The new Koridethi MS. Θ has been shown by K. Lake to be the most important member of a family of MSS. of which the most important are the cursives 1 &c., 13 &c., 28, 585, 700. Accordingly the whole group may appropriately be styled fam. Θ. Each member of this family has been partially corrected to the Byzantine standard; but, since in each a different set of passages has been so corrected, we can, by the simple expedient of ignoring the Byzantine readings, approximately restore the text of the original ancestor. This illustrated by a Table. In an Appendix evidence is adduced for assigning to fam. Θ certain other less important MSS., in particular the group 1424 &c.
Griesbach discovered that Origen used two different texts of Mark; but, owing to the paucity of MS. evidence then available, he slightly misinterpreted the facts. These are as follows. In the surviving portions of the first ten books of his Commentary on John, Origen used the B א text of Mark; but in the later books of this work, in his Commentary on Matthew and his Exhortation to Martyrdom, he used a text practically identical with that of fam. Θ. The Commentary on John was begun in Alexandria but finished at Caesarea, and both the other works mentioned were written at Caesarea.
It further appears that the text of Matthew used by Origen in his Commentary on that Gospel was the fam. Θ text—a fact partly disguised in the printed editions in which the text of fam. Θ has been sporadically corrected to the Byzantine standard. Throughout the Commentary on John, Origen used an Alexandrian text of John, but in the later books he changed his text for one of the Θ type. These conclusions tested against tables drawn up by Preuschen. At a later date Origen seems to have used the Θ text for John also.
Reasons for believing that the fam. Θ text was already in possession at Caesarea when Origen arrived and was not a recension which he made himself.
The possibility that the fifty copies supplied by Eusebius to Constantine in 331 represented the old text of Caesarea. By 380 Constantinople had adopted the revised text of Lucian. This would lead to the correction of the older MSS. to the Lucianic (i.e., practically, to the Byzantine) standard. Some of these partially corrected copies would get into the provinces, and may be the parents of some existing MSS. of fam. Θ. Possibility that the Greek texts used by SS. Mesrop and Sahak to revise the Armenian were of this character.
Significant fact that the local texts identified above form a series corresponding to the geographical propinquity of the churches with which they are connected.
Practical bearing of these results. The textual critic, in weighing the amount of external evidence in favour of any reading, should consider primarily, not the number or age of the MSS. which support it, but the number and geographical distribution of the ancient local texts in which it can be traced.
It follows that MSS. should be cited, not in alphabetical or numerical order, but in groups corresponding to the local texts, which they represent. When at least three of the leading representatives of any local text support a reading, very little is gained by citing the additional evidence of MSS. that normally support the same local text.
THE UNCIAL MS. to which the letter B is assigned
was discovered in a remote valley in the Caucasus, where it had long been
a kind of village fetish;
but at a much earlier date it belonged to a monastery
at Koridethi
at the far end of the Black Sea just inside the old frontier
between Russia and Turkey.
Owing to a chapter of accidents
including a disappearance
for thirty years
its complete text only became available to scholars in 1913.
Θ are
all cursives, this is a serious defect.
The Moscow Archeological Society,
1907;
published an edition of Θ, in reduced facsimile, with Mark but
this is not easily procured.]
Dr. R. P. Blake, in a joint article by himself and Prof. K. Lake in the Harvard
Theological Review for July 1923, argues that the scribe was a Georgian,
familiar with the Coptic script, but extremely ignorant of Greek.
At any
rate the ordinary tests by which the handwriting of MSS. can be dated are
difficult to apply;
but it probably belongs to the eighth century.
The discovery is comparable in importance to that of א or the Sinaitic Syriac—but for a different reason. The importance of א and Syr. S. depends on their early date and the relative purity of the types of text they respectively preserve. Θ is neither so old nor so pure: it has suffered considerably from Byzantine revision. Its importance lies in the fact that it supplies a missing link and enables us to see the real connection between certain cursives, the exceptional character of which has long been an enigma to the critic. In the demonstration of the relation between Θ and this group of cursives, the first and most important step was made by Lake in the brilliant article referred to above in the Harvard Theological Review.
The cursives in question are the following:
Lake made the all-important discovery that Θ and these notable cursives, taken, all together, form in reality a single family. True Θ and the five other sets of authorities mentioned do not on the face of it exhibit a single type of text; but that is because each of them has been heavily corrected to the Byzantine standard, and in each case a different set of corrections has been made. If, however, we eliminate from the text of all these manuscripts those variants that are found in the Byzantine text, we find that the residuary readings of the six different representatives of the family support one another to a quite remarkable extent. Lake illustrates this by a table analysing the variants in the first chapter of Mark.
