Chapter III: Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.129 (2)

(_b_) It is, on the other hand, somewhat difficult to make out how matters stand with regard to the recension of =Hesychius=. Jerome commends it with that of Lucian for the Old Testament, but contemptuously rejects it for the New; and accordingly, in the decree of Pope Gelasius, we hear of Gospels “quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha” (c. vi. 14, 15). Considering the important position of Alexandria and Egypt, and the vast number of manuscripts referred with more or less certainty to that locality, it is the more remarkable that so few unmistakable traces have as yet been discovered of the recension of which “Alexandria et Aegyptus ... Hesychium laudat auctorem,” and that till the present moment the most divergent views have been held with regard to it. And this is true of the Old Testament no less than of the New. One view, for which a good deal can be said, has already been referred to (p. 61 f.)—viz. that we have the recension of Hesychius in Codex B. [Sidenote: Codex B.] Rahlfs, who was the first to connect B with the Canon of Athanasius, says (_lib. cit._, p. 78, note 7); “If we care to trust ourselves to pure hypothesis, we might hazard the conjecture that our superb Codex, manifestly written for one of the principal churches of Egypt, was prepared at the instigation of St. Athanasius himself. The locality in which the manuscript was produced supports this conjecture, while the time is not inconsistent with it.” I am not aware if Rahlfs knew that Athanasius had executed πυκτία τῶν θείων γραφῶν for Constans, and I am not sufficiently acquainted with the minutiæ of the ecclesiastical history of that time, and with the life of Athanasius in particular, to hazard the assertion that Codex B was prepared by Athanasius for the Emperor Constans. It is certainly the case, as every Church History records, that Constans was Prefect of Illyricum and Italy, and that Athanasius fled to Rome to Julius II., which would help to explain how Codex B comes to be in that city.[170] I cannot ascertain however from the books at my command, whether any particular resemblance has been observed between the text of this manuscript and the Biblical quotations found in those writings of Athanasius that belong to this period of his life, that is, prior to the year 350. And, besides, one has always to take into consideration how very little reliance can be placed as yet on the text of the Biblical quotations in our editions of the Fathers. In the Book of Judges B certainly exhibits quite a peculiar form of text which is not used by the earlier Egyptian teachers, Clement and Origen, nor even by Didymus (d. 394 or 399), but was employed first by Cyril of Alexandria, and which is the basis of the Sahidic version. This fact may have an important bearing on the question as to the text of the New Testament as well.[171] As early as 1705 Grabe expressed the opinion that the Sahidic version was the work of Hesychius, but we have very little information indeed regarding that Church Father, and in particular as to his connection with the lexicographer of that name. Here also, the evidence afforded by palæography would need to be examined with a view to ascertaining whether or not any of the manuscripts agreeing with B in the Book of Judges—viz. G (Brit. Mus., 20,002), 16, 30, 52, 53, 58, 63, 77, 85, 131, 144, 209, 236, 237, Catena Nicephori—has a counterpart in some manuscript of the New Testament. On Codex G see Rahlfs (p. 35, n. 2), and compare v. Dobschütz (_ThLz._, 1899, 3, 74) on the two New Testament manuscripts Λ and 566^{evv.} (Greg).[172] According to the latter, the difference in size precludes the supposition that Λ and 566 are the New Testament portion of the manuscript described by Rahlfs (_loc. cit._). But if they are not written by the same scribe, they both undoubtedly come from the same school of copyists. At most, however, Λ-566 would only possess importance for the recension of Hesychius if the text they, or rather it, follows were different from that with which it was collated. Its subscription shows that it belongs to those exemplars which were collated with the Codex of Pamphilus. This fact has an important bearing on the Gospel of the Hebrews. See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 648.

[Sidenote: Eusebius-Pamphilus.]

(_c_) We have nearly as little certain information regarding the third, and perhaps most important, of the recensions mentioned by Jerome in connection with the Old Testament, that of =Eusebius= and =Pamphilus=, which goes back to Origen.[173] [Sidenote: Origen.] So far as I know, the references which Origen makes in his extant writings to his own labours in the field of textual criticism, relate only to the Old Testament. At the same time his complaint as to the evil condition of the manuscripts of his day refers to the New Testament, and to the Gospels in particular. Νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι, he says, in his _Commentary on Matthew_, Bk. xv. 14, πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥᾳθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων.[174] He tells us in the same place how, θεοῦ διδόντος, he found ways and means of remedying the evil by the employment of the critical symbols of Homeric commentators, the obelus and asterisk, τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγράφοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι. According to his own express declaration, supposing it to have been correctly preserved, for it is only extant in Latin, his work in textual criticism at that time at least was confined to the Old Testament: in exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi. Von Gebhardt consequently says (_Urt._, 25) that this statement from Origen’s own mouth should have kept anyone from ascribing a formal recension of the New Testament text to him, alluding to Hug’s system of recensions; but at the same time he will not deny that the works of Origen, who was a man of conspicuous critical accuracy, are of the highest importance for the criticism of the text of the New Testament. As a matter of fact, later church teachers appeal chiefly to Origen’s manuscripts of the Old Testament, but several references are also found to his New Testament manuscripts. On Gal. iii. 1, Jerome remarks (ii. 418): legitur in quibusdam codicibus, Quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati? Sed hoc (meaning, of course, the last three words only) quia in exemplaribus Adamantii non habetur, omisimus. The words are a gloss interpolated from ch. v. 7, but they are also found in Origen, though only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and they appear, among our Greek manuscripts, in C D^c E K L P, and likewise in most codices of the Vulgate (see Wordsworth and White, p. 659). The same writer says on Matthew xxiv. 36 (ii. 199): in quibusdam latinis exemplaribus additum est “neque filius,” quum in Graecis et maxime Adamantii et Pierii exemplaribus hoc non habeatur additum; sed quia in nonnullis legitur, disserendum videtur (W. and W., p. 658). Pierius is no doubt the Presbyter of Alexandria who lived at Rome after the Diocletian persecution. He was styled “the younger Origen” on account of his learning, and was perhaps the teacher of Pamphilus (Jerome, _Viri Ill._, 76; Eusebius, _Eccl. Hist._, vii. 32). Adamantius, like Chalkenteros, is a surname of honour given to Origen. Here again, it is a strange fact that the words which Jerome says were omitted in Origen’s exemplar are found in a certain passage of his works also extant only in Latin, and there expounded so fully that there cannot be the slightest doubt that he had them in his text, and, moreover, had no conception of their omission in other copies. What explanation, if any, can be given of this fact we need not pause to enquire. Nor need we take up the question where Jerome obtained access to the exemplars of Pierius. I suppose it would be in Caesarea, where he also saw the (Bible?) volumes of Origen transcribed by Pamphilus with his own hand, and actually obtained possession of his copy of the commentary on the Minor Prophets.[175] Even supposing that what is meant by _exemplaria Adamantii_ is not really a recension of the text of the Bible but simply the copy that Origen used most or used last, that copy might have been authoritative for Pamphilus if not for Eusebius, and so far, therefore, it becomes necessary for us to try and discover the Origenic text in the New Testament as well as in the Old. At all events a good many of our manuscripts go back to Pamphilus, and particularly H of the Pauline Epistles. In addition to a very practical suggestion as to the lending of books,[176] and a notice of its preparation and of the original writer, this manuscript has also the following note: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον (αὐτοῦ). From this subscription Field (_Hexapla_, i. p. xcix) has concluded that the library of Pamphilus was still in existence in the sixth century, but it is doubtful whether the subscription may not have been found in the original of H and copied into it along with the text, as is the case with a similar note copied into the minuscules 15, 83, 173. [Sidenote: Euthalius.] In any case this manuscript is our principal witness for the recension of Pamphilus, or, as it used to be called, the recension of =Euthalius=.[177] I have no intention of discussing the question whether it should be Euthalius or Evagrius: Von Dobschütz (_Euthaliusstudien_, p. 152 n. 1) has promised to give us further particulars as to the Syriac texts relating to the subject. I would merely call attention to two facts, viz.—

