Chapter VII. The Antiquity Of The Traditional Text. III. Witness of the Western or Syrio-Low-Latin Text

There are problems in what is usually termed the Western Text of the New Testament, which have not yet, as I believe, received satisfactory treatment. Critics, including even Dr. Scrivener171 , have too readily accepted Wiseman's conclusion172, that the numerous Latin Texts all come from one stem, in fact that there was originally only one Old-Latin Version, not several.

That this is at first sight the conclusion pressed upon the mind of the inquirer, I readily admit. The words and phrases, the general cast and flow of the sentences, are so similar in these texts, that it seems at the outset extremely difficult to resist the inference that all of them began from the same translation, and that the differences between them arose from the continued effect of various and peculiar circumstances upon them and from a long course of copying. But examination will reveal on better acquaintance certain obstinate features which will not allow us to be guided by first appearances. And before investigating these, we may note that there are some considerations of a general character which take the edge off this phenomenon.

Supposing that Old-Latin Texts had a multiform origin, they must have gravitated towards more uniformity of expression: intercourse between Christians who used different translations

171 Plain Introduction, II. 43-44. 172 Essays on Various Subjects, i. Two Letters on some parts of the controversy concerning 1 John v. 7, pp. 23, &c. The arguments are more ingenious than powerful. Africa, e.g., had no monopoly of Low-Latin.

[136]

[137] 154 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

of a single original must, in unimportant points at least, have led them to greater agreement. Besides this, the identity of the venerated original in all the cases, except where different readings had crept into the Greek, must have produced a constant likeness to one another, in all translations made into the same language and meant to be faithful. If on the other hand there were numerous Versions, it is clear that in those which have descended to us there must have been a survival of the fittest.

But it is now necessary to look closely into the evidence, for the answers to all problems must depend upon that, and upon nothing but that.

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 in the text of the Revised Version throughout the Gospels, the standard being the Textus Receptus:—

Brixianus, f 286/54173 = 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 -

0 The numerator in these fractions denotes the number of times throughout the Gospels when the text of the MS. in question agrees in the selected passages with the Textus Receptus: the denominator, when it witnesses to the Neologian Text.

[138] 156 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

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 . g 2. q. b. c. g1. k. v. 44 (1) c. f. h. a. b. ff1 . g 1.2. k. l.

(2) a. b. c. f. h. vi. 13 f. g1. q. a. b. c. ff1 . g 2. l. vii. 13 f. ff2 . g 1.2. 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) ± s b. c. f. ff2. a. e. ff1 . g 1.2. h. q.

(2) ƒw ºµ £…ƒ ¬ .ƒ.ª. f. q. a. b. c. e. ff1.2 . g 1. h. l. (Vulg.)

(3) µ6¬ ƒ. A . xxiii. 38. (Lk. xiii. 35) f. g1. m. q. b.c.ff1.2 . g 1. h. l. (Vulg.) All—except ff2 .

xxvii. 34 c. f. h. q. a. b. ff1.2 . g 1.2 . l. (Vulg.) xxviii. 2 f. h. a. b. c. ff1.2 . g 1.2. 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 . g 1.2. i. l. q. f.

xxiii. 34 c. e. f. ff2. l. a. b. d. " 38 All—except a.

158 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

" 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, OldLatin 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 ¿ ƒ º is translated “in no less than eleven different ways,” or adding arguere, in twelve, viz. by

admonereemendare minari praecipere comminariimperare obsecrare prohibere corripere174 increpare objurgare arguere (r).

0 Once in k by comperire probably a slip for corripere. Old Latin Texts, III. pp. xxiv-xxv.

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 ¥øæq …, which occurs, [140] 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 ø«u in the phrase ø«u ˆ (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 ª £ø øºu … (St. Luke x. 25) lumen and lux for ˆ¬ (St. John i. 9), ante galli cantum and antequam gallus cantet for ¿£v ªs ƒø£± … ± (St. Matt. xxvi. 34), locum and praedium and in agro for «…£wø (xxvi. 35), transfer a me calicem istum and transeat a me calix iste for ¿±£µª sƒ… ¿ ºøÊ ƒx ¿øƒu£ ø ƒøʃø (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

[141] 160 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

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 (4) that translators worked on their own independent lines175 . 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 translation176 . ” 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

175 “Tot sunt paene (exemplaria), quot codices,” Jerome, Epistola ad Damascum. “Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,” “interpretum numerositas,” “nullo modo numerari possunt,” De Doctrina Christiana, ii. 16, 21. 176 De Doctr. Christ. ii. 16.

