As far as the Fathers who died before 400 a.d. are concerned, the question may now be put and answered. Do they witness to the Traditional Text as existing from the first, or do they not? The results of the evidence, both as regards the quantity and the quality of the testimony, enable us to reply, not only that the Traditional Text was in existence, but that it was predominant, during the period under review. Let any one who disputes this conclusion make out for the Western Text, or the Alexandrian, or for the Text of B and א, a case from the evidence of the Fathers which can equal or surpass that which has been now placed before the reader.
An objection may be raised by those who are not well acquainted with the quotations in the writings of the Fathers, that the materials of judgement here produced are too scanty. But various characteristic features in their mode of dealing with quotations should be particularly noticed. As far as textual criticism is concerned, the quotations of the Fathers are fitful and uncertain. They quote of course, not to hand down to future ages a record of readings, but for their own special purpose in view. They may quote an important passage in dispute, or they may leave it wholly unnoticed. They often quote just enough for their purpose, and no more. Some passages thus acquire a proverbial brevity. Again, they write down over and over again, with unwearied richness of citation, especially from St. John's Gospel, words which are everywhere accepted: in fact, all critics agree upon the most familiar places. Then again, the witness of the Latin Fathers cannot always be accepted as being free from doubt, as has been already explained. And the Greek Fathers themselves often work words of the New Testament into the roll of their rhetorical sentences, so that whilst evidence is given for the existence of a verse, or a longer passage, or a book, no certain conclusions can [pg 117] be drawn as to the words actually used or the order of them. This is particularly true of St. Gregory of Nazianzus to the disappointment of the Textual Critic, and also of his namesake of Nyssa, as well as of St. Basil. Others, like St. Epiphanius, quote carelessly. Early quotation was usually loose and inaccurate. It may be mentioned here, that the same Father, as has been known about Origen since the days of Griesbach, often used conflicting manuscripts. As will be seen more at length below, corruption crept in from the very first.
Some ideas have been entertained respecting separate Fathers which are not founded in truth. Clement of Alexandria and Origen are described as being remarkable for the absence of Traditional readings in their works141. Whereas besides his general testimony of 82 to 72 as we have seen, Clement witnesses in the list just given 8 times for them to 14 against them; whilst Origen is found 44 times on the Traditional aide to 27 on the Neologian. Clement as we shall see used mainly Alexandrian texts which must have been growing up in his days, though he witnesses largely to Traditional readings, whilst Origen employed other texts too. Hilary of Poictiers is far from being against the Traditional Text, as has been frequently said: though in his commentaries he did not use so Traditional a text as in his De Trinitate and his other works. The texts of Hippolytus, Methodius, Irenaeus, and even of Justin, are not of that exclusively Western character which Dr. Hort ascribes to them142. Traditional readings occur almost equally with others in Justin's works, and predominate in the works of the other three.
But besides establishing the antiquity of the Traditional Text, the quotations in the early Fathers reveal the streams of corruption which prevailed in the first ages, till they were washed away by the vast current of the transmission [pg 118] of the Text of the Gospels. Just as if we ascended in a captive balloon over the Mississippi where the volume of the Missouri has not yet become intermingled with the waters of the sister river, so we may mount up above those ages and trace by their colour the texts, or rather clusters of readings, which for some time struggled with one another for the superiority. But a caution is needed. We must be careful not to press our designation too far. We have to deal, not with distinct dialects, nor with editions which were separately composed, nor with any general forms of expression which grew up independently, nor in fact with anything that would satisfy literally the full meaning of the word “texts,” when we apply it as it has been used. What is properly meant is that, of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which from whatever cause grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far as we know, some have family likenesses of one kind or another, and may be traced to a kindred source. It is only in this sense that we can use the term Texts, and we must take care to be moderate in our conception and use of it.
The Early Fathers may be conveniently classed, according to the colour of their testimony, the locality where they flourished, and the age in which they severally lived, under five heads, viz., Early Traditional, Later Traditional, Syrio-Low Latin, Alexandrian, and what we may perhaps call Caesarean.
