SIBlSuKii inHfl DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY J| Nefo Testament ^anUiooftsi EDITED BT SHALLER MATHEWS A HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT J^ew Cestament Randboohs EDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS THE UNIVERSITY OP CHICAGO A series of volumes presenting briefly and intelligibly the results of the scientific study of the New Testament. Each vol ume covers its own field, and is intended for the general reader as well as the special student. Arrangements have been made for the following volumes : — THE HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE HEW TESTAMENT. Professor Marvin R. Vincent, Union Theo logical Seminary. [Ready. THE HISTORY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor Henry S. Nash, Cambridge Divinity School. INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor B. Wisner Bacon, Yale Divinity School. THE HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Professor J. R. S. Sterrett, Amherst College. THE HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TIMES IN PALESTINE. Professor Shailbr Mathews, The University of Chicago. [Beady. THE LIFE OF PAUL. President Rush Rhees, The University of Rochester. THE HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE. Dr. C. W. Votaw, The University of Chicago. THE TEACHING OF JESUS. Professor George B. Stevens, Yale Divinity School. THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Pro fessor E. P. Gould. [In Preparation. THE TEACHING OF JESUS AND MODERN SOCIAL PROB LEMS. Professor Francis G. Peabodv, Harvard Divinity School. THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN LITERATURE UNTIL EUSEBIUS. ProfessoVJ. W. Plainer, Harvard Divinity School. A HISTORY TEXTUAL CEITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. BALDWIN PROFESSOR OF NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND LITERATURE IN UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NEW YORK N«fo $? atfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY LONDON : MACMILLAN & CO., Ltd. 1899 All rights reserved C0PTBI8HT, 1899, By THE MAOMILLAN COMPANY. NottoooB $«8S J. S. Cuihing & Co. — Berwick St Smith Norwood Mais. U.S.A. PREFACE This volume is simply what its title imports, — a History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testa ment, in which the attempt is made to exhibit its development in a form available for New Testament students who have not given special attention to the subject, and to direct such to the sources for more detailed study, if they are so inclined. It is gathered from sources which are indicated under the several topics and which are well known to textual scholars. The great interest awakened during the last few years by the special discussions of the Codex Bezse has led me to assign considerable space to these, and the section on this subject has been prepared for this volume by my valued friend and colleague and former pupil, the Eev. James Everett Frame of Union Theo logical Seminary. MAEVIN R. VINCENT. CONTENTS PART I NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER I PAGE Need and Office of Textual Criticism ... 1 Definition of a Text — Distinction between a Text and a Copy — An Autograph not necessarily faultless — Errors in Written Copies and their Causes — Num ber of Variations in New Testament Text. CHAPTER II The Manuscripts of the New Testament ... 8 Sources of Evidence for Restoration of New Testa ment Text — Uncials — Stichometry — Eusebian Can ons and Ammonian Sections — tItXoi and KetjiiXata — Cursives — Mode of designating Uncials and Cursives — Lectionaries — Palimpsests — The Five Primary Uncials — Secondary Uncials. CHAPTER III Versions 24 Importance to Textual Criticism — Character of their Evidence — Latin Versions : (1) Texts pre ceding Jerome ; (2) Jerome and the Vulgate — Syriac Versions : (1) Peshitto ; (2) Curetonian ; Viii CONTENTS PAOB (3) Lewis Palimpsest and its Relations to Other Syriac Versions ; (4) Philoxenian ; (6) Harclean ; (6) Karkaphensian — Egyptian Versions: (1) Mem phitic ; (2) Thebaic ; (3) Bashmuric — Ethiopic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions. CHAPTER IV Patristic Quotations 36 Habits of Fathers in Quotation — Value of Patristic Quotations and Caution in Using. PAET II HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER V Textual Criticism of the Early Church ... 42 Early Date of Corruptions — Allusions to Wilful Corruptions in the Earlier Apologists — Lack of Care in Preparation of Manuscripts — Harmonies — Reasons for Delay in the Application of Printing to the New Testament — History of the Printed Text and of the Accompanying Development of Textual Criticism falls into Three Periods : (1) Period of the Reign of the Textus Receptus (1516-1770) ; (2) Transition Period from Textus Receptus to Older Uncial Text (1770- 1830) ; (3) Period of Dethronement of Textus Re ceptus and Effort to restore the Oldest and Purest Text by Means of the Genealogical Method (1830- 1899). CHAPTER VI First Period (1516-1770). The Complutensian Poly glot and Erasmus's Greek Testament . . 48 The Complutensian Polyglot : (1) History ; (2) Manuscripts used in Preparation of —Erasmus's First CONTENTS IX PASS Edition of the Greek Testament: (1) Manuscripts employed ; (2) Four Subsequent Editions — Greek Testament of Colinseus. CHAPTER VII First Period (1516-1770). The Textus Receptus . 56 Robert Stephen — The Ten Editions of Beza — The Antwerp Polyglot — Attention directed to Patristic Quotations : (1) Lucas Brugensis ; (2) Hugo Gro tius — The Paris Polyglot — The Elzevirs — Origin of the Term " Textus Receptus." CHAPTER VIII First Period (1516-1770). Beginnings of a Critical Method ........ 63 New Impulse given in England by Cod. A — In France by Simon — Walton's Polyglot and its Criti cal Apparatus — Curcellaeus's Greek Testament — Fell's Greek Testament — Mill's New Testament — Von Maestricht, Toinard, Wells — Richard Bentley : (1) Glimpse of the Genealogical Method ; (2) Bent- ley's "Proposals;" (3) Collation of Manuscripts of the Vulgate; (4) Contents of the "Proposals" — William Mace. CHAPTER IX First Period (1516-1770). Movement toward the Genealogical Method 76 Anticipatory Statement of Certain Principles of Modern Textual Criticism — Bengel's Greek Testa ment: (1) Its Characteristics; (2) Division of An cient Documents into Families — J. J. Wetstein : (1) Prolegomena published anonymously ; (2) Wet- stein's Greek Testament — Solomon Semler — Review of the First Period. CONTENTS CHAPTER X PAGE Second Period (1770-1830). Transition from the Textus Receptus to the Older Uncial Text — Griesbach 96 Ed. Harwood's Greek Testament — C. F. Matthsei — F. K. Alter — Birch, Adler, Moldenhauer and Tychsen — Slovenly Work of Moldenhauer and Tych- sen — Griesbach: (1) His First Edition of the Greek Testament ; (2) His Critical Materials ; (3) His "Symbolae Criticse;" (4) Critical Conditions con fronted by him ; (5) His Classification of Families ; (6) Some of his Critical Canons ; (7) His Text the Basis of the Editions of Schott, Marker, Enapp, Titt- mann, Hahn, and Theile — Hug — Scholz. CHAPTER XI Second Period (1770-1830). The Successors of Gries bach 105 Hug — Scholz. CHAPTER XII Third Period (1830-81). Efforts for the Restoba- tion of the Primitive Text — Lachmann . 110 Lachmann : (1) First Attempt to construct a Text directly from Ancient Documents ; (2) Editions of his Greek Testament ; (3) Classification of Texts ; (4) His Six Rules for estimating the Comparative Weight of Readings ; (5) Peculiarities and Faults ; (6) Table of some of his Readings compared with those of Textus Receptus and Westcott and Hort — Work of Hahn, Theile, Bloomfield, and Others. CHAPTER XHI Third Period (1830-81). Tischendorf . . .117 His Journeys to the East — Discovery of Cod. x — Character and Value of this Codex — Attempts to CONTENTS xi depreciate it— The "Editio Octava Critica Major" — Tischendorf's Critical Principles — Relative Value of Tischendorf's Results. CHAPTER XIV Third Period (1830-81). Tregelles . . . .130 Prospectus of Critical Edition of the Greek Testa ment — "Account of the Printed Text" — Edition of the Greek Testament — Introduced the Method of "Comparative Criticism " — His Critical Principles — Tregelles and Tischendorf compared — Alford. CHAPTER XV Third Period (1830-81). Reaction toward the Tex tus Receptus — Scrivener and Burgon . . 139 Scrivener — His "New Testament according to the Text of the Authorised Version with Variations of the Revised Version" — His "Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament" — His Critical Principles — Burgon — T. S. Green — W. Kelly — J. B.' McClellan. CHAPTER XVI Third Period (1830-81). Westcott and Hort, and Revisers' Text of 1881 145 Their Introduction — Their Critical Principles — The Genealogical Method — Classification of Types of Text — Criticisms of their Work — The Revised Version of 1881. CHAPTER XVII Recent Contributions. Weiss — Studies in Codex D 157 B. Weiss's "Neue Testament" — Studies in the Codex Bezse : (1) Theory of Latinisation ; (2) Theory Xll CONTENTS PASS of Syriacisation ; (3) Theory of Jewish-Christian Ori gin ; (4) Theory of Two Editions of Acts and Luke ; (5) Fr. Blass ; (6) Theory of Weiss ; (7) Theory of Salmon — General Review. APPENDIX Additional Books of Reference 177 Index 181 A HISTORY OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT PART I NATHEE AND SOUKOES OF THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTEE I THE NEED AND OFFICE OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM Textual Criticism is that process by which it is introduc- sought to determine the original text of a document *j£2sdefiui" or of a collection of documents, and to exhibit it, freed from all the errors, corruptions, and variations which it may have accumulated in the course of its trans mission by successive copyings. A text is the body of words employed by an author in the composition of a document ; as by Thucydides, in his History of the Peloponnesian War; by Dante in the Divina Commedia; or by Paul in the Epistle to the Eomans. The word "text" is also applied to the body of words which constitutes an edition of an original doc ument. Thus we speak of Lachmann's text of Lucre tius, or of Witte's text of the Divina Commedia, or of Westcott and Hort's text of Eomans and Galatians. B 1 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Original text of a document. The original document not neces sarily with out errors. These editions may approximate more or less to the texts of the original documents ; but unless they ex actly reproduce those texts, they are not the texts of Lucretius, of Dante, or of Paul. There can be but one text of a document, and that is the body of words written by the author himself. The text of a docu ment, accurately speaking, is that which is contained in its autograph. This is not to say that the autograph is without error. When we speak of the original text of a docu ment, we mean only that it is what the author himself wrote, including whatever mistakes the author may have made. Every autograph is likely to contain such mistakes. The most careful writer for the press, on reading his work in print, often discovers omissions of words, incomplete sentences, unconscious substitutions of other words for those which he had intended to write, careless constructions which make his meaning ambiguous, or unintentional insertions of words which materially modify the sense which he meant to con vey. These things are the results of lapses of atten tion or memory, or of temporary diversions of thought. In the preparation of matter for the press, such errors are mostly corrected by careful proof-reading ; but be fore the invention of printing, when hand-copying was the only means of publication, they were much more likely to be perpetuated. It is entirely possible that a careful transcription of a document by an intelligent and accurate scribe, a transcription in which the errors of the original were corrected, should have been really a better piece of work than the autograph itself, and, on the whole, more satisfactory to the author : only the revised copy was not the original text. The New Testament is no exception to this rule. If the autographs of the Pauline Epistles, for instance, NEED OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 3 should be recovered, they would no doubt be found to contain errors such as have been described. "If we consider that the authors themselves or their amanu enses in dictation may have made mistakes, and that the former, in revision, may have introduced improve ments and additions, — the question arises whether the text ever existed in complete purity at all, and in what sense" (Eeuss).1 The problem for the textual critic of the New Tes- Problem for tament grows out of the fact that the New Testament ^tieextuaJ autographs have disappeared, and with them all copies earlier than the middle of the fourth century. The contents of the original manuscripts can, therefore, be only approximately determined, through a com parison of later copies, all of which are more or less 1 Nothing can be more puerile or more desperate than the effort to vindicate the divine inspiration of Scripture by the assertion of the verbal inerrancy of the autographs, and to erect that assertion into a test of orthodoxy. For : — 1. There is no possible means of verifying the assertion, since the autographs have utterly disappeared. 2. It assumes a mechanical dictation of the ipsissima verba to the writers, which is contradicted by the whole character and structure of the Bible. 3. It is of no practical value, since it furnishes no means of deciding between various readings or discrepant statements. 4. It is founded upon a pure assumption as to the character of inspiration — namely, that inspiration involves verbal iner rancy, which is the very thing to be proved, and which could be proved only by producing inerrant autographs. 5. If a written, inspired revelation is necessary for mankind, and if such a revelation, in order to be inspired, must be ver bally inerrant, the necessity has not been met. There is no verbally inerrant, and therefore no inspired, revelation in writ ing. The autographs have vanished, and no divine guidance or interposition has prevented mistakes in transcription or in printing. The text of Scripture, in the best form in which critical scholarship can exhibit it, presents numerous errors and discrepancies. TEXTUAL CRITICISM An early date does not prove a purer text. Causes of copyists' errors. faulty, and which exhibit numerous differences. These copies have been made from other copies, and these in turn from others. . The critic has no evidence that any copy in his possession has been made directly from the original ; or, if there should be such a copy, which one it is. Pages of the two oldest copies known to us have evidently been written by the same scribe, yet their differences show that both were not copied from the same original. Erom the fact that a manu script is of very early date, it cannot be assumed that its text is correspondingly purer, that is, more nearly approaching the autograph. It must first be settled how many copies there are between it and the auto graph, and whether it followed an earlier or a later copy, and whether the copy which it followed cor rectly represented the autograph or not. A fourth- century manuscript, for instance, may have been cop ied from one only a few years earlier than itself; while an eleventh-century manuscript may have been copied from one of the third century, and that in turn from the autograph ; so that the later manuscript may exhibit a purer text than the earlier. Let it be borne in mind that the critic is searching, not for the oldest manuscript, but for the oldest text. > In the multiplication of written copies errors were inevitable. Every new copy was a new source of error, since a copyist was likely not only to transcribe the errors of his exemplar, but also to make additional mistakes of his own. These errors might be conscious or unconscious, intentional or unintentional. A scribe, for example, might confuse two capital letters of simi lar appearance, as G, C (§) ; 0, 0. Or the similarity of two letters might cause him to overlook the one and pass directly to the other, as TTPOGAGQN for TTPOC- 6A0P.N. Or letters might be transposed, as CPlAN (a-imrjpuiv) for CPAIN (o-amyrja Irjirovv). Again, if two Need of textual criticism 6 consecutive lines in the exemplar ended with the same word or syllable, the copyist's eye might catch the second line instead of the first, and he would omit the intermediate words. In the early days of the church many copies were made hurriedly, and mistakes were Careless- sure to arise from hasty transcription. So long as the ness' scribe confined himself to the purely mechanical work of copying, the errors would be chiefly those of sight, hearing, or memory ; when he began to think for him self, more mischief was done. The working of his own mind on the subject might move him to introduce a word which did not appear in his exemplar. He might find in the margin of his exemplar some oral tradition, like the story of the angel who troubled the pool of Bethzatha; or some liturgical fragment, like the doxology of the Lord's Prayer ; or some explana- Interpola- tory comment, and incorporate these into the text. lon' There were many who would have the books of ap proved authors in a fuller rather than in a shorter form, through fear of losing something of what the author had said. Bengel remarks, "Many learned men are not easily persuaded to regard anything as superfluous." Porson * says that, so far from its being an affected or absurd idea that a marginal note can ever creep into the text, it has actually happened in millions of places. Again, a scribe might alter a text Deliberate in one Gospel in order to make it conform to a parallel passage in another ; or he might change an unclassical word or expression for a more classical one. Such things would be fruitful sources of variation.3 1 Letters to Travis. 2 The causes of variation will be found treated in detail in Scrivener's Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., I, 7-19. Also in Schaff's Companion to the Greek Testament, 183, and the excellent little treatise of C. E. Ham mond, Textual Criticism Applied to the New Testament. 6 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Number of actual vari ations. Mode of counting va riations. It will be seen, therefore, that the task of the text ual critic is no easy one. As early as 1707, Dr. Mill estimated the number of variations in the New Testa ment text at 30,000 ; but this estimate was based on a comparatively few manuscripts. To-day, the num ber of Greek manuscripts discovered and catalogued, and containing the whole or portions of the New Testa ment, is estimated at 3829, and the number of actual variations in existing documents is reckoned roughly from 150,000 to 200,000.' This, however, does not mean that there is that number of places in the New Testament where various readings occur. It merely represents the sum total of various readings, each variation being counted as many times as it appears in different documents. For instance, taking some given standard and com paring a number of documents with it, we find at one place in the first document compared four variations from the standard. In the second document, at the same place, we find three of these variations repeated, and two more which are not in the first document. We count, then, nine variations; that is, the three variations common to the two documents are counted twice. In a third document, in the same place, we find all of the last three and two new ones. This gives us fourteen in all, the three being counted over again, and so on through any number of documents. In other words, " Each place where a variation occurs is counted as many times over, not only as distinct variations occur upon it, but also as the same variation occurs in different manuscripts." 2 The sum total of these variations, moreover, includes even the unique 1 See Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische Neue Testa ment, 23. 2 Dr. Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 13. NEED OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 7 reading of a single inferior document and the trifling variations in spelling.1 The work of the textual critic is to push back, as Work and nearly as possible, to the author's own draft, and to aftextuii present the ipsissima verba of his text. His method critic. is to trace the various readings to their sources, to date and classify the sources, to ascertain which of these classes or families most nearly approaches the autograph, and to weigh the reasons which are most likely to have determined different readings.2 1 The vast number of variations furnishes no cause for alarm to the devout reader of the New Testament. It is the natural result of the great number of documentary sources. A very small proportion of the variations materially affects the sense, a much smaller proportion is really important, and no variation affects an article of faith or a moral precept. Dr. Hort reckons the amount of what can, in any sense, be called substantial variation, as hardly more than a thousandth part of the entire text. (See Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Introduc tion, 2.) 2 "It is quite likely that some of the variations may have been due to changes introduced by the author himself into copies within his reach, after his manuscript had gone into circulation. These copies, circulating independently of those previously issued, would become the parents of a new family of copies, and would originate diversities from the original manuscript without any fault on the part of the transcribers " (Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 18, note). CHAPTEE H THE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT All extant New Testa ment manu scripts written on vellum. Uncials. The evidence by which the New Testament text is examined and restored is gathered from three sources : Manuscripts, Versions, and Patristic Quotations. The earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, writ ten on papyrus, have all perished, with the exception of a few scraps, not earlier than the earliest vellum manuscripts. All the extant manuscripts are written on vellum or parchment. Vellum was made, from the skins of young calves ; the common parchment from those of sheep, goats, or antelopes. The extant Greek manuscripts are mostly of late date, and contain only portions of the New Testament. They are of two classes: Uncials, or Majuscules, and Cursives, or Minuscules. Uncials are written in capital letters. Each letter is formed separately, and there are no divisions between the words.1 In form, these manuscripts resemble printed books, varying in size from large folio to octavo, and smaller. The pages contain one or two, rarely three or four, columns. Breathings and accents very rarely 1 The word "uncial" is derived from uncia, meaning the twelfth part of anything; hence, "an ounce," "an inch." It does not mean that the letters were an inch in length. There are very small uncials, as on the papyrus rolls of Herculaneum. The term is commonly traced to Jerome (preface to Job) : " Un- cialibus, ut vulgo aiunt, litteris, onera magis exarata, quam codices." It is thought by some, however, that Jerome wrote " initialibus " instead of "uncialibus." 8 NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 9 occur, unless inserted by a later hand. In the earliest manuscripts punctuation is confined to a single point Punctuation here and there on a level with the top of the letters, and ometjy0 " occasionally a small break, with or without the point, to denote a pause in the sense. Later, the single point is found indiscriminately at the head, middle, or foot of the letter. In the year 458 Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, published an edition of the Epistles of Paul, and soon after of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, written stichometrically, that is, in single lines contain ing only so many words as could be read, consistently with the sense, at a single inspiration.1 This mode of writing was used long before in copying the poetical books of the Old Testament. It involved, however, a great waste of parchment, so that, in manuscripts of the New Testament, it was superseded after a few centuries by punctuation-marks. Divisions of the text were early made for various purposes. In the third Harmonistic century Ammonius of Alexandria prepared a Harmony dmslons- of the Gospels, taking the text of Matthew as the basis, i Thus 1 Cor. 10 : 23-26, stichometrically in English, would read as follows: — All things are lawful for me but all things are not expedient all things are lawful for me but all things edify not let no man his own seek ("seek," jftreiTu, divided because of lack of space, and retra forms a line by itself) but that of the other every thing that in the shambles is sold (woiXovuAvov divided) eat nothing ask ing for the sake of the consciencefor the Lord's is the earth (_Kvpu>v abbreviated, kv.) and the ful ness of it. 10 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Eusebiansections and canons. Notation of canons. and placing by its side in parallel columns the similar passages in the other Gospels. This, of course, destroyed the continuity of their narrative. Eusebius of Caesarea, in the early part of the fourth century, availing him self of the work of Ammonius, devised a method of comparing the parallel passages not open to this objection. He divided the text of each Gospel into sections, the length of which was determined solely by their relation of parallelism or similarity to pas sages in one or more of the other Gospels, or by their having no parallel. Thus, Section 8 of Matthew con tains one verse, Matt. 3 : 3. This is parallel with Sec. 2 of Mark (Mk. 1 : 3), Sec. 7 of Luke, (Luke 3 : 3-6), Sec. 10 of John (J. 1 : 23). Again, Sec. 5 of Luke (L. 2 : 48-52) has no parallel. These sections were then numbered consecutively in the margin, and distributed into ten tables or canons. Canon I contained the sections correspond ing in the four Gospels ; Canon II the sections corre sponding in Matthew, Mark, and Luke; Canon Illy Matthew, Luke, John; Canon IV, Matthew, Mark, John. Then canons of the sections corresponding in two Gospels. Canon V, Matthew and Luke; Canon VI, Matthew and Mark ; Canon VII, Matthew and John ; Canon VIII, Mark and Luke; Canon IX, Luke and John ; Canon X, sections peculiar to one Gospel only. Under the number of each section in the margin of the several Gospels, which sections were numbered in black ink, there was written in red ink the number of the canon to which it belonged. These were tabu lated. Suppose, for instance, we find in the margin of Matt. 4:1, ^ = i^: that is to say the 15th sec- /?' II J tion may be found in the 2d canon. Turning to this canon, we find that the 15th section in Matthew corre sponds to the 6th section in Mark and the 15th in. NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 11 Luke. Turning to the margins of Mark and Luke, we find that Sec. 6 in Mark is Mark 1 : 12, and Sec. 15 in Luke is Luke 4 : 1. Thus the harmony is : Matt. 4:1; Mk. 1:12; Luke 4 : 1. The earliest manuscript in which the Eusebian sec- Earliest oo- tions and canons are found is the Sinaitic, where canons?6 °f they were added, according to Tischendorf, by a very early hand. They are found also in Codex A. Some manuscripts have the sections without the canons.1 Another ancient mode of division, ascribed by some to Tatian, the harmonist, is the division of the Gospels into chapters called titXxh, because a title or summary "Titles." of the contents of each chapter is appended to the numeral which designates it: A table of these chapters was usually prefixed to each Gospel. It is noticeable that, in each of the Gospels, the designa tion and enumeration begins with what should be the second section. Thus, the first title in Matthew begins with the second chapter, and is prefaced with the words irepi Tmv fmyoiv (about the Magi). In Mark the first title begins at 1 : 23, mpi tou o^.ip.oviZ.op.e.vov (about the man possessed with a demon). In Luke, at 2 : 1, 7rcpi tijs array patprjs (about the enrolment). In John, at 2 : 1, rrepL tov ev Kava yaptov (about the marriage in Cana). The reason for this is not apparent. It has been suggested that, in the first copies, the titles at the head of each Gospel were reserved for specially splendid illumination and were forgotten; but this would not explain why the second chapter was numbered as the first. There may also be noticed a division of the Acts Chapters. 1 The original authority on this subject is the Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus, which may be found in Tischendorf's New Testament, HI, 145. The canons of Eusebius are tabu lated in Bagster's large type Greek Testament, and the refer ences to them are noted in the margin of the text. 12 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Moderndivision into chapters. Significance of these divisions to criticism. Cursives. and Epistles into KabdXcuoi, or chapters, to answer the same purpose as the tltXol of the Gospels. These are of later date and of uncertain origin. They do not occur in A and C (fifth century), which exhibit the tCtXoi, the sections, and one of them (A) the canons. They are sometimes connected with the name of Eu thalius, deacon of Alexandria, the reputed author of the system of stichometry. That he used them is cer tain, but he probably derived them from some one else. Our present division into chapters is commonly ascribed to Cardinal Hugo, a Dominican monk of the thirteenth century, who used it for his Concordance of the Latin Vulgate. There are better grounds for ascribing it to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canter bury (06. 1228). The presence or absence of these divisions is im portant in determining the date of a manuscript. Thus, in seeking to fix the date of the Codex Alexan- drinus, the absence of the Euthalian divisions of the Acts and Epistles would point to a date not later than the middle of the fifth century ; while the insertion of the Eusebian Canons would lead us to assign a date not earlier than the latter half of the fourth century.1 Cursive manuscripts are written in smaller letters, in a running hand, the letters being connected and the words separated. In the earliest cursives the system of punctuation closely resembles that of printed books. Uncial manuscripts are the earlier, from the fourth to the ninth century ; while cursives range from the ninth to the fifteenth. Some cursives are older than 1 For divisions of the text, see article "Bible Text," in the Schaff- Herzog Encyclopcedia, by O. von Gebhardt, revised and largely rewritten by Ezra Abbot. On stichometry, two articles by J. Rendel Harris, American Journal of Philology, 1883, p. 31, s^nd Stichometry, 1893. See also Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 60-67. NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 13 some uncials. In papyrus manuscripts, however, uncial and cursive writing are found side by side from the earliest times at which Greek writing is known to us, the third century b.c. In the ninth century an ornamental style of running hand was in vented, which superseded the use of uncials in books. As a general rule, the upright, square, and simple uncials indicate an earlier date. Narrow, oblong, slanting characters, ornamentation, and initial letters of larger size than the rest, are marks of later date. The following are specimens of cursive manu scripts : — o'-c£ kcrp^TDn-^pocr, £3«HV \>6»* & au/TD jj • Ijudu *aro"£ i £ *arcLrrw a- o to"t> u h *w~ Codex Burney, 13th century. John 21 : 18. j^y -BWMvU{b»p' -rl«-uv*(«vi»+ p.£w{uLf>WL (juu-rto'. -wrooe- 4* ([ u «-»u* )»tf ">' «»rfrp li y6j 8 U jjr 1 H ft K[ »f» S*i <*m«lV'1B4f CV^1 **** fvnr) ti»I of «m«i»w . tr+f-aj* «u-r» c > t ji ai l< a/ru^ yl> +t»V»a» jgu>i.T«V SK«u.»Tm>«, Copy of Pauline Epistles, Emmanuel College, Cambridge, 12th century. Rom, 5 ; 21-6 : 7. 14 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Mode of designatingmanuscripts, Lectiona ries. Before the books were gathered into one collection, they were arranged in four groups : Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse. Most manuscripts contain only one, or at most two, of these groups. For the purpose of reference, uncials are distinguished by capital letters of the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew alphabets, as B, A, H. Cursives are desig nated simply by numbers, as Evan. 100, signifying "cursive manuscript of the Gospels, No. 100." If a cursive manuscript contains more than one of the groups above mentioned, it appears in different lists, and with a different number in each. Thus, a cursive of the fourteenth century, in the British Museum, containing all the four groups, is described as Evan. 498, Acts 198, P. 255, Ap. 97. An uncial like s, whose readings run through the whole New Testa ment, is quoted everywhere by the same letter; but B, in which the Apocalypse is wanting, is assigned to the Codex Basilianus of the Apocalypse (B2). D, in the Gospels and Acts, designates Codex Bezae; but in the Pauline Epistles, Codex Olaromontanus (D2). The cursive manuscripts, with a few exceptions, are rarely quoted as authorities for the text. Their importance is chiefly in showing which of two read ings, where the leading uncials are divided, has been adopted in the great mass of later copies. In the whole number of manuscripts must be in cluded the Lectionaries. The ordinary manuscripts were often adapted for church service by marking the beginning and end of each lesson with a note in the margin, indicating the time and occasion for reading it, and by prefixing to them a Synaxarion, or table of lessons in their order ; sometimes also a Menologion, or calendar of the immovable festivals and the saints' days, with their appropriate lessons. Separate collec tions were also made of lessons from the New Testa- NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 15 ment prescribed to be read during the church year. These lessons are arranged in chronological order, without regard to their places in the New Testament, like the Gospels and Epistles in the Book of Common Prayer. Lectionaries containing lessons from the Gospels were called eJayyeWrapia or, popularly, riayyeXux. Those containing lessons from the Acts and Epistles were termed arroo-roXoi or rrpa^airoo-ToXoi. A few, containing lessons from both the Gospels and the Acts and Epistles, were styled aTroo-ToXoevayyeXm. The uncial character was, in some cases, retained in these collections, after cursive writing had become common, so that it is not always easy to fix their date without other indications ; but the most of the Lectionaries are in the cursive character. There are no extant Lectionaries in Greek earlier than the eighth century, or earlier than the sixth century in Syriac ; but the lectionary system is much older. Their evidence is especially important in determining the canonicity of a passage, since it is the evidence, not of individ uals, but of churches, and shows that the church in a certain district believed the passage to be a part of inspired Scripture. As parchment was a costly material, an old manu- Palimpsests. script was often used for the second time, the original writing being erased by means of a sponge, a knife, or a piece of pumice-stone, and new matter written over it. Such manuscripts are called Palimpsests, or Codices Eescripti. A parchment was sometimes used three times over.1 It has been found possible, by the application of chemicals, to restore the letters of the original manuscript. A notable instance is the restora- A notable tion of Codex Ephraemi (C), in the National Library paUmPsest- at Paris, in which the works of the Syrian Eather, 1 See Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 141. 