Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), The Patristic Citations Of The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers And The Search For Eleven Missing Verses Of The New Testament

‘Abdullah David & M S M Saifullah

© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.

First Composed: 2nd November 2006

Last Modified: 15th May 2007

Assalamu-‘alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

1. Introduction

Based on an anecdote attributed to Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), with the exception of a small number of verses (usually eleven), the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the early Church Fathers from the first three Christian centuries. Anyone who has had the experience of a Christian missionary witnessing them will undoubtedly have heard this argument used in conjunction with the textual reliability of the New Testament. Furthermore, these claims are present in a wide selection of contemporary Christian apologetical literature,^[1] even finding pride of place in modern manuals of textual criticism, although in a somewhat less dramatic tempered format.^[2] A number of difficulties arise, however, when one wishes to test the efficacy of this statement. No original documentation is provided by any of the publications noted above, and, on numerous occasions, the Christian apologists simply cite each other (or even themselves!) as the source of information. Even luminaries such as the late Bruce Metzger, Professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature, neglects to provide a source for his information. It would appear there have been no attempts to gather together the various strands of this story or collating the differences in minutiae between different printed versions.

In this paper we will go back to the original source of the claim and attempt to place the story within a fixed chronological framework. We will comment on the various aspects of this incident after which we can draw some preliminary observations and conclusions. Going back to the original documents, something which none of the authors have attempted to study, it will be shown that the data in them clearly disproves the claim that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the early Church Fathers from the first three Christian centuries.

2. Historical And Theological Antecedents

During the European “age of enlightenment”, increasingly sophisticated methods of questioning were employed by the sceptics of Christianity. Utilising work produced in part by Christians themselves, one of their aims was to demonstrate the textual corruption of the New Testament text. One of the most interesting accounts with a direct bearing on the topic is that of Dr. John Mill, of Oxford University. In compiling his ‘critical’ edition of the New Testament, he included along with the primary text, some 30,000 variant readings. This shocked and startled many who had previously thought that the sacred text was above suspicion. Such reports were commented on in the literature, sometimes anonymously, and, as a result, accusations rang back and forth regarding the reliability on the New Testament text.

Robert Jenkin, Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, had the third (second?) edition of his book entitled The Reasonableness And Certainty Of The Christian Religion published in 1708 in two volumes. Absent from the previous two editions of his book,^[3] we can observe the addition of a few sentences that are themselves part of a larger section, which signal the beginning of a whole trend of apologetics that continues until today. Jenkin said:

The agreement likewise of the Greek Text of the New Testament, with the several ancient versions, and with the Quotations found in the writings of the Fathers, who cited and alleged them from the Times of the Apostles, proves that there have been no alterations of any such consequence, as to make the Scriptures insufficient for the ends of Divine Revelation.^[4]

Proving the integrity of the text of the Greek New Testament was one of the ways defending the doctrine taught therein. Jenkin says that there is probably no one text with a different reading which would cause any doctrine supported by that reading to be different from the original.^[5] Making reference to Mill's massive collation, Jenkin discusses some of the problems arising from an analysis of this work, such as transcriptional errors and mistakes by the scribes, but goes on to conclude the canon of scripture and text of the Greek New Testament has never suffered any corruption from heretics.^[6] Just a few years earlier, La Touch, proclaiming multiple proofs for the truth of Christianity, laid down four preliminary truths which he says are foundational for his exposition.^[7] The fourth and final preliminary truth is the integrity of the Greek New Testament due to the fact there are an “… infinite number of copies and versions of it, so that it might be put into the hands of all mankind: And this multiplicity of copies, rendred any considerable change which might be design'd, impossible to be made.”^[8] As an aside, we can also observe one of the earliest causal links between multiplicity of copies and the integrity of the Greek New Testament text.

This is the kind of atmosphere the Christians were operating in; they acknowledged that there were variations in the biblical text, but this was a proof for the integrity of the Greek New Testament and not the other way around. Soon, however, functional slip was to develop as different writers sought to prove this argument via different methods. Thus, what had originally started out as a specific reaction and response to the publication of various critical editions of the New Testament, gradually increased in scope and offered a reverse argument for the veracity of the quotations of the ante-Nicene Fathers. St. Isidore of Seville (c. 560 – 636 CE) Archbishop of Seville recorded that Flavius Anastasius (Anastasius I), a Monophysite Roman emperor from 491 CE until 518 CE, was accused of making widespread changes to the four Gospels during his reign.^[9] So in order to prove that no alteration of the gospels had occurred, the citations of the Latin and Greek Fathers were used as evidence to show that there are no differences between themselves or the Greek New Testament. Of particular interest here are a number of influential sermons preached by the Reverend Benjamin Ibbot, preacher-assistant at St. James, Westminster, in 1713/14 CE. In a sermon entitled “That The Present Scriptures Are Genuine And Uncorrupt; And The Objection Taken From The Many Various Readings, Answer'd” He said:

Fifthly, BESIDES the silence of History in this Matter, we have another more convincing Argument that no such alter'd Gospels did ever, in Fact, appear and obtain in the World. For the Writers before Anastasius's time, the Greek and Latin Fathers of the first four Centuries, are very full of Citations out of the New Testament, insomuch that there are but few Passages in that Book but what are produc'd at large by one or other of these Writers: and yet their Citations agree with the present MSS. And Printed Copies; which is a demonstration that not only the Gospels, but the whole New Testament, hath continued the same since Anastasius's time as before, and suffered no such Alteration as is pretended.

