FEB

26

1993

.W57

?Mi

tfViiV/,,

???

i^m^

^v:'l?>

,*.'^;-;^i:a-'-Vi'

:^f,V;

Jffrom

lljf

ICtbrarir

of

Sriiwpallj0&
tljp

bg

lyim to

ICtbrarg of

Prtnrrton SHi^fllogtral 8>^mtttary

2)52.585

SkJi;'

THE

THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.

EdiUd by

tlit

REV. W.

ROBERTSON NICOLL,
Editor of " The Expositor."

M.A.,

PROFESSOR WARFIELD'S

TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT

HODDER AND STOUGHTON,

27,

PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXXXVII.

AN INTRODUCTION..
TO THE

TEXTUAL CRITICISM
OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

BY niE REV.

BENJAMIN
Professor of

B.

WARFIELD,

D.D.,

New

Testament Criticism in the Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny, U.S.A.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON,

27,

PATERNOSTER ROW.
MDCCCLXXXVI.
\All fights reset ved.}

Printed

bj-

Hazell,

Wauon, & Viney,

Ld.,

London and Aylesbur>"-

In compliance with current

copyright law,

LBS Archival
this

Products produced

replacement volume on paper that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984 to replace the
irreparably deteriorated
original.

1993
_^ TM

60)

PKEFACE.
r
I

1HIS

little treatise

purports to be a primer, and

-L

a primer to the art of textual criticism rather

Its purpose will be served
it
if

than to the science.

the reader
is

prepared by

to exercise the art in

the usual processes, and to enter upon

of the

the study
''

science

in such

books as Dr. Hort's

Into

troduction,"

and Dr. Gregory's " Prolegomena "

edition.

Tischendorf's eighth
treatise,

In such

primary
is

and where no claim

to originality

made,

obligations to previous
ledged.
of

works can scarcely be acknow-

The author hopes that his general confession having made use of everything that he could lay
hands upon that served
sufficient
of,

his

his

purpose,
of the

will

be

deemed
he
is

acknowledgment
and would

many

debts

conscious

like, if occasion served,

to confess in detail.

Allegheny, Midsicmmcr

188G.

CORRIGENDA.
Page Page Page Page Page Page
25, line 5 (and often

elsewhere, as, e. g., pp. 26, 216, 217, 220, 224), for " Sclioltz" read "Scholz."
'

"it"" read "it"'." read p'. 30, line 13, after " 13" insert " of the Acts." 36, line 13, for " Wesserlv," read " Wessely." The This statement is misleading. 37, line 2. Arabs appear to have brought cotton paper to the
25, line 16, for
25, line 18, for

Western world about the eighth century.

oldest dated Arabic

MSS. on
,

cotton paper

The come

from the ninth century, e. g., the Leiden Gharibu The earliest examples in ']-Hadith from 866. European languages come from the countries which were most closely in contact with the Arabs, e. g., Sicily (1102. 1145, and the like). The oldest dated Greek MS., on cotton paper, is the next we have a Vienna Codex dated 1095 Euchologium (No. 973 of Gardthausen's Catalogus Codd Oro'corinn Sinaiticoruin), dated 1153 and by the middle of the thirteenth century they are somewhat numerous. The Lectioiiary referred to
;
;

No. 191 of the lists (Scrivener, III., Asceticum (No. 468 of Gardthausen's Catalogus, just quoted), on cotton paper, is written in uncials of ilie tenlh or eleventh century. HF.qjdXfia" read Page 42, lines 11 and .SI, for " HEq^dXaia." Page 60, line 6, for " Wesserly " read " Wessely."
in the text
p. 292).
is

An

'''

Page Page

60, line 15, for " 67, line 12.

Evangelaria" read "Evangeliaria." of the European Latin may be more accurately set from Prof. Sanday's investigations. He shows that it was certainly used by Novatian (fl. 251), and hints that it may be older than Tertullian (see Stvdia Bihlica, p. 245).

The ago

Pag-e 70,

last

line.

This exception

may

probably

be

deleted.

Page

78, list of fathers

correct tlie spelling of C'YPRIANUS,

.J-

and the date from

Hilarvis,

247 to

4.

258

and write
intended.)
6."

HiLARIUS, and
!"

correct the date from

is

449 to

368.

(Hilary of Poictiers

Page Page Page

Page Page Page

86, line 18, for 95, last line, 98, last line

"Maclellan" read "McClellan." for " Acts ix. 56," read "Acts ix. 5,

but one, the dash over oic ought to

stand over ic only. 100, last line but one, for " ou " read " 01'." " 102, line 8, for " terms " read " turns
170, last line

but two, for "thsue pport

before B, L, A,
it

"

read " the

in those

support."

Page
Page Page
Ji

172, line 21, insert

{<

etc.,

copies from
179, line 6,

which

has fallen out.

omit "

C"

after

"D."

202, line 16, after

"rarely" insert "in Greek MSS."

/Cl.

CONTENTS.
pi.eB

Introductory

'

CHAPTER
The Matter of Criticism

16

CHAPTER
The Methods of Criticism

II.

82

CHAPTER
The Praxis of Criticism

III.

182

CHAPTER
The History of Criticism

IV.

211

INTRODUCTORY.
rr^HE
-L
texture

work,

word "text" properly denotes a literary conceived of as a mere thing, as a woven of words instead of threads. It

designates neither, on the one side, the book which

contains the text, nor, on the other side, the sense

which the text conveys.

the discourse, nor the
rhetorical, or grammatical.

It

is

not
it,

manner
It

of
is

the matter of whether logical,

simply the web of

words
text of

itse lf.

It is with this
is

understanding that the

any work

concisely defined as the ipsissivui

verba of that work.

The word, which came

the French where
it

into Middle English from

stands as the descendant of the

Latin word textum, retains in English the figurative

sense only of
its

primitive, yet owes

it

to its origin

that

it

describes a composition as a

woven

thing, as a

curiously interwoven cloth or tissue of words.

Once a
special

part of the English language,

it

has grown with the

growth of that tongue, and has acquired certain

usages.
of

We

usually need to speak of the exact words

thus

an author only in contrast with something else, and " text " has come to designate a composition

upon which a commentary has been written, so that it distinguishes the words commented on from the
1

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

comments that have been added. Thus we speak of the text of the Talmud as lost in the comment. And thus, too, by an extreme extension, we speak of the
text of a sermon, meaning, not the ipsissima verba
of the sermon, but the little piece of the original author on which the sermon professes to be a com-

ment.

By

a somewhat similar extension we speak of

texts of Scripture, meaning, not various editions of its

ipsissima verba, but brief extracts from Scripture, as

for

example proof texts and the

developed theology
is

like

a usage which
comment

appears to have grown up under the conception that

all

of the nature of a

Such secondary senses of the word need not disturb us here. They are natural developments out of the ground meaning, as applied to special cases. We are to use the word in its general and original sense, in which it designates the ipsissima verba, the woven web of words, which constitutes the concrete thing by which a book is made a work, but which has nothing directly to do with the sense,
on Scripture.
correctness, or the value of the work.

There

is

an impo rtan t distinction, however, which

we should grasp

at the outset, between the text of a document and the text of a work. A document can have but one text its ipsissima verba are its ipsissima verba, and there is nothing further to say about it. But a work may exist in several copies, each of which
;

has
tally

its

own

ipsissima verba, which may, or

may
is

not,

with one another.

is

The

text of any copy of

plainly

Shakespeare that
before me.

placed in ray hands

text of Shakespeare
of Shakespeare,
is

But the

a different
since

matter.

No two copies

or now,

INTRODUCTOHY.
we have
text.

?,

to reckon with the printijig press,

we must
same
differ-

rather say no two editions,

have

precisely the

There are
:

all

kinds of causes that work

ences

badness of copy, carelessness of compositors,

of evidence, frailty of

folly of editors, imperfection

We' know what the text of Karl Elze's Hamlet is. But what is the text of Hamlet ? We cannot choose any one edition, and say that it is the text of Hamlet it is one text of Hamlet, but not
huma.nity.
;

necessarily the text of Hamlet.

We

cannot choose
it is

one manuscript of Homer, and say that

of

the text

Homer.

It

is

a text of Homer, but the text of

Homer may

be something very different.

We

note,

then, that the text of a document and the text of a

work may be very different matters. The text of a document is the ipsisslma verba of that document, and
is

to be

had by simply looking at

it is its text.

it

whatever stands
text of a work,
it

actually written in
again,
is

The
it.

the ipsissima verba of that woi'k, but

cannot

be obtained by simply looking at

We
may

cannot look

at the work, but only at the documents or " copies"

that represent
individually

it

and what stands written in them,

not
lie

or

even collectively,

the

ipsissima verba of the work,

in each case, in which
it
is

by exactly the amount,

A\T.nte, is

altered or corrupted from

what the author intended

verba of the work.
If,

to

not the

i])sissiina

then, the text of a

document

work is the ipsissima verba of that document or copy, the text of the Avork is what ought to be the ipsissima verba of all the documents or
or copy of any
copies that profess to represent
or,
it,

it is

the original,

better

still,

the intended

i]mssima verba of the

4
author.
or in
It

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
may
may
perfect

not

lie

in the

document before
it.

us,

any document.
fail

All existing documents, taken

to contain
in

collectively,

It

may never
But
it is
it,

have
if

lain,

and pure,

any document.

an element
less

of ideality

thus attaches to

none the

a very real thing and a very legitimate

It is impossible,

object of search.

no doubt, to avoid

a certain looseness of speech, by which we say, for " example, " The text of Nonius is in a very bad state
;

and thus identify the text

transitory state of

of a

work with some

with the permathat the text in
existing

nent

loss of

it.

it, or it may be What we mean is

this or that

document or

edition, or in all

documents or

editions, is a very

bad and corrupt repre-

sentation of the text of Nonius,

is

not the text of

fails to be,

Nonius at
that in

all,

in fact,

but departs from, and

many
just

particulars.

The

text of Nonius, in a
in search of.

word,
It

is

what we have not and are

is clear,

therefore, that the text of a

work

as

distinguished from the text of a document can be had

I only through a critical process.
for obtaining
it is

What
lie

is

necessary

a critical examination of the texts

before us as its

of the various

documents that

representatives, with a view to discovering from

them
from

whether and wherein

their

it

has become corrupted, and of

it

proving them to preserve

corruptions
is

or else restoring

it

to

its

origin.ally

intended form.
criticism,"

This

what

is

meant hj " textual

which

may

be defined as the careful, critical examination

of a text, with a view to discovering its condition, in

order that

we may

test its correctness

its

on the one

hand, and, on the other, emend

errors.

INTRODUCTORY.
Obviously this
powers.
as
it
is,

if

not a bold and unsafe kind

of work, yet one sufficiently nice to

engage our best

It

is

not, however, so

may seem
it

at

unwonted a procedure hrst sight and more of us than

;

suspect
instance,

are engaged in

it

daily.

Whenever,

for

we make a

correction in the margin of a

book we chance to be reading, because we observe

a misplaced letter or a misspelled word, or any other

obvious typographical error, we are engaging in

cesses of textual criticism.
letter

pi'O-

Or, perhaps,

we

receive a

from a friend, read it cai^efully, suddenly come upon a sentence that puzzles us, observe it more closely, and say, "Oh, I see a word has been left out
!

here

"
!

There

is

no one

of us

who has

not had this

experience, or

who has not

supplied the word which

satisfied.

he determines to be needed, and gone on

books.

Let us take an apposite example or two from printed

When we

read

in

Archdeacon
:

Farrar's

Messages of the Books (p. 145, note ^) "That God chose His own fit instruments " for writing the books
of the

New Testament,

"

and that the sacredness

of the

books was due to the piior position of these writers

is

clear from the fact that only four of the writei's were apostles " few of us will hesitate to insert the "not" before "due," the lack of which throws the

sentence into logical confusion.

So,

when we

I'ead

in the admirable International Reoisioa Coiimietitari/

on John's Gospel, by Drs.

(p.

Milligan

and Muulton
the

341)

" Yet

we should overlook

immediate

" reference," the context tells us at once that a " not

has been omitted before " overlook."

of

In an edition
&,

King James'

Bible, printed

by Barker

Bill, in

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

XX. 14):

men read the seventh commandment (Exod. "Thou shalt commit adultery," not without perceiving:, we may be sure, that a " not " had fallen
1631,
ally that it

and mentally replacing it all the more emphaticwas not there. But all this is textual We criticism of the highest and most delicate kind. have, in each case, examined the text befoi'e us critically, determined that it was in erroi-, and restored
out,

the originally

intended text by a critical process.

confidently, with

Yet we do

all this

no feeling that we

are trenching on learned ground, and with results that

are entii'cly satisfactory to ourselves, and on which

we

are willing to act in business or social

life.

The

cases that have been adduced involve, indeed, the very

nicest

and most uncertain of the critical pi'ocesses all samples of what is called " conjectural emendation" i.e., the text has been emended in each
:

they are

case by pure conjecture, the context

alone

hinting

that

it

was

in ei-ror or suggesting the

remedy.

The

dangers that attend the careless or uninstructed use

of so delicate

delightful

story
INIr.

an instrument are well illustrated by (which Mr. Fi'ederic Harrison

attributes to

Andrew Lang)

of

a printer

who

found in

liis

'"copy" some reference to "the Scapin

of Foquelin."

he knew, but

who was Poquelin

M.
;

The printer was not a pedant Moliere ? At last a bright

;

idea struck his inventive mind, and he printed

it

" the Scapin of

Coquelin."

This

is

" conjectural
of

emendation

"

too

a great part of what

and unhappily it is the type is called by that name.

of

In this higher way every reader

critic.

books

is

a textual

In a lower way, every proof-reader is a textual

INTRODUCTOliY.
critic; for tlie

correction of a text that lies before

of another, given

him

by the readings
is

him
art.

as a model,

simply the lowest variety of this

is

The

art of

textual criticism

thus seen to be the art of detecting

and emending errors in documents.

the orderly discussion
principles

The

science is
of

and

systematisation

the

on which
lies

The inference
said, that

ought to proceed. very close, from what has been

this art

the sphere of the legitimate application of

is

textual
of

ci'iticivsm

circumscribed only by the bounds

written

matter.

Such

are

the

limitations

of

hviman powers in reproducing writings, that apparently no lengthy writing can be duplicated withovit
error.

Nay, such

ai-e

the limitations of

human

powers of attention, that probably few manuscripts

of

any extent are

Avi-itten

exactly correctly at first

fails to

hand.

The author himself

lie

put correctly on

paper the words that

in his

mind.
is

And

even

when the document

tion of textual

that

lies

before us
it

written wdth

absolutely exact correctness,

criticism,

requires the applica-

i.e.,

a careful critical
fact.

ex-

amination, to discover and certify this

repeat
it,

Let us
:\ exists,

then

wherever written
is

matter

textual criticism
jivoidable task
;

not oiily legitimate, but an unwriting

is

when the

important, such
it

as a deed, or a will, or a chartei-, or the Bible,

is

an indefeasible duty. No doubt, differences may exist between writings, in their nature or the conditions under which they were produced or transmitted, which

may demand

for them somewhat different treatments. The conditions imder which a work is transmitted by

the printing press differ materially from those under

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
is

which one
difference.

transmitted by hand-copying

and the

practice of textual criticism

may
lie

be affected by this

One work may

before us in a single

copy, another in a thousand copies,

and

differences

may

thence arise in the processes of ciiticism that are

applicable to them.

But
all

all

writings have this in

criticism,

common
criticism

they are

open to

to be criticised.
;

An

autograph writing

and are all is open to

we must examine it to see whether the writer's hand has been faultless handmaid to his thought, and to correct his erroneous writing of what he intended. A printed work is open to criticism we must examine it to see what of the aimless altera:

tion that has been

but not
altei'ation

infallible

wrought by a compositor's nimble and what of the foolish which the semi-unconscious working of his
lingers,

mind
script

lias

inserted into his copy, the proof-reader has

allowed to stand.
is

^vliting

propagated by manu:

especially

open to criticism

here so

many

varying minds, and so

repeated each
its

many

predecessor's errors,

new

ones, that criticism

have and invented must dig through repeated

varying hands,
it

strata of corruption on corruption befoi'C

can reach

the bed-rock of truth.

Nor

is

the arc a wide one through which even the

are applicable to these

processes of criticism which

various kinds of writings can librate.

of corruptions in a writing can be suggested to us

The existence by
the

only two kinds of

trated

evidence.

One

of these is illus-

by our detection
err<n's in

of misprints in

books

we

read or of

the letters
of
it is

we

receive.

The

most prominent form

the evidence of the

INTRODUCTORY.
context or general sense
;

to this

is

to be added, as of

the same

generic kind, the

evidence of the style,

vocabulary or usage of the author, or of the time in

which he wrote, and the like, all the evidence, in a word, that arises from the consideration of what the author is likely to have written. The name that is
given to this
is

in ternal evidence and

,

it

is

the only

kind of evidence that

writing,

is

available for

an autographic

or any other that exists only in a single

if

copy.

But

two or more copies are extant, another

becomes available.

liind of evidence

We may

com-

pare the copies together, and wherever they differ

one or the other testimony

critical

is

certainly at fault,
is

and

examination and reconstruction

external
evidence.

necessary.

This

is

When we
its

proceed

from

the detection of error to

correction,

we remain

dependent on these same two kinds

internal

of evidence

and external. But internal evidence splits here into two well-marked and independent varieties,
to our help.

much

We

may

appeal to the evidence of

the context or other considerations that rest on the

question.

What

is

the author likely to have written?

to suggest to us

what ought
is

to stand in tlie place

;

where a corruption
is

suspected or

called intrinsic

(internal) eindence.

appeal to the fortunes of

habits of

known and this Or we may reproduction, to the known

or

stone-cutters, copyists,

compositors, to

what the reading or readings known or suspected to be corruptions may have grown out of, or what reading, on the supposition of its originality, will account best for the origin of all others; and
suggest
this is called tranncrijjtional (internal) evidence.

On

10

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
we may coHate
all

the other hand,

known

copies,

and

appeal to the evidence that a great majority of

;

them

liave one reading, and only a few the others or all the good and careful ones have one, and only the bad the

others

or several derived from independent sources

have one, and only such as can be shown to come from a single fountain have the others and so marshal
;

the external evideiice.

If

we

allow for their broad and

inadequate statement, proper to this

summary

treat-

ment, we
inscription

may

cay that

it

matters not whether the

of a

writing before us be a letter from a friend, or an

from Carchemish, or a copy

morning

newspaper, or Shakespeare, or Homer, or the Bible, these

and only these are the kinds

of evidence applicable.

And

so far as they are applicable they are valid.

It

would be absurd to apply them to Homer, and refuse to apply them to Herodotus to apply them to Nonius, whose text is provei-bially corrupt, and refuse to apply
;

them
that

to the

New

Testament, the text of which

It is
is

is in-

comparably correct.

by their application alone

is

we know what
if it is

corrupt and what

correct

and
is

right to apply

them

to a secular book, it

right to apply
to.

them

to a sacred one

nay,
New

it

is

wi'ong not
It

is clear,

moreover, that the duty of applying

textual criticism

tament

say, for instance, to the

Tes-

is

entirely independent of the

number

of

errors in its ordinarily current text

which

criticism

may

be expected to detect.
erroneous

It is as important to

certify ourselves of the correctness of

our text as
is

it is

to correct

it if

and the former

as

much

the function of criticism as the latter.

Nor

is

textual

INTRODUCTORY.
sense.
critic

11

error to be thought to be commensurable with ei-ror in

The
for

text conveys the sense

but the textual

has nothing to do, primarily, with the sense.

It

is

preter

him to restore the text, and for the inteiwho follows him to reap the new meaning.
It
is

Divergencies which leave the sense wholly unaflected

may

be to him very substantial errors.

even

possible that he

may

find a

copy painfully corrupt,

from which, nevertheless, precisely the same sense

flows as It
is if it

had been written with perfect accuracy.

of the deepest interest, nevertheless, to inquire,

even with this purely textual meaning,

correction the texts of the

how much
in general

New

Testament
will

circulation need before they are restored substantially

to their original form.

The reply

necessarily
Avhicli

vary according to the standard of comparison

we assume.

If

we take an

ordinarily well printed

modern book as a standard, the New Testament, in its commonly current text, will appear sorely corrupt.
This
is

due to the different conditions under which an

ancient and a modern book come before a modern

audience.

readers and author alike in a

as

The repeated proof-correcting l)y expert modern printing-office

the .single copy thousands of identical copies from the
;

preliminary to the issue of a

plates

ability to issue

same

the opportunities given to correct the

issues, so

plates for

new

that each
last
:

new
all

issue

is

sure to

be an improvement on the

this conspires to

the attainment of a very high degree of accuracy.

But

in ancient times each

copy was slowly and paineach copy

fully made, independently of all others;

necessaiily introduced its

own

special errors besides

12

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
its

repeating tho.se of

j^redecessor

each fresh copy

that was called for, instead of being struck off from

now newly corrected plates, was made and erroneously from a previous one, perpetuating its errors, old and new, and introducing still newer ones of its own manufacture. A long line of ancestiy gradually grows up behind each copy in such circumstances, and the race gradually but
the old and
laboriously

inevitably degenerates, until, after a thousand years

or

so,

the

number

of fixed errors

becomes considerable.
is

When

at last the printing press

it,

invented, and the

work put through

not the author's autograph, but

is printei''s

the latest manuscript

copy, and no author's

best the press can
of corruption

eye can overlook the sheets.

The

do

is

measurably to stop the growth

the current

and

faithfully to perpetuate all that has already grown.

No wondei- that

New

Testament text must

be adjudged, in comparison with a well printed modern

book, extremely corrupt.

On
of the

the other hand,

if

we compare

the present state

Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must render the opposite verdict, and declare it to be marvellously cori-ect. Such has
been the care with which the
been copied,
true reverence for

New

New

Testament has
has been the

a care which has doubtless grown out of

its

holy words,

such

providence of

God

in jjreserving for

His Chui'ch in

each and every age a competently exact text of the

Scriptures,

that

not only

is

the

New

Testament
its

unrivalled

among ancient

writings in the purity of

text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also

in the

abundance of testimony which has come down

INTRODUCTORY.
to

13

us for castigating

its

comparatively infrequent
of its current text

blemishes.

The divergence

from

the autograph

may shock

modern printer

of

modern

books
is

its

wonderful approximation to

its autogriH)li

the undisguised envy of every modern reader of

ancient books.
vsre attempt to state the amount of corrupwhich the New Testament has suffered in its transmission through two millenniums, absolutely

When

tion

instead

of

thus relatively,
results.
it

intelligible

been counted in

we reach scarcely more Koughly speaking, there have some hundred and eighty or two
"

hundred thousand " various readings

that

[;

is,

actual

variations of reading in existing documents.

are, of course, the result of corruption,

These

and hence the

It

measure
is

of corruption.

But we must guanl against

hundred

being misled by this very misleading statement.

not meant that there are nearly two

thousand places in the

i-eadings occur
;

New

Testament where various

but only that there are nearly two

;

hundred thousand various readings all told and in many cases the documents so differ among themselves

many are counted on a single word. For each document is compared in turn with the one standard, and the number of its divergences ascertained then these sums are themselves added together, and the
that
;

result given
variations.

as
It

the
is is

number

of

actually

observed

obvious that each place where a

variation occurs

counted as

many

times over, not

it,

only as distinct variations occur upon This

but also as

the same variation occurs in different manuscripts.

sum

includes,

moreover,

all

variations of

all

14

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
all sources,

kinds and in
to

even those that are singular

a single document of infinitesimal weight as a witness, and even those that afiect such very minor
matters as the spelling of a word.
Dr. Ezra

Abbot

f was accustomed to say that about nineteen-twentieths support that, although they are I of them have so little
i

various readings, no one would think of

them

as rival

>

readings

and nineteen-tAventieths
little

of the remainder

are of so

importance that their adoption ^r

rejection would cause

no apprecinble

dift'erence in

the

sense of the passages where they occur.

Dr. Hort's
in every

way

of stating it is that

upon about one woi'd

it

eight various I'cadings existf supported by sufficient

evidence to bid us pause and look at

that about
it

one word in sixty has

nice

various

readings upon

supported by such evidence as to render our decision

and

difficult

.;

but that so

many

of these varia-

tions are trivial that only about one

word

in

every

thousand has upon

critic in

it

substantial variation supported

of

by such evidence as to call out the efforts deciding between the readings.

the

The great mass

of the

New

Testament, in other

words, has been ti-ansmitted to us with no, or next to

no, variation and even in the most cori'upt form in which it has ever appeared, to use the oft-quoted words of Richard Bentley, " the real text of the
;
\

sacred writers

is

competently exact

article of faith or
lost
. . .

nor is one moral precept either perverted or

;
. .

choose as awkwardly as you

will,

choose the

worst by design, cut of the whole lump of readings."

If,

then,

we undertake the

textual criticism of the

of duty,

Kew

Testament under a sense

we may bring

INTRODUCTORY.
it

15

to a conclusion

under the inspiration of hope.

The

autographic text of the

New

Testament

is

distinctly

within the reach of criticism in so immensely the

greater part of the volume, that
restoring
to ourselves

we cannot

despair of

Book, word for

and the Church of God, His word, as He gave it by inspiration to

as a

men.

The following pages are intended

guide to students making their
first

primary

acquaintance

with the art of textual criticism as applied to the

New

Testament.

Their purpose will be subserved

a.

if

they enable them to make

beginning, and to entei*

into the study of the text-books on the subject with

ease and comfort to themselves.

CHAPTER
THE MATTER OF

I.

CRITICISM.
is

THE

first

duty of the student who

seeking the
obviously

true text of the

to collect

New

Testament

is

and examine the witnesses to that text. Whatever professes to be the Greek New Testament is a witness to its text. Thus we observe that copies of the Greek Testament are our primary witnesses to its text. The first duty of the textual critic is, therefore, to collect

the copies of the Greek Testament, and,

cull

comparing them together,

various readings.

from them

all

their

He

will not only acquire in this

way knowledge

of the variations that actually exist,

but also bring together, by noting the copies that

support each reading, the testimony for each, and put
himself in a position to arrive at an intelligent conclusion as to the best attested text.
It is obvious that

no external circumstances, such as the form of the volume in which it is preserved, or the mechanical
process by which
it is

made, whether by printing or

a Printed

by hand-copying,
copy to the text
i

will aflfect the witness-bearing of

it

professes to represent.

copies of the

witnesses to
'.manuscripts

its

Greek Testament are per se as valid text as manuscripts; and had we no

despair of attaining a

we should not

THE MATTER OF CRITICIS2I.

good text from printed copies alone.
aside

17

Nevertheless,

the universal consent by which printed copies are set

and manuscripts alone used as witnesses

rests
i

on sound reason. The first printed Greek Testament was completed in 1514, and hence all printed copies are comparatively late copies, and therefore presumptively inferior as witnesses of tlie original text to the

which are oldei- than more to the point all printed copies have been made from the manuscript copies, and therefoi-e, in the presence of the manuscripts themselves, are mere i-epeatei'S of their ^\'itness, and of no value at all as additional testimony to the oi'iginal text. Wherever the pi'inted copies agree with the manuscripts, they have been taken from them, and add nothing to their testimony they are
manuscript copies, almost
the sixteenth century.
all of

Still

wherever they present readings that are found in no manuscript, this is due either to accidental error, and is therefore of no value as testimony, or to editorial emendation, and represents,
collusive witnesses
;

therefore,

not testimony to what the original

New

Testament contained, but opinion as to what it must have contained. In no case, therefore, are printed copies available as witnesses, and the manuscript
copies alone are treated as such.

Alongside of the manuscripts as the primary witnesses to the

New

Testament text may be placed, as

\
'

secondary witnesses, translations of the Greek Testa-

Although a version does not reproduce the text, but only the sense which that text conveys, yet, so far as it is an accurate i-endei-ing,
into other languages.

ment

we can reason back from the

sense conveyed to the 2

18

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
it.

text that conveys

duce the text of the

alone,

No doubt we could not reproNew Testament from versions

No
doubt,
too,

even
sense

though we could gain from them the

of

entire

the volume.

the

al)ility of

a version to witness on special points will

depend on the genius of the language into which the Greek has been transmuted. For example, the Latin
article.

can seldom testify to the presence or absence of the But in conjunction with Greek manuscripts,

and when regard

versions

is

paid to the limitations of the

various tongues in which they exist, the testimony of

may

reach even primary importance in the

Especially
of
sections,

case of all variations that affect the sense.

in

questions of insertion

or

omission

clauses, or words,

they

may

give no

more uncertain

voice than

Greek manuscripts themselves. For use as a witness to the text of the Greek Testament it is absolutely necessary that a version should have been made immediately from the Greek and not from some other version. In the latter case it
is

fi'om

a direct witness only to the text of the version which it was made, anti only in case of the loss

of that version can it be used as a mediate witness

Furthermore, it is desirable that to the Greek text. a version shall have been made sufficiently early for its witness to be borne to the Greek text of a time

from which few monuments of

us.

it

have come down to

the Greek
if

Ordinarily a vei'sion

is

made from

manu-

scripts in current use at the time,

and

this time be

so late that

we have the manuscripts

themselves, the

version runs too great risk of delivering simply collusive testimony (like piinted copies) to be of

much

use

THE MATTER OF CRITICISM.

in
criticism.

19

The English

version,

for

example,/

although

taken

Tyndale in
since,
is

Greek by' 1525, and repeatedly revised by the Greek

immediately from
the
inappreciable value as a witness to the

of

Greek

text,

on account of the lateness of

its origin.

The

use to which a version

may
;

be put in textual

criticism

depends

still

further on the exactness with a slavishness of literal

its

which

it

renders the Greek

rendering which would greatly lessen

as a version

usefulness

would give

it

only additional value as

a witness to the Gi-eek text.

clean Syriac version, which

For example, the Harmust have been a trial to

the fiesh of every Syrian i-eader

use of
it,

who

tried to

make

reveals its underlying

is

Greek text as perhaps

no other ancient version

the Greek Testament

able to do.

Under such

safeguards as these, the ancient, immediate versions of

may

be ranged alongside of the

its text.

manuscripts as co-witnesses to
Still

additional testimony can be obtained to the

text of special passages of the

Greek Testament by

attending to the quotations

made from the Greek Testament by those who have used it or written upon Whenever a reputable Avi-iter declares that his it.
Greek Testament reads thus, and not thus, for as

much

of the text as

it

covers his assertion

is

equal in

value as a witness, to a Greek manuscript of his day.

And

the ordinary quotations from the Greek Testaearly writers

ai'e,

ment by

so far as they are accurately

made, of real worth as testimony to the texts current

in their time.

As

in the case of versions, patristic

evidence will vary in value

father

with

the age

of

the

who makes

the quotation, with the accuracy

20

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
work
in

with which he ordinarily quotes, and even with the

character of the

which the quotation occurs.

For example, a

citation in a polemic treatise, bent

mayhap

to

tit

the need, will be jirimd facie, less to be

of

depended on, in the oimiutice

a lengthy quotation in a

the wording, than

for

commentary copied out

its

the express purpose of explaining

far,

very words.
is

So

however, as this patristic evidence

available

at

all,

and can be depended

on,

it is

direct evidence

as distinguished from the indirect character of

the

evidence of translations,

and cannot be

neglected

without

sei'ious loss.

The

collection of the evidence for the text of the

New

Testament includes, thus, the gathering together

manuscripts of the Greek Testament, of
all

of all the

the ancient, immediate translations

of all citations taken

made from

it,
;

and

from

it

comparing
ing to each

of all these together

by early writers the and noting of their

"
;

divergences or " various readings

*'

and the attachlist

various reading " the

of witnesses

that support

it.

