Yet is it true that we are thus cast upon the wide ocean without a compass or a guide? Can no clue be found that may conduct us through the tangled maze? Is there no other method of settling the text of the New Testament than by collecting and marshalling and scrutinizing the testimony of thousands of separate documents, now agreeing, now at issue with each other:—manuscripts, versions, ecclesiastical writers, whose mutual connexion and interdependence, as far as they exist (and to some extent they do and must exist), defy all our skill and industry to detect and estimate aright? This would surely be a discouraging view of critical science as applied to the sacred volume, and it is by no means warranted by proved and admitted facts. Elaborate systems have failed, as might have been looked for from the first. It was premature to frame them in the present stage of things, while the knowledge we possess of the actual contents of our extant authorities is imperfect, vague, and fragmentary; while our conclusions are liable to be disturbed from time to time by the rapid accession of fresh materials, of whose character we are still quite ignorant. But if we be incompetent to devise theories on a grand or imposing scale, a more modest and a safer course is open. Men of the present generation may be disqualified for taking a general survey of the whole domain of this branch of divine learning, who may yet be employed, serviceably and with honour, in cultivating each one for himself some limited and humble field of special research, to which his taste, his abilities, or opportunities have attached him: those persons may usefully improve a farm, who cannot hope to conquer a kingdom. Out of the long array of uncollated manuscripts which swell our catalogues, let the student choose from the mass a few within his reach which he may deem worthy of complete examination; or exhaust the information some ecclesiastical writer of the first six centuries can afford; or [pg 275] contribute what he can to an exact acquaintance with some good ancient version, ascertaining the genius of its language and (where this is attainable) the literary history of its text. If, in the course of such quiet toil, he shall mark (as a patient observer will find cause to mark) resemblances and affinities more than accidental, between documents of widely different ages and countries; he will not only be contributing to the common stock what cannot fail to be available hereafter as raw material, but he will be helping to solve that great problem which has hitherto in part eluded the most earnest inquiries, the investigation of the true laws and principles of Comparative Criticism.
The last-mentioned term has been happily applied by Tregelles to that delicate and important process, whereby we seek to determine the comparative value, and trace the mutual relation, of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of the N. T. is based. Thus explained (and in this enlarged sense scholars have willingly accepted it), its researches may be pursued with diligence and interest, without reference to the maintenance or refutation of any particular system or scheme of recensions. The mode of procedure is experimental and tentative, rather than dogmatical; the facts it gradually develops will eventually (as we trust) put us on the right road, although for the present we meet with much that is uncertain, perplexing, ambiguous. It has already enabled critics in some degree to classify the documents with which they have to deal; it may possibly lead them, at some future period, to the establishment of principles more general, and therefore more simple, than we can now conceive likely or even possible to be attained to.
1. In the course of investigations thus difficult and precarious, designed to throw light on a matter of such vast consequence as the genuine condition of the text of Scripture, one thing would appear at first sight almost too clear for argument, too self-evident to be disputed,—that it is both our wisdom and our duty to weigh the momentous subject at issue in all its parts, shutting out from the mind no source of information which can reasonably be supposed capable of influencing our decision. Nor can such a course become less right or expedient because it must perforce involve us in laborious, extensive, and prolonged examination of a vast store of varied and voluminous testimony. It is essential [pg 276] that divines should strive to come to definite conclusions respecting disputed points of sacred criticism; it is not necessary that these conclusions should be drawn within a certain limited period, either this year, or even in the lifetime of our generation. Hence such a plan as that advocated by Lachmann, for abridging the trouble of investigation by the arbitrary rejection of the great mass of existing evidence, must needs be condemned for its rashness by those who think their utmost pains well bestowed in such a cause; nor can we consistently praise the determination of others, who, shunning the more obvious errors into which Lachmann fell, yet follow his example in constructing the text of the N. T. on a foundation somewhat less narrow, but scarcely more firm than his. As the true science of Biblical criticism is in real danger of suffering harm from the efforts of disciples of this school, it cannot be out of place if we examine the pleas which have been urged in vindication of their scheme, and assign (as briefly as we may) our reasons for believing that its apologists are but labouring in vain.