The same appears from the entire Commentaries and Versions which were made of the New Testament before Anastasius's time, all which agree with the present Copies ; so that ‘tis impossible there should have been any such Forgery, unless all these Writings were alter'd too, and made over anew: A supposition so wild and extravagant, that I believe no Free-Thinker will maintain it.^[10]

Under the chapter heading “In All Points Of Doctrine And Duty, The Books Of The New Testament Have Descended To Us In Their Original Integrity” Reverend Dr. Edward Harwood says specifically of the citations of the New Testament:

The citations from the New Testament in the writings of the primitive Christians in the first centuries are so numerous, that from various scattered passages in their books, if collected, there would be formed almost the whole body of the gospels and epistles: and though these citations were, most commonly, made from memory, yet always with regard to the sense and meaning, and most commonly with regard to the words and order of the words, they correspond with the original records from which they were extracted. An irrefragable argument this, how pure and sincere these Sacred Monuments have always been preserved.^[11]

Here we can observe one of the first instances where the citations of the early Church Fathers are said to correspond with the “original” text. Remarkably, not a single author noted above provided any evidence for these momentous claims – much like their modern counterparts. In fact, the words of Harwood were just too good to pass up with a number of other authors copying the text verbatim without properly referencing the source.^[12] The eighteenth century was a turbulent place at times for those who chose to examine the Bible with a critical eye.^[13] Equally, there arose a number of claims regarding the text of the Greek New Testament and the citations of the early Fathers which were perpetuated unchecked and unsourced. One of these claims concerns a certain Scottish Judge, Sir David Dalrymple, also known as Lord Hailes, who is said to have reconstructed every verse of the New Testament from the ante-Nicene Fathers' quotations with the exception of eleven verses.

3. An Anecdote

Let us relate the anecdote in full by turning to the volume in which it first appeared, Robert Philip's almost autobiographical memoir, The Life, Times, And Missionary Enterprises, Of The Rev. John Campbell. After a brief prefix by Philip, John Campbell, who was in part reporting what Rev. Dr Walter Buchanan had said, who was in part reporting what Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) had said, said:

Another of Mr. Campbell's literary friends was, the late Rev. Walter Buchanan, of Edinburgh; the friend of Lord Hailes. At his table, Mr. Campbell met some distinguished men, and gathered up many literary anecdotes. One of the latter deserves to be mentioned, because it had so much influence in satisfying his own mind upon the perfection of the New Testament.

“ANECDOTE OF LORD HAILES.

"I remember distinctly an interesting anecdote referring to the late Sir David Dalrymple, (better known to literary men abroad by his title of Lord Hailes,) a Scotch judge. I had it from the late Rev. Walter Buchanan, one of the ministers of Edinburgh. I took such interest in it, that though it must be about fifty years ago since he told it, I think I can almost relate it in Mr. Buchanan's words.

"‘I was dining some time ago with a literary party at old Mr. Abercrombie's, (father of General Abercrombie who was slain in Egypt, at the head of the British army,) and spending the evening together. A gentleman present put a question which puzzled the whole company. It was this: Supposing all the New Testaments in the world had been destroyed at the end of the third century, could their contents have been recovered from the writings of the three first centuries? The question was novel to all, and no one even hazarded a guess in answer to the inquiry.

"‘About two months after this meeting, I received a note from Lord Hailes, inviting me to breakfast with him next morning. He had been of the party. During breakfast he asked me, if I recollected the curious question about the possibility of recovering the contents of the New Testament from the writings of the three first centuries? ‘I remember it well, and have thought of it often without being able to form any opinion or conjecture on the subject.’

"‘Well,’ said Lord Hailes, ‘that question quite accorded with the turn or taste of my antiquarian mind. On returning home, as I knew I had all the writers of those centuries, I began immediately to collect them, that I might set to work on the arduous task as soon as possible.’ Pointing to a table covered with papers, he said, ‘There have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half chapters, and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and where I have found it; so that any person may examine and see for themselves. I have actually discovered the whole New Testament from those writings, except seven or eleven verses, (I forget which,) which satisfies me that I could discover them also. Now,’ said he, ‘here was a way in which God concealed, or hid the treasure of his word, that Julian, the apostate emperor, and other enemies of Christ who wished to extirpate the gospel from the world, never would have thought of; and though they had, they never could have effected their destruction.’

