Chapter VI. On The Citations From The Greek New Testament Or Its Versions Made By Early Ecclesiastical Writers, Especially By The Christian Fathers.
1. We might at first sight be inclined to suppose that the numerous quotations from the New Testament contained in the remains of the Fathers of the Church and other Christian writers from the first century of our era downwards, would be more useful even than the early versions, for enabling us to determine the character of the text of Scripture current in those primitive times, from which no manuscripts of the original have come down to us[135]. Unquestionably the testimony afforded by these venerable writings will be free from some of the objections that so much diminish the value of translations for critical purposes which have been stated at the commencement of this volume: and the use made of it by Dean Burgon in his remarkable volume entitled the “Revision Revised[136],” has shown scholars how vast a body of valuable illustrations has received inadequate attention. But not to insist on the fact that many important passages of the New Testament have not been cited at all in any very ancient work now extant, this species of evidence labours under difficulties peculiarly its own. Not only is this kind of testimony fragmentary and not (like that of versions) continuous, so that it often fails us where we should most wish for information: but the Fathers were better theologians than critics; they [pg 168] sometimes quoted loosely, or from memory, often no more of a passage than their immediate purpose required; and what they actually wrote has been found liable to change on the part of copyists and unskilful editors. But when all is considered, the Fathers must be at least held under due limitations to be witnesses to the readings found in the codices which they used. If theirs is secondary evidence, it is nevertheless in many cases virtually older than any that can be had from MSS. of the entire text. The fewness of early MSS. adds importance to other early testimony. And the strength of this kind of evidence is found at the highest, when the issue is of a somewhat broader character than usual, and when a large number of quotations are found to corroborate testimony from MSS. and the testimony of Versions. In fact the strength of their evidence is to be seen especially in three aspects: First, they supply us with numerous codices, though at second hand, at a very early date; secondly, there is no doubt whatever that the date of the codices used by them is not later than when they wrote, and their own date is usually a matter of no question; and thirdly, they help us to assign the locality to remarkable readings[137]. In other words, the unknown MS. derives life and character from the Father who uses it[138]. On the other hand, the same author perpetually cites the selfsame text under two or more various forms; in the Gospels it is often impossible to determine to which of the three earlier ones reference is made; and, on the whole, where Scriptural quotations from ecclesiastical writers are single and unsupported, they may safely be disregarded altogether. An express citation, however, by a really careful Father of the first four or five centuries (as Origen, for example), if supported by manuscript authority, and countenanced by the best versions, claims our respectful attention, and powerfully vindicates the reading which it favours[139]. In fact, like Versions, Patristic citations [pg 169] cannot be taken primarily to establish any reading. But they are often invaluable in supplying support to manuscriptal authority, whether by proving a primitive antiquity, or in demonstrating by an overwhelming body of testimony that the passage or reading was accepted in all ages and in many provinces of the earlier church. Frequently also, they are of unquestionable use, when they bear witness in a less striking manner, or in smaller number.
2. The practice of illustrating the various readings of Scripture from the reliques of Christian antiquity is so obvious and reasonable, that all who have written critical annotations on the sacred text have resorted to it, from Erasmus downwards: the Greek or Latin commentators are appealed to in four out of the five marginal notes found in the Complutensian N. T. When Bishop Fell, however, came to prepare the first edition of the Greek Testament attended with any considerable apparatus for improving the text, he expressly rejected “S. Textus loca ab antiquis Patribus aliter quam pro recepto more laudata,” from which the toil of such a task did not so much deter him, “quam cogitatio quod minus utile esset futurum iisdem insistere.” (N. T. 1675, Praef.). “Venerandi enim illi scriptores,” he adds, “de verborum apicibus non multum soliciti, ex memoriâ quae ad institutum suum factura videbantur passim allegabant; unde factum ut de priscâ lectione ex illorum scriptis nil ferè certi potuerit hauriri.” It is certainly to the credit of Mill's sagacity that he did not follow his patron's example by setting aside Patristic testimony in so curt and compendious a manner[140]. Nevertheless, no one can study Mill's “Prolegomena” without being conscious of the fact, that the portion of them relating to the history of the text, as gathered from ecclesiastical writers, and the accumulation of that mass of quotations from the Fathers which stands below his Scripture text, must have been, what he asserts, the result of some years' labour (N. T. Proleg. § 1513): yet these [pg 170] are just the parts of his celebrated work that have given the least satisfaction. The field indeed is too vast to be occupied by one man. A whole library of authors has to be thoroughly searched; each cited passage must be patiently examined; the help of indices should be employed critically and warily; the best editions must be used, and even then the text of the very writers is to be corrected, so far as may be, by the collation of other manuscripts[141].