[Sidenote: Harklean.]

(1) That the subscription testifying to a collation with the exemplar of Pamphilus is found also at the end of the Harklean Syriac published by Bensly (see above, pp. 79, 106).

[Sidenote: Evagrius.]

(2) That the name =Evagrius=, which Ehrhard proposes to read in place of Euthalius in Codex H, is actually found associated with the library of Pamphilus in another manuscript of the Old Testament. In his _Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici_ (Lipsiæ, 1860), pp. 73-122, Tischendorf published “Ex Codicibus Insulae Patmi, Ineditum Diodori Siculi; Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis.” The latter he took from a manuscript which, according to H. O. Coxe’s _Report ... on the Greek MSS. yet remaining in the Levant_ (1858, p. 61), professed to contain “Origenis Hexapla cum Scholiis” after the Philocalia. In reality they are Origen’s Scholia on the Proverbs which Angelo Mai had published in a different form from the Vatican Catena 1802, in the _Nova Patrum Bibliotheca_, 1854. In the Patmos manuscript the scholia proper are prefaced by two (or three) explanatory notes on the use of the obelus and the asterisk, and on the different arrangement of the chapters in the Hebrew and Greek texts, followed by another explanation of the same sort under the title Εὐαγρίου σχόλιον.[178] Who they are that are referred to in the scholion as having collated the book (τῶν ἀντιβεβληκότων τὸ βιβλίον) we learn from the subscription, which says: μετελήφθησαν ἀφ’ ὧν εὕρομεν ἑξαπλῶν καὶ πάλιν αὐτὰ χειρὶ (_leg._ αὐτόχειρι) Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος διορθώσαντο. This subscription, which Oikonomos published fully fifty years ago from that Patmos manuscript,[179] should be added to those usually cited—viz. those appended to Ezra and Esther in א, to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Codex Marchalianus, to 3 and 4 Kings in the Syriac Hexapla, and to Ezekiel in Codex Chisianus 88.

With what has been said the student should compare what Von der Goltz tells us of a critical work upon the text of the New Testament belonging partly to the tenth and partly to the sixth century.[180] This, too, goes back to Origen, and in a scholion on James ii. 3, the greater part of which is unfortunately erased, the work mentions “a manuscript written by the hand of St. Eusebius.” As Zahn elsewhere shows, the writer of the Athos manuscript did not base his own work on this Codex of Eusebius, and in one passage he expressly contrasts it with the text of Origen which he follows. In spite of this, however, this Athos manuscript must be taken into account in dealing with the recension of Pamphilus. Still more so must the Armenian and Syriac texts, according to Conybeare and von Dobschütz.[181] Even the Latin manuscripts may contain traces of this recension. E. Riggenbach has shown that the table of chapters in Hebrews given in Codex Fuldensis and in a manuscript indicated as Cod. Vat. Reg. 9, is nothing but a translation of the corresponding part of “Euthalius.”[182] Unfortunately the relics of the literary activity of Pamphilus, that devoted student of the Scriptures,[183] are exceedingly scanty, and what little is left is extant only in a Latin translation. In these circumstances the attempt to specify more closely than hitherto his manuscripts of the Bible by means of his quotations does seem rather hopeless.

[Sidenote: Later revisers.]

(_d_) As we are now dealing with the question how to arrive at the oldest form of the Greek text, it is unnecessary to take account of the labours of any later individuals in the formation of the Greek New Testament. Among these were Emperors and Empresses like Constantine and Constans, who exerted themselves in the dissemination of the Scriptures, and perhaps even made copies of them with their own hands, but these we may disregard.[184] The work of _Andreas_ and _Arethas_ on the Apocalypse will be noticed when we come to speak of that book. One naturally turns here to Krumbacher’s _History of Byzantine Literature_, but the index to the first edition of that work contains only two references to the New Testament, neither of them bearing on our present subject. The matter is one which may be commended to those who have the time and the opportunity and the willingness to investigate it, and considering the ardour with which the study of Byzantine antiquities is being prosecuted at present, it may suffice merely to throw out this hint.

[Sidenote: Pre-Origenic texts.]