In order to indicate the nature of his argument and at the same time to test its validity in regard to Luke and John, I have compiled similar tables (p. 83 and App. II.), only with an additional column for the readings of fam. 1424. On the left are printed the readings found in one or more MSS. of the family that differ from the Textus Receptus; on the right are the corresponding readings of the T.R. The letter f stands wherever the MS. (or group) indicated at the head of the column supports the family reading, the symbol ς when it agrees with the T.R. If any MS. supports a third reading, this is indicated in the column appropriate to that MS. by the symbol "3rd." The readings of א B and D are also given in order to show how each of them alternately supports and deserts the fam. Θ text.
From Lake's table of variants in Mk. i. it appears that there are 76 instances
in which at least two members of the family agree with one another in exhibiting
readings not found in the Byzantine text;
while there are only 5 instances
where a member of the family gives a non-Byzantine reading other than that
supported by the family.
The significance of these figures is made clearer
when it is noted that in regard to this same set of 76 variants in Mk. i. א and B differ
from one another no less than 12 times.
It follows that the ancestors from
which Θ and the five sets of allies
were derived must have differed from one another in this chapter considerably
less than א does from B.
Clearly we are justified henceforth in referring to this group of MSS. by
the convenient title of fam. Θ.
fam. 13 or the like, this does not mean
that it is found in all MSS. of that group, but that it occurs in at least
two, and that practically all MSS. of the group which do not give it follow
the Byzantine text instead.]
In the article in the Harvard Theological Review the authors confined their discussion to the text of Mark the Gospel in which, as we have seen before, the key to the history of the text of any particular MS. is usually to be found. But as I happened to have been exercising myself with the problem presented by the text of Θ, I could not rest until I had explored their solution a little further. The evidence that convinced me that Lake's conclusion holds good in regard to the other Gospels also is presented in Appendix II.
In the course of this investigation I came upon evidence that the family
of which Θ is the head has numerous poor relations.
That is to say, there are a large number of MSS. which appear to be ultimately
descended from ancestors the same or similar to those of fam. Θ,
but by lines of descent which have suffered far more correction to the Byzantine
standard.
For details I refer to Appendix II.
Such MSS. are of interest in
that they occasionally preserve apparently genuine readings of the family
text, which have been revised out of the (generally speaking) better representatives.
Of these MSS. the most important is the group which von Soden styles IΦ,
but which by parity of nomenclature I propose to cite as fam. 1424, since the Xcent. Kosinitza MS. 1424 (Scrivener's כ)
is its oldest representative.
top
But before attempting to inquire further into the origin of the text represented in fam. Θ, we must clear up its relation to other ancient texts, especially to those of B, D and the Old Syriac. This is the more necessary as von Soden has misrepresented and confused the evidence, by putting D into the same sub-family as Θ, and by making the Old Syriac another witness to the same type of text.
My investigation of this question leads me to formulate four main conclusions:
I proceed to summarise the evidence on which these conclusions are based. But the reader who has not previously made a study of textual criticism is advised on a first reading to skip this and pass on to the next subsection, "Θ and the Text of Origen."
Mt.xxvii.16, 17. |
The name of Barabbas is Jesus Barabbas, |
Θ, 1 &c., Syr. S., Arm., Orig. in Mat. |
Mt.xxviii.18. |
After γῆς add καθὼς ἀπέστειλεν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ἀποστέλλω ὑμᾶς |
Θ, 1604, Syr. Pesh. (hiant Syr. S. and C.), Arm. (hiat. Orig.Mt.). |
Mk.x.14. |
Before εἶπεν add ἐπιτιμήσας |
Θ, 1 &c., 13 &c., 28, 565, Syr. S., Arm. |
Jn.xi.39, |
om. ἡ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ τετελευκηκότος |
Θ, Syr. S. Arm.; Old Lat. |
Jn.xix.13. |
For Γαββαθᾶ =pavement κατφαθᾶ =arch |
1 &c., 565, Arm.codd. Syr. S. and C. are both lacking; but Syr. Pesh. does not favour either Γαββαθᾶ or the reading of 1 &c. Θ has (χιφβαθα). |
Jn.xx.16. |
After διδάσκαλε add καὶ προσέδραμεν ἅψασθαι αὐτοῦ |
Θ, 13 &c., Syr. S.; Old Lat. |
Note, however, that fam. Θ gives no support to the Syriac in certain other conspicuous additions, e.g. in Lk.xi.48, Jn.iii.6, Jn.xi.39, Jn..12. Further we note that the Armenian also deserts the Syriac here.
(3) It would appear that fam. Θ agrees with Syr. S. in a number of notable omissions wherein Syr. S. has the support of B.
