Several very important conclusions follow from this earliest appearance of textual criticism. It is, in the first place, evident that various readings existed in the books of the N. T. at a time prior to all extant authori- ties. History affords no trace of the pure apostolic orig- inals. Again, from the preservation of the first varia- tions noticed, which are often extremely minute, in one or more of the primary documents still left we may be certain that no important changes have been made in the sacred text which we cannot now detect. The ma- terials for ascertaining the true reading are found to be complete when tested by the earliest witnesses. Yet further : from the minuteness of some of the variations which are urged in controversy, it is obvious that the words of the N. T. were watched with the most jealous care, and that the least differences of phrase were guard- ed with scrupulous and faithfid piety, to be used in af- ter-time by that wide-reaching criticism which was foreign to the spirit of the first ages.
4. First Critical Labors. — Passing from these isolated quotations, we find the first great witnesses to the apos- tolic text in the early Syriac and Latin versions, and in the rich quotations of Clement of Alexandria (f cir. A.D. 220) and Origen (A.D. 184-254). See Veusions. The Greek quotations in the remains of the original text of Irena'us and in Hippolytus are of great value, but yield in extent and importance to those of the two Alexandrine fathers. From the extant works of Ori- gen alone no inconsiderable portion of the whole N. T., with the excci)tion of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse, might be transcribed, and the recur- rence of small variations in long passages proves that
NEW TESTAMENT
27
NEW TESTAMENT
the quotations were accurately made, and not simply from memory.
The evangelic text of Clement is far from pure. Two chief causes contributed especially to corrupt the text of the Gospels — the attempts to harmonize parallel nar- ratives, and the influence of tradition. The former as- sumed a special importance from the Diatessaron of Tatian (cir. A.D. 170. Comp. Westcott, A^.-T". Canon, p. 358-3G2; Tischendorf on Matt, xxvii, 49), and the lat- ter, which was, as has been remarked, very great in the time of Justin Martyr, still lingered. The quotations of Clement suffer from both these disturbing forces (Matt, viii, 22; x, 30; xi, 27; xix, 24; xxiii, 27; xxv, 41 ; X, 2G, omitted by Tischendorf Luke iii, 22), and he seems to have derived from his copies of the Gospels two sayings of the Lord which form no part of the ca- nonical text (comp. Tischendorf on Matt, vi, 33 ; Luke xvi, 11). Elsewhere his quotations are free, or a con- fused mixture of two narratives (Matt, v, 45; vi, 26, 32 sq. ; xxii, 37 ; Mark xii, 43), but in innumerable places he has preserved the true reading (Matt, v, 4, 5, 42, 48 ; viii, 22 ; xi, 17 ; xiii, 25 ; xxiii, 26 ; Acts ii, 41 ; xvii, 26). His quotations from the Epistles are of the very highest value. In these tradition had no prevailing power, though Tatian is said to have altered in parts the language of the Epistles (Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. iv, 29) ; and the text was left comparatively free from cor- ruptions. Against the few false readings which he sup- ports (e. g. 1 Pet. ii, 2, XjOuroc ; Rom. iii, 26, 'lijaovv ; viii, 11, oia rov tvoiK. ttv.) may be brought forward a long list of passages in which he combines with a few of the best authorities in upholding the true text (e. g. 1 Pet, ii, 2 ; Ptom. ii, 17 ; x, 3 ; xv, 29 ; 1 Cor. ii, 13 ; vii, 3, 5, 35, 39 ; viii, 2 ; x, 24).
But Origen stands as far first of all the ante-Nicene fathers in critical authority as he does in commanding genius, and his writings are an almost inexhaustible storehouse for the history of the text. In many places it seems that the printed text of his works has been modernized; and till a new and thorough collation of the MSS. has been made, a doubt must remain whether his quotations have not suffered by the hands of scribes, as the MSS. of the N. T. have suffered, though in a less degree. The testimony which Origen bears as to the corruption of the text of the Gospels in his time differs from the general statements which have been already noticed as being the deliberate judgment of a scholar, and not the plea of a controversialist. "As the case stands," he says, " it is obvious that the difference be- tween the copies is considerable, jiartly from the careless- ness of individual scribes, partly from the wicked daring of some in correcting what is written, partly also from [the changes made by] those who add or remove what seems good to them in the process of correction" (Ori- gen, la Matt. t. XV, § 14). In the case of the Sept., he adds, he removed, or at least indicated, those corrup- tions by a comparison of " editions" {tKOoffttQ), and we may believe that he took equal care to ascertain, at least for his own use, the true text of the N. T., though he did not venture to arouse the prejudice of his con- temporaries by openly revising it, as the old translation adds (Fh Mult. XV, vet. int. "In exemplaribus autem Novi Tcstamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine peri- culo non putavi"). Even in the form in which they have come down to us, the writings of Origen, as a whole, contain the noblest early memorial of the apos- tolic text. Although there is no evidence that he pub- lished any recension of the text, yet it is not unlike- ly that he wrote out copies of the N. T. with his own hand (Redepenniug, Origenes, ii, 184), which were spread widely in after-time. Thus Jerome appeals to " the copies of Adamantius," i. e. Origen (/« Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Gal. iii, 1), and the copy of Pamphilus can hardly have been other than a copy of Origen's text (Cod. H3 Subscription). From Pamphilus the text passed to Eusebius and Euthalius, and it is scarcely rash to believe that it can be traced, though imperfectly, in