(_e_) So far as we have gone, therefore, it appears that much uncertainty prevails regarding the text formations we have already considered—those of Lucian, Hesychius, Pamphilus, and the Ferrar Group. Considering the amount of evidence at our command—how the external testimony points in the same direction as the manuscripts themselves, and, indeed, how probable is the whole nature of the operation in question—one would expect these to be the most easily distinguishable of all. Indeed, even so cautious an enquirer as Zahn speaks without any hesitation of “the official recensions originating subsequent to the time of Origen” (_ThLbl._, 1899, 180). The vagueness of our conclusions with respect to these recensions does not look very promising for the result of our investigation of the text prior to the time of Origen, when activity in this field was more disconnected and might be said to run wild and unrestrained. And there is this further difficulty that some of the writers who fall to be considered in this period came in later times more or less justly under the imputation of heresy, with the consequence that the results of their labours were less widely disseminated, if not deliberately suppressed. In circumstances like these any attempted revision of the text must have been equally mischievous, whether it proceeded from the orthodox side or from the opposite. That there were διορθωταί who were supposed to correct the text in the interests of orthodoxy we have already learned from Epiphanius. Indeed, from our point of view the action of the orthodox correctors must be thought the more regrettable of the two, since the books without a doubt parted at their hands with many vivid, strange, and even fantastic traits of language. Even in the matter of style it seems to me incontestable that it was at their hands that the Gospels received that reserved and solemn tone which we would not now willingly part with, and which can be compared to nothing so much as to those solemn pictures of Christ that we see painted on a golden background in Byzantine churches. For myself, at least, I have not the slightest doubt that the Gospel, and the Gospel particularly, was originally narrated in a much more vivacious style. Just consider this, for example. In all our present authorities—Greek manuscripts, ancient versions, Syriac, Egyptian, and so forth, and in all the Church Fathers without exception, so far as I am aware—we read the beautiful words: “your Father knoweth what things ye have need of before ye ask Him,” πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν (Matt. vi. 8). Compare with this what we find singly and solely in Codex D and the Old Latin h, πρὸ τοῦ ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα, antequam os aperiatis, “before ever you open your mouth.” To me it is a striking indication to what an extent the instinctive sense of originality is wanting, that a reading like this is not inserted by Westcott and Hort among their Noteworthy Rejected Readings, nor even cited by Baljon in his critical apparatus, and that our commentators have not a single syllable about it, so that our students and preachers know nothing whatever of this form of the words of Jesus. If my edition of the New Testament did no more than bring such things to the notice of those who previously were unacquainted with them, I should consider it had done no small service. But take another illustration from the parable of the Barren Fig Tree. “Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground,”—that is how our ordinary texts give the commandment of the justly indignant husbandman in Luke xiii. 7: ἔκκοψον αὐτήν· ἱνατί καὶ τὴν γῆν καταργεῖ. Here again, the great majority of our witnesses of every sort exhibit no variation worth mentioning, except that a good many (A L T etc.) insert a very prosy οὖν after the imperative, while B 80 read τὸν τόπον for τὴν γῆν. And in the answer of the vine-dresser (verse 8), “till I shall dig about it and dung it,” there is again no various reading in our ordinary witnesses of all kinds except the insignificant interchange of (βάλω) κόπρια, κοπρίαν, and κόπρον. What a difference do we find here also in the text of D: “bring the axe,” φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην, adfers securem; and, “I will throw in a basket of dung,” βάλω κόφινον κοπρίων, mittam qualum (= squalum) stercoris d, or cophinum stercoris a b c f ff^2 i l q, from which it was taken into the Codex of Marmoutier, a copy of the Alcuinian recension of the Vulgate written in gold.[185] Here again, our editors and commentators for the most part take no notice. “Bring the axe” is omitted by Weiss, father and son, Westcott-Hort, Tregelles, and also by Baljon, while Holtzmann ignores both variants. It stands to reason, of course, that greater vivacity of style is not of itself an actual proof of greater originality. But the whole question is raised as to the principles by which we are to be guided in estimating the comparative value of the witnesses. One might be inclined to regard such peculiarities as due to the caprice of some scribe by whom D or its parent manuscript was written. As a matter of fact, Westcott and Hort, and most recent editors with them, do so regard them, seeing they cite the reading of D neither in Matt. vi. 8 nor in Luke xiii. 7. In the latter passage one might be inclined to take that view of the case, because as yet we have no other testimony to φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην than D d. But it is not so likely in the case of Matt. vi. 8, seeing that here the testimony of D is supported by that of h. To justify our neglect of these witnesses, we should require to prove either that h is derived from D or D from h.[186] So far as my knowledge goes, no one has yet maintained the latter view. The derivation of h from D is an impossibility, for this reason alone that h belongs either to the fourth, or, what is perhaps more likely, to the fifth century (see p. 113).[187] The truth is, rather, that we have in h a second and independent witness to the fact that at a very early date the text of Matt. vi. 8 read, “before you open your mouth.” But it is quite impossible to ignore the evidence of D in Luke xiii. 8 (κόφινον κοπρίων). Here too, of course, one might take exception and say that as D is bilingual, its Greek text might be derived from the Latin. Fortunately, however, it happens that the Latin of D, that is, d, differs from all the other eight Latin witnesses in reading not _cophinus_ but _qualus_, and it is _cophinus_ that is a loan word from the Greek[188]; so that this objection, actually raised against D in the case of other readings, does not apply to this one. There is this to be observed, moreover—a point not given in Tischendorf, but noticed in Westcott and Hort—viz., that Origen also seems to have read “basket.” The passage is again one that is extant only in the Latin translation of Rufinus, and Tischendorf cites Or. 3, 452 among the witnesses supporting κόπρια; but Westcott and Hort expressly mention that Origen’s context appears to support the reading κόφινον (“Lev. lat. Ruf., 190, apparently with context”).

Here, then, we have these three stages:—

(1) D d alone, φέρε τὴν ἀξίνην—_i.e._ one solitary Greek manuscript.

(2) D supported by h, ἀνοῖξαι τὸ στόμα—_i.e._ the same solitary
Greek manuscript with the addition of one representative of a
version.

(3) D supported by eight Latin manuscripts and Origen, κόφινον
κοπρίων—_i.e._ the same solitary Greek manuscript with the addition
of eight representatives of one version and one not absolutely
certain quotation.