3. To Griesbach must be assigned the merit of being the earliest editor of the Greek Testament who saw, or at least who acted upon the principle, that it is far more profitable as well as more scholarlike to do one thing well, than to attempt more than can be performed completely and with accuracy. He was led by certain textual theories he had adopted, and which we shall best describe hereafter, to a close examination of the works of Origen, the most celebrated Biblical critic of antiquity. The result, published in the second volume of his Symbolae Criticae, is a lasting monument both of his industry and acuteness; and, if not quite faultless in point of correctness, deserves to be taken as a model by his successors. Tregelles, of whose Greek Testament we shall presently speak, has evidently bestowed much pains on his Patristic citations; to Eusebius of Caesarea, especially to those portions of his works which have been recently edited or brought to light, he has paid great attention: but besides many others, Chrysostom has been grievously neglected, although the subjects of a large portion of his writings, the early date of some of his codices[142], the extensive collations of Matthaei, and the excellent modern editions of most of his Homilies, might have sufficed to commend him to our particular regard. The custom, commenced by Lachmann, and adopted by Tregelles (though not uniformly by Tischendorf), of recording the exact edition, volume, and page of the writer [pg 171] quoted, and in important cases of copying his very words, cannot be too much praised: we would suggest, however, the expediency of further indicating, by an asterisk or some such mark, those passages about which there can be no ambiguity as to the reading adopted by the author, in order to distinguish them from others which are of infinitely less weight and importance.
4. But the greatest step of all towards an extended use of Patristic testimony has been taken by Dean Burgon, and since his much lamented death the results of his labours have been made public. In the early stages of his studies in Sacred Textual Criticism, Burgon saw the extreme value—afterwards recognized by Dr. Scrivener—of an exhaustive use of citations from the Fathers and other ecclesiastical authors; and after a conversation with the Earl of Cranbrook, then Mr. Gathorne Hardy, he set himself upon the vast task of collecting indices of New Testament quotations occurring in the books of those writers. “This involved his looking through all the Greek and Latin folios of the Fathers, and marking the texts in the margin. Then the folios passed into the hands of his assistants, who arranged the references in the order of the Books of the New Testament, and copied them out; so that it might be only the work of a minute to ascertain how Cyril, or Eusebius, or Gregory of Nyssa quoted such a text[143],” and how many times it was quoted by the Father in question. They were revised and enlarged some years after their first collection. The striking use to which Burgon put his own indices has been already noticed. After his death the sixteen stout volumes containing them were acquired by the authorities of the British Museum, where they have been found to be of much use in cataloguing. Steps have been already taken for the publication of the part relating to the Gospels with Dean Burgon's other works on this great subject.
5. It may be convenient to subjoin an alphabetical list of the ecclesiastical writers, both in Greek and Latin and in other languages (with the usual abridgements for their names), which are the most often cited in critical editions of the New Testament. The Latin authors are printed in italics, and unless they happen to appeal unequivocally to the evidence of Greek codices, are available only for the correction of their vernacular translation. [pg 172] The dates annexed generally indicate the death of the persons they refer to, except when “fl.” ( = floruit) is prefixed.
Alcimus (Avitus), fl. 360.
Ambrose, Bp. of Milan, a.d. 397 (Ambr.).
Ambrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps Hilary the Deacon, of the fourth century (Ambrst.).
Ammonius of Alexandria, circa 438 (Ammon.) in Catenis.
Amphilochius, fl. 380.