The labour required

for such a task

depends, of course, on the wealth of witnessing docu-

ments that
as
it is

exist

and need examining, or

first

''

collating,"

technically called.

If, for instance,

we were

dealing with the

six books of the "

.an

Tacitus, the task ^\ould be

easy one

Annals " of there would

In

be but a single manuscript to examine, no version, and

befoie the fifteenth century but a single quotation.

the

New Testament,

on the other hand, the number of

below two thousand must be taken account patristic literature must be
fall
;

known manuscripts cannot

of
;

at least a dozen eai-ly versions

and the whole mass

of

THE MATTER OF CRITICISM.

searched for quotations.
again, as

21

In the

''

Annals

" of Tacitus,

we have but a single manuscript and nothing to collate with it, we should have no various readings at all, while in the New Testament we must needs face, before the work of collation is more than half
completed, not
less

than

two hundred

thousand
in passing,
is

whence

it

is

easy to see,

we may remark

that this gi-eat

number

of various readings

not due

to greater corruption of the

is

New

Testament text than

but to the

ordinarily found in ancient writings,

of witnessing
it,

immensely greater number

that

documents

has come down to us for

over and above

what has reached us for any other ancient work

whatever.
that no one
to bring
to

It

is

also

immediately apparent, however,

one generation could hope
task of
collecting

man and no
of

completion the
the

the

various readings
full

New

Testament with the

evidence for each.

As

a matter of fact, this work

has been performing now, by a succession of diligent

and self-denying
Walton's
(1707) as
collected;

scholars, since

the undertaking of
Mill's

Polyglot in 1657,

Already in

many

as 30,000 various readings

day had been

endorf, Tregelles,

and from Bentley and Wetstein to Tischand Scrivener, the work has been
until
it

prosecuted without intermission,

has
is

now
ripe

reached relative completeness, and the time

for the estimation of the great

mass

of evidence that

has been gathered.

this

It

must not be inferred from

of
;

that

all

the

known manusciipts

the

New

Testament have even yet been collated only a small minority of the whole number have been accurately examined, much less entirely collated, and every year

22
additions are

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
made to the mass
of facts already

known.

But now,

at length,

enough have been

all

collated to

give ns knowledge of

the general character of the

the oldest
eyes.

whole, and to place the testimony of

and most valuable

in

detail

before our

The
work

scholar of to-day, while beckoned on by the example

of the great collators of the past to continue the

of gathering material as

strength and opportunity

may

allow, yet enters into a great inheritance of

is

already done, and

textual
criticism

able to undertake the

as

work work of

itself

distinguished

from the

collecting of material for that work.

The

results

of

the

collations

that were

made

before the publication of those gi'eat works have been

collected

and spread orderly

critical

befoi-e

the

eye of the

student in the

editions of

the Greek ISTew

"

Testament edited by Dr. Tregelles and Dr. Tischendorf.

With

the "digests of readings

given in these

works the beginner may well content himself. He will discover later that such digests have not been framed and printed without some petty errors of detail
and will learn to correct these and add the more recent collations. But he will understand more and more fully every year that he prosecutes his studies, what monuments of diligence and painstaking care these digests are, and how indispenEvery student sable they are for all futui'e work. who purposes to devote any considerable time to the
creeping
in,

results of

study of this branch of sacred learning should procure

at the outset either Dr. Tregelles' llie

Greek Neio
ivith
tJie

Testament, edited

from Ancient
etc.

yhdhorities,

Various Readings in full,

(London, 1857

1879,

THE MATTER OF
in 4to parts)
;

CPJTICISM.

23

or else, and preferably, Dr. Tiscliendorf s

Novum Testamentum
denuo
edition
recensuit,
etc.

Graxe ad antiquissimos
Editio
vols.

testes

octava
8vo).

critica

viaior

(Leipzig,
of
ecc

18691872, 2
Tiscliendorf,
viii.

A "minor"
" editio critica

described

as

'minor
1 vol.

maiore destciiipfa"

(Leipzig,

1877,

thick 12mo), contains an excellent compressed

digest,
ill

and

will suffice for the needs of those

afford the large edition, or

time on the study of this

of these three editions
is,

who can who can put but little subject. One or another
however,
little less

thnn

a necessary prerequisite for the profitable .study of

textual criticism.

vai^ious

The compression with which the evidence for the readings is given in the digests makes the
little less

notes of a critical edition appear

than

init

soluble enigmas to the uninitiated eye, and renders

necessary to give the beginner some hints as to their

use.

Let us take a sample note at random.

We open
and
find

Tischendorf's eighth edition at

his text to

Mark

i.

11,

run

Kat

(jjwinj

ck tu)v ovparCov' crv ei o vl6<;

fiov o dyaTrr^rd?,

iv aol
:

evooKrjrra.

On
^

this the notes

stand as follows

"11

(^'j)T>] cum X*D fi'-' mt cum i^'^ABLP unc^i al

fere

Ln Ti add cycrcro omn if' (scd de

1)
;

cci'Io

facta

est)
;

vg cop
2''

syr"*"" al

item a

ven/'f
( ::

vo.r,

vox venit

28.
e.

g^- ijKovcrOq

post ovp.

Mt
e^

Kat iSou ^w.

ovp. ycvecrOaL)

T.

ovp. Xeyovcra,

Lc

Kat

(fion'-qv

ev crot

(Ob.)

cum

nBD=''

LPA 1.
g2tr
oj 1

13.

22. 33. 69 al plus^^ a c ff^- (et. ff^

j^QpSchw gyj.sch g^p text

nt^-''')
. .

vg

arm'" reth go

Am

cum

unc^ al pi b d {in quern coin2)lacui)

g'- (f

24
qiu
riiihi
;

TEXTUAL CIUTICISM.
bene complacuisti)
evg. Ebion. ad
::

ita
3,
.

Mt,
17
|

ev crot et.

Lc
al

cf et.

Mt
pi
.

^v^oK-qaa

cum nABD:

KLMUn

^1

D^EFHVrA
is

pm

rivhoK."
first

We

observe

that the language of the notes

is

Latin, but that every -word

ablireviated which can

be abbreviated, and the compression goes so far as

to of

omit even the point which usually stands at the end a contracted word.
thus
|

We

note next that a vertical

different
1

line,

divides

between notes on

words
,

so tliat there are three separate notes

on verse

one

on

(jujivrj,

one on

ev ctol,
. ,

of points, thus

.,

and one on evSoK-rjaa. A series marks the transition from the

is

evidence for one reading to that for a rival reading.

Next we note that the testimony

cited

by means

of

symbols, either letters or numerals, representing the

witnessing documents, the full names of which would

extend the note to unmanageable proportions, as well

as present so poor a mai-k for the eye as to double

the labour of using the digest.

The abbreviations

of

Latin Avords as well as all symbols peculiar to this book are explained in a preliminary list prefixed to
the volume.

With

this mucli of explanation

:

we may

manage
"

to i-ead tlie cyplicr before us thus

(f)on'r) [i.e.

without any verb, as the latter half of

read in the text al)ove, in accord-

the note

tells us, is

ance] with [the testimony of the following witnesses,

to wit

]."

Then

follow the symbols of the witnessing

documents, two of which in this case (those represented by the two

manuscripts
version.

capital lettei's, a*!)) are Greek and the other two each a MS. of a Latin Tlie break made l)y the row of points indi;

THE MATTER OF
where we read
:

CRITICISM.

25

cates the passage over to the other side of the evidence,

"

5*

[a conventional symbol, indicating

here the editions of the

New

Testament published by
in

Robert Stephens in 1550 and the Elzevirs

(1830)], Ln,

1624,

together with those of Griesbach (1827) and Schol/z

\i.c.

v^

Lachmann's

edition, 1842], Ti.

['i.e.

Tischendorf's earlier edition, 1859, called his seventh]

add

cyevero [so that they read

fjaavr}

cyevero]

with [the

following witnesses, to wit

the enumeration of
case five

Then again follows the witnesses by symbols. In this

]".

Greek manuscripts are named, under the

x",

symbols,
tion

A, B, L, P, with the additional informathat " eleven other uncials [i.e. Greek MSS.
all
^

written throughout in large letters] and nearly

other
"

Greek MSS. join in this testimony. With the symbol '' itV' the enumeration of the versions commences, this symbol representing the " Itala," or Old
Latin version, while
the/.' tells

\'
^
'

us that the statement

its

/'

here

made

holds good of most (plpj'isque) of

MSS.
fF^')

in opposition to the one cited (under the symbol

on the other
Latin MS.,

side.

The divergent reading

of the

Old

then particularly stated in parentheses, and the enumeration proceeds with the citation of the
b, is

Vulgate Latin version

(vg.),

the Coptic version (cop.),

both Syriac versions (syr'") and the intimation that Next, a/ns) might be added. other versions yet (al

more particular quotation is given of peculiar readings which yet appear to make for the insertion of eyevero, viz., " Likewise [the Old Latin MS.] a [reads] venit vox, [the Old Latin MS.] f, vox
after a semicolon,
venit."

After another semicolon other peculiar read:

ings are given, thus

"

[Two Greek MSS. wTitten

in

26

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
2''*,

small letters and cited as] 28.

[and one Old Latin

after
ovp[avo)y]."

MS.

cited

as]

g'-

[read]

rjKova-Or]

Finally, in parentheses,

the parallel passages from

Matthew and Luke are given as briefly as possible, and we find ourselves against the perpendicular line which tells us that we are at the end of this note. The next note concerns the reading ei/ crot, and tells
us
:

"

v o-ot

([commended

also by] Griesbach),

[is

read

above in accordance] with [the testimony of the following uncial manusci'ipts of the
Cri-eek

Testament,

viz.,

those cited by the symbols] {<,B)L)"',L,P,A, [and the

following, written in small letters,
viz., those cited by and more than 25

the symbols]

1,

13,

22,

33,

69,

others, [as well as of the following

MSS.
c, ft"-',

of the

Old

Latin version,

viz.,

those cited as]

ft''-,)

a,,

(also [et.

etiam], apparently

g^,

1,

the Yulgate Latin version,

the Coptic version according to Schwartzes edition, the Syriac version

according to Schaaf's edition [of

the Peshitto], the text of the Syrian version according

to

White's edition

[of

the Harclean], the Armenian

version according to
version,

Zohrab's edition, the Ethiopic

and the Gothic version."

on
tlie

At

this j^lnce

we
and

reach the points, .and pass over to the reading

evidence

contrary part:

"Stephens,

1550,

and Griesbach 's text [all this is included in the sign 9] [read] ti/ w with A,r,n, and eight other uncial and most other Greek MSS., [as
Elzevir, 1624, Seholt'z

well as with the Old Latin

latter reads]

MSS.

cited as] b, d ([which

g''

in queni complacui),

(f

[reads] qui
is

mihi bene complacuisti)."

added that the parallel in in Luke cf crot is read, to which

The information Matthew reads ev

is

then
while

w,

added

"

Compare

THE MATTER OF
also the

CRITICISM.

27

Ebionite Gospel [as quoted in the note] at

17," where,

Matt.

iii.

sure enough,

we

find a long

quotation

from

this

apocryphal book,

taken from
us:

Epiphanius.

The
"
X,

third
[is

note

is

briefer,

and

only

tells

evSoKrja-a

read above] with

[the uncial

MSS.]

K, L, M, U, n, and most others, while [the uncial MSS.] W, E, F, H, Y, T, A, and very many The difterence, it will be others [read] rjvSoKrjaa." observed, turns on the presence or absence of the augment. The reader has probably not waded through this
A, B,
D*-,

explanation of these notes without learning something

more than the mere knack of unravelling their conHe has tractions and extending their implications. Greek classes of two are that there learned, doubtless, manuscripts, the one written in large letters and cited
by
capital letters as symbols,

in small letters

Above

all else,

and the other written by numerals as symbols. however, he is likely to have learned
and
cited

that digests of readings are useless to those

who know

nothing about the things digested. He has not read even these few notes without feeling that he must

know something about

sions

these manuscripts and verit

and fathers
is

(for

is
i.

a mere chance that no

father

quoted on

their testimony.
is

Mark 11), if he is to deal with We may assume, therefore, that he

the better prepared by a sight of the digest to go with us in our next step, and learn something a.bout

our three classes of witnesses.

28

TEXTUAL CRITIC J S.U.

Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament.

1.

The most astonishing thing about the manuscripts New Testament is their great number as has already been intimated, quite two thousand of them have been catalogued upon the lists, a number altogether out of proportion to what antiquity has The oldest of preserved for other ancient books.
of tlie
:

them was
century
;

-\vi-itten

about the middle of the fourth

the youngest after the

New

Testament had

been put into print. The products of so many ages, they differ among themselves in numerous particulars

the material on which they are written, the character in which they are written, the divisions that have been introduced into the text or indicated on the

like.

margin, the punctuation they have received, and the The oldest copy that has survived to our day,
it will

be observed, was made quite two centuries or two centuries and a half after the latest book of the New Testament was given to the world. There can
arise

no question among them, therefore, as to the

avitographs of the sacred books.

However we may

account for

it,

the autographs disappeared very early

perhaps the brittleness of the papyrus (2 John 12) on which they were written and the constant use to

which they were put, combined with the evil fortunes of a persecuted Church and a piety which knew
nothing of the sacredness of
very rapidly.
burst of a
relics,

to destroy

them

At any rate, except in a rhetorical Tertullian, we hear nothing of them in the

primitive Church, and anlrenaeus and an Origen were,

THE MATTER OF
"Xlike

CRITICISM.

29

us of to-day, forced to depend solely on the oldest and most accurate copies. In attempting to classify this vast mass of mateiial, the first and sharpest line that is drawn concerns the manuscripts, and itself with the contents of separates those which give a continuous text of whatever extent from those that contain only the Church lessons drawn from the New Testament. The latter are called " Lectionaries," and number several hundreds, dating from the eighth to the sixteenth and even seventeenth centuries they form a subordinate class of manuscripts, which will engage our attention

at a later

point.

much more numerous, but

selves in

The continuous manuscripts are differ greatly among themOnly a few

the extent of their contents. the whole

contain

New
of

Testament, and some are

small fragments that preserve only a few verses or

even

words.

Most

them, doubtless, never conTestament, but were, when

tained the entire

New

complete, manuscripts of one or more of the portions

into which the bulkiness of a written copy and the
costliness of

hand-made volumes caused

the

New
manu-

Testament to be divided in eaily times.

This cu-cuni-

stance leads to the apportioning of our extant

scripts into classes, according to the parts of the

New
the
is

Testament that they contain

and

following

indications of the early custom, the

New

Testament

divided, for critical purposes, into four sections

(1) the Gospels, (2) the
(3)

viz.

Acts and the Catholic Epistles,

the Epistles of

Paul,

and

(4)

the Apocalypse.

The manuscripts for each of these sections are counted separately, and symbols assigned to them inde-

30
pendently.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

It hence happens that when a manuscript more than one section it may be represented contains by different symbols in its several parts, while conmay i-epresent different vei'sely the same symbol

manuscripts
example,

in

the

several
is

sections.

Thus,

for

in the Gospels

Codex

Bezas, while

in

Paul

is

Codex Claromontanus, a related but

manuscript
;

entii-ely

different

in the Gospels

is

the J&reat
of

Codex Vaticanus, the

manuscripts, while

oldest

and most vakiable

is

our

in the Apocalypse

the late

and
hand,

infei'ior

Codex Vaticanus
Gospels
is

2066

on the other

of the

the same codex as

in

and 13 is the same with 33 of the Gospels and 17 of Paul and 69 of the Gospels is the same as 31 of On the Acts, 37 of Paul, and 14 of the Apocalypse. other hand, n. A, and C represent the same codices throughout the four parts, and 1, 3, 5, 6, etc., are the same codices in the Gospels, Acts and Paul. The
Paul
; ;

list

for each of the four parts

is

redacted, in a word,

in entire independence of the others,

treated independently.

and must be The conveniences that arise

;

from

this

arrangement are manifold

while very small

to speak

inconvenience results, except

when we wish
to

of a manuscript in a context that gives no hint of

the portion
belongs.
cases
5

of

the
it

New
is

Testament
its

which

it

Usually

easy to use

name

in such

when

this is inconvenient, a kind of shorthand

method

of distinguishing it has been suggested,

consists in placing a small

at the top, like

which numeral at the bottom (not an exponent, this means something

very different) of the symbol, designating

second, third, or fourth

it

as the

manuscript of that symbol in

THE MATTER OF
the
lists,

CRITICISM.

31

the parts being counted, of course, from the

Gospels on.
Bezte,

Thus, D without numeral means Codex which contains the Gospels and Acts and D^
;

Codex Claromontanus, which contains the Epistles of Paul. In like manner E means Codex Basiliensis of the G jspels, while E., means Codex Laudianus 35 of the Acts, and E. Codex Sangermanensis of Paul. Or
again,

is

the ^reat Codex Yaticanus, and includes

'^

the Gospels, Acts, and Paul, while

canus 20G6, and contains the Apocalypse.

method
result
is

of

Codex VatiAnother somewhat more clumsily securing the same

B^,
is

to place at the top of the symbol

ated indication of the portion of the

in
I3.apoc.^ ])ovv. act.^

New
g^^^j^

an abbreviTestament
distinguish-

which the manuscript bears this symbol, thus

J)
paui^

^^^ ^^^

j^j^g^

j^q

ing marks are needed in citing the manuscripts in the

direct business of textual criticism, for

their classification

which purpose and symbolising were invented the passage that is under discussion determines the section, and the bare symbol is sufficient to identify
each manuscript.

Another sharp
manuscripts into
cerns itself

division
gi-eat

line

that

separates

the

and well-marked classes conwith the character or handwriting in

which they are written.

scripts are parted into

By

this division the

manu-

two very unequal bodies, called respectively " Uncial MSS." and " Minuscule (or, more impi-operly and confusingly, 'Cursive') MSS." The former includes all those manuscripts, less than a hundred in number, which are written throughout in that kind of half-capital character which is technically

known

as uncial; they are designated in the

32
lists

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
and
cited in the digests

by the

capital letters of

the Latin, Greek, and

Hebrew
II,

alphabets as symbols

A, B,
in

C, D, etc., r, A, H,

2, etc., n-

includes all other manuscripts, about

The latter class two thousand

number,

all

of

which are written in a character

that more closely resembles the small letters of our

ordinarily printed
called minuscule

Greek and hence

is

appropriately
cvirsive)
;

(or

are designated in
chiefly

more improperly, the lists and cited

they

in

the digests
1,

by Arabic numerals as symbols:

2,

3,

4,

527,

etc.

The importance

of this classification resides

not so

much

in its great formal convenience as in the

fact that it separates the manuscripts

according to

their age.

No known

uncial

MS.

of the continuous

text was written later than the tenth century, and no

known minuscule
the ninth
;

(cur.sive)

was written
classes.

earlier

than

so that the tenth

century forms a sharp

division line

between the two

The

introducis

tion of the minuscule

hand

in the ninth century

not

only proved by the earliest dated books existing in

that hand
viz.. Codex 481 of the Gospels, dated 7th May, 835, the Bodleian Euclid, dated 888, and the

Bodleian Plato, dated 895

but

is

oddly illustrated by
to us

Codex

of the Gospels,
is

which comes

from the

ninth century, and

written partly in uncials and

Nevertheless, few specimens

partly in minuscules.
of the

minuscule hand of the ninth century exist

of the

among manuscripts

tenth century they become numerous,

for the continuous text
ecclesiastical

Greek Testament. In the and in the

eleventh they have entirely displaced uncial codices

;

institutions

though the conservatism of is illustrated by the con-

TILE

MATTER OF CRITICISM.

33

tinuance of the uncial hand in use for the lectionaries

through the eleventh century, of which age even

important dated copies
old, uncial copies,
exist.

By
late,

this classili cation

there are thus set apart from one another the few,

and the many,

minuscule copies,

and a separate

set of

symbols assigned to each.

Even
were,
at a

in the brief digests Ave

may

see

these two bodies of

it

codices marshalled in separate regiments, as

and are enabled

glance.

to estimate

them accordingly

The
fact

chronological eflect of classifying

in

codices

l)y

the handwriting employed

them

is

due to the
all

that
is

handwriting,

like

language and

else

human,

subject to gradual change aiul undergoes

histoi'ical

development, so that
epochs.

its

stages of growtli

mark
are
to

progressive

In the development of
stages
of
Capitals,

the Greek book-hand three strongly marked stages

be

distinguished,

the

But contemporary with these book-hands there was also in use, running in parallel development, a current or cursive hand for the more familiar and rapidly written documents And it was this cursive of business or private life. hand that became the real parent of each new book-hand, so that from the cursive capitals grew up the uncial book-hand, and from the cursive uncials The development was the minuscule book-hand. always, thus, the resultant of the co-working of two
Uncials, and Minuscules.

one pushing towards ease in writing, the other towards ease in reading, the one securing fluency,
forces,

the other

legibility.

Next
affected

after

these,

powerful force

that

the

the most development of 3

34

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
The
lapidary

writing seems to have been cliange in the material

on which the writing was wrought.

capitals, the

angular shapes of which were peculiarly

suitable to the art of stone-cutting,

light,
I'eed

became

graceful,

curved uncials when written with a pointed

on the

friable substance of the papyrus-paper, of

which constituted the usual material

centuries

books in the

immediately preceding and following the

of our era.
lines

These semi-cursive, rapid were no sooner transferred to the hard, smooth surface of vellum than they acquired

commencement
and light

the firmness and regularity which makes the book-

hand
fourth

of

our earliest vellum manuscripts (about the

century
it

a.d.)

the most

beautiful

known;

although

began to degenerate almost as soon as

formed, under the temptation which the smooth surface

offered to broaden

and coarsen the

strokes.

so soon as the

uncial

cursive of

common

Once more, life was

transferred from the papyrus of business writings to the

vellum of books,
tenth centuries,

it

acquired firmness and regularity,

of the ninth

and became the beautiful minuscule

only, however, to enter in

its tvirn

and on

a long course of gradual change and debasement. No Greek writing has come down to us in capitals ; they
are confined in extant books to
titles, supersci'iptions,

and the
century

like.

Tlie earliest extant remains of

of

Greek

literatui-e

and

Gieek

pi-ivate writing alike (second

b.c.)

present us with truly

is

uncial

writing,

but with an uncial which

as to hint of

as yet so largely cursive

a recent origin.

their highest beauty, so far as our

us to trace them, about the

The uncials reach monuments allow fourth century a.d. and

;

THE MATTER OF

CRITICISM.

35

the gradual changes which they undergo, the coarsening that came in in the sixth century, the oblong and oval shapes that were introduced together with a sloping writing in the seventh century, and the like,
are

among
like

the

most

trustwortliy

guides

of

the

pakeographer in determining the age of a manuscript.

manner the growth of tlie minuscule hand is ti-aceable through four marked and many less striking changes that furnish landmarks to the student. The and it details must be left to works on palaeography will suffice for us to have indicated them thus briefly,
In
;

while
the

we

insist

only on the broad distinction between

uncials aiid

minuscules as

great

classes,

the

former embracing, in general, the Biblical manuscripts written from the fourth to the tenth century,

and the

latter those written

from the tenth century

until the printing-press put a stop to hand-copying

altogether.

As has been

already hinted, the very material on

is

which a manuscript
that

written
its age.

may become

of import-

ance as a criterion of
the

It is perhaps certain

New

Testament autographs were written

on the paper made from the Egyptian papyrus (cf. 2 John 12), which appears to have been the ordinary This paper could be literary vehicle of the time.
manufactured in small sheets only, which were glued
together at the side edges into long ribbons, thus

and then written upon with a reed pen roll, a column to " such a book To open original sheets. of the each was simply to roll up the long ribbon at one end,
forming
rolls,

in short

columns running across the

'*

simultaneously allowing

it

to

unroll

at the

other

36

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

thus a long succession of short, narrow cokimns, con-e-

sponding to our pages, would pass before the eye of

the reader in a not inconvenient arrangement.

This

papyrus-book seems

to

have been
to be used

in

use pretty

universally during the first ages of the Christian era,

and papyrus continued

by Greek
of

scribes

as a "writing material as late as the ninth century.

No

very

early papyrus

manuscripts
;

the

New

Testament have come down to us some meagre fragments of the fifth century containing a few words from 1 Corinthians (cited as Q), and a seventh (?)
century fragment of Luke's Gospel, possibly from a
lectionary,

brought to light by Wesse/ly in

all
is

1882,
of,

are about

that

we have
at

as

yet knowledge

although
the

it

understood that there are more

papyii
of

among

Fayum

Vienna.

The

columnar

arrangement
scripts

our oldest

New

Testament manu-

on vellum appears to be a reminiscence of the appearance of an open papyrus roll and a witness to
of a

a desire to retain on vellum the familiar appeai-ance many-columned sheet of papyrus. Codex n has
four columns to each page, so that at every opening
it

offers

a view of eight narrow parallel columns. has three columns to

a

Codex

page, and several

manuscripts have two. "When vellum took the place of papyrus as a literary vehicle, the stiflness of the new
material,

which lent

itself

ill

to rolling, necessitated

a change in the form of the book, which now became a " codex," or, in other words, assumed the form of

bound leaves

as

in

our ordinary books.

Papyrus

leaves are rarely found so bound, and always inter-

leaved with vellum at intervals, to give stability to

THE MATTER OF CRITICISM.

the whole.

37

Cotton paper made

its

appearance in the
;

W estern world in the eiffhth

men
of a

century

the

first speci- ^^it is

/T^

New

Testament manuscript written on

rival

lectionary of the ninth century.

It did not, however,

become a serious
itself largely

of

parchment

until

it

was

displaced by I'ag or linen paper, which

was introduced in perhaps the twelfth centui-y, and came into general use in the fourteenth, although parchment was never entirely displaced until after Occasionally {e.g. Codex the invention of printing.
Leicestrensis)

parchment and paper both enter into

the composition of a book.

Thi'oughout the whole history of vellum books the

practice

more or

less prevailed of

supplying parchthe

ment

for

from old
renewed
did
this

new books by washing out sheets, which were thus made

use.

writing

available for

So destructive of literary monuments

occasionally
of

become that
of

it

was necessary
of

at the

end
the

the seventh century, for instance, to

perfect

forbid

destruction

manuscripts

the Scriptures or the Fatliers by a synodal decree.

The passage

of

time brings out again, perhaps by a

chemical action of the atmosphei'O, though often very

faintly, the lines of the older writing in such twice-

written codices
foi'med bv
tlie

unless, indeed, the erasiire was persome such perfect method as rubbing down

stone.

softened surface of the vellum itself witli pumiceSuch codices are called " codices rescripti," or

" palimpsests,"
classical

and some

of

our most valuable texts,

are
of this kind.

and

Biblical alike,

For
the

example, the precious Codex Ephraemi at Paris, so

called because the top (later)

writing contains

38

TEXTUAL CBJTJCI^M.
of

works

Ephrem

the Syrian,

is

a palimpsest of a

So also some very valuable sixth-century fragments of Matthew peeping out from are beneath some patristic writings. !'' H, R, W^' other New Testament examples. The deciphering of such erased writing is a difficult and painful task,
fifth-century
(cited as C).

New

Testament

Codex Z at Dublin

consists of

*= ^-

even with the assistance of chemical mixtures for

bringing out the faint
lines.

The

difficulty

of

consulting a manuscript

New
by

Testament in the
the total lack of

earliest ages
all

was

lai-gely increased

those aids to the eye which later

editing has gradually invented, and introduced into

The earliest manuscripts, or attached to the text. and no doubt the autographs, were written even without divisions between the words. The unbroken succession of letters ran from the beginning to the end of each line, and the division of these letters into words, clauses, sentences, and paragraphs, was left to Each the good sense of each individual reader. book of the New Testament, by this arrangement,
stood as a single word, and, at each opening of the

papyrus

roll

or vellum codex, a series of solid columns

alone confronted the eye.

untrained eye would
day, but
iiiid

The

difficulty

in i-eading such a text

which an must

not be taken as a standai-d for the I'eaders of that

it

is

obvioiis that

reading was a severer

task

under

such

circumstances

than

it

is

now.
into

Let the student exercise himself in dividing

its

words and

clauses

the
ai'e

following passage,

the

line divisions of

which

those of Codex Vaticanus

(B):-

THE MATTER OF

CBITICISM.

39

APXHToyeYi^rreAiOY
lYXYYioyOYKAecocre

rPAnTMeNTCOHCcMATO) TTpo4)HTHiAoYAnocTeA AU)TONArreAONMOY

nponpocconoycoYOC
K&TACKeYACeiTHNOAd
C0y4>^NHB0(x)NT0C

We
cai-e

have no means of discovering when editorial

began to be expended in inventing helps to easy

reading and introducing them into these unbroken

columns.

No

existing manuscript

is

wholly without

such helps, although the oldest have them rarely

and

fitfully.

Even our

oldest

manuscript, Codex
in the sense by

Vaticanus (B), which comes to us from the early fourth

century, occasionally

marks a break

a point at the height of the top of the letter or by

little blank space, and begins a new paragraph now and then by allowing the first letter of the line to But project a little beyond the edge of the column. it has no cnpital letters, no divisions between the woi-ds, no fui'ther punctuation, no breathings, no

accents.

Our next

oldest manuscript.
is

Codex

Sinaiti-

cns (x), which also

as old as the fourth century,

allows the letter that begins tho

new paragraph
;

to

stand entirely outside the column, and, like B, has a

single point irregularly for punctuation

but

it,

too,

lacks

all

breathings,

accents,

further

punctuation,

and

divisions

between words.

In Codex Alexandrinus
capitals

(A), of
letters

the fifth century,

(that

is,

larger

than those in the text) occur in the mai'gin

paragraphs.

at the beginning of

In Codex Claro-

40

TEXTUAL CniTTCISM.
(Dj),
of the sixth century,

montanus
text
is

although the
in the

continuous,

the words are

divided

and subscriptions of the several books. Breathings and accents do not occur until later the Thus latter probably not until the eighth century. gradually the text took upon itself more and more of the helps to easy reading which are now in universal
inscriptions
;

use, until the later

minuscules were furnished almost

modern printed copies. The most interesting attempt of early times to provide a handy edition of the New Testament, account of which has come down to us, was that made by Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, who
as fully as

published an
A.D.

edition

of

the

Epistles

of

Paul in

458, and, shortly afterwards,

a similar edition

of

the Acts and

Catholic

Epistles.

His editions

furnished a complete system of prologues, prefaces,

lists of

quotations sacred and profane found in the

chapters and ecclesiastical In addition to this, the lections and chapters were marked in the margin of the text itself, where also every fiftieth line (oi- ctti^os) was
books, and catalogues of
lections.

indicated by
also In-oke

its

appropriate numeral.

Whether he
of

up the text into short

"

lines

varied
line

length designed to aid in public reading

(called

each
At

"colon

or "

comma
biit

")

forming a sense-clause
all

is

more doubtful,
it
is

appears possible.

events,
(TTLxoL,

important that we do not confuse the which Euthalius certainly accurately counted

and numbered, with the cola or coramata with which " he may also have busied himself. Just as the " em and the affair of a modern printing oiKce is a fixed

THE MATTER OF
unit
of

CRITICISM.