"The labour in effecting this feat must have been immense; for the gospels and epistles would not be divided into chapters and verses as they are now. Much must have been effected by the help of a concordance. And having been a judge for many years, a habit of minute investigation must have been formed in his mind.^[14]

It would be instructive to remind ourselves exactly what an anecdote is. The Oxford English Dictionary provides two primary definitions for ‘anecdote’, viz., (1) secret, private, or hitherto unpublished narratives or details of history; (2) the narrative of a detached incident, or of a single event, told as being in itself interesting or striking (at first, an item of gossip).^[15] An anecdote or item of gossip does not constitute precise, unambiguous, sufficient evidence – the same type of evidence required for a study of such scope and magnitude; nor does it allow one to peruse the methodology employed. One should also observe Campbell's difficulty in recounting the story. He thinks he can almost relate the anecdote in Buchanan's own words although he expresses some doubt and informs us it was around fifty years ago since he was told it. The methodological considerations alone, if what is ascribed to Dalrymple is to be believed in all its particulars, must have been groundbreaking if not overwhelming, given the timeframe involved was a mere two months. Philip, Campbell's biographer and close companion said of him "He was emphatically “a fund of anecdote”…"^[16] Indeed, it may not be too far off the mark to describe Campbell as an anecdotographer; such stories clearly had a huge bearing on his person, and in this particular instance, satisfied him of the ‘perfection’ of the New Testament.

The first published review of Philip's book retained Campbell's own description of this story as an anecdote,^[17] and so did a wide variety of literature published immediately thereafter.^[18] If any doubt could remain about the reception of this story, one particular item of note is H. A. Downing's explicitly titled Anecdotes For The Family, Or Lessons Of Truth And Duty For Every-Day Life: A Choice Selection Of Facts, Occurrences, Examples, Testimonies, Incidents, And Providential Events, Of The Deepest Interest And Value of which Dalrymple's anecdote is a part.

Nevertheless, the Christian apologists have conveniently extricated this fundamental descriptive term in order to divert the reader from any weaknesses that might otherwise have been suggested had the term remained present. What was originally considered an anecdote by all parties concerned, Dalrymple, Buchanan, Campbell and Philip, and which was subsequently published as such, has now been transformed into an all-encompassing scientific study by contemporary apologists, completely distorting the readers perception of the reality of this incident. Campbell's admission that he may not have recounted the story correctly, is, unsurprisingly, also absent. One of the golden rules of scholarship falters by the wayside: big claims require big evidence.

A BRIEF CHRONOLOGY

Counting among his immediate ancestors adherents to the Reformation in the earliest period, Sir David Dalrymple was born into one of the most prestigious families in Scotland on the 28th October 1726, the eve of the Scottish ‘enlightenment’. The eldest of sixteen children of Sir James Dalrymple and Lady Christian Hamilton, Dalrymple enjoyed an excellent upbringing and education, studying at Eton school in England before travelling to the Netherlands to read civil law at the University of Utrecht. By February 1748, he became an advocate in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Scotland, thereafter a judge in March 1766. An acting deputy Grand Master for many years, Dalrymple was elected Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1774, being re-elected in 1775 before relinquishing his post to the Scottish banker Sir William Forbes of Pitsligo in 1776,^[19] during which time he moved through the ranks of his profession and became a Lord of Justiciary. Variously described as a historian, legal writer, translator and man of letters, one of his most famous publications An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity was a reply to sections of Edward Gibbon's book The History Of The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire which Dalrymple perceived as an emboldened attack on the reasons and causes for the rapid expansion of Christianity.^[20] Previous to Gibbon's history, the subject had not been generally studied giving him at once great admiration and respect from all quarters, including two persons in particular, Dr. Hume and Dr. Robertson, both of whom Gibbon considered as models for himself – and persons whom Dalrymple had no admiration for. Dalrymple had his last book published in 1790. A couple of years later, after suffering a stroke, he died shortly after on the 29th November 1792 at Newhailes, aged sixty-six years.^[21]

Establishing a provenance for the anecdote was eased due to John Campbell's key disclosure that it was Walter Buchanan who related the story to him on the authority of David Dalrymple. We know John Campbell mixed in the same circles as Walter Buchanan^[22] and so would have had no problems meeting him, whether it be on a public, private or pastoral level. Less easy is establishing a time frame for this oral source. There are, however, some vital pieces of information disclosed in the anecdote which allow us to date the story with a certain degree of confidence, to within eight years or so. In relating the anecdote, Campbell mentioned he had heard it from the late Walter Buchanan. Buchanan died in 1832,^[23] so the story must have originated as a written source after this time. We know Campbell died in 1840, so he must have penned this anecdote before then. Campbell also discloses that he heard the story almost fifty years ago. We can therefore deduce that Campbell heard this story from Buchanan between the years of 1782 and 1790 – assuming his recollection of fifty years is correct. As expected, all the dates in this range pre-date Dalrymple's death. When Buchanan was narrating the story to Campbell, he says he heard the story some time ago, which indicates that his recounting of the story to Campbell occurred some time after the actual event took place.