16 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Codex Sinai ticus (n). The story of its dis covery. Ephraem, were written over the original New Testa ment text. The original writing was brought- to light by the librarian, Carl Hase, in 1834-35, by the appli cation of the Giobertine tincture (prussiate of potash). It was edited by Tischendorf in 1843-45.1 We shall notice the five primary uncials, so called from their age and importance. Codex Sinaiticus (S) : probably about the middle of the fourth century. Now in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg. It was discovered by Tischendorf in 1859, in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai. The following is Tischendorf's own description of the discovery. " On the afternoon of this day (Feb. 7, 1859) I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighborhood, and as we returned toward sunset, he begged me to take some refresh ment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of con versation, he said, ' And I, too, have read a Septuagint ; ' and so saying he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and dis covered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testa ment, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas, and a part of the Pastor of 1 On palimpsests, see Scrivener, Introduction, etc., I, 25, 141 ; Tischendorf, New Testament, III, 366 ; Mrs. Agnes Lewis, The Four Gospels translated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest. For a full description of the New Testament manuscripts, the reader will consult the Prolegomena to Tischendorf's larger eighth edition of his Greek Testament, in the third volume, prepared by Dr. Caspar R. Gregory, and Scrivener's Introduc tion to the Criticism of the New Testament, I. A compendious description will be found in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopcedia, article "Bible Text," by von Gebhardt. w * > errttopicxCMoio *s > xoycziuncnM^ -— > GeicrnGeycbrocY v. > NHCMe-riT,otVif» - m , Gcunoyc'bTiidNnneiNMeTTT f\ Ci T**|>pHci*cnpocf 1 MA-cnerrroynx \. ^ k xi er^e yth ce* KXieTXHTH coyny nwxtuNKwei - « ACDGOTIOPKCDCO ' - MOOeNWTO)0 jL _9C CKK AfTl O YTH' "VT^O CPYO CXYTtTfKX -flit ^ oicbGHiiTONefo 7j-< NONAYToynVofr" w' n €Vith c*n>ctx y ee co ctoyx y°ti oyreeN ka-tem -- -.£• 4>eHeic4-fcMNoy *1W ¦feHO.tWTOY'l ^ AeNXix — " oYn*.NxececMe- T h^MeiCHMTTP^ THKellXOYHTOY e"YYfU)OeiCTHN Teenfr-rrexixNTT ^' nNCTOYfe-rioy ^, AXKcuNnXpXToy "0 At, n^ryoctpexee^ " ° "toytooymeic -„ sxen eTeKX.14.wY «„..eTeoYrxtFr'^'Xfc-*N« Ctt .. K h ei CTOYCOYf X . - NOYC^erGiA^f TOC>- einetw O KUJ M OY KXO'1 (,> ei< AGXI CO N M oy« > COCXNOCDTOYCe >xoPoYccoYYno y.nOAIONTCUNn'' — - cx IcONCOY ' HCANAen^OCI^ *»XXU3baYNn TCfOYNT6CTH W ^ OIKOCptfxOTIKM WUNKW-IHIW ** ' SN^YTONKXIXN /V NCUNIfeirHK^CI I^TIT-r , KW npOCCTCOI-t'K eiQTOieT,'ONttHPir gntiihhcTmiki - Uip^NTHCn^ce-gK--*^ NHS'Y'X>.|CL>eii['| ^ XHCTHNGNWT-IHri,, * TicXNHpxuj^ocejf - r> KOI^IXCMHlfo1^ rt-""" TkiYYrOspxcDNeRX ^ - CT*ZGTOONeT(OOjS ^ • KAOHMeyAWnyo' .^ ^ ,, 'TIINGY¥*NTOT^ePT' "/" eni'lVlCGNDOC TOTMTOrKWTll- - THNM-roMENHN npoceYXXlcEn NCTOMnWHtf TOYTONTON IN oNYMeieecTKT THN» OJI/kAl -_^.l*.NTOy*.ITIN , V EkCHMOCyNHN . nt,rA.Tx«N^crroHr -- " ¦ .OMeNWeigTOfg,, -- -TOYCXOinOYcS TeHNiwreFxcem -rottr-oNHpajT*! - •" noCTo"oYCTin-i , n*NT*cl<«.ln»i' a.chmocynmn«, ,i £ie£to£ieTpi' f" aNWHCWeni - TrocnroevrToNr-^c"? , inr^ncvMcr^TOcYnmeiC-Enr i rrroci.oiN;nn* ~ n - 1S.^SJoNOMM1 flnpMKONKtlil -, jfr^YTCUNAkHN -• - - -.,.c-=GrYria>NK*.i-xrYgo- CW"- i YM i n r>if ecn en*.rrewW TEKNOlCYM jT0YTOco, £/ ,0Yrrri? -;n,o"K*fW<'t»-''tltXSS' ^ ' 'ctinu " ifcomosyhw, „ H*JTMYxytoyn* X,(iiN ii Tec-iei<*TOiKON _ K*.iniXQ*.cvrroN , ^* C1^.? o*' Ure^ciow . -THCiei.i-cxeipo. . . ¦ iii.NONTro.in*r£K^v| -rTCcXi.finn[oc. - "?cemK*tr,l »1nyu kyj:i3hay0d0j3i i-iymyJoixviyvAoihvd ¦.UNOxAYDoJuoiaAaJ OU3I3IYMNtrj|jLJVMY ,1 jDacf^aisaviONYXSW YioixuvjNrrjDaAJHMmw Hj3HXNt)N(T)2IJ_LIYSO *)NYO)IOX3N3J3 Ao.l. AvDAOS I JXD VJL3.L 13 IOU ¦i .vOeAsAjINOVONHX.:)! Y.YMIOX3(r)HHj3H.LN;) 30XNCT>OSHNCT)<|>A(>3 _..von h x o 3 vA a n a vx v » 30AODAOLICT)30jLIOJu aomnoy3jjynoxcdy *u_30ijvAovji,hxh4>oJu "¦XYIYDHm.LN3IYXIJYj.l jJocTjevxAjjAoiAAxAj Aoiy3j.iyA:-3Ao.i.hxJv „ :^ << N O IYOOYIT <« V.I VM >< •ft< : 30NCDI VAOXDVISV jXNAdJHXD(D3DYJ3H H3YXDV3YUIH[3NmN Ao.-iwcD.iaAoviivN nim ANII WVYI3X3NDVDOV.L _vi inisJhxsAo I.AVD3J. J)HOVVIV301YWA3NU Aoi.ivAti.LivM Ao I AAox &OOJXYI iAo.i.ymono f |.|i3aonw|j3myovma 1ymn3hodi3udi3mh • -nom3jhAoxouAox a0xh03a0xvnv3iv» N(r)N3WmHIOXNa)HH NOXAVNV^3YM33 3J- i)QY330X>lANAoxAV IVXH9VWOUO 3XVLI l333XNOJ3VDIYXO)iJ. VJX3DiOXNY>KT)V3YN Y* IVlJAjJYD3XNO«YY ..I.NOIVAOSwA3NfT)J3X UD3jUNCl)Xy.L3W33X N30XVNA3IVN VN9H O N3.1VXVXNVUVNI3 Aaj3 IXj VDIOXNVVI3J JiiUYNIYOI I N HXOI3331 hooysovi vmxaAoxa >nL33 N I xAo V I NCDXAV .VN(T)N3HOA3jOU IVX ' _4o.3WI3>IY>INYIYYI3Y ii axvxj NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 19 , nine smaller and more recent. Each of these also begins after a break in the sense ; but they are quite independent of each other, as a larger section will sometimes commence in the middle of a smaller, the latter not being a subdivision of the former. In the Catholic Epistles and in the Pauline Epistles there are two sets of sections, but in the Epistles the older sec tions are the more numerous. The breathings and accents have been added by a later hand, according to Tischendorf and Hort, of the tenth or eleventh century. This hand appears to have traced the faint lines of the original writing; and the writer, being anxious at the same time to represent a critical re vision of the text, left untouched such words or letters as he wished to reject. These untouched places enable us to see the Codex in its primitive condition. Attempts to examine and collate this codex were Editions for many years baffled by the custodians of the Vatican of B- Library and the authorities of the Boman Church.1 Boman Catholic scholars undertook the work which they refused to allow others to do. An edition by Cardinal Mai was issued in 1857, but it was full of faults, so that it never could be used with confidence. A grudging and limited permission to Tischendorf to consult the Codex enabled him to issue, in 1867, an edition superior to any that had preceded it. The edition of the New Testament by Vercellone and Cozza appeared in 1868, and was complete and criti cal, though not without errors. A splendid edition was issued in 1889, under the care of Abbate Cozza- Luzi, in which the entire text was exhibited in photo graph. Codex Alexandrinus (A). Fifth century. In the Codex Alex- British Museum, where it was placed at the founda- andrinus 1 See under Tischendorf and Tregelles in the history of the printed text. 20 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Character of the codex. Capitaliza tion and divisionsof A. tion of the library of that institution in 1753, having previously belonged to the king's private collection from the year 1628, when it was sent by Cyril Luear, Patriarch of Constantinople, as a gift to Charles I. An old Arabic inscription on the first leaf states that it was written by the hand of Thecla the Martyr. The Codex is bound in four volumes, three of which contain the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament with some gaps, amounting to nearly six hundred verses. The fourth volume contains the New Testa ment. The whole of Matthew's Gospel to 25 : 6 is missing, 'together with John 6 : 50-8 : 52, and 2 Cor. 4 : 13-12 : 6. After the Apocalypse is found what was until very recently the only known extant copy of the first or genuine Epistle of Clement of Bome, and a small fragment of a second of suspected authen ticity. It would appear that these two Epistles were designed to form a part of the volume of Scripture, being represented in the table of contents under the head H KAINH AIA0HKH. To these are added the eighteen Psalms of Solomon as distinct from Scripture. The Codex is in quarto, 12J inches high and 10^ broad, and consists of 773 leaves. Each page contains two columns of fifty or fifty-one lines each. The uncials are of an elegant but simple form, in a uni form hand, though in some places larger than in others. The punctuation, which no later hand has meddled with, consists merely of a point placed at the end of a sentence, usually on a level with the top of the preceding letter. A vacant space follows the point at the end of a paragraph, the space being proportioned to the break in the sense. Capital letters of various sizes, written in common ink, are found at the beginning of books and sections. These capitals stand in the margin entirely outside of the column ; so that if the section begins in the middle of a line, NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 21 the capital is postponed until the beginning of the next line, the first letter of which is always the capi tal, even though it be in the middle of a word. The first line of Mark, the first three of Luke, the first verse of John, the opening of the Acts down to St, and so on for other books, are in vermilion. This is the first Codex which has KetbaXata proper, the Ammonian sections and the Eusebian canons complete. Codex Ephraemi (C). Fifth century. In the National Codex Library at Paris. It was brought into France by Ephraemi Catherine de' Medici. It is a palimpsest, the ancient writing having been removed about the twelfth cen tury in order to transcribe the works of Ephraem, the Syrian Father. An attempt to recover the original writing by the application of a chemical preparation, in 1834, defaced the vellum with stains of various colors. The older writing was first noticed nearly two centuries ago. A collation of the New Testament was made by Wetstein in 1716 ; but the first thorough collation was by Tischendorf in 1843. The Codex originally contained the whole Greek Bible. Only sixty-four leaves remain of the Old Testament. Of the New Testament ninety-three leaves are missing. Those which remain contain Contents portions of every book except 1 Thessalonians and of C- 2 John. There is but one column to a page, con taining from forty to forty-six lines. The characters are larger and more elaborate than those of A or B. The punctuation resembles that of A. The Ammonian sections stand in the margin, but the chemical appli cations have not revealed the Eusebian canons. These canons were commonly noted in vermilion, and lines of the text written in vermilion have been com pletely obliterated. There is no trace of chapters in the Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse. In the Gospels the 22 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Codex Bezae (D). Divisionsof D. Kc but a list of their rirXoi preceded each Gospel. Two correctors have handled the Codex, possibly of the sixth and ninth centuries. Codex Bezae or Cantabrigiensis (D). Sixth century. In the Library of the University of Cambridge. It is named from Theodore Beza, who presented it to the University in 1581. It contains only the Gospels and Acts, and is the first example of a copy in two lan guages, giving a Latin version in addition to the Greek text. It is marked by numerous interpolations and departures from the normal text, and on this account some critics refuse to place it among the primary uncials. It originally contained the Catholic- Epistles between the Gospels and the Acts, and in the Latin translation a few verses of 3 John remain, followed by the words "Epistulse Johannis iii explicit, incipit actus Apostolorum," as if the Epistle of Jude were displaced or wanting. It is a quarto volume, ten inches high and eight broad, with one column on a page, the Greek text being on the left-hand page, and the Latin facing it on the right. There are thirty-three lines on every page, the matter being arranged stichometrically. It has not the Eusebian canons, but only the Ammonian sections. It has suffered at the hands of nine or ten different revisers. The margins of the church lessons for Saturday and Sunday contain liturgical notes in thick letters. A few others for the great feasts and fast days occur, and, in a hand of about the twelfth cen tury, lessons for the festivals of St. George and St. Dionysius, the patron saints of England and France.1 1 Among the secondary uncials the most important are : D2, Codex Olaromontanus, second half of the sixth century, National Library at Paris, Greek and Latin, contains the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews. E2, sixth century, Codex Lau- ..Oy-cuxr i j >| |-t'At <>i< oxt'l'ill II , i •.- ',!••¦' ill' '¦ i ¦ -rui'. i .1 -. >,om-a|' .-• Mir.,.iMiMiA,M :i * 'i^^^'^.V^il'cuJ, ;^r^ " .'JS-*eX> rf»9 o . Nmr.rf (vtji** v lAuri"! *., ¦• . i. 7V- i r, , iff \ >,,(< vc . •'•¦. i" ¦'. I JijJM •¦» Mi*t»>»Hjfj)rv-. ,r>.i»X| ¦ .. : y^s. rt (ft)** U3 1 J i^imifbin ' i'^^TOf/fl^^^'^^ '' "¦^id'4'*&'«'ei'>* tiW'yasP fp »'t! /f /n' ™>j . *-Cs*' iojix- *l ct i C Of Jytrlt.- « Si>ai» , i, .1 ... K-i1 ¦(, ' •1ii.;|irMfv;.i'.)i, ( xoy*i~Ew;..snT^ i.m ,-mht v a v.kh .v/t 4 .\tCi< iacpum. « A Specimen or the Codex Ephraemi (Original size of page, 12J in. x 9^ in. ; of the part reproduced, 7J in. x 9 in.) Reproduced by permission from F. G. Kenyon's flur Bible and the Ancient MSS., Eyre & Spottiswoode, London NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS 23 dianus, Bodleian Library at Oxford, Greek and Latin, contains the Acts. L, Codex Regius, eighth century, National Library at Paris, contains the Gospels complete : a very ancient text. Ta, Codex Borgianus, fifth century, Propaganda at Rome, Greek and Coptic, contains 179 verses of Luke and John. Dr. Hort ranks it next after B and K for excellence of text. Z, Codex Dublinensis, palimpsest, sixth century, Trinity College, Dub lin, contains 295 verses of Matthew, in twenty-two fragments ; agrees with X rather than with B. A, Codex Sangallensis, ninth century, library of the monastery of St. Gall in the northeast of Switzerland, Gospels nearly complete ; a Latin interlinear translation. The text in Mark is of the same type as L. S, Codex Zacynthius, eighth century, palimpsest, in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London, contains 342 verses of Luke's Gospel. Dr. Hort places it next to T». A continuous commentary by different authors (catena) accom panies the text. Scrivener says this is the earliest known — indeed, the only — uncial furnished with a catena. CHAPTEE III VERSIONS Versions. Worth of versions in textual criticism. Versions of the New Testament writings were de manded early by the rapid spread of the Gospel to the Syrians, Egyptians, and the Latin-speaking people of Africa, Italy, and the west of Europe. Transla tions into Syriac and Latin were made in the second century, and later into Coptic, when Alexander's con quest opened Egypt. Versions are important in textual criticism because they are earlier than extant manuscripts, because their ages are known, and because they are, generally, au thorised translations, made either by a body of men, or by a single recognised and accepted authority. Versions may indeed have suffered in the course of transmission, but when the ancient versions accord, it is reasonable to conclude that in such passages they have not suffered. On the other hand, their evidence is less direct than that of manuscripts, since we must translate them back into their originals in any case of doubt. They have been transmitted in manuscripts, just as the Greek original has been, and are liable to the same accidents which have affected the Greek text. They have undergone similar textual corruptions. No man uscript copy of a version is earlier than the fourth century. Therefore it may be found as difficult to arrive at the primitive text of a version as of the Greek original. Some versions, moreover, are second- 24 VERSIONS 25 ary, derived from other versions of the Greek ; and some merely give the sense, without attempting ver bal renderings. Versions by themselves, therefore, cannot establish Office of any reading. They can only supplement manuscript „itidsmiD evidence. If an ancient version accords with a very early Greek manuscript in some particular reading, the evidence is weighty as to the early prevalence of that reading ; and if this testimony is supported by a second version, its weight is greatly increased. If we are sure of the original words of a Syriac or Latin translation, we may have a reasonably correct idea of the words of a Greek text extant in the first half of the second century. On the omission of words and clauses the testimony of versions is as clear as that of original manuscripts. It must be noted, further, that the value of a version's evidence at certain points will depend somewhat on the character of the language into which the Greek is rendered. For instance, a Latin version would seldom testify to the presence or absence of the Greek article. i. Latin Versions. — A comparison of the Old Latin Latin ver- texts, previous to Jerome's version, indicates that they slons- all are offshoots from one, or at most two, parent stocks. One of the several recensions current toward the end of the fourth century was known as Itala. It was for a long time thought that it originated in Africa in the second half of the second century.1 Three groups of Old Latin manuscripts are recog nised, each representing a distinct type of text: (1) African, agreeing generally with quotations in Ter- 1 See Cardinal Wiseman, Two Lectures on Some Parts of the Controversy concerning 1 John 5 : 7. Republished in Essays on Various Subjects, I, 1853, Rome. Later scholarship has become less confident as to the African origin. 26 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Jerome'srevision. tullian and Cyprian ; (2) European, either independent or based on the African ; (3) Italian, formed on the European type, and revised with the aid of later Greek manuscripts. Many of the Old Latin manu scripts, however, present texts which cannot be as signed to either of these classes. At the end of the fourth century there was so much variation in exist ing texts that Jerome was requested by Pope Damasus to undertake a revision. His labour was expended chiefly on the Old Testament. In all parts of the New Testament, except the Gospels, his revision was cursory. The texts which precede his version remain to us only in fragments, and are to be gathered, largely, from citations by the Fathers. These patristic cita tions may be found, not only in writings composed before Jerome, but also in later compositions, since a long time elapsed before Jerome's work obtained gen eral currency. Down to the end of the sixth century different texts were used at the writer's pleasure. Ac cordingly we find in some exclusively an old text, in others only Jerome's version, while others again em ploy both.1 1 Some idea of the differences may be gained from the follow ing parallels, the variations from Jerome's version being desig nated by italics : — Romans 10:9 Jerome Iken^us Hilary of Poitiers quia cil confltearis ln ore tuo Dominum Je- sum, et in corde tuo cre- dideris quod Deua Ilium Buscitavit a mortuis, sal- vus eris. Jerome Ideo enim et tribute priestatis ; mlnlstri enim Del aunt, in hoc ipsum servlentes. quoniam ai confltea ris ln ore tuo Dominum Jesum et credideris in corde tuo quoniam. Deus ilium etccitavit a mortuis. salvus oris. Romans 13 : 6 Iren jj us Propter hoc enim et tributa penditia ; mlnl stri enim Dei sunt ln hoc ipsum servlentes. quia si confessue fu- eris in ore tuo, quia Dominus Jesus est, et credideris In corde tuo, quia Deus ilium snsoita- Tit amortuis, saVoaoeris. AV6U8TINE Ideo (elsewhere prop ter hoc) enim et tributa preestatis ; mmistri enim Dei ln hoc ipsum peree- verantes. VERSIONS 27 A second revision was attempted by Alcuin (735- 804), and a third by Sixtus. V (1590). The modern authorised Vulgate is the Clementine (1592), which is substantially Jerome's version. The Old Latin version of the New Testament was translated directly from the original Greek. The Vulgate was only a re vision of the Old Latin. But the Old Latin was made long before any of our existing Greek manuscripts, Value of the and takes us back almost to within a generation of the version"* time at which the New Testament books were com posed. The Old Latin Version is therefore one of the most interesting and valuable evidences which we pos sess for the condition of the New Testament text in the earliest times.1 Philippians 2 : 7 Tertullian exhamit semet ip sum accepta effigie servi et in eimiHtudine ho- minis et figura inven tus ut homo. Titus 2 : 6-8 Ltjcifer of Cagliari Juvenes similiter hor- tare, ut sobrii sint in omnibus, (note difference of punctuation,) per om nia te ipsum formam prmb&ns bonorum ope- rum in doctrina (punc tuation), in integritate, in gravitate, in sermone saimm, irreprehensiM- lem, ut adversariua re- vereatttr nihil habens quid dicere malum de nobis. 1 On Latin Versions, see : H. Ronsch, Das N. T. Tertullians, etc., Leipzig, 1871. Id. Itala und Vulgata, 2 Ausg., Marburg, 1875. Wordsworth and White, Novum Testamentum Latine, Oxford, 1887. Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin Biblical Texts, Oxford, 1888. F. C. Burkitt, The Old Latin and Jerome sed semet ipsum exin - anivit, formam servi ac- cipiens, in similitudinem hominumfactus ethabitu inventus ut homo. Jerome JuveneB similiter hor- tare, ut sobrii sint. In omnibus te ipsum prsebe exemplum bonorum ope- rum, in doctrina, in in tegritate, in gravitate, in sermone Bano et irrepre- hensibili, ut is qui ex advereo est vereatur, ni hil habens malum dicere de nobis. NOVATIAN semet ipsum exlnani- vit formam servi accipi- ens, in eimiUtudine ho- minum factus et habitu inventus ut homo. Aherobiaster Juniores similiter hortare, conUnentes esse per omwia, temet ipsum prwbeiis exemplum bon orum operum in doc trina, in integritate, in gravitate, verbum su nt is qui e divereo est revereatwr nihil habens dicere de nobis dignvm 28 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Syriae ver sions. ThePeshitto. ThePeshitto a revision. The Cure tonian. 2. Syriac Versions. — The gospel was first preached in the East. The nearness of Syria to Judaea, and the early growth of the church at Antioch and Damas cus, must have produced an early demand for a ren dering into the Syriac tongue. Of extant versions there are five: Peshitto, Curetonian, Philoxenian and Harclean, Jerusalem or Palestinian, and the Lewis Palimpsest. The Peshitto is the great standard version of the Syriac church, made not later than the third century. It is known to us in 177 manuscripts, most of which are in the British Museum. Two of these are of the fifth century; at least a dozen more not later than the sixth century. The Peshitto does not contain those books of the New Testament which were the last to be generally accepted, as 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse. About the beginning of the present century Gries bach and Hug asserted that the Peshitto was not the original Syriac, but a revision of an earlier version. In 1842 eighty leaves of a copy of the Gospels in Syriac were discovered in the Syrian Convent of St. Mary in the Mtrian Desert. These contained a dif ferent text from those of any manuscripts previously known. They were edited by Dr. Cureton of the British Museum, who maintained that they exhibited the very words of the Lord's discourses in the lan guage in which they were originally spoken. The manuscript is of the fifth century, practically con temporary with the earliest existing manuscripts of the Itala, Cambridge Texts and Studies, IV, 3, Cambridge, 1896. S. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du Moyen Age, Paris, 1893. D. F. Fritzsehe, article "Latein- ische Bibeltibersetzungen," in Herzog's Beal-Encyklopadie. On the Vetus Latina of Paul's Epistles : Ziegler, Die Lateinischen Bibeliibersetzungen vor Hieronymus, Miinchen, 1879. VERSIONS 29 the Peshitto. Cureton, however, argued that the character of the translation showed that its original must have been earlier than the original of the Pesh itto, and that the Peshitto was the revision of the Old Syriac.1 Cureton's view has been hotly contested. The ques- Various tion is, whether the Curetonian, which is less accurate, totte Cure- scholarly, and smooth than the Peshitto, is a corrup- tonian. tion of the latter, or whether, as Cureton maintained, the Peshitto is a revision of the Curetonian. It may be said that it is unlikely that an accurate version like the Peshitto should have been deliberately altered for the worse, and that a less accurate, independent ver sion should have passed into circulation. The affini ties of the Curetonian version are with the older forms of the Greek text, while those of the Peshitto are with its later forms. Tischendorf assigns the Curetonian to the middle, the Peshitto to the end, of the second century. Others assign the Peshitto to the end of the third or beginning of the fourth. Dr. Hort says that the Curetonian text is not only itself a valuable au thority, but renders the comparatively late and revised character of the Peshitto a matter of certainty. The question was reopened by the discovery, in The Lewis 1892, by Mrs. Agnes Lewis, in the Convent of St. PalimPsest- Catherine on Mt. Sinai, of a Syriac palimpsest of the four Gospels. The following is Mrs. Lewis's own ac count of her discovery: z — "In the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mt. Sinai, a chest containing ancient Syriac manuscripts has lain 1 The manuscript of the Curetonian Syriac Gospels contains Matt. 1-8 : 22 ; 10 : 31-23 : 26. Of Mark, 16 : 17-20. Of John, 1 : 1-42 ; 3 : 6-7 : 37, and fragments of 14 : 11-29. Of Luke, 2 : 48-3 : 16 ; 7 : 33-15 : 21 ; 17 : 24-24 : 44. 2 The Four Gospels translated from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, London, 1894. 30 TEXTUAL CRITICISM undisturbed for centuries. Professor Palmer saw its contents in 1868, and thus refers to them : ' Among a pile of patristic and other works of no great age or interest are some curious old Syriac books, and one or two palimpsests. My hurried visit prevented me from examining these with any great care ; but they would no doubt well repay investigation.' First exam- " The first real examination of these books was re- thfpaiimp- served for Mr- Rendel Harris, who, in 1889, after a sest. stay of fifteen days at the Convent, contrived to dis arm all prejudices, and to obtain access to these hid den treasures. . . . "Amongst the ancient volumes which were produced for our inspection by the late Hegoumenos and Libra rian, Father Galakteon, was a thick volume, whose leaves had evidently been unturned for centuries, as they could be separated only by manipulation with the fingers, and in some cases only by the steam of a kettle. A single glance told me that the book was a palimpsest, and I soon ascertained that the upper writing was a very entertaining account of the lives of women saints, and that its date was, as I then read it, a thousand and nine years after Alexander, that is, a.d. 697. After the word ' nine ' there is a small hole in the vellum, which, as Mr. Eendel Harris believes, occupies the place of the syllable corresponding to the 'ty' of 'ninety,' and the date is thus probably a.d. 778. " I then examined the more ancient writing which lay beneath this. It is in two columns, one of which is always projected onto the margin, and it is written in the same character, but in a much smaller hand than the later writing which covers it. It was also slightly reddish in colour. As I glanced down the margin for over 280 pages, every word that I could decipher was from the Gospels, and so were the lines VERSIONS 31 which at the top or bottom of several pages were free of the later writing. And few, indeed, were the pages which had not a distinct title, such as 'Evangelium,' ' da Mathai,' ' da Marcus,' or ' da Luca.' " Mrs. Lewis photographed the pages which were The work of shown to the late Professor Bensley, who was then Mrs' Lewis- engaged on a critical edition of the Curetonian Gos pels. He pronounced the text to be of the same type as the Curetonian. A second expedition to the Sinaitic convent was organised, in which Mrs. Lewis was accompanied by Professor Bensley, J. Rendel Harris, and E. C. Burkitt. In forty days the text of the Gospels was transcribed directly fr,om the manuscript, and Mrs. Lewis suc ceeded in restoring much of the faded writing by means of a chemical agent. The manuscript is written on strong vellum. The Appearance text of the Gospels underlies about 284 pages on 142 j^emanu- leaves of the Martyrology. In addition to these leaves the scribe made use of four leaves from a fourth-cen tury manuscript of the Gospels, many leaves from a volume of Syriac apocrypha, containing the Acts of Thomas and the Bepose of Mary, and other leaves from a Greek manuscript, not identified. The text presents a number of variations from the Variations standard Greek text, but most of them are curious and soript.manU' interesting rather than important. There are some transpositions, as in John 18, where the questioning by the High Priest follows immediately upon Christ's being led to him, and Peter's three denials are grouped in a consecutive narrative in the succeeding verses. In Luke 22 there is a fresh arrangement of the narra tive from ver. 17 to ver. 21, by which it is made more compact and orderly. The interpolation at Luke 23 : 48, which occurs only in Codex Bezae, appears here : " Woe unto us, what hath befallen us ? Woe unto us 32 TEXTUAL CRITICISM for our sins." Matt. 1 : 16 reads, "Joseph begat Jesus who is called Christ," and in ver. 25 the words " and knew her not until " are omitted. Yet Matt. 1 : 18 is retained, "When they had not come near to one another, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost." The last twelve verses of Mark are omitted. Relations to The question of the relation of this Codex to other Versions"3,0 Syriac Versions is far too technical to be discussed here. An important point is the relation of the Cure tonian Version to the Diatessaron or Gospel Harmony of Tatian, composed about 160 a.d., and which was charged with omitting whatever went to show that Jesus was born of the seed of David according to the flesh. The whole problem presents the following factors : (1) An early Syriac Version represented by the Curetonian, but how early ? (2) The Peshitto. Is it a revision of an earlier version, and if so, is that version the Curetonian? (3) Tatian's Diatessaron. Was it originally written in Syriac ? Was it earlier than the Curetonian ? To quote Mrs. Lewis, " Was the Diatessaron compiled in the second century from the version contained in the Curetonian and in the Sinai Codices, or did that version come into existence only in the fourth century, when the use of the Diatessaron was discontinued?" (4) The Lewis Palimpsest. It is no doubt earlier than the Peshitto. Is it earlier than the Curetonian ? It does not perfectly coincide with the Curetonian. Eb. Nestle and J. Eendel Harris both hold that it represents the very first attempt to render the Gospel into Syriac, and thus both the Dia tessaron and the Curetonian are revisions of it.1 1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New Testament, 75. On Syriac Versions, see : Th. Zahn, Geschichte der neutesta- mentlichen Kanons, Leipzig, 1888, 1891. Eb. Nestle, article " Syrische Bibeltibersetzungen , " in Herzog's Beal-Encyklopadie ; VERSIONS 33 The Philoxenian Version was made by Philoxenus, Philoxenian Bishop of Mabug (Hierapolis) in Eastern Syria, in 508 ; cieln^yriao. probably with a view to provide a more literal version than the Peshitto. Few traces of it, in its original form, remain.1 Improperly confounded with the Philoxenian is a version made at Alexandria, in 616, by Thomas of Harkel, also Bishop of Mabug. It was formerly re garded as a revision of the Philoxenian; but the opinion has gained ground that it was substantially a new version. It is known as the Harclean Syriac, and is characterised by slavish adherence to the Greek, even to the destruction of the Syriac idiom. The Jerusalem Syriac exists only in fragments, and Jerusalem differs in dialect from all the other versions. It is anfnfiaUka~ believed to have been made in the fifth or sixth century, Syriac. and to have been used exclusively in Palestine. It was discovered at the end of the last century in the Vatican Library, and was edited in 1861-64. Since full catalogue of literature. Baethgen, Evangelienfragmente. Der griechische Text des Curetonschen Syrers wiederhergestellt, Leipzig, 1885. G. H. Gwilliam, The Material for the Criticism of the Peshitto New Testament, Studia Biblica, Oxford, 1891, HI, 47-104. E. L. Bensley, J. Eendel Harris, F. C. Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac, transcribed from the Sinaitic Palimpsest, Cambridge, 1894. Agnes Smith Lewis, The Four Gospels translated from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, London, 1894. Tischendorf, New Testament, III, 806 ff. ; list of earlier articles on the Curetonian Syriac. Scrivener, Intro duction, etc., II, 6 ff. On Tatian's Diatessaron, see A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, Th. I, S. 485 ff. J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ, being the Diatessaron of Tatian, Clarks, Edinburgh, 1894. 1 Unless the manuscript brought to light by Dr. Isaac H. Hall of New York, in 1876, can be shown, as is claimed, to be the unrevised Philoxenian. This manuscript is now in the library of Union Theological SeminacftJifUW SXm^,^ 34 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Egyptianversions. Three EgyptianVersions. then fragments of the Gospels and Acts have been found in the British Museum and at St. Petersburg, and two additional lectionaries and fragments of the Pauline Epistles in the Bodleian at Oxford and at Mt. Sinai. Two more lectionaries have been discovered at Mt. Sinai by Mrs. Lewis.1 What is called the Karkaphensian Syriac is not a continuous version, but a collection of passages on which annotations have been made, dealing with ques tions of spelling and pronunciation. 3. Egyptian Versions. — The language used by the natives of Egypt at the time when the Bible was first translated for their use, is called Coptic. It was allied to the Demotic or vulgar language, so called to distin guish it from the Hieratic or priestly language. The Demotic writing contained a mixture of alphabetic signs, each of which represented a single sound, with other signs representing syllables, and others not pho netic but pictorial. With the entrance of Christianity into Egypt a new and strictly phonetic alphabet was introduced, the characters being adopted from the Greek alphabet. We are acquainted with five Egyptian Versions, of which only three need be mentioned : the Memphitic or Bahiric; the Thebaic or Sahidic; the Bashmuric. The Memphitic was current in Northern Egypt. It was the most literary dialect of the Egyptian language, and is the Coptic of to-day, so far as the language still exists. Only in the Bahiric are complete copies of the New Testament still extant. All the other Coptic ver sions exist only in fragments. The oldest and best manuscript (Oxford, Gospels) is of the latter part of the twelfth century. It is a good and careful trans- 1 See J. Eendel Harris, Biblical Fragments from Mt. Sinai. G. H. Gwilliam, Anecdota Oxoniensia, Semitic Series, I, 5, 1893 ; 9, 1896. VERSIONS 35 Armenian, and Gothic Versions. lation. It did not originally include the Apocalypse. The Thebaic was current in Southern Egypt. It exists only in fragments, but these are very numerous, espe cially at Paris. The fragments, if combined, would compose a nearly complete New Testament, with con siderable portions of the Old Testament. It is prob ably later than the Bahiric. The language is less polished, and the text not so pure. The Bashmuric was an adaptation of the Thebaic, in the dialect of herdsmen living in the Nile Delta. Only a few frag ments remain, covering about three hundred verses of the Fourth Gospel, and five verses of the Pauline Epistles. For the iEthiopic, Armenian, and Gothic Versions, ethiopic, the reader may consult Tischendorf's New Testament, III, and Scrivener's "Introduction," etc. A tenth- century manuscript of the Armenian version is inter esting as containing the last twelve verses of Mark's Gospel, with a heading stating that" they are " of the Elder Aristion." One Aristion is mentioned by Papias The Elder as having been a disciple of the Lord. ' ustIon- IS. the writer of these verses could be identified with out doubt as a disciple of the Lord, the fact would naturally have an important bearing on the much- vexed question of the authenticity of the passage. But such identification is far from positive.1 1 See Eusebius, H. E., Ill, 39. The Gothic Version of the Gospels may be seen in Bosworth and Waring's Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in Parallel Col umns. For an interesting treatment of Ulfilas, the author of the Gothic Version, see T. HodgMn, Italy and her Invaders, I, Pt. I, 80 ff. On Egyptian Versions, see J. B. Lightfoot, in Scrivener's Introduction, 4th ed. II, 91-144. Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 859 ff. CHAPTER IV PATEISTIC QUOTATIONS Imperfection of patristic texts. The third source of textual evidence is furnished by quotations from the Greek Testament by other writers, especially the Church Fathers. This class of evidence is styled " the Evidence of Patristic Quotation." It has a certain value, but the value is limited or quali fied by numerous considerations. While it is probable that nearly the whole substance of New Testament teaching could be recovered from the Patristic writ ings, the same cannot be said of the text. The text of many of the Fathers is itself in an imperfect state. " It is a shame," says Dr. Nestle, " that the most im portant Fathers are not yet before us in proper edi tions." Dr. Sanday says : " The field of the patristic writings needs to be thoroughly overhauled. What makes this the more urgent is that where the text has not been critically tested, the quotations from the Bible are the first to suffer. The scribes were con stantly in the habit of substituting the text with which they were themselves familiar for that which they found before them in the manuscript. So that what we have very frequently is, not the words of the Father as they were originally written, but simply the late Byzantine or Vulgate text current in the Middle Ages when the manuscript was copied." 1 1 Expositor, lst Ser. , XI, 171. The Vienna Academy has been issuing, since 1867, a Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, which already amounts to fifty volumes ; and the 36 PATBISTIC QUOTATIONS 37 The habits of the Fathers in quotation were very Patristic loose. Having no concordances or indices, or any- quotation. thing resembling the modern apparatus for facilitating reference, and often no manuscript, they were fre quently compelled to rely upon memory for their cita tions. Quoting from memory explains what we so often find, — combinations of different passages, trans positions, and sense-renderings. Though a full sum mary of the whole gospel life could be composed from the quotations of Justin Martyr, his quotations are careless. He quotes the same passage differently on different occasions. Although he cites written docu ments, he often quotes from memory, and interweaves words which are given separately by the Synoptists. He condenses, combines, and transposes the language of the Lord as recorded in the Gospel records. Take, for example, Matt. 5 : 22, 39, 40, 41, and Luke 6 : 29. In Justin, 1 Apol. XVI, we read tiS tvtttovti o-oS ttjv criayova. 7n£joeYe Kal rrjv aXXrjv, Kal tov aipovra trov rbv \iTiova ¦q to lp.a.Tiov p-r] kwXiiotjs. Os oe av opywrOfj evoYos eWiv eis to irvp, 7ravTi oe ayyapevovri tre. p.lXiov aKoXovdrjtrov. Here we have several verses massed, apparently from two Evangelists. Luke is literally followed in the first nine words. The order of the Gospel is not observed, and the sense is changed in the words about the coat and the cloke. Similarly Matt. 5 : 46 ; comp. Luke 6 : 27. Justin, 1 Apol. XV: ei ayarrare. tous ayarriovTas fyuas, ti Kaivbv TroieiTE ; Kal yap ol iropvoi tovto rroiovmv. Here, instead of " What reward have ye ? " Justin has " What new thing do ye do ? " For " publicans " he gives " fornicators." Again, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. Ill, 4, 36, where Matt. 5 : 16 is given to. dyada. vpJurv epya XapAJ/drii}, " Let your good works shine." Berlin Academy has in process an edition of the Ante-Nicene Church Teachers. 38 TEXTUAL CRITICISM ApostolicFathers not valuable in Scripture quotation. Inaccuratecitation. The Apostolic Fathers are of little value for patris tic quotation, since they do not so much quote as blend the language of the New Testament with their own. Fragments of most of the canonical Epistles are em bedded in their writings, and their diction is more or less coloured by that of the apostolic books,1 and differ ent passages are combined.2 It is possible that, in some cases, the writers do not intend to quote, but merely to use the words loosely by way of allusion. But often, even when quotation is intended, the citation is inaccurate. To take a sin gle instance, Clement of Rome was familiar with the Epistle to the Hebrews, and references to if occur fre quently in his letter to the Corinthians ; but in his ci tation of Heb. 1 : 3, 4, in Ch. 36, for Sc&js "glory," 1 For example, see Ignatius, Magn. X, inripBeirBe oiv rty kuk^v ZAujov t^v iraXatoiBeicrav Kal ivo£lo-atrav, Kal nerafid\ets iv iraaiv Kal dxipatos eltrael iis r\ irepto-repd, " Become thou prudent as the ser pent in all things, and forever guileless as the dove." Compare Matt. x. 16. 2 Thus Ignatius, Philad. VII, (to irvevuM.) oUev yap rrbBev ipxtrat Kal rrov virdyet, Kal t4 Kpinrra i\eyxeL> "I* (the Spirit) knoweth whence it cometh and where it goeth, and searcheth out the hidden things." Here John 3 : 8 and 1 Cor. 2 : 10 are blended. Polycarp to the Philippians, I, ov rjyetpev 6 debs \io-as ras aSi- vas tou pSou • els ov oiK ISSvres TrioTeiere xaPt &veK\a\$Tip Kal SeSoZao-nivy els yv ttoXXoI imBvujivo-iv elo-e\8eiv. The quotation from Acts 2 : 24 is inexact, " Whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of Hades." With this are combined a loose quotation from 1 Pet. 1:8, "In whom, not having seen, ye be lieve with joy unspeakable and full of glory " ; also an adapta tion of 1 Pet. 1 : 12, " into which many desire to enter." PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 39 we have /xeyaAwcrw^s " majesty " ; for kputtwv " better," p,d£wv "greater"; and rrap airovs "than they" is omitted. Renderings where the sense is given without strict regard to the text are found frequently in Irenseus, who is usually careful in quotation. He changes the syntax, or uses different words intended as equivalents, as Evyapumprci' for evAoyiycrei/ in Luke 2 : 28 ; aKoXovdel ju,oi for IpYerai oirio-m pov, in Luke 14 : 27 ; irc.irXavrip.ivov for drroXmXos in Luke 15 : 4. Similarly Origen, Cont. Cels. 8 : 43, gives the equivalent of Eph. 2 : 12 without exact quotation, Toils £erous tS>v SuiOtjkSiv tov Otov ko.1 dXXorplovs tSv eiayyeXCarv. It is quite possible that a Father may have shaped Influence of a passage to fit his view of a disputed point. Hence, t°^atlc passages which bear upon great doctrinal controversies must be examined to see whether they exhibit traces of intentional alteration in the interest of doctrinal bias. On the whole, there is little of this. The worst that can be charged, in the great majority of cases, is a tendency, where two readings exist, to prefer the one which makes for the writer's view. Some other cases may- be set down to ignorance of the principles of textual criticism. Thus Tertullian castigates Marcion for substituting 8iap.ept.o- pov "division" for paxoapav " a sword," in Luke 12 : 51. " Marcion," he says, "must needs alter, as if a sword could do anything but divide." But Marcion was right, and Tertullian, quoting from memory, had in mind the parallel pas sage in Matt. 10 : 34.1 Again, Tertullian stigmatises the Valentinians as adulterators for reading, in John 1 : 13, oi iy*.vvffir\trav, "which were born." The correct reading, he main tains, is os eyewrjdrj, "who was bom," and the refer- 1 Tert. Adv. Marc. IV, 2. 40 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Value of patristic quotations in fixing dates of readings. Evidenceof patristic quotation to be cautious ly used. ence is to Christ. But the reading of the Valentinians was correct, and Tertullian's reading was absurd, as the context shows. Similarly, Ambrose charged the Arians with erasing from the text of John 3 : 6, the words, " because the Spirit is God and is born of God," in order to support their denial of the deity of the Holy Ghost. But Ambrose did not know that these words were a gloss which had been incorporated into the western text, and that therefore the Arians were right in omit ting it. Patristic quotations have a real value in enabling us to fix, at least approximately, the dates at which certain readings are found. Between a.d. 170 and 250 we have a number of voluminous writers ; and in the extant remains of Origen alone the greater part of the New Testament is quoted. On the other hand, the dates of the earliest manuscripts and of some of the versions cannot be fixed with absolute certainty, and the dates of the texts which they contain are still more uncertain. Yet it is to be remembered that, in case of a disagreement between patristic evidence and manuscript authority, the early date of a Father is no guarantee for the value of his evidence, because, con temporary with the earliest Fathers, we have a large amount of textual corruption. It is therefore evident that the testimony of the Fathers to the New Testament text is to be received with great caution, and not without the support of the oldest manuscripts and the versions. Where these agree with patristic testimony, the conclusion is as nearly decisive as it is possible to reach. A striking instance of such agreement appears in the case of the reading in Matt. 19 : 17 : ti pe epamjs wepl tov dyaOov ; " Why dost thou ask me about the good ? " as against ti pe. Ae'yeis ayadov, "Why callest thou me good?" PATRISTIC QUOTATIONS 41 " The critic must be sure (1) that he has the true text Specific of his author before him ; (2) what passage it is that cautlons- the author is quoting (and this is a point about which it is very possible to make mistakes); (3) that the quotation is deliberately taken from a manuscript and not made freely from memory and intended rather as an allusion than a quotation; and (4) what precise reading it was that the manuscript presented. In order to be clear on these points, every single instance of supposed quotation has to be weighed carefully with its context, and only the sifted results of a most extended study can be admitted into the critical ap paratus." 1 The most important sources of this kind of evidence are the writings of Justin Martyr, Tatian, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Origen, Tertul lian, Cyprian, Eusebius, and Jerome.3 1 Sanday, Expositor, lst Ser., XI, 170. 2 On Patristic quotations, see G. N. Bonwetsch and H. Ache- lis, Die christliche griechische Schriftsteller vor Eusebius, Kir- chenvater- Commission der Berliner Academic, Bd. I, Leipzig, 1897. J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, London, 1883. LI. J. M. Bebb, Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament, Studia Biblica, II, Oxford. Lists of ancient writers in Tischen dorf, Prolegomena ; Scrivener's Introduction ; andE. C. Mitchell, Critical Handbook of the Greek New Testament, New York, 1896. part n HISTOBY OF THE TEXTUAL OEITIOISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHAPTER V TEXTUAL CEITICISM OF THE EAELY CHUECH Textual Criticism of the New Testament is a modern science, although attention was very early directed to the condition of the New Testament text. Early Corruptions of the text appeared at a very early appearance date. Reuss says, "It may be asserted with toler- corruptions. able certainty that the farther back we go in the his tory of the text the more arbitrarily it was treated." Differences between New Testament manuscripts appeared within a century of the time of its com position, and additions and alterations introduced by heretical teachers were early a cause of complaint. Tischendorf says, " I have no doubt that in the very earliest ages after our Holy Scriptures were written, and before the authority of the church protected them, wilful alterations, and especially additions, were made in them." Scrivener says that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed, and Hort agrees with him. Unlike the text of the Koran, which was officially fixed from the first and regarded as sacred, — for a century and a half at least, the greatest freedom 42 EARLY CHURCH 43 was exercised in the treatment of the New Testament writings. These writings were not originally regarded as Holy Scripture. Copies of the writings of the Apostles were made for the use of individual com munities, and with no thought of placing them on the same level with the Old Testament. Accordingly, there would be little effort at punctilious accuracy, and little scruple in making alterations. Variants meet us as soon as quotations from the apostolic writings occur at all in later authors, and that both in catholic and heretical writers. Heretics Work of felt the necessity of seeking for their peculiar doc- corrupting trines a support which should secure for them a place the text. within the church with whose tradition they were, at many points, in conflict. Thus they were driven to interpret the apostolic writings in harmony with their own systems. Accordingly, we find, in the earlier Apologists, allusions to wilful corruptions and misinterpretations. Thus, Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. Ill, 12) declares that " the others (besides Marcion), though they acknowledge the Scriptures, pervert their interpretation." Ter tullian (De Preesc. Hser. XXXVIII) says that Mar cion and Valentinus change the sense by their exposition. "Marcion," he continues, "has used a sword, not a pen; while Valentinus has both added and taken away." Marcion mutilated the Gospel of Luke in the interest of his antijudaistic views, although it should be said that some of his varia tions were doubtless taken from manuscripts in circu lation in his time. Both Tertullian and Epiphanius go through his work in detail, indicating the mutila tion point by point.1 1 See J. W. Burgon, The Revision Revised, 34, 35. Tertullian, Adv. Marc. TV, V. Epiphanius, Hcer. XXII. Examples of Gnostic interpretations are given by Irenseus (Adv. Hcer. I, et 44 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Origen's textual com ments. Manuscripts not care fully pre pared. Reputedrevision by Hesychiusand Lucian. Such perversions called forth attempts at textual criticism. Origen (Comm. on Matthew) remarks on the diversity of copies arising either from the negli gence of scribes or the presumption of correctors. He frequently discusses various readings, and comments upon the comparative value of manuscripts and the weight of numerical testimony. He seldom attempts to decide on the right reading, being rather inclined to accept all conflicting readings as contributing to edi fication. His value is in reproducing the character istic readings which he found. There is no sufficient evidence of a general revision of the text by him, as maintained by Hug. Again, minute care was not exercised in the prepa ration of manuscripts. In some cases they appear to have issued from a kind of factory, where the work of transcribing was carried on on a large scale. Por tions of the same manuscript seem to have been copied from different exemplars and by different hands, and it does not appear to have been thought necessary to compare the two exemplars, or to har monise the disagreements. Moreover, changes of reading were introduced by individual bishops, who had the sole authority over the public reading of Scripture, and these changes, unless very violent, would soon become as familiar as the old readings, and would pass into the versions.1 According to Jerome,8 Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, and Lucian, a presbyter and martyr of Anti och, undertook a revision of the New Testament text toward the close of the third century. Our informa- passim) and by Origen in bis commentary on the Fourth Gospel. 1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New Testament, 61, 78. 1 Adv. Rufinum, II, 26 ; De Vir. III. TI ; Ad Damasum. EARLY CHURCH 45 tion on this work, however, is very meagre. Jerome speaks of it slightingly, and the Decretum of Pope Gelasius I, " De libris recipiendis et non recipiendis " (496 a.d.), the genuineness of which, however, is dis puted, refers to Hesychius and Lucian as having falsi fied the Gospels into Apocrypha.1 Harmonies of the Gospels, by which are meant con structions of a single continuous narrative out of the four, like that of Tatian, had a tendency to foster alterations made in order to bring the Gospels into harmony of expression as well as of substance.2 Of this Jerome complains (Ad Damas.), as also of Jerome com- the transference of marginal glosses to the text. He alterations comments on the number of recensions, which he de- of the text. clares are well-nigh as numerous as the codices, and urges a return to the Greek original, and a correction of those things which have been falsely rendered by vicious interpreters, or perversely emended by pre sumptuous ignoramuses. In his own revision of the New Testament, begun about 382, Jerome displayed great timidity, and chose codices which did not differ widely from the readings of the Latin. We repeat, however, that textual criticism is a modern science, and cannot be said to have really ex isted before the application of printing to the New Testament text. In our discussion of its history it will therefore be more convenient as well as more interesting to combine the history of criticism with that of the printed text. 1 See B.F. Westcott, History of the New Testament Canon, 5th ed., 393, note. O. von Gebhardt, article " Bible Text," in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopmdia, I, 270. F. J. A. Hort, Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, Introduction, 181. E. Eeuss, Geschichte der heiligen Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 5th ed., trans, by Houghton, §§ 367, 368. 2 See J. Hamlyn Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ, etc. , 31, 32. 46 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Printingapplied earlier to the Old Testament. Reasons for delay in printing the New Testa ment. Printing was applied to the Old Testament much earlier than to the New. The Jews, by means of their numbers and wealth, were able to command both the skill and the money necessary for the multiplication of the Old Testament in Hebrew, and there was a demand among them for Hebrew books. While no printed edition of the New Testament was made before 1514, the Hebrew Psalter was issued in 1477, and the entire Old Testament in Hebrew in 1488. Portions of the Greek Testament, however, were printed as early as 1486 — the Hymns of Mary and Zacharias — as an appendix to a Greek Psalter, and the first six chapters of the Fourth Gospel appeared in 1504, edited by Aldus Manutius of Venice. The reason for this delay was that the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453), and the conse quent bondage or exile of the Greek population, were nearly contemporaneous with the invention of printing, thus hindering the efforts of the Greeks to multiply copies of their scriptures. Many of the exiled Greeks earned their living by copying Greek books, and thus had a positive interest in not using the art of printing ; and the early attempts at printing Greek were clumsy, so that manuscript was preferred for reading. "So habituated were Greek scholars in that day to read Greek abounding with contractions, many of which were deemed by copyists to be feats of calligraphy, that the endeavours to print Greek with separate types were despised and undervalued " (Tregelles). The Latin Vulgate reigned supreme and unchallenged in Western Europe, as the only form in which Scripture was known and received. Even theologians had no desire for the original text. The Old Testament in Hebrew was regarded as a book for Jews only. Latin was held to be the only proper medium for the in struction of Christians, and all departures from EARLY CHURCH 47 Jerome's Version were suspected as dangerous inno vations.1 The history of the printed text of the New Testa- Periods of ment and of the accompanying development of textual ment ofelOP" criticism falls into three periods: (1) The period of textual the reign of the Textus Receptus, 1516-1770; (2) The oritioism- transition period from the Textus Receptus to the older uncial text, 1770-1830 ; (3) The period of the dethronement of the Textus Receptus, and the effort to restore the oldest and purest text by the application of the genealogical method, 1830 to the present time. 1 The Latin Vulgate was first published at Mayence in 1455, in two volumes, known as the Mazarin Bible. The German Bible was also printed before the Greek and Hebrew original. At least fourteen editions of the High German Bible were printed before 1518, and four of the Low German from 1480 to 1522. See Fritzsche, article "Deutsche Bibeltibersetzungen," in Her zog's Reai-Encyklopadie. CHAPTER VI FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT AND EEASMUS'S GEEEK TESTAMENT Ximenes and the Compluten sian. First printed but not first published. Aldus Mantjtitjs, the Venetian publisher, an accom plished scholar, had conceived the plan of a Polyglot of three languages, probably as early as 1497 ; and in 1501 he submitted a proof-sheet to Conrad Celtes, a German scholar.1 It is, however, to the Spanish cardinal, Ximenes de Cisneros, Archbishop of Toledo, that the honour belongs of preparing the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament.2 It was intended to celebrate the birth of the heir to the throne of Castile, afterward Charles V. The cardinal employed for the work the best scholars he could secure, among whom were three converted Jews. The most eminent was James Lopez de Stunica, after ward known for his controversy with Erasmus. The fifth volume of the work, containing the New Testa ment, was the first completed, in 1514. The printing of the entire work was completed on the 10th of July, 1517. But though the first printed, this was not the first published edition of the Greek Testament. Pope Leo X withheld his approval until 1520, and the work was not issued until 1522, three years after the car dinal's death, and six years after the publication of 1 The Greek Psalter, in the preface to which the plan is an nounced, is undated. 2 For some personal notices of Ximenes, see Scrivener's Intro duction, II, 176. 48 PLATE IV rCH.u£poy./oi"AErEuA6Ka°jj^eHTaiIsnop£veHcyau "SKj/lHp'yaAiAatau'EKj/lo'opot; * oub8TafaTO cauToic,/oMHc>o\/c,.V.aifiAdyT£c/auT6iJ l! ropocs K\>^iHcaiJ'auTcb."oi'As",EAio'Tacray."Kai°cijp6=CEAecby/oMHtfovc/'EAdAHaEy'avToic.'' Ae yct>u.rE- AoeH'-uoi'tndca'Eiioucria'Ey ¦ oupayobbKaicEm' "yHC,.' •roopEveeiJTEC,,.udeHTEvcTaTE8rodiJTa/la !,£ejJK.'BcnTTi?oiJTE<;''av/Tov(;'Eit;/7om6yo.uq/lpu "TOaTp6c;<>Kai/ioupuiouqKai/loufayiou°OT[JEv-5 ,naToq.'AiAdoxouTSc/avTovc/7Hp£iiJ'TOduTa'6 oaa£U£TElAdiI.H1Jt'u«.^u.c^:al1', lAov ' Eyco 'aieo" v= ¦ucou^i.ui'z3xiG'aq/7ac/HJaEpac, l£CD<;/~fHc,m0\/yTS A£iaq'"Tou"aicbyoq.l,ajuiHy. Te'Aoc. / Toy "koto 'juarecuou " ctyiov 'EuayysAiou . pbodicrnupdicVBndra'1at''»ifdpuli !abie © nin'n'gahk^iirmontej'vbiVonm'tucrat c!lli6°icf«0.i:£tfviclenteeBetr5l!ado:auef£:*quidaml8fttn,6iibitaucrCit,n(Et09ccedais zdwjw. l'icfiis%aini8<,cftrri8''c>icen6. '©ata'eft ftiM* "nubi'omm8rpotcfta0'm°cclo,,etcm ceo " "terra/SSuntes ergo 'oocete "omnes ccoo bSCtttes:'bapri5antcir inevodg gm'matum in initio euanffclice pzedicatiom'e oftendc Facsimile or one-half of a Page of the Complutensian Polyglot (Size of the original page, not including margins, 11 in. x y\ in.) THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 49 Erasmus's Testament. The entire cost was about $115,000, and only six hundred copies were printed. This work is known as the Complutensian Polyglot, from Cornplutum, the Latin name of the town of Alcala de Henares, the seat of a university, in the district of Guadalajara, a few miles to the northeast of Madrid, where the printing was done. There are six volumes, containing the Old Testament with the Apocrypha, and the New Testament, together with indices, lexica, and other matter. The canonical books of the Old Testa ment are given in three languages, the Latin Vulgate occupying the place between the Septuagint and the Hebrew. As announced in the Prolegomena, this arrangement signified that Christ (the Eoman or Latin Church) was crucified between two robbers (the Jew ish Synagogue and the schismatical Greek Church). The New Testament is given in the Greek and in the Latin Vulgate. Its title is: NOVUM TESTA- MENTUM GE.ECE ET LATINE IN ACADEMIA COMPLUTENSI NOUITEE IMPEESSUM. Par allel passages and quotations are placed in the Latin margin. The chapters are marked, but not the verses. The text of the Complutensian was reprinted in sev- Reprints of eral successive editions at Antwerp and Geneva, and *he pomplu- also in the Antwerp Polyglot, edited by Spaniards (1571-72), in the great Paris Polyglot (1630-33), and at Mayence in 1753. It was reedited by Professor P. A. Gratz of Tubingen, along with the Clementine Vulgate, and by Leander Van Ess, with the text of Erasmus in corporated (1827). In Stephen's third edition (see be low) it is partially connected with the Textus Eeceptus. The important question — What manuscripts were whatmanu- used in the preparation of the New Testament text ? — ™"P *s were cannot be answered. The editors name but one manu script (Codex Ehodiensis, Acts), and this has disap peared. They describe their manuscripts generally as 50 TEXTUAL CRITICISM " antiquissima et emendatissima," and state that they were furnished by Pope Leo X from the Apostolic Library at Eome. But Leo could have sent no New Testament manuscripts, since he was elected less than a year before the New Testament was printed. The library records show that only two manuscripts were sent to Ximenes from the Vatican in Leo's first year, neither of which contained any part of the New Tes tament.1 The catalogue of Biblical manuscripts in the library at Alcala consists exclusively of Hebrew and Latin books, except two containing portions of the LXX. The story that all the New Testament manu scripts at Alcala were sold as useless parchments to a rocket-maker, in 1749, is without foundation ; since all the manuscripts formerly belonging to Ximenes and preserved at Alcala were transferred to Madrid. It need not be doubted that the Complutensian edi tors regarded their manuscripts as ancient and valu able, and intended to use them fairly. The charge of Wetstein and Semler, that they corrupted the text by conforming it to the Latin, is not sustained, which is the more remarkable, in view of the almost idolatrous reverence for the Vulgate indicated in their preface. A few passages, notably 1 John 5:7, 8, afford ground for suspicion, but a careful comparison shows that, in the main, they followed their Greek manuscripts. They were unskilled in criticism, ignorant of the value of manuscripts, and editing the New Testament was a quite new work. There is no evidence that they used B, or any manuscript much resembling it in character, or any other ancient or notably important document. Their text exhibits aflBnities with certain cursives of 1 Tregelles (Printed Text, etc., 7) maintains that the statement of the editors is truthful, and that both Old and New Testament manuscripts were furnished from the Vatican. He makes out a very feeble case. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 51 the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries ; and, Character of almost invariably, wherever manuscripts of the thir- tensian^ert" teenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries differ from the most ancient Greek codices and from the quota tions of early Greek Fathers, the Complutensian agrees with the modern as against the ancient. The text does not differ widely from that of most codices written from the tenth century downward.1 The first published edition of the Greek New Testa- First pub- ment was due to the enterprise of a publisher, Eroben, l>sne(i edi- the printer of Basle, who, having heard that the Span ish Polyglot was in preparation, resolved to forestall it. Accordingly he secured, in 1515, the services of Desiderius Erasmus, who executed the task of prepar- Erasmus. ing an edition of the Greek Testament with such de spatch that the work appeared March 1, 1516, less than six months from the commencement of the printing. OEcolampadius assisted in the correction of the proofs. It was, of course, full of errors, although described in the preface as " diligenter recognitum et emendatum " ; and the address to Pope Leo X assured the Pontiff that " non temere neque levi opera, sed adhibitis in consil ium compluribus utriusque linguae codicibus — vetus- tissimis simul et emendatissimis." Erasmus himself declared, later, that it was " precipitated rather than edited." Dr. Scrivener says, "Erasmus's first edition, in respect of typographical errors, is the most faulty book I know." In order to save time, he even used his manuscripts as printers' " copy." 1 On the Complutensian Polyglot see Tischendorf, Prolego mena, 205 fi. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 176 ff. Tregelles, Printed Text of the Greek Testament. I. M. Goeze, Vertheidi- gung der Complutens. Bibel, Hamburg, 1765-69. F. Delitzsch, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Polyglottenbibel des Cardinal Ximenes, Leipzig, 1871. C. I. Hefele, Der Cardinal Ximenes, 2d ed., Tubingen, 1851. 52 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Manuscripts employed by Erasmus. Erasmus'sown Greek in the Apocalypse. It formed a large folio of 1027 pages, and contained, along with the Greek text, an elegant Latin version, differing in many respects from the Vulgate. Eor this version Erasmus had made notes several years before. Erasmus's first edition was based on a very few manuscripts. Only one of these had any special value (Codex 1, Evang. Act. 1, P. 1, tenth century), and this he almost entirely neglected, indeed, professed to hold it in slight esteem. The basis of his text in the Gospels was an inferior Basle manuscript of the fifteenth cen tury, and in the Acts and Epistles one of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. With these he collated, more or less carefully, one other manuscript of the Gospels, two in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and three in the Pauline Epistles. None of these was earlier than the tenth century. Of the Apocalypse he had but a single manuscript of the twelfth century, of which Dr. Hort says that with many individualisms and scantily at tested readings, it has a large and good ancient ele ment and ought to stand very high among secondary documents (Greek Testament, Introduction, 263). Of this manuscript the last six verses were lacking. These Erasmus, who was a better Latinist than Grecian, turned from the Latin into his own Greek. Some por tions of this version, which are to be found in no Greek manuscript, still appear in the Textus Eeceptus.1 1 Such are dKaBdpriiTOS for ri. dxdBapTa rrjs, XVII, 4. The Greek language has no such word as iKaBaprrjs. Kalirep io-rlv for Kal irapio-rat, XVII, 8. Compare Authorized Version, " and yet is." As late as 1883 the first impression of the Revision of Luther's Bible by the German Evangelical Church Conference left this standing ; and it was not removed until the last Revision in 1892. 'OpBptvis for rpu'Ms, XXII, 16. 'EXW for epxov, twice, and \ap.paviTw for Xa/S^rw, XXII, 17. 'Atpatp-g for &tpi\v, and aaipie\ei, XXII, 19. Instances of his use of the Vulgate in order to amend his Greek manuscripts, where he thought them defective, are found in his notes on Acts 9 : 5, PLATE V a sa -00 rt v3 *** "° oo~s_ e Uic-o U 5 13 OT3 2 tr5 *T3 3 rt ¦1 J"S 'i J »o-«a < is ^ cKS CQ g « -go -g 3 -o -g 3 -S o 3 3 S "E o 3 ul -a o *3 u w^ - J: *£Ui.~ iS B-.S 2T o ! 53 «5-Q <£ ~° *.-* 4.) --« 1^? *.~: u W tJ u w C* S - — 1' IU u i_« _ *J OS 3 0-,-ri "O -3 3 B &cw u <_3 w •a 3 a O S-i S- x 3 _(• ?, ,? 5 a «• ^> -3 «UJ 3 » =» *«* ^ is. •=" 3- ° K S 2 fc 3 * 3- Ch a <** ». «3 Ul u~ ©- »» 3 b S » «§ '§• c "* ~ <# «fe s •-o ^ 4 ?. &jh & ** 9" X <* O "S § * r°i - e >3 a,2 o a « E.S3 S ,IU .B 3 o «3 si a cij a n "E O Sj JC si ua s" II T3 c a, w ss o a o 3 8 5 fr S P S Facsimile of half of the Last Page of Erasmus's First Edition of the Greek Testament, showing the Verses which Erasmus ren dered from the Vulgate into his own Greek &1 in. x 5£ in.) THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 53 Erasmus also refers in his notes to other manu scripts seen by him in his travels, but the allusions are indistinct, and some of the readings are not to be found. That he had heard of B, appears from Sepul- veda's correspondence with him in 1533. Sepulveda speaks of a "most ancient Greek exemplar in the Vatican Library, containing both Testaments, most carefully and accurately written in uncial characters, and differing greatly from ordinary copies." 1 While the work was heartily welcomed in some Attacks on quarters, it was unsparingly condemned in others. Testament Erasmus's revised Latin Version was regarded as a pre sumptuous innovation, and many of the theologians of the day were displeased by the annotations in which his alterations were justified. He was attacked by Edward Lee, afterward Archbishop of York, and by Stunica, the Complutensian editor. They complained especially of the omission of 1 John 5 : 7. Erasmus maintained that it was not an omission, but a non- addition, showing that even some Latin copies did not contain the verse. Although the emperor had protected Erasmus's first Reprinted edition against reprint for four years, it was repro- terA1^us duced by Aldus Manutius, with some variations, but with the most of the typographical errors, at Venice, in 1518. It was placed at the end of the Greeca Biblia, the Aldine Septuagint. Erasmus himself published four other editions. The second appeared in 1519. He had given much 6 ; 8 : 37. This manuscript of the Apocalypse was borrowed by Erasmus from Eeuchlin, and was retained by Froben, who afterward disposed of it. It lay concealed in the library of the family of Ottingen at Mayhingen, until discovered in 1861 by Fr. Delitzsch. See Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, I, 1861-62. 1 See Scrivener's Introduction, I, 109. 