The following letter by one of our ministers appeared in the Northern Chronicle of April 22. Though more adapted for the student or scholar, it is fitting that this well-considered deliverance on a topic so important should find a place in our columns.
INVERNESS, 17th April, 1903.
SIR,—The appearance of a Gaelic Revised Version of the Scriptures challenges discussion of the work under various aspects. The reviews one has hitherto seen of this revision deal with questions of doctrine, of translation, and of Gaelic idiom. A question as vital, and hitherto undealt with, is that of the Greek text underlying the revisers’ translation of the New Testament. It is evident from a mere cursory study of their work that they have practically adopted the same Greek text as the English revisers. One had hoped from all that has been so ably and solidly urged against the Greek text adopted by the English revisers that our Gaelic friends would have learned some useful lessons, and would not have departed from the fundamental text, which has admittedly been in possession for the last 1550 years, save where it was demonstrable that faithfulness to truth demanded such departure. As already stated, the text adopted by the Gaelic revisers is practically that of the English revision, which means that in over three thousand places the text from which this latest translation is made differs from that upon which former Gaelic translations were based. Doubtless a large proportion of these variations are mere instances of transposition, or are of such a nature as not to affect the sense. But a goodly number remain of which this cannot be said, some of which materially alter the sense. It is admitted that in some places the Gaelic revisers have wisely refrained from adopting impossible readings approved of by the English revisers. An instance is Luke ii. 14. But these are the exceptions. As a rule the Gaelic revisers show themselves as prepared to accept impossible readings as their English predecessors. Take as an example Rev. xv. 6. Here, by the adoption of a new reading, “lithon” (stone) for “linon” (linen), the seven angels that had the seven last plagues are made to appear as arrayed with “stone,” and not, as we have been used to read, arrayed in “linen.” This reading, it may be pointed out, the Gaelic revisers adopt in opposition to the two English scholars who in modern times had the widest and most intimate knowledge of codices of the New Testament at first hand: I mean Scrivener and Burgon. Tischendorf also, relying here as usual upon Codex Sinaiticus, is against them; so also is the Syriac Version, which dates from the early part of the second century. There is scarcely room for doubt that “lithon” for “linon” is due to mere accident. The Gaelic revisers themselves virtually allow that “lithon,” which they adopt, is impossible; for finding a literal rendering of this new reading intolerable in Gaelic, they translate it “clachan luachmhor,” for which there is no MS. authority in the world. (See further Brown’s “Structure of the Apocalypse,” pp. 220-4.)
These preliminary observations suggest a brief discussion of the wider issue between the traditional text and the new text of the revisers. The former is fundamentally the Received Text—the text upon which all former translations of the New Testament have been based; it is admittedly the text which, until recently at least, had been received by the Church of Christ as a whole for the previous 1550 years. It is a text which has the support of about 990 out of every 1000 of the 4000 codices or thereabouts of the New Testament, in whole or in part, which are now known to scholars to exist. The text of the revisers is, as a rule, professedly supported only by a small group of codices, among which it is allowed that the two oldest codices (Aleph and B) are generally to be reckoned. As to the evidential value of these, the greatest difference of opinion prevails among experts. Tischendorf regarded Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) as an oracle; so did Wescott and Hort B (Codex Vaticanus); while Burgon and Miller regarded them both as among the most corrupt MSS. in existence. What is certain is that their peculiar readings were condemned by the Church as a whole when many codices as old as they must have been easily accessible. In any case, seeing that the ablest advocates of the New Text allow that the Traditional Text is as old as the latter half of the fourth century, and being, besides, the text which the Church as a whole received from the fifth century as the true text, we cannot allow our confidence in it to be shaken by two dissentient voices of the semi-Arian period, themselves more than 200 years later than the apostolic autographs. This is felt by the advocates of the New Text, who, in order to rid themselves of the weighty testimony of the numerous witnesses to the Traditional Text, have devised a theory which, if it were correct, would entitle them to treat the supporters of the aforesaid text after the fifth century as equivalent to little more than the evidence of one witness. But the theory won’t bear examination. According to this theory, the Traditional Text is the result of a recension, or possibly two recensions of the Greek text of the New Testament, which are supposed to have taken place somewhere in Syria in the third or fourth century, but this assumption has not a shred of historical evidence in support of it. Consequently the advocates of the New Text make use of two supplementary arguments—the one, that of “conflate readings”; the other, the testimony of the Anti-nicene witnesses. But “conflate readings,” as characteristic phenomena of the Traditional Text, are non-existent; they are a mere figment of the imagination. The evidence, therefore, of the Anti-nicene witnesses is, in view of this conflict, of paramount importance. And in order to show that even here the revisers have no case, I shall now direct your readers’ attention to the discussion of three passages, which may be taken as examples of the whole controversy.
