Its Function, Materials, and Usage

A. The Function of Textual Criticism.

WHAT proof have we that our present printed Greek Testament faithfully represents the original autographs? This is the problem towards the solution of which all study of the actual text of the New Testament is directed. The importance of such study cannot be over-estimated. If, for example, it could be proved that little faith is to be attached to the present Hebrew text of Genesis where the various names for the Deity are concerned, it would follow that the whole system of Pentateuchal documents based on the varying use of different names for God would come tumbling down.[1] It may be said at once that though the total number of variant readings in the immense mass of MSS. of N.T. is legion, yet they do not affect what we may term the "substance" of the text, nor does any doctrine stand or fall in accordance with a particular reading of some isolated text. Thus the fact that in 1 Tim. 3:16 we probably ought not to read "God was manifested in the flesh" but "who was manifested in the flesh," will not destroy the doctrine of the incarnation since this same doctrine is proved by countless other passages. At the same time it is true that many doctrinal points receive further illumination from textual variants, as for instance the text just quoted; moreover, historical details of real value may depend on a variant, e.g. those supplied by Codex Beza, particularly in Acts; the presence or absence, too, of the definite article in John 5:1 may determine whether there were three or four Passovers during Christ's public ministry.

B. The Materials and the Use to be made of them.

The materials for testing our text of N.T. are immense, and for these few and comparatively brief Books there exists a greater wealth of MS. and other authority than for any other set of books in the world. The fact that so much has been written on the subject and that such violent controversies have been waged has had the effect of making people fancy that the text of N.T. is very uncertain and precarious. Nothing could be further from the truth. Elsewhere we describe something of the material which exists in MS. form, viz. the so-called Uncial[2] and cursive MSS., as well as the Versions of the original text, and we were -- apropos of the Syriac Versions -- introduced to some of the complicated problems which have emerged from a study of these. But for the reconstruction of the Greek text of N.T. we have, in addition to these MSS. and Versions, the abundant citations of the text in the voluminous writings of the Fathers; from more than one of the Fathers it might be possible to reconstruct almost the entire Bible. Thus we have a threefold source for the text: the MSS., the Versions, and the Fathers; each serves as a corrective to the other, and our task is to reconstruct the original text from the consentient witness of all three sources of information. Thus, to take an example, it is not enough to say that such and such a MS. gives such and such a reading, e.g. that B has in 1 Cor. 13:5 "charity seeketh not what is not her own," or in ver. 3 "if I should give my body that I may glory" instead of "to be burned."[3] The evidence of an isolated MS. or even group of MSS., however venerable, can never avail against "a cloud of witnesses." Great value is naturally attributed to MS. evidence, yet it is well to reflect that though some of our Greek MSS. date from the fourth century A.D., that still leaves a gap of some three hundred years between them and the original autographs. Further, the early Versions were made from MSS. which were even then considered venerable; compared to them our most ancient MSS. were but children.[4] And while it is justly argued that though our most ancient MSS. were indeed copied in the fourth century, yet the exemplar used by those fourth-century copyists must itself have been exceedingly ancient, still the plain fact remains that we do not now possess that exemplar and can only guess at it, while the evidence of a version is concrete and actual. This does not mean, of course, that the evidence of Versions should override that of MSS. For the evidence of a Version depends upon the degree of certainty with which we can detect the Greek text which underlies it, and, except in the case of the Coptic Versions,[5] this is by no means an easy task. The same remarks apply with perhaps greater force to the citations occurring in the writings of the early Fathers, i.e., the Apostolic Fathers, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Origen; the last-named, Origen, lived at least one hundred years previous to the copying of our earliest MS. The difficulty of course lies in the way the Fathers quote: often from memory, often, too, the same passage in a slightly different form. And this difficulty is enhanced by the possibility that in our present editions of their works the citations of Holy Scripture may have been adapted to the text current at the date the edition was made.[6] One thing is certain from the Fathers, namely that the text of the Bible was liable to a very large amount of corruption. As this is an important point from more than one aspect it will be as well to look into it somewhat closely.

i. The Corruption of the Biblical Text.