What then? Can it be allowable to judge a reading’s claim to be mentioned and considered from the number of the witnesses supporting it, and like Westcott and Hort and Baljon to mention the third only, and take no notice of the other two? I think not. For just as in certain circumstances the correct reading may no longer appear in any manuscript, but must be determined by conjecture, so in another case the truth may have only one solitary representative left to support it against a whole world of adversaries (Heb. xii. 3), and this solitary witness either a manuscript, a version, or a quotation. On the other hand, it may have a whole cloud of witnesses accompanying it and supporting it. In matters of this kind numbers have nothing to do with the case whatever. To speak of majorities is nonsense. The true man is willing and able to stand alone, and to many a witness of this sort we must apply the words of Socrates: ἃ μὲν συνῆκα γενναῖα· οἶμαι δὲ καὶ ἃ μὴ συνῆκα. If we have been able to verify the word of a witness once, several times, frequently, then we shall be willing to trust him even in cases where we cannot check his evidence. Of course we must make allowance for human fallibility—quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus; least of all in matters of this kind must we look for inerrancy. A manuscript whose testimony was decisive on every point would be even a greater miracle than a book printed without a single error at the time of the Incunabula, which the printers of that age would have regarded as an eighth wonder of the world. But how to estimate the character of such a witness, seeing that the subjective feeling, the instinctive perception of what is original, is as little to be trusted as the number of the witnesses—that is the difficulty. And what is the point that our discussion has brought us to? From the “official recensions of the text” made in the later centuries, we sought to get back to similar works of earlier times, and we found that the original text may have suffered as much at the hands of orthodox revisers and correctors, who toned down and obscured the fresh colouring of the ancient records, as at the hands of heretics who inserted foreign and extraneous elements.[189]

Unfortunately very little definite information has come down to us from those early times, and as that relates more to the history of the canon than of the text, reference must be made here to the monumental work of Zahn.[190] Two figures, however, emerge from this chaos who have left their traces on the history of the text as well, =Tatian= and =Marcion=, the former chiefly in connection with the Gospels, the latter with the Pauline Epistles. Both have been already referred to more than once in the chapter on the “Materials” (Tatian, p. 97 f.; Marcion, pp. 76, 87), and both will require careful consideration here in our treatment of the principles involved in the reconstruction of the text. How much would be achieved could we but restore the original work of Tatian upon the Gospels, or the _Gospel_ and the _Apostle_ of Marcion!

[Sidenote: Heretics.]

(_f_) Before speaking of their work, however, there are still a few less important notices to be gleaned from their own and the preceding time.

Nearly all the =heretics= were in turn accused of falsifying the Scriptures. In this sense, also, the Dutch proverb is true, “jedere ketter heeft zijn letter” (every heretic has his letter, his text of the Scriptures). In early times Justin charged the Jews with such falsification in the Old Testament, and Lagarde was sometimes inclined to suspect that the Massoretic numbers in Genesis had been manipulated by the opponents of Christianity. Such complaints were most frequently made against the Gnostics, particularly the Valentinians, and when we glance over the long lists of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings,[191] it is abundantly evident that at various times there was a good deal of falsification—_i.e._, a good deal written under false names. At the same time it cannot be denied that alterations were also made on early Christian works and the books of Scripture in the interests of dogma. These alterations are of all sorts, ranging from quite harmless changes made in all innocence to supposed corrections, and, it may be, even wilful corruptions.[192] But most assuredly the heretics are not alone in being chargeable with this offence: Iliacos intra muros peccatur et extra.

As Jülicher (_Einl._, 378) points out, the orthodox Church teachers were very fond of making this charge against the heretics: παραλλάσσειν, παραχαράσσειν, ῥᾳδιουργεῖν, διαφθείρειν, ἐξαιρεῖν, ἀφανίζειν, κατορθοῦν (ironically), ἀποκόπτειν, παρακόπτειν, περικόπτειν, μετατιθέναι, προστιθέναι, interpolare, adulterare, violare, corrodere, dissecare, auferre, delere, emendare (ironically), eradere, subvertere, extinguere, these are some of the expressions we hear in this connection. Marcion gave occasion to the reproach by his edition of the Gospel of Luke and the Epistles of Paul, but against the rest of the Gnostics, especially the Valentinians, against the Artemonites, Novatians, Arians, and Donatists, and against the Nestorians, the same accusation is made as was formerly brought against the Jews. Even within the pale of the Church one party attributed such practices to the other. Ambrosiaster, _e.g._, believed that in the case of important discrepancies between the Greek and Latin manuscripts, the variations were due to the presumption of the Greek writers who had interpolated spurious matter. Jerome was afraid this would be said of him if he ventured to make the slightest alteration: quis doctus pariter vel indoctus non statim erumpat in vocem, me falsarium, me, clamans, esse sacrilegum qui audeam aliquid in veteribus libris addere, mutare, corrigere! The curse in Apoc. xxii. 18 f. was also referred to the “falsifiers,” who thought it more convincing and more reverent to observe the rules of grammar and logic than to abide by all the peculiar expressions in the Scriptures. At a meeting of Cyprian bishops, about the year 350, when one of them, in quoting the verse John v. 8, substituted for κράβαττος the better Greek word σκίμπους, another shouted to him in the hearing of all the multitude, “Art thou better than he who said κράβαττος that thou art ashamed to use his words?”[193] And it is a well-known fact that in the time of Augustine there was very nearly an uproar in an African congregation over Jonah’s “gourd” (cucurbita) or Jonah’s “ivy” (hedera). A few references at least may be collected here:—

(1) On a certain Sunday[194] in the year 170 or thereabouts,
Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, wrote a letter to the Church at Rome
through their Bishop Soter, of which Eusebius has preserved the
following among other passages (_Eccl. Hist._, iv. 23):—Ἐπιστολὰς
γὰρ ἀδελφῶν ἀξιωσάντων με γράψαι ἔγραψα. Καὶ ταύτας οἱ τοῦ διαβόλου
ἀπόστολοι[195] ζιζανίων γεγέμικαν, ἃ μὲν ἐξαιροῦντες, ἃ δὲ
προστιθέντες. Οἷς τὸ οὐαὶ κεῖται.[196] Οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα,[197] εἰ καὶ
τῶν Κυριακῶν ῥᾳδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται γραφῶν, ὁπότε καὶ ταῖς
οὐ τοιαύταις ἐπιβεβουλεύκασι. The κυριακαὶ γραφαὶ are in all
likelihood the Gospels (the Syriac renders “the writings of our
Lord”), but may also include the Pauline Epistles and the O.T. If we
are to take the words of Dionysius in their strict sense, it would
appear that these writings, like his own letters, had been corrupted
by means of “additions” and “omissions.” The last sentence, if it is
put correctly, and if it has been faithfully transmitted, leads us
to infer that in his letter to Corinth Soter had expressed his
surprise that the writings of the Lord should have been falsified.
To which Dionysius replies that certain letters of his own had been
falsified also, and that it was therefore no wonder if they did the
same to the writings of the Lord, seeing they tampered also (or,
_even_) with those that were inferior to them. The simplest
explanation of the words is, undoubtedly, that Dionysius sought to
console himself over the fate that had befallen his letters, by
reflecting that it was not surprising that they had falsified his
letters of less importance, seeing they had presumed to do the same
_even_ to the writings of the Lord. On the first interpretation, one
would certainly expect Dionysius to use a stronger expression to
describe his feelings at the manipulation of the sacred writings
than the mere οὐ θαυμαστόν. Who are meant by τινές? One most
naturally thinks of Marcion. According to a later account, Soter,
whom Jerome does not mention among the writers, composed a book
against the Montanists.