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 Church, [142] 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.

It is instructive to trace how the error arose. It came chiefly, if I mistake not, from two ingenious letters of Cardinal Wiseman, then a young man, and from the familiarity which they displayed with early African Literature. So Lachmann, Tischendorf, Davidson, Tregelles, Scrivener, and Westcott and Hort, followed him. Yet an error lies at the root of Wiseman's argument which, if the thing had appeared now, scholars would not have let pass unchallenged and uncorrected.

Because the Bobbian text agreed in the main with the texts of Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Primasius, Wiseman assumed that not only that text, but also the dialectic forms involved in it, were peculiar to Africa and took their rise there. But as Mr. White has pointed out177 , “that is because during this period we are dependent almost exclusively on Africa for our Latin Literature.” Moreover, as every accomplished Latin scholar who is acquainted with the history of the language is aware, Low-Latin took rise in Italy, when the provincial dialects of that Peninsula sprang into prominence upon the commencement of the decay of the pure Latin race, occurring through civil and foreign wars and the sanguinary proscriptions, and from the consequent lapse in the predominance in literature of the pure Latin Language. True, that the pure Latin and the Low-Latin continued side by side for

177 Scrivener's Plain Introduction, II. 44, note 1.

[143] 162 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

a long time, the former in the best literature, and the latter in ever increasing volume. What is most apposite to the question, the Roman colonists in France, Spain, Portugal, Provence, and Walachia, consisted mainly of Italian blood which was not pure Latin, as is shewn especially in the veteran soldiers who from time to time received grants of land from their emperors or generals. The six Romance Languages are mainly descended from the provincial dialects of the Italian Peninsula. It would be contrary to the action of forces in history that such and so strong a change of language should have been effected in an outlying province, where the inhabitants mainly spoke another tongue altogether. It is in the highest degree improbable that a new form of Latin should have grown up in Africa, and should have thence spread across the Mediterranean, and have carried its forms of speech into parts of the extensive Roman Empire with which the country of its birth had no natural communication. Low-Latin was the early product of the natural races in north and central Italy, and from thence followed by well-known channels into Africa and Gaul and elsewhere178. We shall find in these truths much light, unless I am deceived, to dispel our darkness upon the Western text.

The best part of Wiseman's letters occurs where he proves that St. Augustine used Italian MSS. belonging to what the great Bishop of Hippo terms the “Itala,” and pronounces to be the best of the Latin Versions. Evidently the “Itala” was the highest form of Latin Version—highest, that is, in the character and elegance of the Latin used in it, and consequently in the correctness of its

178 See Diez, Grammatik der Romanischen Sprachen, as well as Introduction to the Grammar of the Romance Languages, translated by C. B. Cayley. Also Abel Hovelacque, The Science of Language, English Translation, pp. 227-9. “The Grammar of Frederick Diez, first published some forty years ago, has once for all disposed of those Iberian, Keltic, and other theories, which nevertheless crop up from time to time.” Ibid. p. 229. Brachet, Grammar of the French Language, pp. 3-5; Whitney, Language and the Study of Language, pp. 165, &c., &c.

rendering. So here we now see our way. Critics have always had [144] some difficulty about Dr. Hort's “European” class, though there is doubtless a special character in b and its following. It appears now that there is no necessity for any embarrassment about the intermediate MSS., because by unlocalizing the text supposed to be African we have the Low-Latin Text prevailing over the less educated parts of Italy, over Africa, and over Gaul, and other places away from Rome and Milan and the other chief centres.

Beginning with the Itala, the other texts sink gradually downwards, till we reach the lowest of all. There is thus no bar in the way of connecting that most remarkable product of the Low-Latin Text, the Codex Bezae, with any others, because the Latin Version of it stands simply as one of the Low-Latin group.