The extent of this corruption and the early date at which it began is at first a source of surprise to students. The Fathers indicate various causes which gave rise to it:

(a) The Jews corrupted the Old Testament; with some of the Fathers this is a commonplace: St. Justin gives passages from Esdras and Jeremias which have been, according to him, cut out,[7] he also instances the famous case of the clause "Dominus regnavit a ligno" in Ps. 95, and accuses the Jews of having deliberately removed the words a ligno[8] The following particularly interesting example is given twice by St. Irenaeus and once by St. Justin. Irenaeus quotes as from Isaias the words, "And the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, remembered His dead who had slept in the land of burial, and He descended to preach to them the salvation He had wrought, that they might be saved."[9] He gives the same passage again later on[10] but this time as from Jeremias as St. Justin also gives it.[11]

(b) Heretics also corrupted the text: the Christians, says Origen, are accused of doing this, but he answers that he knows of none who have done so save Marcion, the Valentinians and the followers of Lucanus.[12]

(c) Copyists also did their work badly: they made mistakes in Proper Names which they did not understand, so that Origen finds it necessary to warn us that the Book of Josue is particularly faulty in this respect.[13] Copyists also confused names, e.g. in writing Bethany for Bethabara according to Origen,[14] in assigning the Magnificat to Elizabeth,[15] or in making Barabbas full name to be Jesus-Barabbas.[16] Their ignorance of Hebrew, too, often led them into error: "Since the Gospels were often transcribed by Greeks ignorant of the dialect I think they have been corrupted here (Matt. 21:8) from the quotation of the Psalm."[17] The eye of the transcriber was sometimes apt to pass from where a word occurred the first time to the place where it occurred a second time; this is the error known as homoioteleuton, and St. Jerome indicates an instance of it in Matt. 12:20 where, so he says, a clause in the quotation from Isaias has been omitted.[18] Marginal readings too have crept into the text, as Origen indicates vaguely more than once.[19] The same critic sums up the iniquities of the copyists by saying: "As a matter of fact, whether by reason of the impious audacity of some would-be amenders of Scripture, or because some, while correcting, add or remove passages at their discretion, there exists at present a great discrepancy in the copies."[20] Origen even remarks with apparent surprise the fact that the copies of Aquila, Theodotion and Symmachus have not yet been corrupted as though this was an extraordinary thing.[21] The classical instance, however, of early corruption of the text with prompt denunciation of it is to be found in St. Irenaeus remarks about "the number of the Beast" in the Apocalypse: "Since, then," he says, "in all the most approved and ancient copies the number is thus given (viz. 666); since, too, those who saw John face to face give the same testimony; since, again, reason itself shows that the 'number of the Beast' ... is 666 ... I cannot understand how some have erred through following their own private views," namely by reading 606.[22]

ii. Early Existence of a Different Type of Text.

So much for scribal error or heretical mutilations. But there remains a much more fruitful and interesting cause of differences of reading in the Greek Testament, namely the unquestionable existence of a type of text which was very different from our present printed text, and which is witnessed to by quite the earliest Fathers. Thus, to take St. Irenaeus alone and in a few passages chosen at random, we find him constantly in agreement with readings which constitute the distinctive characteristic of Codex Beza or D, though it has been the custom till recent years to regard this Codex as merely a repository for so-called erratic readings. For example in Matt. xxv. 41 he reads with D and the Old Latin "quern preparavit Pater Meus" instead of "qui paratus est."[23] In Acts iii. 13 he adds with D "in judicium";[24] in Acts xv. 20 and 29 he omits with D "et suffocatis";[25] in Acts xx. 25 he supports D and many others in reading "the Church of the Lord " rather than "of God."[26] In very many places, too, Irenaeus supports the present Vulgate text against the Greek, e.g. in reading "Spiritu Sancto ... patris nostri" in Acts 4:24;[27] similarly in 2 John 1:7 he reads "exierunt" with the Vulgate;[28] in Rom. 5:6 he has apparently "ut quid" with the Vulgate.[29] These instances might be multiplied indefinitely; they serve to show that many readings which critics have been wont to disregard, but which still find a place now in the Vulgate, now in the Old Latin or Old Syriac, and especially in D were the readings accepted by Irenaeus. One remarkable reading of his must not be passed over: in Gal. 2:5 he reads "to whom we yielded by subjection," thus omitting the negative;[30] that this really was the reading of the Old Latin seems probable from the fact that Tertullian[31] has the same reading, and, after quoting the passage with the negative as being Marcion's reading of it, he adds arguing from reason that this reading viz. with the negative is a "vitiatio Scripturae"; D has the negative, but St. Jerome[32] seems to say that while the Greek copies of his day retained it the Latin copies omitted it; for he says: "We must, then, either read with the Greek copies 'to whom not even for an hour did we yield in subjection' ... or, if we prefer to trust the Latin copies, then ..."[33]

iii. Criticism of the Text by the Early Fathers.

