18 August 2022 topical index

Unless something more comprehensive has appeared since -- and I don't know of it -- the most complete list of explicit references to manuscript evidence by Church Fathers is to be found in Amy Donaldson's dissertation at Notre Dame, which is available online here.

In the past, where I am not sure, I picked up the idea that the Church Fathers often support the Alexandrian Text over the Byzantine. As an exercise, and a quick and rough test of this, I've gone through Donaldson's catalogue and selected passages that meet the following criteria:

1. A passage concerns a variant reading in which the ℵ and B are lined up on one side, with 𝔐 on the other.

2. A Church Father either expresses a clear preference for one of the two variants, or else comments on how many manuscripts (including vague terms like 'many' or 'some') support a particular reading, so long as that comment indicates that one reading has more support in the manuscripts than another.

To simplify matters, I will treat any agreement of ℵ and B as representing the Alexandrian Text, and any citation by Donaldson of 𝔐 as representing the Byzantine Text. These should suffice for quick and rough work.

The first such passage is Matthew 5:22, where 𝔐 reads "without cause", which is omitted by ℵ* B. Pseudo-Athanasius refers to the Alexandrian omission as being the reading of "the accurate copies" (Donaldson, p. 349). Augustine says that "the Greek manuscripts do not have 'without cause'" (p. 350).

Jerome says, "In some codices the words are added: 'without reason'. But in the authentic texts the judgment is definite and anger is completely taken away ..." (p. 350). Origen calls the Byzantine reading an "error" (p. 352).

Here the word 'openly', found in 𝔐, is missing in ℵ B. Augustine finds 'openly' in "many Latin copies", but says, "we have not found the word ... in the Greek copies, which are earlier" (p. 358).

This short passage, a metaphor about weather forecasting, is found in 𝔐, but missing in ℵ B. While Jerome does not say which reading is correct, he does say that the 𝔐 reading "is not found in the majority of manuscripts".

Here, ℵ*² B read "nor the son", which 𝔐 omits. Ambrose here strongly takes the side of 𝔐, suggesting that "nor the son" was added by heretics (Donaldson, p. 379). Jerome seems to imply that the majority of Greek manuscripts omit the phrase, but does not clearly reject it (p. 380).

Here, where 𝔐 has the longer ending of Mark, ℵ B lack it, ending the book abruptly. Eusebius says the abrupt ending is found "the accurate copies" and "nearly all the copies" (p. 398). Jerome echoes the views of Eusebius (p. 402). Similarly, Severus describes the abrupt reading as being that of "the more accurate copies" (p. 403). Victor of Antioch, while granting that Eusebius may be right about the abrupt ending being that of the majority of texts, he says that "most of the accurate copies in accordance with the Palestinian Gospel of Mark, have included it" (p. 406).

This is the famous Pericope Adulterae, omitted by ℵ B, found in 𝔐. Augustine favors its authenticity, going so far as to accuse those who omit it of doing so out of improperly judgmental motives (p. 431-2). Didymus, without ruling either way on the text-critical question, describe the Pericope as appearing "in some gospels" (p. 432). Euthymius Zigabenus takes a pragmatic approach, claiming that the passage is missing in the "the accurate copies", but still viewing it as useful and therefore worthy of comment (p. 433). Jerome also comments on the passage, noting that exists "in many both Greek and Latin copies", but does not rule on its authenticity (p. 434).

In this verse, 𝔐 reads "I do not find it in me to fulfill", where ℵ B read "not to fulfill". In giving a commentary on the verse, Augustine first quotes the longer 𝔐 reading, but then notes that "the Greek copies" have the shorter (p. 461).

In 𝔐, we find the question, "Who bewitched you not to believe the truth?", which is omitted by ℵ B. Jerome agrees with ℵ B here, and in support of his opinion notes that it is not found in "the copies of Adamantius" (Origen) (pp. 498-9).

Where 𝔐 reads "to the saints who are in Ephesus", ℵ B omit "in Ephesus", thus leaving Paul in the unusual position of writing a letter "to the saints who are." Basil supports this difficult reading, noting that it has been passed down "in the old copies".

Here ℵ B omit "of our Lord Jesus Christ", which is found in 𝔐. Here Jerome sides with ℵ B, referring to the longer reading as "the addition found in the Latin manuscripts" (p. 503).

Anyone who wants to know with assurance what's going on should consult the extensive scholarly literature on textual criticism. But, for whatever this little exercise is worth, we have ten passages, in each of which ℵ B stand against 𝔐, for which one or more Fathers express (either through a direct statement of preference, or a statement about the quality or number of manuscripts) an opinion which reflects better on one side or the other.

Out of those ten cases, in eight cases the Fathers simply line up in favor of the Alexandrian reading. The three other cases are as follows. (1) The end of Mark, in which most of the fathers who comment favor the Alexandrian reading, although Victor of Antioch dissents in favor of the majority text. (2) The Pericope Adulterae, on which opinion is about evenly divided.

Interestingly, there is not a single passage in which the majority text reading is out and out preferred. Wherever the Fathers speak of the majority of copies, they speak of the Alexandrian reading, not of what is now known as the majority text.

Particularly interesting is that in a number of places what we now call the Alexandrian reading is simply referred to as that of "the Greek copies", indicating that the reading that agrees with the majority text of today is being found by them in Latin texts. For this see Matthew 5:22, 6:4, and Romans 7:18. Similarly, the "majority text" reading in Ephesians 3:14 is called "the addition found in the Latin manuscrips".

My naive and understudied next instinct would be go and see if there is any evidence that some of the expanded readings now found in the Byzantine Text might have a Latin origin. But that has no doubt already been studied, although I don't know what conclusions have been reached.