54 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Insertion of Uohn5:7. Erasmus's attention in the meantime to examining manuscripts tions. an<^- *° revising his own Latin Version; and having besides more leisure, the text of the second edition contained many corrections, both of misprints and readings, the latter mainly on the authority of a fresh codex of the twelfth century. It contains, however, several pages of errors, some of which affected Luther's German Version. Erasmus's revision of his Latin Version called out fresh attacks : for instance, his substitution of " sermo " for " verbum " in John 1 : l.1 The third edition, 1522, differed in several places from the text of the preceding, but was chiefly re markable for the insertion of 1 John 5 : 7. The strong feeling excited by its omission from the two former editions had led Erasmus to promise that he would insert it if it could be found in any Greek manuscript. In the interval between 1519 and 1522 there came to hand a manuscript of the sixteenth century, described Codex Mont- by Erasmus as Codex Britannicus, but now identified as Codex Montfortianus, at present in the library of Trinity College, Dublin. Its earliest known owner was Eroy or Boy, a Eranciscan monk, who is believed by some to have written the codex and to have intro duced the words from the Vulgate. Erasmus inserted them in the third edition, but, as he wrote in his note, "ne cui sit ansa calumniandi." He continued to re gard the passage as spurious. The fourth edition, 1527, contained the Greek, the Vulgate, and Erasmus's Version, in three parallel col umns. Since the publication of the third edition the Complutensian had come into circulation, and Erasmus availed himself of it to make certain corrections, and 1 Dr. Scrivener justly remarks that a minute collation of all Erasmus's editions is greatly to be desired. The number of corrections in the successive editions, as given by Mill, and repeated on Mill's authority by Tregelles, is not reliable. fortianus. THE COMPLUTENSIAN POLYGLOT 55 especially to revise the imperfect text of the Apoca lypse, though he did not correct all the readings which he had himself manufactured by translating from the Latin. With this exception the fourth edition differed little from the third. The same was true of the fifth edition, published in 1535, which, however, omitted the Vulgate, and retained Erasmus's own Latin Version.1 Colinaeus. — The edition of Colinaeus (Simon de Colinseus's Colines), Paris, 1534, introduced valuable manuscript edlti011, readings, but the edition could not be called critical The examination of manuscripts was not carried through. The Erasmian readings in the end of the Apocalypse were retained. The text, generally speak ing, was a mixture of the Erasmian and Compluten sian. The edition was not reprinted, and appears to have had no influence on those which succeeded it.2 1 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 19-29. Scrivener, Introduction, I, 199 f. ; II, 182-187, 401-407. Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 207-211. Fr. Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde, I, Leipzig, 1861. J. A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus. J. Eendel Harris, The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, 46-53, London, 1887. 0. T. Dobbin, The Codex Montfortianus, etc., London, 1854. E. Eeuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti Groeci. H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex, Evangelium 604, Appendix B, the vari ous readings by the fifth edition of Erasmus ; Appendix F, re port of a visit to the public library at Basle, with facsimile of Erasmus's second manuscript, Evang. 2, London, 1890. E. Nestle, Einfiihrung in das Griechische Neue Testament, 6-8. F. J. A. Hort, Greek Testament, Introduction, 103 ff. 2 Both Eeuss and Nestle are disposed to estimate Colinseus's edition highly. Nestle says that he introduced a series of read ings which are generally acknowledged at this day ; and Eeuss gives a list of fifty-two passages in which he stands alone among early editors. Compare Scrivener, Introduction, II, 188. C. R. Gregory, in Prolegomena to Tischendorf's Testament, says, "In fifty-two places of those examined by Eeuss, Colinaeus furnishes several readings which are to-day approved by many learned CHAPTER VII THE FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS Robert Of Robert Stephen (Estienne), printer at Paris and editions.'8 protege of Erancis I, it has been said that his biblical work, taken all together, had perhaps more influence than that of any other single man in the sixteenth century. 1 His first two editions, 1546, 1549, were in small 12mo, printed with type cast at the expense of Francis, and issued from the Royal press. They are known as the " 0 mirificam " editions, from the open ing words of the preface, "0 mirificam Regis nostri optimi et praestantissimi Principis liberalitatem." In 1550 appeared the third edition, in folio, also from the Royal press, inscribed on the title-page, BamXel t' dyadtS KpareptS t' alxp.'qTrj, in honour of Henry II, and commonly known as the Editio Regia. Soon after its publication, Stephen, in order to escape from the hounding of the Sorbonne theologians and the censors of the press, removed to Geneva, where he issued his fourth edition, small 12m o, in 1551. The text of the editions of 1546 and 1549 was a compound of the Complutensian and Erasmian texts. 2 The third (folio) edition, the text of which was 1 Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin Biblical Texts. 3 Scrivener says that his own collation of these two editions gives 139 divergencies in the text and 27 in punctuation, and that in the Apocalypse both editions adhere closely to the Eras mian text, differing from each other in only 11 places. 53 THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 57 mainly that of Erasmus's fourth and fifth editions, contained marginal readings from the Complutensian, and from fifteen manuscripts, among which were Codex Bezse (D), and Codex Parisiensis (Evang. L, eighth century). The collation, both of the Complutensian and of the manuscripts, was partial and slovenly. The text is perpetually at variance with the majority of authorities. Of the Complutensian readings many more were omitted than inserted, and the Complu tensian text is often cited incorrectly. The adoption of Erasmus's text causes nearly three hundred depar tures from the editions of 1546 and 1549. This, however, was the first collection of various The first readings of any extent, and, however defective, was of varfous°n ° real value to students.1 readings. The fourth edition, 16mo, contained two Latin Ver sions, the Vulgate and that of Erasmus, on either side of the Greek text. The text was mainly that of the First third edition. Here the division of the text into of verse"06 verses appears for the first time.2 division. 1 The manuscripts collated by Stephen have been identified. The two uncials, D and L, are both important. L, of the Four Gospels, is remarkable for its agreement with B, the citations of Origen, and the margin of the Harclean Syriac. Scrivener characterises it as "by far the most remarkable document of its age and class." The cursives are of the tenth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries. No. 10 (Acts, Catholic Epis tles, Paul, and Apocalypse, tenth century) has considerable value in the Apocalypse. A list of the manuscripts may be seen in Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 213. Stephen's third edi tion was republished by Dr. Scrivener, Cambridge, 1859 ; new edition, 1887, and again, 1887, with the variations of the prin cipal editors down to Westcott and Hort and the Revisers. 2 See Scrivener, Introduction, II, 188-192. Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 212 ff. I. H. Hall, on "Chapters and Verses," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia, 1, 433. Also Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, 1883, 1891. Ezra Abbot, "De Versibus," in Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 167-182. H. C. 58 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Beza's edi tions. Geneva Bible. Beza. — Theodore de Beze, the friend and successor of Calvin in Geneva, and an eminent classical and biblical scholar, besides his own Latin Version in 1556, issued ten editions of the Greek Testament: four in folio, 1565, 1582, 1588, and 1598, and six 8vo, 1565, 1567, 1580, 1591, 1604, 1611. He was not dili gent in collecting fresh material for the correction of the text, and he did not make any extensive use of his own D of the Gospels and Acts, and D2 (Claro- montanus) of the Pauline Epistles, sixth century. He was shy of departures from the text of Erasmus and Stephen. His textual basis was Stephen's fourth edition, from which, however, he occasionally di verged, sometimes in favour of the Complutensian, and sometimes of Erasmus, and occasionally sub stituting new readings. He availed himself of the Oriental Versions, employing Tremellius's Latin Ver sion of the Peshitto, and Franciseus Junius's Latin Translation of the Arabic Version. However, he did not make much use of these. All of his editions vary somewhat from each other, as well as from those of Stephen, yet there is no material difference between any of them. The charge of selecting his readings to suit his theological opinions (Scrivener, II, 193) should be received with caution. Beza's Latin Translation and Commentary were taken as a guide by the editors of the Genevan Bible, which was originally published in 1560, and with a further revision of the New Testament in fuller har mony with Beza's views, in 1576. The title was, " The New Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ trans lated out of Greek by Theodore Beza." This work,. Hoskier, Account and Collation of Codex 604, etc. ; Appen dix B, reprint with corrections of Scrivener's list of differences between Stephen, 1550, and the Complutensian, etc. Tregelles, Printed Text, 30 f. THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 59 though never formally authorised, exercised the most marked influence of all the early translations upon the Authorised Version of 1611, the chief foundations of which were the editions of 1588 and 1598. It was the Bible of the household, the most popular in England up to the advent of King James's Version. It con tinued to be reprinted until after the middle of the seventeenth century; many copies were brought to America by immigrants, and it passed through about one hundred and sixty editions.1 The merit of arranging the Oriental Versions in a convenient form for Biblical study belongs to the Antwerp Polyglot, issued in eight volumes folio, TheAnt- under the patronage of Philip II, by the publisher, Jjjj"? Poly" Christopher Plantin, at Antwerp, 1569-72, and edited by the Spanish theologian, Benedict Arias Montanus. The Greek text appears twice : in Vol. V, with the Vulgate, the Syrian text and its Latin Trans lation, and Ln Vol. VI, with the interlinear version of Arias. The text is mainly that of the Complutensian, but agrees in a few places with Stephen, twice with Erasmus, and once presents a new reading. Thirteen copies were printed on vellum. The British Museum has the one prepared for the Duke of Alva.2 We now begin to see attention called to the value Attention of patristic quotations in determining the text. Lucas patrfstiV" Brugensis, in 1580, prepared annotations on the entire quotations. 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 214-216. Scrivener, Intro duction, II, 192 f. J. Eadie, History of the English Bible, II, XXXII-XXXVII. Reuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti. Arti cle "Beza," Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia. B. F. Westcott, History of the English Bible, 296, 297. 2 See E. Nestle, Einfuhrung, etc., 10. Tischendorf, Prolego mena, 215 f. M. Eooses, Christopher Plantin, Imprimeur An- versois, Antwerp, 1884. Id., Plantin, C. Correspondance, Gand, 1886. Le Degeorge, La Maison Plantin a Anvers, 3d ed. , Paris, 1886. 60 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Bible, from Greek and Latin Codices, and from the Syriac Version ; and in 1606 edited the four Gospels with a Commentary from Plantin's Polyglot, and with little change of the text. Hugo Grotius, Poly- glotta Londinensia, freely uses patristic testimony.1 The Paris On a still larger scale was the Paris Polyglot of Polyglot. QUy Michel Jay, ten volumes folio. Jean Morin and Gabriel Sionita, a Maronite, were the principal col laborators in preparing the Oriental texts. The two volumes of the New Testament appeared in 1630 and 1633. To the texts of the Antwerp Polyglot it added a Syrian Version of the contested books — 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and the Apocalypse — and an Arabic Version with a Latin rendering. The text was that of the Antwerp Polyglot, with a very few changes.2 The Elze- The Elzevirs and the Textus Receptus. — The brothers virs- Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir established a press at Leyden, and issued seven successive editions : 1624, 1633, 1641, 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678. An 8vo edition was printed by them for Whittaker of London, in 1633, with notes by Robert Stephen, Scaliger, Casaubon, and others, and was also issued at Leyden with a new title-page in 1641. The Elzevirs' four later editions were printed in Amsterdam. Their Testaments were very popular because of their small and convenient size and their neat text. The text of the edition of 1624 was drawn chiefly from Beza's 1565, 1582, 1589, and 1598, especially the last, besides Erasmus, the Complutensian and the Vulgate. The second edition (1633) had the verses broken up into separate sen tences, instead of having their numbers indicated in the margin as in the edition of 1624. This edition is notable in the history of textual criticism as contain- 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 216, 221, 1132. 2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 220. Nestle, Einfuhrung, U, THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 61 ing the announcement : " Textum ergo habes nunc AB Textus OMNIBUS RECEPTUM in quo nihil immutatum aut ?tscfnPflu-' corruptum damus." This is the origin of the famil- ence. iar phrase Textus Receptus. To this text an almost idolatrous reverence has attached nearly down to the present time. The history of the textual criticism of the New Testament is, largely, the story of gradual emancipation from the tyranny of the Textus Re ceptus. It has been slavishly followed with slight diversities in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal Protestant translations prior to the present century. In some cases attempts to criticise or amend it have been regarded as akin to sacrilege. Yet this sacred text is essentially that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few mod ern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the very infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than a score of places it is supported by the authority of no Greek manuscript whatever. The term "Textus Receptus" is, in itself, untruthful. It was put forth simply as a clever advertisement of an enter prising publisher. The edition which bore this pre tentious announcement varied somewhat from that of 1624 in the correction of some of the worst misprints, though it retained others equally bad, and added a few of its own. The term is differently applied in England and on Different the Continent : in England to Stephen's text of 1550, 1$^°™ and on the Continent to the Elzevir of 1633. The differences between these two amount, according to Scrivener, to 287.1 1 The reverence for the Textus Receptus, and its unhappy effect in retarding the progress of a sound textual criticism, may be seen in Dean J. W. Burgon's Revision Revised, Lon don, 1883, in the works of Dr. Scrivener, and in the views of the Rey. E. Miller, in the Oxford Debate on the Textual Criti- 62 TEXTUAL CRITICISM TextusReceptusrepudiatedby modern scholarship. The best textual scholarship of the present day re pudiates the Textus Receptus as a textual basis. The latest and best Concordance to the New Testament (Moulton and Geden, 1897) entirely ignores its read ings.1cism of the New Testament, London, 1897. The Expositor's Greek Testament (I, 1897), edited by W. Eobertson Nicoll, and professing to give the latest results of critical scholarship, adopts the Eeceptus as its textual basis. It has been the policy of the British and Foreign Bible Society to circulate in Germany only reprints of the Textus Eeceptus. As late as 1893-94 thatsociety printed at Cologne over twelve thousand copies of this text, and went on to circulate, in Germany and Switzerland, about six teen hundred copies per annum. In order to counteract this, the Wurttemburgian Bible Society at Stuttgart published last year a Greek Testament with a critically revised text, based on a col lation of the editions of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Wey mouth, and Bernhard Weiss, adding for the Gospels and Acts a selection of manuscript readings, chiefly from Codex Bezse. It is an admirable specimen of typography, and can be purchased for about twenty-five cents. 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 216 ff. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 193-195. A. Willems, Les Elzevier : Histoire et Annales Typographiques, Bruxelles et Paris, 1880. F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text followed in the Authorised Version, together with the Variations adopted in the Revised Version, Cambridge, 1881. He gives a list of the passages in which the Authorised Version departs from the readings of Beza, 1598. H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evang. 604. Appendix C, a full and exact comparison of the Elzevir editions of 1624 and 1633. CHAPTER VIII THE FIEST PERIOD (1516-1770). THE BEGINNINGS OF A CRITICAL METHOD We have now reached the point where the prepara- Summary tion for effective criticism begins. Up to this time the ^suUs to work had been chiefly the collection and registering of 1628. evidence. Manuscripts were collated, and their vari ous readings noted, but no comparison of them was attempted. In the earlier editions the evidence was scanty in amount and inferior in quality. The prin cipal uncials were either unknown or inaccessible. Neither D or D2 were much used by Beza, who held closely by the texts of Erasmus and Stephen. The Oriental Versions had been printed in the Antwerp Polyglot, but were used by Beza only to a limited ex tent and through Latin translations. Lucas Brugen sis and Grotius had only broken ground in the matter of patristic citations. The text of the. Vulgate was faulty, and revisions like those of Erasmus and Beza were suspected and frowned upon by the ecclesiastical authorities. The body of manuscript evidence amassed by the Stephens was imperfectly collated in the edi tion of 1550. Though the authorities stand in the margin, the text is perpetually at variance with the majority of them, and, in 119 places, with all of them. No fixed principles regulated the occasional applica tions of the manuscript readings to the construction of the text. Neither the true value of various readings 63 64 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Codex A brought to England. RichardSimon. Walton'sPolyglot. nor the necessity for accuracy in collation was appre ciated or understood. With the occasional adoption of fresh manuscript readings, mostly of a common and late type, the text remained substantially Erasmian, with some modifications from the Complutensian, ex cept in those editions which had a Complutensian basis. The crystallisation into a fixed and received text which followed was due mostly to the beauty of the Stephen and Elzevir editions, and to the preten tious and groundless advertisement of the Leyden printers. The Textus Receptus perpetuated some of the grossest errors of Erasmus. The impulse to a new development of textual science was given in England, about the middle of the seven teenth century, through the gift, in 1628, of the Alex andrian manuscript to Charles I, by Cyril Luear, the Patriarch of Constantinople. France contributed a powerful auxiliary in Richard Simon, whose writings had a large share in undermining the general acquies cence in the Received Text.1 Walton's Polyglot. — In England the way was led by Brian Walton, afterward Bishop of Chester, with his London Polyglot, issued in 1657 in six volumes folio. The fifth volume, containing the New Testa ment, gives Stephen's text of 1550, with the readings of A at the foot. This notation marks the origin of the practice of designating the uncials by capitals. The sixth volume is devoted to a critical apparatus gathered from a number of authorities, including D, Dj, 1 Simon's principal works on the New Testament were : His- toire Critique du Texte du Nouveau Testament, Rotterdam, 1689 ; Histoire Critique des Principaux Commentateurs du Nouveau Testament . . . avec une Dissertation Critique sur les Principaux Actes Manuscrits, Rotterdam, 1693. Eeuss says that Simon surpassed all his predecessors and his succes sors for a long time after, in point of sound historical learning, acumen, and comprehensive grasp of the materials. PLATE VI -W I t ¦•;>¦.-; ->< to _ i W ui >_ << °ci w q'O P3 hO ^ (—1 •> is! 'S31*; ** *ilN13 ' Uli •fie " ^ 2 5 5 III la': jr; < oi| «k|Q 1 1 "^ ..i i" !< i J3 !*«itl41 I.a ^ 41 i l s |'ia5s~3i S.f** <& ,.- 1-1 « 3 = c , j J S i 5 i-ff 51-rllfi; Iii'lisl-ioi si. u. «d'a— I w,1; t'H „ e I v e I ."^Ij1"! !-¦£< ! I'4||B'M% | • •j. 4.1 " P, S ~ c= 55 fl. -J * '"55-- a8S?5i 2 * v =* e M. 11 ! I... - - 5 5 •¦ •¦ - s - -q '4'i'H, 'J/ll IO ! 5 « = ii ¦fi % ¦¦~?ScS-« ?r II "/Ci£ !?r Facsimile of Extracts from a Page of Walton's Polyglot, showing the Versions of Paol's Epistle to the Romans, Chapter I, in Latin, Greek, Syriac, and Ethiopic, on the same Page ,„. r »j j. x 9£ in., not including margins.) SIMON AND WALTON 65 and the copies in Stephen's margin. The most of these authorities had never been used before. Of the manu scripts, which include the famous Codex Montf ortianus (see under Erasmus), three are of the fifteenth cen tury, one of the fifteenth or sixteenth, three of the twelfth, and one of the twelfth or thirteenth. Two, Evang. 59 and Act. 36, are valuable. Walton also gave the Velesian and Wechelian readings, which were of no value.1 Besides the Greek text, the Polyglot con tained the Latin Vulgate, the Peshitto, Ethiopic and Arabic Versions, besides a Persian Version of the Gos pels, and the later Syriac of the five books not con tained in the Peshitto (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, Apocalypse). Each Oriental Version was accompanied by a collateral Latin translation.2 Walton's work thus consisted in adding to the materials of criticism. The versions in the fifth volume furnish a valuable store of material. He is charged, however, with suppressing 1 The Velesian readings were a collection written in vermilion in the margin of a copy of Stephen's Editio Eegia by Eaxardo, Marquis of Velez, a Spaniard, who was said to have taken them from sixteen manuscripts, eight of which were in the Escorial. They were afterward shown to have been collected by Velez from Latin manuscripts. The Wechelian readings were from the margin of a Bible printed at Frankfurt, 1597, by the heirs of Andrew Wechel. All of these readings are found in Stephen's margin, or in the early editions. 2 "Walton was a Eoyalist during the Civil War, and was chap lain to Charles I ; but the Polyglot was published under the patronage of Cromwell, who allowed the paper to be imported free of duty. After the Eestoration, Walton, appointed Bishop of Chester by Charles, issued a new preface, in which Cromwell was styled "maximus ille draco." Accordingly there are two kinds of copies, — the Republican, with compliments to Crom well in the preface, but with no dedication, and the Loyal, dedi cated to Charles II. This was the first work published $§? subscription in England. 66 TEXTUAL CRITICISM favourably upon Wal ton's Poly glot. a large part of the collations which had been sent to him.1 Curcellaeus. — One year after the publication of Walton's Polyglot, _ appeared the Greek Testament Curceliseus's of Stephen Curcellseus, or Courcelles, with a learned Reacts'un-' introduction, parallel texts, and many various read ings, some from two or three fresh manuscripts. He repeated the Elzevir text of 1633, with a few changes, enclosing 1 John 5 : 7 in brackets. He did not, how ever, give the authorities for his readings, and those drawn from manuscripts were mingled with conjec tures of his own. As these conjectures were mani festly shaped by Socinian views, his Testament tended to discourage critical study as something aimed at the integrity and authority of Scripture. Its appearance so soon after Walton's Polyglot reacted unfavourably upon the latter, and created alarm at the collection of readings presented by Walton. The principal merit of Curcelleeus's Testament consists in his collection of parallel texts. In his preface he gives an account of the earlier editions, and asserts that it is not yet time to judge of readings, but to collect and preserve them ; and that the suppression of them is the real source of the increasing corruption.8 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 220. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 197 ff . J. Eendel Harris, Origin of the Leicester Codex of the New Testament, London, 1887. Henry Stevens, 77te Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1877. John Owen, Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew Text of the Scrip tures, with Considerations on the Prolegomena and Appendix to the late Biblia Polyglotta, Oxford, 1659. B. Walton, The Con- siderator Considered, London, 1659. S. P. Tregelles, Printed Text, etc., 38. H. J. Todd, Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Brian Walton, together with the Bishop's Vindication of the London Polyglot Bible, London, 1821. E. Eeuss, article " Poly- glottenbibeln " in Herzog's Real-Encyklopiidie. 2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 222. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 198. Tregelles, Printed Text, 39. CURCELLSEUS, FELL, AND MILL 67 Fell. — It was •with a view to counteract the unfavour able impression created by Walton and Curcellseus, that John Pell, Dean of Christ Church, and subse quently Bishop of Oxford, issued his Greek Testament at Oxford in 1675. It was of small size, with the various readings at the foot of the pages, along with the authorities by which they were supported. The title-page announced that the text was drawn from more than a hundred manuscripts. The margin con tained citations from the Memphitic and Gothic Ver sions. He gave the readings of a very few manuscripts not previously collated, and added in his appendix the Barberini collection of readings.1 Fell's text was mainly that of the Elzevir of 1633. Little attention was given to patristic testimony.2 Mill. — Walton, Curcellseus, and Pell, particularly the last, prepared the way for John Mill, whose edition of the Greek Testament, published in folio, Oxford, 1707, marked the foundation of textual criticism. His preparations for the work were begun about 1677, and were encouraged and promoted by Fell, and later by the patronage of Queen Anne. His merit was largely that of a collector of critical material. He gave much attention to patristic testimony, and also to the Vul- 1 This was a collection made by John Matthew Caryophilus of Crete, about 1625, with a view to an edition of the Greek Testament. It is described as " Collationes Grasci contextus omnium librorum Novi Testamenti juxta editionem Antverpien- sem regiam cum XXII codicibus antiquis MSS.' ' This was edited by Peter Poussin in 1673, and was found in the Barberini Library at Rome, in 1785, by Andrew Birch, along with the petition of Caryophilus to Pope Paul V for the loan of six manuscripts in the Vatican. These included B, and S (tenth century), which is among the earliest dated manuscripts of the Greek Testament. The Barberini readings often favour the Latin Version, and have been superseded. 3 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 222. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 199 f. Tregelles, Printed Text, 40. John Fell's Testament. Mill'sTestamentmarked the foundationof textual criticism. TEXTUAL CRITICISM Fore shadows the genealogical method. First esti mate as to number of variations. gate and Itala. His knowledge of Oriental languages was limited, so that he was obliged to depend mainly on the Latin translations in Walton's Polyglot. As a collator, he was not accurate according to the modern standard of textual scholarship. He collected rather than classified manuscripts, although he fre quently records his judgment of the value of readings, and exhibits a foreshadowing of the genealogical method in noting relationships between manuscripts, and between manuscripts and particular versions. The catalogue of his manuscripts may be seen in Tisch endorf, Prolegomena, 226. He made no attempt to construct a new text, but used that of Stephen's 3d ed., varying from it in a few places. His Prole gomena consisted of three parts: (1) The canon of the New Testament. (2) The history of the text, including quotations of the Fathers and early editions. (3) The plan and contents of his own work. Of the Prolegomena Dr. Scrivener says, "Though by this time too far behind the present state of knowledge to bear reprinting, they comprise a monument of learning such as the world has seldom seen, and contain much information the student will not even now easily find elsewhere." His New Testament was republished in folio, in 1710, at Amsterdam and Rotterdam, by Ludolph Kuster, who arranged in its proper places the matter which Mill had put into his appendix, because he had received it too late for incorporation into his critical notes. He added the readings of twelve fresh manuscripts. He was the first to give a definite statement of the number of various readings in the New Testament text, estimating them at thirty thousand, a number which appears trifling in the light of later critical results.1 1 Mill's Testament was attacked by Dr. Whitby in 1710. The details of the controversy may be read in Tregelles's Printed MAESTRICHT, TOINARD, AND WELLS Gerhard von Maestricht, Toinard, Wells. — The year after the appearance of Kuster's Mill, Gerhard von Maestricht published at Amsterdam a New Testament in 8vo, containing all the critical matter of Fell's edition, a collation of one Vienna manuscript, forty- three canons for the examination of various readings and discussions upon them, with other matter, es pecially parallel texts. The text is Fell's. A second improved edition was issued in 1735. This appears to have been the first attempt to lay down canons for various readings.1 The Evangeliorum Harmonia Grmco-Latina of Nich olas Toinard, of Orleans, was published in the same year as Mill's New Testament. Toinard was the first Roman Catholic since Erasmus, and the last be fore Seholtz (1830), who undertook a critical edition. In his Prolegomena he announces that he has made a Greek Testament according to the two oldest Vatican codices and the Old Latin Version, where it agreed with them. He was thus working on the same prin ciple afterward proposed by Bentley.2 Edward Wells put forth an edition, 1709-19, in ten parts, containing a Greek text, an English version and paraphrase, critical and exegetical notes, and historical dissertations. More boldly than his prede cessors, he introduced new manuscript readings into the text. His text was marked by frequent departures Text. It called out Richard Bentley's celebrated monograph, Remarks upon a Discourse of Free-thinking, by Phileleutherus Lipsiensis. See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 224-227. Scrive ner, Introduction, II, 200. Tregelles, Printed Text, 41-49. Hort, Westcott and Hort's New Testament, Introduction, 180. J. H. Monk, Life of Richard Bentley, D.D., London, 1833. 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 229. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 204. 2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 227 f. Reuss characterises the Harmonia as " liber rarissimus." Gerhard von Maestricht's Testament. Toinard's Harmonia. Wells's Testament. 70 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Bentley'sProposals. Bentley's hypothesis. from the Elzevir, and his agreement with later critics, as Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, is note worthy.1 It will be noticed that in Toinard and Wells there appear signs of restlessness under the pressure of the Textus Receptus, a growing tendency to emphasise manuscript authority, and attempts at a reconstruction of the text; while in Gerhard von Maestricht, as in Mill, we see signs of a movement toward the classifi cation of documents. Bentley. — This " glimpse of the genealogical method," which was the most important contribution to the criticism of the period between Mill and Lach mann, received a more definite development in the Proposals of Richard Bentley, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1691 he had urged Mill to publish in parallel columns the Greek text of A and the Graeco-Latin texts of D, D2, and E2. In 1720 he issued his Proposals for printing an edition of the Greek New Testament and the New Testament of the Vulgate Version, " per Stum. Hieronymum ad vetusta exemplaria Grseca castigatse et exactse," both from the most ancient codices, Greek and Latin. The Propo sals closed with the last chapter of the Apocalypse in Greek and Latin as a specimen. Bentley's hypothesis was, that the oldest manu scripts of the Greek original and of Jerome's Vulgate resemble each other so closely that, by means of this agreement, he could restore the text as it stood in the fourth century, so that there should not be a difference of twenty words, or even particles. " By taking two thousand errors out of the Pope's Vulgate (the Clemen tine), and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen (ed. of 1550), I can set out an edition of each in col umns, without using any book under nine hundred 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 228. RICHARD BENTLEY 71 years old, that shall so exactly agree, word for word, and order for order, that no two tallies nor two inden tures can agree better." In order to confirm the read ings introduced into the text, he proposed to make use of the Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Ethiopic Versions, and of all the Greek and Latin Fathers within the first five centuries, and to exhibit all the various readings within those five centuries. For the prosecution of this design it was necessary Collections that the manuscripts of the Vulgate should be collated ^ Cjlla" as carefully as those of the Greek Testament; and Bentley's much work both in collection and collation was done work- by Bentley himself, and by his colleague, John Walker, in Paris, by Chevalier in Tours, and Casley in Oxford. Their collations are preserved in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge.1 They are more on the Latin Vulgate than on the original Greek. The most valuable of the collations, that of B, was procured about 1720, at Bentley's expense, and by the labour of the Abbate Mico, and was revised by Abbate Rulotta in 1729. These collations are all that remain of Bentley's Importance enterprise, for the work itself never appeared. Yet plsats.