Mt.xvi.2-3, |
"Signs of the times," |
om. 13 &c., Arm., Orig.Mt. |
Mt.xvii.21, |
"This kind goeth not forth," &c., |
om. Θ, 1604 (Arm., Orig.Mt. habent); e. |
Mt.xviii.11, |
"For the son of man came," &c., |
om. Θ, 1 &c., 13 &c., Orig.Mt. (Arm. habet). |
Mt.xi.14, |
whole verse |
om. Θ, 1 &c., 28, Arm., D a e, Orig.Mt. |
Mk.ix.44, 46, |
"Where the worm dieth not" (1st and 2nd time), |
om. 1, 28, 565, Arm.; k. |
Mk.ix.49, |
"And every sacrifice shall be salted with salt," |
om. 1, 565, 700, Arm.; k. |
Mk.xvi.9-20. |
That this was originally absent from fam. Θ may be inferred from the scholion to ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mk.xvi.8, in certain members of the family. In the newly discovered Vatopedi MS. 1582—the oldest MS. of fam. 1—there is a concluding ornamentation after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mk.xvi.8, followed by a scholion: Cf. Gregory, Textkritik, iii. p. 1160.] "In some copies the Gospel ends here, up to which point also Eusebius Pamphili made his canons, but in many (copies) there is also found this." Then follows xvi.9-16. An identical scholion occurs in 1, in the margin; but Dr. Blake informs me that in 1582, which he has photographed, this note is written right across the page in uncial letters as a colophon. In 22 the word τέλος is written after ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ and the same scholion, only with the allusion to Eusebius omitted, follows. In three of the oldest Armenian MSS. the Gospel ends at this point. So also does the oldest (Adysh) MS. of the Georgian version. |
|
Lk.ix.55, |
"Ye know not of what spirit ye are," &c., |
om. 28, 1424 &c. (Arm. hab.). |
Lk.x.43-44. |
The angel and the Bloody Sweat, |
om. N 1071. In fam. 13 it is omitted here but inserted after Mt.xxvi.39, where it occurs in Greek Lectionaries as a Good Friday Lesson. This is explicable only if it was originally absent from the text of the family in Luke, and was inserted in Matthew by a scribe who supposed the Lectionary to represent the true reading of that Gospel. Some MSS. of Arm. omit. |
Lk.xi.34, |
"Father, forgive them," |
om. Θ (Arm. hab.); D a b. |
Jn.vii.53-viii.11. |
Pericope Adulterae, |
om. Θ, 22, 2193, 565, 1424 &c., Arm.; a f q ; in 1 and 1582 at the end of the Gospel—with a note that it is found in some copies but not commented upon by the holy Fathers Chrysostom, Cyril Alex., and Theodore of Mopsuestia; inserted by 13 &c. after Lk.xxi.38. It is absent from all old Georgian MSS., having been introduced by George the Athonite in his revision, c. 1045. |
In view of this concurrence between B, Syr. S. and fam. Θ, in the omission of conspicuous passages, three points require notice,
Variants quoted in which fam. 1 differs from T.R. |
520 |
Of these, number peculiar to fam. 1 |
68 |
452 |
|
Readings of fam. 1 found in Syr. S. or C. but not in Arm. |
57 |
Readings of fam. 1 found in Syr. S. or C. supported by Arm. |
46 |
103 |
|
Readings of fam. 1 found in Arm. but not in Old Syr. |
49 |
Readings of fam. 1 found in D or Old Lat. but not in א, B or L. |
85 |
Readings of fam. 1 found in א or B but not in D or Old Lat. |
90 |
In considering these statistics it should be remembered that many variants
in the Greek cannot be represented in Syriac or Armenian,
and therefore the proportion of agreements with these versions as contrasted
with B, א D or L,
etc., is necessarily understated.
Nevertheless they show clearly
( α) that fam.
1 (which previous statistics have shown is a typical representation
of Jam. &) does not by any means stand to the Old Syriac in
the same relation as does D to the Old
Latin.
(β) That its affinities with the
Armenian are almost as numerous (95 as against 103) as those with the Old
Syriac.
When this chapter was already in slip proof Dr. R. P. Blake, who is working
on the text of the Georgian version, showed me a
collation of Mk. i. in the Adysh MS. (dated AD 897) and in the recently discovered
Xcent. Chanmeti fragments, which appear to represent an older
form of that version than that reproduced in the printed editions.
The
MSS. frequently differ from one another;
but the remarkable fact stands out
that in the majority of cases in which one or more of these Old
Georgian MSS. differs from the T.R., its
reading is supported by fam. Θ. In
Mk. i. in the Georgian there are altogether 83 variants
from the T.R.
