The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
by John William Burgon.
PREFACE.
The death of Dean Burgon in 1888, lamented by a large number of people on the other side of the Atlantic as well as on this, cut him off in the early part of a task for which he had made preparations during more than thirty years. He laid the foundations of his system with much care and caution, discussing it with his friends, such as the late Earl of Selborne to whom he inscribed The Last Twelve Verses, and the present Earl of Cranbrook to whom he dedicated The Revision Revised, for the purpose of sounding the depths of the subject, and of being sure that he was resting upon firm rock. In order to enlarge the general basis of Sacred Textual Criticism, and to treat of the principles of it scientifically and comprehensively, he examined ma.n.u.scripts widely, making many discoveries at home and in foreign libraries; collated some himself and got many collated by other scholars; encouraged new and critical editions of some of the chief Versions; and above all, he devised and superintended a collection of quotations from the New Testament to be found in the works of the Fathers and in other ecclesiastical writings, going far beyond ordinary indexes, which may be found in sixteen thick volumes amongst the treasures of the British Museum. Various events led him during his life-time to dip into and publish some of his stores, such as in his Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark, his famous Letters to Dr. Scrivener in the _Guardian_ Newspaper, and in The Revision Revised. But he sedulously ama.s.sed materials for the greater treatise up to the time of his death.
He was then deeply impressed with the incomplete state of his doc.u.ments; and gave positive instructions solely for the publication of his Text of the Gospels as marked in the margin of one of Scrivener"s editions of the New Testament, of his disquisition on "honeycomb" which as exhibiting a specimen of his admirable method of criticism will be found in Appendix I of this volume, and perhaps of that on ???? in Appendix II, leaving the entire question as to publishing the rest to his nephew, the Rev. W. F.
Rose, with the help of myself, if I would undertake the editing required, and of others.
The separate papers, which were committed to my charge in February, 1889, were contained in forty portfolios, and according to my catalogue amounted to 2,383. They were grouped under various headings, and some were placed in one set as "Introductory Matter" ready for the printer. Most had been copied out in a clear hand, especially by "M.W." mentioned in the Preface of the Revision Revised, to whom also I am greatly indebted for copying others. The papers were of lengths varying from fourteen pages or more down to a single sentence or a single reference. Some were almost duplicates, and a very few similarly triplicates.
After cataloguing, I reported to Mr. Rose, suggesting a choice between three plans, viz.,
1. Publishing separately according to the Dean"s instructions such papers as were judged to be fit for publication, and leaving the rest:-
2. To put together a Work on the Principles of Textual Criticism out of the MSS., as far as they would go:-
3. To make up what was ready and fit into a Book, supplying from the rest of the materials and from elsewhere what was wanting besides filling up gaps as well as I could, and out of the rest (as well as from the Dean"s published works) to construct brief notes on the Text which we had to publish.
This report was sent to Dr. Scrivener, Dean Goulburn, Sir Edward Maunde Thompson, and other distinguished scholars, and the unanimous opinion was expressed that the third of these plans should be adopted.
Not liking to encounter
Tot et tanta negotia solus,
I invited at the opening of 1890 the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, Fellow of Hertford College, and the Rev. Dr. Waller, Princ.i.p.al of St. John"s Hall, Highbury-a man of mathematical accuracy-to read over at my house the first draft of a large portion of Volume I. To my loss, Dr. Waller has been too busy since that time to afford me any help, except what may be found in his valuable comparison of the texts of the Pes.h.i.tto and Curetonian printed in Appendix VI: but Mr. Gwilliam has been ready with advice and help all along which have been of the greatest advantage to me especially on the Syriac part of the subject, and has looked through all the first proofs of this volume.
It was afterwards forced upon my mind that if possible the Indexes to the Fathers ought to be included in the work. Indeed no book could adequately represent Dean Burgon"s labours which did not include his _apparatus criticus_ in that province of Textual Criticism, in which he has shewn himself so _facile princeps_, that no one in England, or Germany, or elsewhere, has been as yet able to come near him. With Sir E. Maunde Thompson"s kind help, I have been able to get the part of the Indexes which relates to the Gospels copied in type-writing, and they will be published in course of time, G.o.d willing, if the learned world evinces sufficient interest in the publication of them.
