Part 18 (1/2)

But in fact the Western Church yields unfaltering testimony. Besides the three copies of the Old Latin which exhibit all the five clauses, the Vulgate retains the first, third, fifth and fourth. Augustine[316]

quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3, 5: Ambrose[317] clauses 1, 3, 4, 5--1, 4, 5: Hilary[318], clauses 1, 4, 5, and (apparently) 2, 4, 5: Lucifer[319], clauses 1, 2, 3 (apparently), 5: pseudo-Epiphanius[320]

connects clauses 1, 3,--1, 3, 5: and Pacian[321], clauses 5, 2. Next we have to ascertain what is the testimony of the Greek Fathers.

And first we turn to Chrysostom[322] who (besides quoting the fourth clause from St. Matthew's Gospel by itself five times) quotes consecutively clauses 1, 3--iii. 167; 1, 4--iv. 619; 2, 4--v. 436; 4, 3--ii. 340, v. 56, xii. 654; 4, 5--ii. 258, iii. 341; 1, 2, 4--iv. 267; 1, 3, 4, 5--xii. 425; thus recognizing them _all._

Gregory Nyss.[323] quotes connectedly clauses 3, 4, 5.

Eusebius[324], clauses 4, 5--2, 4, 5--1, 3, 4, 5.

The Apostolic Const.i.tutions[325] (third century), clauses 1, 3, 4, 5 (having immediately before quoted clause 2,)--also clauses 2, 4, 1.

Clemens Alex.[326] (A.D. 192), clauses 1, 2, 4.

Athenagoras[327] (A.D. 177), clauses 1, 2, 5.

Theophilus[328] (A.D. 168), clauses 1, 4.

While Justin M.[329] (A.D. 140) having paraphrased clause 1, connects therewith clauses 2 and 4.

And Polycarp[330] (A.D. 108) apparently connects clauses 4 and 5.

Didache[331] (A.D. 100?) quotes 2, 4, 5 and combines 1 and 3 (pp. 5, 6).

In the face of all this evidence, no one it is presumed will any more be found to dispute the genuineness of the generally received reading in St. Matt. v. 44. All must see that if the text familiarly known in the age immediately after that of the Apostles had been indeed the bald, curt thing which the critics imagine, viz.

[Greek: agapate tous echthrous humon, kai proseuchesthe huper ton diokonton humas,--]

by no possibility could the men of that age in referring to St. Matt. v.

44 have freely mentioned 'blessing those who curse,--doing good to those who hate,--and praying for those who despitefully use.' Since there are but two alternative readings of the pa.s.sage,--one longer, one briefer,--every clear acknowledgement of a single disputed clause in the larger reading necessarily carries with it all the rest.

This result of 'comparative criticism' is therefore respectfully recommended to the notice of the learned. If it be not decisive of the point at issue to find such a torrent of primitive testimony at one with the bulk of the Uncials and Cursives extant, it is clear that there can be no Science of Textual Criticism. The Law of Evidence must be held to be inoperative in this subject-matter. Nothing deserving of the name of 'proof' will ever be attainable in this department of investigation.

But if men admit that the ordinarily received text of St. Matt. v. 44 has been clearly established, then let the legitimate results of the foregoing discussion be loyally recognized. The unique value of Ma.n.u.scripts in declaring the exact text of Scripture--the conspicuous inadequacy of Patristic evidence by themselves,--have been made apparent: and yet it has been shewn that Patristic quotations are abundantly sufficient for their proper purpose,--which is, to enable us to decide between conflicting readings. One more indication has been obtained of the corruptness of the text which Origen employed,-- concerning which he is so strangely communicative,--and of which B[Symbol: Aleph] are the chief surviving examples; and the probability has been strengthened that when these are the sole, or even the princ.i.p.al witnesses, for any particular reading, that reading will prove to be corrupt.