Of these 28 are found nowhere else;
and most of them look as if they were due to a translator's freedom.
Of the
remaining 55, no less than 38 occur in one or more of the seven main authorities
from fam. Θ;
and 5 others occur in MSS. classed by von Soden as minor supporters of the I text.
Old Georgian has the notable readings (p. 87) in Mt.xxvii.16-17; xxviii.18; Mk.x.14.
Lacking
photographs of the MSS. those in John were not checked.]
If, on further
investigation, it should appear that this close relation between fam. Θ and the Georgian holds
throughout all four Gospels, the Old Georgian version
will become an authority of the first importance for the text of the Gospels;
for it will enable us to check and supplement the evidence of Θ and
its allies much as the Old Latin does for that of D.
top
Seeing that fam. Θ includes the main authorities for what von Soden calls the "I text," with the three all-important exceptions of D, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac, it seemed worthwhile to ask whether his theory that this text represents a recension by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, would hold good, provided the authorities for it were restricted to fam Θ. I, therefore, turned to his discussion (vol. i. p. 1494) of the quotations of Eusebius of Caesarea, whom he regards as the leading patristic authority for the I text. It appeared, however, that, though a majority of the readings quoted from Eusebius are to be found in fam. Θ, a notable feature of the text of Eusebius is the number of passages in which he gives a reading found only in D. From this follows the important negative conclusion—fam. Θ does not represent the text of Eusebius. The facts, however, would be quite consistent with the hypothesis that the text of Eusebius had much the same relation to that of fam. Θ as א C L 33 bear to B, i.e. that the text of Eusebius represents a somewhat degenerate form of the text found in fam. Θ a degeneration largely due to mixture with a text of the D type.
At this point there flashed across my mind the distinction between the two
texts used by Origen which was worked out as long ago as 1811 by Griesbach
in his Commentarius Criticus
a book to which my attention had been called by Prof. C. H. Turner some months
before.
Griesbach's thesis was that Origen in his Commentary on John used
an
"Alexandrian" text of Mark for Mk. i.-xi., and a "mixed text" for
the remainder of the Gospel, but that he used a "Western" text
of Mark in his Commentary on Matthew and in his Exhortation to
Martyrdom, both of which belong entirely to the period when he lived
in Caesarea.
It occurred to me to review the evidence submitted by Griesbach
in the light of MSS. of the Gospels which have only been discovered or properly
edited since his time.
The results were astonishing.
Two points became clear,
At once we notice the salient fact that the change in the text used corresponds, roughly speaking, to a change of residence. Origen himself tells us that the first five books of the Commentary on John were written before he left Alexandria for Caesarea, in 231. The Exhortation to Martyrdom was written shortly after the outbreak of the persecution of 235; the Commentary on Matthew (about 240) is probably one of the works taken down by shorthand from lectures delivered on weekdays in the church at Caesarea.
I proceed to submit statistics in support of the above conclusions.
The next step was to test the character of the text of Matthew that was
used by Origen.
I recollected that books on textual criticism commonly speak
of the reading "Jesus Barabbas" in Mt.xxvii.17 as found
"in MSS. known to Origen," as if this characteristic reading of fam. Θ was
one which, though known to Origen, did not occur in the text he ordinarily
used.
But on turning to the passage in the Commentary on Matthew I
found to my surprise that this reading occurs in the text recited and commented
on by Origen.
It is the omission of the name Jesus before Barabbas that should
properly be described as a reading "found in MSS. known to Origen." Origen
dislikes the reading of the text he is using, and suggests that the name
Jesus may be an heretical interpolation; but it is in his text.
He informs
his readers that it is absent from MSS. known to him, but, presumably, not
equally well known to them.
γοῦν,
misread or misrendered as if it were γάρ.]
An investigation of several sections in this Commentary (chosen for the exceptional length of the quotations they included) revealed the facts set out in Appendix III. Briefly, the majority of readings in Origen are found in one or more members of fam. Θ; but a minority are not. Further examination, however, showed that, where the text of Origen deserts that of fam. Θ, it is almost always in order to agree with the Byzantine text. In Mt. x. and xxv., which were selected for minute study, Origen's quotations differ from the T.R. in 45 variants. In 37 of these, his reading is supported by one or more members of fam. Θ. Clearly we must make a choice. Either Origen used a text which in the main was that of fam. Θ, but occasionally went over to the side of the Byzantine text, or the Gospel quotations in the MSS. from which is derived the printed text of Origen have been to a slight extent assimilated to the Byzantine standard. This is obviously the more probable alternative, and affords one more example of that assimilation of biblical quotations to the standard text, which is one of the principal causes of corruption in the text of the Fathers (cf. p. 45 ff.). That this assimilation has affected the MS. tradition of Origen's quotations from Matthew more than those from Mark is only what we should expect; for precisely the same distinction is found in the textual traditions of the Gospels themselves.