If the story was recounted to Campbell in 1782 he would have been just sixteen years old. It would, therefore, seem probable that Campbell was recounting the story just before he died at which point he put it into written form, from which his biographer would subsequently transmit in printed format. This would make Campbell twenty-six years old or perhaps older if we allow for a certain amount of room in his fifty years. This later dating is corroborated by a report from the Rev. T. Aveling, a colleague and successor of Campbell. Relating the last memories of his colleague and close companion, Aveling says that during the last six months of his life Campbell busied himself with writing down the chief events of his past, all the way back to his childhood years and early adulthood.^[24]

We have already discussed the anecdote's chronology which is internally consistent with what is known with regards to the dates, names and places of the persons named. Equally important, however, is placing the anecdote at a specific location in time. Once again, Campbell's disclosure of incidental information allows us to further substantiate the general authenticity of this anecdote. Campbell claimed this anecdote started life at a literary party which took place at “old Mr. Abercromby's, (father of General Abercromby who was slain in Egypt, at the head of the British army).” The father of General Abercromby (d. 1801) was George Abercromby of Tullibody, Clackmannanshire (d. 1800). Alexander Abercromby (later Lord Abercromby, d. 1795), one of George Abercromby's sons, was one of the founding members of the Mirror Club (created c. 1778 formerly known as Feast Of Tabernacles), a prominent group of Scottish literati whose members included some of the most powerful persons of Scottish society at the time.^[25] Although not a regular member, Dalrymple was a contributor to the club, whose publications included the Mirror^[26] and the Lounger.^[27] Henry Mackenzie (d. 1831), one of the founding members described the group as:

a small literary club, chiefly of barristers, of which I was a member, along with Mr. Blair, afterwards President of the Court of Session, Mr. (afterwards Judge) Abercromby, Lord Craig, Lord Bannatyne, and Mr. George Ogilvie. We used to discuss literary subjects (generally drinking tea at the house of one of the members) without the formality of a set speech.^[28]

Commentators on the Lounger and the Mirror frequently observed the articles published there were authored by some of the leading young lawyers and amateur authors of Scotland. Both periodicals could boast no fewer than six essayists who became judges of the Supreme Courts of Scotland; other members were equally regarded as being accomplished in their chosen fields of study.^[29] With no formally set speech and the merits of an all pervasive atmosphere where thoughts, ideas and articles could be criticised without hesitation,^[30] a question as novel as the one posed would have stirred the minds of those present, perhaps none more so than Dalrymple – whose pious intentions would have been obvious to those present,^[31] as well as his academic interest in Christian antiquity.^[32] Dalrymple was mixing with some of the sharpest minds the Scottish ‘enlightenment’ had to offer and one can imagine when the question was asked, inviting eyes would have moved toward the direction of Dalrymple, who, unable to answer immediately, quickly set himself to task.

ORAL SOURCE AND PRINTED TRANSMISSION

There are compelling reasons to believe that this anecdote was originally an oral source. In recounting the story, Campbell notes that Buchanan and Dalrymple were already dead. It would seem strange for him to recount a story which had so much influence on him purely from memory, if he knew it had been written down or published elsewhere. At the time of writing, all of Buchanan's and Dalrymple's works intended for publication had been published and he would have been aware of such a momentous claim if it had been present in any of these author's writings. The same year Philips' book was published, it was reviewed by The Eclectic Review. Also noting the centrality of this anecdote in Campbell's life, they printed it in its entirety, and, crucially for our investigation, said of it:

The following, respecting Lord Hailes, is curious, and we should much like to see the accuracy of his lordship's statement tested.^[33]

Had Dalrymple published his findings no such call would have been made by the reviewer. Dalrymple had been dead for over 45 years, allowing sufficient time for anything he had published to have been reviewed and commented on by other scholars, yet no such publication was known. If we examine subsequent printed versions of the story, we notice some are paraphrased, some are condensed while others present only snippets of information. Interestingly, the number of verses which Dalrymple could not locate fluctuates between different printed versions. This would be hard to explain if this anecdote started life originally in print only. We find in some versions all but seven or eleven verses, all but ten or eleven verses, all but eleven verses and, finally, all but six or eleven verses (see Table I below).

As we have alluded to in the previous section, none of the contemporary Christian apolitical literature mentions the original description of the anecdote by Campbell, therefore, excluding three vital pieces of information.

1. The information was considered as an: “interesting anecdote,”
2. Campbell was recalling the anecdote from memory: “it must be about fifty years ago since he told it,” and
3. Campbell was unsure of the accuracy of his recollection: “I think I can almost relate it.”

Let us now try to establish what other parts of the anecdote were included and excluded by tentatively reconstructing a snapshot of the printed transmission of this anecdote. We have taken the original anecdote and simply assigned each paragraph a number. If an ‘x’ has been assigned to the publication it means that it has related all the pertinent information contained in said paragraph. If the publication partially satisfies this requirement, the letter ‘P’ will be assigned.

Table I: The anecdote of Lord Hailes as seen in various subsequent publications. This is not a comprehensive list.

