In the interests of ‘true history’ and ‘sound logic’ we must remember that the foundations of the Critical position were laid, not only long before 8 was discovered, but even while the read- ings of B were almost entirely unknown.
It must, no doubt, have given B a peculiar interest in the eyes of Griesbach when he found how exactly it verified results which he had arrived at independently (see Tregelles, Inty. p.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
Not only was the authority for these variants demonstrably early, but it was again and again so much easier to account for the origin of the variants on the supposition that the Traditional Text was wrong. In fact it soon became clear that the sub- stantial uniformity of the bulk of the later copies of the Greek Text was due to a gradual process, by which the variety of texts current in cent. lv were in the course of three or four centuries transformed after a common type. This common ‘Traditional’ type Bengel called ‘Byzantine.’ It is the same as that which Dr. Hort calls ‘Syrian’ and some modern scholars ‘ Antiochian.’ :
It is interesting to notice that there is now no controversy as to the fact of this transformation.* The only question at issue is the significance to be attached to it. Mr. Miller contends that the tri- umph of the Traditional Text was due to the fact that it was already widely diffused at the beginning of the period in documents of such excellence, and so highly accredited, that it simply crushed all rivals out of existence.
12, This contention clearly demands careful ex- amination. In order that the investigation may be as precise as possible, it will be well to define the field which it is proposed to explore. As Mr. Miller’s language (e.g. Preface to Oxford Debate, p. xiv) is quite general, all periods may be assumed to come alike to him. Let us take, then, the
eriod between the Council of Constantinople in 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in 450. It is the latest that we can choose that will give us evidence which can in any real sense be said to speak with the voice of the whole Eastern Church. During this period the development of Christian thought was determined by influences emanating from three main centres: from Alexandria, fresh from the triumph over Arianism, which Athanasius had done so much single-handed to secure ; from Antioch ; and from the Church which ecclesiasti- cally was the daughter of Antioch, from Constanti- nople. Of these three centres it is not, the present writer thinks, too much to say that Alexandria never accepted the Traditional Text. The date of the Bohairic Version must, we suppose, still be re- garded as uncertain. If, as seems to be at present the verdict of the most competent Coptic scholars, it is to be assigned to cent. iv or v, it would give us exactly the evidence that we need as to the state of the text officially recognized in Egypt either at the beginning or at some point in the course of our period. The Bohairic constantly sides with & and B against the Traditional Text.
Nor does this evidence stand alone. The same type of text tis found in the two great Alexandrian writers of this period, Didymus (+394) and Cyril (+444). Further evidence on this point will, no doubt, come to light with the progress of Egyptian exploration. It is too soon as yet to summarize the evidence of the papyri.{ Here, then, at the outset, the boasted ‘universality’ breaks down. On textual matters, as the earliest nomenclature for describing the ‘families’ of readings might have warned us to expect, there was a permanent distinction between Constantinople and Alexandria.
13. Nor is this all. Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin Versions was made at Rome c. 382 by the aid of the Greek MSS which he judged most trust- worthy. Itis true, as Nestle says (Leatual Criti- cism, p. 124), that it is not yet clearly made out 181), a forecast only less brilliant than that which was verified by the discovery of the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac.
* See Miller’s Teat. Cont. p. 29: ‘ Thenceforward [from the end of the 4th cent.] till the 19th [? 18th] cent. was far advanced it [the Traditional Text] reigned without a rival, though perhaps the thorough establishment of it did not take effect till the beginning of the 8th century.’
+ See Hort, p. 550 of WH Text, smaller ed.
t Yet see Burkitt’s Introduction to Barnard’s Biblical Teat of Clement, p. viii ff.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 213
<a sam ee eeee
what these MSS were. But itis remarkable that the latest editors of the Vulgate have seen reasons
to infer for them a close kinship with S and B.* At any rate, Jerome had not been taught by his stay in the East to believe in the exclusive validity of the Traditional Text.
_14, The other two centres, Antioch and Constan- tinople, resolve themselves into one, at least in the person of Chrysostom, the most prominent repre- sentative of the Imperial city. Here, no doubt, we do find clear evidence of the coming supremacy of the Traditional Text. But even here the agree- ment is by no means as complete as it might appear to a casual observer. Each writer, even of those connected with these centres, has his own degree of approximation to the Traditional Text, and can be identified by his readings.