The evidence given above as to the assimilation to the Byzantine text of the quotations of Origen in the Commentary on Matthew compels us to discount the appearance in other works of Origen of occasional readings of the Byzantine type. In particular we can disregard the Byzantine readings that occur here and there in the Gospel quotations in the Commentary on John—more especially as that work depends upon a single MS. of the tenth century. Bearing this in mind I proceeded to test the quotations in the Commentary on John of Gospels other than Mark, selecting for the purpose a number of the longer, and therefore presumably more representative, passages. The tests, though by no means exhaustive, all pointed in one direction. Origen, so long as he was at work on the Commentary on John, continued to use his Alexandrian MS. for John (and in the main, I think, for Matthew); and where א B differ, Origen's MS. of John more often agreed with B than with א. But at some point or other he seems to have changed his MS. of Luke, as well as that of Mark, for one of the type of fam. Θ. Incidentally, we may infer that for some time after he reached Caesarea Origen read the Gospels, not in a Four-Gospel Codex, but on separate rolls. After reaching these results, it occurred to me to check them by the discussion on "the Bible-text of Origen" by E. Preuschen in the Berlin edition of the Commentary on John, 1903. Preuschen shows conclusively that Origen frequently quotes from memory, conflating, for example, the Matthean and Lukan versions of the Parable of the Supper. From this it follows that we cannot indiscriminately take all his quotations as evidence of the text he used; we must be careful to use only passages where it is evident from the context that he is commenting on a MS. open before him. But Preuschen goes on to argue that, even where it is clear that Origen is using a written copy, the text from which he quotes does not correspond at all closely with that found in any extant family of MSS. To prove this point Preuschen (p. xciv) selects three passages (all from torn, xix.), and gives the variants with the MS. evidence for each. The central column in the tables given below reproduces his statement of the facts. The right-hand column is my own addition, and gives the MS. evidence (much of which, of course, was not available when he wrote) for the readings of fam. Θ. It will be seen at once that this fuller statement of the evidence points to a conclusion very different from that which Preuschen draws.
| origen. | support quoted by preuschen. | support from fam. Θ. |
|---|---|---|
Mk. . |
||
v.41. καὶ ἐστὼς |
1, 69, Syr. Sin., |
Θ, 1, 13, 28, 69, 565. |
(for καθίσας) |
Hclmg., Arm. |
|
κατέναντι (T.R.) |
א A D L al |
(T.R.) Θ, 1, 69, 124, 565. |
(ἀπέναντι B 33 579) |
κατενώτιον 13 &c. |
|
ἀπέναντι 1424 &c., U, 544. |
||
Καὶ πᾶς... (for πῶς) |
Solus * |
|
ἔβαλλεν... (for βάλλει) |
692 |
13, 691 (ἔβαλε), 124. |
v.42. ἐλθοῦσα δὲ |
D, Latt., Boh. Sah. |
Θ, 565, 700. |
(καὶ ...) |
||
V.43. εἶπεν… (for λέγει) |
B א A D L, Δ, 33 K U a. k. verss. |
Θ, 565, 700. |
ἡ πτωχὴ αὔτη ... (order) ἔβαλεν ... (for βέβληκεν) |
D, a, b, ff, g2, i B A D L, Δ, 33 |
Θ, 565, 700. Θ, 565. |
* πῶς mis-spelt πᾶς: καὶ added to restore grammar. |
||
| origen's text. | support as quotes by preuschen. | support from fam. Θ. |
|---|---|---|
Lk. xxi. |
||
v.1. εἰς ... εἰς ... (for εἶδε ... εἰς) T.R. |
Syr. Cur. |
13 and 124 read εἶδε. Was εἶδε a marginal note, correcting the first εἰς to εἶδε , which has been applied to both occurrences of εἰς ? |
v.1. εἰς τὸ γαζοφυλάκιον τὰ δῶρα αὐτῶν πλουσίους (order) |
B א D L X 1, 33, 69. e, Syr. Pesch. |
1, 69. |
v. 2. om. δὲ ... om. (καὶ before τινα. (T.R. καὶ τινα) |
S, a, Boh., Arm. B א L Q X, 33. K M, Γ, c, ff, I, Syr. Hcl.text, Aeth. |
124. |
124. |
||
Om. ἐκεῖ |
D, Syr. Sin. Cur. Pesch. Aeth. |
2193 (of fam. 1). |
λεπτὰ δύο ... (order) |
B א Q L X, 33. Vulg. Syr. Sin. Cur. Pesch. Boh. |
Θ. |
v.3. ἡ πτωχὴ αὕτη (T.R.) (for αὕτη ἡ πτωχὴ א B D, 13 &c.) |
A X, 1, E G H al. a, Syr. Hcl. |
(T.R.) Θ, 1, 565, 700. |
v.4. πάντες ... (for ἅπαντες) τὰ δῶρα τοῦ θεοῦ (T.R.) (om. Τοῦ θεοῦ B 1 &c.) πάντα ... (for ἅπαντα) |
B א D Δ A D Q? E G H B א D Q L X 33, 69 |
(T.R.) Θ, 13&c., 700. 13 &c., 1071 |