I begin with Luke xxiv. 42.
The closing words of this verse (agus de chir mheala) the G.R.V. puts within square brackets, as much as to say that their genuineness is gravely suspected. Now, that these four words should have dropped at an early age from a few codices presents no difficulty. As a matter of fact they are not found in six uncial codices, two of which belong to the 4th century, one to the 5th, one to the 6th, one to the 8th, and one to the 9th. They are found in all other existing uncials; that is to say, in two of the 6th century, in the one existing uncial codex of the 7th century, in four or five codices of the 8th century, etc., and in hundreds of cursives. As will be seen from the foregoing, only one codex of 5th century having Luke xxiv. 42 (in any form) has survived. But in that century the words in question are adequately borne witness to by the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions, as well as by Cyril of Alexandria. Only two codices have survived from the 4th century, but the genuineness of the words in question is in that century witnessed by the Vulgate, as well as by Augustine and Athanasius. No codex has survived from the 3rd century. But the words have in that century also adequate support from the Bohairic and Curetonian Syriac Versions. Of course, no codex exists from the 2nd century. But even in that century the words in question have overwhelming evidence of their genuineness. The Peshitto (Syriac) and the Old Latin have the words. In this 2nd century, Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) in his work on the Resurrection, chap. ix., mentions as an evidence of Christ’s having in verity risen from the dead the fact that He did eat honeycomb and fish. Tertullian, towards the end of the same century, says that it was after he had tasted the gall Christ tasted the honeycomb (Corona 14). Nay more, if these words had not existed in the 1st century they could scarcely have found their way so early in the 2nd century to almost all parts of the Roman Empire. Could stronger evidence of the canonicity of these four words be reasonably demanded? According to Tertullian, “that is the more reliable reading which is the earlier, and that is the earlier which is from the beginning, and that is the beginning which is by the Apostles” (see Burgon’s “Traditional Text,” pp. 240-252).
I proceed to a brief discussion of the last twelve verses of Mark.
These verses the G.R.V. brand with the same mark of suspicion; they are placed within square brackets. That these verses are part of canonical Scripture, and are by Mark, was, in the opinion of Dr. Scrivener, not to mention lesser names, long since shown by Dean Burgon in his well-known Monograph. One had hoped that the question was for ever settled among reverent critics. The evidence that can be produced against these verses are of the meagrest. It is admitted that the two surviving codices of the 4th century are ‘now’ without them. But Provost Salmon, supplementing Burgon and Scrivener, points out—(1) That Codex Aleph is in this part of Mark written by the scribe of Codex B (even Hort shows that to be the case). (2) That the scribe of B has corrected Aleph in such a manner as to leave no reasonable doubt that Aleph, and therefore Aleph’s archetype, must have had the disputed verses. (3) That it is evident from the unusual blank at this place in B, that the scribe of B was aware of the existence of these verses. (4) That the most probable view is that B also itself had the disputed verses, and that therefore the archetype of B had them, and that their omission from B is due to their erasure by a supervising editor—possibly Eusebius. Feeling that the evidence of an external kind that can be produced against these verses is of a shady character, some modern critics fall back upon internal evidence. But here also I am disposed to think the ordinary reader of the Greek or Gaelic Bible will feel at one with Salmon—”The opinion that the concluding verses of Mark belong to the original framework of the Gospel has no internal difficulties whatever to encounter.”