[Sidenote: Artemonites.]

(2) In the last chapter of the Fifth Book of his Ecclesiastical
History (c. xxviii.), entitled Περὶ τῶν τὴν Ἀρτέμωνος αἵρεσιν
ἐξαρχῆς προβεβλημένων· οἷοί τε τὸν τρόπον γεγόνασι καὶ ὅπως τὰς
ἁγίας γραφὰς διαφθεῖραι τετολμήκασιν, Eusebius quotes the following
complaint from an earlier source, entitled the _Little Labyrinth_ (±
235):—Γραφὰς μὲν θείας ἀφόβως ῥερᾳδιουργήκασιν, πίστεως δὲ ἀρχαίας
κανόνα ἠθετήκασι, Χριστὸν δὲ ἠγνοήκασιν, οὐ τί αἱ θεῖαι λέγουσι
γραφαὶ ζητοῦντες, but occupying themselves with Logic, Geometry,
Euclid, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Galen, ταῖς τῶν ἀπίστων
τέχναις, τὴν ἁπλῆν τῶν θείων γραφῶν πίστιν καπηλεύοντες ... διὰ
τοῦτο ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἀφόβως ἐπέβαλον τὰς χεῖρας, _λέγοντες
αὐτὰς διωρθωκέναι_. Καὶ ὅτι τοῦτο μὴ καταψευδόμενος αὐτῶν λέγω, ὁ
βουλόμενος δύναται μαθεῖν. Εἰ γάρ τις θελήσει συγκομίσας αὐτῶν
ἑκάστου _τὰ ἀντίγραφα_ ἐξετάζειν πρὸς ἄλληλα, κατὰ πολὺ ἂν εὕροι
διαφωνοῦντα. Ἀσύμφωνα γοῦν ἔσται τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου τοῖς Θεοδότου·
Πολλῶν δὲ ἔστιν εὐπορῆσαι διὰ τὸ φιλοτίμως ἐγγεγράφθαι τοὺς μαθητὰς
αὐτῶν τὰ ὑφ’ ἑκάστου αὐτῶν, ὡς αὐτοὶ καλοῦσι _κατωρθωμένα_ τουτέστιν
ἠφανισμένα. Πάλιν δὲ τούτοις τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου οὐ συνᾴδει. Τὰ γὰρ
Ἀπολλωνίδου οὐδὲ αὐτὰ ἑαυτοῖς ἐστι σύμφωνα. Ἔνεστι γὰρ συγκρῖναι τὰ
πρότερον ὑπ’ αὐτῶν[198] κατασκευασθέντα τοῖς ὕστερον πάλιν
ἐπιδιαστραφεῖσι, καὶ εὑρεῖν κατὰ πολὺ ἀπᾴδοντα. Ὅσης δὲ τόλμης ἐστὶ
τοῦτο τὸ ἁμάρτημα, εἰκὸς μηδὲ ἐκείνους ἀγνοεῖν. Ἢ γὰρ οὐ πιστεύουσιν
Ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι λελέχθαι τὰς θείας γραφὰς, καί εἰσιν ἄπιστοι· ἢ
ἑαυτοὺς ἡγοῦνται σοφωτέρους τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ὑπάρχειν, καὶ τί
ἕτερον ἢ δαιμονῶσιν; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἀρνήσασθαι δύνανται ἑαυτῶν εἶναι τὸ
τόλμημα, ὁπόταν καὶ τῇ αὐτῶν χειρὶ ᾖ γεγραμμένα, καὶ παρ’ ὧν
κατηχήθησαν μὴ τοιαύτας παρέλαβον τὰς γραφάς· καὶ δεῖξαι ἀντίγραφα,
ὅθεν αὐτὰ μετεγράψαντο, μὴ ἔχωσιν. Ἔνιοι δὲ αὐτῶν οὐδὲ παραχαράσσειν
ἠξίωσαν αὐτὰς, ἀλλ’ ἁπλῶς ἀρνησάμενοι τόν τε νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας
ἀνόμου καὶ ἀθέου διδασκαλίας προφάσει χάριτος, εἰς ἔσχατον ἀπωλείας
ὄλεθρον κατωλίσθησαν.

The passage is very instructive. We learn that copies of the
writings of these heretics were to be found in abundance, because
their disciples eagerly inserted their emendations in their texts,
“each one’s emendations, as they style them, but in reality they are
corruptions,” as the Syriac has it. At the same time, it is not
quite certain that κατωρθωμένα really means corrected manuscripts of
the Bible, and not the heretics’ own works—_i.e._, whether we should
understand ἀντίγραφα τῶν θείων γραφῶν after τὰ Ἀσκληπιάδου, τὰ
Θεοδότου, τὰ Ἑρμοφίλου, τὰ Ἀπολλωνίδου and not rather γράμματα or
συντάγματα. In the former case we shall have to search for a
recension of Asclepiades, of Theodotus, of Hermophilus, and in the
case of Apollonides for a double recension, an earlier and a later.
This interpretation of the words does certainly receive support from
the positive way in which the historian argues from the conduct of
these heretics, that they either did not believe in any inspiration
of the holy Scriptures, or thought they could write better
themselves, and also from his remark that they did not receive τὰς
γραφάς in that form (τοιαύτας) from their (Christian) instructors,
and were not able to show any older copies from which their own were
transcribed. From the mention of the Law and the Prophets, we may
conclude that the reference is mainly to the O. T. Epiphanius
mentions the Theodotians as appealing to Deut. xviii. 15, Jer. xvii.
9, Isa. liii. 3, Matt. xii. 31, Luke i. 35, John viii. 40, Acts ii.
22, 1 Tim. ii. 5; while Hippolytus argues against them on the ground
that in John i. 14, it is not τὸ πνεῦμα but ὁ λόγος σάρξ ἐγένετο. No
sure traces, however, can be discovered in any of these N. T.
passages of their supposed trenchant criticism of the text. The most
probable instance is Luke i. 35. “If we may trust the statement of
Epiphanius,” says Harnack (_Monarchianismus_, PRE^3, x. 188),
“Theodotus wished to separate the second half of the sentence from
the first (διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐκ σοῦ ἅγιον κληθήσεται, υἱὸς
Θεοῦ),[199] as if the words διὸ καὶ were wanting, which makes the
sentence imply that the divine Sonship of Christ rests on his
approving himself. But perhaps Theodotus omitted διὸ καὶ altogether,
just as he seems to have read πνεῦμα κυρίου instead of πνεῦμα ἅγιον,
in order to obviate all ambiguity.” The latter reading is not
mentioned in Tischendorf, and the remark of Epiphanius in my opinion
amounts to this, that whereas he understood ἅγιον to be the subject
of the sentence, Theodotus made it the predicate and separated it
from γεννώμενον.[200]