As displayed by Preuschen in the central column, the MS evidence appears amply to justify his conclusion that the text of Origen does not correspond to any of the recognised families But the right-hand column tells a different tale. It shows that, so far as these particular passages are concerned, the text used by Origen has the closest resemblance to that of fam Θ though I suspect that the two readings in which Origen and Θ both agree with the T.R. against a few members of fam. Θ are not original, but the result of the text of both having been conformed to the Byzantine standard. Now, if the above passages had been selected by myself to substantiate the conclusion for which I have argued above, the remarkable coincidence they exhibit between the text of Origen and fam. Θ would have been impressive. But they are passages specially selected by Preuschen in order to prove a thesis precisely opposite to mine, viz. that Origen's quotations correspond to no known form of text. The fact, therefore, that they so exactly bear out my own conclusion is, I venture to think, a strong confirmation of the correctness of this conclusion.
The third passage, which Preuschen selects, is Jn.vii.40-46. In this he
quotes five variants.
In three of these the reading of
Origen is supported by B T L;
in the fourth, by T.
There remains
the substitution of the perfect γεγένηται for
the aorist ἐγένετο,
a reading of Origen found in no extant MS. of the Gospels. Seeing
that the text of the Commentary on John depends on a single copy of
the tenth century, our confidence that this last variant really stood in
the passage as originally quoted by Origen must be very small.
Since
of the four other variants three are found in B T L and
the fourth in the Graeco-Sahidic MS. T-
the text
of which, so far as it survives, is even nearer to B than א
the
passage merely serves to corroborate my own observation that the text of
the Fourth Gospel used by Origen throughout the Commentary was on
the whole nearer to B than to א.
I have not found leisure to test the scattered quotations from Luke or John, which occur here and there in the Commentary on Matthew a peculiarly delicate task, since most of them are short passages likely to be quoted from memory. But I have noted one passage where the context makes it clear that he is quoting from a written text and is contrasting the readings of John with the Synoptics. This occurs in his comment on Mt.xvi.24 (tom..24). Origen here (Greek and Latin support one another) quotes John with the addition of the words "and they laid upon him the cross." This addition is one of the most remarkable of the Ferrar readings and is only found elsewhere in Syr. Hier. This in itself is almost enough to prove that, whether he always quoted from it or not, Origen at this time certainly had access to a copy of John with the fam. Θ text.
A further question must now be raised.
Does fam. Θ represent a text which Origen found already
in possession in AD 231 when he moved to Caesarea?
Or is it a recension which
he himself made at a subsequent date?
There can, I think, be no reasonable
doubt that fam. Θ represents
the old text of Caesarea and not a recension by Origen.
The following are relevant considerations.
We conclude that fam.Θ represents the text which Origen found already established in the Church of Caesarea in 231. This affords another fixed point for the history of the text of the New Testament.
The text of the New Testament is a subject about which so many theories have been spun that it may be well to recapitulate the evidence that this particular conclusion is not a matter of theory but rests on definitely ascertained fact,
Caesarea and its Library had a considerable reputation in the Nicene and early post-Nicene period. Nevertheless, the number of MSS. which show a larger or smaller admixture of the Θ text is larger than we should have antecedently expected if it represented merely the local text of Caesarea. Again, the very different way in which the Caesarean and the Byzantine texts are mixed in the different members or sub-families of the Θ group suggests that these MSS. represent different mixtures current in several different localities. This implies that the Θ text was at one time very widely circulated. Here, I believe, von Soden is on the right track.
When Constantine rebuilt the old city of Byzantium hoping by magnificent buildings and imported works of art to make it worthy to replace Rome as the capital of the Empire, from policy and conviction he showed himself specially lavish towards the Church. About 331 he wrote to Eusebius the correspondence is still extant desiring him to prepare at the Imperial expense fifty copies of the Scriptures on vellum for the use of that number of churches in the new city, von Soden suggested that what he calls the "I text" is descended from a recension made by Eusebius and disseminated through these copies, von Soden's "I text," however, never existed, nor is there any evidence that Eusebius undertook a recension of the Gospels. But the natural thing for Eusebius to do would be to have the copies asked for by Constantine made from the oldest copies in the Library of Caesarea. The text of these would differ very little from that of the MS. used by Origen a century earlier in the same Church, and this MS., we have seen, had a text like that preserved in fam. Θ.
