The Ancient Codices.
The
Vatican Codex and the Sinaitic
This brings us to the consideration of those "ancient
manuscripts" or "codices" as they are usually called, to which the modern
editors have attributed so high a degree of credibility, and by which their
decisions in the construction of a Greek Text for the R.V. have been so largely
influenced; and especially to the consideration of the two most venerable of
all the existing witnesses to the sacred text, namely the Codex Vaticanus, so
called because its repository is the papal palace (the Vatican) at Rome, and
the Codex Sinaiticus, so called because it was discovered by Tischendorf in a
monastery on Mt. Sinai in Arabia.
These Mss. are supposed, from the
character of the writing, and from other internal evidences, to date from the
fourth century. The next oldest are supposed to date from the fifth century.
Hence, upon the generally accepted theory to which we have referred above, the
testimony of the two codices just named is to be accepted as decisive in the
case of disputed readings. Therefore, the Revisers of 1881 committed themselves
to the leading of these two "ancient witnesses."
Did they lead towards or
away from the true text of the inspired Writings? That is the deeply important
matter into which we propose now to inquire.
In addition to the Codex
Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, there are three other very ancient Mss.
These are:
1. Codex Alexandrinus. This Ms. has been kept for a long time in
the British Museum in London. It contains all the Gospels (except small parts
of Matthew and John) and all the rest of the N.T. except 2 Cor. 4:13-12:6
(fifth century)
2. Codex Ephraemi. kept in Paris, containing only portions
of the Gospels, the Acts, Epistles and Revelation (fifth century).
3. Codex
Bezae, kept at Cambridge, England, containing nearly all the Gospels and
nothing else of the N.T. except portions of Acts (sixth century). It has a very
bad reputation, as fully exposed by Dean Burgon. No editor appears to attach
importance to it.
The Discovery of the Mt. Sinai Ms. This famous
Codex (with facsmilies of the handwriting, and with an account of its
discovery) is published in full in Dr. Scrivener's work entitled "A Full
Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus" (1864). Constantine Tischendorf, a noted
German scholar, who was indefatigable in the quest of old manuscripts, was
visiting, in the year 1844, a monastery on Mt. Sinai, and in the course of that
visit he chanced to find one day, among the waste, some leaves of vellum which,
upon inspection, were found to contain parts I of I the Septuagint Version of
the O.T. in a script which indicated that the Ms. was of great antiquity.
In describing his famous discovery Tischendorf says: "I perceived in the
middle of the great hall a large and wide basket, full of old parchments; and
the librarian informed me that two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by
reason of age, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise
to find among this heap of documents a considerable number of sheets of a copy
of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient
I had ever seen." The monks allowed him to take forty-five of the sheets. But
nothing more transpired until fifteen years later, when he again visited the
monastery, this time under the direct patronage of the Czar of Russia. And then
he was shown a bulky roll of parchment leaves, which included, among other
manuscripts of lesser importance, the Codex now known as the Sinaitic.
Naturally enough Dr. Tischendorf was highly elated by his discovery. indeed his
enthusiasm was unbounded. He says, "I knew that I held in my hands the most
precious Biblical treasure in existence;" and he considered this discovery to
be "greater than that of the Koh-i-noor (diamond) of the Queen of England."
As usual in such cases this important "find" made a great stir, especially
amongst those who devote themselves to the study of antiquity. We are all aware
of the marked tendency of human nature to exaggerate the importance of every
"find". Examples of this sort greet us from time to time. The discovery of the
tomb of an. Egyptian king is regarded as a matter of such supreme interest to
all the world, that even trivial details connected with it are cornmunicated by
cable to the ends of the earth, and are given prominence in the daily
newspapers. Thus an ancient article recently exhumed from the rubbish of a long
buried city will oftentimes start a wave of excitement throughout the world;
whereas an article of identical sort, known to have been in existence for some
time, would be treated with complete indifference. We need not wonder,
therefore, that the great scholar was carried away by his chance discovery, and
that he succeeded in impressing upon others also his own idea of the surpassing
importance of his "find."
Dean Burgon, speaking of Tischendorf and his
discovery, aptly remarks: "Happy in having discovered (in 1859) an uncial
Codex, second in antiquity only to the oldest before known (the Vatican Codex),
and strongly resembling that famous fourth century Codex, he suffered his
judgment to be overpowered by the circumstance. He at once remodelled his 7th
edition (i.e. the 7th edition of his Greek Text of the New Testament) in 3,505
places, to the scandal of the Science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to
his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency."
Evidently then,
Tischendorf was carried off his feet by the subjective influence of his
discovery; for he at once surrendered his judgment to this particular Ms.
easily persuading himself that, because of its apparent antiquity, and without
regard to any other considerations, it must needs be right in every instance
where it differed from later manuscripts. Thus, having fully committed himself
to that view, he naturally adhered to it thereafter.
Unfortunately,
however, the weight of his great influence affected the whole school of
Comparative Textual Criticism. For Dean Burgon goes on to say: "But in fact the
infatuation which prevails to this hour (1883) in this department of sacred
science can only be spoken of as incredible." And he proceeds to show, by
proofs which fill many pages "that the one distinctive tenet of the three most
famous critics since 1831 (Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf) has been a
superstitious reverence for what is found in the same little handful of early
(but not the earliest, nor yet of necessity the purest) documents. In this
connection it should be always borne in mind that those text-makers who profess
to adopt as their controlling principle the acceptance on disputed points of
the testimony of "the most ancient manuscripts," have not acted consistently
with that principle. For the fact is that, in the compilation of their Greek
Texts they have not really followed the most ancient manuscripts, but have been
controlled by two manuscripts only. Those two are followed even against the
counter evidence of all other available manuscripts, amounting to over a
thousand, some of which are practically of equal age, and against the evidence
also of Versions and of quotations from the writings of "fathers" much older
than the two Codices referred to.
Back To
FAQs?