[Sidenote: Marcosians.]

(3) Speaking of the Marcosians,[201] Irenæus says (92):—Ἔνια δὲ καὶ
τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίῳ κειμένων εἰς τοῦτον τὸν χαρακτῆρα μεθαρμόζουσιν ...
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τῷ εἰρηκέναι· πολλάκις ἐπεθύμησα ἀκοῦσαι ἕνα τῶν λόγων
καὶ οὐκ ἔσχον τὸν ἐροῦντα, ἐμφαίνοντός φασι δεῖν διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς τὸν
ἀληθῶς ἕνα Θεόν. This seems to contain a reference to Matt. xiii.
17, but what is complained of is a false interpretation of the words
of Scripture rather than an actual alteration of the text
itself.[202] The still earlier passage, Polycarp vii. 1, is also to
be taken as referring to this practice, ὃς ἂν μεθοδεύῃ τὰ λόγια τοῦ
Κυρίου πρὸς τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας καὶ λέγῃ μήτε ἀνάστασιν μήτε κρίσιν
[εἶναι], οὗτος πρωτότοκός ἐστι τοῦ Σατανᾶ. For the exposition of the
passage see Zahn, _GK._ i. 842.

[Sidenote: Basilides.]

(4) That Basilides[203] altered the text of the Gospels as received
by the Church in accordance with his own religious and ethical
views, and incorporated them in their altered form in his
_Evangelium_, is shown by Zahn on Matt. xix. 10-12 (_GK._ i. 771).
He shows also that the form into which Basilides cast the Synoptic
narrative may have prepared the way for the belief that Simon the
Cyrenian was crucified instead of Jesus, if this was really his
doctrine.

[Sidenote: Noëtus.]

(5) Hippolytus says of Noëtus (Lagarde’s edition, 45, 19): ὁπόταν
γὰρ θελήσωσιν πανουργεύεσθαι, _περικόπτουσι_ τὰς γραφάς. He means by
this, according to Zahn, that the Noetians garbled their quotations,
and made selections of Scriptural sayings without paying regard to
the context. But compare _ibid._, line 7 ff., αἱ μὲν γὰρ γραφαὶ
ὀρθῶς λέγουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἂν καὶ Νόητος νοῇ· οὐκ ἤδη δὲ εἰ Νόητος μὴ
νοεῖ, παρὰ τοῦτο _ἔκβλητοι_ αἱ γραφαί.

[Sidenote: Valentinians.]

(6) Heracleon,[204] the Valentinian, is said to have read πέντε
instead of ἕξ in John ii. 20, but whether he made the alteration
himself or found the former reading in his exemplar is not clearly
made out. There is no notice of the variant in Tischendorf, Baljon,
or in our commentaries. It is mentioned by Scrivener, _Introd._, ii.
260, n. 3, where reference is made to Lightfoot’s _Colossians_, p.
336, n. 1. Origen, commenting on John i. 28, cites Heracleon in
support of the reading “Bethany,” which, he says, “is found in
almost all the manuscripts.”

In contrast to the Marcionites and their practice of mutilating the
Scriptures, Irenæus says of the Valentinians (iii. 12, 12):
scripturas quidem confitentur, interpretationes vero convertunt,
quemadmodum ostendimus in primo libro. There we read (i. 3, 6): καὶ
οὐ μόνον ἐκ τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν πειρῶνται τὰς
ἀποδείξεις ποιεῖσθαι παρατρέποντες τὰς ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες
τὰς ἐξηγήσεις, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ νόμου καὶ προφητῶν. But in i. 11, 9 he
says of them: Illi vero qui sunt a Valentino ... suas conscriptiones
proferentes, plura habere gloriantur quam sint ipsa evangelia,
siquidem in tantum processerunt audaciae, uti quod ab his non olim
scriptum est, “veritatis evangelium” titulent, in nihilo conveniens
apostolorum evangeliis, ut nec evangelium sit apud eos sine
blasphemia. For the continuation and discussion of the passage, see
Zahn, _GK._ ii. 748. See also Westcott, _Canon_, p. 298 ff.

Zahn (_GK._ ii. 755) endeavours to show that they corrected the text
of the manuscripts, by the omission of ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, _e.g._, in 1 Cor.
xv. 29, and the insertion of θεότητες in Col. i. 16.

In i. 8, 1, Irenæus accuses them of ἐξ ἀγράφων ἀναγινώσκοντες καὶ τὸ
δὴ λεγόμενον ἐξ ἄμμου σχοίνια πλέκεις ἐπιτηδεύοντες. The proverb is
from Ahikar.

