VI.
Patristic Testimony to Careful Copying Practices

            Patristic declarations demonstrate
that they inherited the apostolic concern for accurate copying.  Polycarp declared that “whosoever perverts the
oracles of the Lord . . . is the first-born of Satan.”[i]  Concern for accurate copying and transmission
of Scripture continued from his day on through the later periods of church
history, so that, for example, the Council in Trullo (A. D. 692) decreed it
“unlawful for anyone to corrupt or cut up a book of the Old or New Testament .
. . or to hand it over for destruction to any other like persons: unless to be
sure it has been rendered useless either by bookworms, or by water, or in some
other way. He who henceforth shall be observed to do such a thing shall be cut
off for one year. Likewise also he who buys such books (unless he keeps them
for his own use, or gives them to another for his benefit to be preserved) and
has attempted to corrupt them, let him be cut off.”[ii]
Tertullian argued:

Now, what is there
in our Scriptures which is contrary to us? What of our own have we introduced,
that we should have to take it away again, or else add to it, or alter it, in
order to restore to its natural soundness anything which is contrary to it, and
contained in the Scriptures? What we are ourselves, that also the Scriptures
are (and have been) from the beginning. Of them we have our being, before there
was any other way, before they were interpolated by you [heretics]. Now,
inasmuch as all interpolation must be believed to be a later process, for the
express reason that it proceeds from rivalry which is never in any case
previous to nor home-born with that which it emulates, it is as incredible to
every man of sense that we should seem to have introduced any corrupt text into
the Scriptures, existing, as we have been, from the very first, and being the
first, as it is that they have not in fact introduced it who are both later in
date and opposed (to the Scriptures).[iii]

Alteration of
Scripture by the orthodox to suit their purposes is unthinkable and
“incredible”;  no redaction, recension,
restorative lower criticism, or any other forms of alteration are necessary,
since “the unmutilated text of our own copy”[iv]
retained the “natural soundness” it had “from the beginning.”  Any changes in the extant Scripture were the
exclusive province of heresy.  Tertullian
demonstrates both the importance the orthodox placed upon accurate copying and
their affirmation of success in this endeavor.

            Comparisons with the originals, or
with known accurate copies, was a common practice for patristic works, and
certainly for the Bible as well.  For
example, three Gallic bishops sent their copy of Leo’s Tome back to him, requesting:

Therefore, if you
deem it worth while, we entreat your holiness to run through and correct any
mistake of the copyist in this work, so valuable both now and in the future,
which we have had committed to parchment, in our desire to preserve it . . . so
that not only many holy bishops our brethren throughout the provinces of Gaul,
but also many of your sons among the laity, who greatly desire to see this
letter for the revelation of the Truth, may be permitted, when it is sent back
to us, corrected by your holy hand, to transcribe, read and keep it.[v]

The
authoritative source was sought for, and when accurate readings from it were
ascertained, further copies were made from the definitive replica.

            Examples of careful copying of patristic
writings indicate the nature of the replication that would have a fortiori been employed for the
NT.  The Encyclical Epistle of the Church at Smyrna Concerning the Martyrdom of
the Holy Polycarp, likely composed c. A. D. 155-160,[vi]
was sent from “the Church of God which sojourns at Smyrna, to the Church of God
sojourning in Philomelium,”[vii]
with the intent that after “ye have yourselves read this Epistle, be pleased to
send it to the brethren at a greater distance, that they also may glorify the
Lord, who makes such choice of His own servants.”[viii]  It was intended for widespread copying and
distribution.  Near the end, it reads,
“Evarestus . . . wrote this Epistle . . . these things Caius transcribed from
the copy of Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp), having himself been
intimate with Irenaeus. And I Socrates transcribed them at Corinth from the
copy of Caius. . . . And I again, Pionius, wrote them from the previously
written copy, having carefully searched into them.”[ix]  The record of scribal names and the mention
of “carefully search[ing]” into the matters at hand indicate concern with the
accurate transcription of this record of martyrdom.  The Word of God would have received no less.

---