41

measurement
so

for

the work the

done by the
orixo?

compositor,

in

ancient times

was a
it

line of set lenfjth, according to the

number
of

of whicli

included in any Avriting, in whatever line-lengths

was actually written, the length

estimated

the book was

calculated.

and

the

pay of
of

the

scribe

The
line
;

actvial

length

the

standard

appears to have been that of

Greek o-ti;(os the average hexameter

and
of

it

is

estimate these and

apparent at once that accurately to mark every fiftieth one on the

margin
of

New
to

referring

Testament MSS. presented a means each passage which would be in-

dependent of the form of the particular manuscript.

The name

crrt;)(o?

was often applied

also to the
cttixo?,

comma

or colon, which difiered from the

so called, not only in

technically

having to do with the sense, but

It

also in being of varied length. of the orators

was

to the writings

reading

that
it

and other books much used in public the colon-writing was first applied.
poetical books of the
it

Thence

was taken over into the

Old Testament, and Jerome proposed to introduce

into the prophets.
into the
of the

Whether Euthulins

inti'oduced it

New Testament or adopted it into his edition New Testament books or not, it first appears in extant New Testament codices not long after his time.
of
it

The great examples

the

are Codex Beza? (D) of

its

Gospels and Acts,

and

companion, Codex

Claromontanus (Dj) of the Pauline Epistles, as well

as

H3

of

Paul.

As

these clause-lines varied

Ls

much
from

in length, the writing in such manuscripts

far

compact, and times these "

much vellum
o-Tt'xot

is

wasted

hence, some-

" are

divided from one another

42

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
a point,

by

and
is
is

fclio

niannscript written solidly.

Such

a manuscript

of the Gospels.

Euthalius

not to be accounted the inventor of

author, and

the lessons or the chapters which he marked in his

editions.

He nowhere

claims to be

theii'

he records two separate schemes

the Acts.
into

of chapter-division in
first

When
of

the

New

Testament was
for

divided

chapters

wc have no data

determining.

Clement
of

Alexandria already speaks of pericopes,

Tertullian of capitula,
Kee^aAfta.

and Dionysius

of Alexandria

Our

oldest

manuscripts already bear

inherited

them on

their

margins, and have

them

from a past older than themselves. For example, the chapters in Codex Vaticanus (B) for Paul's Epistles are numbered consecutively throughout the book,

and

although

Hebrews stands immediately

after

2 Thessalonians in the Codex, the numei'als attached

to the chapters prove that they were adopted

from

Hebrews stood next after Galatians. Again, this same Codex (B) presents two separate systems of chaptei'S for Paul and the Acts
a manuscript in which

and Catholic Epistles

alike,

which could scarcely be

it.

unless l)oth had been older than

The most
is

ini-

poi-tant of the chapter-divisions in the Gospels

that

which apparently beca,me the commonly accepted one (found in A, C, N, B, Z, etc.), and which is called the
TiVA.01

from the circumstance that the "

of each

titles "

of

these chapters are gathered into tables at the begin-

ning

Gospel or written at the top or foot of

each page.
the Epistles

To

these tltXol correspond in Acts and

KecfxiXeta

the

of

Euthalius.
is

still

more

interesting division in the Gospels

that which

THE MATTER OF
woes under the
sections

CRITICISM.

43

name

of the

Ensebian (or Ammonian)

and Eusebian canons, the object of which Each Gospel was appears to have been harmonistic. divided into shorter or longer numbered sections 355 in Matthew, 233 in Mark, 342 in Luke, and 232
in John.

Then ten

tables or lists were

formed

called

"canons," the

first of

which contained
;

all

the passages

common

to all four Gospels

the second, third and

;

fourth those

common

to the ninth inclusive

any given three the fifth those common to any two, and
to

the tenth those peculiar to one.

By

attaching to the

number number

of each section in the of the list

margin of the text the to which it belonged, or " canon

''

a veiy complete harmonistic system, or at least system Thus, of reference to pai'allel passages, resulted.

opposite

T 1 John

xv.

on V. JU was written
this is

PA0

131)

or

.,

whence we learn thnt

the 139th section of

;

John, and belongs to the third canon on turning to the canons, the thii'd is found to contain passages

common
opposite
It
is

to John, Matthew, and Luke, and in John 139 we find Matthew 90 and Jjuke
tlie

it,

58.

easy to turn to these sections in

text and

read the parallel passages to

the
fifth

John

139.

Codex

of

century

is

the oldest codex that preserves

C, D,

this system complete.

the sections,

but not the canons.

is

harmonistic information

and many others, have Sometimes the entered on the margin of

this

each page.

No

codex which has any part of

system at

hand can be older than Eusebius, The early history of the lections drawn from the Greek Testament is very obscure. At an early period.
first

44
however,
it

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
became the custom to mark the beginin the margin of continuous the Greek Testament, which were thus
This was one of

ning and end of each

copies
of

I'edacted for use in public service.

the excellences of Euthalius' editions.

The

earliest

MS. which
the text
is
;

possesses a table of the lessons prefixed to

probably Codex Cvpinus (K), of the ninth

of such tables for

century

and the arrangement

is

Acts

and the Epistles

Euthalius.

apparently claimed to himself by

after the eighth

Many Greek MSS.

and

ninth centuries mai'k the beginning of the lections

with the word apxrj or ^

the word
TiXo<;

or ap, and the end with

or

or re inserted into the text,

but written
It

in

coloured,

commonly vermilion

ink.

became the custom

it

also to insert in the

margin

I'ubrics

directing the substitution of words for the

stood, in the public reading.

text as
in

For example,

Luke

x.

24 we read,

"And

behold a certain lawyer

arose," but the

margin

directs us to read, "

A certain
:

lawyer came to Jesus,

Master,"
etc.

tempting him and saying

x.

So at Luke

22

we

are

directed
said."

to read, "

And

turning to His
out
of

disciples,

He
the

Naturally enough, from these

readings
itself.

MSS. many
margin into

erroneous
text

crept

the

Codex 7

of the Gospels presents a very per-

fect use.

specimen of a manuscript redacted for liturgical

glance like this over the origin of the various

divisions that have

been introduced into the

scarcely
fail

New
the

Testament text

can

to

impress

THE MATTER OF CHITI CIS21.

all.

45

student with the unauthoritative charactei' of them

Least of

all

can the ordinary divisions of our

verses be permitted
text.

modern Bibles into chapters and

to affect

our free treatment of the

divisions

No

one of

the ancient

found

in

the

manuscripts

passed over into modern Bibles,

Our chapters were

invented apparently by Stephen Langton (f"1228), and were first applied to the Latin Vulgate, only

thence finding their

Greek Testament.
Stephen
''

way gradually into the printed Our verses were made by Robert
from Paris

inter equitandum," on a journey

to Geneva,

and

Avere first introduced into the

l>y

Greek

Testament published

him

in 1551.

The

insjjired

lettei's, and must be separated into words and sections and paragraphs by each scholar for himself. No attempt was made to give to the earlier MSS. any further beauty than that which resulted from the

text consists of the simple succession of

use of the best materials and the exquisitely neat and

regular writing.
(n*)

is

The vellum of Codex Sinaiticus made from the finest antelope skin, and that

of B,
it
;

A, Do,

is

not unworthy of comparison with

while the regularity and beauty of the hand in

which these manuscripts are written challenge the admiration of all beholders. Ornamental capitals and
colophons
Avere,

hoAveA^er,

soon introduced, and red

Avell

ink was used for variety in them as

rubrics
early

as in various
of the

and the

like.

The most sumptuous

the
" purple
is it

manusciipts

are

manuscripts,"

the vellum of Avhich the text Avritten -upon

dyed purple or crimson and

in silver

and

gold.

Jerome

Bcotied at such " editions de

luxe" as possessing more

4G

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Several of

external splendour than inner excellence.

tlie

most valuable codices of the Old Latin version

e.g.,

(as,

those cited as b,

f,

e,

i),

as

well as

the

famous Codex Argenteus

to this class.

of the Gothic version, belong

The purple MSS. of the Greek Testament come mainly fi'om the sixth century such are N, 2, $. Of these 2 (Codex E,ossanen.sis) is especially
:

noteworthy,

inasmuch as
manuscript so

it

is

adorned also with

is

a collection of

miniatures, and

the earliest

New

Testament
this

ornamented, and shares

honour with only one other Biblical manuscript,

a purple codex of Genesis at Vienna.

The

art of

dyeing MSS. was i-evived under Charlemagne and his

successors,

giving us a series of minuscule purples

of the ninth

and tenth centuries, such as the

St.

Petersburg codex, lately published by Belsheim, and

the second purple codex dis:covered at Berat by the

Abbe

Batiffol.

With
down

these preliminaiies,

we may

proceed next to

catalogue the
to us.

Uncial Manuscripts that have come

placed on the

There have, at the present writing, been lists some eighty-nine of them all told,

which are
N

cited

by the following symbols

A B B^''""

D*^"^- ^"'- D^''"'

E^'''G''-

E^'^^

F^''"^

V
M
g
"J-

CV^^^Jl)

[G*"^"'

A]

11 H^^^^- H^'^"'

J^l.L'.X4.S.(i.7.

T^
N''-

T/"Cath. Paul

JjAct. Calh. Paul

'^'^'^'

M^""'

N^^"'

O^'^'^'*

O^'*"'

Qb. Paul

pAct.

Calh. Paul. Apoc.

Ql'a"l

JJ,

B^''"'

'pb.c.d.e.f.

rpwoi

JJ

^a.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.

r A

[rrG^"^"']

ab.c.d.e.f.g.h.

AHH2*

XY Z = 89

separate copies.

THE MATTER OF

ClUTICTSM.

47

To these should be added another inchiding some words from 1 Tim. vi. 2 and iii. 15, 16, described by Zahn in his Furscliungen zur Geschiclite des N.T. Kanons, Theil iii., p. 277, bringing the total up to 90.
These manuscripts are distributed among the various
sections of the

New

Testament as follows
:

Uncial MSS. of the Gospels

AB

DEF

F-^

aH
li

V-^'-^-

VK

M N N^
JJ

Qa.b.c.d.eXg.k.p

S T

T^-cd.e.f.*j;woi
0;'-b-c.d.e.f.g.li.

y
"^

^/..(!a-

^Ya.b.c.d.o.f.g.h.I.X

YZ

r A

_^

^ n

2
Uncial

4>

=
D

G7.

V^'XIIL

MSS.
C
of

of the
E_, F^^

Acts and CatJiolic Epistles

AB

Go

G*' H.-, V-^-^- K,,

L,

V,=

16,

^9' -

which

only N

K does not contain tlie Acts, and A B C K2 Lg Po contain the Catholic

:

Epistles.

Uncial MSS. of Paul's Epistles

N
-f-^
.

AB
is

C D2 E3 F2 F^ G,
^2

II3 I-

K2 L2 M2 N2 O2
"

r-j^

0^0 P, Qo

= 20,

to Avhich Zahn's

Codex

to be added, maki>ig 21.

:

Uncial MSS. of the Apocalj^se

A B,

C Ps

5.

They are

distributed according to the centuries in

:

which they were written as follows

Uncial MSS. of the fourth century

B=

2.

Uncial MSS.

of the fifth

century
10.

AC

11-2 3

lb

Q Q^ T T""^ =

48

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Uncial MSS. of the sixth century
:

Djj E.,

H3 V^
-^ |-^

Qccf.g.

Oo 2 O'^ P R T" T=^^^^^ Zahn's Codex X] 24.

N'*

Uncial

MSS.

of the

seventh century:

Uncial

MSS.

of tlie eighth century

B2

E L F
F2
rpf

W^^*^

<!

E = 8.
:

Uncial MSS. of the ninth centuiy

E3

G>

G3 H.

V
S

W'='i'=-^e'^-

K K,, L^ M M, N2 X f A A II = 31.
:

0^*-^-

Pg

Uncial

MSS.
Qi^

of tlie tenth century

GH
ments.

0"

G.

Very many

of these

MSS.

are the merest frag-

X alone contains the whole New Testament. contains the whole up to the middle of Hebrews,

and thence lacks pait of Hebrews, the Pastoral A contains Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse. C contains fragments of all but a few chapters. On the other hand, many manunearly every book.
scripts

have received such marginal or other correction

first

by the

or later hands as to give us practically

manuscripts within manuscripts.

are usually quoted by numerals,

These various hands

lettei-s,

or asterisks

placed at the top of the letter symbolising the MS.,

though these must not be confounded with the compound symbols given in the list above (such Qa.b.c. etc.), which represent separate as I^'^'^' I^ N^
fragments classed thus together under one symbol All other signs attached to for convenience' sake.

THE MATTER OF C HIT WISM.

the
lists

49

the top of the symbol besides those enumerated in

above, represent different hands which have

been correcting the manuscript designated by the

symbol.

D*

D'' J)" Avould

Thus D* D** D***, or be three ways (all

D*D2
of

D",

or

which are in

use) of designating

as oi'iginally written (D")' ^^^^

the corrections of the second (D**, D^, or 1)^) and

third (D***,
D^, or T>^) hands.
If

no hand has
is

corrected the reading the manuscript

as

cited simply

where

it is

cited as

D*, this advertises to us

our oldest manviscripts,

that a correction
digest.

may be

looked for elsewhere in the

The

correctors of

such as B, X, C, are of importance. B^ is of the fourth century ; B^ of the tentli or eleventh C^ of

;

the

.sixth ;

and C^

of the ninth,

rected

by very many
{<ii
;

n has been hands, which are cited

:

cor-

by

Tischendorf by the following system

fourth century
correctors of
Xcb,
f^cc,
^cc-';

n^

is

of the

is

of

the sixth

four separate
N",

the seventh century are cited as

xe
is

of the twelftli

century.

How

manuscripts came to be furnished with such series

of
if

successive corrections

may

be readily understood
different conditions

mind the under which a manuscript came

will only bear in

we

in being

and continued from those governing a printed book. Not

into

unfrequently the

fortunate

owner

of

copy,

on

obtaining access to another, would compare the two

more or

less accurately
;

throughout,

and enter the

and thus (as has happened in the case of 67 of Paul as compared with 67**) has given himself on the margin a far better text than his copy
differences

contained in

itself.

50
It

TEXTUAL CRTTICTSM.
would be
of interest to aikl here of the

a brief

techiiic;il

description of each

MSS. named by symbol

;

above.

The beginner may, however, dispense for the and when he feels the need of it, it is better for him to seek it where The best source of such it can be found in full.
time with matter of this sort
information
edition,
is

the Prolegomena to Tischendorf 's eighth

which have been prepared by Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, and published by Hinrichs (in Latin) The most comprehensive treatise of the at Leipzig.
sort

in

English
to

is

Dr.

Scrivener's

" Plain

Intro-

duction

the Criticism of the

New

Testament,"
Bell,

third edition

(Cambridge

Deighton,

&

Co.,

1883), in connection with which mi;st be used the

little

pamphlet, called "Notes on Scrivener's 'Plain Introduction, etc' " chiefly from the memoranda of
the late Professor Ezra Abbot, and published by Dr.

Thayer (London
manuscripts.
(1)
X. Sinaiticus,

Ward, Lock,

Ar

Co.).
list

It will be

suflicient here to give a

compressed

of the uncial

Uncial 2fSS. of the Gospels.

nunc Petropolitanus.

Stec.

IV.

Con-

tains the whole

New

Testament.
Srec.

A. Alexandrinus Londinensis.
whole
XXV. G
iv.

V.

Contains the
i.

New
;

Testament, except Matthew

vi.

to

John

50 to

viii.

52

and

2 Coi-inthians

13 to

xii. 7.

B. Vaticanus Roma3.

Srec.

lY.

Contains the whole

New
xiii.

Testament,
25
;

except
2

Hebrews
Titu.s,

ix.

14

to

and

Timothy,

Philemon,

and the

Aj^ocalj^pse.

THE MATTER OF CBJTICIHM.

C.

51
Ssec.

Ephraemi Syri
Contains

rescriptus
of

Parisiensis.
all

fragments

the

books, except

2 Thessalonians and 2 John.

D. BezEe Cantabrigiensis.
E. Basiliensis.
lacunte.

Saec.

YI.

Contains the

Gospels and Acts, with some small lacunpe.

Stec.

YIII. Contains the Gospels with

Soec.

F. Boreeli Rheno-Traiectinus,

IX. Contains the

Sa^c.

Gospels with lacuna?.

F''.

Margo Octateuchi
VII.

Coisliniani Parisiensis.

Contains fragments of the Gospels, Acts,

Epistles.
Sajc.

and Pauline

G. Seidelii Londinensis.

IX. or X. IX. or X.
ScTC.

Contains
Contains
VI., VI.

the Gospels with lacunje.

H.

iSeidehi

Hamburgensis.

Srec.

the Gospels with

II.3-1.7..

lacun.ie.

Petropolitani rescripti.

V.,

.,

Contain fragments of the Gospels.

I''.

Londinensis rescriptus.

Sa?c.

V.

Contains a frag-

ment

of John.
Parisiensis.
Sa^c.

K. Cyprius
L. Regius

IX. Contains the whole

A^IIT.

of the Gospels.

Parisiensis.

Sa^c.

Contains

the

Gospels with lacuna\

M. Campianus
N. Purpnreus.
Gospels.

Parisiensis.

S.ipc.

IX.

Contains the

whole of the Gospels.

Stvc.

VI.
VI. IX.

Contains fragments of the Contains

N". Cairensis.

So^c.

fragments

of

Mark.
0. Moscuensis.
Sa^c.

Contains fragments of

John.

52
Qa.b.c.d.e.f.g.

TEXTUAL CPJTICISM.
(luelferbytfiiuis,

Bodleianus,

Veronensis,

Turicensis, Sangullensis, Moscueusis, Parisiensis.

Sjec.

IX., X., VI., VII., IX., IX., IX.

of

Contain
Contains

the

hymns

Lnke

i.

and

ii,

P. Guelferbvtanns rescriptns.

iSav.

VI.

fragments of the Gospels.

Q. Guelferbytanns rescriptns.
Sa^c.

V. Contains fragSa^c.

Lnke and John. R. Nitriensis, nunc Londinensis,

ments
of

rescriptns.

VI.

Contains fragments of Luke.

S.

Vaticanus Roma^.

Sa^c.
Sa^c.

X.
V.

Contains the Gospels.

Contains fragments of
Chiovensis,

T, Borgianus Rom;e.

Luke and John.

-pii.c.d.c.f.

Peti-opolitanus, Porfirianus

Bor-

gianus Bomre, Cantabrigiensis, Mellsiaj Ilorneri.

Sajc.

VI., VI., VII.,

VL, IX.

Contain small

fragments of the Gospels.

'j-'Hoi.

"VVoidii.

Sa^c.

V.

Contains fragments of Luke

and John. U. Marcianus Venetus.

the Gospels.

Sa^c.

IX. or X.

Contains

V. Moscuensis.
to

Sa'c.

IX.

Contains the Gospels up

lacuna?.

John

vii.

39,

with some

\Ya.b.c.d.e,f.g.ii.

Parisiensis,

Neapolitanus

Borbonicus,
et
Sa^e.

Sangallensis,

Cantabrigiensis,

Oxonien?is

Atho., Uxoniensis, Londinensis, Oxoniensis.

VIII.,

VIII.,

IX.,

IX., IX.,
(lOspels.

IX., IX.,

IX.

Contain fragments of the

X. Monacensis.

Sa-c.

IX. or X.
Sax-.

Contains fragments

of the Gospels.

Y. Barberinus Roma*.
iDciit
(>r

VIII.

Contains a frag-

John,

THE MATTER OF
Z. Dublinensis rescriptus.

CRITICISM.
YI.

ho

Sicc.

Contains fragContains

ments

of

Matthew.
IV.
.Sa'C.

r. Tischendorfianus

IX. or X.

the Gospels with

A.

lucunc'e.

Sangallensis.

Sa'c.

Gospels, except
"*.

IX. or X. Contains John xix. 17 35.

the

Tischendorfianus Lipsiensis.
a fragment of Matthew.

Sa-c.

YII. Contains
Chiovenses.

(H)b.c.d.c.f.g,ii.

Petropolitani

et

Porfiriani

Sa'C.

VII., VI.. VII. or VIII., VI., VI., VI.,

IX. or X.

Contain fragments of the Gospels.

8a'C.

A. Tischendorfianus III. Oxoniensis.

IX.

Con-

tams Luke and John.

H. Zacynthius

Londinensis.

Stec.

VIII.

Contains

fragments of Luke.

n. Petropolitanus. with lacunar

2. Hossanensis

S;l'C-.

IX.

Contains the Gospels

Purpureus.

Sa'C.

VI.
xvi.

Contains

Matthew and Mark, except Mark

4>.

14

20.

Beratinus Purpureus.
Gospels of

VI Matthew and Mark

Sa^c.

(?).

Cont;iins the

with lacun;e.
Epistles.

(2)

Uncial AISS. of

the Acts

and Catholic

A B C D.
Gospels.

See under these same symbols for

the

E. Laudianus Oxoniensis.

S;uc.

VI.

Contains Acts

with lacume.
F*^.

See under the same symbol for the Gospels.

Siec.

G. Petropolitanus.
of Acts.

VII.
Sa'c.

Contains a fragment

C'. Vaticanus

Rnma\

IX

{?).

Contains frag-

ments

of Acts.

64

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Siiec.

H. Mutinensis.
I-'''.

IX. Contains Acts with

Sa^c.

laciinie.

Petropolitani

rescripti.

V.,

VII., VII,

Contain fragments of Acts.

K. Moscuensis. and Pauline

Sa!C.

IX. Contains Catholic Epistles

S;i;c.

Epistles, with lacunas in the lattei-.

L. Angelicus Iloma\

IX.

Acts with lacunas,

Catholic Epistles entire, and Paul's Epistles

to

up

Hebrews

xiii.

10.
Sa^c.

P. Porfirianus Chiovensis.

IX.

Contains Acts,

Catholic Epistles, Paul's Epistles, and the Apocalypse,

with lacunae.

(3)

Uncial

MSS. of

the,

Ejnstles of Paul.

^5 A B C. See under the same symbols of the Crospels. D. Claromontanus Parisiensis. Sa?c. VI. Contains

the Epistles of Paul.

E. Sangermanensis,
F. Augiensis

nunc Petropolitanus.
Sa;c.

iSiec.

IX.

Contains Paul with lacunse.

Cantabrigiensis.

IX.

Contains

Paul with lacun;y, except Hebrews.

F". iSee

under

this

symbol

in the Gospels.
Sasc. IX. Hebrews.

G. Bfcrnei'innus

Dresdensis.

Contains

Paul with
II.

lacunie, except

Parisiensis, Moscuensis, et al.

Siec.

VI.

Contains

fragments of Paul.
1^.

Petropolitanus.
1

Saec.

V.

Contains fragments of

Corinthians and Titus.

this

K. See under
Epistles.

symbol

of

Acts and Catholic

Acts and
Catholic

L. See

under

this

symbol of

Epistles.

THE MATTER OF CIUTICISM.

M.
Londinensis et Hamburgensis.
tains

55

fragments of

Soec. IX. Conand 2 Corinthians and

Hebrews.

N. Petropolitanus. Sa3C. IX. of Galatians and Hebrews.

0. Petropolitanus.
S;uc.

Contains fragments
Contains a fragment

VI.

of 2 Corinthians.

C.

Moscuensis.
Ephesians.

Sajc.

VI.

Contains a fragment of

P. See under the same symbol of Acts and Catholic

Epistles.

Q. Porfirianus Chiovensis Papyraceus.

tains fragments of
p..
1

Sac.

V.

Con-

Corinthians.

Cryptoferracensis.

Sioc.

VII.

Contains a fragContains
frag-

ment
[S
?].

of 2 Corinthians.
8a'c.

Parisiensis.

IV.

VI.

ments

of 1

Timothy.

(4)

Lhicial

MSS.

of the Ajioccdypsc.

A C.

See under the same symbols for the Gospels.

Iloniiu.
Sioc.

P. A'aticanus

VIII.

Contains the

Apocjilypse. P. 8co

under the same symbol for the Acts and

Catholic Epistles.

It ought to be noted that

Ws

above

is

given the
<I>

symbol

by Dr. Scrivener; that the symbol

is

used by Dr.

Scrivener to designate a codex which

has been since found to contain no part of the

New

Testament, and by Gebhardt to designate the reconstructed

common

parent of the minuscules 13, 69,

5G
124, 34(5

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
;

that T^

is

Dr. Scrivener's Evangelistarium

cited

299

that

B
of

of the Apoc. is

by Dr. Tregelles

by the symbols
G-.^.

and

O'^'^'^-

Tregelles'

and that the symbols Supplement represent the

;

codices cited here as Gg, Og, R^*

'^'2->

I'espectively.

The Minuscule
and therefore, as a
thirty of

MSS.
class,

of

the

ISTew

Testament,
later,

while far more numerous than the uncials, are

of less importance.

About

them contain the whole

New

Testament,

and many contain more than one section of it. They range in date from the ninth to the sixteenth century inclusive, and present several well-marked types

on the ground of which they are separated They by palaaogi-aphers into at least four classes. differ in the general character of the text which they exhibit less widely than the extent of time which
of A\Titing,

they cover might lead us to expect.

Only about one

them have as yet been fully cellated, although many more have been partially collated, and enough of this work has been done to They give us a general knowledge of them as a class.
hundred and
fifty

of

are cited for critical purposes, for the most part, by

Arabic numerals.

Full

lists

of them, with the in-

formation concerning each

that

has been thus far

made

public,

may

be found in the third edition of

Dr. Scrivener's "Plain Introduction." The second volume of Dr. Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf, which is to contain an account of the minuscules, is
not yet published, but
is

expected to greatly increase

both the extent and the accuracy of

ledge.

our

know-

THE MATTER OF CEdTICISM.

The followmg are
the minuscules
:

57
of

ssome of the

most interesting

(1) Miniscule Codices

of the Gospels.

1118131209.
XI. or XII.
ancient

Basiliensis, Oxoniensis, VatiSa^c.

canus, and Venetus.

X.

(^),

XIII., XI.,

Four

closely related codices, the

joint authority of

which preserves for us an

Vin-

common

original.

13

G9 124 34G,
XII.,

Parisiensis, Leicestrensis,
Sa-c.

dobonensis, and Mediolanus.

XII., XIV.,
Professui-s

XII.

Four

codices

which

Ferrar and Abbot have shown to be descended

from a single not veiy remote common Sa?c. XI. 28. Colbertinus Parisiensis, Sa^c. XI.
22, Colbertinus Parisiensis,
33.

original,

Colbertinus Parisiensis,

Sajc.

XI. (= Acts

13,

Paul

17).

59. Cantabrigiensis,

66. Londinensis,
81. Peti-opolitanus.

Sa>c.

XII, XII. Cited by Tischendorf Sicc. IX.

Siec,

as

21'^

102. Cantabrigiensis,

yiec.

XIY. (= Acts

102

[k^-^"-],

Paul 27

[k=^"]).

Cited by
Siec.

Tischcndorf as

w^'^^^

157. Urbino-Vaticanus.

201. Londinensis,

Sa'c.

XII. XIV. (= Acts

91,

Paul 104,
in

Apoc,

b''").

Cited

sometimes as

m''"

the

Gospels,

and p^" in Acts and Paul,

Sajc,

238, Moscuensis,
346. Mediolanus.

Sa^c.

XI. XII.

604. Londinensis.

Siec.

XL

or XII.

58
(2)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Minuscule 3ISS. of
the Acts

and. Catholic

Epistles.
13. Tlie

same

as 33 of the Gospels.
Siuc.

27. Londinensi-'.

XV. {=

Paul

33).

29
31,

aencvoiisis.
Leicestrensis.

Siw. XI. or XII.

8:l'c.

{=

Paul

35).

XIY. (=

Gospels 69, Paul

37, Apoc. 14). 36. Oxoniensis.

Sifc.

XIII.
Stec.

40. Alexaudrino-Yaticanus.

XI. (= Paul 46,

Apoc.
4-1.

12).
Siec.

(=

Scrivener's 221).
Sjcc,

XII.

(=

Paul 265).
lo^'

61. Londinensis.
pscr_

XI.
Paul

Cited also as

and

68. Upsal.

Sa^c.

XI.

(=

73).

69. Guelferbytanus.

Stcc.

XIV.

(= Paul

74,

Apoc. 30).
102.

Same
as

as 102 of the Gospels.

Cited sometimes

k'^'^'-.

no.

Londinensis.

Sa'C.

by Tiscliendorf as
112. Londineiisis.
I)y

a^'^'',

S;ec.

Tischendoif as
S;ec.

c'*'''',

XII. (= Paul 252). Cited and Scrivener's 182. XV. (= Paul 254). Cited and Scrivener's 184.

137. Modiolanus.

XI.

(=

Paul 176).

(3) Jfinuscule JLSS'.

5.
6.

of Paid's Epistles.
5,
6,

Parisiensis. Parisiensis,

Ssec.
S;ec.

XII. (= Gospels XI. (= Gospels

Acts
Acts

5).

6).

17.

Same
Same

as Gospels 33,
Sa?c.

23. Parisiensis.
27.

XI.
Cited sometimes as
k^''^

as Gospels 102.
Sa'c.

31. Londinensis.

XL (=

Acts 25, Apoc.

7),

THE MATTER OF
37. See

CRITICISM.

59

under Acts

31,

39. Oxoniensis,

Sa3C.

XI. or XII. (= Acts

33).

4G. See

under Acts 40.

47. Oxoniensis.
G7.

Vindobonensis.
34).
is

XI. or XII. XII. (= Acts GG, Ajoc. The corrector of this MS., marked G7**,
Sa^c.
Stuc.

very vahTable.

73. See
80.

under Acts 68.

Sajc.
Seec.

Vaticamis.

XI.

137. Parisiensis.

XIII.
Saic.

(^ Acts 73). (= Gospels

2G3, Acts

117, Apoc. 54).

221. Cantabrigiensis.

Acts 111).
(4)
1.

Cited as

o^"''

XII. (= Gospels by Tischendorf

the Apocahjpse.

440,

Minuscule MSS. of
S:cc.

Reuchlini.

XII.

The only one used by

Erasmus, 1516.
7.

See under Paul 31.

14. See

under Acts 31.

Sac. XIII.

38. Vaticanus.
47. Dresdensis.

Sac.

XL

(=

Gospels 241,
Gospels

Acts
Acts

140, Paul 120).

51. Parisiensis.

Sac. 'XIV.

(= (=

18,

113, Paul 132).

82. Monacensis.
128).
95.

Sac. XI.

Gospels

179,

Paul

Parham.
as
g^"^"".

Sac. XII. or XIII.

Cited sometimes

The Lectionaries are

place

rightly assigned a secondary

of the

among

the

MSS.

New

Testament, both

because they do not give the continuous text

and

60

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
fit

occasionally change the text they do give arbitrarily,

to
it

for detached reading,

and because they are

earliest lectionaries

comparatively late in date.

hitherto

The

centuries,

and eighth which Wesserly published in 1882 may come from a cenalthough
the

known

date from the seventh

papyrus

fragment

tury

earlier.

Lectionaries

may

be either uncial or

minuscule, and uncial writing occurs

a century later
text.

among them

than in manuscripts of the continuous

No line of division is drawn among them on ground of handwriting, however, but all are classed together, and cited by Arabic numerals, like minuscule copies of the continuous text. They are
the
divided into two classes on
called Evangelaria or
le.ssons
tlie

ground of contents,

Evangelistaria (which contain

from the Gospels), and Praxapostoli, or some(which contain lessons from the Acts and the Epistles). Dr. Scrivener, in the third
times
Lectionaria
edition of his " Plain Introduction," brings the cata-

logue of
latter

the former
to 127.

up

up to 414, and that of the number of them are, however,

'

twice counted, being Euchologies or K-iro(TTo\a.vayye\La,

and containing both the ^vayyiXiov and the dTroo-roXos. Upwards of eighty of the lectionaries on our lists are written in uncial lettei's. Lectionaries have hitherto been less used by critics than could be
de.sired.