Some fifty years later, c. 380, Jerome was at Constantinople.
He found that
the authorities there advocated the text of the martyr Lucian
a text that,
as we shall see later, was practically identical with what I have called
the Byzantine text.
We can readily understand their preference of the Lucianic
recension;
it includes the longer conclusion of Mark and so many other interesting
passages omitted by the Caesarean text. (Cf. the list, p. 88.)
Assuming,
then, that the authorities at Constantinople had decided to adopt it, what
would become of the fifty copies given by Constantine?
They were not written
on perishable papyrus, but on vellum;
and the vellum on which the two contemporary
MSS. B א were
written is still in excellent preservation after the lapse of nearly 1600
years.
They would not be destroyed, they would be corrected
some copies more
thoroughly than others, some in one place, some in another.
In the course
of time the wealthier churches of the city would desire clean new copies,
undisfigured by constant correction.
They would get these from the best reputed
copying establishments, whether secular or monastic, in Constantinople.
Such
establishments would have been careful to provide themselves with copies
of the standard text;
so the new copies would represent the Lucianic text.
What would become of the old ones?
Most probably they would be given away
or sold cheaply to smaller churches or monasteries in the provinces, who
could not afford to buy new and clean copies of the standard text.
Thus many
of the fifty copies originally made for Constantinople, more or less corrected
to the standard text, would get into the provinces.
Some of them in all probability
are the ancestors of some of the mixed MSS. we now possess. 33 and 157 would be easily explained on the hypothesis that they are descended
from Alexandrian ancestors sporadically corrected by MSS. of this mixed Lucianic-Caesarean type.]
I venture the suggestion that one of these discarded MSS. was used by St. Mesrop and St. Sahak to revise the Armenian version. These two, we are told, translated the Scriptures into Armenian about AD 400; but subsequently, receiving "correct" copies from Constantinople, proceeded to revise their earlier work. Dean Armitage Robinson argues that the original translation was made from the Old Syriac. This has been lately disputed by the French scholar Prof. F. Macler a summary account and criticism of whose theories is given by R. P. Blake in the Harvard Journal of Theology, July 1922. Macler holds that the Armenian was derived directly from a Greek text of the type which von Soden calls the "I text," most nearly related to Θ, and lacking many of the characteristic readings of D a phrase which would serve as a description of fam. Θ. The question is one that hinges largely on linguistic considerations, a judgement on which demands a knowledge of both Armenian and Syriac, which I unfortunately lack. But it certainly fits in with statistics given on p. 90, which show that the Armenian is frequently a supporter of fam. Θ, not only where fam. Θ and the Old Syriac agree, but almost as often where they differ. The hypothesis that the Greek MS. used by St. Mesrop to revise his first translation had the fam. Θ text might, I think, explain the phenomena noted by Armitage Robinson, and also those brought forward by Macler. Its verification, however, must await the publication of a text of the Armenian version based on a critical study of the oldest MSS. with complete apparatus, which, to the best of my knowledge, does not yet exist. Meanwhile it would seem sufficiently plausible to justify us in provisionally regarding the Armenian as a supplementary witness for the text of fam. Θ.
Besides this, in Palestine itself, there would necessarily be in circulation many copies of the old text of Caesarea. These also would suffer correction from the standard text; and these half-corrected copies may be the ancestors of some surviving members of the Θ group. One such copy, very heavily revised, was, I believe, used by the corrector of א, known as אc, who worked in the library of Caesarea (cf. App. II.). Again, since Jerusalem, until the Council of Chalcedon, 451, was under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Caesarea, it is possible that Jerusalem used much the same text as Caesarea. It is at any rate an interesting fact that in 565, at the end of Mark, there is a colophon stating that it was copied from old MSS. from Jerusalem. If Constantinople, Caesarea, and Jerusalem were all centres of distribution, the evidence for a wide circulation of the Θ text is readily accounted for.
But though there is an element of speculation in any theory as to how this Caesarean text came to be propagated, there is none, I submit, in the conclusion that in fam. Θ this text is preserved. Superficially the MSS. of this family differ greatly from one another; but on examination it appears that this is solely due to the different degree to which they have been corrected to the Byzantine standard. Deduct the Byzantine readings, and the differences between these MSS. in regard to the residual text is very small. There are differences, but they differ far less from one another than do א B L. From this fact, and from the very close correspondence of this residual text with the quotations of Origen, we are entitled to infer that (however we may explain its preservation) the readings of this family give the text read at Caesarea about 230 in an extremely pure form.