In favour of the genuineness of these verses is the unmistakable evidence of the remaining 22 uncial codices of Mark’s Gospel, extending from the 5th to the 10th century, and of all the hundreds of cursives that survive. In the 4th century they are plainly attested by the Vulgate, by Augustine, and by Chrysostom. In the 3rd century they have the suffrages of the Curetonian Syriac, and the two Egyptian versions, and (if Bunsen is right in attributing Book viii. of the Apostolic Constitutions to him) unmistakably of Hippolytus. In the 2nd century the Syriac and Latin (with the exception of k) have the words under consideration. Tertullian gives, “He sitteth at the Father’s right hand” as Scripture, and the likeliest reference is Mark xvi. 19. Unmistakably does Irenæus (180 A.D.) say—”Towards the conclusion of his Gospel Mark says, So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven” (C.H. iii. 10). Justin Martyr remarks that the Apostles going from Jerusalem preached “everywhere.” Papias’s (100 A.D.) narrative concerning Barsabas, who, though he drank deadly poison, experienced nothing injurious, is of a corroborating kind. Dr. C. Taylor thinks that even in the 1st century Clement (of Rome) and Barnabas (not the companion of Paul) were familiar with the verses in question. So strong is the evidence that the disputed verses belong to the 1st century that, besides the scholars already mentioned as holding that view, others who, for some reason best known to themselves, question their Markian authorship, allow that they belong to the 1st century and are canonical. Such are Harnack, Milligan, Roberts, and the present Dean of Westminster. The said twelve verses doubtless belong to the 1st century, and on all intelligent grounds of criticism must be ascribed to Mark.
In conclusion, I refer briefly to the Doxology (Matt. vii. 10).
It, of course, is marked as probably spurious in the G.R.V. In this instance, besides the oft-alluded-to codices of the 4th century, most of the Latin copies of Matthew are without the words in dispute. That will go far to explain how Augustine does not expound the Doxology in his treatise on the Sermon on the Mount. But earlier in the 4th century than Augustine, Chrysostom comments without suspicion on the Doxology. In the 3rd century the Curetonian Syriach and the Thebaic versions exhibit this interesting verse. In the 2nd century the Peshitto and four of the Old Latin copies witness to their genuineness. “The concurrence of the Doxology in the version given by the Didache, and also in that of the Apostolic Constitutions, which, though not precisely the same as that found in St. Matthew, is in both instances substantially the same, proves conclusively that it must have been part of the original prayer as recorded by St. Matthew, and not an addition, as some critics hold, from the Greek service books” (C. H. Hoole, Didache, p. 90).
In brief, I submit, sir, that I have shown cause why, ere this Gaelic Pulpit Bible is offered as a People’s Bible, the objectionable brackets in Matt. vi. 13, Mark xvi. 9-20, Luke xxiv. 42, should be removed, and the precious words be allowed to have free course, as heretofore, in our midst. Moreover, I submit that this discussion, so far as it has gone, tends to show that the received Greek text is fundamentally the text of the 1st century. With apologies for occupying so much of your valuable space, I am, etc.,
JOHN R. MACKAY.
NOTE ON ABOVE LETTER.
The foregoing scholarly letter deals with a subject that may appear to most somewhat abstruse for these pages. But when it is explained that it has for its purpose the defence of the Greek text which underlies the translation of the Authorised Version of the New Testament in opposition to a text which leaves out verses and brands others as spurious, it will be seen that, however difficult it may be for the ordinary reader to follow such a discussion, it is a matter of vital importance to every believer. In our country there are two great schools of textual criticism (i.e., the science which deals with the text of the Scriptures, especially of the New Testament). There are great names on either side—the most popular among scholars is that school which recognises the principles laid down by Wescott and Hort. The great principle on which they proceed is that of genealogical grouping. All MSS. are grouped together, according to their relation to common ancestors. The whole process is very intricate, and cannot be fully explained here. Sufficient it is to point out that, after applying this principle, they get rid of all the MSS. with the exception of those belonging to the Aleph B group. This group, for this is the main point to be noticed in the meantime, leaves out the last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel, the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer, and also the verses in John’s gospel referring to the woman taken in adultery, etc. The other school, represented by Scrivener, Burgon, and Miller, proceeds on the assumption that every word of the Scripture was given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and that it is inconceivable that the Author of such a gift would allow it to become unavailing, and that consequently the text which has been used by the Church for centuries must be accepted. It was Burgon who did so much to destroy the English Revised Version in his famous articles in the Quarterly Review, which were afterwards republished in his “Revision Revised.” It is no defence of these principles that this letter is written, and when it is pointed out that the text underlying the Gaelic Revision is practically that underlying the English Revised Version, it will be acknowledged that it becomes students versed in these matters no longer to keep silence. It was positively said by some one that the rule of Wescott and Hort was that codex B was infallible, and that the evangelists were not. Dr. Salmon, of Dublin, who was by no means a blind advocate of Burgon’s principles, says—”It seemed as if Hort regarded it as a note of genuineness if a reading implies error on the part of a sacred writer.”
D. B.