It is worth noting here that while the Fathers felt that the Greek text of N.T. was to be preferred inasmuch as it was the language in which all the Books save St. Matthew's Gospel were written, and inasmuch too as the Latin copies were full of contradictory readings,[34] they yet did not pin their faith unswervingly to a reading simply because it was to be found in the Greek : just as we have seen above that St. Irenaeus had a Greek text which differed notably from ours. This is particularly noticeable in St. Augustine, who when treating of doctrinal passages which seem to be contradictory says:

"Since both statements can be produced from the Canonical Epistles of St. Paul, that is from those Epistles which are really his, and since we cannot say that the text is faulty inasmuch as all the corrected Latin copies so have it, nor that the translator has fallen into error inasmuch as all the corrected Greek copies so have it, it remains that you do not understand, and also that I am rightly asked how it is that the passages are not in contradiction with one another but agree in one and the same rule of sound faith."[35]

In the course of the same disputation he lays down principles of textual criticism which should be noted:

"When your opponent says prove it, you do not appeal to more exact copies nor to the authority of a number of manuscripts, nor to ancient ones, nor to the original language whence the translation was made; but you say I prove this passage is Paul's, and this other is not his because the former makes for my view while the latter does not.[36] Are you then the rule of truth? Is whatever does not make for you therefore false? ... You can see in a question like this what weight is to be attached to the authority of the Catholic Church, for it is firmly based upon the series of Bishops succeeding one another down to this day in the very Sees founded by the Apostles, as also upon the harmonious agreement of so many people. Consequently, when ever question arises touching the trustworthiness of copies as is the case sometimes, though only in a few instances, and such variants are perfectly well known to students of Holy Scripture then we have to base our decision either upon manuscripts derived from other districts whence the doctrine in question came to us, or if the manuscripts from there still differ among themselves then the witness cf the many must prevail over that of the few, or the older must be preferred to the more recent; and it there is still room for doubt, then the original language from which the translation was made must be consulted. This is the method followed by those who are anxious to find a solution for things that trouble them in the Scriptures which rest upon such solid authority; for they seek instruction, not grounds for quarrelling."[37]

Elsewhere he says that more reliance is to be placed on the Greek text,[38] and in another place he suggests that a word in the Latin text is due to a wish to explain the Greek, and he adds: "if it is wanting in the Greek text then let it too be corrected but who would dare do that?"[38] Lastly note St. Augustine's treatment of the famous instance in Matt. 27:9 where a prophecy from Zacharias is attributed to Jeremias:

"We might say that we ought rather to rely on those copies which have not got the name Jeremias ... and that those copies which have it are faulty... Those who choose can accept this explanation, but the reason why it makes no appeal to me is first of all that many copies have the name Jeremias, and secondly that those who have made the most diligent study of the Gospel in the Greek texts say that they find that this name stands in the older Greek manuscripts. Further, there is no reason why this name should have been added with resulting corruption of the text, whereas the fact that this prophecy was not to be found in (the Book of) Jeremias is sufficient to explain how the name came to be removed from some copies; ignorance and audacity combined to remove it."[39]

It is somewhat exasperating in view of passages such as these and they might be multiplied indefinitely to be told that the Fathers were uncritical!

From what has been said certain facts will emerge: the corruption of the text was widespread though not "substantial" or radical; it was well known to the early Fathers who met it on principles which, especially in the case of St. Jerome and St. Augustine, were scientific; one of the most fruitful causes of variant readings lay in the existence at a very early period indeed of a type of text which, while it cannot claim the support of what we regard as the great Greek MSS. of N.T., yet appears to have been the text used by St. Irenaeus and it finds affinity in the Old Latin and the Old Syriac Versions.

____________________
1 See the controversy conducted by Wiener in the Bibliotheca Sacra during the last few years.

2 This term " Uncial" is probably derived from St. Jerome's words when speaking of his labours in translating the Book of Job and "rescuing it from the dunghill where, among the Latins, it had so long lain." "Let those who will," he says, "keep their old books, whether inscribed on purple vellum or decked out with gold and silver or written in letters an inch long (uncialibus) as they say; these things are burdens rather than books! But let them leave me and mine to keep our poor sheets, not so much beautiful books as corrected ones!" Praf. in Job, P.L. XXVIII. 1083.

3 Yet see margin of Revised Version.

4 Thus St. Jerome tells Pope Damasus that he sends him a Latin translation of the Four Gospels "corrected by comparison with Greek MSS, which, moreover, are ancient." P.L. XXIX, 528.

5 See article

6 We say "possibility" because though it is constantly stated as a fact we have never seen any proof alleged; indeed we think that investigation would prove that it was no more than a hypothesis which owing to constant repetition has passed into current belief.

7 Dial. LXXII, P.G. VI. 643.

8 Ibid. LXXIII-IV. [VB Note: the clause "Dominus regnavit a ligno" is often translated "The God who has ruled us from a tree"; see Psalm 95:10 for further discussion.]