^"' the Proposals mark an important step in the his tory of textual criticism. They indicate an advance toward discrimination in the selection and use of Greek manuscripts, and a frank and vigorous protest against the tyranny of the Textus Receptus. Bentley was the first to lay down the great principle that the whole text is to be formed on evidence, apart from the influence of any edition. He declared that after the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary manuscripts, the New Testament became the property of booksellers, and that Stephen's text stood as if an apostle was his compositor. He described 1 See Catalogue in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 89 f. 72 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Bentley's views of the state of textualcriticism. Stephen as the Protestant Pope. Of the text of the Vulgate he asserted that Popes Sixtus and Clement were incompetent to execute its revision, since they were mere theologians, without experience in manu scripts, using inferior Greek copies, and mistaking later copies for earlier. He perceived the division-line between the old and the late codices, and insisted that the ancient manuscripts are the witnesses of the an cient text. He was even prepared to dismiss from con sideration the testimony of the whole mass of modern copies. "The New Testament," wrote Bentley, "has been under a hard fate since the invention of printing. " After the Complutenses and Erasmus, who had but very ordinary manuscripts, it became the property of booksellers No heathen author has had such ill fortune. Terence, Ovid, etc., for the first century after printing, went about with twenty thousand errors in them. But when learned men undertook them, and from the oldest manuscripts set out correct editions, those errors fell and vanished. But if they had kept to the first published text, and set the various lec tions only in the margin, those classic authors would be as clogged with variations as Dr. Mill's Testa ment is. " Popes Sixtus and Clement, at a vast expense, had an assembly of learned divines to recense and adjust the Latin Vulgate, and then enacted their new edition authentic; but I find, though I have not discovered anything done dolo malo, they were quite unequal to the affair. They were mere theologi, and had no ex perience in manuscripts, nor made good use of Greek copies, and followed books of five hundred years before those of double age. Nay, I believe they took these new ones for the older of the two ; for it is not every body knows the age of a manuscript." RICHARD BENTLEY 7o* Bentley's proposals were comprised in eight para- Proposals in graphs : the first spoke of the actual condition of the detai1- printed Greek Testament and the Latin Vulgate, and the importance of the service of revising both, on the authority of manuscripts of more than a thousand years old. The second related to the view which Bentley took of certain passages in St. Jerome " where he de clares, that (without making a new version) he adjusted and reformed the whole Latin Vulgate to the best Greek exemplars, that is to say, to those of the famous Origen," and also of the passage containing Jerome's statement that the order even of the words is im portant in translations of Holy Scripture. From these passages he concluded that the oldest Greek and Latin copies ought to agree both in words and in their order, "and upon making the essay (he says) he has suc ceeded in his conjecture beyond his expectation or even his hopes." In the third paragraph he states his belief that the mass of various readings may, from his collations, be so reduced in number as to leave only about two hundred places in which the true text of a passage can be a matter of doubt. In the fourth, he says that he uses as subsidiary, in order to confirm the readings which he adopts, " all the old versions, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, and Ethiopic, and all the Fathers, Greeks and Latins, within the first five centuries " ; and he gives in his notes all the various readings (now known) within the said five centuries. So that the reader has under one view what the first ages of the church knew of the text ; and what has crept into any copies since is of no value or authority. In the fifth paragraph, Bentley disclaims the use of conjecture altogether in the text itself of the sacred volume ; the notes are to contain all the evidence on which every word rests ; and also the common readings of Stephen's Greek and Clement the VIHth's Latin are to be plainly exhibited. 74 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Conyers Middletonattacks the Proposals. Bentley'sfaith in his hypothesis weakened. In the sixth, the reader is told that any conjectures of the editor will be given, as such, in the Prolegomena, in which, also, there was promised a full account of the manuscripts, etc., used. The seventh paragraph informed the reader of the terms of subscription, three guineas for smaller paper, five for large. The conclud ing paragraph promised that the edition should be put to press as soon as a sufficient sum was subscribed. Bentley's proposals were attacked in an anonymous pamphlet by Conyers Middleton, which was severely replied to in another anonymous pamphlet, commonly attributed to Bentley. Middleton rejoined in a longer and abler pamphlet ; but he was no match for Bentley, and his reply did not bear upon the critical points at issue. An unhappy consequence of the controversy was the impression that criticism could not be safely applied to the text of the New Testament, and that it is better to retain traditional readings without evidence than to revise them according to competent testimony. Had Bentley's edition appeared, it would have pre sented an invaluable body of critical materials. It would have been an important contribution to the establishment of a settled text, and a severe blow at the traditional Textus Receptus. His text would have been that of the Greek manuscripts which resemble the oldest copies of the Vulgate ; but this would have been only the text current in the West, and not that of the whole body of Christian readers in the third and fourth centuries. But this hypothesis of substantial identity between the oldest Greek and Latin copies was more favoured by A than by any other really ancient document. The impossibility of settling the text by the applica tion of this principle appears to have grown upon him, especially after his acquaintance with the Vatican BENTLEY, MIDDLETON AND MACE 75 readings; and it is to this that some impute the abandonment of his project.1 Mace. — The revolt against the Textus Receptus was Mace antici- continued by William (or Daniel) Mace, a Fellow of fnagf0fead" Gresham College, London, who published anonymously, modem in 1729, a Greek and English Diglott, with the title oritics- The New Testament in Greek and English, contain ing the Original Text corrected from the Authority of the Most Authentic Manuscripts, etc. His emenda tions agree remarkably with readings approved by critics of this day. Reuss speaks of him as one whom his contemporaries unjustly persecuted, and whom more recent critics much more unjustly consign to oblivion.2 1 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 57-68. Tischendorf, Prole gomena, 231. Wordsworth, White, and Sanday, Old Latin Bib lical Texts, I, XXV. J. H. Monk, Life of Richard Bentley, D.D. The Works of Richard Bentley, D.D., collected and edited by A. Dyce, London, 1836. Bentlei et Doctorum Viro rum ad eum Epistolai, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1825. 2 As Scrivener, Introduction, II, 210, "The anonymous text and version of William Mace, said to have been a Presby terian minister, are alike unworthy of serious notice, and have long since been forgotten." These words, in which Dr. Scrive ner apparently echoes Tregelles (Printed Text, 65), are in marked contrast with the remarks of Dr. C. R. Gregory, in his Prolegomena to Tischendorf's 8th ed. , 240. Nestle also alludes to him as perhaps the boldest deviator from the Received Text (Einfuhrung, 15) . CHAPTER IX THE FIRST PERIOD (1516-1770). MOVEMENT TOWARD THE GENEALOGICAL METHOD Becognition of the rela tionship of documents. Statement of certain features of later criti cism neces sary for understand ing the remaining history. Textual Ceiticism now began to feel its way toward a new method, through the growing recognition of the relationship of documents, foreshadowed by Mill and Bentley. This led up to the classification of all docu ments by families — a principle which was first clearly announced by Bengel in 1734. This principle shapes the whole subsequent development of New Testament textual criticism. In order that the remaining stages of the history may be understood, it will be necessary to anticipate certain features of later criticism. It may be well to remind the reader once more that the problem of Textual Criticism is to extract from all attainable sources, as nearly as possible, the original text of the author ; and that this process involves the comparison of thousands of various readings, and the selection of those which represent the purest text. No sound decision as to the comparative value of readings can be reached by a merely numerical process, that is to say, by giving preference to that reading which is contained in the majority of manuscripts ; for it cannot be asserted that a reading has the majority of witnesses, until all known manuscripts have been collated, and all unknown manuscripts have been dis covered and collated. There may be enough manu scripts unknown and uncollated to turn the scale in favour of a rejected reading. Moreover, this process 76 QUALITY, NOT NUMBER, OF MANUSCRIPTS 77 takes account only of the number, and not at all of the No correct quality, of the witnesses. The united value of the reS™ by readings of ten manuscripts may not equal that of four a merely others. The ten may all be of late date and inferior l™^™1 quality, while the four may include two or three of the earliest and best. Thus the clause aAAa pvo-ai -r]p3.s dirb tov irovnpov, " de liver us from the evil one," which is attested by every known authority in Matt. 6 : 13, is omitted by the highest textual authorities from Luke xi. 4. Yet the evidence in its favour, numerically considered, is very strong. It is found in ACDEFGHKMRSUVrAATT, in a number of cursives, in the Old Latin bcfffilq, and in the Bohairic, Peshitto, Curetonian and Harclean Syriac, and the Ethiopic Versions. But it is wanting in K and B. B does not contain it at all, and X only by a hand three centuries later than the first. Again, in Mark 7 : 19, eight later uncials and hundreds of cursives have the Received reading KaBapi^ov iravra to. fSpurpara, " purging all meats," the neuter participle " purging " agreeing with the clause "goeth forth into the draught." On the other hand, KABEFGHLSXA and three Fathers have Ka6apCt,iov, the masculine partici ple, referring to Christ, "This he said, making all meats clean." The numerical superiority is with the former reading; the weight, both of authority and sense, is with the latter. Neither can a sound conclusion be reached on the Nor on the basis of the comparative age of manuscripts. The comparative important point is the age of the text contained in ageofmanu- the manuscript relatively to the autograph. A manu- scnp s' script of the fourth century may have been copied from one only a little older than itself, and that in turn from one only a little older ; while a manuscript of the eleventh century may have been copied from one of the third century, and that from the autograph. 78 TEXTUAL CRITICISM An ancient text not necessarilya pure text. Intrinsic and Tran scriptional evidence. Caution in the use of intrinsic probability. But an ancient text is not necessarily a pure text. Some of the worst textual corruptions had entered in the second century. Therefore the readings must be scrutinised in order to discover what evidence they afford of their own purity. To this process two kinds of evidence are applied, Intrinsic and Transcriptional. By Intrinsic evidence is meant that which is furnished by knowledge of the writer's style and habits of thought ; by grammatical considerations, the nature of the context, etc. This kind of evidence goes to show which of several readings of a passage is most likely to have proceeded from the writer's own hand. By Transcriptional evidence is meant that which is de rived from knowledge of the habits of scribes, and of the accidents to which they are liable in the process of transcription. This class of evidence goes to show which one of several readings the copyist is likely to have had before him, and which one is most likely to have been changed into the several various readings. In the matter of intrinsic probability it is easy to make a mistake. Conclusions founded upon it are to be accepted with great caution, because of the ten dency of the critic to form his conclusion from his own point of view or his own environment, rather than from those of the author. Thus, intrinsic proba bility seems to point to the omission of the words, " Make me as one of thy hired servants," from Luke 15 : 21, repeating the words of ver. 19. From our point of view it seems unlikely that the restored son, with the full assurance of pardon, would repeat the request which he had proposed to himself before his experience of the riches of fatherly love and forgive ness. A large number of manuscripts and most of the versions omit the words. Westcott and Hort bracket them ; Tischendorf rejects them. Yet we cannot rest solely on intrinsic probability from our point of view. INTRINSIC EVIDENCE 79 The words are attested by K B D U X. Similarly, a critic may light on an ungrammatical reading and be tempted to emend on the ground of the intrinsic im probability of the writer's grammatical blunder; yet a larger acquaintance with his habits of composition may greatly diminish that improbability. So of awk wardness of style, or inconsistency. Because Phil. 1 : 22 presents a very awkward construction, because Rom. 5 : 12 introduces us to a puzzling parenthetical passage, it cannot be certainly inferred that Paul orig inally wrote these in a less awkward form, and that corruptions have crept into the text, for Paul's writ ings are full of such instances. There are rare instances in which intrinsic proba- intrinsic bility may carry the day even against strong manu- occasionally script evidence. In Mark 6 : 22, K B D L A give prevails eltreXDov'fTws tj}s Ovyarpos airov 'HpcoSiaSos /cat 6py/r]ija- manuscript pevrp, "Sis daughter Herodias having entered in evidence. and danced." This reading appears in the text of Westcott and Hort. Yet, in the face of such manu script evidence, it is safe to say that Mark could not have intended this. The statement directly contra dicts Josephus, who says that the name of the damsel was Salome, and that she was the daughter of Herod Philip, by Herodias, who did not leave her husband until after Salome's birth. It is, moreover, most im probable that even Herod the Tetrarch would have allowed his own daughter thus to degrade herself. Conclusions as to transcriptional probability are Transcrip- somewhat more reliable because of our knowledge of a°^?} Prob- -, • -, ability more the habits of scribes. We can detect with some aceu- reliable. racy motives for intentional alteration and reasons for unintentional errors. It is easy to understand how a scribe might think himself in duty bound to play the part of a corrector, and conform an unfamiliar in flexion or quotation or construction to forms familiar 80 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Intentionalalterationsfrom the desire to amplify. Insertions of readings of one Gospel in another. to himself. He might think it incumbent on him to change rjXOaTt, rjXdav, into rjXOere, rjXOov; or to alter X-qpiflopM, and irpoo'unroXrjpipux into X-qifropax and irpoa-or- iroX-rjipia for the sake of euphony; or to write r/p-epas instead of rjpepai in Matt. 15 : 32, on the ground that correct grammar required the accusative of duration. Or, again, he might substitute Kpd$av and o-irapaiav for Kpd|as and o-rrapaias in Matt. 9 : 26, in order to make the participles agree with the neuter irvevpa. The cor rect reading in Mark 1:2 is iv tq> 'Ho-ata ™ irpo^Ty, "in Isaiah the prophet;" but it is apparent that some scribe found it difficult or impossible to account for the fact that the quotation from Isa. 40 : 3, " The voice of one crying," etc., is preceded by a quotation from Mal. 3:1, " Behold I send my messenger," etc. ; and accordingly substituted eV tois irpotpyTaxs, " in the prophets." Intentional alterations may also have proceeded from the desire to amplify. It is well known that copyists were in the habit of making a quoted passage, for instance, as full as possible, through fear of losing something which the writer had said. For example, Matt. 15 : 8. The Received Text is iyy%a poi 6 Xabs outos TtS tTTopaTi avTtav, /cat rots \eiXeui pe rt/xa, " This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips." The best modern texts read 6 A.a6s outos tois x£'^p,i]To$ does not occur in the LXX, but p-ap-ryrd "blameworthy" appears in that passage. Hence, while it is intrinsically probable that Paul wrote aptapa, it is transcriptionally probable that the scribe, finding pmprjTa in the LXX, changed dpiopa into dpuap-ryrd to correspond. Scrutiny of But, valuable as this internal evidence for separate readings readings is, it cannot be trusted by itself. Scrutiny of must be sup- separate readings must be supplemented by the study by study of °f *ne several documents as wholes. It is fair to assume documents that the credibility of a reading, however plausible on grounds of intrinsic and transcriptional evidence, may be affected by the general credibility of the document or class of documents in which it appears. It is quite possible that a reading approved by internal evidence should be found in a document or a class of documents which show signs of corruption. That fact would not conclusively discredit the reading, but it would lay it open to suspicion. Let it be constantly borne in mind that we have nothing to do with the doctrinal or other qualities and bearings of the text. The sole object is to reach the text itself in its primitive form. It is a very simple and generally accepted principle that our estimate of the particular details of a book is to be affected and modified by the general character of the book. Any biography of Luther, for instance, may contain truthful details ; yet if a question should arise as to the correctness of any detail, our judgment would be inevitably and justly modified by the charac teristics of the biography at large. We could not help noting that D'Aubigne" deals in wordy panegyric ; that Audin betrays strong partisan tendencies ; that a dis tinct theological bias pervades the treatment of Luther AGE OF TEXT 83 by Newman, Bossuet, and Mozley, and that all these are in strong contrast with the sober, dispassionate accuracy of Kostlin. Thus we reach the accepted prin ciple of textual criticism, that knowledge of documents must precede formal judgment on readings. This principle requires the student to consider the age of documents and the age of the texts which they contain — two quite distinct questions, since a late document may have been copied from an early text. It is unsafe to estimate the weight of a document by its age alone. Its real weight depends upon the age of its text. This must first be settled by the careful and minute collation of versions and citations, noting all readings which prove themselves to be ancient. Then each manuscript is to be compared with this list of readings, and any manuscript found to contain a con siderable proportion of these or of older readings may be noted as containing an ancient text. If we find a number of manuscripts exhibiting a text similar to this, the collected readings of all these will repre sent, generally, the character of the earlier text. This is a great point gained, yet it still remains to show that this early text is a pure text. The purity of a text does not follow from its early date. We know, for example, that extensive corruptions had found their way into the text of the second century. Accordingly, since our earliest witnesses differ at certain points, we are compelled to push our examination farther, and to test the purity of the text. Here we are thrown back again upon internal evidence, and the only kinds of evidence we have are those already applied to separate readings, namely, intrinsic and transcriptional evi dence ; only we now apply these two kinds of evidence to whole documents, instead of to individual readings merely. By comparing the readings of two documents in all their variations, we obtain the materials for Knowledgeof docu ments must pre cede judg ment on readings. Weight of documents depends on age of text. An early text not necessarily a pure text. 84 TEXTUAL CRITICISM ascertaining the leading merits and defects of each. There are usually enough readings which strong intrin- documents. Intrinsicand tran scriptionalevidence ap- sic and strong transcriptional probability combine in attesting, to enable us to reach a sound judgment. Suppose that we are required to pronounce upon the comparative textual purity of two documents, repre sented by T and X. We shall first note all their points of difference. Next, we shall proceed to discover which reading, in each case, approves itself as origi nal according to the tests of transcriptional and in trinsic evidence. We thus obtain two lists of readings, and can easily determine what proportion of original readings is contained in each. If T shall be found to contain the larger proportion of preferred readings, and X to contain habitually the rejected rival readings, we are entitled to conclude that the text of T has been transmitted in comparative purity, and that the text of X has suffered comparatively large corruption. Not only so, but the purer character of T thus shown may affect our decision in the case of certain readings pre ferred in X, and lead us to revise and possibly to change it. The same process would be pursued if we had a dozen or fifty or two hundred documents in stead of two. It might be objected, indeed, that we employ the evidence of separate readings in order to reach our estimate of the value of the text of a document as a whole, and that therefore, when it is said that the relative textual value of each document must be fixed before we are in a position to decide upon separate readings, we are reasoning in a circle. But the pro cess by which we determined the value of the docu ment as a whole is tentative. Our general estimate may be sound, although we may not be able to trust absolutely all our impressions as to the probabilities of reading. The general conclusion as to the docu- Not reason ing in a circle. TREGELLES'S CLASSIFICATION 85 ment as a whole does not imply that our estimate of every separate reading has been correct. In studying the intrinsic and transcriptional evidence of readings " we endeavour to deal with each variation separately, and to decide between its variants immediately, on the evidence presented by the variation itself in its context, aided only by general considerations. In the other case (estimating the comparative textual value of entire documents) we begin with virtually perform ing the same operation, but only tentatively, with a view to collect materials, not final results ; on some variations we can without rashness predict at this stage our ultimate conclusions ; on many more we can estimate various degrees of probability; on many more again, if we are prudent, we shall be content to remain for the present in entire suspense. Next, we pass from investigating the readings to investigating the documents by means of what we have learned respecting the readings. Thirdly, we return to the readings, and go once more over the same ground as at first, but this time making a tentative choice of readings simply in accordance with documentary authority." ' The results of this comparative criticism applied Tregelles's to New Testament documents may be illustrated by tionof aocu- Tregelles's classification. (1) Uncials of the most ments. ancient class, those earlier than the seventh century, X B D Z. (2) Good later uncials which frequently accord with these, L X A. (3) Important cursives, generally supporting the most ancient documents, 1, 22, 33, 39, 209. (4) Later uncials.2 Yet the estimate of the character of documents by individual this process is not exhaustive. The problem would ^f^n^f be simpler if each document were homogeneous ; but geneous. 1 Hort, Introduction, § 40. 2 Account of the Printed Text of the New Testament, 132. TEXTUAL CRITICISM Criticisminvestigatesthe rationale of the com bination of documents. Genealogy of docu ments. such is not the case. A document may be sound in one part and unsound in another. A manuscript containing several books may have been transcribed from different copies not equally good ; or the text of a document may have been compounded of two or more texts of different descent, so that the document has a divided individuality. In such cases a body of readings common to a group of manuscripts represents parts of a manuscript which, for these parts, lay at the root of all the manuscripts in the group. This process of grouping does not account for the combina tion of the manuscripts. It simply evolves the fact of combination. Criticism, then, goes one step farther, and inquires into the rationale of the combination. It proceeds upon the principle that all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history; that is, of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several documents. It classifies documents according to their origin, and arranges the several groups in a genealogical tree, which exhibits their common or proximate origin. "The practice of internal evidence of groups is inde pendent of any genealogical considerations. It pro ceeds, and must proceed, in utter ignorance of all genealogies. . . . All it knows is, Here are docu ments united. All it asks is, Do they form a good or a bad combination ? Yet, behind internal evidence of groups, the student will see genealogies clamouring for recognition. He notes the peculiarities of the groupings, — some groups frequently occurring, others, apparently equally possible, never occurring at all. He notes the verdicts of internal evidence of groups, — some groups uniformly condemned, others, apparently just like them, almost as uniformly commended. . . . The student would be something other than human if he did not wish to know the cause of all this. And GENEALOGY OF MANUSCRIPTS 87 the hope lies close that all may be explained, and a new and powerful engine of criticism be put into our hands by the investigation of the genealogical affilia tions of the manuscripts, which are suggested by these facts. The results of internal evidence of groups suggest not only the study of genealogies, but also certain genealogical facts on which that study may be begun. Every one must suspect that manuscripts that are frequently in company are close of kin. Every one must suspect that the groups which support little else but corruptions are composed of the remain ing representatives of a corrupt stock. Everybody must perceive that if such hints are capable of being followed out, and the New Testament documents arranged in accordance with their affiliations, we shall have a means of reaching the true text which will promise more than all other methods combined." 2 Bengel. — The principle of classifying manuscripts by families was first definitely propounded by John Albrecht Bengel, Superintendent of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Wiirtemburg, and widely known to New Testament students by his Gnomon Novi Testamenti. In 1725 Bengel attached to an edition of Chrysos- Bengel's tom's De Sacerdotio his Prodromus Novi Testamenti Testament. Grozci rede cauteque adornandi, in which he fore shadowed the characteristics of his edition of the New Testament, which appeared in 1734. The title of his New Testament set forth that the text was to exhibit the " marrow " of approved editions, the mar gin a selection of parallel passages and various read ings, distributed into their classes, and the critical apparatus the compendium, supplement, and fruit of sacred criticism, especially Mill's. The text was in 1 Professor B. B. Warfield, Textual Criticism of the New Testament. 88 TEXTUAL CRITICISM two columns, and the lower margin exhibited various readings in five classes: "genuine, better than the readings in the text, equal to the readings in the text, inferior, not to be approved." The Apparatus Criti- cus, forming the second part of the work, contained an elaborate dissertation on the Criticism of the New Testament Text. A small edition appeared the same year at Stuttgart, without the critical apparatus. He collated sixteen manuscripts, but not thoroughly. He did not propose to give all the readings of these manu scripts, but only the more important. He stated the evidence for and against each reading. Bengel clearly perceived that no reliance was to be placed on evidence drawn from the mere numerical majority of readings apart from their origin and char acter ; and that, therefore, witnesses were to be weighed and not counted. He was the first to recognise clearly the importance of the principle of transcriptional proba bility, viz. that it was more probable that a copyist would try to explain an obscure passage, or to make a hard construction easier, than that he would make difficult what was already easy. Hence his familiar The difficult canon, " The difficult is to be preferred to the easy ^preferred reaa^ng " (" Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua "). The to the easy text, arranged in paragraphs, exhibits an intentional departure from the Receptus, marked nevertheless by extreme caution, since he refused to admit, except in the Apocalypse, any reading which had not appeared in one or more preceding editions. Bengel's chief title to notice as a textualist lies, as already intimated, in his fuller recognition and appli cation of the principle of families of texts ; all extant witnesses being thrown into companies, families, tribes, and nations.1 1 His own statement of his principle may be seen at length in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 212, note. one J. A. BENGEL 89 He divided all extant documents, broadly, into an- Bengel's cient and modern, under the names African and Asi- mami1.68 °* atic. The Asiatic proceeded mostly from Constantinople scripts. and its neighbourhood, and were inferior to the African, which were fewer, more ancient, and more valuable. The African he subdivided into two tribes, represented respectively by A, the only great uncial much known in his day, and the Old Latin Version. He held that no Asiatic reading was likely to be genuine unless supported by some African document. He did not thoroughly carry out his theory, partly through fear of exposing the truth to ridicule (" ne risuum periculo exponatur Veritas ").1 But one edition of Bengel's New Testament was issued. His text, however, was frequently reprinted, and was the standard of the revision of the Authorised Danish Version, made in 1745 by the authority of the King of Denmark. Up to the time of his death, in 1752, he continued to enlarge and correct his critical apparatus, the enlarged edition of which was pub lished, in 1763, under the care of Philip David Burk. He was particular as to punctuation, and his 1 The list of his codices is as follows : — Aug. 1 : Ew 83 Aug. 2 : Ew 84 Aug. 3 : Ew 85 Aug. 4 : Evrm 24 Aug. 5 : Paul 54 Aug. 6 : Act 46 Paul 56 Aug. 7 : Apoc. 80 Bas. a : E11™ Bas. p : Ew 2 Bas. 7 : Ew 1 Byz : Ew 86 Cam : Ew (a Joachimo Came- rario conlati) Dionysianus (ex Johanne Ga- gneio) Act 40 ? Gehl : Ew 89 Hirs : Ew 97 Mosc: VEt* Par. 10 : (ex Simonio) Ufi. 1 : MP»"« Uff. vel Uff. 2 : Act 45 Paul 52 Apoc. 16 Uff. 3 : Ew 101 ^°- l:\ex Wolfio Wo. 2 : J 90 TEXTUAL CRITICISM division into paragraphs was frequently adopted in England.1 J. J. Wet- Wetstein and Semler. — In 1713 John James Wet- His"proie- stein, or Wettstein, Deacon of Basle, prepared a dis- gomena. sertation on Various Readings in the New Testament. In 1716 he met Bentley in England, and at his in stance went to Paris in order to collate Codex Ephraemi (C), which he did with great labour and patience. In 1718 he published a specimen of various readings, which brought upon him a charge of Arian and So- cinian heresy, and resulted in his deposition and in his expulsion from Basle in 1730. In the same year his Prolegomena were published anonymously at Amsterdam, giving an outline of his proposed edition of the New Testament and an account of his critical authorities. The edition was described as " acuratissima," derived from the oldest New Testa ment manuscripts, and treating of the manuscripts of the New Testament, the Greek writers who have made use of it, the ancient versions, the former editors, and the distinguished interpreters; besides "animadver siones et cautiones " for the examination of the various readings of the New Testament. In 1735 he wrote the preface to a new edition of Gerhard von Maestricht's Greek Testament, in which he referred to the labours of Bengel, for whom he had a Assails Ben- great contempt. He severely reviewed Bengel's Tes- principies?* tament immediately upon its appearance, and endeav oured to disparage the critical principles on which 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 186, 241 f. Scrivener, Intro duction, II, 210 ff. Hort, Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa ment, Introduction, 180. Tregelles, Printed Text, 68-73. Life of Bengel, in the translation of the Gnomon by C. T. Lewis and M. E. Vincent, Philadelphia, 1860. J. Chr. Fr. Burk (Bengel's great-grandson), Johann Albrecht BengeVs Leben und Wirken, Stuttgart, 1831. Article "Bengel," in Herzog's Real-Encyklo- padie. E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, Tubingen, 1893, WETSTEINS'S NEW TESTAMENT 91 Bengel had selected his readings, asserting that read ings should be adopted which are supported by the greatest number of manuscripts, and entirely ignoring the theory of families. In 1751-52 appeared his edition of the New Testa- Wetstein's ment, in two volumes folio, with various readings of Testa,nellt- manuscripts, other editions, Versions, and Fathers ; also with a commentary illustrating the history and force of words from ancient writers, — Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The influence of the Textus Receptus was still apparent, although, in his critical remarks, he laid down the principle that the prescription of the com mon text should have no authority whatever. His text was the Elzevirian with a few changes. The read ings which he preferred, and which amounted to less than five hundred, mostly in the Apocalypse, were placed below the text. It is said that he adopted the Received Text at the request of the Remonstrants or Arminians, whom he had joined on leaving Basle. The various readings were afterward inserted in the text of a Greek Testament published in London, in 1763, by W. Bowyer. Although his Prolegomena of 1730 had announced that his edition was to be derived from the oldest manuscripts, and although he had originally shown a disposition to take Codex A as the basis of his text, his views as to the oldest Greek uncials had evi dently undergone a change before the publication of his Testament, in which he attacked the whole body of the older codices under the name of " codices Latini- zantes," as being conformed to the Latin Version. Everything in them which agreed with the Latin was denounced as an interpolation from that version. But notwithstanding Wetstein's defects, his services Services to to the cause of textual criticism were of great value, crfticfsm. The number of manuscripts collated by him was a little over a hundred, and about eleven were examined 92 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Semler edits Wetstein'sProlegomena. ExpandsBengel's theory of families. for him by others. Besides his own collations, he collected the collations of Mill and others, and reex amined many of the Versions and Fathers. His col lations, though not up to the modern standard of accuracy, were more careful than had been usual. He was the first to investigate the Philoxenian Version. He was superior to Bengel as a collator, and his know ledge of authorities was more extensive ; but he was not Bengel's equal in judgment. He was more acute in observing phenomena than accurate in accounting for them. His critical disquisitions were disfigured by the introduction of his personal controversies ; but his account of the Versions, Fathers, and early editions was the most extensive and methodical that had ever been published ; and his " animadversiones et cautiones " in his second volume were discriminating and valuable.1 Wetstein's Prolegomena were reprinted at Halle, in 1765, by Johann Salomo Semler, Professor of Theology at Halle. Semler was the leader of the reaction in Germany against the traditional views of the canon of Scripture. His edition of Wetstein bore the title, Wetstenii Libelli ad Crisin et Interpretationem Novi Testamenti. It contained notes and remarks of his own, with facsimiles of manuscripts. He defended the Graeco-Latin codices against Wetstein's charges. Still later, in 1831, the Prolegomena were issued in a condensed form by J. A. Lotze, Rotterdam. Semler took up Bengel's theory of families and ex panded it. He was the first to apply the term " Re cension " to the ancient texts, an error which has caused some confusion. A Recension is properly a work of criticism by editors ; but it is used, even by some modern critics, as synonymous with " family." 