The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

by John William Burgon

The first point that strikes us is that there is in this respect a generic difference between the other Versions and the Old-Latin. The former are in each case one, with no suspicion of various origination. Gothic, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian (though the joint work of Sahak and Mesrop and Eznik and others), Ethiopic, Slavonic:—each is one Version and came from one general source without doubt or question. Codexes may differ: that is merely within the range of transcriptional accuracy, and has nothing to do with the making of the Version. But there is no preeminent Version in the Old-Latin field. Various texts compete with difference enough to raise the question. Upon disputed readings they usually give discordant verdicts. And this discord is found, not as in Greek Codexes where the testifying MSS. generally divide into two hostile bodies, but in greater and more irregular discrepancy. Their varied character may be seen in the following Table including the Texts employed by Tischendorf, which has been constructed from that scholar's notes upon the basis of the chief passages in dispute, as revealed [pg 137] in the text of the Revised Version throughout the Gospels, the standard being the Textus Receptus:—

Brixianus, f	286/54[173] = about 16/3
Monacensis, q	255/97 = 5/2 +
Claromontanus, h (only in St. Matt.)	46/26 = 5/3 +
Colbertinus, c	165/152 = about 14/13
Fragm. Sangall. n	6/6 = 1
Veronensis, b	124/184 = 2/3 +
Sangermanensis II, g2	24/36 = 2/3
Corbeiensis II, ff2	113/180 = 2/3 -
Sangermanensis I, g2	27/46 = 3/5 -
Rehdigeranus, I	104/164 = 5/8 +
Vindobonensis, i	37/72 = 1/2 +
Vercellensis, a	100/214 = 1/2 -
Corbeiensis I, ff1	37/73 = 1/2 -
Speculum, m	8/18 = 1/2 -
Palatinus, e	48/130 = 1/3 +
Frag. Ambrosiana, s	2/6 = 1/3
Bobiensis, k	25/93 = 1/4 +

Looking dispassionately at this Table, the reader will surely observe that these MSS. shade off from one another by intervals of a somewhat similar character. They do not fall readily into classes: so that if the threefold division of Dr. Hort is adopted, it must be employed as not meaning very much. The appearances are against all being derived from the extreme left or from the extreme right. And some current modes of thought must be guarded against, as for instance when a scholar recently laid down as an axiom which all critics would admit, that k might be taken as the representative of the Old-Latin Texts, which would be about as true as if Mr. Labouchere at the present day were said to represent in opinion the Members of the House of Commons.

The sporadic nature of these Texts may be further exhibited, if we take the thirty passages which helped us in the second section of this chapter. The attestation yielded by the Old-Latin MSS. will help still more in the exhibition of their character.

	Traditional.	Neologian.
St. Matt.
i. 25	f. ff1. g2. q.	b. c. g1. k.
v. 44	(1) c. f. h.	a. b. ff1. g1.2. k. l.
	(2) a. b. c. f. h.
vi. 13	f. g1. q.	a. b. c. ff1. g2. l.
vii. 13	f. ff2. g1.2. q.	a. b. c. h. k. m.
ix. 13	c. g1.2.	a. b. f. ff1. h. k. l. q.
xi. 27	All.
xvii. 21	“Most” a. b. c.	e. ff1. (?) g1.
xviii. 11		e. ff1.
xix. 17
(1) ἀγαθέ	b. c. f. ff2.	a. e. ff1. g1.2. h. q.
(2) τί με ἐρωτᾷς κ.τ.λ.	f. q.	a. b. c. e. ff1.2. g1. h. l. (Vulg.)
(3) εἶς ἐστ. ὁ ἀγ.	f. g1. m. q.	b.c.ff1.2. g1. h. l. (Vulg.)
xxiii. 38. (Lk. xiii. 35)	All—except	ff2.
xxvii. 34	c. f. h. q.	a. b. ff1.2. g1.2. l. (Vulg.)
xxviii. 2	f. h.	a. b. c. ff1.2. g1.2. l. n.
" 19	All.
St. Mark
i. 2		All.
xvi. 9-20	All—except	k.
St. Luke
i. 28	All.
ii. 14		All.
x. 41-42	f. g1.2. q. (Vulg.)	a. b. c. e. ff2. i. l.
xxii. 43-44	a. b. c. e. ff2. g1.2. i. l. q.	f.
xxiii. 34	c. e. f. ff2. l.	a. b. d.
" 38	All—except	a.
" 45	a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
xxiv. 40	c. f. q.	a. b. d. e. ff2. l.
" 42	a. b. f. ff2. l. q.	e.
St. John
i. 3-4	c. (Vulg.)	a. b. e. ff2. q.
" 18	a. b. c. e. f. ff2. l. q.
iii. 13	All.
x. 14		All.
xvii. 24	All (Vulg.)	Vulg. MSS.
xxi. 25	All.

