A moment's reflexion on the way in which the Bible is quoted in extemiiore sermons or in conversation will be sufficient to show that a writer's quotations may not always reproduce the text that he considered the best, supposing him to have formed a critical judgment on the subject. Natural looseness of quota- tion from memory, familiarity with more than one text, and confusion between parallel passages in the Gospels, will account for many deviations that camiot be considered genuine variant readings. A knowledge of the proneness of the human brain to repeat a mistake once made, will render us cautious even when a writer quotes a passage more than once in the same unusual form. Even with great care and wide experience it is difflcult for a student to feel sure that a quotation gives the
720
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
reading which the writer, in answer to a direct question, would have deliberately stated to be the right one.
Moreover, we often feel great doubt whether the quotation stands in our printed editions in its original form. The works of many Greek Fathers have been notoriously badly edited, and it is only when we have had personal experience of the editor's methods that we can feel any security that full advantage has been taken of the MSS and other evidence available. Dr. Nestle (in his Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek NT, Eng. tr. 1901, p. 145) refers to an extreme instance of supineness and ignorance on the part of even a fairly recent editor : he gave in his MS the first and last words of quotations, and left the printer to fill them up from a printed copy of the NT.
And when we go behind the editions, we often find that only comparatively late MSS are now extant, and we have to allow for the natural tendency of scribes to substitute, both consciouslj' and unconsciously, familiar for unfamiliar readings. Sometimes the comments that follow the quotation enable the student to detect the substitution, but such alterations must have been made by scribes in numberless passages in which there are no means of discovering them.
The case of Fathers writing in a language other than Greek presents further difficulties, because it is often impossible to say how far the form of the quotation is due to a knowledge of the original Greek, and how far to familiarity with the version in their own language. Analogous difficulties arise in the case of works which are preserved only in translations, because the translator was likely to introduce readings familiar to him in the vernacular.
We have enlarged somewhat on this matter in order to show how much care is needed in forming a judgment on the Patristic evidence in regard to individual readings. But, on the other hand, we desire to emphasize as strongly as possible the immense importance of Patristic evidence when employed with due pre- cautions for its proper purpose, namely, the dating and localizing of special types of text.
But, again, we must remember that the remains of Ante- Nicene Christian literature that have come down to us are very fragmentary. 'The only period for which we have anything like a sufficiency of representative knowledge consists roughly of three-quarters of a century, from about 175 to 250 ' (Hort, § 158). Besides Clement and Origen, Hort names Irenseus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Novatian, belonging to the period named ; Methodius towards the close of the .3rd cent. ; and Eusebius of Csesarea in the first third of the 4th century. ' The text used,' writes Hort (§ 159), ' by all those Ante-Nicene Greek writers, not being connected with Alexandria, who have left considerable remains, is substantially Western.'
We are now in a position to consider the value of the argument for tne posteriority of Antiochian readings which Hort bases on Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence : itis an c silentio argument — that no extant writer before Chrysostom used the Antiochian text. The force of this argument is considerably lessened if we reflect that, had the writings of Origen perished, we should have had practically no Ante- Nicene Patristic evidence for the type of text con- tained in the RV.
Miller {The Traditional Text, p. 94 ft'.) has attempted to prove the antiquity of the Tradi- tional or Antiochian text by a wide appeal to Patristic evidence. In a sense he fails, because if a reading is shown to be older than the supposed revision which produced the Antiochian text, it is said by the school of Hort to be not distinctively Antiochian, but a ' Western ' reading adopted by the revisers. To one who does not adopt an extreme view on either side, this will probably appear very like a fight over empty names. The Antiochian text confessedly contained an ancient element, and the real question is whether critical editors have paid sufficient attention to the evidence afforded by it. Call the text by what name you will, but let it be judged on the intrinsic value of its readings, not in accordance with uncertain theories. Its very existence forms evidence in favour of certain types of the Western text, which must go back to the 2nd cent., as is shown by Miller ; and the real question at issue is, What weight is to be attached to the evidence of these texts ?