2 1 A summary of the principal points is given by Tregelles, Printed Text, 79 f. 2 See Tregelles, Printed Text, 84. THE FIRST PERIOD REVIEWED 93 Semler classified manuscripts, at first, under two " Re censions": (1) Oriental, or that of Lucian; (2) West ern or Egypto-Palestinian, and that of Origen, agree ing with the Itala, the Memphitic, and the Armenian. The Vulgate, he thought, proceeded from a less ancient text. In 1767 he made three recensions : (1) Alexan drian, used by the Egyptian writers, the pupils of Origen, and the Syriac, Memphitic, and Ethiopic Ver sions ; (2) Oriental, used at Antioch and Constantino ple ; (3) Western. In the later codices he thought that all the recensions were mixed. Like Bengel, he insisted that codices were to be weighed and not num bered.1 A review of the first period exhibits, in the begin- Review of ning, a scarcity of documentary sources, an arbitrary perjoa. determination of the text on a false and narrow basis, and a general ignorance of the comparative value of documents. The small number of manuscripts acces- Obstacles. sible or used was only one of the obstacles which opposed the purification of the text. Scholars were unable to make the best choice from among those actually at hand, or were not accurate in comparing them, or estimated the value of readings according to their number. "In consequence of the astonishing number of copies which appeared at the very begin- 1 Semler's editorial work on Wetstein is sharply criticised by Tregelles, Printed Text, 82. On Wetstein: Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 243 ff. C. E. Hagenbach, J. J. Wetstein der Kritiker und seine Gegner, Zeitschr. fur d. histor. Theologie, Leipzig, 1839, Bd. IX, fasc. 1. Tregelles, Printed Text, 73-82. Carl Bertheau, article "Wett- stein," Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. On Semler : Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 187. A. Tholuck's article "Semler," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie, rev. by Tzschirner. J. S. Semler, Hermeneutische Vorbereitung, Halle, 1765. Id., Apparatus ad Liberalem N. T. Interpretationem, Halle, 1767. 94 TEXTUAL CRITICISM ning, in a long series of manual editions, mostly from one and the same recension, the idea grew up spon taneously very early that in the manuscripts also the text was tolerably uniform, and that any thorough revision of it was unnecessary and impertinent. The Oriental Versions were closed to most; the impor tance of the Church Fathers was scarcely suspected ; but the greatest lack of all for the purification of the text was the indispensable knowledge of the process of its corruption " (Reuss). Moreover, the beginning of the seventeenth century was marked by the rise of Purist con- the Purist controversy. The Purists maintained that roversy. ^o ^eny. y^f. q0(j gave ^e j^ew Testament in any thing but pure classical Greek was to imperil the doctrine of inspiration. The Wittemberg Faculty, in 1638, decreed that to speak of barbarisms or solecisms in the New Testament was blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Hence, a correct conception of the peculiar idiom of the Apostles was impossible, and the estimate of different readings was seriously affected by this cause. Readings of existing edi tions were arbitrarily mingled, the manuscripts em ployed and the sources of variants adopted were not properly specified, and a full survey of the apparatus was impossible.1 The number of uncial sources, however, gradually increased; the existence of various readings was recognised, but they were merely registered, and not applied to the construction of a purer text. There 1 A useful table, showing the dates at which the extant Greek uncials of the sixth and earlier centuries, with five others of later date but comparatively ancient text, have become avail able as evidence from 1550 down to 1880, may be found in Dr. Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 14, 15. The table exhibits the dates of imperfect publication by selection of readings, of tolerably full collations, and of con tinuous texts. THE FIRST PERIOD REVIEWED 95 began to be signs of revolt against the authority of Signs of im- the Textus Receptus and attempts to restore the text Provement- on the evidence of manuscript readings. There arose a growing distrust of the numerical basis of evidence. Manuscripts began to be weighed instead of counted. There was a dawning recognition of the value of ancient documents and a corresponding effort to formulate principles of classification. A large mass of material, relating to manuscripts, Fathers, and Ver sions, was collected, which awaited thorough sifting and arrangement, and the doctrine of families of texts was broached. Through all the Received Text sub stantially maintained its supremacy, though its preten sions were boldly challenged by individual critics ; its chain was rudely shaken and more than once broken, and its authority began to be visibly weakened. For twenty years after the appearance of Wetstein's edition little progress was made in the arrangement and application of the large accumulations, and no attempt to carry out the suggestions of Bentley, Ben gel, and Semler respecting the classification of docu ments. In England, the attention of students was directed to the study of the Hebrew Scriptures. The superstitious hesitancy about departing from the Re ceived Text still prevailed, and the critical valuation of the older uncials was suffering seriously from Wetstein's sweeping charge of latinisation. CHAPTER X Points of advance in the second period in augurated by Gries bach. Harwood. Matthsei. THE SECOND PERIOD: TRANSITION FEOM THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS TO THE OLDER UNCIAL TEXT (1770-1830). GEIESBACH In studying this period we shall observe an en larged comparison of the three sources of the text and an issue of critical canons. We shall see that the dominion of the Textus Receptus is not overthrown, but that that text is gradually improved, and that there is a growing departure from it in the direction of an older and better text. The great name which marks the real inauguration of this period is that of John Jacob Griesbach, 1745- 1812; but before considering his work, something should be said of several others from whose labours he derived valuable aid. In 1776 Edward Harwood, of London, issued an edition, applying the Codex Cantabrigiensis (D) in the Gospels and Acts, the Codex Claromontanus (D2) in the Pauline Epistles, and the Codex Alexandrinus (A) where these were wanting. He departed con siderably from the Elzevir text, and presented a num ber of new readings, many of which are approved by modern critics. Christian Frederic Matthsei, a Thuringian, was Professor at Wittemberg and afterward at Moscow, where he found a quantity of Greek manuscripts, both biblical and patristic, originally brought from Mt. C. F. MATTH2EI 97 Athos, nncollated, and almost entirely unknown in Western Europe.1 From these materials he prepared an edition of the New Testament, the first volume of which was pub lished at Riga in 1782, and the remainder at intervals during the next six years. The whole formed twelve thin volumes, each containing a preface, with fac similes of manuscripts. The Greek text was accom panied with a Latin Version. His second edition, in three volumes, 1803-1807, omitted the Latin Version and most of the critical notes. In this edition he speaks of having made collations of fresh manuscripts, but these have disappeared. With good scholarship, he was ignorant of critical principles and of what had Character a been accomplished by former editors, not having acntlc- seen, when he began, the editions of either Mill or Wetstein. He was unable to estimate the comparative value of codices. He was a laborious and thorough collator, but a poor critic. His prefaces were devoid of arrangement, and his judgments were warped by a hasty temper, which vented itself especially upon Griesbach. He utterly repudiated the theory of families of texts, decried the evidence of patristic citations, and seconded Wetstein in his depreciation of the earliest manuscripts. His test of the value of manuscripts was their agreement with those current in later times. The manuscripts on which his text was based were of inferior value, belonging to the family which Bengel had styled " Asiatic," and which Griesbach called "Constantinopolitan." His only claim to notice lies in his excellence as a collator.2 i To him solely we are indebted for Evan. V, 237-259 ; Acts 98-107 ; P. 113-124 ; Ap. 47-50 ; nearly all at Moscow. Full list in Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 249 f. 2 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 249 f. Scrivener, Intro duction, II, 216-219. Tregelles, Printed Text, 85. H 98 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Alter. Francis Karl Alter, a Jesuit of Silesia, was Pro fessor of Greek at Vienna. His edition of the New Testament in two volumes, 8vo, Vienna, 1786-87, was founded on a manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna (Evan. 218, Acts 65, P. 57, Ap. 83), which had some value, but was not remarkable nor ancient. This he printed at full length, correcting scribal errors by Stephen's edition of 1546, and collating with his text twenty-one other manuscripts from the Vienna Library. He added readings from the Coptic Version, from four Slavonic Codices, and from one Latin Codex.1 Christian VII, King of Denmark, employed to examine manuscripts in different countries a com pany consisting of Andrew Birch, a Lutheran bishop in Denmark, Jacob G. C. Adler, D. G. Moldenhauer, and 0. G. Tychsen, a distinguished Orientalist. Their labours were confined principally to Spain and Italy, and occupied several years. The results were edited Birch's edi- by Birch in his folio edition of the Four Gospels, Gos els*6 Copenhagen, 1788. The text was Stephen's, 1550, to which were added the various readings collected by the company, descriptive prolegomena, and facsimiles. The readings of B were now published for the first time, partly from Birch's own collation, and partly from that made for Bentley. The completion of the edition was prevented by a fire in the printing-house in 1795. The various readings collected for the Acts and Epistles were issued in 1798, and those for the Apocalypse in 1800. In 1801 the readings accom panying the text of the Gospels were revised, reedited, and printed in a form to correspond with the portions already issued. Tregelles says that Birch probably did more than any other scholar in the collation of 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 254. Scrivener, Introduc tion, II, 220. J. J. GRIESBACH 99 manuscripts of the New Testament; and Scrivener speaks in high terms of his conscientiousness and appreciation of the difficulties of his task, and re marks that he was almost the first to open to us the literary treasures of the Vatican, of Florence, and of Venice. Quite different was the work of Molden- Work of hauer and Tyehsen in Spain, which was performed in ^er and a slovenly and superficial manner, principally because Tyehsen. of their dislike for Spain and its religion. While, as already remarked, little if anything was done for twenty years after Wetstein by way of apply ing the accumulations of himself and of his prede cessors, the work of accumulation was not arrested. Besides the collections of Matthaei and Birch, the texts of several important documents were printed, important among them the New Testament portion of A, edited ^ editeded by Woide in 1786. Kipling published Codex D in 1793, and Matthsei edited the Greek and Latin Codex G of Paul's Epistles (Boernerianus, ninth century). Griesbach, therefore, had the advantage of larger col lections than those left by Wetstein. In the twenty years between the first edition of Griesbach and the first volume of his second edition, the materials had increased to double the quantity previously known. Griesbach was a native of Hesse Darmstadt and a J. J. Gries- pupil of Semler. He was, for a short time, Professor ^J1 edition. of Divinity at Halle, and afterward at Jena. In 1774 he issued the first part of a Greek New Testament in which the first Three Gospels were arranged synopti- cally. The Fourth Gospel and Acts appeared in 1775, and also the volume containing the Epistles and the Apocalypse. In 1777 the first part of the work was reprinted with the Gospels in the usual order. This portion, with the issues of 1775, form Griesbach's first edition. The critical materials were drawn largely from Wetstein, but he made independent additions. 100 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Symbols Oriticse and the second edition of the New Testament. Manual edition. Critical con ditions con fronting Griesbach. He did not adopt many new readings, and the Re ceived Text, while not wholly followed, was taken as a basis.1 He gave a number of readings in the margin, classified according to families. His Symbolaz Critical, two volumes, 1785, 1793, fur ther prepared the way for his second edition. This had behind it twenty years of wider study, besides the work of Harwood, Matthsei, Birch, Alter, and others. The first volume appeared in 1796, the second in 1806. His critical apparatus was larger than in the first edition. In his preface he laid down his principles of criticism and dealt with the history of the text. He had studied the readings in Origen, had inspected Codices A and D of the Gospels, and had carefully examined C. Besides these he had consulted twenty- six manuscripts of the Gospels, ten of the Acts, fifteen of Paul, and one of the Apocalypse, with twelve Lec tionaries of the Gospels, and two of the Apostles. He did not exhibit all the results of his own collations nor of those of his predecessors, his purpose being to use their material for the illustration of his own principles, and thus to help students to independent conclusions concerning readings. In 1805, the year before the issue of his second volume, he published a manual edition containing the text and the more important various readings, but without giving the authorities for the readings. This edition, differing in some places from the larger work, represents his matured and final con clusions on the New Testament text. With Griesbach, really critical texts may be said to have begun. The critical conditions which confronted him were these: A vast mass of material had been accumulated ; many manuscripts and versions had been examined, but the examination had been partial ; the 1 For details, see Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 246. lies. J. J. GRIESBACH 101 suggestions of Bengel and Bentley concerning the classi fication of manuscripts had been disregarded ; there was still much hesitancy about departing from the Received Text ; Wetstein's depreciation of the character of the most ancient codices had taken effect, and had greatly impaired the sense of their value. The task which lay before Griesbach was to vindicate the authority of the older codices, to classify authorities, and to use them critically and consistently for the restoration of the text. He took issue with Wetstein on the value of the His views of ancient manuscripts, and followed in the track of manuscripts Bentley, Bengel, and Semler. He adopted the family- and fami- theory, holding, with Bengel, a twofold division, — Asiatic or Byzantine and African, but, like Semler, dividing the African into two parts, thus making three classes, two ancient, and one later. These he denom inated Western, Alexandrian, and Constantinopolitan. The Western, with its numerous glosses, represented the text which had been in circulation in the earlier times, but which, owing to the errors of copyists, re quired much correction. The Alexandrian was an attempt to revise this text, and was marked by correc tions of grammar and style. The Constantinopolitan, Bengel's Asiatic, flowed from the other two. The Western and Alexandrian existed as distinct in the latter part of the second century. The standard of the Alexandrian text was Origen. To that family would belong A, B, C, L (Gospels), and the Egyptian and some minor Versions. To the Western family would belong D (Gospels and Acts) and other ancient copies containing a Latin translation, the Old Latin and Vulgate, and the Latin Fathers. The Constantino politan embraced the great majority of manuscripts, with the larger proportion of Versions and patristic writings. In deciding on a reading he relied chiefly critical canons 102 TEXTUAL CRITICISM on the evidence furnished by union of families. The agreement of the Western and Alexandrian he regarded as particularly important, often decisive. Thus, in Matt. 19 : 17, he read ti pe ipwras rrf.pl tov dyaOov ; " Why askest thou me concerning the good ? " instead of ti pc. \eyeis dyaOov ; " Why callest thou me good ? " on the joint evidence of B D L, the Old Latin and the Vul gate. In this reading he is followed by Westcott and Hort and Tischendorf, and the testimony of X, which, of course, he did not know, has been added to that of his other manuscripts. Griesbach's Among the critical canons laid down by Griesbach are the following : (1) No reading must be considered preferable, unless it has the support of at least some ancient testimonies. (2) All criticism of the text turns on the study of recensions or classes of documents. Not single documents but recensions are to be counted in determining readings. (3) The shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer. This canon rests on the well-known tendency of scribes to amplify the text, and to include in it all marginal notes, glosses, etc. It was probably in this way that the episode of John 8 : 1-11, and the legend of the angel troubling the waters of the pool of Bethzatha, John 5 : 4, slipped into the text. If a shorter reading is elliptical, obscure, or harsh, it is not unlikely that the copyist may have felt it to be his duty to fill out the ellipsis, or to add some words in order to render it less obscure or smoother. (4) The more difficult reading is to be pre ferred to the easier. This canon was first laid down by Bengel. It grows out of the tendency of copyists to alter what they did not understand into something which they did understand. A scribe might be puz zled by a solecism, or by the irregular use of a word, or by a Hebraism, or by a want of connexion, and, in entire good faith, change the reading so as to make it, J. J. GRIESBACH 103 as he thought, more intelligible. Thus may probably be explained, in Matt. 6 : 1, the change of oWoo-wijv, "righteousness," into iXi-npoo-vvr/v, "alms"; and of dpapTrjparos, " sin," in Mark 3:29, into xpiWos, "judg ment." (5) Along with this canon and included in it goes the canon that the reading which, at first sight, appears to convey a false sense, is to be pre ferred to other readings. Thus, in 1 Cor. 11 : 29, dvaltcos, "unworthily," is omitted by the best texts. Reading the text with this omission, the first impres sion would be that the verse absolutely affirms that he that eats and drinks does not discern the Lord's body, and therefore incurs judgment. The difficulty vanishes when the proper conditional force is given to py, and we read, "He that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself if he do not discern (or distinguish) the body." Probably the scribe, not appreciating the conditional force of /*>), and being staggered by his false impression of the statement, imported dva|tcos into the passage from ver. 27. The line of distinction which Griesbach drew be- Abandoned tween Alexandrian and Western it was impossible to tion'between maintain. On this point he virtually abandoned his Alexandrian former conclusion. In his " Commentarius Criticus," ^n. es 1811, he showed that the readings of Origen do not accord precisely with the Alexandrian Recension to which he had assigned them. Indeed, the practical weight of his whole system of recensions was im paired by his own declaration that in none of the ex isting codices is a recension contained in its purity. In several, and those our oldest manuscripts, a differ ence of recension is apparent in the individual parts. A, for example, follows one recension in the Gospels, another in the Pauline Epistles, and still another in the Acts and Catholic Epistles. The term " Western " was misapplied, since this type of text is not confined 104 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Inconsistency in his deference to the Textus Eeceptus. to the West.1 Moreover, the manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus is based belong to the Byzantine family, so that Griesbach's scanty respect for that family was not consistent with the deference paid in his edition to the Textus Receptus. He did not really take as his textual basis the ancient texts in which he professed the most confidence. He did not take the decisive step of entirely disregarding the Textus Re ceptus, and forming a text resting on the best authori ties throughout.2 Griesbach's text is the basis of many manual edi tions, as those of Schott, Marker, Knapp, Tittmann, Hahn, and Theile. Halm's was republished at New York, in 1842, by Dr. Edward Robinson.3 1 See G. Salmon, Some Criticism of the Text of the New Tes tament, 46 ff. 2 The critical discussion of Griesbach's classification may be studied in Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 183, and in Scrivener's Introduction, H, 224 ff. Dr. Hort, while criticising Griesbach's conclusions, expresses himself as venerating the name of Griesbach above that of every other textual critic of the New Testament. He says, " What Bengel had sketched tentatively, was verified and worked out with admirable patience, sagacity, and candor by Griesbach, who was equally great in independent investigation and in bis power of estimating the results arrived at by others." Tre gelles says that though his later critical edition is more complete, and in all respects more valuable, yet, if his system of recen sions in its application is the subject of examination, the first edition is necessary (Printed Text, 84). 8 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 188 ff., 246 ff. Scrivener, Introduction, H, 216, 222-226. Tregelles, Printed Text, 83-85, 88-92. Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa ment, 181-186. Eeuss, Bibliotheca Novi Testamenti, 193-204, and article " Griesbach," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. Augusti, Tiber GriesbacWs Verdienste, Breslau, 1812. E. Lau rence, Remarks on the Systematical Classification of Manu scripts adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the Greek Testa ment, Oxford, 1814. O. von Gebhardt, article "Bibeltext," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. CHAPTER XI THE SECOND PEEIOD (1770-1830). THE SUCCESSORS OF GRIESBACH J. L. Hug (1765-1846), a Roman Catholic Professor Hug pro- at Freiburg, in his Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen syltem of"* Testament, 1808, proposed, as a corrective of the views recensions. of Bengel and Griesbach, a new system of recensions. According to him, the text, in the general mass of codices, had degenerated, by the middle of the third century, into the form exhibited in Codex Bezse (D) of the Gospels, the Old Latin, Sahidic, and to some ex tent the Peshitto Versions, and in the citations of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen in his earlier works. To this text he gave the name koivt) IkoWis, "common edition." He supposed that it received three separate revisions in the middle of the third century, — one by Origen, adopted by Jerome, and two others, by Hesychius in Egypt, and Lucian in Antioch, both which Jerome condemned, and Pope Gelasius (492-96) declared to be apocryphal.1 His views were adopted, with some modifications, notably the rejection of the Origenian Revision, by J. G. Eichhorn, Ein leitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 1827. The theory has been shown to be baseless, though it " brought out the fact of the early broad currency of the Western Text" (Warfield).2 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 194. * It found, however, a feeble resurrectionist and defender a few years ago, in Dr. G. W. Samson, The English Revisers' 105 106 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Hug on Codex b. Scholz, as collector and collator. It should be added, however, that to Hug's De Antiquitate Vaticani Codicis Commentatio, 1810, is due the merit of first placing that document in its true rank. His conclusion as to its date is generally ac cepted by modern critics.1 Scholz. — The backward movement of Matthsei was seconded by John Martin Augustine Scholz, Roman Catholic Dean of Theology in the mixed University of Bonn, and a pupil of Hug. He was an extensive traveller, and collected in his journeys a vast amount of fresh material which appeared in his Curaz Criticaz in Historiam Textus Evangeliorum, Heidelberg, 1820 ; his Biblisch-Tcritisclie Reise, Leipzig, 1823; and his Novum Testaraentum Greece, 4to, Leipzig, 1830, 1836.2 The number of codices registered by him for the first time was 616, of which, however, he collated en tire only thirteen. Scrivener says, "His inaccuracy in the description of manuscripts which he must have had before him when he was writing is most weari some to those who have had to trace his steps, and to verify or rather falsify his statements." s Scholz frequently departed from the Textus Recep- Greek Text shown to be unauthorised except by Egyptian Copies discarded by Greeks, and to be opposed to the Historic Text of All Ages and Churches, Cambridge, Mass. Dr. Schaff charac terises the treatise as " a curious anachronism." 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 192. Tregelles, Printed Text, 90. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 270-272. Hort, In troduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 181-183. 2 For details of Scholz's collections, see Tischendorf, Prole gomena, 630-638, 659-665, 679-681, 702-714, 943-945. * Dr. C. E. Gregory (Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 192) de scribes him as "Itineribus prseclarior quam doctrina, codicum conlator neglegentissimus." Compare 257. Burgon speaks of him as "an incorrigible blunderer." But Dr. Gregory, in a recent lecture at Union Seminary, spoke in commendatory terms of Scholz, and asserted that he was a more careful col lator than Scrivener. SCHOLZ 107 tus, and yet, on the whole, preserved it in preference • to that of the Vulgate. In many passages in which Griesbach had varied from the Textus Receptus, on the ground of the antiquity of the authorities) Scholz followed more recent documents on the evidence of number, thus adhering to readings of the Received Text. He at first divided documents into five families, — two Scholz's s African (Alexandrian and Western), one Asiatic, one famines. Byzantine, and one Cyprian. Later he adopted Ben gel's classification, and maintained that the true text was to be sought in the Constantinopolitan family, claiming that this family had always presented one uniform text, which had become traditional through out the Greek Church. This text had been preserved without serious corruption before Constantinople be came the seat of empire, had retained its general purity in the fourth century, and was retained and transmitted in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. He maintained the general unity in text of the Con stantinopolitan manuscripts, as against the mutual discrepancies of the Alexandrian manuscripts and Versions. According to his classification, then, the Alexandrian family would embrace the most ancient manuscripts, the Old Latin, Jerome's Vulgate, the two Egyptian and the Ethiopic Versions. The Constan tinopolitan would include the later manuscripts gener ally, a part of the Old Syriac, the later Syriac, Gothic, Georgian, and Slavonic Versions, and certain Fathers from the fourth century onward. His system thus differed from Griesbach's by the inclusion of Gries bach's Western family in the Alexandrian, and by assigning the preference to the Constantinopolitan, which, according to Griesbach, was a resultant of the Western and Alexandrian.1 i Tregelles says, Printed Text, 152 : " Scholz's first vol ume was published in 1830. The second did not appear till 108 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Scholz's error in as suming a standardConstan tinopolitantext. Characterof Scholz's services. Careful examination would have shown Scholz the contrary of what he took for granted, namely, the ex istence of a standard, public, authorised Constantino politan text. Scrivener has shown that the more modern copies do not contain a uniform text, and that, "with certain points of general resemblance, whereby they are distinguished from the older docu ments of the Alexandrian class, they abound with mutual variations so numerous and perpetual as to vouch for the independent origin of nearly all of them." J Scholz's services consisted mainly in pointing out the localities of manuscripts. The greater part of the documents which he was the first to consult were re corded in his list, but their readings did not appear in his collection of variants. The gravitation of his text toward the Textus Re ceptus made it popular with conservative critics who 1836. Prior to that year I made a particular examination, in the Gospels, of those readings which he rejects in his inner margin as Alexandrian ; in the course of this examination, and with continued reference to the authorities which he cited, I observed what a remarkable body of witnesses stood in opposi tion to the text which he had adopted as Constantinopolitan. Thus I learned that the most ancient manuscripts were witnesses against his text ; and not only so, but when I sought to ascertain the character of these manuscripts themselves, I found that they were continually supported by many of the older versions. While engaged in this examination, I went all through St. Mat thew's Gospel, writing in the margin of a Greek Testament those well-supported readings which Scholz rejected. This was, of course, wholly for my own use ; but I saw that, as a general principle, the modern manuscripts can have no authority apart from ancient evidence, and that it is the ancient manuscripts alone (although comparatively few in number) which show within what limits we have to look as to the real ancient text." 1 See also Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, 144. FAREWELL TO THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS 109 hesitated at Griesbach's conclusions, and it found many friends in England. Later (1845), Scholz re tracted his preference for the Constantinopolitan text, and declared that if a new edition of his Greek Testa ment should be called for, he would receive into the text most of the Alexandrian readings which he had placed in his margin.1 "Through these years (1770-1830)," says Dr. C. R. Gregory, " the controversy was between the adherents of the Received Text and those who preferred to trust the ancient witnesses. Harwood alone rejected the Receptus, and he was rejected by his peers. Others, even Griesbach, showed the futility of holding the Textus Receptus as a foundation for the construction of a text. At this point we bid farewell to the Textus Farewell to Receptus without regret: a new day is dawning — the Kece^tus"8 day which seeks the ancient text without hindrance from the tradition of later ages." 1 See Tischendorf, Prolegomena, 192, 193, 255-257. Scrive ner, Introduction, U, 226-230. Tregelles, Printed Text, 92-97, 179 ff. J. Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, Bel fast, 1848. F. H. A. Scrivener, A Full and Exact Collation of about Twenty Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined) deposited in the British Museum, the Archiepis- copal Library at Lambeth, etc., with a Critical Introduction, Cambridge, 1853. CHAPTER XII THIRD PERIOD (1830-81). EFFORTS FOE THE BES- TOEATION OF THE PEIMITIVE TEXT. LACH MANN Lachmann casts aside the Textus Receptus. Lachmann'sfirst New Testament. A new period began in 1831, when, for the first time, a text was constructed directly from the ancient documents without the intervention of any printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination of various readings. To Carl Lachmann belongs the distinction of entirely casting aside the Textus Receptus, and placing the New Testament text wholly on the basis of actual authority. Lachmann boldly adopted Bentley's prin ciple that the entire text is to be formed apart from the influence of printed editions, on evidence. Dr. Warfield remarks that if Bentley had completed his edition, he would have antedated the step of Lach mann by a century. Carl Lachmann was Professor of Classical Philology in Berlin. He was not a professional theologian, but a philologist, who had distinguished himself by critical editions of Latin and German classics.1 In 1831 he published a small edition of the Greek Testament, with a brief notice of his plan, followed by a list of the places in which his readings differed from 1 His edition of Lucretius still ranks among standards. A fourth edition of the text was issued in 1871, and of the Com mentary in 1882. 