The well-known charge made by Celsus (_Orig. con. Cels._, 2, 27;
Koetschau, i. 156) and the answer of Origen refer partly to the
re-writing of manuscripts and partly to their alteration: Μετὰ ταῦτά
τινας τῶν πιστευόντων φησὶν (Celsus) ὡς ἐκ μέθης ἥκοντας εἰς τὸ
ἐφεστάναι αὑτοῖς _μεταχαράττειν_ ἐκ τῆς πρώτης γραφῆς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον
τριχῇ καὶ τετραχῇ καὶ πολλαχῇ, ἵν’ ἔχοιεν πρὸς τοὺς ἐλέγχους
ἀρνεῖσθαι. Μεταχαράξαντας δὲ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἄλλους οὐκ οἶδα ἢ τοὺς
ἀπὸ Μαρκίωνος καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ Οὐαλεντίνου οἶμαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀπὸ
Λουκιάνου. Τοῦτο δὲ λεγόμενον οὐ τοῦ λόγου ἐστὶν ἔγκλημα ἀλλὰ τῶν
τολμησάντων ῥᾳδιουργῆσαι τὰ εὐαγγέλια. Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ φιλοσοφίας
ἔγκλημά εἰσιν οἱ σοφισταὶ ἢ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι ἢ οἱ Περιπατητικοὶ ἢ
οἵτινές ποτ’ ἂν ὦσιν οἱ ψευδοδοξοῦντες, οὕτως οὐ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ
χριστιανισμοῦ ἔγκλημα οἱ μεταχαράττοντες τὰ εὐαγγέλια καὶ αἱρέσεις
ξένας ἐπεισάγοντες τῷ βουλήματι τῆς Ἰησοῦ διδασκαλίας.

[Sidenote: Gnostics.]

(7) Clement (_Strom._, iii. 39) complains that the Gnostics
corrupted the sense of the Scriptures both by arbitrarily misplacing
the emphasis (in oral delivery) and by altering the punctuation (in
copying manuscripts?); see Zahn, _GK._ i. 424. On Tertullian’s
complaint as to the way in which Marcion construed Luke xx. 35, see
below, p. 276.

(8) Clement (_Strom._, iv. 41) quotes Matt. v. 10_a_, to which he
annexes the reason found in verse 9_b_, and then goes on to say, ἢ
ὥς τινες τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ εὐαγγέλια, Μακάριοι, φησίν, οἱ
δεδιωγμένοι ὑπὲρ τῆς δικαιοσύνης, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἔσονται τέλειοι. Zahn
(_GK._ i. p. 411) makes the surmise that when Clement spoke of
certain persons who “transposed” or altered the Gospels—_i.e._, took
liberties with the text, he may have been thinking of Tatian, whose
personal intercourse he may have enjoyed for a length of time, and
with whose Greek writings he shows himself to be familiar.

[Sidenote: Simon Magus and the Marcionites.]

(9) In an Arabic Introduction to a collection of alleged Nicene
Canons particular stress is laid upon the falsification of the
Scriptures by heretics. The Emperor Constantine is represented as
addressing the Fathers at Nicæa, and enjoining them, in dealing with
heretics, to distinguish between those who reject and falsify the
holy Scriptures and those who merely interpret them falsely. The
arch-heretic Simon Magus already appears as a fabricator of spurious
Scripture. His sect possessed an Evangelium in four books, to which
they gave the title “Liber quatuor angulorum et cardinum mundi.” The
Phocalites (Kukiani) retained the Old Testament, but in place of the
Church’s New Testament they had one manufactured by themselves, in
which the twelve Apostles bore barbaric names. It is said of the
Marcionites: Sacras scripturas quibusdam in locis commutarunt
addideruntque Evangelio et Epistolis Pauli apostoli quibusdam in
locis, quaedam vero loca mutilarunt. Apostolorum Actus e medio
omnino sustulerunt, alium substituentes Actorum librum, qui faveret
opinionibus ac dogmatibus, illumque nuncuparunt “Librum propositi
finis.” See Zahn, _GK._ ii. 448, where reference is made to Mansi,
_Conc. Coll._, ii. (Flor., 1759), 947-1082; Hefele,
_Conciliengeschichte_, 2nd. ed., i. 361-368, 282 f.; Harnack, _Der
Ketzer-Katalog des Bischofs Maruta von Maipherkat_, _TU._ (New
Series), iv., 1899; _ThLz._, 1899, 2.

[Sidenote: Arians.]

(10) Ambrose says on John iii. 6 (_De Spiritu_, iii. 10): Quem locum
ita expresse, Ariani, testificamini esse de Spiritu, ut eum de
vestris codicibus auferatis. Atque utinam de vestris et non etiam de
Ecclesiae codicibus tolleretis. Eo enim tempore quo impiae
infidelitatis Auxentius Mediolanensem Ecclesiam armis exercituque
occupaverat, vel a Valente atque Ursatis nutantibus sacerdotibus
suis incursabatur Ecclesia Sirmiensis, falsum hoc et sacrilegium
vestrum in Ecclesiasticis codicibus deprehensum est. Et fortasse hoc
etiam in oriente fecistis.

[Sidenote: Greeks.]

(11) Ambrosiaster has the following note on Rom. v. 14 (Migne, xvii.
100 f.): Et tamen sic (_i.e._ μὴ ἁμαρτήσαντες) praescribitur nobis
de graecis codicibus, quasi non ipsi ab invicem discrepent, quod
facit studium contentionis. Quia enim propria quis auctoritate uti
non potest ad victoriam, verba legis adulterat, ut sensum suis quasi
verba legis asserat, ut non ratio sed auctoritas praescribere
videatur. Constat autem porro olim quosdam latinos de veteribus
graecis translatos (esse) codicibus, quos incorruptos simplicitas
temporum servavit et probat: postquam autem a concordia animis
discedentibus et haereticis perturbantibus torqueri quaestionibus
coeperunt, multa immutata sunt ad sensum humanum, ut hoc
contineretur in litteris quod homini videretur, unde etiam ipsi
Graeci diversos codices habent. Hoc autem verum arbitror, quando et
ratio et historia et auctoritas observatur: nam hodie quae in
latinis reprehenduntur codicibus, sic inveniuntur a veteribus
posita, Tertulliano, Victorino, et Cypriano. The correction “hodie
quae” for “hodieque” in the last sentence is due to Haussleiter,
_Forschungen_, iv. 32. The passage is also interesting as being the
earliest instance known to me of the collocation of _ratio_ and
_auctoritas_ as the two arbiters in theological disputes. Compare
the frequent combination of the two by Luther in his earlier
polemics—_e.g._ against Prierias, and also later in his protest at
Worms.

Again, Ambrosiaster says on Gal. ii. 1, with reference to Acts xv.
20, 29: Quae sophistae Graecorum non intelligentes, scientes tamen a
sanguine abstinendum _adulterant_ scripturam, quartum mandatum
addentes “et a suffocatis observandum,” quod puto nec ne Dei nutu
intellecturi sunt, quia iam supra dictum est, quod addiderunt.

[Sidenote: Marcion.]