Unfortunately, when in 1890 I had completed a first arrangement of Volume II, my health gave way; and after vainly endeavouring for a year to combine this severe toil with the conduct of a living, I resigned the latter, and moved into Oxford to devote myself exclusively to the important work of turning the unpublished results of the skilful faithfulness and the indefatigable learning of that "grand scholar"-to use Dr. Scrivener"s phrase-towards the settlement of the principles that should regulate the ascertainment of the Divine Words const.i.tuting the New Testament.
The difficulty to be surmounted lay in the fact that after all was gathered out of the Dean"s remains that was suitable for the purpose, and when gaps of smaller or greater size were filled, as has been done throughout the series of unfinished and unconnected MSS., there was still a large s.p.a.ce to cover without the Master"s help in covering it.
Time and research and thought were alike necessary. Consequently, upon advice, I accepted an offer to edit the fourth edition of Scrivener"s Plain Introduction, and although that extremely laborious accomplishment occupied far more time than was antic.i.p.ated, yet in the event it has greatly helped the execution of my task. Never yet, before or since Dean Burgon"s death, has there been such an opportunity as the present. The general _apparatus criticus_ has been vastly increased; the field of palaeography has been greatly enlarged through the discoveries in Egypt; and there is a feeling abroad that we are on the brink of an improvement in systems and theories recently in vogue.
On returning to the work, I found that the key to the removal of the chief difficulty in the way of such improvement lay in an inflow of light upon what may perhaps be termed as to this subject the Pre-ma.n.u.scriptal Period,-hitherto the dark age of Sacred Textualism, which precedes what was once "the year one" of Palaeography. Accordingly, I made a toilsome examination for myself of the quotations occurring in the writings of the Fathers before St. Chrysostom, or as I defined them in order to draw a self-acting line, of those who died before 400 A.D., with the result that the Traditional Text is found to stand in the general proportion of 3:2 against other variations, and in a much higher proportion upon thirty test pa.s.sages. Afterwards, not being satisfied with resting the basis of my argument upon one scrutiny, I went again through the writings of the seventy-six Fathers concerned (with limitations explained in this book), besides others who yielded no evidence, and I found that although several more instances were consequently entered in my note-book, the general results remained almost the same. I do not flatter myself that even now I have recorded all the instances that could be adduced:-any one who is really acquainted with this work will know that such a feat is absolutely impossible, because such perfection cannot be obtained except after many repeated efforts. But I claim, not only that my attempts have been honest and fair even to self-abnegation, but that the general results which are much more than is required by my argument, as is explained in the body of this work, abundantly establish the antiquity of the Traditional Text, by proving the superior acceptance of it during the period at stake to that of any other.
Indeed, these examinations have seemed to me, not only to carry back the Traditional Text satisfactorily to the first age, but to lead also to solutions of several difficult problems, which are now presented to our readers. The wealth of MSS. to which the Fathers introduce us at second-hand can only be understood by those who may go through the writings of many of them with this view; and outnumbers over and over again before the year 1000 all the contemporaneous Greek MSS. which have come down to us, not to speak of the years to which no MSS. that are now extant are in the opinion of all experts found to belong.
It is due both to Dean Burgon and to myself to say that we came together after having worked on independent lines, though I am bound to acknowledge my great debt to his writings. At first we did not agree thoroughly in opinion, but I found afterwards that he was right and I was wrong. It is a proof of the unifying power of our principles, that as to our system there is now absolutely no difference between us, though on minor points, generally outside of this immediate subject, we do not always exactly concur. Though I have the Dean"s example for altering his writings largely even when they were in type, as he never failed to do, yet in loyalty I have delayed alterations as long as I could, and have only made them when I was certain that I was introducing some improvement, and more often than not upon advice proffered to me by others.
Our coincidence is perhaps explained by our having been born when Evangelical earnestness affected all religious life, by our having been trained under the High Church movement, and at least in my case mellowed under the more moderate widening caused by influences which prevailed in Oxford for some years after 1848. Certainly, the comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness-probably in imitation of German method-which had before characterized Dr. Pusey"s treatment of any subject, and found an exemplification in Professor Freeman"s historical researches, and which was as I think to be seen in the action of the best spirits of the Oxford of 1848-56-to quote my own experience,-lay at the root and const.i.tuted the life of Burgon"s system, and the maintenance of these principles so far as we could at whatever cost formed the link between us. To cast away at least nineteen-twentieths of the evidence on points and to draw conclusions from the petty remainder, seems to us to be necessarily not less even than a crime and a sin, not only by reason of the sacrilegious destructiveness exercised thereby upon Holy Writ, but also because such a method is inconsistent with conscientious exhaustiveness and logical method. Perfectly familiar with all that can be and is advanced in favour of such procedure, must we not say that hardly any worse pattern than this in investigations and conclusions could be presented before young men at the critical time when they are entering upon habits of forming judgements which are to carry them through life? Has the over-specialism which has been in vogue of late years promoted the acceptance of the theory before us, because it may have been under specializing influences forgotten, that the really accomplished man should aim at knowing something of everything else as well as knowing everything of the thing to which he is devoted, since narrowness in investigation and neglect of all but a favourite theory is likely to result from so exclusive an att.i.tude?
