The way in which my investigation has been accomplished is as follows:—A standard of reference being absolutely necessary, I have kept before me a copy of Dr. Scrivener's Cambridge Greek Testament, a.d. 1887, in which the disputed passages are printed in black type, although the [pg 096] Text there presented is the Textus Receptus from which the Traditional Text as revised by Dean Burgon and hereafter to be published differs in many passages. It follows therefore that upon some of these the record, though not unfavourable to us, has many times been included in our opponents' column. I have used copies of the Fathers in which the quotations were marked, chiefly those in Migne's Series, though I have also employed other editions where I could find any of superior excellence as well as Migne. Each passage with its special reading was entered down in my note-book upon one column or the other. Successive citations thus fell on either side when they witnessed upon the disputed points so presented. But all doubtful quotations (under which head were included all that were not absolutely clear) were discarded as untrustworthy witnesses in the comparison that was being made; and all instances too of mere spelling, because these latter might have been introduced into the text by copyists or editors through an adaptation to supposed orthography in the later ages when the text of the Father in question was copied or printed. The fact also that deflections from the text more easily catch the eye than undeviating rejection of deflections was greatly to the advantage of the opposite side. And lastly, where any doubt arose I generally decided questions against my own contention, and have omitted to record many smaller instances favourable to us which I should have entered in the other column. From various reasons the large majority of passages proved to be irrelevant to this inquiry, because no variation of reading occurred in them, or none which has been adopted by modern editors. Such were favourite passages quoted again and again as the two first verses of St. John's Gospel, “I and My Father are one,” “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” “No man knoweth the Father but the Son,” and many others. In Latin books, more quotations had to be rejected than in Greek, [pg 097] because the verdict of a version cannot be so close as the witness of the original language.
An objection may perhaps be made, that the texts of the books of the Fathers are sure to have been altered in order to coincide more accurately with the Received Text. This is true of the Ethica, or Moralia, of Basil, and of the Regulae brevius Tractatae, which seem to have been read constantly at meals, or were otherwise in continual use in Religious Houses. The monks of a later age would not be content to hear every day familiar passages of Holy Scripture couched in other terms than those to which they were accustomed, and which they regarded as correct. This fact was perfectly evident upon examination, because these treatises were found to give evidence for the Textus Receptus in the proportion of about 6:1, whereas the other books of St. Basil yielded according to a ratio of about 8:3.
For the same reason I have not included Marcion's edition of St. Luke's Gospel, or Tatian's Diatessaron, in the list of books and authors, because such representations of the Gospels having been in public use were sure to have been revised from time to time, in order to accord with the judgement of those who read or heard them. Our readers will observe that these were self-denying ordinances, because by the inclusion of the works mentioned the list on the Traditional side would have been greatly increased. Yet our foundations have been strengthened, and really the position of the Traditional Text rests so firmly upon what is undoubted, that it can afford to dispense with services which may be open to some suspicion[117]. And the natural inference remains, that the difference between the witness of the Ethica and the Regulae brevius Tractatae on the one hand, and that of the other works of Basil on the [pg 098] other, suggests that too much variation, and too much which is evidently characteristic variation, of readings meets us in the works of the several Fathers, for the existence of any doubt that in most cases we have the words, though perhaps not the spelling, as they issued originally from the author's pen[118]. Variant readings of quotations occurring in different editions of the Fathers are found, according to my experience, much less frequently than might have been supposed. Where I saw a difference between MSS. noted in the Benedictine or other editions or in copies from the Benedictine or other prints, of course I regarded the passage as doubtful and did not enter it. Acquaintance with this kind of testimony cannot but render its general trustworthiness the more evident. The habit of quotation of authorities from the Fathers by Tischendorf and all Textual Critics shews that they have always been taken to be in the main trustworthy. It is in order that we may be on sure ground that I have rejected many passages on both sides, and a larger number of cases of pettier testimony on the Traditional side.
In the examination of the Greek Fathers, Latin Translations have generally been neglected (except in the case of St. Irenaeus[119]), because the witness of a version is secondhand, and Latin translators often employed a rendering with which they were familiar in representing in Latin passages cited from the Gospels in Greek. And in the case even of Origen and especially of the later Fathers before a.d. 400, it is not certain whether the translation, such as that of Rufinus, comes within the limit of time prescribed. The evidence of the Father as to whether he [pg 099] used a Text or Texts of one class or another is of course much better exhibited in his own Greek writing, than where some one else has translated his words into Latin. Accordingly, in the case of the Latin Fathers, only the clearest evidence has been admitted. Some passages adduced by Tischendorf have been rejected, and later experience has convinced me that such rejections made in the earlier part of my work were right. In a secondary process like this, if only the cup were borne even, no harm could result, and it is of the greatest possible importance that the foundation of the building should be sound.