I. Early Traditional.
| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Patres Apostolici and Didachè | 11 | 4 |
| Epistle to Diognetus | 1 | 0 |
| Papias | 1 | 0 |
| Epistola Viennensium et Lugdunensium | 1 | 0 |
| Hegesippus | 2 | 0 |
| Seniores apud Irenaeum | 2 | 0 |
| Justin143 | 17 | 20 |
| Athenagoras | 3 | 1 |
| Gospel of Peter | 2 | 0 |
| Testament of Abraham | 4 | 0 |
| Irenaeus | 63 | 41 |
| Clementines | 18 | 7 |
| Hippolytus | 26 | 11 |
| —— | —— | |
| 151 | 84 |
II. Later Traditional.
| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Gregory Thaumaturgus | 11 | 3 |
| Cornelius | 4 | 1 |
| Synodical Letter | 1 | 2 |
| Archelaus (Manes) | 11 | 2 |
| Apostolic Constitutions and Canons | 61 | 28 |
| Synodus Antiochena | 3 | 1 |
| Concilia Carthaginiensia | 8 | 4 |
| Methodius | 14 | 8 |
| Alexander Alexandrinus | 4 | 0 |
| Theodorus Heracleensis | 2 | 0 |
| Titus of Bostra | 44 | 24 |
| Athanasius(—except Contra Arianos)144122 | 63 | |
| Serapion | 5 | 1 |
| Basil | 272 | 105 |
| Eunomius | 1 | 0 |
| Cyril of Jerusalem | 54 | 32 |
| Firmicus Maternus | 3 | 1 |
| Victorinus of Pettau | 4 | 3 |
| Gregory of Nazianzus | 18 | 4 |
| Hilary of Poictiers | 73 | 39 |
| Eustathius | 7 | 2 |
| Macarius Aegyptius or Magnus | 36 | 17 |
| Didymus | 81 | 36 |
| Victorinus Afer | 14 | 14 |
| Gregory of Nyssa | 91 | 28 |
| Faustinus | 4 | 0 |
| Optatus | 10 | 3 |
| Pacianus | 2 | 2 |
| Philastrius | 7 | 6 |
| Amphilochius (Iconium) | 27 | 10 |
| Ambrose | 169 | 77 |
| Diodorus of Tarsus | 1 | 0 |
| Epiphanius | 123 | 78 |
| Acta Pilati | 5 | 1 |
| Acta Philippi | 2 | 1 |
| Macarius Magnes | 11 | 5 |
| Quaestiones ex Utroque Testamento | 13 | 6 |
| Evagrius Ponticus | 4 | 0 |
| Esaias Abbas | 1 | 0 |
| Philo of Carpasus | 9 | 2 |
| —— | —— | |
| 1332 | 609 |
III. Western or Syrio-Low Latin.
| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Theophilus Antiochenus | 2 | 4 |
| Callixtus and Pontianus (Popes) | 1 | 2 |
| Tertullian | 74 | 65 |
| Novatian | 6 | 4 |
| Cyprian | 100 | 96 |
| Zeno, Bishop of Verona | 3 | 5 |
| Lucifer of Cagliari | 17 | 20 |
| Lactantius | 0 | 1 |
| Juvencus (Spain) | 1 | 2 |
| Julius (Pope)? | 1 | 2 |
| Candidus Arianus | 0 | 1 |
| Nemesius (Emesa) | 0 | 1 |
| —— | —— | |
| 205 | 203 |
IV. Alexandrian.
| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Heracleon | 1 | 7 |
| Clement of Alexandria | 82 | 72 |
| Dionysius of Alexandria | 12 | 5 |
| Theognostus | 0 | 1 |
| Peter of Alexandria | 7 | 8 |
| Arius | 2 | 1 |
| Athanasius (Orat. c. Arianos) | 57 | 56 |
| —— | —— | |
| 161 | 150 |
V. Palestinian or Caesarean.
| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Julius Africanus (Emmaus) | 1 | 1 |
| Origen | 460 | 491 |
| Pamphilus of Caesarea | 5 | 1 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea | 315 | 214 |
| —— | —— | |
| 781 | 707 |
The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now sufficiently clear.
I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.
II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort's notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch in the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as the Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening [pg 122] any movement in the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.
III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have been so general as the name “Western” would suggest. But this will be a subject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion between some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria.
IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more examination.
V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to meet in Palestine under Origen.
But this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.