The aim of this table is not to call into question the integrity of the authors transmitting this anecdote. Obviously they had different sources (some explicitly referring to each other) and would have had many different explanations for transmitting the story as they did, be it the context in which the anecdote was placed or some other important editorial decision. It is clear, however, from its inception that the whole anecdote, including Campbell's and Philip's observations, has very seldom been recounted in full. The situation among modern apologist literature is significantly worse. Statements similar to, “scholars could reconstruct the entire New Testament except eleven verses!” now abound, not just in the printed literature but on the internet as well.^[53] Over a period of more than 165 years, two pages of information pregnant with exegetical significance have been reduced to a few sentences or even less, denying the reader vital information which they can use to make a value judgment on this anecdote.

4. Dalrymple's Invitation: Some Preliminary Observations

The Newhailes house, originally built as Whitehill by the Scottish architect James Smith around 1686, was purchased by Sir David Dalrymple (d. 1721), grandfather of Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), in 1707. Sir David named his newly acquired property Newhailes after the family owned dilapidated Hailes castle near east Linton, Scotland. Newhailes saw a number of extensions over the years, the most famous being the library, the largest room in the house, which occupied the entire east wing of the property. The library was built by Sir David and his son Sir James (father of Lord Hailes) between c. 1718 and 1722, being almost equal in volume to the original house.^[54] Purpose built, the library reached its zenith under the instruction of Lord Hailes where notable figures associated with the Scottish ‘enlightenment’ would gather such as David Hume, James Boswell and Samuel Johnson, to discuss the pressing matters of the day, and to take advantage of some of the most impressive library facilities available in Scotland at the time. Indeed, Dr. Johnson purportedly described Dalrymple's library as “the most learned room in Europe”.^[55]

The last in the Dalrymple line, Sir Mark Dalrymple died in 1971 without an heir. The Government accepted from the Trustees of the late Sir Mark Dalrymple the Newhailes Library in lieu of estate duty (tax). As a result the Newhailes Library was allocated to the National Library of Scotland in July 1978 where it presently resides. This fine collection, which is the library of the Dalrymple family largely formed by Lord Hailes himself, consists of around 7,000 volumes and contains numerous items penned by Lord Hailes unique to this collection alone, including autographs of his published works.^[56] In 1997, after spiralling costs and excessive demands which Lady Antonia Dalrymple (widow of Sir Mark) could no longer bear, the Dalrymple Trustees donated Newhailes House to the National Trust for Scotland, after it had raised sufficient funds to acquire the property including its restoration and endowment.^[57] It is anticipated once the conservation and security issues have been resolved, the National Trust for Scotland will successfully repatriate the books and manuscripts to their former glory at Newhailes now empty library shelves.^[58] Although the libraries of British country houses have been generally neglected in terms of importance,^[59] the National Library of Scotland have restated the significance of this Scottish country house library and described it as “… the greatest surviving collection of books and manuscripts of the Scottish Enlightenment …”^[60] It is not difficult to see why if one simply examines the range and volume of material once housed at Newhailes with some 1800 volumes represented in history and biography, c. 2500 volumes in classical and modern Literature, c. 1000 volumes in law, politics and economics and c. 750 volumes in theology.

Naturally this leads us to the question of whether or not Dalrymple's alleged work existed in manuscript format. We have already shown that this work was never published. The first clue the work actually existed are from the lips of Dalrymple himself. He is reported to have said:

There have I been busy for these two months, searching for chapters, half chapters, and sentences of the New Testament, and have marked down what I have found, and where I have found it; so that any person may examine and see for themselves.

Another good indication that this work actually existed and was located amongst his unpublished manuscripts, was found in a small biographical entry entitled “A Brief Memoir Of The Life And Writings Of The Author”, written anonymously (attributed to Dr. Charles Stuart of Dunearn), which was pre-fixed to the second and third editions of Dalrymple's book An Inquiry Into The Secondary Causes Which Mr Gibbon Has Assigned For The Rapid Growth Of Christianity, published in 1808 and 1810 respectively. At the end of the subsection ‘Catalogue Of The Works Of Sir David Dalrymple. Bart. Lord Hailes; Arranged In The Order Of Their Publication’, it is reported that:

Lord Hailes, it is reported, left scarcely any thing in MS. fit for publication. He printed 38 pages 8vo of a Glossary of the Scottish language, the opposite pages blank, for communications and additions ; but this was never published, and with all similar works, is now superseded by the curious and complete Etymological Dictionary, by Dr Jamieson, in 2 vols....

