordinary in the use of his learning. He was also closely connected with the philosophical school of Alexandria, from which Arianism issued.
The leading figures in this remarkable School of Textual Criticism at Caesarea were Origen and Eusebius, besides Pamphilus who forms the link between the two. The ground-work of the School was the celebrated library in the city which was formed upon the foundation supplied by Origen, so far as the books in it escaped the general destruction of MSS. that occurred in the persecution of Diocletian. It is remarkable, that although there seems little doubt that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. were amongst the fruits of this school, as will be shewn in the next chapter, the witness of the writings of both Origen and Eusebius is so favourable as it is to the Traditional Text. In the case of Origen there is as already stated(194) not far from an equality between the totals on either side, besides a majority of 44 to 27 on the thirty important texts: and the numbers for Eusebius are respectively 315 to 214, and 41 to 11.
Palestine was well suited from its geographical position to be the site of the junction of all the streams. The very same circ.u.mstances which adapted it to be the arena of the great drama in the world"s history drew to its sh.o.r.es the various elements in the representation in language of the most characteristic part of the Word of G.o.d. The Traditional Text would reach it by various routes: the Syrio-Low-Latin across the sea and from Syria: the Alexandrian readings from the near neighbourhood. Origen in his travels would help to a.s.semble all. The various alien streams would thus coalesce, and the text of B and ? would be the result. But the readings of MSS. recorded by Origen and especially by Eusebius prove that in this broad school the Traditional Text gained at least a decided preponderance according to the private choice of the latter scholar. Yet, as will be shewn, he was probably, not the writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves in ?, yet as the executor of the order of Constantine the superintendent also in copying those celebrated MSS. Was he then influenced by the motives of a courtier in sending such texts as he thought would be most acceptable to the Emperor? Or is it not more in consonance with the facts of the case-especially as interpreted by the subsequent spread in Constantinople of the Traditional Text(195)-, that we should infer that the fifty MSS. sent included a large proportion of Texts of another character? Eusebius, the h.o.m.oiousian or Semi-Arian, would thus be the collector of copies to suit different tastes and opinions, and his scholar and successor Acacius, the h.o.m.oean, would more probably be the writer of B and of the six conjugate leaves of ?(196). The tr.i.m.m.i.n.g character of the lat.i.tudinarian, and the violent forwardness of the partisan, would appear to render such a supposition not unreasonable.
Estimating the school according to principles of historical philosophy, and in consonance with both the existence of the Text denoted by B and ?
and also the subsequent results, it must appear to us to be transitional in character, including two distinct and incongruous solutions, of which one was afterwards proved to be the right by the general acceptation in the Church that even Dr. Hort acknowledges to have taken place.
An interesting inquiry is here suggested with respect to the two celebrated MSS. just mentioned. How is it that we possess no MSS. of the New Testament of any considerable size older than those, or at least no other such MSS. as old as they are? Besides the disastrous results of the persecution of Diocletian, there is much force in the reply of Dean Burgon, that being generally recognized as bad MSS. they were left standing on the shelf in their handsome covers, whilst others which were more correct were being thumbed to pieces in constant use. But the discoveries made since the Dean"s death enables me to suggest another answer which will also help to enlarge our view on these matters.
The habit of writing on vellum belongs to Asia. The first mention of it that we meet with occurs in the 58th chapter of the 5th book of Herodotus, where the historian tells us that the Ionians wrote on the skins of sheep and goats because they could not get "byblus," or as we best know it, papyrus. Vellum remained in comparative obscurity till the time of Eumenes II, King of Pergamum. That intelligent potentate, wishing to enlarge his library and being thwarted by the Ptolemies who refused out of jealousy to supply him with papyrus, improved the skins of his country(197), and made the "charta Pergamena," from whence the term parchment has descended to us. It will be remembered that St. Paul sent to Ephesus for "the books, especially the parchments(198)." There is evidence that vellum was used at Rome: but the chief materials employed there appear to have been waxen tablets and papyrus. Martial, writing towards the end of the first century, speaks of vellum MSS. of Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Ovid(199).
But if such MSS. had prevailed generally, more would have come down to us.
The emergence of vellum into general use is marked and heralded by the products of the library at Caesarea, which helped by the rising literary activity in Asia and by the building of Constantinople, was probably the means of the introduction of an improved employment of vellum. It has been already noticed(200), that Acacius and Euzoius, successively bishops of Caesarea after Eusebius, superintended the copying of papyrus ma.n.u.scripts upon vellum. Greek uncials were not unlike in general form to the square Hebrew letters used at Jerusalem after the Captivity. The activity in Asiatic Caesarea synchronized with the rise in the use of vellum. It would seem that in moving there Origen deserted papyrus for the more durable material.
