TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
■23
Alexandria, and naturally taken up by the revisers. If it is the case that the Sahidic version is earlier than the Bohairic, again we find the Western type preceding the Alexandrian ; and if Robinson is further right in assigning the Bohairic to the 3rd, and not the 2nd cent., then it may very possibly liave been made from MSS with the revised Alex- andrian text, and its cliaracter is thus accounted for.
The great importance which Hort assigns to the agreement of K and B depends on his contention that the two MSS are independent of each other ; but there are really sti'ong reasons for doubting this. Hort (§ 288) admits the truth of the fact pointed out by Tischendorf, ' that six leaves of the NT in a, together with the opening verses of the Apocalypse, besides corrections, headings, and in two cases subscriptions, to other jmrts, are from the hand of the same scribe that wi'ote the NT in B.' He adopts the obvious conclusion that the scribe of B was the corrector of K, and adds that it shows that the two MSS were written in the same generation, probably in the same place. He argues, however, that the evidence of the text, supported by differences in the order of the books and other externals, creates a strong presumption that they were co^jied from independent exemplars. But where so much depends on the absolute in- dependence of two witnesses, this close local connexion must cause the most serious doubts. Have we any means of saying where it is likely that the two MSS were written ? Both MSS contain a peculiar system of cliapter numbers in the Acts, in each case in a very early hand, and witli such dift'erences that in neither case can tlie numeration have been copied from the other MS, but must have come from a common original. Dean Armitage Robinson, in his ' Euthaliana ' (TS iii. 3), gives reasons for believing that this cliapter-numeration is tlie same as that connected with the name of Eutlialius, and points out (p. 35) that a Euthalian codex claims to have been col- lated with the accurate copies in the library at Caesarea of Eusebius Pamphyli. The connexion of Origen with this great library is well known, and suggests (tliough it can hardly be called more than a suggestion) that the same library may have been the birthplace of these two great MSS which, when in agreement, support the text which Origen mostly used, and with the rise of which he may well have been connected. It is impossible to speak with any confidence until a great deal more work has been done, but it does seem as if the evidence in favour of an Alexandrian revision is growing (cf., further, Burkitt, 2'»S' v. 5).
We are able to judge of Hort's work only by the results, and to some extent our judgment must be based on a consideration of extreme instances, that is, we must judge the theory by cases in whicli he lias pushed it to its furthest limits. No one denies tliat the greater part of his text, right or wrong, is of extreme antiquity, being based on the agreement of Alexandrian and Western documents ; the question is whether his theory lias led to the inclusion of readings that cannot be shown to be earlier than Origen, and may therefore be due to an Alexandrian revision, or may be errors that had crept into the Western text current at Alexandria on which that re- vision was based. We propose to examine a few examples wliich throw light on the methods he employed.
One of the most important, instructive, and truly typical examples occurs in Jn lis. The passage has been exhaustively discussed by Hort in the firstof his Two Dissertat ions (181&). The verse runs in the Alexandrian MSS : 6tiv oihiU tupaxiv t^tots- /xovoyivy,^ (koi 0 iJv iiS riiv xoXtov tov TocTpn? ixeivos i^ryr^a-ctro. For fj-otnyivvii Oii; the vast majority of documents frive i iiu>v6yiy>,s vlis : Hort's reading is supported by a small, and nearly homo-
geneous, group of documents, KBC*L 33, the Pesh. Syriac, the margin of the Hark. Syriac, and the Bohairic. The Sahidic and Gothic Versions and the Sinaitic Syriac are not extant here, and the evidence of the yEthiopic is "divided. So far, this would appear to be an exclusively Alexandrian group, were it not for the support of the Pesh., which can hardly be suspected of complicity with BC*L, and seems to show that the reading must be older than the alleged Alexandrian revision. The Patristic evidence is as usual confused and doubtful, but there can be little doubt that Clement of Alexandria's usual reading was i /xonoyiify,; l)ii; (the article is found with titos also in N^ 33 Bohairic), but he was acquainted with the reading vU; which comes once in an allusion of his own, once in the Ex- cerpta ex Theodoto. Irenajus seems to have known the reading Vii>;, which is also found in several later Fathers, including Origen. But the important point is that we have good evidence for the existence of this reading prior to the time of Origen. We may therefore regard it as an old reading current in Alex- andria. On the other hand, the evidence of the great majority of MSS and Versions, supported by a good array of Fathers, shows that the rival reading was widely spread at an equally early period. Hort had no doubt how to decide on the evidence, impressed as he was with the general excellence of the Alex- andrian group, and he argued so well that internal evidence supports f^ovoyii-f,; 8io; that it is hard to read his words without feeling convinced that he is in the right. Yet it is at least doubtful whether such a phrase as f^ivoyevi,; 9i6; could have been used before Greek philosophy obtained a commanding influence over Christian theology. Godet, who was second to none in the exegesis of St. John's Gospel, and was singularly unbiassed in matters of textual criticism, deals with the rival readings in a few words {Com. ad toe): 'La lefon des Alexandrins : le Dieu fils tmique, malgr6 I'autorit^ du Vatic, n'a iti admise k peu prfes par aucun des 6diteurs modernes, et I'appui du Sina'it. ne lui procurera pas k I'avenir un meilleur accueil. EUe a trpp la saveur de la dogniatique post6rieure. Le fait qu'elle se trouve chez Clement d'Alexandrie et chez Origfene, est un indice de son lieu d'origine.' It does, indeed, seem impossible to believe that the writer of the Gospel, immediately after saying ' God, no one has ever seen,' should continue, ' the only-begotten God . . . has declared him.' In fact, the word flso? can apparently be in place here only if used in the secondary sense assigned to it by Origen, as distinguished from i> Sto;, a term which he thought could not properly be used of the Logos. Hort thinks that the_j-eading cannot have arisen from an acci- dental confusion of 6; and u;, because of the omission of the article in most MSS reading Bui ; but the testimony of Clement suggests that i /Mvoyivr,; dio; may have arisen accidentally ; the reading would be welcomed by the school of Origen, but the article would naturally be omitted.