The importance of the question at stake is often underrated. Dr. Philip Schaff in his well-known "Companion" (p. 176),-as Dr. E. Nestle of Ulm in one of his brochures ("Ein ceterum censeo zur neutestamentlichen Textkritik") which he has kindly sent me, has pointed out,-observes that whereas Mill reckoned the variations to amount to 30,000, and Scrivener supposed that they have since increased to four times as much, they "cannot now fall much short of 150,000." This amount is appalling, and most of them are of a petty character. But some involve highly important pa.s.sages, and even Hort has reckoned (Introduction, p. 2) that the disputed instances reach about one-eighth of the whole. Is it too strong therefore to say, that we live over a volcano, with a crust of earth of not too great a thickness lying between?
The first half of our case is now presented in this Volume, which is a complete treatise in itself. A second will I hope follow at an early date, containing a disquisition on the Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text; and, I am glad to say, will consist almost exclusively of Dean Burgon"s own compositions. I ask from Critics who may not a.s.sent to all our conclusions a candid consideration of our case, which is rested solely upon argument and reason throughout. This explanation made by the Dean of his system in calmer times and in a more didactic form cannot, as I think, fail to remove much prejudice. If we seem at first sight anywhere to leap from reasoning to dogmatism, our readers will discover, I believe, upon renewed observation that at least from our point of view that is not so. If we appear to speak too positively, we have done this, not from confidence in any private judgement, but because we are sure, at least in our own minds, that we express the verdict of all the ages and all the countries.
May the great Head of the Church bless our effort on behalf of the integrity of His Holy Word, if not according to our plan and purpose, yet in the way that seemeth Him best!
Edward Miller.
9 BRADMORE ROAD, OXFORD:
_Epiphany 1896_.
INTRODUCTION.
A few remarks at the outset of this treatise, which was left imperfect by Dean Burgon at his unexpected death, may make the object and scope of it more intelligible to many readers.
Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a close inquiry into what is the genuine Greek-the true text of the Holy Gospels, of the Acts of the Apostles, of the Pauline and Apostolic Epistles, and the Revelation.
Inasmuch as it concerns the text alone, it is confined to the Lower Criticism according to German nomenclature, just as a critical examination of meaning, with all its attendant references and connexions, would const.i.tute the Higher Criticism. It is thus the necessary prelude of any scientific investigation of the language, the purport, and the teaching of the various books of the New Testament, and ought itself to be conducted upon definite and scientific principles. The object of this treatise is to lead to a general settlement of those principles. For this purpose the Dean has stripped the discussion of all advent.i.tious disguise, and has pursued it lucidly into manifold details, in order that no employment of difficult terms or involved sentences may shed any mystification over the questions discussed, and that all intelligent people who are interested in such questions-and who is not?-may understand the issues and the proofs of them.
In the very earliest times much variation in the text of the New Testament, and particularly of the Holy Gospels-for we shall treat mainly of these four books as const.i.tuting the most important province, and as affording a smaller area, and so being more convenient for the present inquiry:-much diversity in words and expression, I say, arose in the Church. In consequence, the school of scientific Theology at Alexandria, in the person of Origen, first found it necessary to take cognizance of the matter. When Origen moved to Caesarea, he carried his ma.n.u.scripts with him, and they appear to have formed the foundation of the celebrated library in that city, which was afterwards amplified by Pamphilus and Eusebius, and also by Acacius and Euzoius(1), who were all successively bishops of the place. During the life of Eusebius, if not under his controlling care, the two oldest Uncial Ma.n.u.scripts in existence as. .h.i.therto discovered, known as B and ?, or the Vatican and Sinaitic, were executed in handsome form and exquisite calligraphy. But shortly after, about the middle of the fourth century-as both schools of Textual Critics agree-a text differing from that of B and ? advanced in general acceptance; and, increasing till the eighth century in the predominance won by the end of the fourth, became so prevalent in Christendom, that the small number of MSS. agreeing with B and ? forms no sort of comparison with the many which vary from those two. Thus the problem of the fourth century antic.i.p.ated the problem of the nineteenth. Are we for the genuine text of the New Testament to go to the Vatican and the Sinaitic MSS. and the few others which mainly agree with them, or are we to follow the main body of New Testament MSS., which by the end of the century in which those two were produced entered into possession of the field of contention, and have continued in occupation of it ever since? This is the problem which the following treatise is intended to solve, that is to say, which of these two texts or sets of readings is the better attested, and can be traced back through the stronger evidence to the original autographs.