A word to explain my argument. If vellum had been in constant use over the Roman Empire during the first three centuries and a third which elapsed before B and ? were written, there ought to have been in existence some remains of a material so capable of resisting the tear and wear of use and time. As there are no vellum MSS. at all except the merest fragments dating from before 330 A.D., we are perforce driven to infer that a material for writing of a perishable nature was generally employed before that period. Now not only had papyrus been for "long the recognized material for literary use," but we can trace its employment much later than is usually supposed. It is true that the cultivation of the plant in Egypt began to wane after the capture of Alexandria by the Mahommedans in 638 A.D., and the destruction of the famous libraries: but it continued in existence during some centuries afterwards. It was grown also in Sicily and Italy. "In France papyrus was in common use in the sixth century." Sir E. Maunde Thompson enumerates books now found in European Libraries of Paris, Genoa, Milan, Vienna, Munich, and elsewhere, as far down as the tenth century. The manufacture of it did not cease in Egypt till the tenth century. The use of papyrus did not lapse finally till paper was introduced into Europe by the Moors and Arabs(201), upon which occurrence all writing was executed upon tougher substances, and the cursive hand drove out uncial writing even from parchment.
The knowledge of the prevalence of papyrus, as to which any one may satisfy himself by consulting Sir E. Maunde Thompson"s admirable book, and of the employment of the cursive hand before Christ, must modify many of the notions that have been widely entertained respecting the old Uncials.
1. In the first place, it will be clear that all the Cursive MSS. are not by any means the descendants of the Uncials. If the employment of papyrus in the earliest ages of the Christian Church was prevalent over by far the greater part of the Roman Empire, and that description is I believe less than the facts would warrant-then more than half of the stems of genealogy must have originally consisted of papyrus ma.n.u.scripts. And further, if the use of papyrus continued long after the date of B and ?, then it would not only have occupied the earliest steps in the lines of descent, but much later exemplars must have carried on the succession. But in consequence of the perishable character of papyrus those exemplars have disappeared and live only in their cursive posterity. This aspect alone of the case under consideration invests the Cursives with much more interest and value than many people would nowadays attribute to them.
2. But beyond this conclusion, light is shed upon the subject by the fact now established beyond question, that cursive handwriting existed in the world some centuries before Christ(202). For square letters (of course in writing interspersed with circular lines) we go to Palestine and Syria, and that may not impossibly be the reason why uncial Greek letters came out first, as far as the evidence of extant remains can guide us, in those countries. The change from uncial to cursive letters about the tenth century is most remarkable. Must it not to a great extent have arisen from the contemporary failure of papyrus which has been explained, and from the cursive writers on papyrus now trying their hand on vellum and introducing their more easy and rapid style of writing into that cla.s.s of ma.n.u.scripts(203)? If so, the phenomenon shews itself, that by the very manner in which they are written, Cursives mutely declare that they are not solely the children of the Uncials. Speaking generally, they are the progeny of a marriage between the two, and the papyrus MSS. would appear to have been the better half.
Such results as have been reached in this chapter and the last have issued from the advance made in discovery and research during the last ten years.
But these were not known to Tischendorf or Tregelles, and much less to Lachmann. They could not have been embraced by Hort in his view of the entire subject when he constructed his clever but unsound theory some forty years ago(204). Surely our conclusion must be that the world is leaving that school gradually behind.
CHAPTER IX. THE OLD UNCIALS. THE INFLUENCE OF ORIGEN.
-- 1(205).
Codex B was early enthroned on something like speculation, and has been maintained upon the throne by what has strangely amounted to a positive superst.i.tion. The text of this MS. was not accurately known till the edition of Tischendorf appeared in 1867(206): and yet long before that time it was regarded by many critics as the Queen of the Uncials. The collations of Bartolocci, of Mico, of Rulotta, and of Birch, were not trustworthy, though they far surpa.s.sed Mai"s two first editions. Yet the prejudice in favour of the mysterious authority that was expected to issue decrees from the Vatican(207) did not wait till the clear light of criticism was shed upon its eccentricities and its defalcations. The same spirit, bia.s.sed by sentiment not ruled by reason, has remained since more has been disclosed of the real nature of this Codex(208).
A similar course has been pursued with respect to Codex ?. It was perhaps to be expected that human infirmity should have influenced Tischendorf in his treatment of the treasure-trove by him: though his character for judgement could not but be seriously injured by the fact that in his eighth edition he altered the mature conclusions of his seventh in no less than 3,572(209) instances, chiefly on account of the readings in his beloved Sinaitic guide.
