CHAPTER ELEVEN
PATRISTIC EVIDENCE AND
THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT*
Of the three kinds of evidence which are used in ascertaining the text of the
New Testament - namely, evidence supplied by Greek manuscripts, by early
versions, and by scriptural quotations preserved in the writings of the Church
Fathers - it is the last which involves the greatest difficulties and the most
problems. There are difficulties, first of all, in obtaining the evidence, not
only because of the labour of combing through the very extensive literary
remains of the Fathers in search of quotations from the New Testament, but
also because satisfactory editions of the works of many of the Fathers have not
yet been produced. More than once in earlier centuries an otherwise well-
meaning editor accommodated the biblical quotations contained in a given
patristic document to the current text of the New Testament against the
authority of the manuscripts of the document. 1 Part of the problem, more-
over, is that exactly the same thing took place prior to the invention of
printing. Al, Hort pointed out, 'Whenever a transcriber of a patristic treatise
was copying a quotation differing from the text to which he was accustomed,
he had virtually two originals before him, one present to his eyes, the other to
his mind; and if the difference struck him, he was not unlikely to treat the
written exemplar as having blundered.' 2
In the second place, even for those patristic authors whose writings are avail-
able in reliable editions, the textual critic is often confronted with problems
arising from the manner in which a Father refers to the biblical text. It goes
without saying that reminiscences and allusions are of less value to the critic
than specific citations of the very words of the scriptural passage. Likewise it is
obvious that quotations which were made by copying directly from a biblical
manuscript will be of more value than those loosely quoted from memory.
Although the Fathers seldom had occasion to indicate which method they
followed, it is generally assumed that lengthy passages were more likely to be
copied from a manuscript than short passages. Likewise the nature and purpose
of the patristic treatise must be taken into account. Other things being equal, it
• The Presidential Address delivered 24 August 1971 at the Twenty-sixth General Meeting of
S.N.T.S., held at 'Leeuwenhorst Congres Centre', Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands.
1 For examples of shockingly lax standards of editorial accuracy, see the instances cited by
LI. J. M. Bcbb, 'The Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the
Books of the New Testament', Studia Biblica et Ecclesiastica, 11 (Oxford, 1890), 195-240, esp. 198 f.
1 B. F. Westcott and F.J. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek; [vol. 11], Introduction
[and] Appendix, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1896), pp. 202 f.
168 PATRISTIC EVIDENCE AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM (380)
is more likely that a Father will make a point ofquoting accurately in a polem-
ical treatise than in a popular exposition or homily. In any case, however,
all such problems are compounded when, as often happens, the Father quotes
the same passage more than once but never twice in the same wording. 1
But difficulties and problems do not end even when the textual critic has
laboriously assembled the patristic evidence; at this stage differences of
opinion arise concerning the interpretation of the evidence. Thus, the question
must be raised whether the Father has adjusted the wording of the passage to
fit his argument or at least to fit the syntax of his sentence. 2 After making all
due allowances for these and other kinds of exigencies, the textual critic must
decide what amount of weight he should accord the patristic evidence in
comparison with the weight accorded the evidence supplied by New Testa-
ment Greek manuscripts and the early versions. It is here that the widest
divergencies have emerged among modern textual critics. During the present
century several scholars have frequently given preference to patristic evi-
dence, even when such testimony is opposed by the weight of most - or even
all - of the Greek and versional evidence.
In order to keep the following discussion within manageable bounds, it is
proposed, first, to survey briefly the history of the collection of patristic
evidence for apparatus critici of the Greek New Testament; secondly, to con-
sider several of the more noteworthy passages for which patristic testimony
has been accorded predominant weight; and thirdly, to make comments and
to draw conclusions concerning the appropriate methodology when using
patristic evidence for the textual criticism of the New Testament.
I. GATHERING THE EVIDENCE3
Already in the first published edition of the Greek New Testament (Basel,
1516) Erasmus mentions on the title page the names of Origen, Chrysostom,
1 On patristic citation of the same passage in different ways, see M.Jack Suggs, 'The Use of
Patristic Evidence in the Search for the Primitive New Testament Text', New Testament Studus, rv
(1958), 13g--47, esp. pp. 141 f. Such laxity is not unknown in more modem times; for example, the
English divine Jeremy Taylor (1613-1667) quotes John iii. 3-5 nine times in his several writings, but
never in complete agreement with the English text of 1611, and only twice in agreement with each
other (so Ezra Abbot, The Autlwrship of the Fourth Gospel; External Evidmas [Boston, 188o], p. 41).
1 Thus, it seldom happens that in brief quotations one can rely upon patristic testimony for tcal,
yap, St, @.M, and similar connectives.
1 For other discussions of the contribution of patristic citations in the history of New Testament
textual criticism, see Caspar Rene Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, 11 (Leipzig, 1902),
747-53, 906--g3, and m (1909), 1345 and 1358--63; Robert M. Grant, 'The Citation of Patristic
Evidence in an Apparatus Criticus ', New Testament Manuscript Studies, ed. by M. M. Parvis and A. P.
Wikgren (Chicago, 1950), pp. 117-24; and Jean Duplacy and Jack Suggs, 'Les citations grecques
et la critique du texte du Nouveau Testament; Le passe, le present et l'avenir', La Bible et les pires,
Collogue de Strasbourg (Paris, 1971), pp. 187-213. The last mentioned volume also contains
discussions concerning biblical quotations made by Latin, Armenian, Coptic, and Syriac writers:
namely, H.J. Frede, 'Bibelzitate bei Kirchenvlitem', pp. 7g--g6; L. Leloir, 'La Bible et Jes Peres du
desert d'apres Jes deux collections armeniennes des Apophtegmes', pp. 113-34; K. Schussler,
'Zitate aus den katholischen Briefen bei den koptischen Kirchenvlitem ', pp. 215-28; and M. Black,
'The Syriac New Testament in Early Patristic Tradition', pp. 263-78.