It

is

not to be hoped doubtless, that very

,

much

material

of
.so

the

first

value

can

be obtained

from documents
of lessons

late,

which
latter

itself

and representing a system cannot be traced farther back

than the

part of
little

the results of the

But the fourth century. work already expended on

THE MATTER OF CniTICE^M.

them
encouraging.
2.

61

are, within the limits of legitimate hope, very

Versions of the

New
of

Testament.

The number and

variety of early versions of the

New
to

Testament are a matter

wonder second only

number of G-reek MS8. that have come down to us. Wherever Christianity penetrated, the
the
evangelists cariied the Divine

word

in

their hands
;

and gave

it

to the people in their

own tongues

and

although the languages in which these early versions

the versions remain to us,
public worship,

were written have now in every case become obsolete, sometimes still in use in
sometimes extant only in long-for-

gotten and fragmentary codices, as witnesses to the

popular character of early Christianity, as well as to

New Testament that was read and honoured in the primitive ages of the Church. The
the text of the value of

the

testimony

of

the

versions
of

enhanced by the fact that several

at

them

Avere

an age far

earlier

than our most ancient

much made MSS. of

is

The Syriac, Latin, and Coptic speaking peoples all had translations of the New Testament in the second century, and fragments at least of these versions aie still extant. The Aln-ssinians and Goths
the Greek text.
the New Testament in their own tongues the time when our oldest remaining Greek about at
received

MSS. were penned

older
siut

at

about the same

versions

time the
re\-ised

Syriac

and

Latin

were

to

them to enlarged use and confoi'm them to the texts most esteemed at the time. But little later the Armenians obtained a natioual Bible, and other

62
Syria c
result

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
revisions
is

or

translations

Avere

made.

The

that textual science can

make

use of some.

dozen ancient versions which are superior, or but

little inferior,

in point of age, to our best

and

oldest

Greek MSS.

Some
page
:

of the

drawbacks to the use of versions in

difficulty

textual criticism have been mentioned on a previous

the greatest

yet

remains.

Before

the testimony of a version can be confidently alleged,

its

lest

own text must be settled, and we must be careful we quote, not the testimony of the version itself,
scribe's error

but that of some

its

as he copied one of

MSS.

It

is

fact,

however, that the text of

none of the early versions has as yet been satisand hence the use of versions factorily restored
;

liitherto
(loul)t

in

textual
result

criticism

is

liable to as

much
That
be

as

may
as
it

from

this circumstance.

this is not as fatal to all successful use of the early

versions

might seem at
likely to occur

first

sight,

will

evident

when we

consider that the

in

errors are not

same the two

scribal
lines

of

transmission
selves,

that, namely, of the

of

Gri'eek

MSS. themversions

and that

MSS.

written, say for example,

in

Syriac.

Consequently when

MSS. and
tlie

are used together they

may

correct, to a

measurable
versions

degree, each other's errors.

Nevertheless,

were

liable,

throughout their whole transmission, not

only to change and error in the line of their

own

development, but also to constant cori'ection by eon-

temporary Greek MSS. Often successful appeal may be made from the later or printed text of the versions to their earlier and better MSS.

THE MATTER OE CPJTICI^M.

It
is

63

only a partial escape, however, that we can

difficulty,

make from this MSS. of a version

as
it

by quoting the various

in the criticism of the

Greek

text,

has become the custom to do with the Latin

versions.

So far

as

these

MSS.

vary

from

one
is,

another because of revision by the Greek, each

no doubt, a witness
of the

for a

Greek text
date of the

but this

may
or

be a Greek text of the

date of any
of

MS.

itself,

its

ancestors,

back to the
of the ver-

very origin of the version.

sions

The MSS.

ought primarily to

be

quoted only for the

\

texts of the versions themselves

original texts have been reconstructed,

and only when their and the his-

tory of their transmission has been traced out, can

and the readings of the various MSS. to represent them be adduced with perfect confidence in the criticism of the Greek text. That the history of the versions has not been wi-ought out fully in any case, and that a really ci'itical edition of any of them is vet to frame are circumstances which are not indeed fatal, but are very serious drawbacks to the use of versions in criticism, and
their readings

which

pi'ofess

little less tlian

an open disgrace

to the Biblical science

of the day.

and, so far as

few words need to be added on tlie character it has been recovered, the history of the

chief versions.
(1
)

Two

Latin versions have long been in use in

criticism,

distinguished by the

Latin
the

" (quite

" Itala

names of the " Old commonly but improperly called also and the " Vulgate," for which "),

Tischendorf uses the abbreviations " It." and " V<'."

nt

TEXTUAL CBITICISM.
not, however,

These versions are

so called because

two
:

in the sense

that they are independent Gf each otlier

it

the Vulgate,

has long been the Latin version

in
of

common and
the

ecclesiastical use,

was rather a revision

version,

already

existing

Latin

often

very

slightly altered, and'

scholar Jerome at The habit of distinguishing sharply between the

was made by the great Biblical the end of the fourth century.

Vulgate and the Old Latin, while necessary so far, obscures the fact that the text of the Vulgate differs

from that of certain of the MSS. cited under the " category " Old Latin " far less than the " Old Latin

MSS. differ among themselves. This great diversity among the Old Latin MSS. has necessitated their
detailed quotation in the digests of readings for the

Grreek Testament,

and may be observed on almost

The is borne at all. Old Latin are designated in the digests thvis, a (Codex ly the small letters of the alphabet Vercellensis of the fourth century), b (Codex Veroevery page where their witness

MSS.

of the

nensis

of

the fourth

or

fifth

century), c (Codex

Colbertinus of the eleventh or twelfth century), d (the

Latin part of Codex Bezre, D, of the sixth century),

e

(Codex Palatinus of the fourth or

like.

fifth

century),

and the
codices

There are aboiit thirty-eight separate

of this class

known,

of

which some twentyao.n.o.p.r.s.,

four belong to the Gospels (some such as

containing only small fragments), seven to the Acts,

four to the Catholic Epistles, nine to Paul, and three
to the Apocalypse.
cited

The MSS.

of

the Vulgate are

by short abbreviations

of their

names,

thus,

am

(Codex Amiatiuus, of the sixth to ninth century),

THE MATTER OF
fukl or
tol
fii

CRITICISM.

65

(Codex Fuldensis, of the sixth century),

of of

(Codex Toletanvis,
Forojuliensis,

the eighth century), for

the
sixth

(Codex

century),
etc.

harl

(Codex Harleianus of the seventh century),

Under such
tory
of

circumstances, the tracing of

tlie his-

the
texts

Latin versions and the formation of

of

critical

them

has

proved so

difficult

as

hitherto to be impossible.
certain.

This

much

only has been

Latin version existed as early as the

It

second century.

was already old and established

in the use of the people

when

Tertullian wrote, at the

end of the second century, and must, therefore, have been made, in whole or part, as early as the middle
of that century.
sion,

The complexion
is
it

of this early ver-

current in North Africa,

easily observed

from

the quotations from

his

made by

Tertullian, so far as

quotations from the Latin can be disentangled

from those that he took directly from the Greek, and especially from the quotations made from it by Cyprian, who appears to have used it only. The
extant

MSS. embodying

this

safely be assigned to the African

this

same type of text can Old Latin. Whether

all

African

New

Testament lay at the root of

it
is,

the Old
question.

Latin MSS., or not, has been a disputed

On

the one hand

has been urged that

the diversity of the texts

on this supposition,
their

remarkable.
variety,

On
well

the other,
as the

that

manifold

as

testimony of Jerome and

Augustine alike to the existence in their day of " tot exemplaria pene quot codices," or (as Augustine phrases it) "Latinorum interpretum infinita varietas,"
is

best explained

by the great

licence of individual

66

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

correction of a common basis, so that the root was one though the bi'anches were so diverse. In this " interpretum numerositas," Augustine commends

a text which he calls the " Itala " as preferable to the others, inasmuch as it was " verborum tenacior

cum

perspicuitate

sentential "

and

this

name has

hence been applied to the Old Latin as a whole (against the example of Augustine, who so names a
specified

type of the Old

of
it,

Latin),

or else to some
of late to
chiefly in

special

form
in

appears a revision
Italy,

more frequently that was current,

It

what North

the

fourth century.

was under the

spur of this confusion of texts that Jerome (about

383) undertook his revision, which won its way at length into the position of a vulgate about the end
of the sixth century.

More

recent investigations have

shed

new

light

on several dark points

in this history,

and we are

now

able to trace, at least tentatively, the outlines

of the

way as a more

development of the Latin versions in such a to give the testimony of its difterent MSS.
defined place in textual criticism.
It
lie
is still

uncertain whether one or two parent stocks

base of the

at the
testi-

Old Latin MSS., but the Old Latin

mony
types.

is

veiy distinctly that of two strongly marked

Their divergence has been obscured by the

of

immense amount between the two

alteration

mixture that has taken place

as i-epresented even in the earliest

by the great licence of individual which has affected all lines of descent. These two versions may bo called the African and thej European. The former is represented by the fifth-'
codices, as well as

THE MATTER OF CRITICISM.

century

67

Codex Bobiensis
(e),

(k),

at

a later stage of
fifth

development by the beautiful fourth or

century

Codex Palatinus
tlie

and

at a

still

later

stage by

also belong the palimpsest

Speculum Augustini (m), in the Gospels. To it fragments of the Acts and

h,

Apocalypse cited as
of

and

of

course the quotations

TertuUian

(when

not taken

from

the Greek),

Cyprian, as well as Optatus, and (for the Apocalypse)

Primasius.

The European The African

its

is

represented by

the

great mass of
a, b, d,
f.

the codices, the oldest of

text
is

which are
certain,

as old as the second

is

century

the age of the

European

less

but some of
of

MSS. belong
itself

to the fourth century,

and the version

the fourth
latest.

must be

as old as the opening

century or end of the third at the

There is good evidence to show that the European Latin was made the object of various
course of the fourth century,

revisions during the

the final product of Avhich

may

be called the Italian

it

Latin

all

the more

appropriately that

seems to

be this text that was preferred by Augustine,

may

judge from the quotations in

To the unrevised

if we many of his works. European Latin may be assigned, c, fT, h,

i, i',

in the Gospels, Codices a, b,

fragmentary or mixed

texts,
f,

and
(j,

in the

and some other Acts g. To

r, r^,

the Italian i-evision belong

in the Gospels,

r^

and perhaps g iu the Apocalypse. Jerome's further revision seems to be based on the Italian revision, and in the Gospels on
in Paul, q in the Catholic Epistles,

a text very closely related to that of Codex

Instead of two Latin versions,

f,

which, in

parts at least, received only a very surface revision.

we thus appear

to

G/

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
less

have the testimony of no

second century

than three or four

:

to take account of in textual criticism

one of the
a
;

the

African

one of the end of the

third or beginning of the fovirth

the

European

somewhat later and finally, the

A'ulgate.

revision of the

European

the Italian

revision of the Italian

which Jerome

carried through at the end of the fourth century

the

By attending to the distribution among the various forms of the Old

cated above, some light
as
is

of the codices

Latin, as indi-

thrown on the testimony

drawn out

in detail in our digests.

We

can, not

infiequently, separate
several forms,
inglv.

already the

testimony of the

critical
still

and allow weight to the groups accordedition of even the Vulgate is

a desideratum.

however,

The

revision

of

the

current texts undertaken by Alcuin in

the eighth

century, and that ordered by the Council of Trent,

had

this as their

object.

But the work has been

is

badly done, and the Clementine Vulgate of 1592

anything but a

critical text.

(2) The early history of the Syriac versions is even more obscure than that of the Latin, but from a Here we have an almost entire lack different cause. The Peshitto version (or as its name of material. imports, the "simple" version) well deserves the title of the Syriac vulgate, since it was the common

translation in use

among

all

the Syrian sects throughof Syrian

out the whole of the flourishing epoch

history, of

and continues to-day the

heirs.
it

ecclesiastical version

their

So

admirably

has

its

text

been

guarded, that

remains substantially the same in

THE MATTER OF CRITICISM.

the later

69
of tlie

MSS.

as

it

stands in the oldest

MS.

Peshitto that has survived to our time

Additionalis

(the Coilex
tiftli

14459 of
it is

the

British

Museum,
tlie

century), or even as
of

extracted in
century.

quotations

Ephrem

of the

fourth

This veneralile

and most admii^able version bears, however, traces of having i-eceived the form which it has so long preserved with such well- justified tenacity through a revision which may be dated at some time between a.d. 250
and 350.
Dr.
Accordingly, the considerable fragments of

a version of the Gospels which

were I'ecovered by from one of the MSS. brought by Archdeacon Tattam from the Nitrian desert in 184"?, have been recognised by most scholai's to contain an
Cureton
older form
of

the

Peshitto.

The venerable

codex,

written about the middle of the fifth century, which

contains
these

fragments

is

now

in

the
it

British

Museum, while the

is

version itself which

contains

clearly not independent of the Peshitto,

it,

and almost

equally clearly older than

scholars to the second

and

is

assigned by most

centur}'.

Its great age has

been oddly confirmed by the discovery of Tatian's

" Diatessaron " (a
tury),

Gospel-harmony of the second cen-

which

is

found to be based on this version.

How much

of the

New

Testament was included in

is

this oldest Syriac (which

its discoverer,

appropriately called fi-om

the

" Curetonian Syriac") cannot be

confidently determined.

Fragments

of the

Gospels
if

only have as yet come to light.

confine this
its

The

Peshitto,

we
has

name

to the

form the version took after

late third or early

fourth

centmy

revision,

never contained

the four smaller Catholic Epistles

70
(2 Peter, 2
it is

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
and 3 John, and Jude) or the Apocalypse,
of the

uncertain whether by inheritance or as a result

of a revision

canon contemporary with the

revision of the text.

somewhat

different reading of the earliest stages

of the history of the Syriac versions has

been lately
studies of

commended
Baethgen.
Cui'etonian

to scholars

by the very careful

The dependence

of the Peshitto

on the

may

be said to be demonstrated by

him

but he supposes the Curetonian to be based upon

Tatian instead of the souice from which he drew,

and assigns
revision
is

it

to

about

a.d. 250,

while the Peshitto

dated by him about the middle of the

fourth century.

We

venture to leave the question

of the relation of the Curetonian to Tatian undecided,

as not of essential importance for our present purpose.

of the Peshitto,
(a.d.

Another Syriac version, not altogether independent was made in the early sixth century
508) by the Chorepiscopus Polycarp, under the
of

patronage
Hierapoiis.
itself

Philoxenus,

Bishop
left

of

Mabug

or

This version has

very few traces of

of it

in its original form,

though the Gospels

may have
to notice of

been recently recovered in a MB. brought

the

Beirut Syrian

by Prof. Isaac H. Hall, and the property Protestant College. It was

subjected to a tliorough revision by

in

616,

several
library,

Thomas of Tlarkel who added to its margin leadings from Greek MSS. belonging to an Alexandrian

form
It

and which prove to be valuable. In this has come down to us in numerous MSS. contains all the New Testament except the
it

Apocalypse, and as

its

characteristic feature

is

ex-

THE MATTER OF
cessive literality, it is

CRITICISM.

71

to its underlying

that

its

everywhere useful as a witness Greek text. It goes without saying margin presents additional evidence, and is to
itself.

be taken account of as fully as the text

Yet another Syriac

preserved for us
is

version,

and one which may

It
Its

be independent of the Peshitto, has been partially

chiefly
;

in

some lesson-books.
as
it

assigned by Tischendorf to the fifth century.

is

dialect

very peculiar

and

has been supposed

to represent a region lying contiguous to Palestine,

the

name

of

Jerusalem Syriac has been given to the

version.

Besides the lessons from the Gospels, only a

few verses from the Acts are known.

The Syrian
second century

versions thus include

one from the

the

Curetonian

a revision of this

from the
Peshitto
;

late

third or early fourth century

the

one from the opening

of the sixth century,

with

its

revision early in the seventh

;

the PhiloxenoIn Tischendorf's

Harclean
digests

and one which

is

doubtingly assigned to

the fifth century

the
syr'"'

Jerusalem.

these versions are cited as follows

;

the Curetonian

= the

Jerusalem

syr^*^''

Peshitto according to

Schaaf 's edition

= = the syr^ = the

:

syi-'^'^

Harclean according to the edition of White;

syr"'^'"

= both
(3)

of these last two.

Other

critics

make

use of

other abbreviations which will be found explained in

their editions.

From

the

early

Egyptian Church two indeus,

pendent versions have come down to

both of which

appear to have been made, in part at least, in the second century, and both of which contained the

whole

New

Testament, although treating the Apoca-

72

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
appendix to the volume.
hint to
i.e.,

lypse as a sort of
last

This
these

circumstance

may

lis

the time

when

versions

were finished

in

the middle of the

third centiTry,

dispute in

when the Apocalypse was brought into Egypt, as we learn from Dionysius or it
;

upon an already completed version. Of these two versions, that which was made for use in Lower Egypt appears
be the result of speculation taking
effect

may

more faithfully to follow the details and may be a few years the older
appropriating the

of the
;

Greek,
called,

it

is

variously, the Memphitic, the Bahiric, or, confusingly

name

that

is

broad enough to

embrace both versions, the Coptic, Tischendorf cites '' cop." The version that was it by the abbreviation
curient in
Sahidic

Upper Egypt

is

known

as the Thebaic or

by Tischendorf by the abbreviation " sail/'), and is perhaps more faithful to Egyptian idiom than its sister only fragments of it have been
(cited
;

as yet recovered.

Some

of the lacunae in the Thebaic

version

may

be supplied by using a third Coptic

version, about 330 verses of

which from John and

Paul are known, and which is not taken directly from the Greek, but is an adaptation of the Thebaic
to another dialect,

known

as

the

from which the version itself is Bashmuric or Fayumic (cited by

basil.").

Tischendorf by the abbreviation "

(4) Tlie early
is

history of the Abyssinian

Church

very obscui-e

but

its version,

the Ethiopic, was

certainly

made

directly

from the Greek, and dates

its earliest

probably from the fourth century, although

extant

MSS. appear

to be as late as the fifteenth

is

century.

This version

smooth and flowing, and

THE MATTER OF
From

CRITICISM.

73

yet faithful, and contains the whole

New

Testament.

the same age with the Ethiopic comes the

Gothic version, made in the middle of the fourth

century by the great apostle of the Goths, Ulfilas.

We

possess the Gospels

and Paul's Epistles (except

back

Hebrews) with

lacunse, in codices that carry us

The Armenian version, which contains the whole New Testament, was translated from the Greek about a.d. 433, under the patronage of Sahak, the patriarch, and apparently, in part at least, by the hand of Miesrob, the inventor The printed editions are of the Armenian alphabet. good, but not critically satisfactory, and it is necessary To frequently to appeal from them to the MSS. these the Slavonic version, made in the ninth century,
as far as the sixth century.

may perhaps be
If

added.
this list of versions according to age,

we arrange

we

obtain the following series of versions which

:

may

be used in textual criticism of the Greek text

Versions of the
eai-ly

or middle second century, two,

Syi'iac.

the African Latin and the Curetonian

Memphitic and Thebaic.

Versions of the end of the second century, two,

the

Versions of the late third or early fouith century,

two,

the Peshitto Syriac and European Latin.

Gothic, the Italian Latin, the Vulgate Latin,

Versions of the middle or late fourth century, four,

the

and the Ethiopic.

Versions of the
fifth century,

two,

the Armenian

and the Jerusalem

Syriac.

Syriac.

Versions of the sixth century, one,

the PhUoxenian

74

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Versions of the seventh century, one,

Syriac.

Versions of the ninth century, one,

3.

the Harclean the Slavonic.

from

Early Quotations from the New Testament.

of the material to be derived
is

The copiousness

the quotations of early writers

liable to

both over-

and under-estimation.
none the
less

The whole tone

of the writing
;

of the early Christian authors is Scriptural

but

it is

often very difficult to

make

use of their

allusions in the criticism of the text.

Many

verses,

and some

of these such as present important critical

all

problems, are scarcely quoted at

are frequently quoted, and in an

forms.

by them. Others immense variety of

Probably nearly the whole teaching of the

but this

New

Testament, in one form or another, could be

;

recovered from the writings of the fathers

would be too much to say

of its text.

In addition to

the obvious hindrances to their use in textual criticism

which have been already pointed out, two require to have especial emphasis laid upon them the looseness with which the fathers usually quote, and the evil fortune which has attended the transmission of their works to our own day. A physical cause lies at the bottom of much of the looseness of patristic quotation. Tlieie were no handy reference Bibles in those days, no concordances, no indices and books were dear, and not at all times For brief quotations memory was within reach. necessarily relied on and thus the habit of depending
:

on memory fixed
can often be but

itself.

Even very long quotations

trusted in their details, and

little

THE MATTER OF
in general
it

CRITICISM.
fi-om

75

is is

unsafe to draw

a father a

reading which

not supported by some

MS.

or ver-

sion, except in those

comparatively rare cases in which

he
it

tells

us that such or such a reading actually stood

in codices within his knowledge.

And

at the very best,

must be carefully borne in mind, that when the reading of a father has been settled, and it is determined that he has actually drawn it from a Greek MS., its value is no more than it was as it stood in
the

MS.

No

matter how strongly a father asserts

it

to be the true reading, or the reading of the best

oldest

and

MSS., it is after all but a MS. reading of one more codices according to the evidence in hand, and the value of the further assertions of the father will depend on our estimate of his ability and opporor
tunities to

form a

critical opinion.

Time has
in general,

dealt very sorely with patristic writings

and with the citations from Scripture

Scribes and editors

contained in them in particular.

have vied with one another in conforming their quotations to the texts current in later times,

and not

infrequently the text that actually stands written

is

in conflict with the use

all

made

of it in the context.

Above

other evidence, the evidence of the fathei-s

'

needs sifting and

critical reconstruction bef oi'e it

can
of

be confidently used.

Let us add that the remains

the earliest fathers that survive to our day are the

merest fragments of the literature of their age, and

in

some very important instances have reached us In

this last case a

only in Latin or Syriac translations of their original

Greek.
critic:

new problem

faces the

Has

the translator rendered the Scriptural

76

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
own
version?

quotations that stood befoi-e him in the text, or re-

quoted them from his

versions of the

In the former
they

case the value of the quotations I'anks with that of

New

Testament

in the latter

are primarily witnesses to a version, and only secondarily,

through that version to the testimony

of

which
Yet,

they add nothing, witnesses to the Greek

text.

which process the translator has followed can be settled in each individual instance only by a critical
inquiry.

In general
in

it

is

a safe rule to suspect

all

quotations

a translation

from a Greek father

of the trans-

which conform to the national version

lator.

Of course, Greek fathers alone are

to the

direct witnesses

Greek text. To these are to be added those Latin and Syiiac writers who can be proved to have
use of the Greek text.

So far as their quotafrom the Greek can be sifted out from their quotations from their own versions, these aie testitions

made

monies that will

rank independently alongside

thiough them
of Latin

of

versions, while the rest will be testimonies only to

the versions used by them, and

directly to the Greek.

in-

The quotations

and

Syiiac fathers in general are, of course, of this latter

sort.

Ante-Nicene Greek remains are not very copious.

for

Only
A.D.

the

seventy-five

years embraced between

175 and 250, when we have Irenseus, Hippolytus,

of Alexandria,

Clement

and

especially Origen, are

we

supplied with any abiindance of testimony.

later in the third century,
foui-th, furnish

Methodius
in the

and Eusebius early

;

very valuable material

while Cyril of

Alexandria

is

the most noteworthy writer for critical

THE MATTER OF
use that the
of the early
fifth

C1UTICIS3I.
us.

77

century gives

The commentaries

Church may

justly be expected to afford

very important material, but unfortunately the commentaries that have been preserved from the first four hundred years of early Christianity are not

We have Origen's commentaiies on a good part of Matthew partly in the Greek and partly only in a condensed Latin translation ; on a small
numerous.
:

portion of

Greek
1

Luke in Latin on much of John in the on Romans in Latin and on some parts of
;
;

Corinthians,

Ephesians,

and

some

other books.

Then we have Theodore

of Mopsuestia's

commentaries

on the lesser Epistles of Paul in a Latin translation, and Chrysostom's homilies on Matthew, John, Acts, and Paul in the Greek. The next century gives us Theodoret on Paul, and Cyril of Alexandria on the Gospels and Paul. And numerous fragments fi-om
several authors are preserved in Catence.
of

The value

such Latin commentaries as that of Primasius on the Apocalypse, or such Syriac ones as that of

Ephrem on

the Gospels,

is

wholly with i-eference to

of

the respective versions on which they are based

from the former nearly the whole

the African

Apocalypse has been lecovered, and from the latter a considerable knowledge of Tatian's " Diatessaron."

The number
logued for

of ecclesiastical writei-s that are cata-

critical

purposes considerably exceeds one

these occasional citations are

hundred.

From

all of

drawn, but very few of them have been thoroughly

put tmder contribution to critical science. Griesbach pretty thoroughly explored the pages of Origen, and Tregelles did much for Eusebius, and Dean Burgon

78

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
directions.

has enlarged our knowledge of patristic citations in

many

But much yet remains

to be done,

both in extracting their readings from the writings

and in testing the readings that now MSS. by the context, before ourselves that the work is much more flatter can we than well begun. The fathers are cited by abbreviations of their names, and the Latin and Greek evidence is very much jumbled together in the digests. The foUowmg brief list of the names that are best worth our attention in the digests is borrowed from The more important fathers are Dr. Westcott. marked by small capitals Latin fathers by italics
of the fathers

stand in the editions or

Justinus M.,

c.

103 l(i8.

Aml)romts, 340

1rena;us.
or 300

c.

120

190.
[c.

397.
c.

Ambrosiaster,
180?
Victo}-mvx,
c.

360.

IrviKci lntn'j)retcx
?].

360.

Tertvllianus
1(50240.

(Marcion),
220.

c.

Chrysostomus, 347407. DiDYMUS, +396. Epiphanius, 4- 402.

Bufinus,
c.

Clemeks Alex., + c. Origenes, 18G 253.

IJippolytus.

345

410.

AUGUSTiNus, 354430.
Theodorus Mops., + 429. Cyrillus Alex., +444. Hilarivs, +449. Theodorctus, 393458.
Eulhalius.
2(14
c.

Cvi'IiUIANUS, -hSil. Dionysius Alex., 4-265.

Pctnis Alex., 4-313.

^'

JMcthodius, +0. 311.

450.
c.

EUSEBHIS
340.

OiESAK..

CaKxw(hmis,
Victoi'

468

666.

Antiocheuus.

Athanasius,
LUCIFEJi,

2'.(i 373.

Cyrillus Hierosol., 31.5

-i-lUO.

38(;.

Theophylactus [c. 1077]. ANDREAS(Apoc.),c. 635700.

Prim asms (Apoc.)

[T.iticanus],

[c.

550].

Ephraem Syrus
4^ .S78.

Johannes
756.

Damascenus,
c.

c.

Basilius Magnus, 32!t 379. JilERONTMUS, 340 420.

(Ecumenius,

950.

Euthymius,

c.

1100,

THE MATTER OF
The student
is

CRITICISM.

79

now

in a position to understand

better than formerly the notes which

we quoted from
John
vii.

Tischendorf's digest.

Let us take another example,

however, and ask

Shall

we read

in

8, " I

go not up
feast
'"?

to this feast," or " I

go not yet up to this

:

Tischendorf states the evidence thus

ovK

cum

NDKMn
arm
ceth.

17-* 389

p'^"'

abceffs-l-vaiiars

vg cop
Epiph7
ovTTHi

syr*^"

Porph ap
9

Hier-'^'^

Chr8-32^

Oyr''-*"^

(= Gb

Sz)

Ln

cum B L T X r A A
Ln)
go sah

^"1

(ap.

unc' al pier f g q \g^^ (ef'^e^c^ ^^hr eti' syr^'^''

Eth2S3_

(Syriace nunc non) Bas

A glance enables
is

the reader to perceive that " not

read by the uncial copies n, D, K, M, II ; by the minuscules 17'''*, 389, p'^"'"; by the Old Latin copies
a, b, c, e, ff ^^ P,

which include both those of the

{i.e.

African and those of the European type; by the Vulgate

Latin, the Coptic
Syriac,

the Memphitic), the Curetonian

the Armenian,

and the Ethiopic versions

l)y

and by Porphyry

as cited

Jerome, Epiphanius,

Chrysostom, and Cyril, at the places in their works

indicated by the small numerals.
ovTTO) is i-ead

On

the other

side,

i.e.,

by the editions included under the sym))ol hy Stephens and Elzevir, but not by Griesbach
(for

and Scholz
Sz."),

thut

is

the

meaning

of

''

= Gb.

and

also

by Lachmann
of

in accordance with the

testimony of the

uncial copies B, L, T,

X, V, A, A,
minuscule)

and seven

others;

most other

(i.e.
f,

MSS.

of

the
:

Italian Latin)

by Lachmann

q (i.e. the of MSS. of the Vulgate Latin cited of the Gothic and Sahidic (= Thebaic)
g,

Old Latin codices

80
versions
;

TEXTUAL
of

CRITICISM.
of the Syriac (Peshitto),

Schaaf s edition

White's edition of the Syriac (Harclean), as well in the Greek margin as in the text, and the Jerusalem
Syriac
;

and of Basil at the place indicated by the

in position to decide
;

numerals.

The student may not yet be

between the readings with any confidence but he can, at least, understand now the testimony. He can do more he can classify it at a glance into its various
:

sorts,

uncials,

minuscules,
it

versions,

fathers.
:

And

he can even analyse

according to aye, thus

For ovK there are

Uncial

MSS.
,,

of the fourth century, one

,,

x,

sixth century, one

D.
:

ninth century, three K, M, Minuscule MSS., three: 17**, 389, p=^

T.

Versions of the second century, two (three)

Memph.,

Syr"^ (Afr. Lat.).

:

fourth century, three

Lat., Vg.,

Europ,

^th.
:

,,

,,

fifth

century, one

Arm.
:

Fathers of the late third century, one

,,

Porphyry.

fourth century, two

Epiphanius,

Chrysostom.

fifth century,

one

Cyril of Alex-

andria.

For

ovTTO)

there are

Uncial MSS. of the fourth century, one

,,
,,

B.

,,

fifth

century, one

T.

,,

,,

eighth

century,

two

(and E).

THE MATTER OF CRITIC ISJ/.

Uncial MSS. of the ninth century, six
(und F, V).
,, ,, ,,
:

81

X, F,

A,L

(tenth century, four

S,

G, H,

U).
Tliehaic.
:

Minuscule MSS., almost alL

Versions of the second cenUiry, one
,,
,,
:

fourth century,
Ygcod.
aiiq.^

four

It.

Lat.,

(^o., Syr"*^''.

,,

fifth

century,

one

Jerusalem
Syr.i' ct"'s

Syriac.
,,

,,

seventh centuiy, one

grace

Fathers of the fourth century, one

Basil.

Such an analysis

carries us

an appreciable distance

towards a decision as to the relative value of the

support given to each reading.
a decision.
yet
"

Yet
if

it

falls

short of

If

numbers

of witnesses are to rule, " not

must
is

receive the

palm

age

is

to rule, the
;

division

pretty even between the two

of the witnesses is to rule,

if

weight

and value
is

the student
Whence
is,

not yet in position to have an opinion.

learn that
it

we may
this

behoves us next to turn from

its

the matter of criticism to

methods
are

that
we

to put

query to ourselves

"How

to proceed in

order to reach a really grounded decision as to the

weight of evidence for each of these two readings'?"