Yet whatever may be advanced against B may be alleged even more strongly against ?. It adds to the number of the blunders of its a.s.sociate: it is conspicuous for habitual carelessness or licence: it often by itself deviates into glaring errors(210). The elevation of the Sinaitic into the first place, which was effected by Tischendorf as far as his own practice was concerned, has been applauded by only very few scholars: and it is hardly conceivable that they could maintain their opinion, if they would critically and impartially examine this erratic copy throughout the New Testament for themselves.
The fact is that B and ? were the products of the school of philosophy and teaching which found its vent in Semi-Arian or h.o.m.oean opinions. The proof of this position is somewhat difficult to give, but when the nature of the question and the producible amount of evidence are taken into consideration, is nevertheless quite satisfactory.
In the first place, according to the verdict of all critics the date of these two MSS. coincides with the period when Semi-Arianism or some other form of Arianism were in the ascendant in the East, and to all outward appearance swayed the Universal Church. In the last years of his rule, Constantine was under the domination of the Arianizing faction; and the reign of Constantius II over all the provinces in the Roman Empire that spoke Greek, during which encouragement was given to the great heretical schools of the time, completed the two central decades of the fourth century(211). It is a circ.u.mstance that cannot fail to give rise to suspicion that the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. had their origin under a predominant influence of such evil fame. At the very least, careful investigation is necessary to see whether those copies were in fact free from that influence which has met with universal condemnation.
Now as we proceed further we are struck with another most remarkable coincidence, which also as has been before noticed is admitted on all hands, viz. that the period of the emergence of the Orthodox School from oppression and the settlement in their favour of the great Nicene controversy was also the time when the text of B and ? sank into condemnation. The Orthodox side under St. Chrysostom and others became permanently supreme: so did also the Traditional Text. Are we then to a.s.sume with our opponents that in the Church condemnation and acceptance were inseparable companions? That at first heresy and the pure Text, and afterwards orthodoxy and textual corruption, went hand in hand? That such ill-matched couples graced the history of the Church? That upon so fundamental a matter as the accuracy of the written standard of reference, there was precision of text when heretics or those who dallied with heresy were in power, but that the sacred Text was contaminated when the Orthodox had things their own way? Is it indeed come to this, that for the pure and undefiled Word of G.o.d we must search, not amongst those great men who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ascertained and settled for ever the main Articles of the Faith, and the Canon of Holy Scripture, but amidst the relics of those who were unable to agree with one another, and whose fine-drawn subtleties in creed and policy have been the despair of the historians, and a puzzle to students of Theological Science? It is not too much to a.s.sert, that Theology and History know no such unscientific conclusions.
It is therefore a circ.u.mstance full of significance that Codexes B and ?
were produced in such untoward times(212), and fell into neglect on the revival of orthodoxy, when the Traditional Text was permanently received.
But the case in hand rests also upon evidence more direct than this.
The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his a.s.sertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church.
But (and this is the direction in which the foregoing remarks have tended) Origen"s ruling pa.s.sion is found to have been textual criticism(213). This was at once his forte and his foible. In the library of his friend Pamphilus at Caesarea were found many Codexes that had belonged to him, and the autograph of his Hexapla, which was seen and used by St.
Jerome(214). In fact, the collection of books made by Pamphilus, in the gathering of which at the very least he was deeply indebted to Origen, became a centre from whence, after the destruction of copies in the persecution of Diocletian, authority as to the sacred Text radiated in various directions. Copying from papyrus on vellum was a.s.siduously prosecuted there(215). Constantine applied to Eusebius for fifty handsome copies(216), amongst which it is not improbable that the ma.n.u.scripts (s?at?a) B and ? were to be actually found(217). But even if that is not so, the Emperor would not have selected Eusebius for the order, if that bishop had not been in the habit of providing copies: and Eusebius in fact carried on the work which he had commenced under his friend Pamphilus, and in which the latter must have followed the path pursued by Origen. Again, Jerome is known to have resorted to this quarter(218), and various entries in MSS. prove that others did the same(219). It is clear that the celebrated library of Pamphilus exercised great influence in the province of Textual Criticism; and the spirit of Origen was powerful throughout the operations connected with it, at least till the Origenists got gradually into disfavour and at length were finally condemned at the Fifth General Council in A.D. 553.
But in connecting B and ? with the Library at Caesarea we are not left only to conjecture or inference. In a well-known colophon affixed to the end of the book of Esther in ? by the third corrector, it is stated that from the beginning of the book of Kings to the end of Esther the MS. was compared with a copy "corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus,"