9 Adv. Hær. III. xx. 4.

10 Ibid. IV. xxii. i.

11 Dial. LXXIV., cf. CXX., P.G. VI. 646 and 755.

12 Contra Celsum II. 27; cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Hær., I. xxvii. 4, III. xii. 12 and xvi. 8.

13 Tom. VI. 24 in Joann. P.G. XIV. 271.

14 Ibid. 270.

15 Hom. VI, in Lucam, P.G. XIII. 1817.

16 Series Commentat. in Matth. 33. P.G. XIII. 1645.

17 Tom. XVI. in Matth., P.G. XIII. 1439.

18 "Inter judicium et judicium media, scriptoris errore, sublata sunt," on Isaias xlii, P.L. XXIV. 422.

19 Tom. XV. 14 in Matth., P.G. XIII. 1290-1.

20 Tom. XV. 14 in Matth.. P.G. XIII. 1294.

21 Tom. XVI. 24 injoann., P.G. XIV. 271.

22 Adv. Hær. V. xxx. i, P.G. VII. 1203. Eusebius has preserved for us a note appended by St. Irenaeus to his Ogdoad in which he says: "I adjure thee who mayst copy this book ... to compare what thou shalt write and to correct it carefully by this manuscript, and also to write this adjuration and place it in your copy," H.E. V. xx. 2; Eusebius also tells us elsewhere, IV. xxiii. i, how the Epistles of Denis of Corinth had been corrupted. He also gives a long extract from Artemon, who complains of the fashion in which certain heretics had corrupted the Scriptures: "If anyone," he says, "will collect their respective copies and compare them one with another, he will find that they differ greatly," H.E. V. xxviii. 16.

23 Ibid. III. xxiii. 3, 962.

24 Adv. Hær. xii. 3, 894-5.

25 Ibid. III. xii. 14, P.G. VII. 908.

26 Ibid. xiv. 2, 915.

27 Ibid. xii. 5, 897.

28 Ibid. xvi. 8, 927.

29 Ibid. 9, 928.

30 Ibid. xiii. 3, 912.

31 Adv. Marcionem IV. 3, P.L. 473.

32 On Gal. 2:5, P.L. XXVI. 334; the whole passage should be studied as a sample of the way in which St. Jerome treated a variant and of the principles he thought fit to apply.

33 As an instance of the care with which the Fathers have to be used in questions of Textual Criticism we may note the curiously persistent occurrence of the quotation "Be ye careful money-changers," probati trapezitæ. Without giving all the-references it will be sufficient to note that it is cited by Greek as well as Latin Fathers; among the Greeks in the Apostolic Constitutions, II. 36; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I. 28; Origen, Tom. XIX. 2 in Joann. XII. 2, and XVII. 21 in Matth. etc.; Eusebius, H.E. VII. vii. 3, where it is a quotation given by Denis of Alexandria; St. Epiphanius, Hær. XLIV. 2; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. VI.; St. Athanasius, De Sent. Dionysii, IX.; St. Basil on Isaias i. and Prol. on the Psalms; while among the Latins we have Victor of Capua, Præf. in Evangelicas Harmonias Ammonii, iv.; St. Jerome repeatedly, e.g. on Philemon 5, on Ephes. iv. 31, Ep. CXIX. ii; St. Ambrose, Lib. I. in Lucam; Cassian, Collat. I. 20, etc. Resch in his Agrapha or Unwritten Sayings states that this quotation occurs sixty-nine times in the Fathers. What is so remark able is that it is given by them as "Scripture" as "in the Gospel" as "the word of Christ," etc. Yet Victor of Capua, who quotes it in his Preface to a Harmony of the Gospels, must have known perfectly well that it was not in our written Gospels; the same of course applies to Origen who yet calls it "Scripture," Tom. XVII. 31 in Matth. P.G. XIII, 1574.

34 Cf. Præf, ad Damasum, P.L. XXIX. 526-7 : "If we are told to trust the Latin copies, then let them tell us which ones; for there are almost as many differing copies as there are manuscripts. If on the other hand we have to gather the truth from many sources, then why not -- by reverting to the Greek original -- correct what has been badly rendered by poor translators or still more perversely emended by unskilled and presumptuous persons, or added or changed by nodding copyists?"

35 Contra Faustum, XI. 6, P.L. XLII. 249.

36 Contra Faustum, XI. 2, P.L. XLII. 246.

37 DeSermone Domini in monte, I. xix. (58), P.L. XXXIV. 1259.

38 Ibid. II. xxii. (74), 1303.

39 De Consensu, III. vii. (29), P.L. XXXIV. 1174-5.


BY HUGH POPE, O.P., S.T.M., D.S.ScR.
Professor of New Testament Exegesis
The Collegio Angelico, Rome