CHAPTER
THE METHODS OF

II.

CRITICISM^
tliere
cjin

has been alrendy pointed out that IT t\vo kinds of evidence to which we

are but

appeal in

prosecuting the work of criticising a text,

external

and internal evidence.

therefoi'e,

All methods of criticism are,

evidence

but vai'ious ways of using these kinds of and when we undei'take to investigate the

methods

of criticism,

we simply

inquire

how we

are

to proceed in order to reach

lirni

conclusions as to

the text by

means

of internal

and external evidence.

have been busied thus far in merely gathering the external testimony, and the reader is doubtless in
a position to appreciate how little the mere collection of the testimony has advanced us in deciding on the
text.

We

It

is

our business

now

to

consider

how we

may

attain a grounded decision as to the true text.

1.

Internal Evidence of Readings.

of

The most rudimentary method

the variations that emerge in
external
tlie

dealing
of

with
the

collection

testimony would

be

to

use the external

evidence only to advei'tise to us the fact of variation

and to furnish us with the readings between which choice is to be made, and then to settle the claims

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

of the rival

S3

readings on

internal

grounds.

Most

crudely performed, this would be the

readings actually transmitted,
to us to

to select, out of

that one which

seemed

make the

best sense in the connection,

or to account most easily for the origin of the others.

It requires

no argument to point out the illegitimacy

of thus setting aside the external evidence

unheard

or the danger of thus staking everything

insight into

upon our
or
a

the
.of

exact intention

of the author

the springs

action

that

moved men through

if it

millennium and a half of copying,

exercised extemporaneously, as

this insight be

were, and without

a very severe previous study of the authors and their

times and the scribes and their habits.

Nevertheless,
its

though
carefully

all

may

not be lightly ventured upon

constitutes

untrained dictum, internal evidence of readings, when

investigated,
of criticism,

method
its

the aid

of

a most valuable which we cannot

dispense with.

It will repay us, therefore, to consider

methods

of procedure in

some

detail.

As
of

has been already intimated, " internal evidence

readings" includes two separate and independent

processes.

In interrogating any reading as

it

to tlie

evidence that

bears to

its

own

originality,

we may

make our

inquii'ies

with I'eference to the author, or

with reference to the scribes

who have
to

transmitted
in either

what he wrote
case

and we may make them

relatively
ask, absolutely.
is

absolutely, or

other transmitted

readings.
bability

We may
that
this

What

is

the pro-

the reading that the author

1

would have placed just here

probability

or,

I'elatively,

What
tlie

commends

this reading,

above any of

84

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
down
is

others that have come

to us,

as the reading

which the author wrote here?

is

Or we may ask what

the reading which the
i.e.,

the probabihtv that this

scribes

began

witli,

eitlier

absohitely

in

the

form, Does this reading suggest an earlier one, out

of
to

which

it

was made by the

is

scribes? or relatively

the other transmitted readings

that

is,

in

the

form,

What

the probability that the other

of

I'ead-

ings have

grown out

this

one?

When

dealing

absolutely with each reading, we are seeking directly

the autographic text.

each,

When
in

dealing relatively with

first

we are seeking
determine

the

instance only the

it

earliest transmitted text,

and leaving
or

to a further
is

inquiry to

Avhether

not this

the

autographic text.
of

In either case we are making use

of inquiry
;

two separate metliods

one of which

deals with the probability that the author wrote this

reading,
scribes

and the other with the probability that the The one is appropriate] v began with it. called Intrinsic Evidence, and the other Transcriptional Evidenci

Intrinsic Evidence.

By

intrinsic

evidence

is

meant
its

the

testimony
its

which each reading

fitness to

delivers,

by
It

very nature, to

stand in the text.

is elicited

by actually

trying the reading in question in the passage and

its appropriateness by the contextual argument, the rhetorical flow of the language, the known style and habits of speech and thought of the author,

testing

and the general language and thought-circle of the tinu's and society in which he lived. The danger

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

tendency to read our
instead
of

85

that attends the use of the method grows out of our

own

standpoint into our author,

his.

reading ourselves back into

It

is

easy to become an improver instead of remaining a

simple editor

and

it is

often very

difficxilt
if

not to

make an author speak our thoughts,

language.
sisted

not even our

It cannot,

howevei-, be

too strongly in-

upon that any attempt to estimate intrinsic probabilities by the rule of what appeai-s to us to be the best reading is simply an attempt to corrupt the text and train it to festoon the trellises of our

own
the

desires.
is

All trustworthy appeal to intrinsic

evidence
critic,

a delicate historical process by which

having steeped himself in the times of the

thinks his thoughts and
estimates

writer and having assimilated himself to his thought

and

style,

the

value and fitness of words with his scales.

reading which w^ould be intrinsically certain in

Carlyle

might

be

intrinsically

ridiculous

in

The Mr. Mr.

The reading that we should commend in that Lucian might be unthinkable in Epictetus which would be appropriate in Lucretius might be impossible in John. The preparation for a just use of this method of criticism consists, therefore, in a serious and sympathetic study of the author in hand
Ruskin.
;
:

and without

this, all

appeal to

it

is

but opening

tiie

floodgates to the

most abounding

en-or.

Above

all

other processes of criticism this method

user a fine candour and an incorrupti-

requires in

its

from thoss what the authors with which they deal only authors have put into their words, and which can
ble mental honesty

which are content

to read

86

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

distinguish between what Paul, for instance, says, and what we could wish he had said. Despite what Ave may have antecedently thought, some writers are

ungrammatical, some are obscure, some are some are inconsequent, some ai-e frightfully
ous.

illogical,

infelicitis

And

the business of the textual critic

not to

grammar, and brighten their obscurities, and perfect their logic, and chasten their style, but
correct their
to restore their text exactly as they intended to write
it,

whatever

thei'e

may

be in

it

to offend our

taste

or contradict

our

opinions.

Intrinsic

evidence in

the hands of some critics means nothing else than

a
ruthless elimination of everything exceptional or

even distinctive in an author's style. When Mr. Margoliouth lays it down as a canon for criticising
the
Attic tragedians
that

" anything

which

is

difficult or

awkward

is

corrupt,"
;

the validity of his methods

dealing

we more than doubt and when Mr. Maclellan,

states

with the

New

Testament,

as

the

" golden canon,"

original

that " no reading can

possibly be

which contradicts the context of the passage

or

tlie

tenor of the writing,"

we

recognise the justice

of the statement, but desiderate some safeguard that

the test shall be applied from the point of sight of

the author, and not of the nineteenth -century reader,
in

whose

logical infallibility there

to believe than in that of the writer

may be less reason who is criticised.

a.

Delicate as the process of intrinsic evidence thus

becomes, however,
also
dicts

it

is

yet not only

valuable but

an indispensable agent of

criticism,

and

its

ver-

sometimes reach a practical certainty. Whenever it is the expression of careful and sympathetic

THE METHODS OF
serious attention,

CRITICISM.
it

87

study of an author's thought and style

demands our
it

and

if,

when

so

used,

distinctly

and

directly opposes a reading, it

may

attain a real

finality.

Cases of this kind, where intrinsic evidence

sets itself

sharply distinguished from

immovably against a reading, must be very those in which it only

to the
othei-s. In the former case its an absoluteness which is Avholly lacking
lattei-.

adjudges one of several readings to be on the whole

preferable
verdict has
to the

merely relative result reached in the

If the other readings, in this case,

any or

all

of them,

would have seemed unexceptionable

this

in the absence of

the preferred reading, the prefei-ence thrown upon

way towards
The

by intrinsic evidence can cnrry us but a little settling the text, and raises but a faint
variation in Matt.
vi. 1

presumption against any other form of evidence.

may perhaps

serve as

an illustration

of the force of intrinsic evidence

when

thus simply passing on the comparative appropriateness of two readings.

reads,

The Authorised English Version

befoi-e

"

Do

not

your alms

men,"

which

the llevisers change to "

before

Do

not your righteousness

mend

men." Which dotis intrinsic evidence comUnquestionably the latter. Throughout this

context our
righteousness

Lord
;

is

giving instruction

concerning
disciples

and having commanded His

'2(),

in the previous chapter (v.

sq.) to see to it that

their righteousness exceeded that of the scribes

and

Pharisees,

and

illustrated the

command by
1) to

instancing

the laws against murder, adultery, false swearing, and the like, ke proceeds

now

(vi.

guard against
illus-

an ostentatious righteousness, and, just as before,

88
trates

TEXTUA L CRITICISM.
His command by instancing certain
details,

here, almsgiving (2

(16

4),

prayer (3

15), and fasting

"

18).

To read " righteousness

here

is

thns far

more consonant with the context, and even brings

out a connection with the preceding part of the discourse which with the i-eading " alms " is in danger " Righteousness," moreover, of being overlooked.

comes with a Hebraistic flavour straight from the Old Testament, both in the structure of the phrase,
" to

do righteousness," and in

its

use as a genus of
is

which
to
feel

"alms"

is

a species, and thus

especially

suitable in the Hebraistic

Matthew.

We

cannot

fail

that such considei-ations create a very sub-

stantial corroboration of the testimony of those

MSS.

which contain " righteousness

if

"

here.

Nevertheless,

" alms " were sti'ongly pressed

intrinsic

upon us by external

evidence, this
set it aside.

evidence would not avail to

intrinsic evidence decidedly
it

For although

prefers " righteousness " here,

does not distinctly

"
is

refuse " alms"

apart from the other reading "alms

would be
the

easily accepted

by

it,

and, hence,

if

it it

otherwise strongly supported,

original
is

we can
xv.

receive
of

as

reading.

Another

example
21,

like

character

furnished by

Luke

where the

variation concerns
repetition

the insertion or omission of the

from verse 19 of the words "Make me Intrinsic evidence as one of thy hired servants." That the son does not casts its vote for omission.
carry out his intention of asking to be
nfter his father

made a servant
to believe

had hasted to claim him as a well;

beloved son,

is

a flne trait

and we hesitate

that such true psychology, and such a beautiful turn

THE METHODS OF
of composition,
slip

CRITICISM.

89

have entered the nari-ative only by a

of a sleepy scribe.
?

from the bungling hand

all,

But

after

no copy had omitted the words, we should scarcely have thought of doing so and hence, even here, intrinsic evidence
it

may
;

not have done so

If

raises

a probability only and does not attain certainty.

all

In a word, intiinsic considerations, in

such cases,

give evidence, and oft-times very strong evidence, but

scarcely such decisive evidence as can withstand the

pressure of a strong probability brought from another

quarter.

The evidence
of

is

more

decisive in such a case as that

Acts

xii.

25,

where

to i-ead that

Paul and Barnabas

flat

returned "to Jervisalem," seems

in the face of

the context, although some

relief
is

may

be got from an

unnatural construction.
ing

It

to be observed,

how-

ever, that even this result is negative,

CIS 'lepovo-aXT^/x

and

in reject-

here, inti'insic evidence does not

necessarily

commend thereby
contents
it.

either of its

rivals

l^

or airo

it

itself

Avith

simply refusing the

be illustrated further
Intrinsic evidence

reading offered to

This

may
xi.

by the variation

at

Acts

20.

utterly refxises to have anything here except a read-

ing that gives the sense of cXXT^vas

negative, and does not

but again this

is

amount to a demand for just All that we learn from it is that the this word. author of the book placed here some word which contrasted with the "Jews" of v. 19, and which
recorded an advance on the previous practice of the

Church, and prepared for distinguishing the Christians from the Jews (xi. 26), and for sending missions to the Gentiles (xiii.) It tells us with great positive-

90
ne.s<,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
therefore, that Greek-speaking

Jews were not

It
is

meant

here, but veritable Gentiles.

to

perhaps

a mistake

spring too rashly to

this
is

the conclusion,
to

however,
eXX.rjva?

that

equivalent
;

commending
necessarily

and rejecting
first.

iWr)vi(TTd<;

some other matters

need

settling

But

if

eXXr]VL<TTd<;

means

" Greek-spoaking Jews," then this evidence does

it.

decisively reject

And

if eX.\r]va^

be otherwise well
it

commended,

intrinsic evidence
it

accepts

gladly as

furnishing just the thought

desires.

These examples illustrate the nature and the limitations of this

idly,

method
is

of criticism.

It cannot be used

and

it

very easy to abuse.

But when

exer-

cised

with care, and guided by a sympathetic insight

capable of much, and indispensable to the
is

into the literary character of the author under treat-

ment,
critic.

it is

It

chary of giving a positive verdict with

it

too great decision; but

may, be

safely asserted that

its

no conclusion to which
criticism.

it

does not give at least

consent can be accepted as final in any case of textual

IVanscript lonal Evidence.

By mony
It
is

transcriptional

evidence

is

meant the

testi-

whicli each I'eading beai-s to its

own

origination.
series

elicited l)y

compaiiug together the whole

of

claimants to a place in the text, in

any given

2)assage,

with a view to discovering in what order they

arisen

must have
the origin

that

is,

which one of them, on the

will

assumption of
of

its

originality,

best account for

all

the rest, or to what reading the

whole body of extant readings points, as their source and fountain. The danger to which this method is

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

exposed resides in
oui- liability to

91

come

to conclusions

on the ground

of tendencies to error wliicli

we may
scribes

observe in ourselves, rather than on the ground of

the actual tendencies

that

led

astray the
us.

who have

transmitted ancient books to

is

Our only

safeguard against this danger

for using this

to

make preparation

character of

method by a thorough study of the scribes' work, and of the eri-ors to \\hich

they were liable as exhibited in the actual errors

which they have made.

few liours of careful

erroi'.s

scrutiny of a series of acknowledged

actually
fitting

occuningin our

codices will do

more towards

us for the exercise of this nice process

than any

length of time spent in a priori reasoning.

all,

Above

it

must be remembered that

in criticising

Testament we are dealin<? with a Avritin"" which has had not one but many scribes successively engaged upon it, and that,
for instance, the text of the

New

say,

therefore,

we

are to deal with a complex of tendencies

which

may have
The

been engaged in progressively corexactly

oppo-.ite
is

rupting a text, and that in even

directions.

greatest ditiicult-y of the process

less,

found in expei'ience to reside

ability to arrange

however, in
I'cadings in

in-

any given

sorit's

of

an

order which
of sci'ibes,

may well have

the order

been, on

known

tendencies

inability to decide

of their origination, than in which of several orders, in which

is

they seem equally capable of being arranged,

actual order of their origination.

the

JvTst because

the

tendencies to error ran through a very wide range

and pulled

in

divergent directions,

it

often

seems

equally easy to account for each rival reading' as a

92

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
;

corruption of some other

and the acute editor

in
it.

is

seldom at a
prefers,
I'ival

loss

to

defend the reading which he

by pointing out some way

which the

The only a more careful study of the MSS. themselves, and a more rigid exclusion of all undue subjectivity from our
readings

may have grown

this

out of

remedy against

ever-present danger

is

judgments.

What

is difficult is

not impossible

and,

as experience grows,

it

is

usually discovered that

we

can with ever-increasing confidence select

from a

body

of readings the

one which actually did stand

at the root of all the others.

Wherever

this can be

done, transcriptional evidence

a very decided verdict.

may

be able to deliver

circumstance which appears, at

first sight, suffi-

ciently odd, operates to give us especial confidence in

the union of transcriptional and intrinsic evidence in

the

same

finding.

Just because intrinsic evidence

asks after the

best reading

and transcriptional
first

evi-

dence after the reading that has been altered by the

scribes,

they

ai-e

frequently found, at
conflict.

examina-

tion, in

apparent
is it

An

obviously satisfactory

reading
scrilie
;

not especially apt to be changed by a

is

often

the play of his mind about a

reading that puzzles him in one

distracts his attention

way

or another, that

from or intrudes his conjecture into hLs wiiting. When we ask which is the l)est reading, therefore, we often select the one which
appeared also to the scribe to be the best, and which,

when we ask

after the original reading, just on this

less

account appears to be a scribe's correction of a

obviously good or easy reading.

Karely, this contra-

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

diction between tlie
is

93

two foi-ms of internal evidence Commonly, liowever, it is only the signal to us that we have carelessly performed oixr work in the one process or the other, and thus directs us to a farther study, and finally to a complete The I'eading I'econciliation of the divergent findings.
ineradicable.

that seemed to us intrinsically unlikely comes often

on deeper study to seem intrinsically certain or else the I'eading which seemed at first certainly dei-ivative,
;

comes to be seen to be without doubt original. Whenever these two so easily opposing forms of evidence
can be shown to unite
heartily

and certainly in

favour of one reading, they raise a pi-esumption for

it

that will not yield to any other kind of evidence

whatever.
evei'

But, for

pi-ecisely

the same
in

i-easoii,

when-

they seem hopelessly

.^et

opposition to one

another,

the conclusions at which

or the other,

we may with the greatest justice we have ariived by

suspect

the one

perhaps by both.
essence
of a preparation to
of transcriptional
scribes'

The very
criticism

engage
evidence

in
is

by the aid
of

experience

actual

work.

Nothing can
facsimiles

quite take the place of familiarity with

selves.

Where

this

is
;

impossible,

MSS. themmay
excellent

form a partial substitute

given in the digests

and even the information

be turned to

may

account by the diligent student.

of

Some primary

hints

how various readings have aiisen in the text, which may serve as a basis for fui'ther and more direct studies, are all that it is possible to set down here.
Considered from the point of view of their
eftect

on the

text,

various

readings are either additions,

94

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
But such a
classification

omissions, or substitutions.
is

of

small

use

to

the student of

transcriptional

evidence.

What

he desires to know
he

readings originate, that

is how various may have some means

of investigating the origin of the readings that

come

before him.

From

this point of

view, all readings

may be
text
is

broadly classified as intentional and uninten-

tional corruptions.

Every change bi-ought into the

scribe, or of

the result either of a conscious and intentional

alteration

made by the
slip

an unintentional
he
has
fallen.

and

unconscious

into

which

Tnking the mass

of various readings together, a v^ery

inconsiderable proportion of
to intentional changes, of

them can be attributed

classification

and any detailed

them

is

so far ai-bitrary that

easily

many

readings

mny

be equally

accounted

for

on two or more
this explanaof error

hypotheses, and hence

to either of
tion

may

be assigned indifferently

two or more classes. With a rough classification of the sources

:

may

be ventured, as follows
I.

Intentional corruptions
1

Linguistic and rhetorical corrections.

Historical corrections.

2. 3.

Harmonistic corrections.
Doctrinal corruptions.
Liturgical coiTuptions.
:

4.
5.

II.

Unintentional corruptions
1.

Errors of the eye.

2.

Errors of the memory.

Erroi^s of the judgment.

3. 4.

Errors of the pen.

Errors of the speech.

6.

THE METHODS OF
Most
of tlie corruptions

CRITICISM.
may be

95

which

fairly classed

as intentional fall tinder the head of linguistic rhetorical corrections,

believe,

and and were introduced, we may almost always in good faith and under the and needed coirecting.
of

impression that an error had previously crept into

the text

Sometimes they

were the work

the
official

the scribe himself, sometimes of

corrector

(somewhat analogous to the

under whose eye the completed
left

modern

proof-readei-)
it

MS.

passed before

the

" publishing

house."

Examples may be found

forms,

in the connection of dialectic

such as the
a,

rejection

of

the second

aorist

termination in

and the substitution

of the moi-e

common forms
riX-Bare, rjXOav
\r]fJ.ij/uixaL,
;

e.r/.,

^XOofx.ev, ^Xdere, rjXOov for T^kOafxei;

the euphonic changes which transform

into
Xrjij/o/Jiai,

/\.T//x<^^eis
;

Xrj<^0(.L<;

ov eKKaKelv
as,

into ijKaKelv
e.(j.,

the smoothing out of the grammar,

when

in

Matt. xv. 32
or
in

rjfxepaL rpels

is

changed
is

into ry/Acpas rpets, or in

into
iXOovTL avTw,

Matt. xxi. 23

iX06vTu<; avTuv
ifxifxij/aTTo

Maik
difficult

vii.

inserted
easy.

and thereby a

sentence rendered

Here, too,

may be ranged

such connections as
o-7rapa^u;

the change of
in

the participles

Kpa^as and

Mark

ix.

26 into Kpa^av and cnrapd^av in older to

make them agree grammatically with their neuter noun TTUivfjia. Examples of con-ections for dealing up historical ditiiculties may be found in the change
of

Mark

"Isaiah the prophet" into "the prophets" in i. 2 of " sixth " into " third " in John xix. 14,
;

and the
confined

like.

Plarmonistic corruptions, though not

to

the

Gospels
1-1,

(compare,

foi-

example,

Acts

ix.

56 with xxvi.

15), are. of course,

most

96

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
unconsciously,
corruption.

frequent there, and form, whetlier consciously intro-

duced or
sources
of

one

of

tlie

most

fertile

Familiar examples

may

be

found in the assimilation of the Lord's Prayer as

Luke to the fuller form as recorded by Matthew, and the insertion of "unto repentance" Something very in Matt. ix. 13 from Luke v. 32.
recorded by
similar has often

happened to the quotations from the Old Testament, which are enlarged from the Old
closely

Testament context or more

conformed to the
in the
kol

LXX.
out of

wording.
of
Isa.

Examples may be found

fxoL
.

addition

eyyt^ct

tw

crro/xart

avrwv

xxix.
in
if

13 into Matt.

xv.

8,

and

of

ov

il/evSofxapTvpi^a-ei^
it

Rom.
any
1

xiii. 9.

On

the other hand,

corruptions

is

doubtful

doctrinal

can

be pointed to witli complete confidence.

Trinitarian passage in

Even the
of 8

John

v.

and part

may have
likely

innocently got into the text.

ai-e

The most
which
as, e.g.,
1

instances
is

the

several

passages in

fasting
in
vii.

coupled with prayer in some texts

xvii.

[Matt.
5
;

21],

Mark

Lx.

29, Acts x. 30,

Cor.

but even

tliese are

doubtful.

Liturgical cor-

ruptions, on the other hand, are

common enough, but

in cer-

can seldom be assigned to intention except in the

service-books,

where they deceive nobody, or

tain

MSS.

redacted for use as service-books, which

fitted for public I'eading

have been

by such changes as

inserting "

And

turning to His disciples

He

said," at

Luke

X.

22 (the beginning of a lesson), or of

"But

the Lord said," at

" His parents
ii.

Luke

viii.

31,

or the change of

"

into " Joseph

Jike.

and Mary," at Luke

41,

and

tlie

THE METHODS OF
tions

CRITICISM.

97

So long, however, as we are dealing with corrupwhich may -with some plausibility be classed

as intentional,

we

are on the confines of the subject.

of the
lie

The fecund causes

crept into the text

abounding error that has

rather in the natural weak-

ness of flesh, limiting the powers of exact attention.

From

each of the sources of error which have been

tabulated above as unintentional have sprung

many
of

kinds of corruption.
instance,

Under

errors of the eye, for

all

are

to

be classed

those

mistakes,

whatever kind, which have arisen through a simple

misreading of the
to be copied.

MS,

that lay before the copyist

tinuous lines,

The ancient mode of writing in conand the similarity that existed between

some
called

of the letters, facilitated such errors.

conis

siderable body of omissions " homoBoteleuton "

have arisen from what

or
" like-ending."

When

two succeeding clauses or words end

is

alike, the last

apt to be omitted in copying

first,

the copyist, having

written out the

glances back at the

MS.

for

the next clause, and, his eye catching the like-ending

of the second clause,

he mistakes this for what he

has just written, and so passes on to the following

words, thus omitting the second clause altogether.

The same

result

often

happens

when

the

same

sequence of letters occurs twice near together, and

when two

consecutive clauses begin alike instead of

ending alike

case

than in fact from the

which differs in name rather one just described. An

may be found at clause, " He that whole the where 23, confesseth the Son, hath the Father also," is omitted
example
1

of

" homoeoteleuton "

John

ii.

98
in

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
some
codices because both
it

and the preceding

-^^ end with the words rov -n-arepa ^x^'instance in which only a few letters are involved is
clause

the omission of 6 'Irjaov? in Matt. ix. 28, which is apparently due to the custom of writing 'Irja-ov's in
abbreviation, thus
:

AereiAyroicoic,

m which

oic

was

Other exeasily mistaken for the preceding oic. amples are the omission of the whole verse, Luke
xviii.
vi.

39, in a

few

codices,

and

of a clause in

John

39 by C.

Another error
similar
letters

of the eye arises

from mistaking
as,
e.g.,

for

one another, such

the

confusion of (one
xvi. 20,
eiA.KOJ/i,evos

way

or the other)
;

ei

and h (Luke

t/Xkio/acvo?

2 Cor.

n and

ti

(John

vii.

31,

/xt]

TrX^Lova

H and N (Matt. xvii. 12, oaa

rjOeXiqa-av

xii. 1, Srj
fiyjTi

Set)

7rA.eiova)

ocrav Oekrjtjav)

e and o (Luke

vii.

13,

cr7r/\.ay;)^vicr^?/

e(nrXay)(VLaov)

Y and B (Aa^tS AavtS), and the like. Possibly the famous reading eos in 1 Tim. iii. 16 may have arisen as an error of the eye whereby oc was mistaken for the abbreviation t)c, which diflers from it only by two light lines although it may have equally
;

well arisen as a strengthening correction or a mere

blunder of a
symbols.

scribe,

who

mechanically added the lines

to this pair of of abbreviations

which he had so frequently attached

The misreading

was

also

fertile

source of error, and

may be
o

classed with

errors of the eye.

One
the

of

the most frequent in'Irjcrov?

stances
auTots,

results

in

insertion of
oic,

after

and then mistaking La like manner we have it for the abbreviated oic. Katpw in Rom. xii. 11, probably through a misreading
by
first

doubling the

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

of tlie abbreviated Kpu>
too,
(^Kvpuif)

99

for Kvptu (Katpw).

So

the Kara. Travra of Acts xvii. 25

may have

arisen

from misreading K,T<\nANTA (/cat to, Travra.). A still more striking instance is found at Acts xiii. 23, where the abbreviation grain (or ccothrmn) has been misread as if it were crian (or cojthrian), and thus
ao-^pa
'Irjaovv

transmuted into

crwTrjpLav.

Still

another

class of errors of the eye arises

from the wandering

eye taking up and inserting into the text a word or

part of a word from a neighbouring line or a neigh-

bouring column.
i.

Perhaps the form

'Aa-dcf)

in Matt,

has so come into the text from the influence

of the 'luxrafftdr,
it.

which stands immediately beneath

lines

Even whole
slip,

may
this

be omitted or exchanged

by a similar
in 1 Cor.

and

may

be the true account

to give of the varied relative position of the clauses

i.

2.

Another error
as,

of the eye of

somewhat
1,

similar kind produces an assimilation of neighbouring

terminations
Tov ayycAot;

for example,

in Rev.

i.

where
tov

avTov tov

SovXov

avrov stands

for

ayyiXov avrov tw SouAoj avrov.

As

errors of

memory we should
of
letters

class all that

brood

which seem to have arisen from the copyist holding

a clause or sequence
treacherous
in
his

somewhat

be copied

memory between the glance at the MS. to and his writing down what he saw there.
in the order of
cTttcv

Hence the numerous petty changes

words
in
;

the substitution of synonyms, as

xxii.

for

e(f>rj

Matt.

37,

kK for

diro,

and the reverse

in Matt. ix. 29,

(cf.

Actsxii. 25), d/xjxdrwv for

u(f)6aXfjiSiv

and

the like; permutation of tenses,

for
/SaTTTt'^ovTes

as, e.g., /SaTj-n'o-avTcs

in

Matt,

xxviii.

19,

and the

like.

100
Here,
too,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
belong

many

of the harmonistic corruptions,

and the conformation of quotations from the Old Testament to the LXX, text, the scribe allowing his

memory unconsciously to affect his writing. As errors of the judgment may be classed many
misreadings of abbreviations, as also the adoption of

marginal glosses into the text, by which much of the most striking corruption which has ever entered the
text has been produced.

As

the margin was used for

it

both corrections and glosses,

must have been often

next to impossible for the scribe to decide what to

do with a marginal note.

Apparently he solved his

doubt generally by putting the note into the text. Doubtless this is the account to give of the abundant
interpolation that deforms the text
as those cited
of

such codices
interesting

by the symbol D.

More

examples are aftbrded by such explanatory notes as

*'

who walk not

the
spirit,"

according to the flesh but according

inserted

to

at
"

Rom.

viii.
;

1,

to

define

" those in

Christ Jesus

of

the text

or as

the

account of

how

it

happened that the waters of Beth-

Even saida were healing, inserted at John v. 3, 4. more important instances are the pericope of the adulteress inserted at John vii. 53, sq., and the last twelve verses of Mark, both of which appear to be
scraps of early writings inserted

from the margin,

a sleepy or stupid
illustrated

where they had been

scribe could

first

written with an illustrative

or supplementary purpose.

What
is

do in this direction
ryyiias

by such

a reading as hi^acrOat

Iv ttoAAois

twv

a.vTfypa.<fiwv

ouTto? evprjTaL Kai oi Ka6w<; r/XTricraixev,

which stands in

a minuscule copy at 2 Cor.

viii. 4, 5.

THE METHODS OF
Under
body
cnreless

CRITICISM.
class
all

101

errors of the pen

we

that great

of variations

which seem to be due to a simple miswriting of what lay rightly enough in the
such
as,
e.g.,

mind
the

of the scribe at the time,

trans-

and draw any sharp line of demarcation between this class and errors of the eye or memory, and many readings combine more than
positions, repetitions, petty omissions of letters,
like.

It

is

impossible to

one
of

Matt.

origin. For instance, when in we read otanapGh in Codex D instead OTANA.n&p6H, we recognise that there has been
slip

in

their

ix.

15

confusion

of

and

rr,

and then homoeoteleuton at

after an
;

work
vii.

in omitting

An

but the
So,

I'esult

is

simply the omission of two

34,

letters.

in

Cor.

of letters MeMepiCTAiKAiH,

when D, E, omit the second koL in the sequence we scarcely know whether
it

to call

simple incuria, or to explain

of

it

by homoeoor

teleuton

the T<M
ct?

and

kai.

On

the other hand,

ix. 12,

when N
Ave

writes

ra ayia twice in Heb.

repeats tipvyov

oi Se KparTytrai'Tes

in Matt. xxvi. 56, 57,

;

have before us a simple blunder

and the

like is
call for

found in every codex.

Matters of this kind

remark only when the slip of the scribe creates a diflerence in sense which may mislead the reader as,

.(/.,

when
05

E,

M,

etc.,

tran.sform

eXajSov

in

Mark
into

xiv.

by a simple

transpopition

of
;

lettei's

i/SaXov,

and

corrects this into efSaXXov

repetition, inserts
SaL/xovta

or

when H,

by a

careless

an

article into the

phrase kK^dXXovTa [tu]

Luke

ix. 49.

more

difficult
T>,
;

case occurs at

Matt. xxvi. 39, where

a A, C,

etc.,

read npoceAGcoN, but B,

is

M,

IT, etc.,

npoeAecoN

either the former

a careless insertion,

102

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
c,

or the hitter a careless omission of

helped by the
e-

iiei^'hbourhood of the other I'ound letters o and

Finally,

by eri-ors of speech we mean all those which have grown out of the habitual forms of speech (in grammar, lexicography, or pronunciation) to which the scribe was accustomed, and which therefore ho tended to write. His purism obtruded itself in
correcting
dialectic

forms

or

Hebraistic

t ei'in

i-;-

of

speech into accordance with his classical standard.

