WE have stated that a manuscript is naturally of more or less value according to its age. This needs a little further consideration. We can easily understand that the more ancient a copy is, the fewer hands it has passed through, and the nearer it is to the original. We will try and illustrate this by a diagram.
A1—————————-A———————-M———————-B—————————-B1
| | | | |
A4—A3—A5 A6—A2—A7 | B4—B2—B5 B6—B3—B7
|
C1—C—C2
|
C3
Suppose that M represents the copy of Mark's Gospel that he wrote. This was copied by A, who in copying made a certain number of mistakes. A was copied by Al and A2, each of whom copied those mistakes of A (where they had no means of correcting them) and made more mistakes of their own. Then if A2 was copied by two others, each following the mistakes in his copy and making more mistakes of his own, we can understand that the farther a copy was from the original the more mistakes we might expect to find, and the less weight would be attached to it. But mistakes did not multiply in the same ratio as the copies were removed from the original; because the errors began to be found out, and were corrected by different hands before further copies were made. Thus, as we have seen, the Codex Sinaiticus (though classed among the earliest of our manuscripts) had passed through the hands of nine or ten correctors. So that we do not find the later copies so incorrect as otherwise we should do.
Another question arises as to how far each copy can be treated as an independent witness. This will be understood by looking again at the diagram. Mark's gospel was copied by A who made some mistakes, but it was also copied by B, who also made mistakes, but not the same mistakes that A made. Now we can easily understand that all the copies made from A might be free from the mistakes B made, and all the copies made from B, might be free from the mistakes that A made. And if we suppose that A was carried into one country, and B into another, the readings of the one would be the less mixed up with the readings of the other. This will illustrate what is called the theory of recensions or "families" of manuscripts. All that were copied from A are of one family and all that were copied from B are another family. The importance of this is that Al, A2, up to A7 are not independent witnesses as to the mistakes A made. They copied his mistakes without knowing it. And therefore to say I have seven witnesses to prove that B is wrong would not have the weight of seven independent witnesses, for they are merely copies of one witness (A).
Thus to correct A we want B or its family; and to correct B we want A or its family. And when copies are found to be members of a family they do not form separate and independent witnesses, except as to mistakes made by each individual; but must be sometimes treated as one witness and not as many.
Then, later on, one person might have a copy of the A family and also a copy of B family, and correct one by the other, and thus would be produced copies that were not strictly A nor B, but had some peculiarities of both. This is what is actually found in the Greek manuscripts; and indeed this exists to such an extent that some have doubted the existence of separate and distinct families altogether.
On the other hand, some have thought that there were several different families; but they are now mostly confined to two, called "Alexandrian" (or Eastern, from the city of Alexandria), and “Constantinopolitan” (or Western, from the city of Constantinople). Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus would be the former, and Codex Alexandrinus the latter in the Gospels (notwithstanding its name); though it is said to belong to the other family in the Epistles.
As has been said, there is a break in the classification of manuscripts about the tenth century. From the first to the tenth the uncial copies (those written all in capitals) were in use; after that the cursives (those written in the ordinary Greek, not in capitals) came into use: and it has been a serious question as to how far attention should be paid to the cursives as evidence. Some pay no attention to them, considering that it is best to pay attention to the uncials only; and indeed some almost discard the later of these, attempting to obtain a true text from the older uncials only.
Now without questioning that the older a copy is the more valuable it is as a witness, it is important to see that some of the later copies may be right and of great value where the older copies differ. For instance, by referring back to the diagram, we have spoken of Mark's gospel being copied by A and B; but suppose it was also copied by C; and although C has been lost, yet we have some that have descended from that copy, but in cursives only. Now suppose that A and B differed in a reading (as the two families named often do), the reading of C, though only a cursive, may be of great value in determining which is right; especially if it was found not to belong strictly to either of the above named families. Thus a person who confines himself to the earliest Greek copies will miss this class of evidence, because he pays no attention to the later uncials and the cursives.
It may be compared to a trial in a court. It almost always happens that some witnesses are much more valuable than others, but a wise counsel calls all he has; the evidence of all being needed to make his case complete. On the contrary side all are also called. But it often happens that some little thing from one of the non-important witnesses, as some might have been supposed, gives the key to a right judgment, or adds material weight in coming to a conclusion.
So it would seem in judging of a reading, it is not right to judge by a few witnesses only, and shut out a great many. It may be that one of those shut out gives the key to the true reading, being confirmed by one or more of the uncials, by ancient Versions and Fathers.
Before leaving the subject of "Families" of manuscripts it must be noted that each Family has been sought to be discovered not simply by mistakes, but by peculiarities in spelling, grammar, &c., of which the Editors make out lists, but some of which at least have had to be abandoned after having been made. It is sufficient for our purpose to state how the principal manuscripts are now generally arranged. The following has been drawn up by Tregelles: to which we add א.
Alexandrian:
א B Z
C L 1 33
P Q T R Π N R
X Δ 69.
Constantinopolitan (or Western):
A
K M H
E F G S U V Γ Λ
The manuscripts are placed in the above order as a sort of genealogy of each Family; but anything like scientific accuracy is not claimed for the above. D stands alone. The Latin is classed with the Western.