Anastasius, Abbot, fl. 650.
Anastasius Sinaita, fl. 570.
Andreas, Bishop of Caesarea, sixth century? (And.)
Andreas of Crete, seventh century.
Antiochus, monk, fl. 614.
Antipater, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 450.
Aphraates, the Syrian, fourth century.
Archelaus and Manes, fl. 278.
Arethas, Bp. of Caesarea Capp., tenth century? (Areth.)
Aristides, fl. 139.
Arius, fl. 325.
Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.).
Asterius, fourth century.
Athanasius, Bp. of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.).
Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.).
Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 430 (Aug.).
Barnabas, first or second century? (Barn.)
Basil, Bp. of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.).
Basil of Cilicia, fl. 497.
Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.).
Bede, the Venerable, 735 (Bede).
Caesarius of Arles, fl. 520.
Caesarius (Pseudo-) of Constantinople, 340 (Caes.).
Candidus Isaurus, fl. 500.
Capreolus, fl. 430.
Carpathius, John, fl. 490.
Cassianus, fl. 415.
Cassiodorus, 468-560 (?) (Cassiod.)
Chromatius, Bp. of Aquileia, fl. 390 (Chrom.).
Chrysostom, Bp. of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.).
Chrysostom (Pseudo-), fl. eighth century.
Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.).
Clement, Bp. of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.).
Clementines, the, second century.
Corderius,
Cosmas, Bp. of Maiuma, fl. 743.
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.).
Cyprian, Bp. of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.).
Cyril, Bp. of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.).
Dalmatius, fl. 450.
Damascenus, John, 730 (Dam.)[144].
Damasus, Pope, fl. 366.
Didache, 80-120.
Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.).
Diodorus of Tarsus, fl. 380.
Dionysius, Bp. of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.).
Dionysius of Alexandria (Pseudo-), third century.
Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, fifth century (Dion. Areop.).
Dionysius Maximus, fl. 259 (?).
Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.).
Ephraem the Syrian (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Ephraim, Bp. of Cherson.
Epiphanius, Bp. of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.).
Epiphanius, Deacon of Catana, fl. 787.
Erechthius, fl. 440.
Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II, fl. 430.
Eulogius, sixth century.
Eusebius of Alexandria,
Eusebius, Bp. of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.).
Eustathius, Bp. of Antioch, fl. 350.
Eustathius, monk,
Euthalius, Bp. of Sulci, 458 (Euthal.).
Eutherius, fl. 431.
Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.).
Eutychius, fl. 553.
Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.).
Evagrius Scholasticus, the historian, fl. 492.
Facundus, fl. 547.
Faustus, fl. 400.
Ferrandus, fl. 356.
Fulgentius of Ruspe, fl. 508 (Fulg.).
Gaudentius, fl. 405 (Gaud.).
Gelasius of Cyzicus, fl. 476.
Gennadius, fl. 459.
Germanus of Constantinople, fl. 715.
Gregentius, fl. 540.
Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bp. of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.).
Gregory Naz. (Pseudo-).
Gregory, Bp. of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.).
Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bp. of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.).
Gregory the Great, Bp. of Rome, 605 (Greg.).
Haymo, Bp. of Halberstadt, ninth century (Haym.).
Hegesippus, fl. 180.
Hermas, second century.
Hieronymus (Jerome), 420 (Hier.) or (Jer.).
Hilary, Bp. of Arles, 429.
Hilary, Bp. of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.).
Hilary, the deacon, fourth century.
Hippolytus, Bp. of Portus (?), fl. 220 (Hip.).
Ignatius, Bp. of Antioch, 107 (Ign.).
Ignatius (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Irenaeus, Bp. of Lyons, fl. 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version (Iren.).
Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.).
Jacobus Nisibenus, fl. 335.
Jobius, sixth century.
Julian, heretic, fl. 425.
Julius Africanus, fl. 220.
Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.).
Justin Martyr (Pseudo-), fourth century.
Justinian, Emperor, fl. 527-565.
Juvencus, fl. 320 (Juv.).
Lactantius, 306 (Lact.).
Leo the Great, fl. 440.