Examples
caption.

of

this

have been given under another

Sometimes, on the other hand, the idiom

would be too elegant for his appreciation, and he would unconsciously confoi'm it to his habitual speech. An instance may be seen in Acts xvi. 3, where D, E, H, L, P, substitute -^Setrrai' yap a7:a.VT<; tov Traripa
avTov OTL
TravTCS
"EA.A.7/I'
EA.A.i7i'

vTTripye.v

for the COri'Cct

-^Scicrai/

yap

on

6 TTarijp

avrov

VTrrjp'^iv

to the ruin

of the proper emphasis. of corruptions of

this

The most
sort,

considerable body

however, grows out of

is,

what

is

technically called

" Itacism," that

out of

that confusion of vowels and diphthongs Avhich was

prevalent in pronunciation and could not

fail to affect

here and there the

that
I

sjielling.

It consequently

happens
vice

is

continually getting written for

at

u and

versd,

and

and

-q, t,

and

et;

tj,

ol

and

are confused in the spelling.

and v; o and w; r} For determining

the age of these confusions of sounds in the speech of the people,

we

are dependent on epigraphical material,

and on

its

testimony they must be -carried back to a

very remote antiquity.

instance, occurs even in

The confusion

of

ct

and

t,

for

an Attic inscription

earlier

than

300

B.C.,

and was already prevalent

in other regions

THE METHODS OF

CRITICISM.

103

before that. From the end of the thii'd century it was prevalent everywheie, while in the second century A.D. the distinction between the two was a crux orthogra])h.ica. At the same time it must be I'emenibered that a standard spelling was current, and carefully written MSS. tried to conform to it so that
;

amount and in the classes of itacism that have found their way into their pages. For instance, among the papyrus fragments of Homer, those usually cited as N and 2 are
in

we are not surprised to much among themselves

learn that the

MSS.

differ

the

very free from itacism, while

B.C.) is full of it.

Q,

(of

the

first

century

Testament MSS. N shows a marked preference for the spelling in i, and B for the spelling in t. Allowance for such parti-

Among New

must be made in passing judgit must also be borne in mind that all the codices of the New Testament were copied at a time when itacistio spelling was current, and hence are more or less untrustworthy when the point is to distinguish between the vowels thus confused. The most common confusions are those between et and I, w and o, at and c and after these those between r; and the two pairs i and ei, and ot and v. The effect of the first may be illustrated by the readings ctSert and iSerc in Phil. i. 30, or the readings larat, ciarat in Mark v. 29. The most common eftect of the confusion between o and w is to confound the indicative and subjunctive moods the
cular characteristics

ment on readings

but

following

are

examples

Matt.

xiii.

15,
1

lao-w^at

K, U, X, A,
^o/3crw/x,cv a,

Ida-ofjiaL X,

B, C, D, L,

etc.

Cor. xv. 49,

vii. 1

A, C, D,

etc., <f)opi(TOfjiv

B, 46 ; 2 Cor.

104

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
B, D,
etc.,

KCLOaptaoijxeu N,
t)(^iofjbev

KaOapicrofxev

P; Rom.
;

v. 1,

a,

A, B, C, D, L,
etc.,

exo/Aev P, etc.
etc.
;

Heb.
28,

xiii.

10,

)((j)/xev

L,

^^ofxev N,

Heb.

xii.

e)(Wfjiv

A, C, D, L,

New
0}
;

There is no MS. of the ex^/xev N, K, P, etc. Testament that does not at times confuse o and

consequently, the testimony of every

suspicion on
this point,

MS.

is

Hable

and our decision turns largely on inti'insic evidence. Tlie confusion of e and as, e.y., Luke at may produce or remove infinitives xiv. 17, epx^a-Oe 13, 346 Latt., epx^o-Oai, X, A, D, L
to

Gal.

iv.

18,

tpqXovadf. N,
it

B,

etc.,

Occasionally also
e.^.,Matt.
etc.
xi. 10,

transfoi-ms a

^rjXova-Oat A, C, etc. word into another

Gr,

erepotsN, B, C, D, L, craipois
7]fjir]v

S,

U,V,
'^^
t.

In

^/xv
rj

and

Acts
ii.

xi. 1 1, c

and

rj

are confused.
x.PW^^'>
-q,

In
1

and

oi 2 Cor.
3,

9,

and

;;^ptcrTos

and

Peter

ii.

we have

instances of the triad

of the

a,

pronouns r]fxeL<; and v^eZs in their various cases is an example of t), ol, v. Even a and e seem occasionally to pass uito one another
e.g.,

The frequent confusion

Kev.

xvii. 8, Katirep co-tlv

and

kol Trapicmv.

connected specimen of

itacistic

writing

of the closing prayer of

a certain

As a we add a part John of Constan:

tinople,

who wrote
Tov
Siao-ocrov o

a psalter

now

at Cues

a-oaov

/j.e

XP^

croTip
/i,

Koa-fjiov to
H<;

crocrus Trerpov cv tl

daXaa-er os

CKtvov

Kai

eXuaov

fxat.

Let the student

" Save me,

exercise his ingenuity in lestoring this to the ordinary

spelling of a Greek,

which

will translate

Christ, Saviour of the world,

who

didst save Peter

in the sea; like

have mercy on me."

or tenth century.

him save me entirely, This was written

God, and

in the ninth

These instances are pi-obably enough to illustrate

THE METHODS OF
the

CRITICISM.

105

way

in which, even

the text of any document

by the most honest copying, may become corrupt and

;

to serve as examples of the kind of facts with whicli

the student must have a personal familiarity in order

to be pi-epai'ed to ti'ace back a reading to its source in a scribe's error, or to classify a

body
is

of readings

according to their origination.

It

impoi'tant for
of

him next

to obtain

an intimate knowledge

the

habits, so to speak, of the

important individual MS8.

in order to check

the one scribe the conclusions that

by familiarity with the habits of ai'e leached from

a study of the general habits of all scribes.

in point

A
et

fact

has been

already mentioned

x tends to
every-

write

everywhere for
I,

where

for

et, and and a knowledge

to write

of this fact is a help

et

in determining i-eadings involving

and

t,

foi-

which

these codices are sponsors.

())

That

loves synonyms,

in other

words the scribe that wi'ote this codex

had an active mind that worked as he copied, and so felt the sense of what he wi-ote moi-e than most scribes, is an important fact to know when we are deciding on the probability of a synonymous I'eading that A supports. That the scribe of x was a rapid

penman, proud apparently

fellow,

of his

handwriting

and

that B's scribe was on the contraiy a careful, plodding

who

copied the text before

him with only such

fall

petty slips as such a writer would

omissions,
letters

into,

brief
of
facts

doubling of

short

words,

repetitions

and such

stupidities,

these

and such

enable us to pass ready judgment on variations which might otherwise somewhat puzzle us.

Above

all,

however,

it

is

necessary to

remember

106

TEXTUAL CRITICISM,
MSS.
is an attempt to bring the accidentnl and every effort to classify them according is

that every attempt to account for the errors that occur

in our

under
of

rule,

to their sources

only an effort to group the

;

effects

human

carelessness

so that

much must remain

as

over of which
incuria.
It

we can only speak

of
slips of

instances

of

may

be useful to the student to look the scribe of x, gleaned

at a brief

list

from the digest

to consider

of the Epistle to the of

Hebrews, and
to the

how many

them can be assigned

:

several classes mentioned above

Incuria of

{<

in Hebrews.
shall be [to

Heb.

i.

5.

Omit Omit

avroi

from " I

him]

for a father."
i. i.
1

8.
2.

Tyj<;

evOvrr)TO<; pa/?8os.
<rv 8c.

Add

Kttt

with

ii.

18.
9.

iv.

iv, 11.
viii. viii.

3.

Omit Tretpacr^ct?. Omit the whole verse, Omit Tts. Omit km.

10.
5.

Mov
Ei9

for

/jlol.

IX.

Evfcrrtv for
Ttt

ccttu'.

ix. 12.

ayia written twice.

r]K(i>.

X.

7.

Omit

X. 11.

Order changed to
A/xa/3Ttas for

Actr. kuO. rjfxfp.

X. 26. Tr^s eTTLyvwcnav for ttjv cTrtyvcotrtv. X. 32.

X. 36. X. 39.
xi. xi.
r]fjiepa<;,

Change
Ets

of order to xpeiav ex^re.

aTTtoA-ias

for

tis airwX.Lav.

5. 8.

Otl for

SioTL.

Change

of order to Kk-qpovo^iav Aa/xySa.

THE METHODS OF
Ileb.
,,

CRITICISM.

107

xi.

9.

Omit

rr/s

after C7rayyc\ia?.

XI. 2i>.

Uiiiit lo-aaK.

,,

xi. 31.
xii.
1.

Insert

Tn\yo/xi't]

before

7r.>pv7/.

,,

Tr]\iKovT(n' for roaovTov.

xii. 10.
xiii.
2.

fjiev

for

ot/xer.

Tr/[/ (fii\o^ULav

for

tt]^ (f>L\o$.

xiii. 12. xiii.

xiii. xiii.

Omit
Omit

cn-aOev.

18. 22. 23.

On Kok-qvOa yap otl Kakrjv before ttci^o/xc-.

yap.
for
ep^^rjTat.

'Epy^Tjcrde

There are in this

list

instances of errors of the

eye (homojoteleuton, the wandering eye catching a

neighbouring word, confusion of simihir

speech,

letters),

of

the memory, of the judgment, of the pen, and of the

and

others also.
sly

It looks as if the scribe

nap when he was writing the tenth chapter, and as if he either nodded again or was interrupted by an unthinking chatterer at xiii. 18,
were taking a
where, at
least,

we

find a very

odd case of repetition.

generalise

Efforts have been

made

to

upon the

phenomena

of the various readings,

and

so to furnish

" canons of criticism " for the guidance of the student.

Transcriptional evidence cannot, however, be reduced

to stiff rules of procedui-e.

All " canons of criticism

"

are only genei-il averages, and operate like a probability

is

based on a calculation of chances.

" chance"
is

always open that this particular instance

the exceptions.
rules to square our conclusions
error,

one

of

But, although to use them as

strict

by were but

to

invite

general

rules

are

very useful, as

succinctly

embodying the

results of broad observation.

108
If Ave nse

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
them only
as general guides, and

expect

to find exceptions to

them continually turning up,

:

the following three rules are valuable

1.

The more

difficult

reading

is

to

be preferred:
of

founded on the
tinkering.
2.

observed

tendency'

scribes

to

render the sense smooth by correction or unconscious

The shorter reading

text.

is

to be preferred

founded

on the observed habit of

than shorten the
3.

scribes to enlarge rather

The more
:

characteristic

reading

is

to

be pre-

ferred

founded on the observed tendency of scribes

to reduce all they touch to their

own

level,

and

so

gradually eliminate everything especially characteristic

of

an author.

Not

co-ordinate with these, but above

them and
that

inclusive of them,

stands the one great rule that

:

embodies the soul of transcriptional evidence

reading
all
is

to be preferred

from which the origin of

of the

the others can most safely be derived.

of the habits of scribes

and

Knowledge phenomena of

MSS.
sense

is
is

needed to interpret this

rule.

CommonBut

here even more than usually needed.

given the knowledge and common-sense, this one rule

adequately furnishes the Avorker in this department

of evidence.

That much could be done towaids settling the text any work by the use of intrinsic and transcriptional evidence alone, which would be generally recognised
of

as sound,
special

is

certain.

But

it

is

equally clear that a

danger attends processes that are so nice and

THE METHODS OF
delicate,

CRITICISM.
vvislies

lf9

of the

intrusion of those
;

tiiat

are

fatliers to

thoughts

and

in criticising the text of a

book that stands

beliefs
its

in such close i-elation to

our deai-est

as the

New

Testament, this danger reaches

maximum.

This does not render the method of

in ernal

uor does it from the duty of using it, with strict honesty and a severe exclusion of improper subjectivity. But it throws sufficient doubt on individual judgment in attaining some of its results, to
exonerate
critics

evidence of readings invalid;

render
less

by some warped method of investigation. We gladly remember, then, that besides " internal evidence of readings" we have "external evidence of readings" to depend on, and proceed to inquire after the methods of using it.
it

desirable to test its conclusions

easily

2.

External Evidence of Readings.

and Internal Evidence of

(rt)

Comjjarative Criticism

Documents.

The crudest method that could be adopted

would
little

to decide

between readings on the ground of external evidence

be simply to count

the witnesses for each

It requires

reading and follow the greatest number.

a method.

consideration to perceive the illegitimacy of such

The

great practical difficulty stands

in

the

way

of adopting the principle that the majority

shall rule, that

we cannot
For

certify ourselves that

we

have the majority.

every

this,

we must

fii'st

collate

known copy, and even then the doubt would hang over us that mayhap the majority of copies

110
are yet

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
unknown
1
:

actually perished

have not, indeed, the majority If we should adopt a simple

majority principle, therefore,

certainty
yet
;

we

could never reach

we could never be

sure that the copies as

unknown, or hopelessly lost, might not alter the and we should be betraying the text into the hands of the chance that has preserved one MS. and
balance
;

lost

another.

greater theoretical difficulty

lies

behind.

Who

can assure us that the

of

good
it

The majority

MSS.

are late

many MSS.

are the
;

and

if

be the original text that we are seeking,

is it

likely

that the

many

M>S8. of the eleventh century will

it than the few of the fourth? Dare we overmatch the multitude of years ])y the multitude of copies, our two codices of the fourth century by the mixed hordes that throng on us from

better help us to

the fourteenth

If coiruption be largely
it

due to the

fortunes of hand-copying,
gressive,

will

of necessity be pro-

and the MSS.

of the earlier centuries

may

be rightfully presumed to be purer and better than We may even expect to find iii those of the later.

them the parents

of the very later codices

which now
If so,

would crowd them out to follow mere numbers

hands
of

of the witness-stand.
is

to betray the text into the

the later corruption.

Shall we, then, say that not the most

MSS. but

the oldest shall rule

better canon.
of

This certainly would be a far

is

But

it

met again, on the threshold

difficulty,

practical use,
practical.

by a double
all, it
is

theoretical

and

After

not the mere

number
its

of vears that is behind

any MS. that measures

distance

from the autograph, but the number of

THE METHODS OF
copyings.

CRITICISM.
may

Ill
liave
itself,
it,

MS.

of

the fourth century

little

been copied from another but

older than

aud and
jits,

this again
so

from another but a

little

older than
;

on through a very long genealogy

of the third,

whereas a
copied

of the eleventh century

may have been

it

from one
It
is

and

from the autograph.

not, then, the age of the

it,

document, but the age

of the text in

that

is

the true measure of antiquity;

and who shall certify us that many of our later documents may not preserve earlier texts than our
earliest

MSS. themselves

or,
of

indeed, that all our

later

documents may not be

purer descent than

c

our few old codices?

With

the frankest acceptance

is
is

the principle that the age of a document

tive evidence of the age of the text,
it

pi'esumpclear that

we can reach
to their age.

little

certainty in criticism by simply

agreeing to allow weight to documents in proportion

And
:

here the pr^ictical difficulty enteis

greater weight
shall

the problem

how much
?

we

allow to greater age

Certainly two fourth-century

all

documents cannot reduce

to no value at
all,

tenth-century documents
theii'

simply by reason of

greater

age

but how nice the question as to the exact increof

ment

weight that must be added for each century

!

of additional life

Professor Birks set himself once

;

to investigate this question

and

his conclusion

was

" that on the hypothesis most favoui'able to

tlie eai'Iy

MSS., and
is

specially to the

Vatican [B],

its

weight

exactly that of

two MSS.

of the fifteenth century,

while

the Sinaitic [x] weighs only one-third more

than an average MS. of the eleventh century." Mr. Monro was at pains to point out certain errors in

112

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
conclusions.

Professor Birks' calculations wliich appear to vitiate

his

But

for

tlie

purposes of actual
if

criticism

were they not valueless even

correct

How
ment
alone

is it

possible to calculate the value of each docu-

relatively to all the others on the

%

Let us confess
the

it

to

ground of age admit that the older a

likely to be, carries us

MS.

is

more valuable
it is

it is

but an infinitesimal way towards the actual woi'k of

criticism,

and

entirely impossible to apportion

their values

to

codices

by their

ages.

Though we

may

feel

that a MkS. of the fourth century ought to

be a better and safer witness than one or two, or

a liundred, or
fifteenth,

a thousand for that matter, of

certify ourselves
of

the

we cannot

this

with

regard to any given

MS.

and we certainly cannot

ages,

arrange

all

our MSS. in a table of relative weights

as resulting

from their relative

and then use

not

this table as a touchstone for our critical problems.

It

is

a plain fact that

step forward

MSS. need not and do

is

always vary in Aveight directly according to age.

A great
allow

taken when we propose to

MSS.

weight, not according to their age, but

according to the age of the text which they contain.

To

Tregelles

must be ascribed the honour

It
is

of inti'o-

ducing this method of procedure, which he appropriately

called

"Comparative Criticism."
stated, it

a truly

scientific

method, and leads us for the

Briefly

first

time to safe

results.

proceeds as follows.

The

earlier

and a drawn from these dated sources which Each MS. can be confidently declared to be ancient. If a MS. conis then tested, in turn, by this list.
versions
list

and

citations ai'e carefully i-ansacked,

of readings is

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

of readings

113

tains a considerable proportion of these readings, or

which on grounds of transcriptional prois

bability are older than even these, it

to contain

demonstrated

on the other hand, a MS. fails to contain these readings, and presents instead variants which according to transcriptional
text.
If,

an old

probability

appear to have grown out of them, or

to

which can be proved from dated citations

been current at a later time,
its

have

may be assumed to be late. From an examination of the MSS. thus proved to exhibit an early text, we may next obtain
text

a very clear general notion of what the earlier text

is,

and

this will serve us as

a more extended test

of the

age of texts contained

confidently divide
eaily

them

into

MSS., and we may two great classes the

in

and the
it
is

late.

Here,
this

plain,

our feet rest on firm ground.

settling the text by method may be observed in the text which Dr. Tregelles actually framed, and which stands to-day as his suitable and honourable monviment. But a
little

What may

be

done towards

consideration will satisfy us that, as an engine

of criticism, this

method

is

far
is

from

perfect.

It will

furnish us with a text that

demonstrably ancient,
is

and
is

this, as

a step towards the true text,

It
is

a very

important gain.

something

to reach a text that

certainly older than the fourth century,

that was
But
this

current in the third or second

century.

can be assumed tobe the autographic text only if we can demonstrate that the text current in the
second or third century was an absolutely pure text.

So far from

this,

however, there

is

leason to believe

114
thiit
tlie

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
the very grossest errors that have ever deformed
it

text had entei'ed

ah-eady in the second century.

IJy this

method, therefore, we
cases of

may

deal successfully

with

all

variation in

which the older and

thus
;

later texts stand

sift

opposed as bodies, and

out a vast rabljle of late corruptions

Avith
it

but

may we

stand,
cases in

only to help us,

helpless befoi'e all

which the oldest witnesses themselves differ. If our This result might have been anticipated.
touchstone only
"we
i-eveals to

us texts that

ai'e

ancient,

cannot hope to obtain for our result anything but

text.

an ancient

What we

wish,
text.

however,

is

not

merely an ancient but the true

in this perplexity.

Yet another process has been developed

for our aid

It has been pointed out that the

way

is

open to the estimation of MSS., not by the

age of the parchment on which they are written, nor

yet by the age of the text which they contain, but

by the actual excellence

tain.

of the text

which they con-

This

is

another great advance.

For we are now

invited to assign weight to

real value.

MSS.

according to their
this

The

process

by which

method

vinder-

takes to ascertain the relative value of the different MSS. is appropriately called " Internal Evidence of

Documents," and proceeds by interrogating each MS.

as to its
of

own

value,

by testing

it

by the only kinds

evidence available
evidence.

namely,
A

intrinsic

and tranis

scriptional

rude example of what

its

intended by this will, perhaps, be

tion.

best explana-

Let us suppose two copies of a wdll or deed to be laid before us, and it to be our task to determine which is the better i e., the more correct.

THE METHODS OF
What would be
doubt,

CFdTICISM.

115

the common-sense procedure?

Beyond
point in
list

we should begin by noting every

differed
;

which they
reading,

and then, taking

this

of

various readings,

we should

ask, in the case of each

original.
:

which appeared to be the

ask.

"We

should have two ways of determining this

case

in each

we should

Which reacUng

is

it

probable,

considering the context, style, and the like, the author

wrote? and. Which reading, considering the known habits of the scribes, the accidents to which they are
liable,

and the

like, is it

probable that the scribe had

?

before

him

in order to produce the other

When

these two

modes

of

inquiry resulted in the same

answer, the reading would be determined by a high

degree of probability.

Now, after having thus passed

through the whole list of variovis readings, we could count up what proportion of them had been deter-

mined
fail-

in favour *of one

MS. and what proportion

in

favour of the other.

This would furnish us with a

two

general estimate of the comparative value of the copies. If, for instance, the two differed in a
places,

hundred

and the two

varieties

of

internal

evidence of readings united in

commending the

readi^' -^

ings of ona^n ninety of these, and those of the other in only ten, we should have no difficulty in greatly
preferring the former
to the latter copy.

Nay,

it

would not be strange if we now revised our decision in some of the other ten cases, and allowed our demonstrably better copy to determine their readings on documentary grounds. No doubt such a method but it is scarcely open offers us only probable results
;

to doubt but that, so far as they go, they are sound

116
results,

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
and in favourable cases the probability may
It
is

reach naoral certainty.

equally plain that the

if

method

is

not essentially affected

the documents

we have

to compare are a dozen instead of two, or

even a hundred or a thousand; nor yet if our two varieties of evidence fail to give us clear or united

testimony in a number of the readings. It would still remain true that the relative value of the MSS.
could be ascertained by determining the proportionate

number
dence

of their special readings

which internal

evi-

will

commend.

After

its

own

relative value

method, we

has been assigned to each MS. of a work by this may proceed to its textual criticism on This
not reasoning in a
applied,

documentary grounds, allowing each MS. the weight

thus indicated.
is

circle.

By

one

process,

tentatively

general notion of the value of

considerable
this

we each MS.

attain

a
a

When

number

of readings

have been used in

check one
It
is

work, errors

in

their

estimation
is

another, and our general result

consistent

sound.

quite
still

next to treat
:

all

these readings as

undecided

this is

but to recognise that tentative

results as to the details are provisional.

We

may,

therefore, justly call in the

relative values

MSS. according

to the

our tentative results en masse to decide

reading in
detail.

which have been assigned them by now on each

Precisely this process hns been applied to the

of the

MSS.

New

Testament.

And we

are asked to deter-

mine the
assigned

relative

weight of the witnesses for each

disputed reading by allowing to

them the weights

It

them by

this

method

of testing.

would

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

be idle to dispute the validity of the process.

117
It
is

transparently just and

possible to doubt that

scientitic.
it

It

is

equally im-

will enable us to

come

to

conclusions

on which we can

depend.

Especially

when taken in connection with the former method, which marshals MSS. according to the age of the
texts they exhibit, this method, which marshals

them
of

according to the tested value of their texts, will lead

us to very important conclusions, both in the
testing the results obtained

way

by the former method, and in carrying them some steps farther. The mere fact that the results of this method accord with those obtained by the former, so far as they were legitimate, gives us confidence in using
it.

It

may

be in

one sense an accident that our oldest MSS. should

be shown by comparative criticism to contain the

most ancient

text,

although an accident in the line

of the pre-existing presumption.

But

it

cannot be

by mere accident that the text obtained as the most ancient should in the main accord with that obtained
as the best.

And

it

is

reasonable to be led by this

accordant result of two independent methods to put

confidence in the further results obtained by one of

them which

in the nature of the case cannot be tested

by the other.

We

are justified, therefore, in using

internal evidence of documents to decide for us the

readings in which the older text

is itself

divided.

As

already intimated, Dr. Tregelles' text

may

be

taken as the type of the results attainable by comparative criticism.

He

was accustomed
:

to

divide

the

MSS.

into classes, thus

class,

(a)

Uncial MSS. of the

most ancient

i.e.,

those earlier than the seventh

118
century
(c)
{(l)

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
;

{h)

Later uncial

Certain important

MSS. of special importance MSS. in minuscule letters

The

later uncials.

mony

of all the uncial

He aimed at citing the testiMSS., those of the minuscules

all

the text of which was ancient,

the seventh century, and the fathei-s

including Eusebius.

In

class [h)

down to down to and he included L, X, Y,

versions

A, 0, H, of the Gospels,

of

Epistles, and_^F, C, of Paul.

1,

Acts and the Catholic In class (c) he included

33, 69 of the Gospels, 13, 31, 61 of Acts

and the

Catholic Epistles,. 17, 37, 47 of Paul, and 38 of the

Apocalypse.

To these might
lists

well be added, now, the

of minuscules given in classes (), {d),

minuscules cited in the

the proper place above.

The other
the
lists

may

be

gathered from

of

uncial

MSS,

given above.

When

tested by internal evidence of

documents, the
confessed,
single

dissimilar classification.

MSS. arrange themselves in a not As is practically universally

is

by this means shown to be the best

MS., and x stands next to it. Naturally enough the documents most like B are given the next
place.

D, Do, G3,
very

But the general character of such codices as Fg, is not very high, when tested by internal
is

evidence of documents, although their text

certainly

old, as compai'ative criticism satisfactorily proves.

Among

the versions, the palm

falls to

the Memphitic

and Thebaic.

A various
processes.

reading that occurs in Matt.

Shall

vi.

may

serve us as an

example of the working of these

we

read

in

this

verse

simply,
"

"And
thee
"
?

thy Father that seeth in secret shall reward

or shall

we add the word

'

openly

at the

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

dose?
v T<3

119

Tischeudorf states the evidence thus:

<t>avefjw:
1.

omit
ap palam
.

Aug

N B DZ (multa exx. Latina

in Grcecis
qtuc,
fl'^

22. 108. 209.

aP

cdde^

sic

recldet tihi

prwra sunt non

syr'^"

inveniiiius
j^^n
;

palam)
liquet
insert

k,

vg

fr

sax cop

(Or

ir^oG,cda

quo
iv

spectet),
cf^avepio
syr^''''
:

tw

Cyp Aug Hier Chrom al E K L JNl S U X^''' (e spatio)

go arm
a^th
al

a b c f g' h q

ef

Const Chr

Op

al.

In order
criticism,

to interpret the evidence

by com-

parative
follows
:

we may

ai'r.mge

the

matter as

Oiiiii.

Insert.

Uncials prior to the seventh N,r.,D, Z,c<ia

century.
Gt/Oil later uncials.

ap

Au.L'.

I. X^''^
1-el.

'^

.s|)a.tio.

Good

minuscules.

1.22.

[:j:i]. 2U'.t.

Later uncials.

all.

120

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
observe that the addition " openly " does not

We

occur in any

known Greek MS.

Some good

before

the eighth

century, or in any version or patristic citation before

the fourth centviry.

the eighth century,
niutli,

later uncials,
also

of

and apparently

of

the

witness for

it,

but the better minuscules, again,

it,

omit

it.

No

second -century version contains

but

all later

ones do, with the sole exception of the Latin

Its absence
is

Vulgate.
quotations

from this and from Jerome's probably to be explained by Augustine's

precise statement that

many

Latin copies of his day

earlier

contained

it,

but none of the

is

Greek

copies,

which in
tlie

a very strong testimony to the superior antiquity of the omission. On this evidence
itself

conclusion

is

probable that

ev

tw

(ftavepw,

balancing

the previous iv tw KpviTT^, was

first

introduced into

the Greek text late in the third or early in the fourth

When we now withdraw our attention from the question of antiquity, and consider the Avitcentuiy.
nesses according to their values, as determined by " internal evidence of documents," we discover that

the

best
this

witne.'^ses

ariay

themselves for omission.

ground, too, therefore, we decide to omit the words.

Practically

On

much

met with
(Matt.

in the

the same division of evidence is more important matter of the inser-

tion or omission of the doxology to the Lord's Prayer

There is, however, this important the doxology appears in witnesses as early as the second century. For its omission are quoted
vi.

13).

difference

X, B,

D, Z,
of

1,

17,

118,

130,

209; scholia in the

it
;

marghi

many

copies that contain

a, b, c, ff ^, g^,

1,

THE METHODS OF
vg., cop.
;

CRITICISM.
Max., Cyp.,Teit.,
S,

121
etc.
<i>,

Or., Nyss., Ctes.,('yi'"'.,

:

For

its

insertion

E, G, K, L,
f,

]\I,

U, Y, A, n, 2,
et'"', fetli.,

very

many others,

g\

[k] q, syr""', ct''^

arm.,

go, [sah], [Teaeliing of the

Twelve Apostles,] Constt.,

Chrys., and later fathers generally.

The MS. evidence

is

does not differ markedly from the distribution observed

in Matt.
vi. 4.

But among the versions a doxology

found in the second centuiy Curetonian Syriac and the

Thebaic) ; and in the fathers, in the early Sahidic ( second century " Teaching of the Apostles." There is

no question, therefore, but that a doxology

opening of that
century.
is

is

found

attached to the Lord's Prayer as early as the very

Nevertheless, the oldest

MS.

in

which

it

found dates no higher than the

sixth century (2).

alone beneath our feet,

Even with comparative criticism we are not helpless here for

;

when we observe

that the doxology appears in the

second century in as

many

differing
it,

forms as there
it

are documents that contain

that

occurs in no

MS.

before the sixth century, and in no commentator

on the Lord's Prayer before Chrysostom at the end

of the fourth century, conclusions as to its late origin

present

themselves
it

with some

force,

and we can

suspect that

entered the Greek Testament about

" internal evidence of documents,"

the end of the third or opening of the fourth century.

When we
we

ca,ll

in

see that the best old

documents are ranged for

is

omission, and our conclusion

ingly.

strengthened accord-

The reading in John vii. 8, the evidence in the which was analy.sed a few pages back, is distinctly more difficult to deal with. The two oldest
case of

122

TEXTUAL CETTICISM.
set

and best MSS. are here

anotlier
;

in

opposition

to

one

the

second-century

versions
tlie

are

divided

as three to one,

but the best and

against the

worst agree

against

the second best,

and the most stand with

best.

the second

MS.

This

is

typical

of the division

of

the

evidence throughout.

How,
?

then, can

we

decide the matter on grounds either of

the antiquity of the witnesses or of their excellence

Cases of just this complexity meet us on nearly every

page of the
with them
1

New

Testament.

What

are

we

to

do

These examples have been

of criticism

designed to illustrate

both the strength and the limitations of the method

which

Ave

are expounding.
it is clear.

That much
it is scientific

can be accomplished by

That

and sound,
tain.

so far as it will carry us, is equally cerit is

But
old
;

also true that

it is

helpless

whenever
evenly

the

or

the

good documents are

pi^etty

and that when, as in the New Testament, we have many documents to deal with, it does not always carry with it that pinctical certainty which
divdded

we
that

desiderate.
its

The reason

of

both shoi'tcomings

is

decisions rest everywhere, at bottom, on

an

arithmetical balance.

Let us try to explain.

By
MSS.

this

method

of criticism,
later,

when

all

the old
all

MSS.

stand opposite the

and when

the good

stand opjjosite the bad,

in deciding the reading.

so aiTange themselves
;

we have no dilHculty But they will not always

perpetually some of the older

are on the side of the later, some of the better on

the side of the worse.

cases
?