2. Brevis vita, ars longa. For this lawful cause, if for no other, the most ardent student of Biblical criticism would fain embrace some such system as is advocated by Lachmann and his followers, if only it could be done in tolerable safety. The process of investigation might thus be diminished twentyfold, and the whole subject brought within a compass not too vast for one man's diligence or the space of an ordinary lifetime. The simplicity and comparative facility of this process of resorting to the few for instruction hitherto supposed to be diffused among the many, has created in its favour a strong and not unnatural prejudice, which has yielded, so far as it has yet yielded at all, to nothing but the stubborn opposition of indisputable facts. It will also readily be admitted, that certain principles, not indeed peculiar to this theory, but brought by it into greater prominence, are themselves most reasonable and true. No one will question, for example, that “if the reading of the ancient authorities in general is unanimous, there can be but little doubt that it should be followed, whatever may be the later testimonies; for it is most improbable that the independent testimony of early MSS., versions, and Fathers should accord with regard to something entirely groundless” (Tregelles, N. T., [pg 277] Introductory Notice, p. 2). No living man, possessed of a tincture of scholarship, would dream of setting up testimony exclusively modern against the unanimous voice of antiquity. The point on which we insist is briefly this:—that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous; that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies Codd. אABCD[288]? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one. All the readings these venerable monuments contain must of course be ancient, or they would not be found where they are; but they cannot all be true. So again, if our search be extended to the versions and primitive Fathers, the same phenomenon unfolds itself, to our grievous perplexity and disappointment. How much is contained in Cureton's Syriac and the Old Latin for which no Greek original can now be alleged? Do not the earliest ecclesiastical writers describe readings as existing and current in their copies, of which few traces can be met with at present[289]? If the question be fairly proposed, “What right have we to set virtually aside the agreement in the main of our oldest uncials, at the distance of one or two centuries—of which, owing probably to the results of persecution, we have no MS. remains—with the citations of the primitive Fathers, and with the earliest versions?”: the answer must be rendered, without hesitation, no right whatever. Where the oldest of these authorities really agree, we accept their united testimony as practically conclusive. It is not at all our design to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance[290]. We do not claim for the recent documents the high consideration and deference fitly [pg 278] reserved for a few of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to pass them by in silence, and allow to them no more weight or importance than if they had never been written. “There are passages,” to employ the words of a very competent judge, “where the evidence of the better cursives may be of substantial use in confirming a good reading, or in deciding us between two of nearly equal merit to place one in the text and assign the other to the margin[291].”
3. It may readily be supposed that the very few manuscripts which, being ancient themselves, are regarded by the school of Lachmann as alone preserving an ancient and genuine form, have not been selected as virtually the sole authorities for the settling of the sacred text, except for reasons which those who thus adopt them regard as weighty, and which merit at any rate our best consideration before we put them aside as insufficient. The great uncials, we are told, are treated with so much deference, not only or chiefly because they are old, but because they have been rigorously tested and have proved on trial to deserve the confidence which has been reposed in them. The process of investigation shall now be stated, as fairly and even favourably as possible. It is not worth while, as it certainly is not our desire, to snatch a transient advantage by misrepresenting the views we are controverting. We would rather comprise in our own system all that is sound and exact in them, while we withstand the attempt to carry them beyond the limits which they may legitimately occupy, and refuse to generalize on the strength of facts which are only partially true.
