Chapter VIII · Alexandria and Caesarea. § 1. Alexandrian Readings, and the Alexandrian School.

What is the real truth about the existence of an Alexandrian Text? Are there, or are there not, sufficient elements of an Alexandrian character, and of Alexandrian or Egyptian origin, to constitute a Text of the Holy Gospels to be designated by that name?

So thought Griesbach, who conceived Origen to be the standard of the Alexandrian text. Hort, who appears to have attributed to his Neutral text much of the native products of Alexandria182, speaks more of readings than of text. The question must be decided upon the evidence of the case, which shall now be in the main produced.

The Fathers or ancient writers who may be classed as Alexandrian in the period under consideration are the following:—

Traditional. Neologian.

Heracleon 1 7

Clement of Alexandria 82 72

Dionysius of Alexandria 12 5

Theognosius 0 1

Peter of Alexandria 7 8

Arius 2 1

Athanasius (c. Arianos) 57 56

—— ——

161 150

[pg 149]

Under the thirty places already examined, Clement, the most important of these writers, witnesses 8 times for the Traditional reading and 14 times for the Neologian. Origen, who in his earlier years was a leader of this school, testifies 44 and 27 times respectively in the order stated.

The Version which was most closely connected with Lower Egypt was the Bohairic, and under the same thirty passages gives the ensuing evidence:—

1. Matt. i. 25. Omits. One MS. says the Greek has “her first-born son”.

2. " v. 44. Large majority, all but 5, omit. Some add in the margin.

3. " vi. 13. Only 5 MSS. have the doxology.

4. " vii. 13. All have it.

5. " ix. 13. 9 have it, and 3 in margin: 12 omit, besides the 3 just mentioned.

6. " xi. 27. All have βούληται.

7. " xvii. 21. Only 6 MSS. have it, besides 7 in margin or interlined: 11 omit wholly.

8. " xviii. 11. Only 4 have it.

9. " xix. 16. Only 7 have “good,” besides a few corrections: 12 omit.

" " 17. Only 1 has it.

10. " xxiii. 38. Only 6 have it.

11. " xxvii. 34. One corrected and one which copied the correction. All the rest have οἶνον183.

12. " xxviii. 2. All have it.

13. " " 19. All have it.

14. Mark i. 2. All (i.e. 25) give, Ἠσαΐᾳ.

15. " xvi. 9-20. None wholly omit: 2 give the alternative ending.

16. Luke i. 28. Only 4 + 2 corrected have it: 12 omit.

17. " ii. 14. All have εὐδοκία.

18. " x. 41-2. Ὀλίγων δὲ (3 omit) ἐστὶ χρεία ἢ ἑνός: 1 omits ἢ ἑνός. 2 corrected add “of them.”

19. " xxii. 43-4. Omitted by 18184.

20. " xxiii. 34. All omit185.

[pg 150]

21. Luke xxiii. 38. All omit except 5186 (?).

22. " " 45. All have ἐκλιπόντος187.

23. " xxiv. 40. All have it.

24. " " 42. All omit188.

25. John i. 3-4. All (except 1 which pauses at οὐδὲ ἕν) have it. The Sahidic is the other way.

26. " " 18. All have Θεός189.

27. " iii. 13. Omitted by 9.

28. " x. 14. All have “mine know me.” The Bohairic has no passive: hence the error190.

29. " xvii. 24. The Bohairic could not express οὕς: hence the error191.

30. " xxi. 25. All have it.

The MSS. differ in number as to their witness in each place.

No manuscripts can be adduced as Alexandrian: and in fact we are considering the ante-manuscriptal period. All reference therefore to manuscripts would be consequent upon, not a factor in, the present investigation.

It will be seen upon a review of this evidence, that the most striking characteristic is found in the instability of it. The Bohairic wabbles from side to side. Clement witnesses on both sides upon the thirty places but mostly against the Traditional text, whilst his collected evidence in all cases yields a slight majority to the latter side of the contention. Origen on the contrary by a large majority rejects the Neologian readings on the thirty passages, but acknowledges them by a small one in his habitual quotations. It is very remarkable, and yet characteristic of Origen, who indeed changed his home from Alexandria to Caesarea, that his habit was to adopt one of the most notable of Syrio-Low-Latin readings in preference to the Traditional reading prevalent at Alexandria. St. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35) in defending the reading of St. John i. 3-4, “without Him was not anything made: that which was made was life in Him,” says that [pg 151] Alexandrians and Egyptians follow the reading which is now adopted everywhere except by Lachmann, Tregelles, and W.-Hort. It has been said that Origen was in the habit of using MSS. of both kinds, and indeed no one can examine his quotations without coming to that conclusion.

Therefore we are led first of all to the school of Christian Philosophy which under the name of the Catechetical School has made Alexandria for ever celebrated in the early annals of the Christian Church. Indeed Origen was a Textual Critic. He spent much time and toil upon the text of the New Testament, besides his great labours on the Old, because he found it disfigured as he says by corruptions “some arising from the carelessness of scribes, some from evil licence of emendation, some from arbitrary omissions and interpolations192.” Such a sitting in judgement, or as perhaps it should be said with more justice to Origen such a pursuit of inquiry, involved weighing of evidence on either side, of which there are many indications in his works. The connexion of this school with the school set up at Caesarea, to which place Origen appears to have brought his manuscripts, and where he bequeathed his teaching and spirit to sympathetic successors, will be carried out and described more fully in the next section. Origen was the most prominent personage by far in the Alexandrian School. His fame and influence in this province extended with the reputation of his other writings long after his death. “When a writer speaks of the ‘accurate copies,’ what he actually means is the text of Scripture which was employed or approved by Origen193.” Indeed it was an elemental, inchoate school, dealing in an academical and eclectic spirit with evidence of various kinds, highly intellectual rather than original, as for example [pg 152] in the welcome given to the Syrio-Low-Latin variation of St. Matt. xix. 16, 17, and addicted in some degree to alteration of passages. It would appear that besides this critical temper and habit there was to some extent a growth of provincial readings at Alexandria or in the neighbourhood, and that modes of spelling which were rejected in later ages took their rise there. Specimens of the former of these peculiarities may be seen in the table of readings just given from the Bohairic Version. The chief effects of Alexandrian study occurred in the Caesarean school which now invites our consideration.