It will be observed that in all of these thirty passages, Old-Latin MSS. witness on both sides and in a sporadic way, except in three on the Traditional side and six on the Neologian side, making nine in all against twenty-one. In this respect they stand in striking contrast with all the Versions in other languages as exhibiting a discordance in their witness which is at the very least far from suggesting a single source, if it be not wholly inconsistent with such a supposition.

Again, the variety of synonyms found in these texts is so great that they could not have arisen except from variety of origin. Copyists do not insert ad libitum different modes of expression. For example, Mr. White has remarked that ἐπιτιμᾷν is translated “in no less than eleven different ways,” or adding arguere, in twelve, viz. by

admonere	emendare	minari	praecipere
comminari	imperare	obsecrare	prohibere
corripere[174]	increpare	objurgare	arguere (r).

It is true that some of these occur on the same MS., but the variety of expression in parallel passages hardly agrees with descent from a single prototype. Greek MSS. differ in readings, but not in the same way. Similarly [pg 140] δοξάζω, which occurs, as he tells us, thirty-seven times in the Gospels, is rendered by clarifico, glorifico, honorem accipio, honorifico, honoro, magnifico, some passages presenting four variations. So again, it is impossible to understand how συνοχή in the phrase συνοχή ἐθνῶν (St. Luke xxi. 25) could have been translated by compressio (Vercellensis, a), occursus (Brixianus, f), pressura (others), conflictio (Bezae, d), if they had a common descent. They represent evidently efforts made by independent translators to express the meaning of a difficult word. When we meet with possidebo and haereditabo for κληρονομήσω (St. Luke x. 25) lumen and lux for φῶς (St. John i. 9), ante galli cantum and antequam gallus cantet for πρὶν ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), locum and praedium and in agro for χωρίον (xxvi. 35), transfer a me calicem istum and transeat a me calix iste for παρελθέτω ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο (xxvi. 39);—when we fall upon vox venit de caelis, vox facta est de caelis, vox de caelo facta est, vox de caelis, and the like; or qui mihi bene complacuisti, charissimus in te complacui, dilectus in quo bene placuit mihi, dilectus in te bene sensi (St. Mark i. 11), or adsumpsit (autem ... duodecim), adsumens, convocatis (St. Luke xviii. 31) it is clear that these and the instances of the same sort occurring everywhere in the Old-Latin Texts must be taken as finger-posts pointing in many directions. Various readings in Greek Codexes present, not a parallel, but a sharp contrast. No such profusion of synonyms can be produced from them.

The arguments which the Old-Latin Texts supply internally about themselves are confirmed exactly by the direct evidence borne by St. Augustine and St. Jerome. The well-known words of those two great men who must be held to be competent deponents as to what they found around them, even if they might fall into error upon the events of previous ages, prove (1) that a very large number of texts then existed, (2) that they differed greatly from one another, (3) that none had any special authority, and [pg 141] (4) that translators worked on their own independent lines[175]. But there is the strongest reason for inferring that Augustine was right when he said, that “in the earliest days of the faith whenever any Greek codex fell into the hands of any one who thought that he had slight familiarity (aliquantulum facultatis) with Greek and Latin, he was bold enough to attempt to make a translation[176].” For what else could have happened than what St. Augustine says actually did take place? The extraordinary value and influence of the sacred Books of the New Testament became apparent soon after their publication. They were most potent forces in converting unbelievers: they swayed the lives and informed the minds of Christians: they were read in the services of the Church. But copies in any number, if at all, could not be ordered at Antioch, or Ephesus, or Rome, or Alexandria. And at first no doubt translations into Latin were not to be had. Christianity grew almost of itself under the viewless action of the Holy Ghost: there were no administrative means of making provision. But the Roman Empire was to a great extent bilingual. Many men of Latin origin were acquainted more or less with Greek. The army which furnished so many converts must have reckoned in its ranks, whether as officers or as ordinary soldiers, a large number who were accomplished Greek scholars. All evangelists and teachers would have to explain the new Books to those who did not understand Greek. The steps were but short from oral to written teaching, from answering questions and giving exposition to making regular translations in fragments or books and afterwards throughout the New Testament. The resistless energy of the Christian faith must have demanded such offices on behalf of the Latin-speaking members of the [pg 142] Church, and must have produced hundreds of versions, fragmentary and complete. Given the two languages side by side, under the stress of the necessity of learning and the eagerness to drink in the Words of Life, the information given by St. Augustine must have been amply verified. And the only wonder is, that scholars have not paid more attention to the witness of that eminent Father, and have missed seeing how natural and true it was.