CHAPTER VII.

ITS RELATION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE.

The chronological relation of the Gospel to the First Epistle of S. John cannot be determined with certainty. The Epistle presupposes the Gospel in some shape or other: but as the Gospel was given orally for many years before it was written, it is possible that the Epistle may have been written first. Probably they were written within a few years of one another. whichever was written first of the two. The Epistle is a philosophical companion to the Gospel; either an introduction or a supplement to it. The Gospel is a summary of Christian Theology, the Epistle is a summary of Christian Ethics. The one shews the Divine Life in the Person of Christ, the other shews it in the Christian.

In comparing the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptists we found great and obvious differences, accompanied by real but less obvious correspondences. Here the opposite is rather the case. The coincidences both in thought and expression between the Gospel and the First Epistle of S. John are many and conspicuous; but closer inspection shews some important differences.

The object of the Gospel, as we have seen, is to create a conviction that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.' The object of the Epistle is rather to insist that the Son of God is Jesus. The Gospel starts from the historical human Teacher and proves that He is Divine; the Epistle starts rather from the Son of God and contends that He has come in the flesh. Again, the Gospel is not polemical; the truth is stated rather than error attacked. In the Epistle definite errors, especially those of Cerinthus, are attacked.

The lesson of both is one and the same; faith in Jesus Christ leading to fellowship with Him, and through fellowship with Him to fellowship with the Father and with one another: or, to sum up all in one word, Love.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPEL.

The authorities are abundant and various. It will suffice to mention twelve of the most important; six Greek MSS. and six Ancient Versions.

Greek Manuscripts.

CODEX SINAITICUS (N). 4th century. Discovered by Tischendorf in 1859 at the monastery of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, and now at St Petersburg. The whole Gospel.

CODEX ALEXANDRINUS (A). 5th century. Brought by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, from Alexandria, and afterwards presented by him to Charles I. in 1628. In the British Museum. The whole Gospel, excepting vi. 50—viii. 52.

CODEX VATICANUS (B). 4th century, but perhaps later than the Sinaiticus. In the Vatican Library. The whole Gospel.

CODEX EPHRAEMI (C). 5th century. A palimpsest: the original writing has been partially rubbed out and the works of Ephraem the Syrian have been written over it. In the National Library at Paris. Eight fragments; i. 1-41; iii. 33—v. 16; vi. 38—vii. 3; viii. 34—ix. 11; xi. 8—46; xiii. 8—xiv. 7; xvi. 21-xviii. 36; xx. 26—xxi. 25.

CODEX BEZAE (D). 6th or 7th century. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge in 1581. Remarkable for its interpolations and various readings. The whole Gospel, excepting i. 16-iii. 26: but xviii. 13—xx. 13 is by a later hand, possibly from the original MS.

CODEX REGIUS PARISIENSIS (L). 8th or 9th century. Nearly related to the Vaticanus. At Tours. The whole Gospel, excepting xxi. 15-xxi. 25.

Ancient Versions.

OLD SYRIAC (Curetonian). 2nd century. Four fragments; i.—42;` iii. 5—vii. 35; vii. 37—viii. 53, omitting vii. 53-viii. 11; xiv. 11-29.

VULGATE SYRIAC (Peschito='simple' meaning perhaps 'faithful'). 3rd century. The whole Gospel.

HARCLEAN SYRIAC (a revision of the Philoxenian Syriac, which is a servile translation of the 6th century). 7th century. The whole Gospel.

OLD LATIN (Vetus Latina). 2nd century. The whole Gospel in several distinct forms.

VULGATE LATIN (mainly a revision of the Old Latin by Jerome, A.D. 383-5). 4th century. The whole Gospel.

MEMPHITIC (Coptic, in the dialect of Lower Egypt). 3rd century. The whole Gospel.

Besides many other MSS. of every degree of excellence, and some other Ancient Versions, there is also the evidence of the Fathers. We have considerable fragments of the commentaries of Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, nearly the whole of that of Cyril of Alexandria, and the Homilies of Chrysostom and Augustine. In addition to these must be mentioned valuable quotations from the Gospel in various Greek and Latin writers in the second, third and fourth centuries. Quotations by writers later than the fourth century are of little or no value. By that time the corruption of the text was complete. The Diocletian persecution had swept away a large majority of the ancient copies, and a composite text emanating mainly from Constantinople gradually took their place.