He had made some progress in a work for verifying the Canon, in an interleaved copy of the New Testament; but those who have seen what is done, do not think that it is sufficiently considerable for publication, and are even uncertain if he intended it for any other besides his own use.^[61]

Cataloguing of this huge library is currently work in progress; nevertheless there are a number of manual indices which were consulted that provided the necessary hints as to the whereabouts of the above stated information. The National Library of Scotland's (unpublished) Catalogue Of Manuscripts Acquired Since 1925, Vol XVII: MSS 24501 – 26000 contains a subsection devoted to Lord Hailes (MSS. 25293-453). The relevant sections for our enquiry relate to Dalrymple's work on the Greek New Testament. This is located under the catalogue heading ‘Devotional And Theological Papers’ (MSS. 25396-412). The relevant extracts from the catalogue are as follows:

25396-412 DEVOTIONAL AND THEOLOGICAL PAPERS

25396-408 Notebooks containing printed leaves from, and notes by Lord Hailes on, the Greek New Testament, ca. 1759.

Quarto.

25396: 52 ff; 25397: 58 ff; 25398: 58 ff; 25399: 47 ff; 25400 55 ff; 25401: 79 ff; 25402: 42 ff; 25403: 44 ff; 25404: 58 ff; 25405: 98 ff; 25406: 104 ff; 25407: 70 ff; 25408: 84 ff.

25409-10 Notes and translations by Lord Hailes on the Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 includes miscellaneous devotional, theological, and biblical notes.

Folio and under.

25409: 133 ff; 25410: 149 ff.

As observed, there are presently thirteen catalogued notebooks with printed leaves from, and notes by Lord Hailes on, the Greek New Testament. They are in manuscript format and are around fifty to one hundred pages in length. MSS. 25409-10 are loose leaf folios which have been gathered together.

MSS. 25396-399 ‘INTERLEAVED COLLATION’

Manuscripts 25396-399 comprise a four volume collection of Latin and Greek New Testament citations according to the recollection of the early Fathers (resources noted below), penned on an interleaved copy of a complete (Protestant) Greek New Testament. This accords with what Dalrymple's friends and colleagues had described. A small inscription by Dalrymple, “opus inceptium 3rd December 1780”,^[62] provides us with the exact date Dalrymple commenced his work and thus provides additional confirmation of the timeframes suggested in the brief chronology discussed earlier. Furthermore, Dalrymple takes the opportunity to note the resources at his disposal (see below). These form quite a considerable collection for someone whose profession was wholly unconnected with this most ambitious topic of study and demonstrates his desire to acquire knowledge of early Christian antiquity.^[63] At a time when a few books on a couple of shelves would have been a normal holding for an average family, Dalrymple had amassed thousands of volumes spanning several fields of knowledge. We should first of all note Dalrymple's Greek New Testament was none other than the Textus Receptus, published in Glasgow (Scotland) by the Foulis brothers;^[64] Following is an extract^[65] in which Dalrymple lists the editions of the writings/Fathers he was using:

Barnabas edit Russel 8vo London 1746;^[66] Clement Romanus id;^[67] Hermas id;^[68] Origenes contra celsum edit Spencer;^[69] Cyprianus m edit Fell;^[70] Justinus m;^[71] Tertullianus;^[72] Ireneus fragmenta anecdota edit Pfaffii Lug Bat 1743 8vo;^[73] Ignatius edit Smith 4to Oxon 1709;^[74] Photius bibliotheca fol edit Schotti Genev 1612;^[75] Lucianus;^[76] Polycarpus;^[77] Eusebius hist eccles fol edit Valesii Paris;^[78] Ireneus adversus hereses fol edit Feu-ardentii.^[79]

Dalrymple commences his work with the Gospel of Matthew (MS. 25396), chapter one (Figure 1). If he was able to find the verse in a quotation from a Church Father from the resources available to him, he will note the reference(s) and the verse according to the recollection of the Father. If he is unable to find the relevant quotation, no verse number is written down and the corresponding space is left blank. This process is repeated for the remaining books of the New Testament finishing with Revelation (MS. 25399), comprising some 215 folios in total (Greek New Testament finishes at folio 205).

MS. 25396 [Spine = 1] contains Matthew, Mark, Luke.

MS. 25397 [Spine = 2] contains Luke (cont.), John, Acts.

MS. 25398 [Spine = 3] contains Acts (cont.), Romans, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians.

MS. 25399 [Spine = 4] contains I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, I Peter, II Peter, I John, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation.

(a)

(b)

Figure 1: MS. 25396 ("Interleaved Collation") Dalrymple’s notebook open at the Gospel of Matthew folio 4 and 6, (a) with folio 5 resting on folio 6, (b) thereafter folio 5 resting on folio 4.

Dalrymple's method of physically writing the citations down on paper is to geographically map the folio of his New Testament to the piece of paper. Thus, wherever a certain verse is positioned in the New Testament, it will likewise be positioned on the piece of paper. As the New Testament utilised by Dalrymple reproduces the Greek text in two vertical columns per page, the paper is divided into two halves with an imaginary vertical line down the middle. This was subject to change dependant on the requirements of each New Testament folio. If a number of chapters started/stopped on a single folio, Dalrymple would likewise geographically map this to his piece of paper, sometimes resulting in five unequal imaginary sectors.^[80] Resultantly, the maximum number of potential verses per page is dependant on the number of verses and geographic arrangement of the New Testament folio. Although a minor point, his organisation of the material helps to explain why he made a supplemental collation of citations, and why they were not consolidated into his interleaved collation.