Another difficulty is also removed. Amongst the most interesting and valuable contributions to Sacred Textual Criticism that have come from the fertile conception and lucid argument of Mr. Rendel Harris, has been the proof of a closer connexion between the Low-Latin Text, as I must venture to call it, and the form of Syrian Text exhibited in the Curetonian Version, which he has given in his treatment of the Ferrar Group of Greek MSS. Of course the general connexion between the two has been long known to scholars. The resemblance between the Curetonian and Tatian's Diatessaron, to which the Lewis Codex must now be added, on the one hand, and on the other the less perfect Old-Latin Texts is a commonplace in Textual Criticism. But Mr. Harris has also shewn that there was probably a Syriacization of the Codex Bezae, a view which has been strongly confirmed on general points by Dr. Chase: and has further discovered evidence that the text of the Ferrar Group of Cursives found its way into and out of Syriac and carried back, according to Mr. Harris' ingenious suggestion, traces of its sojourn there. Dr. Chase has very recently shed more light upon the subject [145]

[146] 164 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

in his book called “The Syro-Latin Element of the Gospels179 . ” So all these particulars exhibit in strong light the connexion between the Old-Latin and the Syriac. If we are dealing, not so much with the entire body of Western Texts, but as I contend with the Low-Latin part of them in its wide circulation, there is no difficulty in understanding how such a connexion arose. The Church in Rome shot up as noiselessly as the Churches of Damascus and Antioch. How and why? The key is given in the sixteenth chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. How could he have known intimately so many of the leading Roman Christians, unless they had carried his teaching along the road of commerce from Antioch to Rome? Such travellers, and they would by no means be confined to the days of St. Paul, would understand Syriac as well as Latin. The stories and books, told or written in Aramaic, must have gone through all Syria, recounting the thrilling history of redemption before the authorized accounts were given in Greek. Accordingly, in the earliest times translations must have been made from Aramaic or Syriac into Latin, as afterwards from Greek. Thus a connexion between the Italian and Syrian Churches, and also between the teaching given in the two countries, must have lain embedded in the foundations of their common Christianity, and must have exercised an influence during very many years after.

This view of the interconnexion of the Syrian and Old-Latin readings leads us on to what must have been at first the chief origin of corruption. “The rulers derided Him”: “the common people heard Him gladly.” It does not, I think, appear probable that the Gospels were written till after St. Paul left Jerusalem for Rome. Literature of a high kind arose slowly in the Church, and the great missionary Apostle was the pioneer. It is surely impossible that the authors of the Synoptic Gospels should have seen one another's writings, because in that case they would not

179 “Syro-Latin” is doubtless an exact translation of “Syro-Latinus”: but as we do not say “Syran” but “Syrian,” it is not idiomatic English.

have differed so much from one another180. The effort of St. Luke (Pref.), made probably during St. Paul's imprisonment at Caesarea (Acts xxiv. 23), though he may not have completed his Gospel then, most likely stimulated St. Matthew. Thus in time the authorized Gospels were issued, not only to supply complete and connected accounts, but to become accurate and standard editions of what had hitherto been spread abroad in shorter or longer narratives, and with more or less correctness or error. Indeed, it is clear that before the Gospels were written many erroneous forms of the stories which made up the oral or written Gospel must have been in vogue, and that nowhere are these more likely to have prevailed than in Syria, where the Church took root so rapidly and easily. But the readings thus propagated, of which many found their way, especially in the West, into the wording of the Gospels before St. Chrysostom, never could have entered into the pure succession. Here and there they were interlopers and usurpers, and after the manner of such claimants, had to some extent the appearance of having sprung from the genuine stock. But they were ejected during the period elapsing from the fourth to the eighth century, when the Text of the New Testament was gradually purified.

This view is submitted to Textual students for verification.

We have now traced back the Traditional Text to the earliest times. The witness of the early Fathers has established the conclusion that there is not the slightest uncertainty upon this [147] point. To deny it is really a piece of pure assumption. It rests upon the record of facts. Nor is there any reason for hesitation in concluding that the career of the Peshitto dates back in like manner. The Latin Texts, like others, are of two kinds: both the

180 This is purely my own opinion. Dean Burgon followed Townson in supposing that the Synoptic Evangelists in some cases saw one another's books.

[148] 166 The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels

Traditional Text and the forms of corruption find a place in them. So that the testimony of these great Versions, Syriac and Latin, is added to the testimony of the Fathers. There are no grounds for doubting that the causeway of the pure text of the Holy Gospels, and by consequence of the rest of the New Testament, has stood far above the marshes on either side ever since those sacred Books were written. What can be the attraction of those perilous quagmires, it is hard to understand. “An highway shall be there, and a way”; “the redeemed shall walk there”; “the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein181 .

181 Isaiah xxxv. 8, 9.