Leontius of Byzantium, fl. 348.
Liberatus of Carthage, fl. 533.
Lucifer, Bp. of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.).
Macarius Magnes, third or fourth century.
Macarius Magnus, fourth century.
Manes, fl. 278. See Archelaus.
Marcion the heretic, 139 (Mcion.), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e) and by Tertullian (Mcion-t).
Maxentius, sixth century.
Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf).
Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.).
Mercator, Marius, fl. 218.
Methodius, 311 (Meth.).
Modestus, patriarch of Jerus. seventh century.
Nestorius of C. P., fifth century.
Nicephorus, fl. 787.
Nicetas of Aquileia, fifth century.
Nicetas of Byzantium, 1120.
Nilus, monk, fl. 430.
Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.).
Novatianus, fl. 251 (Novat.).
Oecumenius, Bp. of Tricca, tenth century? (Oecu.)
Optatus, fl. 371.
Origen, b. 186, d. 253 (Or.).
Pacianus, Bp. of Barcelona, fl. 370.
Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.).
Papias, fl. 160.
Paschasius, the deacon?
Paulus, Bp. of Emesa, fl. 431.
Paulus, patriarch of Constantinople, fl. 648.
Peter, Bp. of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.).
Petrus Chrysologus, Archbp. of Ravenna, fl. 440.
Petrus, Deacon, fl. sixth century.
Petrus Siculus, fl. 790.
Philo of Carpasus, fourth century.
Phoebadius, Bp. of Agen, fl. 358.
Photius, Bp. of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.).
Polycarp, Bp. of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc).
Porphyrius, fl. 290.
Primasius, Bp. of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.).
Prosper of Aquitania, fl. 431.
Prudentius, 406 (Prud.).
Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.).
Severianus, a Syrian Bp., 409 (Sevrn.).
Severus of Antioch, fl. 510.
Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.).
Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.).
Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.).
Symeon, fl. 1000.
Symmachus, fourth century.
Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.).
Tatian (Pseudo-), third century.
Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.)[145].
Theodore, Bp. of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.).
Theodoret, Bp. of Cyrus or of Cyrrhus in Commagene, 458 (Thdrt.).
Theodorus of Heracleia, fl. 336.
Theodorus, Lector, fl. 525.
Theodorus Studita, fl. 794.
Theodotus of Ancyra, fl. 431.
Theophilus of Alexandria, fl. 388.
Theophilus, Bp. of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.).
Theophylact, Archbp. of Bulgaria, fl. 1077 (Theophyl.).
Tichonius the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.).
Timotheus of Antioch, fifth century.
Timotheus of Jerusalem, sixth century.
Titus, Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Tit. Bost.).
Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.)[146].
Victor, Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.).
Victorinus, Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.).
Victorinus of Rome, fl. 361.
Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.).
Vincentius Lirinensis, fl. 434.
Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, fl. 614.
Zacharias, Scholasticus, fl. 536.
Zeno, Bp. of Verona, fl. 463.
Besides the writers, the following anonymous works contain quotations from the New Testament:—
Auctor libri de xlii. mansionibus (auct. mans.), fourth century.
Auctor libri de Promissionibus dimid. temporis (Prom.), third century.
Auctor libri de Rebaptismate (Rebapt.), fourth century.
Auctor libri de singularitate clericorum (auct. sing. cler.), fourth century.
Auctor libri de Vocatione gentium (Vocat.), fourth century.
Acta Apostolica (Syriac), fourth century.
Acta Philippi, fourth century.
Acta Pilati, third or fourth century.
Anaphora Pilati, fifth century.
Apocalypse of Peter, 170 (?)
Apocryphal Gospels, second century, &c.
Apostolic Canons, third to fifth century.
Apostolic Constitutions, third and fourth centuries.
Chronicon Paschale, 628.
Concilia, Labbè or Mansi.
Cramer's Catena.
Dialogus, fourth or fifth century.
Eastern bishops at Ephesus, 431.
Gospel of Peter, about 165.
Opus Imperfectum, fifth century.
Quaestiones ex utroque Testamento, fourth century[147].