A few words are now needed to describe and account for the present position of the controversy.
After the discovery of printing in Europe, Textual Criticism began to rise again. The career of it may be divided into four stages, which may be termed respectively, Infancy, Childhood, Youth, and Incipient Maturity(2).
I. Erasmus in 1516 edited the New Testament from a very small number of ma.n.u.scripts, probably only five, in repute at the time; and six years afterwards appeared the Complutensian edition under Cardinal Ximenes, which had been printed two years before that of Erasmus. Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, also, as is well known, published editions of their own. In the latter edition of the Elzevirs, issued in 1633, occurred for the first time the widely-used expression "Textus Receptus." The sole object in this period was to adhere faithfully to the text received everywhere.
II. In the next, evidence from Ma.n.u.scripts, Versions, and Fathers was collected, chiefly by Mill and Wetstein. Bentley thought of going back to the fourth century for decisive evidence. Bengel and Griesbach laid stress upon families and recensions of ma.n.u.scripts, and led the way in departing from the received standard. Collation of ma.n.u.scripts was carried on by these two critics and by other able scholars, and largely by Scholz. There was thus an amplification of materials, and a crop of theories. Much that was vague and elemental was intermingled with a promise of a great deal that would prove more satisfactory in the future.
III. The leader in the next advance was Lachmann, who began to discard the readings of the Received Text, supposing it to be only two centuries old.
Authorities having already become inconveniently mult.i.tudinous, he limited his attention to the few which agreed with the oldest Uncials, namely, L or the Regius at Paris, one or two other fragments of Uncials, a few Cursives, the Old Latin Ma.n.u.scripts, and a few of the oldest Fathers, making up generally some six or seven in all upon each separate reading.
Tischendorf, the discoverer of ?, the twin-sister of B, and the collator of a large number of MSS.(3), followed him in the main, as did also Tregelles. And Dr. Hort, who, with Bishop Westcott, began to theorize and work when Lachmann"s influence was at the highest, in a most ingenious and elaborate Introduction maintained the cause of the two oldest Uncials-especially B-and their small band of followers. Admitting that the Received Text dates back as far as the middle of the fourth century, Hort argued that it was divided by more than two centuries and a half from the original Autographs, and in fact took its rise at Antioch and should be called "Syrian," notwithstanding the predominance which he acknowledged that it has enjoyed since the end of the fourth century. He termed the readings of which B and ? are the chief exponents "the Neutral Text," and held that that text can be traced back to the genuine Autographs(4).
IV. I have placed the tenets of the opposite school last as exhibiting signs of Incipient Maturity in the Science, not because they are admitted to be so, that being not the case, but because of their intrinsic merits, which will be unfolded in this volume, and because of the immense addition recently made of authorities to our store, as well as on account of the indirect influence exercised of late by discoveries pursued in other quarters(5). Indeed, it is sought to establish a wider stock of ruling authorities, and a sounder method in the use of them. The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon. First, be it understood, that we do not advocate perfection in the Textus Receptus. We allow that here and there it requires revision. In the Text left behind by Dean Burgon(6), about 150 corrections have been suggested by him in St. Matthew"s Gospel alone. What we maintain is the TRADITIONAL TEXT. And we trace it back to the earliest ages of which there is any record. We trust to the fullest testimony and the most enlightened view of all the evidence. In humble dependence upon G.o.d the Holy Ghost, Who we hold has multiplied witnesses all down the ages of the Church, and Whose cause we believe we plead, we solemnly call upon those many students of the Bible in these days who are earnest after truth to weigh without prejudice what we say, in the prayer that it may contribute something towards the ascertainment of the true expressions employed in the genuine Word of G.o.d.
CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY GROUNDS.
-- 1.