What

are

we

to do in such
1^, -^^j

Even

if

we

are confident that x?

^, 1^>

THE METHODS OF

CRITICISM.

123

when combined, may stand against the world, how do we judge the group to be weakened by the defection of A ? or of C i or of B ? or of n, B ? or of A, C, D ?
any two or any three or any four of them ? But until they are questions. answered this method of criticism is helpless before the immense variety of divided testimony which meets
or of

These are puzzling

the

critic

in

every part of

his

work.
at

Clearly, in

such cases everything

depends

bottom on our

knowing not only that N, B, C, D, present an old, and or that N, B, C, present a E, S, U, V, a late text good and most minuscules a bad text but also, veiy
;
;

accurately indeed, the exact proportional

excellence

how much better precisely B is than n, and x is than C, and C How else can we estimate is than V or 10 or I'J.
and consequent weight of each MS.
:

the efiect of each defection

bearing
of

Often decision on the

documentary evidence will absolutely depend on an exact knowledge of the precise value
of each

MS., and a consequent

ability to estimate
its

the weight each brings to a group with

or

presence,

takes

from
our

it

by

its

absence.
stage)
in

Obviously this
less

means
ability

(at

present

nothing

than

to

speak of

MSS.

terms of
of

numerical

formulae,

and the whole matter

dence becomes an arithmetical balance.

documentary eviIf, assuming

ranks as 2000,
so on,

an ordinary minuscule

of the fourteenth century to

rank as

in weight,

we know

that

and N as 1800, and C as 1600, and

a simple
unless

we can
But
to
it,

accurately estimate the value of each gi'oup and by

sum in arithmetic settle the text. we know this or something equivalent

124

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
is

the bearing of the documentary evidence

escaping us.

constantly

D, for example, the defection we cannot tell whether n B D Z may not be enough to carry our suffrages, and x B D not S may not be too L enough whether E
weight of X of B will have
;
;

We B A

cannot

tell

what

effect

on

the

weak

to

follow,

but

EGK L

M UX MSUVAH2^
Manage
it

too strong not to follow.

by whatsoever

method we

and conceal the fact from others or ourselves by any way of speaking of it that we may, the whole process of ciiticism which deals with
please,

MSS.

as separate units

amounts

to nothing

less,

at

bottom, than

an attempt to

settle readings

by an

open or veiled arithmetical balance.

We

are not

now

arguing whether such a method be not fundamentally

wrong

but only that

it

cannot be carried successfully

the

through
estimated.

any

case

where
is

testimony

is

well

divided unless the arithmetical balance be accurately

And

it

clearly apparent that such a

balance

is

not accurately

estimated,
as it
is

and,

indeed,

cannot
is

be.

But by

as

much
little

not,

by so much

our criticism

but

removed
thought

in all nice pro-

blems from guesswork.

Let us try to
is

realise in

still

further,

what

implied in the very attempt to decide readings by

such a balance.
of

No
all

less

than this

the possibility

overwhelming

early

sheer numbers of late

and good testimony by the and bad testimony. Does not

the very principle of an arithmetical balance yield the

point that the early and good

may

be overborne by

the late and bad,

if

only the latter be numerous

enough?

So,

in pretending to estimate

and weigh

THE METHODS OF
witnesses,

CRITICISM.

125

we

fall

into the trap of merely countinj^

is

them.

What we want
But

a method which will allow

if it

later testimony to overrule earlier, only

be good

method and all methods of individual documents inevitably puts itself in the position that tlie best and oldest may be overborne, if only we can produce a sufficient number of later documents. Say that B is made equal to two thousand thirteenth-century copies, and ten or a hundred thousand nineteenth-century copies, it would be in the power of an enterprising printer to produce enough very debased copies to overbear its testimony. The procedure would be transparently ridiculous, no doubt but this only proves that we need some method of criticism which is not capable of such a reductio ad absxrdum, which does not proceed on an assumption which can only arbitrarily protect us from such a conclusion. Something else is needed beyond knowledge of the general relative age of the texts that documents contain, or the
enough to do so. of a mere balance
this
;

general relative goodness of them, or anything that

concerns single documents, before

secure results.

we can
of

reach very

That those who have made use

metical

"comparative
of

criticism" have avoided the weakness

an arithclass

balance in

dealing with
the
true.

all

that

of

readings in which
later is

older

te.\t

differs

from the
it

no doubt
have

But they have done

by

confessedly or practically ignoring all later testimony.

In

this they

gave them ground

text,

better than their theory and they have given us a consequently, better than their theory wouhl
built
for,

126

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
It has not unjustly been

legitimately defend.

made

their reproach that because they

tlie

had discovered that better testimony was to be found in a certain

body of witnesses, they arbitrarily treated all the rest if they had no testimony to offer at all. And in all that class of variations in which the older docuas

ments difier among themselves, these great critics have continually fallen a prey to the imperfection of their method, and their results have depended less on a scientific proceduie than on a certain pei-sonal quality which we may call " critical tact," and
which
is

but another name for a keen appreciation

of the bearing of internal evidence of readings.

The
and

discovery of a single
dorf's
text.

MS.

(n) revolutionised Tischen-

Tregelles,

always more
led

cautious
into

consistent,

was

yet

repeatedly

the most

patent

errors.

decide on the weight of documentary groups on

large
scale

Every one who has attempted to any

has necessarily been

made

keenly that very

much

of criticism

to feel very which depends

on such
readings

methods, wherever
is

internal
is little

evidence

of

not really decisive,

i-emoved from

From all which it some method which will enable us to deal with MSS. in groups and classes rather than
arbitrary decision or guesswork.
is clear that

as individuals

is

absolutely necessary before

we can

determine more than the outlines of the text with

confidence.
{h)

Internal Evidence of Groups.

A method
these

of procedure

which

will relieve us

from

difficulties

nas

been pointed; out

under the

THE METHODS OF
appropriate

CRITICISM.

127

name

of " internal

evidence of groups."
is

Internal evidence of readings

the evidence of

its

own

value which each reading supplies

to

when

sub-

jected

the tests of intrinsic and transcriptional

Internal evidence of documents, as
is

probability.

we

have just seen,

the evidence of
;

its

own

value which

and is obtained by noting what proportion of the characteristic readings of a document approve themselves as probably genuine under the twofold test of intrinsic and transcriptional
each document furnishes
evidence.
ease,

This process can be carried, with equal

a step higher, and be applied to any given

evi-

group of documents, and thus become internal

dence of groups.

Nothing prevents our collecting all the readings supported by any group of documents in which we may be for the time interested, and then trying the list in each of its items in turn If the by transcriptional and intrinsic evidence.
majority of
tested,
its

characteristic

readings,

when thus
is

approve themselves,
;

the

group

a
is

good
a bad

group

if

the majority are condemned,

it

group and the proportion between those approved and those condemned will furnish an accurate criWhen two terion of the actual value of the group. or more groups are successively subjected to this
;

testing,

the proportional

result

obtained
theii-

in

each

case

supplies

data

for

determining

relative

values.

Thus we may at will obtain, by this process, grounded decision as to the weight of any given group, and so determine the actual composite value of any combination of documents. If, tor instance,

128

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
already had before us,

we are studying the reading

we have

group N D n 17** throughout the Gospels, collecting which

it

K M

John vii. 8, which we may take the 389 p^^ and trace it
in
all

the readings

Next we may test this list of readings by transcriptional and intrinsic evidence, and thus attain a very good, and certainly
supports into
a
list.

a well-grounded notion of the value of this group.

It only remains,

now, to return to the reading in

hand, and allow the group there the weight which

we

are thus led to assign to

to estimate the

it. We no longer try weight of the group by the sum of

;

the weights of its component parts we no longer need to raise question as to the relative values of
the separate MSS., and the effect of the defection
of this

one or that
its

we

treat the

group as a unit,
Instead of specu-

and estimate
lating
as

value as a whole.
difference

between N D 11 17** 389 p^ or trying to calculate it by adding the weight of B to the weight of the former group, we simply go with this process to the places where these groups
to

the

K M

17** 389 p^" and

s*

D K M H

occur, collect the readings actually supported by each, and try each separately by the only kinds of evidence applicable, and so find for each in turn what its

actual value
all

is.

The
a

result

is

oddly portentous for

attempts to estimate

readings

by arithmetical
fact,

balances.

As

mere

matter

of

wherever

DKM n
it is
;

17** 389

p^", or its essential elements,

occur,

reading
usuallj'

usually in support of an obviously wrong and wherever B is added, this greater group supports an obviously right reading. In

THE METHODS OF
other
worcl^^,

CRITICISM.

129

the former

is

a bad and the latter a

good group.

Two

practical limitations,

in the use of internal

evidence of groups, need statement at the outset.

In estimating the value

confine ourselves within
of the

of

any group, we
limits
of
tlie

must
section

the

New

Testament
strict
is

in

which the reading we are

group we are
investi-

to study occurs, and, in the first instance at least,

within the
gating.

limits of the

There

every reason to believe that our

contain,

great

MSS. which

or once contained, the

whole

New

Testament,

were made up directly or

the several
and, indeed, that in

remotely of copies of
parts of the

diflferent codices in
;

New
of

Testament
the

the

early days

Church

each

section

was

usually written in a volume apart.

The

result Avould

naturally be that the Epistles of Paul, say, for instance,

history,

in

could

Gospels in
also,

Codex B, would have a vei-y different it be discovered, from that of the the same codex. As a matter of fact,
the several

the result of the actual test gives a different

A'ery divergent weights

value to the same apparent group in

sections.
it

arc assigned

by

to

A in
B G

the Go.spels and in the rest of the

New

Testament.

In the Gospel of
in

Mark B A

is

excellent,

but

Paul

is

very

su.spicious.

Expei'ience

thus teaches us that the value of the separate groups

must be studied apart for each great section of the New Testament. The same experience teaches that it is not safe to confound two groups which look No man knows whether B x D L has the alike. same value as, or more or less value than, B N D,
9

130

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
may
afterwards learn from actual trial the limits

until he has actually tested the matter emph'ically.

We

Avithin

which each group

may

vary without essenof

tially altering its

weight, but

we must be chary

assumption in this matter.

in Pavil.

Take the group

DE FG

If we add x to it its value is unaffected. we add B to it, it is essentially the same. If, however, we add both x and B, the group immediately

Or

if

changes from bad to good.

The immense advance that

duction of this method, on

is

made, by the introthat depends

all criticism

on estimating the values of groups from the values of the members that compose them, is apparent at a
glance.

All the difficulties and dangers of an arithat

metical balance are escaped

a single step.

We

now

estimate the weight of any group which supports

a given reading, not by the age of the

MSS. which
MSS., Each
tested

compose

it,

nor by the age of the texts which these

MSS.

contain, nor

by the value

of the separate
itself.
is first

but by the tested value of the group group stands before us as a unit each
;

as a unit, and then used as a unit.

The

full

im-

portance of thus escaping the arithmetical balance will

not be appreciated, however, until

we

realise that the

union of two codices will not necessarily, and indeed is sui^e not to, be the same in weight as the sum of

For example, N B is not the same and any system which proceeds openly or as X -I- B pi-actically by an arithmetical balance is sure, therefore, to lead to error, which cannot be legitimately escaped until we learn to deal with groups in some
their values.
;

way

or other as units of testimony.

Internal evi-

THE METHODS OF
dence of groups assigns to x
position of
(just as blue ^;Zw5 yellow

CRITICISM.

131

B no weight as a comX and B, but recognises it as a third thing

make
the third thing, green),

and seeks to discover its owti value as it betrays it from the readings it supports it thus accords it only the weight which it makes good its claim to. The soundness of this method of work is bound up
;

inseparably with that of internal evidence of docu-

ments, from which

fact.

it

diflers

It does for groups of

rather in name than in documents just what the

It

former process does for single documents.

makes
to

no assumptions as
grouped
;

to

how documents come

is

be

it

accepts as a fact that here

a circum-

scribed group

supporting a series of readings, and

then asks what kind of readings, good or bad, does It thus estimates the value of this group support 1
a witness by the character of what he witnesses
to,

by
give

his habits of truthfulness or the contrary else-

where,

and

gives

him

credit accordingly.

No
it

less

obvious than that the application of this method will

us secure results
great

is

it,

however, that
It
is

will

entail a

deal of labour.

far easier to

guess at

the

weight
fall

of

a group,

or to

leave

it

unguessed and
test the

back on internal

evidence of

readings as our sole dependence, than laboriously to

weight of a group.
every

The beginner may well

of

be somewhat appalled at the prospect of painfully

tracing

chance

combination
of

documents

through the crowded digests

Tregelles,

a Tischendorf or a
is

feeling that the

and even after this labour most trying task is

of each

completed, of
before him,

still

the careful testing

one of the readings thus

132

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

obtained by internal evidence, with a view to deter-

result is

mining the value of the witnessing group. Yet, the royal roads have not a worth the labour good reputation for safety, and the very thorns in
:

this
it

path have their useful lessons to teach.

right to point out that the
is

And

is

number
The

of groups

needing testing

found in practice far fewer than

would a

p7'io7-i

be thought likely.

New

Testa-

ment MSS.

do not

arrange

themselves in every

conceivable grouping, and the student will not pro-

ceed far in this

work without discovering that the

that actually occur
is

number

of

varying groups
yet fewer

comparatively small, and further, that these

may
to

be

reduced to

by

attending only

the

essential core of each,

pirically discovered,

a core that

can only be emcan

but which

yet, after a while,

be with certainty abstracted.

In a matter of this kind no one can afford to

accept implicitly the results of other investigators

and

simply apply them to special cases. It is strongly recommended that every student actually study for
himself the value of some few selected groups at the

very outset, and that he be prepared to test

results of others in the

all

same line of work, and to make trial of any group that puzzles him in any At the same time, the beginner special reading. to stand on the shoulders of the allowed be may masters of the science, and perceive the bearing of
evidence through their eyes.
cular, has

Dr. Hort, in partiof the chief groups

worked out the values

throughout the

New

Testament, and his results

may

be safely accepted as sound.

The most

interesting

THE METHODS OF
the compound

CRITICISM.

133

of these results is the very high character given to

N,

which approves
it

itself as

nearly

always right, whether

stands alone, or with what-

ever further body of documents, and that throughout

the New Testament. Next to B x, B conjoined with some other primary document, such as B L, B C, B T, and the like, whether alone or with other support, forms the most weighty series of groups, and this,
again,

throughout the

New

Testament.

The only
is

outstanding exception to this last genei'alisation

whether alone or with other documents short of the whole body of primary uncials, which is usually condemned by

formed by

BG

in Paul's Epistles,

in Paul is a good group, and although it hardly attains the very high excellence of the like group B D in the Gospels and Acts, whether alone or in combina-

internal

evidence.

BD

although

BDG

is

bad,

tion with other documents.

is

On

the other hand, x

(if

D
be

everywhere, and in every combination

only adjoined to

absent), very suspicious.

Even with secondary

it,

wit-

nesses
lently;

stands the test excel-

and

if

clear slips of its scribe be excluded,

even when wholly alone,

attains great excellence

and stands forth as plainly the best single codex known. On the other hand, compounds of N with other documents (B being absent) ai'e usually not strongly commended, and compounds of documents excluding both t< and B are commonly condemned by internal evidence. In the Apocalypse N falls to a low level, and A rises to the height of the best single MS., while A C is the best binary group, and
is

usuaUy to be

trusted,

whether

it

stands alone or

134

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

in combination with other documents.

discredit is
it

A very special
whether

thrown on

D G in Paul's Epistles,

stands alone or in any combination, provided only

and N are not adjoined to it. all of which the student would do well to test by actual trial, already put us in a position to deal with most readings. For instance, in John vii. 8 internal evidence of groups
that both

These

generalisations,

clearly

commends oxmw
it,

for the good group

B LTetc.

supports
its

while the bad group n D etc. supports opponent. So too in Matt. vi. 4 the group that
ev

omits
glance,

Tw

cfiavepw

viz.,

D Z is

seen, at a

to

be one of the strongest possible.

The

same

is

true of the group that omits the doxology

in the Lord's Prayer.

of groups puts

In a word, internal evidence an engine of criticism into our hands

which cuts the knots that seemed incapable of being unloosed by the older methods, and enables us to
reach assured convictions as to the bearing of the
external evidence, where before
If in

we

stood helpless.

any case Dr. Hort's generalisations do not

us to
a conclusion which

seem

easily or safely applicable, or the results of their

application bring
difficult to
it is

seems

square with internal evidence of readings,

the duty of the inquirer to subject the special

testing.

him to a renewed and independent But even with the most easily studied and safely interpreted groups, it must be remembered always that we reach general and probable results only, and not invariable and unmistakable ones. The
group before
character assigned thus to groups of MSS., like the

character assigned to individual

MSS. by

internal.

THE METHODS OF
evidence of documents,
is

CRITICISM.

135
is

general charactex% and

quite consistent with the best groups being some-

times in error.

The

rules of procedure derived

from

internal evidence of groups are, therefore, not with-

out exceptions.
N, B, C, L,

This

may

be iUustrated by such a
49.

reading as that found in Matt, xxvii.

Here

U,

r,

five

minuscules, some mixed Latin

MSS., a copy of the Jerusalem Syriac, the -^thiopic and Chrysostom, with perhaps some other fathers, insert the sentence, " But another, taking a spear, pierced His side, and there came forth water and blood," to the confusion of the narrative. The intrinsic evidence seems immovable against the inserversion,

tion

the transcriptional evidence seems to judge

to

it

an assimilation
if

John

xix. 34, clumsily done.

is

But
it

the internal evidence

thus united against the

insertion,

we can
Though

scarcely insist

on inserting

on

account of the
groups.

testimony
this

of

internal
is

evidence of

group

about as strong a

one as can occur, yet internal evidence of groups

gives

us only the comparative weights of groups

all

when considered throughout

does not
give

their readings
to

it

us an exceptionless rule

apply
of

mechanically.
correctness

We
it

learn

from

it

what amount
to
exhibit,

B C L

is

apt

not

what amount

must have

in

every reading.

The

way

open for us to find some exceptions to the general excellence of the group, and henca to find an exception here.
is

If,

however, the estimation of the value of the

is

various groups which

attained by internal evidence

of groups allows for exceptions,

and

attains only a

136

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
it

probable force,

becomes immediately important to

by some other independent method of criticism, which will enable us to determine which are the readings in which the exceptions are found. That an independent method lies wathin our reach may be hinted by our use of internal evidence of gi-oups
its results
itself.

check

We
we

shall not proceed far in using this

before

realise

method what has been already remarked

of

that the

number
is

groups that actually occur in

the calculable

the digests
of possible

far short of

number
shall

combinations of the documents.

We

observe a certain persistency in some

together,

MSS.

in getting

and a certain persistency

in keeping apart

manifested by others.
this.

Nor

will accident account for

It

is,

no doubt, possible that two or more

MSS. may occasionally unite in a reading by accident. But how rarely and in what a narrowly limited class
of readings this can
will assure us.

occur, a very little

reflection

Only

in such obvious corrections or

in such unavoidable corruptions as two scribes might independently stumble upon, can codices agree accidentally.

The improbability

of

many MSS.

falling

independently into an identical corruption of even this kind, and the still greater improbability of a
plurality of

MSS.

falling independently into a conis

siderable series of identical cormptions,

to be apprehended.

too

immense

MSS. which

fall

frequently to-

gether can owe their frequent conjunction to nothing

else

than common inheritance.

This

is,

indeed, the

principle

on which

all

textual

criticism

proceeds.

We seek

the original text of the

New

Testament in

the extant MSS., because

we judge

that where these

THE METHODS OF

CRITICISM.

137

MSS. agree, this agreement can be accounted for in no other way than by common inheritance from the
all. The same principle is, of course, any given group of MSS. short of all their union in a body of readings common to them, and more or less confined to them, is proof that they are

ancestor of

valid for

preserving in these readings parts of a

these parts, lay at the root of
all

the

MS. which, for MSS. in the

group.

When we
body

gather together the readings of

any given group

fore, a

of codices,

we

are gathering, therelost

of readings

from a

MS., the common

parent in these readings of

group.

all

the codices of this

And when we

test this list of readings

by

internal evidence of groups,

we

are only in appear-

ance pei'forming a process difterent from internal

evidence of documents;

we

are testing a lost docu-

ment, a body of the readings of which

recovered, instead of

we have
all

an extant document

of the

readings of which are before us.

of groups
is,

Internal evidence

therefore, simply internal evidence of

lost

documents applied to
more.

documents, a

list

of the

readings of which has come

down

to us,

and nothing
is

This

is

why we have

said that its validity

bound up with the validity of internal evidence documents, and must stand or fall with it.

of

From we find

this point of
it

view wo may understand

why

in practice of

the utmost importance to

any given group which we are testing, strictly mthin the bounds of the group that stands before us. Every MS. added
confine the examples of the use of
to the

group may carry us another step back for the

parent of the (now enlarged)
group.
If

common

138

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
in

B C D
because

Paul, for instance,

all

is

being tested,

we
D,

must exclude

readings supported by N

BC

know whether the common ancestor of X B C D may not be another MS. from the common ancestor of B C D, and thus we may be confusing two MSS. in our investigation, and
we
do
not
therefore

obtaining

results
j^

inapplicable

to

either.

No
in

doubt evervthing in
the

B C D must
the
it

have been

MS. which

stood at

group

BCD;
B C

otherwise

could

head of the subnot have been

inherited by B and C and D. And if our purpose were to recover as much as possible of the common

ancestor of

D, we should have to

collect all

readings found in these three MSS., no matter what

others were added to them.
is

But

since our purpose

to test the value of this reconstructed

first

duty

is

to select

readings those in
group, just
as, in

MS., our from the whole mass of its which it differs from the opposing

internal evidence of documents,

list

we

confined our attention to the

of various readings.

To pay attention
group
of

to all the readings of

any MS. or

MSS.

gives

us no basis of comparative

judgment, since the readings

Consequently, for internal
labour
is

common

to both docu-

ments or groups cannot discriminate between them.

evidence
of groups the
lost

which

is

spent on collecting readings

which we cannot
out again.

use, for the

it
is

sake of sifting them

lost.

And

worse than
for

Suppose

we

are testing the value of B.

Is it valid to take

account of the readings

which

N witness?

Certainly not, in order to obtain a value to assign to

B when

it

stands alone.

And

simply for this reason

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

B

139

X is not B, but the common ancestor of B and n and the vahie of this common ancestor of the two
;

cannot be assigned to either separately witliout leading to extensive error.

all

No

doubt

has preserved in

and n stand together the reading But this does of the common ancestor of them both. not prove that it has preserved it also where B and N differ n may have, then, preserved it and B lost it
cases

where

and

this is the case that

we

are

now
is

investigating.

To confuse passages
with those in which

in which

K stand together
to lend to
it

stands alone,

B
it

everywhere the weight that belongs to

preserving the reading of the

only

when

common

ancestor of

and

X,

is

practically to deny that any corruption

has entered

in all the course of descent

it

from the

common the MS.

and N down to the writing of itself. Conversely, to attempt to estimate B X from the known value of B (as is done by all methods of criticism that treat the MS8. separately
ancestor of
only)
all
is

to attribute to the

common

ancestor of

the change that has entered thiough the

many
in

possible

copyings which
it

have taken place

the

descent from

to B.

How

empirical the foundations of this

method

of

investigation are

be estimated from the fact that although, as just explained, the addition of a MS.
to a group

may

may make
all.

every difierence in
it

its

value,

on the other hand experience shows that

may make
fact that

no

difference at

This, too,

is

due to the
is

MSS.
ance.

agree together not by accident but by inherit-

Suppose the new MS. added

a near kinsman

of those already tested, the descendant of the

same

140

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
ancestor or of one of the codices

common immediate

already in the group.

Evidently, in such a case,

its

presence or absence will

make no
For

difterence in the

results of our testing process.

instance,

that

of

Paul

is

a copy of G3.

Now,

if

we know we are
obvious

investigating the value of

DG
F
it

of Paul, it

is

that

it is all

one whether we allow

or without
lies
is

to join

them
It

or not.

With

the same

common

exemplar that

at

the base of the group.

follows as a rule of procedure that

we must take
but try

nothing for granted in using this

all tilings,

pi'ocess,

and learn the

effect of

each addition only

by actual testing.

The

practice of internal evidence of groups

is

thus

wholly independent of any genealogical considerations.

It proceeds,
all

and must proceed,

in utter ignorance of

genealogies.

It tests the composite value of every

;

it and it is whether this combination is one which chance has thrown together or which inheritance has compacted, whether it unites in a common ancestor

combination of documents that faces

all

one to

it

at once or only in the autograph

is,

itself.

All
it
1

it

knows
is,

Here are documents

evidence
of

united.

All

asks

Do
see

they form a good or a bad combination

internal

Yet behind
will

groups

the

.student

genealogies

clamouring for recognition.

He

notes
fre-

the peculiarities of the groupings,

some groups

quently 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. Why is it that D, the African

THE METHODS OF
Latin,

CRITICISM.

141

and the Curetonian

Syriac, stand so often tois

gether?

Why

is it

that

B D

so generally good,

and ^{ D so genei'ally bad? The student would be something other than human if he did not wish to know the cause of all this. And 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

affiliations
facts.

of

the

MSS. which

are

suggested

by these

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 MSS. 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 remaining representaEverybody must perceive tives of a corrupt stock.

that

if

such hints are capable of being followed Out,

and the

New

Testament

documents

arranged
shall will

in

accordance with their

affiliations,

we

have a
promise

means of reaching the true text which more than all other methods combined.
(c)

Genealogical Evidence.

of developing another

These hints have been followed out with the result method of criticism, which may
all

be appropriately called " The Genealogical Method."

This method proceeds by examining minutely
the

documents representing a

text,

with a view to tracing

out the resemblances between them and so classifying them in smaller and larger groups according to
likeness.

It assumes only the self-evident principle

142

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
community
of

that community in readings argues

origin,

and

that, therefore, a classification of docu-

of

ments according to their I'esemblances is a classification them according to origin. If this be true of all

MSS, taken together, so that we can group all New Testament MSS., for instance, together as MSS. of the New Testament by virtue of their community in
the general text of the
true of the minor

New Testament, it
also,

is,

of course,

and we can equally safely group the MSS. into numerous subgroups, each characterised by their special readings, and each, therefore, forming a family sprung from a common more proximate origin. Community in
resemblances
erroneous readings
is

as sure a test of relationship as

:

community in
of

correct ones

the point

is

not the kinds

readings that are involved, but

the

communion
of others
its

in them.

Each MS. on becoming parent

its

impresses

actual characteristics on

progeny,

whether these characteristics be excellences or depravities and we may, therefore, select from the mass of MSS. the progeny of each parent, by select;

ing those

peculiarities.

MSS. possessing the same characterising The labour involved in this method
to be

no doubt very great. Every examined minutely, and compared with every other one. Those most alike are to be put together into small groups of close kinsmen
of
criticism, again, is

document has

these

small

groups are then to be compared, and

those closest to one another put together as constituting a higher

and more

inclusive

group

these

higher groups are then in like manner to be compared

and grouped into yet higher groups ; and

so on, until

THE METHODS OF
we reach a
great group, point at which
inclusive of
all

CRITICISM.
all

143

they
the

unite in one

extant

MSS.

of

the work, with the oldest transmitted text as their

common
arrange
tree,

source.

The

result of the labour Its

is,

howev^er,
is

here too,
all

worth the expenditure.

so
to

eftect

to

the witnesses in the foi'm of a genealogical

and

enable us to see at a glance the witness of each,

relative originality of the

to

sift

out those combinations of

documents which must

repiesent only a lately originated corruption, and to

trace out the combinations which will take us back
to the original of
all.

All

this

will

most

easily

be

made

clear

by a

concrete example.

Mr. Kobinson

Ellis finds that the

MSS.

of Catullus so class themselves as to

admit of com-

a genealogical arrangement which, with a

pression,

little

we may

represent thus

Autograph.
-^
1

A
I

n [B]
'

n
[1.]

[a]

In
let

this special

instance, B, a,
for

and
in

b,

are lost
all

but

us suppose

the

moment
still

that

the

MSS,

marked on the plan are

should,
1,

our hands.
:

We
a,

then,
4,
5,
G,

have
7,

thirteen
9.

MSS.
Clearly

A,
B

B,

b,

2, 3,

8,

Should each of these be

1

allowed the

same weight

and
it

9,

say

for instance, stand in very different relations to the

autograjih, and,

when

the two

differ,

would be

144

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
can even go further
there
is

manifestly unfair to allow to 9 equal weight with B.

We

nothing

legitiif

mately in 9 which was not already in B, and

difi'ers

9
is

from B,

it

does so
is

only by error,

and

worthless.
in
a,

There

absolutely nothing legitimately

any

of the codices 1

or in the codices 7

which is not already in which is not already in b,

or in the whole array

in B.
useless
If,

a, b, 1

9,

which
its

is

not already

then,

B
of

is

extant, all

descendants are
are

to

us

when they agree with B they

mere repeaters

when they
error,

differ

testimony already in hand, and from B they are introducers of new

and
(a,

in

both cases they must be absolutely

neglected as useless and confusing.

children
b)

That and nine grandchildren (1

while
is

has two

9) standat best

ing by
accident

its
;

side,
it

stands alone,

is

an

and

clearly unfair, on account of this

accident in copying or in the preservation of copies,

to allow

twelve repeating votes to A's single voice.

It

is

obvious rather that the whole group

constitutes but one witness

twelve codices,

and that
lay aside

B a b1 though they count up by itself in point of

At one
a, b,

originality balances the whole array.

therefore,

sweep,
1

we

all

the codices

9,

and are enabled to confine our sole attention to A and B the only two independent witnesses we have. This is an imaginary result in our present schedule, but in the codices of Cicero's " Orator," as worked out by Dr. Heerdegen, it actually occurs one whole rather numerous class
with
all

their various readings,

of codices

(the

codices mutili, as

they are called),

are swept for critical purposes into the waste-basket

THE METHODS OF
at once, because the source of
censis, is still

CRITICISM.
all,

145

them

Codex Abrin-

extant and in critical use.

Let

us,

however, come back nearer to the facts of

case.

our present

B,

a,

and

b,

are

lost,

and we have
B,
a,

just ten codices,

we

shall say

A,
1

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, G, 7, 8, 9.

How
1

is

the matter aflected

If,

before,

b,

9,

twelve codices, constituted but one

witness,

1 9, nine of the same codices, have not become more than one witness by the destruction of three of their companions. This were to emulate the Sibyl and estimate value in inverse proportion to

surely

number.
A,
say,

No

more, then, in this case than in the preequal weight to each codex
1

ceding, can

we allow
to 9.

and

Plainly
still,

to

are here combined,

as but

but one witness

and must be counted

to

one in opposition to A, which in point of originality

is
1
still

able

by

itself

balance the whole

are not able

array

9.

Now, however, we
;

to neglect

these codices
tives of B,

they are our only extant representa-

and taken together constitute B. But we must not treat them as nine separate witnesses, or even, because they obviously form two groups, 1 as two separate witnesses. We G and 7 9,

must

treat

witness,

them as together constituting only one and we must so marshal their testimony

as to eliminate the errors that have been introduced

them since B, before we match them against A. In other words, we must reconstruct B from them, and only then seek from A and recovered B their
into

common
fore,

original, the autograph.

The
A,
1

eflect of
9, is,

the

classification

on these ten

codices.

there-

to reduce the ten apparent witnesses to

two,

10

146

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
body of variants that
lately

to eliminate the large

1

exist

among

6,

merit our

as too notice, and so in

or
7
9,

introduced to

great

number

of

places to fix the text absolutely.

