The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels | Page 8

index every place of Scripture quoted by any of the
Fathers:--if this were meant, we should all be entirely at one; especially
if we could further gather from the programme that a fixed intention
was cherished of abiding by the result of such an appeal to ancient
evidence. But unfortunately something entirely different is in
contemplation.
Now I am bent on calling attention to certain features of the problem
which have very generally escaped attention. It does not seem to be
understood that the Scriptures of the New Testament stand on an
entirely different footing from every other ancient writing which can be
named. A few plain remarks ought to bring this fact, for a fact it is,
home to every thoughtful person. And the result will be that men will
approach the subject with more caution,--with doubts and
misgivings,--with a fixed determination to be on their guard against any
form of plausible influence. Their prejudices they will scatter to the
winds. At every step they will insist on proof.
In the first place, then, let it be observed that the New Testament
Scriptures are wholly without a parallel in respect of their having been
so frequently multiplied from the very first. They are by consequence
contained at this day in an extravagantly large number of copies
[probably, if reckoned under the six classes of Gospels, Acts and
Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse, Evangelistaries, and
Apostolos, exceeding the number of four thousand]. There is nothing
like this, or at all approaching to it, in the case of any profane writing
that can be named[12].
And the very necessity for multiplying copies,--a necessity which has
made itself felt in every age and in every clime,--has perforce resulted
in an immense number of variants. Words have been inevitably

dropped,--vowels have been inadvertently confounded by copyists
more or less competent:--and the meaning of Scripture in countless
places has suffered to a surprising degree in consequence. This first.
But then further, the Scriptures for the very reason because they were
known to be the Word of God became a mark for the shafts of Satan
from the beginning. They were by consequence as eagerly solicited by
heretical teachers on the one hand, as they were hotly defended by the
orthodox on the other. Alike from friends and from foes therefore, they
are known to have experienced injury, and that in the earliest age of all.
Nothing of the kind can be predicated of any other ancient writings.
This consideration alone should suggest a severe exercise of judicial
impartiality, in the handling of ancient evidence of whatever sort.
For I request it may be observed that I have not said--and I certainly do
not mean--that the Scriptures themselves have been permanently
corrupted either by friend or foe. Error was fitful and uncertain, and
was contradicted by other error: besides that it sank eventually before a
manifold witness to the truth. Nevertheless, certain manuscripts
belonging to a few small groups--particular copies of a
Version--individual Fathers or Doctors of the Church,--these do, to the
present hour, bear traces incontestably of ancient mischief.
But what goes before is not nearly all. The fourfold structure of the
Gospel has lent itself to a certain kind of licentious handling--of which
in other ancient writings we have no experience. One critical owner of
a Codex considered himself at liberty to assimilate the narratives:
another to correct them in order to bring them into (what seemed to
himself) greater harmony. Brevity is found to have been a paramount
object with some, and Transposition to have amounted to a passion
with others. Conjectural Criticism was evidently practised largely: and
almost with as little felicity as when Bentley held the pen. Lastly, there
can be no question that there was a certain school of Critics who
considered themselves competent to improve the style of the Holy
Ghost throughout. [And before the members of the Church had gained
a familiar acquaintance with the words of the New Testament, blunders
continually crept into the text of more or less heinous importance.] All

this, which was chiefly done during the second and third centuries,
introduces an element of difficulty in the handling of ancient evidence
which can never be safely neglected: and will make a thoughtful man
suspicious of every various reading which comes in his way, especially
if it is attended with but slender attestation. [It has been already shewn
in the companion volume] that the names of the Codexes chiefly
vitiated in this sort prove to be B[Symbol: Aleph]CDL; of the
Versions,--the two Coptic, the Curetonian, and certain specimens of the
Old Latin; of the Fathers,--Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and to some
extent Eusebius.
Add to all that goes before the peculiar subject-matter of the New
Testament Scriptures, and it will become abundantly plain why they
should