Mill was of opinion, (and of course his opinion finds favour with Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the rest,) that these three clauses have been imported hither from St. Luke vi. 27, 28. But, besides that this is mere unsupported conjecture, how comes it then to pa.s.s that the order of the second and third clauses in St. Matthew's Gospel is the reverse of the order in St. Luke's? No. I believe that there has been excision here: for I hold with Griesbach that it cannot have been the result of accident[332].

[I take this opportunity to reply to a reviewer in the _Guardian_ newspaper, who thought that he had reduced the authorities quoted from before A.D. 400 on page 103 of The Traditional Text to two on our side against seven, or rather six[333], on the other. Let me first say that on this perilous field I am not surprised at being obliged to re-judge or withdraw some authorities. I admit that in the middle of a long catena of pa.s.sages, I did not lay sufficient stress, as I now find, upon the parallel pa.s.sage in St. Luke vi. 27, 28. After fresh examination, I withdraw entirely Clemens Alex., Paed. i. 8,--Philo of Carpasus, I.

7,--Ambrose, De Abrahamo ii. 30, Ps. cxviii. 12. 51, and the two referred to Athanasius. Also I do not quote Origen, Cels. viii.

41,--Eusebius in Ps. iii.,--Apost. Const. vii. 4,--Greg. Nyss., In S.

Stephanum, because they may be regarded as doubtful, although for reasons which I proceed to give they appear to witness in favour of our contention. It is necessary to add some remarks before dealing with the rest of the pa.s.sages.]

[1. It must be borne in mind, that this is a question both negative and positive:--negative on the side of our opponents, with all the difficulties involved in establis.h.i.+ng a negative conclusion as to the non-existence in St. Matthew's Gospel of clauses 2, 3, and 5,--and positive for us, in the establishment of those clauses as part of the genuine text in the pa.s.sage which we are considering. If we can so establish the clauses, or indeed any one of them, the case against us fails: but unless we can establish all, we have not proved everything that we seek to demonstrate. Our first object is to make the adverse position untenable: when we have done that, we fortify our own.

Therefore both the Dean and myself have drawn attention to the fact that our authorities are summoned as witnesses to the early existence in each case of 'some of the clauses,' if they do not depose to all of them. We are quite aware of the reply: but we have with us the advantage of positive as against negative evidence. This advantage especially rules in such an instance as the present, because alien circ.u.mstances govern the quotation, and regulate particularly the length of it. Such quotation is always liable to shortening, whether by leaving out intermediate clauses, or by sudden curtailment in the midst of the pa.s.sage. Therefore, actual citation of separate clauses, being undesigned and fortuitous, is much more valuable than omission arising from what cause soever.]

[2. The reviewer says that 'all four clauses are read by both texts,'

i.e. in St. Matthew and St. Luke, and appears to have been unaware as regards the present purpose of the existence of the fifth clause, or half-clause, in St. Matthew. Yet the words--[Greek: huper ... ton diokonton humas] are a very label, telling incontestibly the origin of many of the quotations. Sentences so distinguished with St. Matthew's label cannot have come from St. Luke's Gospel. The reviewer has often gone wrong here. The [Greek: huper]--instead of the [Greek: peri] after [Symbol: Aleph]BL[Symbol: Xi] in St. Luke--should be to our opponents a sign betraying the origin, though when it stands by itself--as in Eusebius, In Ps. iii.--I do not press the pa.s.sage.]

[3. Nor again does the reviewer seem to have noticed the effects of the context in shewing to which source a quotation is to be referred. It is a common custom for Fathers to quote v. 45 in St. Matthew, which is hardly conceivable if they had St. Luke vi. 27, 28 before them, or even if they were quoting from memory. Other points in the context of greater or less importance are often found in the sentence or sentences preceding or following the words quoted, and are decisive of the reference.]

[The references as corrected are given in the note[334]. It will be seen by any one who compares the verifications with the reviewer's list, how his failure to observe the points just explained has led him astray. The effect upon the list given in The Traditional Text will be that before the era of St. Chrysostom twenty-five testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional Text of St. Matt. v. 44, and adding Tertullian from the Dean nine against it. And the totals on page 102, lines 2 and 3 will be 522 and 171 respectively.]

-- 7.