Our main authorities, therefore, are the most ancient MSS., Versions, and Fathers. How are these authorities to be used? Our object in each disputed case will be to ascertain the oldest reading; and unless strong arguments against the authenticity of the earliest reading exist, its antiquity will be decisive in its favour. But the date of a MS. is not the same thing as the date of the text which it represents. Some MSS., as NBD, contain a text which can be traced back to the end of the second century. Others, as A, contain a text which is very little older than the MS. itself. Very few readings in the Gospels which are not supported by either B or or D are likely to be the true reading. Of these three very ancient authorities, B is the purest, D very much the most corrupt.

But in a very large number of disputed passages B and will be found to agree. In that case our choice is not difficult: it is where these two separate, and where neither of them has a very decided preponderance of support from other ancient authorities, that serious doubt arises. As between BN on the one hand and A with its common supporters on the other we need not hesitate. It is easy in most cases to see how the reading of BN has been softened or amplified into the reading of A; very difficult to see what could have induced copyists to alter the smooth readings of A into the harsher readings of BN, or why when A makes the Evangelists agree the scribes of BN should make them differ. All the probabilities shew that the text of A has been developed out of a text very similar to that of BN, not the text of BN manufactured by the mutilation of one similar to A. A few simple examples will illustrate this.

In i. 26, 27 the text of BN stands thus ;

Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι μέσος ὑμῶν στήκει ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε, ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, οὗ οὐκ εἰμὶ [ἐγὼ] ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω κ.τ.λ.

The text of A stands thus ;

Ἐγὼ βαπτίζω ἐν ὕδατι· μέσος δὲ ὑμῶν ἕστηκεν ὃν ὑμεῖς οὐκ οἴδατε. αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος, ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν, οὗ ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἄξιος ἵνα λύσω κ.τ.λ.

(1) The insertion of dé certainly makes the sentence less harsh. (2) oτηkev is a very common form, στýkeɩ a rare one. (3) αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ flls up the construction and assimilates the passage to v. 30: and other MSS. shew the assimilation in another form; οὗτός ἐστιν, οι αὐτός ἐστιν ὃν εἶπον. (4) The insertion ὃς ἔμπροσθέν μου γέγονεν assimilates the passage to vr. 15, 30. (5) The transposition of eye (omitted by N) gives emphasis to the Baptist's self-humiliation. In all these cases the change from B to A is much more intelligible than the change from A to BN. What could induce a copyist to omit dé, to change ἕστηκεν into στήκει, to create differences between this passage vv. 15, 30, to weaken the Baptist's humility? The inference is that BN have the earlier reading and A the derived or corrupted reading. The following table contains evidence pointing in the same direction:

and

Similarly in i. 43, xxi. 15, 16, 17, BN give John as the father of S. Peter, while A gives Jonas in harmony with Matt. xvi. 17. From the notes on the text at the head of the notes on each chapter the student may collect many other instances; all tending to shew that the change from BN to A is much more probable than the converse change, and that therefore A is a corruption of BN rather than BN of A. His attention is specially directed to i. 16, 18, iii. 15, 34, iv. 51, v. 3, 4, 16, 37, viii. 59, ix. 4, 11, x. 12, 29, 38, xi. 19, xii. 1, 7, 13, xiii. 2, xiv. 4, 10, 23, xvii. 22, xviii. 10, 29, 30, xix. 7, 26, 27, 29, xx. 16, xxi. 6.

It is admitted on all hands that the history of the text in the second, third and fourth centuries is that of a gradual corruption. It is sometimes assumed that about the fourth century a process of purification began, and that later texts are consequently less corrupt than earlier ones. Of this supposed process of purification there is absolutely no evidence whatever. The process which shews itself with ever-increasing vigour in the fourth century is that of eclecticism; a picking-out from various sources of those readings which reduced differences and difficulties to a minimum. Whereas it is a recognised principle of textual criticism that the more difficult reading is the more likely to be the

true one.

It is easy to get a very exaggerated idea of the amount of uncertainty which exists respecting the text of N.T. “If comparative trivialities, such as changes of order, the insertion or omission of the article with proper names, and the like, are set aside, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the N.T." (Westcott and Hort, The N.T. in Greek, I. p. 561). Every reader of the Greek Testament who can afford the time should study the work just quoted. Those who cannot, should read Hammond's Out