MSS. 25400-408 ‘SUPPLEMENTAL COLLATION’

Manuscripts 25400-408 comprise a nine volume supplemental collection of Latin and Greek New Testament citations according to the recollection of the early Fathers (resources noted above). Contrary to the description provided by the National Library of Scotland, there are no printed leaves from the Greek New Testament here.^[81] As before, following is an extract^[82] in which Dalrymple lists the editions of the writings/Fathers he was using. One should take care, however, not to view this extract as an exclusive set of books. For example, although Irenaeus is nowhere to be found in the list below (although present in the previously mentioned list from the ‘Interleaved Collation’), there are a significant number of references to his works throughout all the after-mentioned manuscripts of the ‘Supplemental Collation’.

Cyprian Fell;^[83] Tertullian Rigalts;^[84] Justin m Tryph edit Jebb;^[85] _ _ _ apol edit Graber;^[86] Clem Alex Potter;^[87] Theophilus Fell;^[88] Origen c cels Spencer;^[89] Athenagoras;^[90] Justin m apol; Ignatius Smith;^[91] Polycarp Smith;^[92] Eusebius Valesius.^[93]

If we consider the resources mentioned here and those mentioned earlier, we will observe that Dalrymple had gathered together a large part of the primary sources with respect to the study of the canon of the New Testament,^[94] placing himself in the enviable position of being able to carry out a comprehensive study whose results were open to criticism and verification, irrespective of the fact he never published his findings.

As with MSS. 25396-399, Dalrymple commences his work with the gospel of Matthew (MS. 25405) chapter one and lists every verse number of that chapter. If he was able to find the verse in a quotation from a Church Father from the resources available to him, he will note the reference(s) and the verse according to the recollection of the Father. If he is unable to find the relevant quotation, he leaves the space blank. This process is repeated for the remaining books of the New Testament finishing with Titus (MS. 25400),^[95] comprising some 631 folios in total.

MS. 25405 [Spine = Matth.] contains Matthew.

MS. 25404 [Spine = Mark] contains Mark.

MS. 25406 [Spine = Luke] contains Luke.

MS. 25401 [Spine = John] contains John.

MS. 25408 [Spine = Act. Apost.] contains Acts.

MS. 25403 [Spine = Romans] contains Romans.

MS. 25407 [Spine = Corinth] contains I Corinthians, II Corinthians.

MS. 25402 [Spine = Galat Ephes Philip] contains Galatians, Ephesians and Philippians.

MS. 25400 [Spine = Coloss Thess Timoth] contains Colossians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus.

More verses of the New Testament (see results below) are found in this supplemental collation due to the fact Dalrymple had made greater use of the sources available to him. Also Dalrymple will note if more than one Father recollects the verse. It is therefore natural to assume this collation was penned sometime after the interleaved collation – although there is no specific inscription providing a date as was the case with MS. 25396. Why didn't Dalrymple just fill in the blanks in his interleaved collation? The answer to the question is rather straightforward – space. In his interleaved collation there was only a finite amount of physical space left on the page that Dalrymple could make use of. As we have already mentioned, Dalrymple geographically mapped the verses from the New Testament folio onto the piece of paper. The present authors cannot recall a single occasion where this is not the case. On numerous occasions Dalrymple had to reduce considerably the size of his handwriting in order that the verse could simply be written down. It would have been impossible in many instances and very difficult in others, to merely add the extra information to his interleaved collation whilst adopting the same geographic conventions. The simple solution was to start afresh in a new notebook which would act as a supplement to his interleaved collation. Without any printed leaves from the New Testament, Dalrymple could list the verse numbers sequentially and write in a comfortable manner (usually 4-6 verses per folio, sometimes more), irrespective of geography and other space related concerns (Figure 2).

(a)

(b)

Figure 2: MS. 25405 (folio of the Gospel of Matthew) from the "Supplemental Collation" showing (a) recto and (b) verso.

Curiously, Dalrymple did not finish the entire New Testament in his supplemental collation. This is corroborated by the (anonymous) biographical sketch which informed us that Dalrymple had made only “some progress” in verifying the canon. Did Dalrymple stop work on his project? Did he die before he could complete it? The answer to this problem is no doubt more complex than the simple questions just posed would indicate, and unless some printed evidence or manuscript from Newhailes can be adduced in favour of a particular scenario, any attempt to resolve this intriguing question can only remain a possibility.

MSS. 25409-410 ‘LOOSE LEAF COLLATION’

Another collation of citations can be found in some miscellaneous loose leaf folios.^[96] One indication that these folios were not considered ready to be part of his ‘official’ collations was the very fact they were not bound in notebooks. In MS. 25409, there are two attempts at Matthew chapter's two and four in the space of just a few folios, between which one can find miscellaneous devotional, theological and biblical notes, including commentaries on books of the New Testament, prayers, translations and some notes by Dalrymple criticising Gibbon for his misunderstanding of the Roman Empire in the early Christian period.^[97] However, with the exception of Philemon, MS. 25409 does contain the collations of the remaining books of the New Testament (in order) not present in Dalrymple's supplemental collation which finished with the book of Titus. Perhaps Dalrymple planned to bind these folios in notebook format once he had completed his research?