110 LACHMANN 111 those of the common text, and referring the reader for further information to his article in the Studien und Kritiken, (1830, No. 4, 817-845). He declared that he had followed the usage of the most ancient Ori ental churches ; that where this was not uniform he had preferred what was supported by the consensus of African and Italian authorities; that where there was great uncertainty it was indicated partly by en closing words within brackets, and partly by placing a different reading in the margin, the so-called Textus Receptus being allowed no place. His larger edition, Novum Testamentum Greece et Latine, was published in two volumes at Berlin, 1842-50. In this he was aided by the younger Philip Buttmann, who added the critical apparatus of the Greek text, and also published a small edition based on the Codex Vaticanus (1856, 1862, 1865). Lachmann recognised only two types of text: Oriental (A, B, C, Origen) and Occidental (D, E, F, G, oldest Latin Versions, Vulgate, and Western Fathers from Irenseus down to Primasius for the Apocalypse). He entirely disregarded Byzantine authorities and the Syriac and Egyptian Versions. The text of the larger edition did not vary greatly from that of the earlier. Only the text of the smaller edition was wholly based on the sources which he styled "Oriental," while in the larger, he used the combined evidence of Eastern and Western authorities. His object was purely historical, that is, to present the text in the form in which the most ancient docu ments, so far as these were known, had transmitted it. His text was not put forth as the original or final text, but as the oldest attainable text, namely, that of the fourth century, as an historical basis for further inquiries which might lead nearer to the primitive text. Largeredition. His types of text. His aim not the original but the old est attain able text. 112 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Rules for He laid down six rules for estimating the compara- comparatfve *iye weight of readings : (1) Nothing is better attested weight of than that in which all authorities agree. (2) The re mgs. agreement has less weight if part of the authorities are silent or in any way defective. (3) The evidence for a reading, when it is that of witnesses of different regions, is greater than that of the witnesses of some particular place, differing either from negligence or from set purpose. (4) The testimonies are to be re garded as doubtfully balanced when witnesses from widely separated regions stand opposed to others equally wide apart. (5) Readings are uncertain which occur habitually in different forms in different regions. (6) Readings are of weak authority which are not uni formly attested in the same region. Lachmann's With Griesbach, Lachmann distinguished between terms Eastern and Western witnesses ; but the peculiar sense " da"wn t- *n w^c^ he use<^ those terms caused his meaning em." to be misapprehended. Others had used the term "Oriental" or "Asiatic" to denote the mass of the more recent manuscripts gathered from the churches of Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople, containing the text which had, perhaps, originally come into use in the regions from Antioch to Constantinople, and classed by Griesbach as "Byzantine." Lachmann meant by "Eastern" the few ancient codices com prised in Griesbach's Alexandrian class. His wit nesses were, for the Gospels A, B, C, the fragments P, Q, T, Z, sometimes D. For the Acts, D, E2. For Paul, Dj, G2, Hg. With these the citations of Origen, the Greek remains of Irenseus, the Old Latin manu scripts a, b, c, and the citations from Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Primasius.1 1 The following will explain the notations of those of Lach mann's authorities which may be less familiar : — P, Codex Guelpherbytanus, sixth century, Wolfenbiittel, 518 LACHMANN 113 His method too rigid. Through almost a quarter of the New Testament Lachmann had scarcely any means of deciding how far the Eastern witnesses varied in readings. There are passages in which at most two manuscripts, or perhaps only one, contain the text. Thus an error in such a copy or copies is assumed to be a widely spread reading of the fourth century. It is to be remembered, further, that at that time neither B nor C had been thoroughly examined. Where his Eastern witnesses disagreed, he had recourse to Western sources ; and, these failing, to sources of inferior age and authority. It is thus evident that his method was too rigid, and the range of his authorities too limited ; and it is not strange that his text was regarded as an innova tion, and treated accordingly. If his exposition of his plan and object had been fuller and simpler, his work might have met with a better reception. As it is, " Let any objections be raised to the plan, let incon sistencies be pointed out in the execution, let correc tions of varied kinds be suggested, still the fact will remain that the first Greek Testament, since the invention of printing, edited wholly on ancient author ity, irrespective of modern traditions, is due to Charles Lachmann" (Tregelles). He bestowed great pains in 'editing the Latin Ver sion of Jerome, which was added to his Greek text. His principal authorities were the Codex Fuldensis (sixth century), which he and Buttmann studied Version- w. of the Gospels. Q, Codex Guelpherbytanus II, fifth century, palimpsest, Wolfenbiittel, 247 w. of Luke and John. T, Codex Borgianus I, fifth century, College of the Propaganda at Eome, fragments of Luke and John, Greek text with Sahidic or The baic Version. Z, Codex Dublinensis, sixth century, palimp sest, Matthew. E2, Codex Laudianus, sixth century, Bodleian Library, Oxford, Acts. G2, Acts, seventh century, St. Peters burg. Hs, Codex Coislinianus, sixth century, fragments dis tributed in different libraries, Pauline Epistles. i Great pains bestowed on Jerome'sLatin 114 TEXTUAL CRITICISM together at Fulda in 1839, and the Codex Amiatinus (sixth century) of the Laurentian Library at Florence, a description of which may be found in Scrivener's Introduction, II, 71. Of this codex he had only an imperfect collation. With these and some other aid from manuscripts he revised the whole of Jerome's Version. In his preface he gave some valuable matter on the subject of the Latin texts. He held that the Old Latin proceeded from Northern Africa, and that its text had been modernised into a form resembling the later Greek manuscripts.1 1 The following table exhibits a few of Lachmann's readings, compared with those of the Textus Eeceptus and Westcott and Hort : — Keo. Laob? W. H. Matt. 21 : 31 : 6 irpwTos 6 JJOTfipOS 6 vtrrepos Luke 2 : 14 : evfio/cta eiiSoicias euSoKta? Luke T : 81 : eln-e Se 6 Kvpios Omit Omit John 8 : 15 : /xf/ aTroArJTai. dA.V [jllt; aTroATjTat dXX1] Omit John 8 : 84 : €K fterpov SiSmtriv 6 eie p-erpov SiSmtriv [6 flebs] eK liirpov StSia- trtv John 6 : 22 : eitelvo els o evefiritTav ol jUa0T)Tat avTOU Omit Omit John 6 : 51 : rjf eyh Siatria Omit Omit Acts IS : 33 : T(j> Sei/repw tu irptartp tw Seu7epa> Eom. 1 : 29 : Tropveltf Omit Omit Rom. 5:1: t^o/iev exap-ey (mg) e\ai/Jiei' Eom. 5:2: Tfl TTlOTet [ ] [ ] Eom. 7 : 25 : evxapttrrto X«P'5 X"P« ICor. 11:29: ava£iios Omit Omit Eph. 1:15: ttjv ayaffryv Omit Omit Eph. 2 : 21 : Traa-a r) oikoSo/xt) Omitr) Omit 7/ Heb. 10 : 84 : Setrftots &etrp.iots Seo-fiiots Apoc. 18 : 3 : TreVwice TTETTUKaV ireTTTiaKav See Hort, Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testa ment, 13. Lachmann's Life, by Hertz, Berlin, 1851. Tischen dorf, Prolegomena, 193, 258-366. Tregelles, Printed Text, 97-117. Scrivener, Introduction, II, 231-235. 0. von Geb- hardt, article "Bibeltext," in Herzog's Real-Encyklopadie. HAHN, THEILE, BLOOMFIELD, HORNE 115 The editions of Hahn (1840, 186L) and Theile (1844), Hahn, based on the Textus Receptus, but giving many read- Bioomfleid. ings from Griesbach, and some from Lachmann and Tischendorf, did nothing to promote Textual Criti cism beyond giving wider currency to the new read ings. The successive editions of Dr. Samuel Thomas Bloomfield, published in England and America (1832- 43), merely testify to the lack of the critical art at that time and in those countries.1 Equally without critical value as regarded text was the Introduction to Home's the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, ^ *£ troduc- by Thomas Hartwell Home, which passed through nine Tregelles's appreciation of Lachmann is very high, and his re marks concerning him are very interesting. Scrivener cannot accord to him the praise of wisdom in his design, or of over much industry and care in the execution of it ; but styles him a true scholar, both in spirit and accomplishments, and ascribes to him the merit of restoring the Latin Versions to their proper rank in the criticism of the New Testament. Tischendorf, in his seventh edition, commented severely upon Lachmann's treat ment of many passages, claiming that he had not followed his own principles. Dr. Gregory, in the Prolegomena to Tischen dorf's eighth edition, speaks of him generously and discrimi natingly. 1 Dr. Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 267, gives a list of manuscripts consulted by Bloomfield at Lambeth and in the British Museum, and Scrivener notices him only in an index of writers, owners, and collators. Tregelles (Printed Text, 262, note) says: "Those who maintain the traditional text often invent or dream their facts, and then draw their inferences. I refer the reader to Dr. Bloomfield's Additional Annotations on the New Testament, who, as well as other writers devoted to the advocacy of similar principles, habitually overlooks the real facts in the statement of evidence ; and thus he accuses critics of having made false allegations which really are not so, of in serting or cancelling readings which they have not inserted or • cancelled, and of being actuated by evil motives, such as no one ought to think of imputing without sure knowledge and definite proof." 116 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Dcedes, Reiehe, de Muralt. Porter,Norton. editions in England, from 1818 to 1846, and was printed three times in America, and commanded a wide influ ence. In Holland, Jacob Isaac Doedes, in 1844, published a Treatise on the Textual Criticism of the New Tes tament, in which he expressed the wish that the Textus Receptus might be set aside, and the text printed of an ancient manuscript, as A, with various readings from the oldest Greek codices. From George Reiehe, Professor at Gottingen, came, in 1874, A New Description of some notable New Testament manuscripts in the Paris Library, and a collation with the Received Text.1 The New Testament of Edward de Muralt, " ad fidem codicis principis Vaticani," Ham burg, 1848, was valuable principally for its collations of a few St. Petersburg codices. In England, John Scott Porter, a pupil of Griesbach and Hug, in his Principles of Textual Criticism, etc., 1848, and Samuel Davidson, in his Treatise on Biblical Criticism, 1852, gave some signs of a progress of the science. Good critical work in the history and text of the Gospels was done by Andrews Norton, Professor of Sacred Lit erature at Harvard Divinity School, in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., 1846. 1 Dr. Gregory characterises his work as "not unfruitful" with respect to certain minuscules, but says that he represents a backward tendency in criticism. Scrivener approvingly quotes Canon Cook's voucher for him as " a critic remarkable for ex tent and accuracy of learning, and for soundness and sobriety of judgment." CHAPTER XIII THE THIED PEEIOD (1830-81). TISCHENDOEF An- important era in the history of Textual Criti cism was marked by the labours of iEnotheus (Gottlob) Friedrich Constantine Tischendorf (1815-74). He Tischendorf. was appointed Professor of Theology at Leipzig in ^n"^8 of 1843. In 1840 he began a series of journeys for the purpose of collecting and examining authorities for the New Testament text. From Paris, where he prepared for publication the text of Codex Ephraemi, he went to England, Holland, and Italy, examining and collating manuscripts in every great library. He was aided in his journeys by the pecuniary support of the Saxon and Russian governments. He aimed to become ac quainted with all the uncial manuscripts by personal examination. His first journey to the East was made «. in 1844, when he discovered at the Mount Sinai Con- Discovery of vent of St. Catherine forty-three leaves of Codex tf of ggj|* N ol the LXX, which had been thrown by the monks into a waste-basket to be used as fuel. These were published in 1846, as the Codex Friderico Augustanus. His third eastern excursion, in 1859, resulted in his dis covery of the remainder of the Sinaitic Codex, includ- Discovery of ing the entire New Testament. Having secured the T^tam^nt™ loan of the codex, it was carried to Cairo, where, with the aid of two German scribes, he transcribed the whole manuscript of 110,000 lines, and noted the 12,000 changes made by later hands. In September, 1849, he was allowed to take it to Europe for publica- 117 118 TEXTUAL CRITICISM tion, and in 1862 it was issued in sumptuous style, in four volumes, at the expense of Alexander II, Czar of Russia. An edition containing only the New Testa ment appeared in the following year.1 This discovery Value of n. -was a most important contribution to the study of the New Testament text. The date assigned by Tischen dorf to the codex, the middle of the fourth century, is generally accepted. He thought it probable that it was one of the fifty copies which Constantine ordered to be prepared for the churches of Constantinople in 331, and that it was sent by the Emperor Justinian to the Sinaitic Convent which had been founded by him. Tischendorf declared that a thousand readings of the codex, among them exceedingly remarkable and im portant ones, sustained by the oldest Fathers and Ver sions, are found in neither B nor A. The readings, in many passages, agree with those of B, and Tischen dorf held that the hand of the same scribe was appar ent in portions of both, though conceding that the origin of the two was not the same. It contains twelve thousand corrections, made by the original scribes or 1 The story of the discovery of the Sinaitic Codex is told by Tischendorf in Reise in den Orient, 1845-46, and most fully in Die Sinaibibel, 1871. See also Wann wurden unsere Evan- gelien verfasst ? " When were our Gospels written ? " Trans lation by the London Eeligious Tract Society, 1867. Also Georg Ebers, Durch Gosen zum Sinai, 302-309, Leipzig, 1872. The charge that the manuscript was stolen under pretext of borrowing is false. It was formally presented to the Czar in 1869 by the authorities of the Mt. Sinai Convent. Dr. Philip Schaff says that Tischendorf, in 1871, showed him two letters from Kallistratos the Prior, in one of which he distinctly says that the codex was a gift (idoip^Bij') to the Eussian emperor, " as a testimony of eternal devotion." The Czar recognized the gift by a liberal donation. See Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and English Version, 3d ed., Ill, and all the docu mentary evidence in Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf, 350 f. TISCHENDORF 119 by later writers running from the fourth to the seventh century. It frequently agrees with the Old Latin. The adherents of the Textus Receptus have en- Attempts to deavoured to belittle the importance and authority of importance this codex as well as that of B. Notable among these ?noY^l"A1 :^ iKAiert:N4--TO A\' l*"N eNjcAisr.AVm.AeYveroripcij-riit a ia .-wer-e-y ece'AiA4A*vu.>Njc--uopiivi u»r*J OlACM AOHIAUyToyHfJANTOPAAOIN 1-nyccTAXyAt-K.AiiJ.' <-n.\orJ i rcTAirxcfi-iN HCOION TINt:CAeTO)^v|)AlMl-AlutN CAtToNAyToi ei^eTinoloyciN 01 jviAjan rAn-oy -io»ccAJHisAcir>]coy>.-cirecvit-4 Amixr Uic-K-A*;o>Hi cAt- rt Ni ipocAy To yc oyAei' o vc-ioy in ANt-rNuiTAioi;«oiw(fN .AAyeiA orcrnriNAceNAVToe KAioicy may riitMC(AauiNrieroNWkoN ~i oyay K-ArioyrAi'ToycrHciipmetceaic c^A rr-NKAu-AuikCN kAt vo ic M(-l'AVl-oy tncayMt-ioNHN^ArrtN t-IIVIM (VITIMOI-C TOHifl'tyClN :S"HAY 1 HHMI?pAI)C-ACA ACAWfNOC 5eKuANT»K /fHjpArTumWTexirn iwVAhl'ATai-ecuNili'Wno disrij.ijliAvri-einiltmVcnc-rej^DMTxieUexs; VJMC-A.V FTpJICANTISnnANlbUX ¦ mAi>nni-J>-V' - tnAMducAuir CTdf di i Cl puirnmeitAMT S«JlbuSI-JOKJllCel>ATmAMtJllCAR<=^'r-JOr-lV«)lVSAceKdoTihuvfoclemilieuidcNS Specimen Half-pages of the Codex Bezje, Cambridge (Original size of pages ST\ in. x 10 in., including the margins, which in the reproduction have been slightly trimmed to avoid further reduction in size of the text.) CODEX BEZAV 159 ants, especially in Luke, might give offence. The warning was heeded, although Beza himself had pub lished some of the variants in his Greek Testament, and other readings became known. Finally, however, William Whiston, the translator of Josephus, did the Codex into English in 1747; and in 1793 Thomas Kipling published the first edition of the Codex, call- First pub- ing it, after the name of its donor and of the Univer- j^^f6*11" sity to which it was given, TJie Cambridge Codex of CodexBezae. Theodore Beza.1 An accurate edition, "being an exact copy in or- Scrivener's dinary type . . . with a critical Introduction, Anno- Ne'srte^col- tations, and Facsimiles," was issued by Scrivener in lation. 1864 (Bezos Codex Cantabrigiensis, etc.), and a colla tion of the readings of the Codex by Eb. Nestle (Novi Testamenti Grceci Supplementum, 1896). To these two the student is referred until the appearance of the new photogravure reproduction, now preparing under the direction of the Cambridge authorities. A restoration of the " Western " or Boman text of Blaas's res- Acts and Luke has been attempted by Fried. Blass in the^'west- his Acta Apostolorum, 1896 (ed. Minor), and his Evan- em " text of gelium secundum Lucam, 1897. Compare, also, his Luke's Gos- Editio Philologica of Acts, 1895.2 pel- The present extraordinary interest in Codex Beza is due, not so much to the fact of its variations from some given text, the Receptus or Westcott and Hort, 1 William Whiston, Primitive New Testament, 1747. He also translated the Codex Claromontanus (Paul) and the Codex Alexandrinus (Catholic Epistles). Thomas Kipling, Codex Theodori Bezae Cantabrigiensis, 1793. 2 See O. von Gebhardt, article "Bibeltext," Herzog's Real- Encyklopadie, Bd. II, S. 743. C. A. Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, 1899, 200 ff. H. Trabaud, "Un Curieux Manuscrit du Nouveau Testament," Revue de Thiol, et de Phil., 1896, 378 ff. Gregory's Prolegomena, or any good Introduction, as Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Weiss, Salmon. 160 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Unique variations of D. Tendency to conflation. for instance, as to the uniqueness of its variations. In addition to the ordinary inaccuracies due to the writer of the Codex, or his archetype, or both, and the usual corruptions common to all codices, Codex D ex hibits certain characteristic tendencies; such as the love for adding or recasting words, clauses, or sen tences, and for harmonising apparently contradictory passages. As a specimen of the additions which this Codex alone contributes, see Luke 6. After the fourth verse we read, "On the same day, as He (Jesus) be held a man labouring on the Sabbath, he said to him : Man, if thou knowest what thou doest, blessed art thou ; if however thou dost not know, cursed art thou and a transgressor of the law." In Luke 11 : 2, be tween the words "pray" and "say," we read, "Use not vain repetitions as the rest do, for some think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. On the contrary, when ye pray," etc. In Acts 12 : 10, after " they went out," there is added, " and they descended the seven steps." In Acts 10 : 25, we find, " When Peter drew near unto Csesarea, one of the slaves ran forward and announced his arrival. And Cornelius jumped up." In Acts 11 : 27, after " Antioch," there is added, "and there was great rejoicing. And we being assembled," etc. This addition is interesting in the light of the so-called we-sections in Acts. It must not, however, be assumed from these few examples, that all the contributions of this Codex are alike interesting and valuable. As a matter of fact, the tendency of Codex Bezae is to " conflate " the text, and thus most of the contributions are nothing more than simple glosses.1 Furthermore, it must not be assumed that D stands alone in its variations. Rather it is a member of an ancient and honourable family. 1 For detailed proof, see B. Weiss, Der Codex D in der Apos- telgeschichte (Texte und Untersuchungen, XVII, 1897). CODEX BEZM 161 The form of text which it preserves is supported by many Church Fathers of the second and following centuries, and by the Old Latin and Syriac Versions. Thus, although the Codex itself dates from the begin ning of the sixth century, yet the type of text which it represents is traceable as far back as the second century. It is to be found, for instance, in Cyprian and Tertullian at Carthage, and in Irenseus at Lyons, where Codex Bezse was discovered ; and traces of it appear in Clement and Origen at Alexandria, as well as at Rome.1 The Old Latin Versions, and the Versions in Syriac (Curetonian, Philoxenian, Lewis), likewise present a similar type of text. In fact, it is generally admitted that about the year 200 a type of text similar to that of Codex Bezse was spread abroad in Syria and in the West. Nay, more, traces of this text may possibly exist in Justin Martyr and Marcion, that is, as early as the first half of the second century, and thus it may be that Codex D represents the oldest edition of the New Testament books which gained a wide circulation.2 To this type of text the term "Western" has been applied since the time of Semler, and has been appro priated also by Hort.3 It is a conventional symbol, and has no distinctively geographical signification. It is to the East that most scholars look for the origin of the Western text, and specifically to Syria and Antioch. Thence it spread over the lines of com merce to Southern Gaul, Carthage, Rome, and Alex andria. Codex Bezse thus does not stand alone. The majority of its typical characteristics are to be found 1 See P. Corssen, Der Cyprianische Text der Acta Aposto- lorum, Berlin, 1892. Hort, Introduction, 113. 2 See W. Bousset, Theologische Rundschau, I, 406-416, Juli, 1898, S. 410. 8 See Gregory's Prolegomena, 188. Hort, Introduction, 113. Type of text traceable to second cen tury. The term " Western has no geo graphicalsignification. 162 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 1. Theory of Latinisationheld by Mill, Wetstein, J. B. Harris. 2. Chase's theory of Syriacisa- tion. throughout the entire Western group. Thus, in Matt. 20 : 28, we find D supported in its insertion, or in Luke 10:42; 22:19-20; 23:34, supported in its omissions. Bearing in mind, therefore, that Codex Bezae is a member of a family, and the Baconian warning as to the vice of neglecting negative in stances, we proceed to give a summary of recent opinions concerning the type of text represented by this Codex. 1. Theory of Latinisation. — In facing a Graeco-Latin codex the first question is : Is the Greek text de pendent upon the Latin, or is each independent ? The prevailing view up to the time of Griesbach was that the Western Greek text is due to a readjustment to the Latin Versions (so Mill, Wetstein). This " whim sical" (Hort) theory, given up by Griesbach and his successors, is defended by J. Rendel Harris (Study of the Codex Bezos, 1891), who attempts to prove " that the whole of the Greek text of Codex Bezse, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of Acts, is a re adjustment of an earlier text to the Latin Version." "The Greek has no certain value except where it differs from its own Latin, and must not any longer be regarded as an independent authority." And three years later (Four Lectures on the Western Text, 1894, 73), " The Bezan Latin is more archaic than the Bezan Greek." 2. Theory of Syriacisation. — Professor Harris's study induced another Cambridge scholar, Professor F. H. Chase, to investigate the Codex, and especially the text of Acts, with the result that " the Bezan Greek is moulded on a Syrian text," a conclusion which seemed to disprove the theory of Latinisation.1 In his study, Professor Chase was led to assume the 1 F. H. Chase, The Old Syriac Element in Codex Bezae, 1893. CODEX BEZM 163 existence of an old Syriac text of the Acts, of which Hort had said, twelve years previously, "Nothing as yet is known " (Introduction, 85). Professor Harris, in a review of Professor Chase's book, thinks he has removed the hypothesis of an old Syriac text of Acts into the region of fact (an opinion which seems to have been confirmed by the discovery of Mrs. Lewis), but does not feel himself compelled to give up the theory of Latinisation.1 Probably no one theory explains all the variations No one in the text of the Codex. The Latinisation theory P^?nrJae,f may explain some, the Syriacisation theory others ; the varia- while the usual theory that the Latin has been ad- lons' justed to the Greek may explain still others. It can not be said that the Codex represents the only pure text, as Bornemann,2 nor that it is the most depraved text, as Burgon.3 At all events, the relation of Codex Bezse to the Old Latin and Old Syriac texts seems to have been established. 3. Theory of Jewish-Christian Origin. — Dr. Resch is in search of an original Gospel in Hebrew. He is in terested in every possible genuine "agraphon," any Hebraising text which may point to an original He brew text, and any variants in the Gospel texts or in the citations of the Fathers. The variants, therefore, in the Gospels of Codex Bezae and its Western rela tives are of immense importance to him. He holds 3. Eesch's with Credner the theory of the Jewish-Christian origin ™ris trheory of the Codex Bezae, though, unlike Credner, he recog- of Jewish- nises its relation to the Old Latin and Old Syriac texts, origin. and, like Professor Harris, holds that a primitive bi lingual existed before the time of Tatian. The " un- 1 See Hackmann on Chase, Theol. Lits., 1894; col. 604-609. Harris, Four Lectures, etc., 14 ff. 2 Acta Apostolorum, etc., I, 1848. 8 Revision Revised, 12. 164 TEXTUAL CRITICISM i. Blass's theory of two editions of Acts and Luke. known authority " of Credner, which lies at the back of the Western text as one of its sources, is identified by Resch with a secondary translation of the original Hebrew Gospel. The "great unknown" of Credner, Professor Bousset thinks, has a good deal of the ghost in it. Dr. Resch's theory has met with little accept ance among scholars. Professor Harris does not think the theory impossible, but notes that the palseo- graphieal facts are against it. Professor Ropes, in his review of Resch's Agrapha, feels certain that the theory of Jewish-Christian origin has been conclu sively refuted.1 4. Theory of Two Editions of Acts and Luke. — To be considered more at length is the theory of the philolo gist, Professor Friedrich Blass of Halle, first published in an article entitled Twofold Tradition of the Text in Acts (1894), and in its latest form extended now to the Gospel of Luke (1897). The reader is referred especially to the Prsefatio in his Evangelium secun dum Lucam (1897), although there is some additional material in his Philology of the Gospels (1898). Pro fessor Blass has written extensively in support of his theory, confining his attention at first to the double form of the text in Acts. His theory, as first stated, is that Luke issued two copies, a rough draft, repre sented by the Western text, and the corrected and less prolix copy, represented by the usual text. The former 1 See A. Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien, 1893-96 (Texte und Untersuchungen, X, 1-4). K. A. Credner, Beitrage zur Einleitung in die biblischen Schriften, 1832, I, 452-518. J. R. Harris, Four Lectures, etc., 4 ; 1-13. W. Bousset, Die Evangeliencitate Justins des Mar- tyrers, 1891, S. 7. Paul Ewald, Das Hauptproblem der Evan- gelienfrage u. s. w., 1890, holds to Credner's theory. J. H. Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, 1896, a careful sifting of Resch's Agrapha. Also review by him and Professor Torrey in Ameri can Journal of Theology, April, 1899. CODEX BEZA? 165 was designed for Roman readers, the latter for The ophilus.1 The theory of two editions is not new. Joannes The two- Clericus, in the last century, was almost of the opinion theory not that Luke edited the Acts twice (Acta Apostolorum, new. cieri- ed. Minor, III. Reference to Clericus or Hemsterhuis Lightfoot.' not exact). Hort also had thought that " the purely documentary phenomena (were) compatible with the supposition that the Western and the non-Western texts started respectively from a first and a second edition of the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic " (Introduc tion, 177), but dismisses the theory on internal grounds. Lightfoot also had suggested that " the Evangelist him self might have issued two separate editions " of his Gospel and also of the Acts.2 Professor Zahn also, in the winter of 1885-86, had come to the opinion that the Bezan text of Acts represents " either the rough draft of the author before publication, or the copy 1 The Philology of the Gospels is a dilution of his admira ble preface to Luke, adapted to English readers who do not read Latin. Professor C. R. Gregory, in a review of the book (American Journal of Theology, October, 1898, 881), calls it a series of "rambling observations." The title " Philology " is certainly misleading, as is that of " Gospels." Eor convenience, the following list of Professor Blass's writ ings on the subject is appended : — Stud. u. Krit. 1894, S. 86-120, " Die Zweifache Textiiberliefer- ung in der Apostelgeschichte." Neue kirchliche Zeitschr. 1895, S. 712-725, "Ueber die verschiedenen Textesformen in den Schriften des Lucas." Hermathena, 1895, 121-143 (IX, No. 31), "De duplici forma Actorum Lucas." Acta Apostolorum, Edi tio Philologica, 1895. Stud. u. Krit. 1896, S. 436-471, "Neue Texteszeugen fur die Apostelgeschichte." Ibid., S. 733 ff. (on Luke22:15ff.). Acta Apostolorum (ed. Minor), 1896. Her mathena, 1896, 291 ff., "De Variis Pormis EvangeKi Lucani." Evangelium secundum Lucam, 1897. Philology of the Gospels, 1898. 2 Fresh Revision of the English New Testament, 1873, 43. 166 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Blass forced to amend his original theory. (Handexemplar) belonging to the author, along with supplementary marginal notes." 1 But Blass deserves whatever credit there is in the theory. At first, as has been noted, Blass spoke of " rough draft " and " cor rected copy." The Western text corresponded with the former, and the usual text with the latter. When, however, he applied the hypothesis to the Gospel of Luke, he found that the Western text of Luke corre sponded with the corrected copy, while the usual text corresponded with the rough draft ; or, in a word, that the text-phenomena in Acts and in Luke were dissimi lar (Evang. Luc, V ff. Acta, ed. Minor, V., Philology, etc., 103). An amendment to the theory became nec essary. The theory as amended " requires merely one older copy and one more recent." 2 The more recent copy is abridged, the work "becoming somewhat tedious for the author, or at least losing something of its fresh ness for him, so that he was naturally disposed to omit many unessential circumstances and details which he formerly had given." 3 The curious result is that the abridged edition of the Gospel is represented by the Western text, that of Acts by the non-Western text. Theophilus gets an unabridged edition of the Gospel, and an abridged edition of Acts ; while the readers in Rome get an abridged edition of the Gospel and an unabridged edition of Acts. Both seem to have been content with the arrangement. In support of the theory for Acts, Blass urges (1) that the lan guage of the additions and variants of the Western text is Lucan, and (2) that the additions themselves are possible only to a contemporary, that is, to the author himself.* At this point Blass remarks that it is easier to test the insertions of the Western (or as he 1 Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Bd. II, 1899, S. 338- 359. Compare S. 348. 2 Philology, 126. » Ibid., 104. * Ibid., 113 ff., 119 ff. CODEX BEZM 16? prefers to call it, Roman) text of Acts than to test the omissions of the Western text of the Gospel, and, hence, that it is easier to defend the theory of two edi- Theory of tions in the case of Acts than in the case of Luke.1 IXe^asiiy3 In applying his theory to the Gospel, he notes the defended in difficulty of restoring the Western text. Conflations Luke's *" m and assimilations are more prevalent in the Synoptic Gospel. Gospels than elsewhere, and so therefore in Luke. The pure Western text of the Latin palimpsest of Fleury and the Greek Codex Laudianus are unavail able for Luke. Justin Martyr cannot be used. The texts, therefore, upon which he must rely — the Old Latin and Syriac Versions, Tatian, Marcion, the Ferrar- Group — represent a mixed type of text, that is, give us a mixture of the Western or Roman and the non- Western or Antiochian. Thus we are left largely to the Greek of Codex Bezse for a relatively unmixed Western text. In Acts, the characteristic of the Bezan text is its additions ; in Luke, however, it is its omis sions.2 In Luke's Gospel, then, Blass begins with the omis sions, and selects as test cases 8 : 43 ; 10 : 41 ; 12 : 19 ; 19 : 29 ; and concludes that the abridgments cannot be explained away as spurious, and that, therefore, as genuine, they are evidence of two editions. Coming next to the relatively few cases of insertion, he treats first the story of the man working on the Sabbath (6 : 5), and notes that it has a genuine ring, although indeed no Church Father records this tradition.3 The reason that Luke omitted the story in his edition for Theophilus was, that it might give offence to Christian Jews, while the Roman readers would find in the nar- 1 Philology, 103, 144. 2 On the Ferrar-Group, see J. Rendel Harris, On the Origin of the Ferrar-Group, 1893. 8 See Ropes, Die Spruche Jesu, S. 124-126. 168 TEXTUAL CRITICISM John 7 : 53- 8: 11 attrib uted to Luke. Reception of Blass's theory. rative no occasion of stumbling.1 Similarly, the Fer rar-Group attributes the section about the woman taken in adultery (John 7 : 53-8 : 11) to Luke, insert ing it after Luke 21 : 38. Blass, however, thinks the section should be put two verses earlier, and after some further conjectures notes that the language of the section is Lucan. The reason that Luke omitted in his copy for Theophilus, and inserted in the copy for Rome, is precisely the same as in the former case. It is evident, however, that Blass is not so confident either of his restoration of the text, or of his theory of two editions in the case of the Gospel, as he is in the case of Acts. He admits that the text phenomena in Luke are not easily solvable, and says he is "very far from pretending this solution to be, as it were, a key which unlocks all doors." 2 The theory attracted the attention of scholars imme diately, and has found favour in the eyes of several critics, as Nestle, Belser, and Salmon. This consent may be due, as Bousset suggests, to apologetic inter ests. Zockler and Zahn were inclined to approve it for Acts, though not for the Gospel. On the other hand, the theory was contested by other scholars. Corssen, for instance, has attempted to show the un-Lucan character of the Roman text, and Ramsay thinks the text has " a fatal smoothness : it loses the rather harsh but very individual style of Luke, and it neglects some of the literary forms that Luke observed." It gives a mixed but valuable second-century text, shows a second-century interpretation of various passages, and adds several good bits of information, though they were not written by Luke, except perhaps in a few cases (Expositor, 1897, 469).3 1 Evang. Luc, XLVT-XLVH. 2 Philology, 168. 3 See Blass, Praefatio in Lucam, where he meets some of the objections. E. Nestle, Einfuhrung in das Griechische Neue CODEX BEZJE 169 5. Theory of Bernhard Weiss. — There is no sturdier Blass's opponent of the theory of Blass than Professor Weiss posed3byP" of Berlin. In his study of the Bezan text he does not &¦ Weiss. propose to examine the hypothesis of two editions as such, but rather to determine whether the Western text of Acts is earlier or later than that of the ancient majuscules. His theory is that the Western text has almost no authority whatever. In emphasising, there fore, the almost complete worthlessness of the Western text, he tacitly endeavours to shatter the hypothesis of Blass. Looking carefully at all negative instances, and weighing the evidence of the majority of the variants, Weiss obtains antecedent probability against the genuineness of the Western readings. The usual corruptions in D are no more peculiar to D than to other codices. Moreover, there is a motive discernible in the recasting of the text, namely, to change pur posely the older majuscules. Now of two texts, the one which is more easily explained from the other is secondary. Thus B, far from having variants which are Lucan, is rather a "reflektierte Naehbesserung" of the older majuscules. The Western and non- Testament," S. 100, 101. J. Belser (R. C), Beitrage zur Er- klarung der Apostelgeschichte, 1897. G. Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, 1897, 592 ff. Ibid. , Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, 1897. W. Bous set, Theologische Rundschau, 1898, 1, 413. O. Zockler, Studia Gryphiswaldensia, 1895, S. 132 ff. The. Zaun, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 1899, II, S. 338 ff., 346. 0. Zockler, Be- weis des Glaubens, 1898, S. 28-35. Corssen, Gott. gel. Anz. 1896, S. 425 ff. W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 3d ed., 1897, 25. Ibid., The Church in the Roman Empire, 3d ed., 1894, 151-165. Also Expositor, 1895, 129 ff., 212 ff. ; 1897, 460-471. Against Blass see also Jiilicher, Einleitung in das Neue Tes tament, 1894, S. 271. H. Holtzmann, Th. Litz., 1896, No. 3; 1898, col. 535-539. W. Bousset, Theologische Rundschau, 1898, I, 406-416. 170 TEXTUAL CRITICISM The Western and non- Western texts not in dependentwitnesses. Summary of objections to Blass'stheory. Western texts are not independent witnesses: the former depends upon the latter. The changes, to be sure, are early, arising long before the canonisation of Acts. They do not appear, with slight exceptions, in the speeches of Acts. " Nowhere in the matter of the text is anything essentially changed, or a new point added in reference to the movements of the history." The changes themselves are not uniform in character. Some are unique, most are akin to the changes com mon to all texts. The Western readings therefore have no independent authority whatever, and can certainly not be attributed to one hand as the Blass theory requires.1 The objections to the theory of Blass may be summed up as follows: (1) Its simplicity is really an argument against it. Phenomena so complex de mand a more complex solvent than is furnished by a single hypothesis. (2) The uniform character of the variants demanded by the hypothesis is made a priori unlikely by the striking dissimilarity of the Western text of Acts from that of Luke. Moreover, Blass has not proved the uniform character of the variants. (3) The motive assigned for the omission in the copy for Theophilus and the insertion in the copy for Roman readers of such sections as that of the man working on the Sabbath, or of the woman taken in adultery, — the motive, namely, that the Jewish Christians would be offended, — cannot be taken seriously. Why are not other uncomfortable words of Jesus about the law omitted in the copy for Theophilus ? (4) The motive likewise for abridging one copy each of the Gospel and of Acts, namely, that the author found his work tedious, cannot be considered a serious argument. (5) 1 See B. Weiss, "Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte, 1897, Texte und Untersuchungen, XVII. Compare "Die Apos telgeschichte," 1893, Texte und Untersuchungen, IX, 3, 4. CODEX BEZM 171 The text-phenomena of Luke do not require the two- edition hypothesis, any more than those of Mark or Matthew or John. Starting with the variants of Luke, and then passing over to Acts, even these unique readings in Acts may be explained on other grounds more successfully. (6) The great fault is the neglect of negative instances. Instead of starting with a few brilliant readings, he should have begun with the great majority of ordinary readings. The analogy of the phenomena of the Western text as a whole should have been the basis of the opinion on a few brilliant readings in the Bezan text of Acts. Blass should have given a careful and systematic study to the Western texts as a whole, before asserting his theory on the basis chiefly of one codex. 6. Theory of Westcott and Hort. — Westcott and Hort think that Tischendorf, under the influence of the Sinaiticus, and without definite principles, has ad mitted too many Western readings into his editions. They feel that these readings, when confronted with their rivals, generate a sense of distrust, which dis trust is but increased upon further and intimate ac quaintance. To be sure, Codex Bezse, more clearly than any other extant Greek manuscript, reveals a type of text most widely read in the third, and prob ably in the second century; but, they bid us notice, antiquity and purity are not synonymous terms. The tendency of the Western texts is toward fulness, con flation, in which tendency they stand unrivalled. The motive in all this is apparent. It is hard, however, to explain omissions in a type of text whose character istic is fulness. In comparing the non-Western texts with the Western texts at the points where the latter omit and the former retain, we are led to the hypothe sis that what are omissions in these Western texts are interpolations in the usually trustworthy non-Western 172 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Westcottand Hort midway be tween Blass and Weiss in estimate of the Westerntext. ProfessorSalmon. A text at Rome differing from the Alexandrian. texts. Thus only one class of phenomena in the Western readings can claim attention, namely, the omissions, or, more correctly, the non-interpolations. The theory of Westcott and Hort is the theory of Western non-interpolations. They therefore stand midway between Weiss and Blass in their estimate of the Western type of text. But have they given suf ficient prominence to Western readings ? On their principle, a small handful of Western authorities may, at times, overthrow the combined authority of B and X, while, at other times, B holds the field alone against the combined armies of West and East. This difficulty has led to the warning against a " Westcott and Hort ab omnibus receptus." 7. Theory of Professor Salmon. — The Dublin scholar thinks that Westcott and Hort have given us the text as read in Alexandria, probably in the third century, and possibly before the end of the second. But there existed at the same time in Rome a text which differed in some respects from the Alexandrian text. The trouble with Dr. Hort is that he does not admit the possibility of an independent Western tradition.1 It would seem as if he were under the influence of a pre conceived theory as to the existence of original auto graphs. But suppose there are editors at work in the Synoptic Gospels. Can we speak of the individual writings of the individual authors in the light of the traces of the secondary character, say of the First Gos pel ? 2 The textual critic must take into account the Synoptic Problem. And further, suppose, with Blass, that there are two editions of the Third Gospel and the Acts. Which is the original autograph ? "If we desire a text absolutely free from ambiguity, we desire what God has never been pleased to,give His church." 3 1 Some Thoughts, etc., 56. 2 Ibid., etc., 105. 8 Ibid., etc., 130, CODEX BEZM 173 Coming now to the theory of Blass, Dr. Salmon points out the fact that the documentary evidence is too late to give us " authentic information as to the circumstances of their first publication."1 There is, therefore, no " external evidence enabling us either to Hypothesis confirm or to reject the hypothesis of a double edition." edition to be Internal evidence must decide.2 Now, although the decided by reconstruction of the Western text given by Blass does dence only. not commend itself in toto to Salmon, there are, never theless, some variations which rest upon the authority of Luke.3 Blass has made out a good case for Acts,4 and probably a similar hypothesis would cover the facts in the Gospel. But the dissimilarity of the text- phenomena in the Gospel and in Acts, and the inherent difficulties in the text of the Gospels, arising from early conformations, make an alternative theory to that of Blass more probable for the Gospel, namely, that explanatory readings were given by Luke in Rome and were preserved in the West. There was, however, no definite written text ; otherwise we could reproduce it now. Rather the explanatory readings are added to the Alexandrian text as of coordinate and equal authority, since there was no theory of verbal inspiration to molest or to make afraid.5 Thus the Roman text differs from the Alexandrian as a second edition of a book differs from the first.6 At all events, the Western variations are not the licentious additions of audacious scribes, but many of them represent the form in which the Gospel was read in the church of Rome in apostolic or subapostolic times.7 The objective summary of recent opinion upon Codex 1 Some Thoughts, etc., 134. * Ibid., etc., 139. 2 Compare Hort, Introduction, 177. 6 R>id., etc., 147-151. 8 Some Thoughts, etc., 137. 6 Ibid., etc., 158. ' RHd., etc., 151. See also G. Salmon's Introduc tion to the New Testament, 8th ed., 1897, 592 ff. 174 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Professor Harris on the Bezan text. Bezse and its relatives attempted above will, I think, enable the reader to appreciate the suggestive remark of Professor Harris, with which I conclude the sketch. " The more we think of it, the more complex does the Bezan text become. It has passed through the hands of a number of people of active mind, whose remarks are stratified in the Western text : they are not all of them Syrians, and it is not yet even proved that there are no Western expansions which are original. The whole history of the text requires renewed and careful inquisition, without prejudice in favour of the solvent power of a single hypothesis." 1 Review of the history of Textual Criticism of the New Testament. A real advance. In reviewing the history of Textual Criticism of the New Testament we have marked, in the beginning, the superstitious reverence for the text which opposed all attempts to investigate or amend it; but, with a strange inconsistency, attached itself, not to the Greek Original, but to its Latin representative. We have marked the transference of the same superstition to a Greek text based upon a few late and inferior manu scripts, and invested with a factitious authority through the audacity of a clever publisher. We have marked the slow process of unseating this textual idol, the reso lute assertion by scholars of the authority of the most ancient witnesses, and the efforts to bring the New Testament text into accordance with their testimony. We have marked the formulation of textual principles and the development of critical methods. There has been a great and real advance. It has come to be accepted that Scripture is not a fetich, but is fairly open, like other literary productions, to the same critical tests which are applied to other litera ture, and that such criticism, so far from implying irreverence, is one of the highest marks of respect that can be shown toward the Bible. 1 Four Lectures, etc., 89. GENERAL REVIEW 175 Much still to be done. The Textus Receptus has been remanded to its proper place as a historical monument, and has been summarily rejected as a basis for a correct text. In weighing the evidence for readings, the emphasis has been shifted from the number to the quality of manuscripts. In other words, it is an accepted princi ple that manuscripts are to be weighed and not counted. It is recognised that every class of textual facts is to be taken into account ; that internal evidence is to be subordinated to external evidence, and that conclu sions as to the character and relative importance of manuscripts are to be reached by a study of their affinities ; in other words, by the application of the genealogical method. Still, much remains to be done. " Whoever should conclude," says Dr. Nestle, "that New Testament criticism has reached its goal, would greatly err. As the archaeologist in Olympia or Delphi exhumes the shattered temples, and essays to recombine the frag ments in their ancient splendour, so, much labour is still needed before all the stones shall have been collected, and the sanctuary of the New Testament writings re stored to its original form." The noble work of Westcott and Hort, by its wide The work of range, its laborious research and its boldness, has com manded a large measure of assent, but it cannot be said to be decisive, even as the consensus respecting it is by no means universal. There is some danger of Westcott and Hort's text coming to be regarded as a second Textus Receptus. It has taken time to grasp their principles and method. Professor Salmon justly remarks that "the foundations of their system are buried out of sight of ordinary readers of their work. Their theories are based on immense inductions, in the course of which they must, with enormous labour, have tabulated comparative lists of the peculiarities of Westcottand Hort not final. 176 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Results from studies of D not final. Activity of specialscholarship and archse ological re search. manuscripts or groups of manuscripts." Eighteen years, however, have enabled critics to digest, and to apprehend their processes and conclusions as a whole, with the result of calling forth more than one ringing challenge. Their theory of the double recension of the text in the middle of the third century, their genea logical nomenclature, and their too exclusive reliance upon the testimony of B and X are alike the subjects of incisive criticism. The results evolved from the special studies of Codex Bezse are alike suggestive and promising, but cannot be accepted as final. With gratitude for the substantial gains, both in material and in method, since the appearance of Eras mus's first edition, we must still be content to wait. Meanwhile, accurate special scholarship is busy in testing the old positions, exposing weak points, or de tecting fresh confirmations. Archseological research is diligent, and such discoveries as the Gospel of Peter, the Lewis palimpsest, and the Oxyrhynchus fragments afford promises and prophecies of other discoveries which may lead the student nearer to the primitive sources of New Testament Scripture, and settle many questions which are still in dispute. Toward one result the course of textual criticism appears to be slowly but surely moving — the modifica tion and, in part, the abandonment of the idea of origi nal autographs as an object of search. Whether the theory of the double editions of Acts and Luke be vin dicated or not, whatever may be the final decision con cerning the documents represented in Acts, enough has been developed to make it evident that different forms of a New Testament document may be due to the author himself, and that editorship may have en larged, modified, or changed the form in which the document originally came from the author's pen. APPENDIX The following list is added of books of reference not elsewhere mentioned. Palaeography V. Gardthausen : Griechische Palaeographie. Leipzig, 1879. Fried. Blass : Palaeographie, Biicherwesen und Handschriften- kunde. In Miiller, Handbuch der Mass. Alterthumswissen- schaft. 2 Ausg. Bd. I. Miinchen, 1892. W. Wattenbach : Anleitung zur griech. Palaeographie. 2 Ausg. Leipzig, 1877. Ibid. : Scriptura; Grcecae Specimina. Berlin, 1883. Ibid, and A. von Velsen : Exempla Codicum Grcecorum lift. minusc. scriptorum. Heidelberg, 1878. Pol. 50 plates. Ibid.: Schrifttafeln zur Geschichle der Griechischen Schrift. 1877. E. A. Bond and E. M. Thompson: Facsimiles of Ancient Manuscripts. Palseographical Society of London, 1873-82. T. W. Allen: Notes on Abbreviations in Greek Manuscripts. With facsimiles. Oxford, 1889. W. A. Copinger: The Bible and its Transmission. With 28 facsimiles. London, 1897. Autographs J. K. Harris : New Testament Autographs. Supplement to American Journal of Philology, No. 12. Baltimore, 1882. Critical Editions of the Greek Testament C. Tischendorf : Novum Testamentum Greece. Editio Octava Critica Major. 3 vols. Prolegomena, LU, by C. R. Gregory. Leipzig, 1869-94. A small edition of the text of the 8th ed. with a selection of readings, 1878. n 177 178 TEXTUAL CRITICISM Ed. by O. von Gebhardt, with variants of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort. 5th ed. 1891. B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort : The New Testament in the Original Greek. 2 vols. American edition, with an Intro duction by Philip Schaff. New York. 3d ed. 1883. E. Palmer : The Greek Testament with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version, and with Refer ences in the Margin to Parallel Passages of the Old and New Testament. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1882. Very hand some typography. An edition in smaller type, with a wide margin for notes. F. H. A. Scrivener : Novum Testamentum. Textus Stephanici. With various readings of Beza, the Elzevirs, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the re visers. Cambridge and London, 1887. New readings at the foot of the page, and the displaced readings of the text in heavier type. W. Sanday : Lloyd's edition of Mill's text, with parallel ref erences, Eusebian Canons, etc., and three Appendices (published separately), containing variants of Westcott and Hort, and a selection of important readings with authorities, together with readings from Oriental Ver sions, Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic. Oxford, 1889. R. F. Weymouth : The Resultant Greek Testament. Readings of Stephen (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Lightfoot, and (for the Pauline Epistles) Ellicott. Also of Alford and Weiss for Matthew, the Basle edition, Westcott and Hort, and the revisers. London, 1892. J. Baljon : Novum Testamentum Greece proesertim in usum stu- diosorum. Groningge, 1898. W. Bousset (Theologische Rundschau, July, 1898, S. 416) characterises it as often a bad, inaccurate, unsystematic excerpt from Tischendorf's 8thMaj. The readings of Persian, Ethiopic, and Armenian Versions are untrustworthy, even in Tischendorf. E. Nestle : Testamentum Novum Greece cum Apparatu Critico. Stuttgart, 1898. Will not save the use of editions with the manuscript variants. F. Schjott: Novum Testamentum Grmce ad fidem Testium Ve- tustissimorum cognovit. Adds various readings from the Elzevirs and Tischendorf. APPENDIX 179 Fried. Blass : Acta Apostolorum sive Lucce ad Theophilum Liber Alter secundum formam quae videtur Romanam. Leipzig, 1896. Ibid. : Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucce ad Theophilum Liber Prior secundum Formam quae videtur Romanam. Leip zig, 1897. Convenient Manuals Eb. Nestle: Einfuhrung in das griechische Neue Testament. Gottingen, 1897. C. E. Hammond: Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the New Testament. 5th rev. ed. Oxford, 1890. F. G. Kenyon : Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. 3d ed. London, 1897. P. Schaff : A Companion to the Greek Testament and the Eng lish Version. 3d rev. ed. New York, 1888. B. B. Warfield : An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. New York, 1887. E. C. Mitchell : The Critical Handbook of the Greek New Tes tament. New edition. New York, 1896. Useful catalogue of manuscripts. A catalogue of editions of the Greek Testament, prepared by the late Dr. Isaac H. Hall, may be found in Schaff's Companion. INDEX Abbot, Ezra, 12, 57, 120, 123, 129, Bousset, W., 164, 169 143 Accents, 8, 19 Achelis, H., 41 Adler, J. G. C, 98 Alcala, 49, 50 Aldus Manutius, 48, 53 Alford, H., 138 Alter, F. K., 98 Ambrose, 40 Ammonian sections, 9, 10, 21, '. Ammonius, 9, 10 Apostolic Fathers, 38 Aristion, 35 Athos, Mt., 97, 136 Augusti, 104 Autographs, 2, 3, 4, 77, 176 Baethgen, 33 Barberini readings, 67 Barnabas, Epistle of, 16, 17 Bartolocci, 130 Bebb, L. J. M., 41 Belser, J., 168, 169 Bengel, J. A., 76, 87-89, 90 Bensley, E. L., 31, 33 Bentley, Richard, 69, 70, 139 Proposals of, 70-75 Berger, S., 28 Berlin Academy, 37 Bertheau, C, 93, 129 Beza, Theo., 58, 63, 158 Birch, A., 98, 130 Blass, F., 159, 164-168 Bloomfield, S. T., 115 Bodleian Library, 23, 34 Bonwetsch, G., 41 Bosworth and Waring, 35 Breathings, 8, 19 Briggs, C. A., 159 British Museum, 14, 19, 28, 34 British and Foreign Bible Soci ety, 23 Burgon, J. W., 41, 61, 119-121, 137, 141, 142, 152, 158 Burk, P. D., 89, 90 Burkitt, F. C, 27, 31, 33 Cambridge University Library, 22 Canons of Criticism Bengel, 88 Griesbach, 102 Lachmann, 112 Scrivener, 141 Tischendorf, 125-129 Tregelles, 132-134 Capitals in manuscripts, 20 Chapters, division into, 12 Chase, F. H., 162 Christian VII., 98 Chrysostom, 148, 149 Clement of Eome, Epistle of, 20, 38 Clement of Alexandria, 37, 41, 148, 161 Clericus, J., 165. Codices Alexandrinus, 11, 19, 64 Amiatinus, 114, 131, 135 Basilianus, 14, 135 Bezaa, 14, 22, 62, 157-174, 176 Boernerianus, 99 Borgianus, 23 Olaromontanus, 14, 22 181 182 INDEX Codices, Colbertinus, 136 Dublinensis, 23 Ephraemi, 15, 21 Friderico Augustanus, 117 Fuldensis, 113 Laudianus, 22, 167 Monacensis, 135 Montfortianus, 54, 65 Mutinensis, 135 Nanii, 135 Regius, 23 Rhodiensis, 49 Sangallensis, 23 Sinaiticus, 16, 117-121, 138 Vaticanus, 18, 71, 130, 138, 141 Zacynthius, 23, 136 Colinaeus, S., 55 Comparative Criticism, 132 Complutensian Bible, 49 Conflation, 147, 160, 167 Cook, F. C, 116, 121 Coptic Language, 34 Corssen, 169 Cozza, 19 Credner, K. A., 163, 164 Curcellaeus, S., 66 Cureton, 28 Curetonian Syriac Version, 28, 29, 32 Cursive manuscripts, 12, 13, 14 Cyprian, 41, 161 Cyril of Alexandria, 148 Damasus, Pope, 26 Davidson, S., 116 Deissmann, 6. A., 128 Delitzsch, F, 51, 53, 55 Didymus of Alexandria, 148 Diodorus of Antioch, 148 Dionysius of Alexandria, 148 Dobbin, O. T., 55 Documents, Age of, 83 Classification of, 70, 85, 125 Genealogy of, 86 Ace. to Bengel, 89 Ace. to Griesbach, 101 Documents, genealogy of, Ace. to Lachmann, 111, 112 Ace. to Scholz, 107 Ace. to Semler, 93 Ace. to Tischendorf, 123 Ace. to Westcott and Hort, 147 Homogeneity of, 85 Studied as wholes, 82, 84, 85 Doedes, J. I., 116 Dublin, Trinity College Library, 23,54 Eadie, J., 59 Eichhorn, J. G., 105 Elzevirs, 60 Epiphanius, 43 Erasmus, 48-55 Errors, textual, 4, 5, 81 Eusebius, 10, 11, 41 Canons of, 10, 11, 12, 17, 21, 22 Euthalius, 9, 12 Ewald, P., 164 Fell, J., 67, 69 Ferrar-group, 167, 168 Fleck, 135 Frame, J. E., 157 Fritzsche, D. F., 28, 47 Froben, 51, 53 Froude, J. A., 55 Gardthausen, V., 121 Gelasius I., 45, 105 Geneva Bible, 58 Gerhard von Maestricht, 69, 90 German Bible, 47 Goetze, I. M., 51 Green, T. S., 143 Gregory, C. R., 16, 75, 109, 115, 116, 131, 139, 144, 165 Griesbach, J. J., 96, 99-104, 162 Grotius, Hugo, 60, 63 Groups of New Testament Books, 14 Gwilliam, G. H., 33, 34 Hagenbach, C. R., 93 Hahn, 104, 115 INDEX 183 Hall, I. H., 33 Hammond, C. E., 5 Harmonies of the Gospels, 9 Harnack, A., 33 Harris, J. R., 12, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 55, 66, 121, 162, 163, 164, 174 Harwood, E., 96 Hefele, C. I., 51 Hermas, "Pastor" of, 16, 17 Hesychius, 44, 105, 123 Hill, J. H., 33, 45 Hippolytus, 41, 148 Hodgkin, T.,35 Holtzmann, H., 169 Home, T. H., 115 Hort, F. J. A., 7, 23, 55, 104, 154, 158, 161, 165 Hoskier, H. C, 55, 58, 62 Hug, J. L., 44, 105 Hugo, Cardinal, 12 Ignatius, 38 Inspiration, 3 Intrinsic probability, 78, 79, 81, 83,84 Irenseus, 39, 41, 43, 148, 158, 161 Jerome, 26, 41, 44, 45, 105, 113, 114 Jiilicher, A., 169 Justin Martyr, 37, 41, 148, 161, 167 Kelly, W., 143 Kennedy, B. H., 144 Kennedy, H. A. A., 128 Ketp&Xata, 12, 18, 21, 22 Kipling, T., 99, 159 Knapp, 104 KoiV7) eitSocrts, 105 Lachmann, C, 110-115 Langton, S., 12 Laurence, R., 104 Laurentian Library, 114 Lectionaries, 15 Le Degeorge, 59 Lee, Ed., 53 Leo X., 48, 50 Lewis, Mrs. A., 29-31, 34 Lightfoot, J. B., 35, 165 Lucar, Cyril, 20, 64 Lucas Brugensis, 59, 63 Lucian of Antioch, 44, 105, 123 Mace, W., 75 Mai, Cardinal, 19 Manuscripts, 8-23 Marcion, 39, 43, 161, 167 Marker, 104 Matthaei, C. F., 96, 97, 99, 136 Mazarin Bible, 47 McClellan, J. B., 143 Methodius, 148 Mico, 130 Middleton, C, 74 Mill, J., 6, 67, 68, 162 Miller, E., 61, 140 Mitchell, E. C, 41 Moldenhauer, D. G., 98, 99 Monk, J. H., 69, 75 Montanus, B., 59 Muralt, E. de, 116 Nestle, Eb., 6, 32, 36, 55, 59, 75, 90, 159, 168, 175 Nicoll, W. R., 62 Norton, A., 116 Origen, 39, 41, 44, 105, 123, 148, 149, 161 Owen, J., 66 Oxyrhyncus fragments, 176 Palimpsests, 15, 21, 23, 29, 32, 176 Palmer, E., 155 Paris, National Library of, 15, 21, 22,23 Patristic quotations, 36-41 Peshitto Version, 28, 32 Peter, Gospel of, 176 Plantin, Chr., 59 Polycarp, 38 Polyglot Bibles Antwerp, 49, 59 Paris, 49, 60 Walton's, 61 184 INDEX Porson, R., 5 Porter, T. S., 116 Printing, application to the Bible, 46 Psalms of Solomon, 20 Punctuation of manuscripts, 9, 20,21 Purist controversy, 94 Ramsay, W. M., 168, 169 Readings, various, 6, 7, 43 Recensions, 92 Reiehe, G., 116 Resch, A., 163, 164 Reuss, E., 42, 55, 66, 69 Revisers of 1881, 154 Robinson, Ed., 104 Eonsch, H., 27 Booses, M., 59 Eopes, J. H., 164 Salmon, G., 32, 44, 104, 155, 168, 169, 172, 175 Samson, G. W., 105 Sanday, "W., 36, 41, 56, 120, 155 Schaff, P., 5, 106, 118, 129, 143, 152 Scholz, J. M. A., 106-109 Schott, 104 Scribes, errors of, 4, 5, 80 Scrivener, F. H. A., 7, 23, 54, 61, 75, 109, 115, 116, 121, 122, 129, 139-142, 152, 154, 155, 159 Semler, J. S., 92, 93 Septuagint, 16, 17, 18, 20 Sepulveda, 53 Simon, Richard, 64 St. Catherine, convent of, 16, 29, 34, 117, 118 St. Gall, monastery of, 23 St. Petersburg, Imperial Library at, 16 Stephen, Eobert, 56, 60, 70, 72 Editions of New Testament, 56, 57,64 Stevens, H., 66 Stichometry, 9 Stunioa, J. L., 48, 63 Tatian, 32, 33, 45, 128, 167 Tertullian, 39, 41, 43 Text, Age of, 77, 83 Corruptions of, 41, 43 Definition of, 1 Purity of, 83 Textus Receptus, 60-62, 64, 70, 96, 104, 106, 108, 119, 138, 140, 175 Theile, 104, 115 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 148 Tholuck, A., 93 Tischendorf, C, 16, 19, 21, 42, 117-129 Tlr\oi, 11 Tittmann, 104 Todd, H. J., 66 Toinard, Nich., 69 Trabaud, H., 159 Transcriptional evidence, 78, 79, 81, 83, 84, 88 Tregelles, S. P., 50, 51, 75, 108, 115, 126, 129, 130-137 Tyehsen, O. G., 98, 99 Tyler, A. W., 144 TJlfilas, 35 Uncial manuscripts, 8, 12, 14 Valentinians, 39 Valesian readings, 65 Vatican Library, 19, 33, 50, 53, 67 Vercellone, 19 Versions of the New Testament, 24-35 Vienna Academy, 36 Vienna, Imperial Library of, 98 Volbeding, J. E., 129 Von Gebhardt, O., 12, 16, 104, 114, 121, 122, 129, 136, 159 Vulgate, Alcuin, 27 Clementine, 27, 49, 70, 72 First publication of, 47 Jerome, 26, 45, 70. Manuscripts of, collated, 71 Supremacy of, 46 INDEX 185 Walton, B., 64, 65 Walton's Polyglot, 64-66, 68 Ward, W. H., 144 Warfield, B. B., 6 Wechelian readings, 65 Weiss, B., 62, 157, 169-171 Wells, Ed., 69 Westcott, B. F., 45, 59 Westcott and Hort, 145-154, 171, 175 Wetstein, J. J., 21, 50, 90-92, 95, 162 Whiston, W., 159 Willems, A., 62 Wiseman, Cardinal, 25 Woide, 99 Wordsworth, White and Sanday, 27, 56, 75 Wiirttemburgian Bible Society, Ximenes de Cisneros, 48 Zahn, Th., 32, 165, 169 Ziegler, 28 Zockler, O., 169 New Testament Handbooks EDITED BY SHAILER MATHEWS Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation, University of Chicago Arrangements are made for the following volumes, and the publishers will, on request, send notice of the issue of each volume as it appears and each descriptive circular sent out later; such requests for information should state whether address is permanent or not : — The History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament Prof. Marvin R. Vincent, Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Union Theological Seminary. [Now ready. Professor Vincent's contributions to the study of the New Testament rank him among the first American exegetes. His most recent publication is " A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon " {International Critical Commentary) , which was preceded by a " Students' New Testament Handbook," "Word Studies in the New Testament," and others. The History of the Higher Criticism of the New Testament Prof. Henry S. Nash, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Cambridge Divinity School. Of Professor Nash's " Genesis of the Social Conscience," The Outlook said: " The results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, and often epigrammatic style. _ The treatment is at once masterful and helpful, and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind ; it surely will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort." Introduction to the Books of the New Testament Prof. B. Wisner BACON, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Yale University. Professor Bacon's works in the field of Old Testament criticism include "The Triple Tradition of Exodus," and " The Genesis of Genesis," a study of the documentary sources of the books of Moses. In the field of New Testament study he has published a number of brilliant papers, the most recent of which is "The Autobiography of Jesus," in the American journal of Theology. The History of New Testament Times in Palestine Prof. Shailer Mathews, Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation, The University of Chicago. \_Now ready. The Congregationalist says of Prof. Shailer Mathews's recent work, " The Social Teaching of Jesus " : " Re-reading deepens the impression that the author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and pre eminently sane. If, after reading the chapters dealing with Jesus' attitude toward man, society, the family, the state, and wealth, the reader will not agree with us in this opinion, we greatly err as prophets." The Life of Paul Prof. Rush Rhees, President of the University of Rochester. Professor Rhees is well known from his series of " Inductive Lessons " contributed to the Sunday School Times. His " Outline of the Life of Paul," privately printed, has had a nattering reception from New Testament scholars. The History of the Apostolic Age Dr. C. W. Votaw, Instructor in New Testament Literature, The University of Chicago. Of Dr. Votaw's " Inductive Study of the Founding of the Christian Church," Modern Church, Edinburgh, says: "No fuller analysis of the later books of the New Testament could be desired, and no better programme could be offered for their study, than that afforded in the scheme of fifty lessons on the Founding of the Christian Churchy by Clyde W. Votaw. It is well adapted alike for practical and more scholarly students of the Bible." The Teaching of Jesus Prof. George B. Stevens, Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University. Professor Stevens's volumes upon " The Johannine Theology," " The Pauline The ology," as well as his recent volume on " The Theology of the New Testament," nave made him probably the most prominent writer on biblical theology in America. His new volume will be among the most important of his works. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament Prof. E. P. Gould, Professor of New Testament Interpretation, Prot estant Episcopal Divinity School, Philadelphia. Professor Gould's Commentaries on the Gospel of Mark_(in the International Criti cal Commentary) and the Epistles to the Corinthians (in the American Com mentary) are critical and exegetical attempts to supply those elements which are lacking in existing works of the same general aim and scope. \In prepara tion.] The Teaching of Jesus and Modern Social Problems Prof. Francis G. Peabodv, Professor of Christian Ethics, Harvard University. Professor Peabody's public lectures, as well as his addresses to the students of Harvard University, touch a wide range of modern problems. The many read ers of his "Mornings in the College Chapel" and his published studies upon social and religious topics, will welcome this new work. The History of Christian Literature until Eusebius Prof. J. W. Platner, Professor of Early Church History, Harvard University. Professor Platner's work will not only treat the writings of the early Christian writers, but will also treat of the history of the New Testament Canon. OTHERS TO FOLLOW THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK The Social Teachings of Jesus An Essay in Christian Sociology by SHAILER MATHEWS, A.M. Professor of New Testament History and Interpretation in the University of Chicago i2mo. Cloth. $1.50 Outlook : " Such a study is sure to be useful, and if the reader sometimes feels that the Jesus here presented has the spirit of which the world for the most part approves rather than that which brings its persecution, he will with renewed interest turn to the words of Jesus as narrated in the four Gospels." Christian Index : "We commend Professor Mathews's book to all interested in matters sociological, exegetical, and to all Christians who desire to know the will of their Lord and Master.'' Congregationalist : " The author is scholarly, devout, awake to all modern thought, and yet conservative and preeminently sane." The Evangel : " Professor Mathews gives the thoughtful reader a veritable feast in this essay in Christian Sociology. It is well thought out and carefully written. ... It is surely an able book, worthy of careful perusal, and gives promise of exerting a permanent influence upon Christian thought and hfe." THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK Genesis of the Social Conscience. . HENRY SYLVESTER NASH, Professor in the Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Mass. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF CHRISTIAN ITY IN EUROPE AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION. Crown Svo. Cloth. Price $1.50. THE OUTLOOK. " To the world's stock of good books Professor Nash has added one which is not the work of a clever summarizer only, but that of a clear and forceful originator. Perhaps not since the publication of Mr. Kidd's volume has a more genuinely popular sociological work appeared. . . . The results of Professor Nash's ripe thought are presented in a luminous, compact, and often epigrammatic style. The treatment is at once masterful and helpful, and the book ought to be a quickening influence of the highest kind; it surely will establish the fame of its author as a profound thinker, one from whom we have a right to expect future inspiration of a kindred sort. . . . Through a multitude of original and brilliant metaphors, similes, and illustrations, succeeding one another sometimes in "almost bewilder ing number, Professor Nash leads us step by step in the retrospect of the history of man's individualization. . . ." NEW UNITY. " The book is a novelty. It is an interesting experiment. It is worth writing and therefore worth the reading. Professor Nash undertakes to demonstrate the moral thread in history. He follows this moral line alone. It is in order to show the rise and growth of the social con science. . . . The style of the book is crisp; but it is never dull." E. P. P. THE CRITIC. "The pages glitter with bright sayings; there are many attractive passages. The book is more than a tacit protest against the material istic explanation of history." THE MACMILLAN COMPANY, 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK. I Ethics and Revelation BY HENRY S. NASH Professor in the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge; Author of " Genesis of the Social Conscience " iamo. Cloth. $1.50 Nashville Banner : "The author goes into the work with an earnestness, breadth, and intelligence that gives great interest to what he has to say." Charleston News and Courier: " The value and significance of Professor Nash's lectures lie chiefly in the advanced ground which he takes up with regard to the authority of the Bible and the Church in the matter of religious and social ethics. He begins by the assertion that the Bible marks out the road along which conscience must travel if it would treat our life on earth with abiding seriousness. But he is careful to show that the Bible should be seen and regarded in the light of history." THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK J yuu2 03218 7271 'iiii II Hi Lot WwIP" li-HllilllI iiHi'liilililililiiilililllil 1