2. The First Copies. — In the time of the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 303) copies of the Christian Scriptures were sufficiently numerous to furnish a special object for persecutors, and a characteristic name to renegades who saved themselves by surrendering the sacred books (traditores, August. Ep. Ixxvi, 2). Partly, perhaps, ow- ing to the destruction thus caused, but still more from the natural effects of time, no MS. of the N. T. of the first three centuries remains. Some of the oldest extant were certainly copied from others which dated from within this period, but as yet no one can be placed further back than the time of Constantine. It is re- corded of this monarch that one of his first acts after the foundation of Constantinople was to order the prep- aration of fifty MSS. of the Holy Scriptures, required for the use of the Church, "on fair skins (tv Si^^tpaig evKaraGKtvoic) by skilful caligraphists" (Euseb. Vit. Const, iv. 3G) ; and to the general use of this better ma- terial we probably owe our most venerable co))ies, which are written on vellum of singular excellence and fineness. But though no fragment of the N. T. of the 1st century still remains, the Italian and Egyptian papyri, which are of that date, give a clear notion of the caligraphy of the period. In these the text is written in columns, rudely divided, in somewhat awkward capital letters (unciak), without any punctuation or division of words. The /o/rt, which was afterwards subscribed, is commonly, but not always, adscribed; and there is no trace of ac- cents or breathings. The earliest MSS. of the N. T. bear a general resemblance to this primitive type, and we may reasonably believe that the apostolic originals were thus written.
3. Earhj Vai-iations. — In addition to the later MSS., the earliest versions and patristic quotations give very important testimony to the character and history of the ante-Nicene text. Express statements of readings which are found in some of the most ancient Christian writers are, indeed, the first direct evidence which we have, and are consequently of the highest im])ortance. But till the last quarter of the 2d century this source of infor- mation fails us. Not only are the remains of Christian literature up to that time extremely scanty, but the practice of verbal quotation from the N. T. was not yet prevalent. The evangelic citations in the apostolic fathers and in Justin Martyr show that the oral tra- dition was still as widelj' current as the written Gospels (comp. Westcott's Canon of the N. T. p. 125-195), and there is not in those writers one express verbal citation from tlie other apostolic books. This latter phenome- non is in a great measure to be explained by the nature of their writings. As soon as definite controversies arose among Christians, the text of the N. T. assumed its true importance. The earliest monuments of these remain in the works of Irenaius, Hippolytus (Pseudo- Origen), an<l Tertullian, who (juote many of the argu-
ments of the leading adversaries of the Church. Charges of corrupting the sacred text are urged on both sides with great acrimony. Dionysius of Corinth (f cir. A.D. 17G, ap. Euseb. //. E. iv, 23), Irenieus (cir. A.D. 177 ; iv, 6, 1), Tertullian (cir. A.D. 210; De Came Christi, 19, p. 385 ; A dv. Marc, iv, v, passim), Clement of Alexandria (cir. A.D. 200; Strom, iv, G, § 41), and at a later time Ambrose (cir. A.D. 375 ; Le Spir. S. iii, 10), accuse their opponents of this offence; but with one great exception the instances which are brought forward in suj)port of the accusation generally resolve themselves into various readings, in which the decision cannot always be given in favor of the catholic disputant; and even where the unorthodox reading is certainly wrong it can be shown that it was widely spread among writers of different opinions (e. g. Matt, xi, 27, " nee Filium nisi Pater et cui voluerit Filius revelare;" John i, 13, of — tyd't'tj^i]). Wilful interpolations or changes are extremely rare, if they exist at all (comp. Talent, ap. Iren. i, 4, 5, add. ^toTtjric, Col. i, IG), except in the case of Marcion. His mode of dealing with the writings of the N. T., in which he was followed by his school, was, as Tertullian says, to use the knife rather than subtlety of interpretation. There can be no reasonable doubt that he dealt in the most arbitrary manner with whole books, and that he removed from the Gospel of Luke many passages which were opposed to his peculiar views. But when these fundamental changes were once made he seems to have adhered scrupulously to the text which he found. In the isolated readings which he is said to have altered, it happens not unfrequentb/ that he has retained the right reading, and that his opponents are in error (Luke V, 14 om. TO Swpov; Gal. ii, 5, olc oude ; 2 Cor. iv, 5?). In very many cases the alleged corruption is a various reading, more or less supported by other authorities (Luke xii, 38, f(T7rf(0M'»;; 1 Cor. x, 9, XpiOTOv; 1 Thess. ii, 15, add. lUiovc). Where the changes seem most ar- bitrary there is evidence to show that the interpolations were not wholly due to his school (Luke xviii, 19, o TTrtD/p; xxiii, 2; 1 Cor. x, 19 [28], add. Jfpo^uro)'). (Comp. Halm. Evanrjelium Marcionis ; Thilo, Cod. Aptocr. i, 403-48G; Eitschl, Das Evang. Marc. 1846; Yolckmar, Das Evang. Marc. Leipsic, 1852 : but no examination of Marcion's text is completely satisfac- tory.)