Part 27 (2/2)

iii. 36. | 16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John | v. 3, 4, vi. 51.

Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this kind:--

UNCIAL MSS.

[Hebrew: A B C D Alef]

Agreement 2 2 2 1 5 Difference 13 5 14 9 10

GREEK FATHERS.

Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius.

Agreement 1 4 3 Difference 0 2 0

LATIN FATHERS.

Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others.

Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0

VERSIONS.

OLD LATIN. VULGATE.

a b c f rel.

Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12

SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN.

Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph.

Agreement 7 5 1 2 Difference 7 5 4 6

Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward.

It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases where Tertullian has _gone wrong_; whereas, in order to anything like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.

Tert. b / / O.L. (a.c. &c.) / / Syr. Crt.

/ Tert. O.L. / / Greek Fathers. / Tert. O.L./ Syr. Crt./ / / / / Best Alexandrine Authorities. / / Western.

/ Greek Fathers / Memph. Theb. / / / / / / / / || Alexandrine. || Western.

|| / The Sacred Autographs.

In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, thus. First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the points included in the above a.n.a.lysis. Gradually a few errors slip in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers. But in time a wider breach is made. The process of corruption becomes more rapid. We reach at last that strange doc.u.ment which, through more or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other. These two lines severally branch off. The Old Latin itself divides. One of its copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of ma.n.u.scripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself most frequently and habitually used.

Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree.

The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way. There is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines.

Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian with [Hebrew: Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to be left behind, in John vi. 51. This however, as it is only on a point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the Greek Codex from which Tertullian's Latin was derived agreed rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would increase the probability that these ma.n.u.scripts and Tertullian had really preserved the original text. If that were the case--and it is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best editors--there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance. Somewhat more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian's relations to the different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac. In one instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the Old Latin. In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and most copies of the Old Latin altogether and go to the Curetonian Syriac. How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin (approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?

The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable.

Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations. It is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone wrong. On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we might have been prepared for. The hypothesis that Tertullian used a ma.n.u.script in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies most elements of the problem.

But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show that the Tubingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late origin to our Gospels, is out of the question. To bring the text into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow. In fact I doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made. The phenomena that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe. They are spread over whole groups of MSS. together. We can trace the gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the history of the text. A certain false reading comes in at such a point and spreads over all the ma.n.u.scripts that start from that; another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; recourse is had to the best standard ma.n.u.scripts, and a purer text is recovered by comparison with these. It is precisely such a text that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian. A still more systematic revision, though executed--if we are to judge from the instances brought to our notice--with somewhat more reserve, is seen in Jerome's Vulgate.

It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point. I will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later ma.n.u.scripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century. The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may say, within approximate limits, established.

<script>