We have already laid down the axiom admitted by all, that manuscripts of the original hold the first rank among our critical materials; versions, and, yet more, the citations of ecclesiastical authors being subordinate to them. Yet whatever other disadvantages the Patristic writings may labour under, we are at [pg 279] any rate certain respecting the age in which they were composed, the works themselves being assumed to be authentic. If Irenaeus, or Tertullian, or Origen, expressly assure us that particular words which they name were read in their copies of Scripture, we cannot withstand their testimony that such words were really found in manuscripts of the New Testament in the second and third centuries, one or two hundred years before Codd. אB were in existence. If, therefore, we take a various reading of the text for which any one of these venerable men has vouched, and observe that it is supported perhaps by a few manuscripts of various ages, then by a version or two, especially if they be natives of different countries, and flow together into the same stream from sources remote from each other;—the rather too if the reading be plausible and even probable in itself:—and if, after having formed an opinion that on the whole it deserves to be respectfully considered, we then turn to א or B, or to both, and discover the same reading in them also:—not only has the variation itself made out an urgent case for our acceptance, but the character of א and B as faithful witnesses is largely enhanced. It is moreover evident, that if the same method of investigation be pursued many times over with the same, or something approaching to the same success, the value of א and B as truthful codices will be proportionally increased.
A single good example of this process will make it yet more intelligible to the careful student. It shall be one that has been chosen for the purpose by more than one of the advocates of the system we are on the whole opposing. Of the two forms in which the Lord's Prayer is delivered to us, Matt. vi. 13 has the clause ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ in every known authority: in Luke xi. 4 the case is far otherwise. That Tertullian, when citing the words before and after it, should take no notice of it, would of itself prove little. Origen, however, once passes it by in like manner, once more expressly declares that it was not in St. Luke (παρὰ τῷ Λουκᾷ σεσιώπηται), a third time explains in his most happy manner why it was omitted by the one Evangelist, inserted by the other. The question thus raised sets us upon the inquiry what other evidence we have for rejecting the clause in St. Luke. It appears to be wanting in several Greek manuscripts, such as L, 1, 22, 57, 130 both Greek and Latin, 131, 226*, 237, 242, 426, 582, 604, and in the catenas annexed to 36, [pg 280] 237, 239, 253, 259, 426; several of these codices (as 57, 226, 242) not being much found in such company. It is absent from the Vulgate version, and apparently from some forms of the Old Latin, the rather as Augustine says that St. Luke gives five petitions in the Lord's Prayer, St. Matthew seven, and attributes the omission of our clause to some such reason as Origen had assigned. It is omitted also in the Armenian version, which, except for the later translation by Sahak from Syriac, might be supposed to differ toto caelo from the Latin in country and genius. The list is closed by the younger Cyril, a pure witness from another region, very different lines of evidence thus converging into one. Then comes the probability that if one of the Gospels contained the Lord's Prayer in a shorter form than the other, nothing was so likely as that a scribe in perfect innocence would supply what he considered an undoubted defect, without staying to reflect with Origen and Augustine that the two were delivered on different occasions, to different classes of persons, with different ends in view. Turning therefore now, with a strong case already made out for the omission of the clause, to א and B, which have been hitherto kept out of sight, we find that B has not the disputed words at all, nor had א by the first hand, but in one three centuries later. The clear result, so far as it goes, is at once to vindicate the claim of אB to high consideration, and to make out a formidable case against the genuineness of the six words involved. We say advisedly a formidable, not necessarily a fatal case, for the counter evidence is still very strong, and comes as much as that alleged above from different quarters, being also as early as widely diffused. It consists of Codd. ACDEFGHKMR[292]SUVΓΔΛΠ, of [pg 281] all cursives not named above, of the Old Latin b c f ff i l q, whereof f mostly goes with the Vulgate (hiant a e), the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian, Harkleian Syriac (the Jerusalem not containing this week-day Lesson), and the Ethiopic versions. So far as this side as stated is weak at all, it lacks Patristic evidence (which cannot now be investigated for our purpose), and the balance of internal evidence is decidedly adverse to it.