It would be well worthwhile for some scholar to prepare a continuous text
of fam. Θ,after the model of Ferrar and
Abbott's edition of 13 &c.
It would then, I
think, appear that a practically continuous text of the Four Gospels of this
type has been preserved.
And this text would rank alongside B and D as
the third primary authority for the text of the Gospels.
top
If we look at the map we see at once that the Churches whose early texts we have attempted to identify stand in a circle round the Eastern Mediterranean Alexandria, Caesarea, Antioch, (Ephesus), Italy-Gaul, and Carthage. The remarkable thing is that the texts we have examined form, as it were, a graded series. Each member of the series has many readings peculiar to itself, but each is related to its next-door neighbour far more closely than to remoter members of the series. Thus B (Alexandria) has much in common with fam.Θ (Caesarea); fam. Θ shares many striking readings with Syr. S. (Antioch); Syr. S. in turn has contacts with D b a (Italy-Gaul); and, following round the circle to the point from which we started, k (Carthage) is in a sense a half-way house between D b a and B (Alexandria again).
Antecedently we should rather expect the text of any particular locality to be, up to a point, intermediate between those of the localities geographically contiguous with it on either side. But the exactness of correspondence between the geographical propinquity and the resemblance of text exceeds anything we should have anticipated. And this fact is, I feel, of some weight in confirming the general thesis propounded in these chapters.
There remains to draw a practical conclusion. In discussions of variants in commentaries and elsewhere it is usual, in quoting the MS. evidence for a particular reading, to cite first the uncials which support it in alphabetical order, then cursives in arithmetical order. This practice is fundamentally misleading, von Soden's method of quoting authorities in three great groups (K H I) would have been a great improvement had he divided his I group into three, corresponding to Θ, D, Syr. S., and their respective allies. What we want to know in any given case is the reading
In subsequent chapters, therefore, I shall cite MSS. thus. Further, it is not as a rule necessary to cite all the evidence of each group. Thus, if a reading is supported by א B L, nothing is gained by adding C Δ Ψto the list; if it is supported by a, b, e, k,it is superfluous to add further Old Latin evidence. Only where the leading authorities of any of the great texts disagree with one another is it, for ordinary purposes, important to cite their subordinate supporters. The method of citing all uncials, and that in alphabetical order, disturbs the judgement and inevitably gives an undue weight to mere numbers. The fallacy of numbers is insisted on by Hort (ii. p. 43 ff.), as it is only through a chapter of accidents, different in every case, that any MS. not representing the standard text has survived. The first principle of scientific criticism is that MSS. should be not counted but weighed. And the weight of a MS. depends on the extent to which it preserves, more or less, one of the ancient local texts.
P.S.—Since this chapter has been paged I have heard from Dr. Blake
that further examination of the old Georgian confirms our first impression
(cf. p. 91) of the close relation between the text of the version preserved
in the Asyth MS. and that of fam. Θ.
top
(the student should memorise primary & secondary authorities.)
| Authority | ALEXANDRIA | ANTIOCH | CAESAREA | ITALY & GAUL | CARTHAGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary | B |
Syr. S. |
Θ |
D |
kMk. Mt. |
| Secondary | א L Sah. Boh. |
Syr. C. |
1 &c. 13 &c. 28 |
b a |
WMk. e |
| Tertiary | C, 33, WLk. Jn. ΔMk. ΨMk. |
Syr. Pesh. |
1424 &c. 544 N-Σ-O- Φ Old Georgian |
ff 2 h Mt. i r c Mt. Jn. Frag: n (cf. a) |
c Mk. |
| Supplementary | 579Mk. Lk. Jn. 892 1241 157 X |
Syr. Hcl. Syr. Hier. |
U Λ 1071 1604 |
ff, g, l, q (?) f |
m |
| Patristic | Origen AD 230 |
Origen AD 240 (Eusebius) 325 |
Tatian 170 Irenaeus 185 |
Cyprian 250 |
1 &c. = 1-22-118-131-209-872Mk.-1278-1582-2193.
13 &c. = 13-69-124-230-346-543-788-826-828-983-1689-1709.
1424 &c. = 28 MSS.,
including M, cited by Soden as IΦ.
Byzantine text: S V Ω; E F G H; (A, K,
H, Y); (Γ); (WMt.).
Mixed Frags. P Q RLk.
N.B.-
1 &c. = fam. 1 = Sod. Iη;
13 &c. = fam.
13 = Sod. Iι;
Sod. Iα misleadingly includes D with Θ, 28, 544, 565, 700.
top