(_g_) =Marcion.=—We have more exact information in regard to Marcion’s great undertaking than to these slender attempts at textual criticism. Here there is a fuller stream of testimony both in the Greek and Latin Fathers. It must be confessed, however, that hitherto attention has been directed more to his position in the matter of the Canon generally than to his work on the text of the New Testament. Here again, the works of Zahn throw most light upon the subject; in other works, like the PRE _e.g._, this side of Marcion’s activity is very superficially treated. Several points have already been referred to here and there in the previous part of this work, but the question must now be treated as a whole.[205]

In the opening sentence of his examination of Marcion’s New Testament, Zahn avers that no church teacher of the second century occupies such an important position in the history of the ecclesiastical canon as does that early writer. If this is really so, it becomes all the more important for us to inquire whether traces of his influence may not be discoverable also in our witnesses to the text of the New Testament.

[Sidenote: His New Testament.]

Marcion’s New Testament, which was at the same time his entire Bible, consisted of two books of moderate compass—viz. a _Gospel-Book_, which he seems to have called Εὐαγγέλιον simply, and a collection of _ten Pauline Epistles_ called, probably by himself, τὸ Ἀποστολικὸν (_sc._ βιβλίον). The Epistles were arranged in an order which was evidently thought to correspond to that of their composition—viz., Gal., 1 and 2 Cor., Rom., 1 and 2 Thess., Laodicenos (= Ephes.), Col., Phil., Phm. He was unanimously accused by the Church teachers of having mutilated the ecclesiastical Bible in the manufacture of his own, and also of having corrupted the text here and there by means of interpolations, particularly in the case of Luke, which was the only Gospel he admitted. They complained that he used not the pen but the knife (only he used it for a purpose the opposite of that for which the scissors are employed nowadays), and the sponge, and also that he deleted not words merely but whole pages. They compared his work upon the manuscripts to that of a mouse.[206] And as for his disciples! Every day they were improving their Gospel. Seeing that he himself had not gone so far as to erase the writings of Paul altogether, his disciples continued his work, and removed whatever did not concur with their views.[207] But according to testimony extending over a long stretch of time, their text of the Scriptures seems to have undergone fewer alterations during that period than that of the Catholic Church (Zahn, _GK._ i. 613). In comparing the text of these two collections “it should be clearly understood that the Church’s text, whose treatment by Marcion is in question, is not to be identified with that of our Bible Societies, or of Tischendorf, or of Epiphanius, but was such a text as Marcion found in the Catholic Church or in the Roman community about the year 150. The text of the ecclesiastical exemplar on which Marcion based his labours can no longer be restored in every word, but sufficient means are at our command to give us a general idea of the form which the text of the Pauline Epistles presented in the second century, and at the same time to ascertain in many separate instances what text Marcion had before him. It turns out in many cases that what seems strange in Marcion’s text to one who compares it with the _textus receptus_, or with one of our modern critical editions, without knowing much about the history of the text, is by no means peculiar to Marcion, but was pretty common in the West in early times. Now it is quite inconceivable, in view of the implacable hostility of the Church to Marcion, that his text, condemned as it was unceasingly as being heretical and spurious, should have exerted any positive influence on that of the Church.[208] It follows, accordingly, that all those things in Marcion’s Bible that seem to the uninitiated to be peculiar to it alone, but which are attested by Catholic manuscripts, versions, and Patristic writers, were not invented by Marcion, but taken by him from the Church’s Bible of that time, or from one such Bible at all events, and were only gradually ousted from the text used by the Church.”[209] All this, which is taken word for word, with the exception of a slight change in the last sentence, from Zahn’s dissertation of the year 1889 (p. 636), should even at that time have been self-evident, but, like Zahn’s further statements in the same place, has not yet been sufficiently attended to, especially in our commentaries on Luke and the Pauline Epistles. He points out, _e.g._, that Tertullian, in speaking of the change of the address “ad Ephesios” to “Laodicenos,” credits Marcion with the intention of being “et in isto diligentissimus explorator,” so that it is possible that he compared several manuscripts in order to discover the original wording.[210] In such cases, therefore, the question may be asked whether Marcion may not really have preserved the original text, and whether his text, so far as it is corroborated by any independent tradition, should not be estimated much higher than it is by the textual critics of the present.[211] Zahn deserves all the more credit for giving such careful attention to questions relating to the text, seeing that the subject of his investigation was merely the history of the canon. He has dealt chiefly with those passages in which Marcion’s intentional alterations have been preserved. [Sidenote: His “Emendations.”] Reference may be made, _e.g._, to the pages in the first volume of his History, entitled _Minor Emendations_, wherein it is shown how Marcion, in his hostility to the Old Testament with its God of Righteousness, omitted the quotations from the Old Testament altogether, or dropped the introductory formula of quotation in Rom. i. 17, xii. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 13; excluded all the references to Abraham in Galatians except in iv. 22; altered ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην in Rom. x. 3 to ἀγνοοῦντες τὸν θεόν; removed the words γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικὸς, γενόμενον ὑπὸ νόμον from Gal. iv. 4; changed the active construction into the passive in 1 Cor. iii. 17; and elsewhere strove after greater condensation, lucidity, and brevity of expression. Marcion, says Zahn, had good grounds for believing that the text of the Scriptures had not remained unchanged during the century that had elapsed since their composition, though that might be said with more truth of the Gospels and the Acts than of the Epistles; but to attempt to rid the Apostle’s text of all supposed corruptions with no regard to any sort of critical material whatever, but depending simply and solely on his own instinctive sense of what was genuinely Christian and apostolic, was the undertaking of a giant, as Irenæus calls Marcion. And his disciples, in a blind veneration of his authority, seem to have exceeded the intention of the master and editor, “just as many Lutherans at the present day look upon Luther’s translation, with all its faults, as the very word of God, and hardly capable of improvement.”

In the Appendices to his second volume Zahn has gone still more carefully into the questions relating to the criticism of the text.[212] His main conclusions will hardly be contested. Among these are the following:—

[Sidenote: Marcion and the Western Text.]

1. That Marcion based his Gospel on that of Luke, although his text displays various elements belonging to Matthew and Mark;

2. That this mixture is found in those passages wherein the ecclesiastical texts, and especially the Western, exhibit the same or similar features;

3. That Marcion’s text shows[213] none of those small “apocryphal additions” which we find combined with the contents of our Gospels in Justin and Tatian.