4. The student may try the same experiments on two other passages often urged in this debate, Matt. v. 22, for which he will find the materials above, p. [255], and Matt. xix. 17, which will be discussed in Chap. [XII]. We freely admit that these are but a few out of many cases where the statements of ancient writers about whose date there can be no question are borne out by the readings of the more ancient codices, especially of א or B, or of the two united. Undoubtedly this circumstance lends a weight and authority to these manuscripts, and to the few which side with them, which their mere age would not procure for them: it does not entitle them to be regarded as virtually the only documents worthy of being consulted in the recension of the sacred text; as qualifying to be sole arbiters in critical questions relating to the New Testament, against whose decision there can be no appeal. Yet nothing less than this is claimed in behalf of one or two of them by their devoted admirers. In a court of justice, we are told, when once the evidence of a witness has been thoroughly probed and tested, it is received thenceforth as true, even on those points where it stands alone, and in the face of strong antecedent improbabilities. Now reasoning in metaphor has its advantages, as well for the sake of clearly expressing our meaning, as of making an impression on those we address; but it is attended with this grave inconvenience, that, since the analogy between no two things that can be compared is quite complete, we are sorely tempted to apply to the one of them properties which appertain exclusively to the other. In the present instance, besides the properties wherein documentary can be assimilated to oral testimony, such as [pg 282] general accuracy and means of information, an important element is present in the latter, to which the former has nothing parallel, namely, moral character, that full persuasion of a witness's good faith and disinterested integrity to which a jury will often surrender, and rightly surrender, all earlier impressions and predilections. Of this we can have nothing in the case of the manuscripts of Scripture which we now possess. In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest; but all this was over long before the scribes of the fourth and fifth centuries began their happy task, as simple and honest copyists of the older records placed before them. Let their testimony be received with attention at all times; let it be accepted as conclusive whensoever there are no grave reasons to the contrary, but let not their paramount authority shut out all other considerations, external and internal, which might guide us to the true reading of a passage; nor let us be so illogical as to conclude, because א and B are sometimes right, that therefore they never are in the wrong[293].
The results of this excessive and irrational deference to one of our chief codices, that which he was so fortunate as to bring to the light twenty-five years ago, appears plainly in Tischendorf's eighth edition of the New Testament. That great critic had never been conspicuous for stability of judgement. His third edition was constructed almost without any reference to the cursive manuscripts, which, unless they be, what no one asserts or imagines, merely corrupt copies, or copies of copies, of existing uncials, must needs be the representatives of yet older codices which have long since perished: “respectable ancestors” (as one has quaintly put the matter) “who live only in their descendants” (Long, Ciceronis Verrin. Orat., Praef. p. vi)[294]. In Tischendorf's [pg 283] seventh edition, completed in 1859, that error was rectified, and the sum of textual variations between the third and seventh edition in consequence amounted to 1296, in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelling) he returned to the readings of the Received text, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger experience had brought him back[295]. In the eighth edition another disturbing element is introduced, and that edition differs from his seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency. The evidence of Cod. א, supported or even unsupported by one or two authorities of any description, proved with him sufficient to outweigh all other witnesses, whether manuscripts, versions, or ecclesiastical writers.
The foregoing examination will probably have satisfied the student that we have no right to regard Cod. B as a second Infallible Voice proceeding from the Vatican, which, when it has once spoken, must put an end to all strife. Yet nothing less than this is claimed for it by writers, who yet have bestowed [pg 284] much thought and labour on this controversy. “Seeing that the Vatican manuscript does not contain one single passage that can be demonstrated to be spurious, or that by the evidence of other manuscripts and of the context, admits of just doubt as to its authenticity, a position that no other manuscript enjoys, man is bound to accept the testimony of that manuscript alone, as his present text of the sacred record, wherever he possesses its teaching[296].” I am not sure whether, if we conceded this writer's premisses, we should be bound to accept his conclusion; but the easiest way of disposing of his argument, as well as of that of persons, who, in heart agreeing with him, would hardly like to enunciate their principle so broadly, is presently to lay before the student a few readings of Cod. B, either standing alone, or supported by א and others, respecting whose authenticity, or rather genuineness, some of us must be forgiven if we cherish considerable doubts. It is right, however, to declare that this discussion is forced upon us through no wish to dissemble the great value of the Codex Vaticanus, which in common with our opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we possess, but entirely by way of unavoidable protest against a claim for supremacy set up in its behalf, which can belong of right to no existing document whatsoever.