The general results will appear in the annexed Table. The investigation was confined to the Gospels. For want of a better term, I have uniformly here applied the title “Neologian” to the Text opposed to ours.
| Fathers. | Traditional Text. | Neologian. |
| Patres Apostolici and Didachè | 11 | 4 |
| Epistle to Diognetus | 1 | 0 |
| Papias | 1 | 0 |
| Justin Martyr | 17 | 20 |
| Heracleon | 1 | 7 |
| Gospel of Peter | 2 | 0 |
| Seniores apud Irenaeum | 2 | 0 |
| Athenagoras | 3 | 1 |
| Irenaeus (Latin as well as Greek) | 63 | 41 |
| Hegesippus | 2 | 0 |
| Theophilus Antiochenus | 2 | 4 |
| Testament of Abraham | 4 | 0 |
| Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium | 1 | 0 |
| Clement of Alexandria | 82 | 72 |
| Tertullian | 74 | 65 |
| Clementines | 18 | 7 |
| Hippolytus | 26 | 11 |
| Callixtus (Pope) | 1 | 0 |
| Pontianus (Pope) | 0 | 2 |
| Origen | 460 | 491 |
| Julius Africanus | 1 | 1 |
| Gregory Thaumaturgus | 11 | 3 |
| Novatian | 6 | 4 |
| Cornelius (Pope) | 4 | 1 |
| Synodical Letter | 1 | 2 |
| Cyprian | 100 | 96 |
| Concilia Carthaginiensia | 8 | 4 |
| Dionysius of Alexandria | 12 | 5 |
| Synodus Antiochena | 3 | 1 |
| Acta Pilati | 5 | 1 |
| Theognostus | 0 | 1 |
| Archelaus (Manes) | 11 | 2 |
| Pamphilus | 5 | 1 |
| Methodius | 14 | 8 |
| Peter of Alexandria | 7 | 8 |
| Alexander Alexandrinus | 4 | 0 |
| Lactantius | 0 | 1 |
| Juvencus | 1 | 2 |
| Arius | 2 | 1 |
| Acta Philippi | 2 | 1 |
| Apostolic Canons and Constitutions | 61 | 28 |
| Eusebius (Caesarea) | 315 | 214 |
| Theodorus Heracleensis | 2 | 0 |
| Athanasius | 179 | 119 |
| Firmicus Maternus | 3 | 1 |
| Julius (Pope) | 1 | 2 |
| Serapion | 5 | 1 |
| Eustathius | 7 | 2 |
| Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus[120] | 36 | 17 |
| Hilary (Poictiers) | 73 | 39 |
| Candidus Arianus | 0 | 1 |
| Eunomius | 1 | 0 |
| Didymus | 81 | 36 |
| Victorinus of Pettau | 4 | 3 |
| Faustinus | 4 | 0 |
| Zeno | 3 | 5 |
| Basil | 272 | 105 |
| Victorinus Afer | 14 | 14 |
| Lucifer of Cagliari | 17 | 20 |
| Titus of Bostra | 44 | 24 |
| Cyril of Jerusalem | 54 | 32 |
| Pacianus | 2 | 2 |
| Optatus | 10 | 3 |
| Quaestiones ex Utroque Test | 13 | 6 |
| Gregory of Nyssa | 91 | 28 |
| Philastrius | 7 | 6 |
| Gregory of Nazianzus | 18 | 4 |
| Amphilochius | 27 | 10 |
| Epiphanius | 123 | 78 |
| Ambrose | 169 | 77 |
| Macarius Magnes | 11 | 5 |
| Diodorus of Tarsus | 1 | 0 |
| Evagrius Ponticus | 4 | 0 |
| Esaias Abbas | 1 | 0 |
| Nemesius | 0 | 1 |
| Philo of Carpasus[121] | 9 | 2 |
| —— | ||
| 2630 | 1753 |
The testimony therefore of the Early Fathers is emphatically, according to the issue of numbers, in favour of the Traditional Text, being about 3:2. But it is also necessary to inform the readers of this treatise, that here quality confirms quantity. A list will now be given of thirty important [pg 102] passages in which evidence is borne on both sides, and it will be seen that 530 testimonies are given in favour of the Traditional readings as against 170 on the other side. In other words, the Traditional Text beats its opponent in a general proportion of 3 to 1. This result supplies a fair idea of the two records. The Neologian record consists mainly of unimportant, or at any rate of smaller alterations, such as δέδωκα for ἔδωκα, ὁ οὐράνιος for ὁ εν οὐρανοῖς, φοβεῖσθε for φοβηθῆτε, disarrangements of the order of words, omissions of particles, besides of course greater omissions of more or less importance. In fact, a great deal of the variations suggest to us that they took their origin when the Church had not become familiar with the true readings, the verba ipsissima, of the Gospels, and when an atmosphere of much inaccuracy was spread around. It will be readily understood how easily the text of the Holy Gospels might have come to be corrupted in oral teaching whether from the pulpit or otherwise, and how corruptions must have so embedded themselves in the memories and in the copies of many Christians of the day, that it needed centuries before they could be cast out. That they were thus rooted out to a large extent must have been due to the loving zeal and accuracy of the majority. Such was a great though by no means the sole cause of corruption. But before going further, it will be best to exhibit the testimony referred to as it is borne by thirty of the most important passages in dispute. They have been selected with care: several which were first chosen had to be replaced by others, because of their absence from the quotations of the period under consideration. Of course, the quotations are limited to that period. Quotations are made in this list also from Syriac sources. Besides my own researches, The Last Twelve Verses, and The Revision Revised, of Dean Burgon have been most prolific of apposite passages. A reference here and there has been [pg 103] added from Resch's Ausser-Canonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, Leipzig, 1894-5.
1. St. Matt. i. 25. Πρωτότοκον.
On the Traditional side:—
Tatian (Diatessaron).