Nevertheless there remain some interesting titbits of information here; one can find what appears to be a small diary entry clearly inscribed with the dates June 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 25 and July 11 of the year 1784, written over Colossians, chapter one, containing only verse numbers 1-6.^[98] This unmistakably proves that Dalrymple was working on and off on this huge enterprise for a period of at least four years. The statement of Dalrymple attributed to him by Campbell that this work was completed in a mere “two months”^[99] is demonstrably untrue, and, as we will see, this was not the only statement attributed to Dalrymple which is contradicted by his own pen.

On one of the very rare occasions where Dalrymple converses in English, he makes an interesting comment with regard to how the textual evidence should be evaluated. The importance of this comment cannot be underestimated as he seldom remarks on his working method. With regard to Hebrews, chapter one, verses eight and nine, and chapter twelve, verse seven, Dalrymple says, “N. B. As these passages occur in the Old Testament, there is no evidence that Cyprian quoted them from the Epistle to the Hebrews.”^[100] This indicates Dalrymple was carefully evaluating the evidence available to him. Interestingly, Dalrymple adduces evidence for the Comma Johanneum (I John 5:7), based on the works of the Latin Father Cyprian of Carthage who is reported to have said “Et hi tres unum sunt cum tres unum sint”.^[101] With the benefit of hindsight, we now know this verse is a spurious fabrication that has been expunged from modern critical editions of the New Testament.

The first folio of MS. 25410 which the National Library of Scotland catalogue describes as, ‘Notes And Translations By Lord Hailes On The Greek New Testament, ca. 1759. MS 25410 Includes Miscellaneous Devotional, Theological, And Biblical Notes’, contains a title page in Latin penned by Dalrymple called, ‘Indicia Novi Testamenti Ante Mortuum Cyprianum’, which translates into English as ‘Signs Of The New Testament Before The Death Of Cyprian’ (Figure 3). Cyprian of Carthage died c. 258 CE and was one of the last Fathers of the 3rd century.

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: MS. 25410 (folio of the Gospel of Matthew) from the "Loose Leaf Collation" showing (a) recto, the title page of Dalrymple's work "Indicia Novi Testamenti Ante Mortuum Cyprianum" and (b) verso.

The remaining seventy-nine folios comprise the Gospel of Matthew finishing with the Gospel of Mark, chapter two. Folios eighty-one onward comprise miscellaneous devotional, theological and biblical notes, including comments on the early Fathers, commentaries on various books of the New Testament, prayers, translations and some miscellaneous tracts. If we focus on the folio reproduced above we will notice Dalrymple make use of yet another layout. Here there are some twenty to twenty five verses per folio; only the references to the Fathers are noted excluding the rendering of the verses in question.^[102] This arrangement does not last long. Starting with Matthew, chapter five, Dalrymple splits each vertical column into four sectors allowing a maximum number of eight verses per page – once again only making note of the references excluding the rendering of the verses.^[103]

Dalrymple made four attempts at coming to a satisfactory representation of the data; this is one indication that his work had never reached the final editing stage and yet again confirms the observations of his friends and colleagues that this work was not “sufficiently considerable” for publication.

RESULTS

It was noted earlier that Dalrymple's Greek New Testament was none other than the Textus Receptus. It contains verses (e.g., longer passages Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11; and individual verses Matthew 17:21; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44, 46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24) which the modern critical scholarship agrees that they were probably not part of the original texts,^[104] since they are not found in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts. Even more fundamental, the Byzantine text-type, on which the Textus Receptus is based, did not come into existence until the fourth century.^[105] How was Dalrymple supposed to find accurately signs of the New Testament text in the first, second and third centuries, using a copy-text of the Greek New Testament whose type of text did not originate until the fourth century? With the exception of some isolated readings, the Byzantine text was never used by the early church Fathers of the first three centuries,^[106] irrespective of the musings of the Majority Text advocates. With the benefit of hindsight we can see that Dalrymple's project was deficient in part from the beginning.

It must be noted that it is not our aim to show whether or not Dalrymple was correct in his assessment that a particular verse was cited/alluded by a Church Father. The enormous project of verifying whether a Church Father actually cited/alluded to a verse in the New Testament is still being undertaken today. Modern studies on the issue of Patristic citations of the New Testament, specifically those of the apostolic fathers, will be briefly discussed in the next section.

The data is arranged according to the number of missing verses in the individual books of the New Testament as seen in the three collations, viz., interleaved, supplemental and loose leaf. At the end of the data from each book, the summation and the percentage of missing verses is shown. This process is repeated for each book of the New Testament.

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

GOSPEL OF MARK

GOSPEL OF LUKE

GOSPEL OF JOHN