The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels | Page 9

have been liable to a series of assaults which make it reasonable
that they should now at last be approached by ourselves as no other
ancient writings are, or can be. The nature of God,--His Being and
Attributes:--the history of Man's Redemption:--the soul's eternal
destiny:--the mysteries of the unseen world:--concerning these and
every other similar high doctrinal subject, the sacred writings alone
speak with a voice of absolute authority. And surely by this time
enough has been said to explain why these Scriptures should have been
made a battle-field during some centuries, and especially in the fourth;
and having thus been made the subject of strenuous contention, that
copies of them should exhibit to this hour traces of those many adverse
influences. I say it for the last time,--of all such causes of depravation
the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians, neither knew
nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears that the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an
entirely different spirit from that of any other book.
§ 2.
I wish now to investigate the causes of the corruption of the Text of the
New Testament. I do not entitle the present a discussion of 'Various
Readings,' because I consider that expression to be incorrect and
misleading[13]. Freely allowing that the term 'variae lectiones,' for lack
of a better, may be allowed to stand on the Critic's page, I yet think it

necessary even a second time to call attention to the impropriety which
attends its use. Thus Codex B differs from the commonly received Text
of Scripture in the Gospels alone in 7578 places; of which no less than
2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute by far the
larger number of what are commonly called 'Various Readings.' How
then can those be called 'various readings' which are really not readings
at all? How, for example, can that be said to be a 'various reading' of St.
Mark xvi. 9-20, which consists in the circumstance that the last 12
verses are left out by two MSS.? Again,--How can it be called a
'various reading' of St. John xxi. 25, to bring the Gospel abruptly to a
close, as Tischendorf does, at v. 24? These are really nothing else but
indications either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text. And the
question to be resolved is,--On which side does the corruption lie? and,
How did it originate?
Waiving this however, the term is objectionable on other grounds. It is
to beg the whole question to assume that every irregularity in the text
of Scripture is a 'various reading.' The very expression carries with it an
assertion of importance; at least it implies a claim to consideration.
Even might it be thought that, because it is termed a 'various reading,'
therefore a critic is entitled to call in question the commonly received
text. Whereas, nine divergences out of ten are of no manner of
significance and are entitled to no manner of consideration, as every
one must see at a glance who will attend to the matter ever so little.
'Various readings' in fact is a term which belongs of right to the
criticism of the text of profane authors: and, like many other notions
which have been imported from the same region into this department of
inquiry, it only tends to confuse and perplex the judgement.
No variety in the Text of Scripture can properly be called a 'various
reading,' of which it may be safely declared that it never has been, and
never will be, read. In the case of profane authors, where the MSS. are
for the most part exceedingly few, almost every plausible substitution
of one word for another, if really entitled to alteration, is looked upon
as a various reading of the text. But in the Gospels, of which the copies
are so numerous as has been said, the case is far otherwise. We are
there able to convince ourselves in a moment that the supposed 'various

reading' is nothing else but an instance of licentiousness or inattention
on the part of a previous scribe or scribes, and we can afford to neglect
it accordingly[14]. It follows therefore,--and this is the point to which I
desire to bring the reader and to urge upon his consideration,--that the
number of 'various readings' in the New Testament properly so called
has been greatly exaggerated. They are, in reality, exceedingly few in
number; and it is to be expected that, as sound (sacred) Criticism
advances, and principles are established, and conclusions recognized,
instead of becoming multiplied they will become fewer and fewer, and
at last will entirely disappear. We cannot afford to go on disputing for
ever; and what is declared by common consent to be untenable ought to