Thus
siippose,

far

we have proceeded
classified
ai-e

as

if

the ten codices

were found already

ten codices.
is

to our hand.

Let us

now, that they

simply handed to us as

Are we
all

justified in

independent of

the

rest,

assuming that each and so beginning our

1

textual criticism with an apparatus of ten witnesses

Certainly not.
classified does

The

fact that

we

receive

them unexpressed
close

not alter the fact that they actually

is

bear such relationship to each other as

in
this
classification.

We

must begin by a

examination of the codices with a view to tracing

their affiliations.
iirst,

And,
1

so beginning,

we should

note,

that codices

that 7

9
is

are very closely alike, and

close

draw likewise

together, leaving

standing apart; and then, secondly, that the group

related to the group A, and that the two groups contain even obvious errors (not found in A) in
1

6 9

much more
is

closely

than either

to

common. Whence it will be clear that while 1 come from a different proximate ancestor from that
of 7

9,

yet the groups unite in an ultimate

is

common
proceed

ancestor which

co-ordinate with A.
is

This reached,

the classification

complete, and

we may

with our criticism of the text.

If
of

we may assume

that the validity and importance

the genealogical

method has been thus made

investigate
this

apparent,

we may next

process of

criticism in its use.

We

have arranged our ten MSS.,

THE METHODS OF
A,
1

CRITICISM.

147

9, in

their genealogical relations.

as

What

have
?

we gained
First of
detail.
all

an instrument

for settling the text

we
is

are enabled to attack our problem in

B from 1 and B, than reconstruct the autograph from A, 1 9,

It
easier to reconstruct

it

9,

and
to

then the autograph from

But, far above
actually
settles
this,

is

directly.

the classification of the codices

of

gives us

an instrument

criticism

that

much

of the text of B, or

even of the autoif

graph, for us at a glance.

is

For example,
while
clear
is

one reading
each give

supported by

1, 7, 8, 9, it

2, 3, 4, 5, G

a divergent reading,
ture that the
tion of
first

beyond a peradvenFor this combinastood in B.

1

documents,

7, 8, 9,

cannot occur unless

b,

1 inherits

from

a,

and

7, 8,

from
1,2,
8,

exactly the
b,

reading,

which, because in both a and

same must also

have been in B.
reading,
7

Again,

if

3, 4, 5, G

present one

another, and A,

another, this last

with absolute certainty must have stood in

in the autograph.

and

For

8, 9

cannot agree with

involves

except by having inherited this reading from their

common
in

ancestor,

and

this

its
i.e.,

pi'esence

throughout the whole

line of descent

in b

and

it

was, therefore, the reading of both

their

A and

and

of

common

ancestor,

the autograph.

In cases

of simple genealogy, therefore, the rule is

all

obvious and exceptionless (in

such cases as cannot

be accounted for as merely accidental conjunctions)

that
attestations

including

"

documents

from

two

groups demonstrate the presence of the reading so All attested in the common parent of these groups.
readings supported by

and any descendant

of

148

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
were consequently in the autoall

(accidents excluded)

graph

supported by any descendant of a and

any descendant of b in common (accidents excluded) were in B. So far our results are certain. "When A and restored B agree, the reading is, of course*
that of the autograph.
like

When

they

differ, in

a case

the psesent, where

we have but two primary

witnesses,

we

are

thrown back on the character of

the witnesses to determine the probability of rectiHence, we call in " internal tude between them.
evidence of classes," as
it

we

shall call

it,

to distinguish

from the same process when dealing with chance

of,

groups, instead
ones.

as here, genealogically determined

collect the various readings
1

In other words, we
the group
as

between A and

considered as a unit,

and that
did
of in

is

much

as to say B,

and try the

relative

value of the two by internal evidence,

the kindred
processes
of

just as

we
The
of

internal evidence

documents and internal evidence of groups.

class

which

supports
is

the

greater
class.

proportion

approved readings

the better
of two,

Had we

three

primary

classes instead

this

process would

need calling in only in cases of ternary variation

whenever there were two

grounds.

classes arrayed against one,

the reading would be settled on purely genealogical

work out a complete classification of the witnesses to any text by means of a close study of their affiliations, and thus determine how many independent witnesses there are; and (2) Then by internal evidence of classes deterto

The essence two simple

of this

whole procedure
(1) Fii-st,

may be

reduced

rules:

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

mine the
classes.

149

relative value of these several independent

When

we have a method
in all cases of

two processes are completed which will, simple and unmixed genealogies, carry
these
of criticism available
all

us with the greatest certainty attainable to the text

that
lies

behind

extant witnesses.

all cases of simple and unmixed genealogies " was not unintentionally introduced into

The

limitation

"in

the last clause.

Normally we may expect each docu-

ment

to

be made simply and without intentional

alteration

from a single pre-existent document

and
been
It

when
taken,

this has been the actual course that has

all

documents, each having a single parent,

"in

arrange themselves
possible,

simple genealogy.

is

however, that a given document

may

not

be thus simply copied from a single exemplar, but

may have two

place

The scribe may or more parents. two copies (which may as well as not be of different types) before him, and make his new copy by following now one, now the other, either capriciously

or with a conscious effort to act as editor.

Or

again, a scribe accustomed to a strongly

marked

type of text,

when

called

upon

to copy a codex of

another t}^e,
his

may

consciously or unconsciously allow

teeming memory to introduce into the new copy

readings drawn not from the exemplar before him,

but from the type of text to which he has been

long accustomed.

The

result,

in

either

case,

is

document which is not a simple copy of a single exemplar, but which rather will be more or less intermediate between two types, and will therefore refuse to take its place in any scheme of simple or

150

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

unmixed genealogies. There is yet a third way in which this " mixture," as it is technically called, is introduced into texts, and this is doubtless the way by which, in actual fact, most mixed texts have been formed. The student will remember that it was customary of old time, more or less completely, but
usually very incompletely, to correct codices in the

by other codices with which the become acquainted. All of our great codices have been so corrected, and often the Thus we process has been repeated several times. distinguish between x, N*^, and between B, B^, B^, Now, svippose a codex which has been thus etc.
text or margin

owner chanced

to

^^''',

corrected by a divergent type of text to be used as

copy for the production of other

does not

codices.

The

scribe

know what

corrections

are

merely mar-

ginal readings

inevitably adopts

and what are really corrections ; he some or perhaps all of them into
it

his text as he writes

out.
its

And

the result

is

" mixed text," having for

parents the original

codex and all the divergent codices, readings from which had been written on the margin. A very interesting example of such a mixed text is furnished Codex Sangermanensis. This in Codex E of Paul, MS. is recognisably a copy of the Codex Claromon-

tanus (D^), but

it

does not give the original text of

D, but that text as corrected by the several hands which had diligently ornamented its margin with readings from other codices. The result is that E Of course, if the corrections had is a mixed text. all been taken from a single simple codex, and the correcting had been thoroughly done, and the scribe

TEE METHODS OF
in copying
all,

CRITICISM.

151

from the MS, had noted and adopted them

the result would not have been a mixed text, but

a text of the type of the document to which the original had been conformed. But this completeness
is

not to be expected, and the

less

result

is,

therefore,

always a more or

mixed

text.
is

Now,

it

is

obvious that the efiect of mixture

to

confuse genealogies.

Wherever
it

it

has entered, and in

the proportion in which

has entered, the arrange-

ment

of

the documents in their true genealogical

is

relations

rendered

difficult, as also
it

the interpreta

tion of the evidence, after

has been arranged.

is

The

detection of the fact of mixture

easy,

generally, however,
it

and when

it

is

once detected

can be allowed

for

so that it will only force us to

apply genealogical

evidence with more care and discrimination, rather

than render
of a

it

inapplicable.

Suppose, for instance,

that in undertaking to determine the mutual relations

body of

five

witnessing documents,

we

find that

they separate easily into two pairs, each a representative of a

is

marked type

of text, while the fifth witness

intermediate between
is

the pairs.

Whether

this
is

intermediate position
the

due to mixture or not

usually possible to determine by the character either

of

intermediate readings themselves or of the

of readings furnished

whole mass
witness.
posite
If

any

of the readings are themselves

by the intermediate com"

readings, uniting

of the other types

called

" conflate readings

if

the readings characteristic

as they are

and
may

especially

many

such readings occur,

If,

mixture

be assumed to be proved.
its

again, in

looking over the whole mass of

readings Ave find

152

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
first

the intermediate witness to follow arbitrarily

one and then the other of the two pairs in their

obvious errors,

and

especially

if

this is true of the

obvious errors of
(or

a separate document from each

either) pair, while its

own

obvious errors can be

evidence with equal

traced back by transcriptional

arbitrariness

now to the one and now to the other, mixture again may be assumed. The fact of mixture having been thus determined, it may be allowed
for,

and the elements

be

in the witness

under

investi-

gation

separated and

placed

in

the genealogy

accordingly.

Some such
seems
to the

state of things as

we have thus assumed

documents
apparently

actvially to occur in the witnessing

"Two Ways,"
:

or

first

section of
of

"The Teaching
is

of the Apostles," the

scheme

which

as follows

Original Text.
' I

[A]
I 1 I

[B]
'

b
I

[c]
'

-1

^
3.

[d]

Hei'e the extant witnesses are a, b, forming one pair,

and

1, 2,

forming another, together with

table will
it,

3,

which
2.

proves to be a descendant of a lost d mixed with

glance at the

show the

effect of

the

mixture.

Without

the combination 2 3 would

necessarily determine both

hence what was in B.

what was But owing

in c
to

and

d,

and

mixture of 3

from

2,

the combination 2 3

may

be only a corrupt

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

;

153

reading of
of c

reading peculiar to 2 and 1 may preserve the true c, while the reading of B may be that

now

extant in

1,

or the lost one which

it

stood
its

in d before

mixture with 2 displaced

3.

from

descendant

So,
1

again,

without mixture, such a

been
could not agree (accidents

combination as h
impossible.

against 2 3 would have

1

For b and
ancestor,

apart), unless this reading

their

had been inherited from and this would imply its presence in all the links between that ancestor and But, each document i.e., in A and in B and in c.

common

again, 2 and 3 could not agree unless in like

manner
Thus
in c as

that reading stood in every link between each and

their

common

ancestor

i.e.,

in d,

c,

both readings would have to stand in

well to allow this
division of

and B. B and

evidence.
is

With

the
;

mixture, however, this combination

for

very possible

though b

implies that the reading so supported

in c and B, 2 3 need not imply anything beyond the presence of its reading in 2 itself, whence it may have been borrowed by 3. A division or

stood

attestation of this kind

is

called a "cross attestation,"

and

" cross attestations " are

that mixture has taken place.

gram from
A,
5, 8, 9 one,

Catullus, for

among the surest proofs Go back to the diainstance. If we find A, 1, 2,

G, 7, 8, 9
;

3,4,5 supporting one reading, and

another

or

and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, G, 7 another or 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 one, and G, 8, 9 another, we may be certain

(accidents being excluded)

place.

that

mixture has taken

cannot
springs
pre-

For each

of these di\asions is such as

it

occur in a simple genealogy, inasmuch as

across from one group to another, and hence

154

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
its

supposes that

reading was in the parent docu-

ments.

The
is

effect of

mixture, then, on genealogical evidence

to Hmit the sphere of its application.

Thus, in our
at sight

present illustration,
2 3 means. to B, at 2. It

we no

longer

know

what
us

may be c + d, and hence or it may be only 2 + 2, and Even 12 3 may be nothing but
c.

carry us back
so

leave

a corruption

introduced by
differed,
1

In

all

cases

in

which

and

is

the only combination that

we can

be sure will take us back to B.

ever

But mixture does

not affect the validity of genealogical evidence wherit

can be applied.
1,

Thus, again, in our present

or a (or b)
2,

illustration, a (or b)

or a (or b)

3, all

alike

carry us back to the

common

original of
2,

all

our witnesses despite the mixture of 3 from

ant of

and

in general every combination of a or b with a descend-

still settles

the original text with certainty.

We

gain somewhat fewer results from genealogy than

we should have attained, had there been no mixture but what we do gain are equally sound in this case as in that. The actual instance of mixture which we
have been studying
one.
its
is

no doubt a very uncomplicated

its effect,

It sufficiently illustrates, nevertheless,

its difficulties
;

and the most complicated case imaginable would differ from it only in
degree.

dangers and

The one

principle that unties, as far as

may
us,

be, all the

is

knotty problems that mixture sets for

that mixture acts simply like

marriage in real
possibility of each

genealogies,

and we must allow the

combination of documents, into

which

it

enters,

meaning as many diverse things

as there are diverse

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

ways
of tracing

up

theii"

inheritance to

original.

Thus, the
2,

common
we

original of 2 3

common may be

found at

or
2,

if it is

the other element of 3 that here

reach B.

unites with

not until

As mixture
it

operates in a directly opposite direction

to pure genealogy,

tending

to bring together whereas

all lines of
it

tends to separate the texts, to compress

descent into one composite line whereas

broadens

them out more and more,

that
it

like

a fan,

it is

not strange

introduces some paradoxes into criticism.

of these it is

worth while to

call
it is

attention

to.

One Where

mixture has been at work,

a group
addition
is

often discovered that

weakened instead
other

of

illustration, 1 3 is

by the For example, in our a strong group its readings must

of strengthened

witnesses.

take us back at least to B,

this

tlie

common

original of
its

whole
is

class.

Add
For
1

2 to this
1

group and at once

value

lowered.

3 (2 dissenting)

must be a

combination of
part of
it

descended from c and of 3 in that

d,

which descends from

is 2.

inasmuch as the
1

dissent of 2 proves that this

not the part of 3 that

comes from

But

2 3

is

a combination of

and
well

2 descended from c and 3 in a part that

may
also

have been borrowed from

descend from
c.

2,

and hence which

1

may
is

Hence, while

must be
only

at least B,
c,

the larger gi'oup

12

may mean

and

therefore a weaker group.

Analogous findings crop

For example, internal B D in Paul is a better group than B D G, or than B D G + most Again, x A C in Paul uncials and most minuscules.
out in the

New

Testament.

evidence of groups proves that

is

a better group than n

A C D G.

The explanation

-u6
of
it lies

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
in this
:

makes

B D

analogous to
1

some mixture has taken place that 1 3 in our diagram and

2 3.

BDG
The

analogous to

application of genealogical evidence to the

New

Testament has proved to be exceptionally difficult. Not only has the critic to face here an unheard-of

abundance
classified
;

of matter, all of

which has to be
is

sifted

and

but the problem

complicated by an un-

paralleled

amount
it

of mixture,

which has reigned so

a half-dozen witof

universally that

has

left scarcely

nesses entirely unaffected

by

it.

The task

working
of

out the genealogy of the

New

Testament MSS. has^

therefore, been the labour not of one

man, nor

one
first

age,

but of a succession of generations.

signs of classification were mistily seen

The

dim

by Mill

(1707) and Bentley (1720); the genius and diligence

of Bengel (1734)

the lines of division with some sharpness

and Griesbach (17751811) drew and Dr.

;

Hort, in our
safely used

own

day,

has at last so far perfected

the details that this method of criticism can

for the settlement of

now

be

much

of the

New

Testament text. The multifarious abundance of mixture in our witnesses complicates and limits the
use of genealogy sadly
;

but, as elsewhere, leaves the

soundness of
applied.

its results

unaffected wherever
less for

it

can be

Genealogy, thus, does

us in the

New

Testament than could have been hoped, but it does much for us nevertheless. In particular, the results attained by it so fully explain those reached by
internal evidence of groups, which
it is

to be

remem-

an entirely independent process, and those attained by that process so fully accord with those
bered
is

THE METHODS OF
the

CRITICISM.

157

attained by this, that the two methods actually prove

soundness of

each other, and place the text

in

obtained by both combined

position.

a very unassailable

It does not fall within the plan of this primary

treatise to enter fully into the details or the justifica-

tion of the

genealogy which Dr. Hort has worked

out for the

New

Testament witnesses.
full

For

this the

student must be refen-ed to the

exposition

and

proof which Dr. Hort has himself given in his epoch-

making " Introduction " to the Greek Testament, which was published by Dr. Westcott and himself in 1881. Here, it must sufiice to set forth only so much as will enable the beginner to make intelligent use of
the method.

At

the root of

all

genealogical investigation

lies

the classification of the documents according to their

and Dr. Hort has shown that the documents representing the text of the New Testament part into four great and well-marked classes, which he would somewhat conventionally designate the Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral. Next the difficult problem of the relation in which the
affinities
;

several

classes stand
first, it

to

one another

is

unravelled.

And

here,

has been shown that the Syrian

rather the result of a critical

class is

not an independent witness to the text of the

is

New

Testament, but

Testament text which was accomplished probably in Syria at some time not earlier than the last half of the third century. The evidence
editing of the

New

that proves this

tive readings of

is

of three kinds.

First, the distinc-

the Syrian text, although

common

158

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
and
all

in the later fourth century

subsequent fathers,

cannot be traced in ante-Nicene patristic quotations

so that, journeying

backwards in time, the favourite

Secondly, the

text of Chrysostom and his age has disappeared entirely

from use by the time we reach Origen.

distinctively Syrian readings,

when

tried

by internal

evidence, betray themselves as inferior to, and,

tried

when

of

by transcriptional evidence, as derived from, those the other classes. And, thirdly, this culminates in

the presence
"conflate

among

the Syrian readings of a body of

readings,"

the simple elements of which

it is

occur in the other classes, so that

in

certain that
of the

some

of its parts this text

was made out

the

Neutral

and

Alexandrian,

or

Neutral

and

Western, or the Alexandrian and Western.

all

When

the phenomena are closely scrutinised,

out positively that the Syrian text was

revision out of the other three classes,

it is made made by a

and preserves
In the
is,

nothing from antiquity not already in them.

presence of the other three classes
therefore,
collusive testimony,
its
is

testimony

and

simply to be
it is

neglected.

The

case with reference to

precisely

similar to that with reference to the codices muiili of

Cicei'o's

" Orator," or the printed editions of the

New

have much the same warrant Westcott and Hort's Greek Testaintroducing for ment among our witnesses that we have for introducing
Testament.
the Syrian text
I'epresents not
;

We should

in both cases the valuelessness of the

it

text as a witness-bearer depends on the fact that

testimony
i.e.,

i.e.,

inheritance, but the

opinion of editors

revision.

Setting aside, then,

the docuir.ents coi\taining the Syrian text,

we

are left

THE METHODS OF
with only three

CRITICISM.

159
Testa-

classes representing the

New

That the Western class is an independent class is easily proved and its character is so strongly marked that it stands quite apart from all other types. The Alexandrian is more difficult to deal Although there is much that would lead us to with.
text.
;

ment

assign an independent position to

it

it,

too,

on the whole
it

seems to be the truer disposition to join

including

with

the Neutral, and arrange these two as two great subclasses of a greater
class,

them both and

standing over against the "Western,

position, the

With
will

this dis-

New

Testament genealogy

have a
is

form
closely

of descent

worked out
to

for

it

which

very
Ave

analogous

that

for

Catullus,
;

which
it

have used as a sample genealogy

graphically represented as follows
:

and

may

be

Original Text.
Western Text.
Neutral Text.

X
Alexandrian Text.

Had no

complications of mixture entered into the

descent of the various documents which at present

represent these three classes, this genealogical scheme

would teach us that a combination

necessarily take us back to the
all.

of the

Western

text with either the Neutx'al or Alexandrian would

common

original of

On

the other hand, wherever each text appeared

as sponsor for a different reading, or the Neutral

and

Alexandrian stood opposed to the Western, the bearing of the external evidence could be settled only

by calling in internal evidence

of classes.

This last

named

process proves to speak with no doubtful voice.

160
It

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
as the

condemns the Western text

most corrupt
as the

of all

known forms
of all

it

commends the Neutral

;

most correct
andrian.

forms

and

it

assigns a character

somewhat intermediate between the two to the AlexThe observed characteristics of the various The licence which classes account for this verdict. seems to have characterised the scribes whose copyings formed the Western text may be almost described
as

audacity

paraphrase,
extensive

assimilation,

modification,

elaboration,

interpolation,

abound
text

every-

where, and result in the most has ever been current.

racterised rather

corrupt text which

is

The Alexandrian

cha-

by workmanlike and even scholarly and petty modificaeasily creep in

corrections of forms or syntax,

tions,

which might
also

was

partly editor.

where the scribe While honest and careful

copying, with only the intrusion of the errors inci-

dent to

all

copying, seems to be the characteristic of

the Neutral text.

The Syrian

text,

formed on the

an

have been by a purer and smoother text the corrupt Western type, which had been at that
basis of these preceding types, appears to
cflfort

to replace

time, for probably a century at the least, practically

the Textus Recei)tiis of the Christian world.

As such
Church

was eminently successful and gave for the next millennium and a half a
it
;

to the

textus receptus

that is practically free from the gross faults of the Western text, that is noble and atti'active in form and worthy in diction, and peculiarly suited ^or the cursory perusal of the closet or reading-desk. Considered as a representative of the
it

New

Testament,
purposes;

is

competently exact for

all

practical

THE METHODS OF CRITICISM.

considered as an effort to
receptus, it is

161

reform a corrupt textus

worthy

of great admiration

when

the

narrow opportunities
are kept in view
;

of the time

when

it

was made
it

but, considered as a witness of

what was

in the original

New
it

Testament,
is

passes

out of court simply because

a good editorially-

framed revision of the

of
it.

text,

and not a simple copy

how-

It will scarcely need I'epeating at this point,

ever,

that mixture, so far from being absent from,

has been specially active

To such an extent has

it

among New Testament MSS. ruled, that we have perhaps

only four codices that have escaped it altogether, to which may possibly be added one version. Codex B in the Gospels, Acts, and Catholic Epistles (not in
Paul), seems to be purely, or all but purely. Neutral

them may possibly

D, Dg, G3, seem purely Western everywhere, and to be added the African Latin version.
extant document presents an Alexandrian text
;

No

unmixed

both Western and Neutral

admixtures

have entered even C, L,

phitic version, the
this type of text.

(in

Mark), and the

Mem-

most constant representatives of It follows, therefore, that a comtexts,

bination of the Western and Alexandrian documents

need not be a combination of these two

therefore will

and
the

not overbear the testimony of

Neutral
such
the

class

and internal evidence

of gi-oups pro-

claims the Neutral usually the better

crses.

reading in

To B, D,

Dj, and G3 there need be added

only some small fragments such as T, H, to complete

list

of

New

Testament MSS. which have not

text.

received

mixture from the Syrian

B
11

has a

162

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
epistles

Western element in Paul's

Alexandrian admixture.

mLxed with
base,

its

Neutral base, but apparently has nowhere received

N has a Neutral

but

has received both Alexandrian and Western elements

by mixture, although these elements are unequally being most abundant in the Gospels (especially in John and parts of Luke), and apparently in the Apocalypse, and least abundant in
distributed,

Paul.

Among
;

the versions the African Latin seems

purely Western, and the Curetonian Syriac predominatingly so

while the Memphitic and Thebaic, though betraying some Syrian admixture in their extant forms, were originally probably Neutral-Alex-

andrian with a Western admixture,

Thebaic.

largest in the

All other documents

have a

larger

or

smaller Syrian element, and thus present very composite

texts.
;

is

fundamentally Syrian

in

the

Gospels

but in the other books has only a Syrian

admixture on a base fundamentally Neutral, with Western and Alexandrian elements (the latter especially in the Acts and Epistles). L is AlexandrianNeutral with Western admixture. A is fundamentally Syrian (probably as copied from a MS. fully corrected by a Syrian codex) everywhere except in Mark, where
it is

very largely Alexandrian-Neutral.

Among

the

which have a Syrian element such MSS. as C, L, P, Q, R, Z, r, A (in Mark), 33, 81 (= 2p<^), 157 in the Gospels, A,C,E, 13, 61 in Acts and the Catholic Epistles, A, C, M, H, P, 1 7, 67** in Paul, and A, C, P
codices

in the Apocalypse, preserve the largest proportion of

pre-Syrian readings.

The

effect of this state of

things on the genealogy

THE METHODS OF
of the

CRITICISM.

163

MSS.

of the Gospels, say, for example, may-

be roughly represented to the eye by the folloAving

diagram, which does not aim to arrange the

MS8.

in anything like their actual relations to one another,

but only to represent in the simplest way the general

effect of

mixture.

Original Text.
^

W
I

r^r:--

T-n

X
,

r
.1

"^

T-^-r
n'"
n^'
I

1.

.r

T
a"

n'^

n" n'
n''^
I

a'"

a'=w'

w^ w^" wa
I

wa'
I

=f=

I.

w"

w^'"

wa" a^'=wan

n^

n^"'
I

a'^
I

wan'=j=n''"

n^'

a"=\v an a^"

waann Meniph.
I

waaiin'

wa^

-= waaann

OldL0in

[L]

[C]

few

of the

symbols of actual documents have

dialessons.

been (very approximately) introduced into this

gram, in order to give point to
letters w, n,
its

The

and a are intended to represent respectand Alexandrian classes, each of which originated, of course, in a single copy, although it must be remembered that the peculiarities of each class grew progressively more and more
ively the Western, Neutral,

marked, and took time and many copyings thoroughly to develop. In the lines of descent from w, n, and a,
the single letters variously primed
n'^, a',
e.g.,

w', w'", n',

a^

are intended

to represent

unmixed descend-

ants, while the ordinary genealogical sign of marriage

164

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
is

(=)
for

used to represent the union of two documents

production
character
of
of

the

a third,

the

composite

which
etc.

is

indicated
it,

more or less by the

e.g.,

combination of letters which represents

wa,

wn, an, wan, waan, waann,

Now, the

essence of the genealogical principle

of

is

that

documents has weight in proportion to the distance from the autograph of the point in the genealogy at which the lines of descent of this combination unite. Assuming that the documents N, B, C, D, L, Old Latin, Memphitic, have been justly

any combination

placed in the genealogy, it is possible to estimate the value of each combination of these documents by For example, the tracing them out in the table.
line line

that connects
that connects

with the autograph and the with the autograph do not

or un-

come together

until they reach the autograph itself

accidental conjunction in obvious corrections

avoidable corruptions apart, therefore, the combination

BD

should be equivalent to the original text

the other hand, since x traces back to the three different lines viz., through through autograph w, n, and a a combination of it with any other document, whether a Western one like D, or a Neutral one like B, or a prevailingly Alexandrian
itself.

On

one like C, may, indeed, be a combination of classes, and so take us to their union or it may be only a combination of documents within one class, and take
;

us only to w, or to n, or to a. The combination D X, for instance, may be a combination of Western D with

K in
or
it

its

Western element, and

be with k in
its

so take us only to

may

Alexandrian or Neutral

TEE METHODS OF

CRITICISM.

165
It will
is

element, and so take us to the original text.

be remembered that the "Western element in n

particularly large
is

in the

Gospels

hence
of

DN

here

apt to be only a combination

;

two Western

witnesses

we

shall

not be surprised, therefore, to

note that internal evidence of groups usually con-

For the same reason, however, which might carry us equally easily to n, to X, or to the autograph through x's "Western element, is most apt to do the latter and
this group.

demns

the combination

B n,

herein

we

see the reason

why

internal evidence of

groups gives such high character to

instances
suffice.

n*.

Let these
see that

The student

will readily

the genealogical evidence proper needs only supple-

menting by internal evidence

of

classes,

by which
specially

we

learn that

is

a very corrupt and

n a

good line of descent, to make this distribution of the

New

Testament documents into their proper

classes a

very valuable engine of criticism.

The

relative divergence of the three great classes

line of

from the

pure descent
it

is

not illustrated by
us nothing of the

the diagram, and therefore

results obtained

tells

by the important process of internal evidence of classes. Perhaps even this may be roughly represented to the eye by a diagram of the following
X y be taken to i-epresent the line along documents would have been ranged, had an absolutely pure descent been preserved and no errors
form.
If

which

all

introduced,

may

be

taken

to

represent

the
that

actual line of descent which the "Western

documents
t s

have taken, k v that of the Alexandrian, and

of the Neutral
;

while

wp

will represent the line of

166

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
class.

descent of the Syrian

Along the

line z q

may

be placed, therefore, the Western documents, each later one representing a greater divergence from the
true
text;

along k v the Alexandrian documents,

t s

and along

the Neuti-al ones.

As N and C L

are

mixed, they

be assigned a more or less intermediate position, with dotted lines connecting them It is evident that the with their several sources.

may

combination of any two documents will take us to the

point in the descent of the text where their separate
swx\
z
h

True Text.

descents coincide.
is

B, standing just beyond

all

on

t s,

nearest the true text of

lines of B's

single documents.

two

and
z,

of D's descent can unite,

The when

traced back, only at

on the

line of true descent,

at a point very far back in time,

and k draws a con^^

tingent from the Western text, and hence

D may

only take us to some place on

it

also

draws an

element from the Alexandrian text, and hence N

on the line of true descent and it also draws an element from the Neutral text, and hence again n D may take us to z on the line of true

may

take us to

descent.

Which

of these is the true account

can be

THE METHODS OF CRITIC1821.

told in general only

167

by internal evidence
it

of groups,

although in particular instances

may

be discovered

from the nature

if
N*

of the opposing party.

For example,
x represented
it

D
is

stands opposed to

B C LA

in a passage in
of

Mark, we can argue that the element

here

neither the Neutral element (else would

stand with B), nor the Alexandrian element (else would it agree with C L A), but the Western

element
descent.

and hence x

is

here Western, and takes

us only to some point on z q, off of the true line of This exposition of the
genealogical
unless
it

method has

been but

little successful

has shown, along

with the nature of genealogies in general, somewhat

also of the effect of

mixture on the genealogies of the

the
difficulties

New
There
each

Testament, and of the methods that must be

raised

adopted to overcome
remains,
list

by

it.

therefore,

only

to

give

more

extended
class

of

the

documents

which
to

represent

before

we can proceed
method

study the

application of this

to practical use.

Let the
here

student only remember that

too,

we must

treat,

each section of the

of

New

Testament separately,

and that by reason

mixture a single document

may

find place equally well in

list will

more than one

class,

and the following

be useful to him.

The Neutral text is more especially represented In the Gospels : by the following documents, viz. B (purely), n largely, and then T, H, L, 33, A (in Mark), C, Z, R, Q, P, Memph. (Theb.) (Syr^*^'). In the Acts and Catholic Epistles : B (probably purely), N, 61, A, C, 13, P (except in Acts and 1 Peter), and
:

168

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

such minuscules as 27, 29, 31, 36, 40, 44, 68, 69,102, In 110, 112, 137, 180, etc., Memph. (Theb.) Syr*^'^--.

Paul: B, N', A, C, In the Apocalypse

17, P, 67**,
:

A, P,
is

N,

M, H, Memph. Memph. (Theb.)

fully represented

(Theb.)

The Western
N,
1

text

most
:

by the

following documents, viz

In the Gospels: D (purely),

39,

X,

r,

81

(=2i"=), lectionary

1-118-131-209,

3-69-1 24-34G,
Pt,

22,

28, 157.

S, L, P, Q,

Z, N,
'^"''"e-

W^,

33, African'

Latin, Syr=", et

et'^*'^'-,

A (in Mark), and European Theb. (Memph.) In the

Also C,

Acts

and

Catholic Epistles:

(purely), x, E, 31, 44,

Also A, 0, 13, African and European Latin, Syr '"^'- "s-, Theb. (Memph), In Paul D, G, [E, F], (purely), then n% B, 31, 37, 46, 80, 137,
(of Hort), 61, 137, 180.

Also A, C, P, 17, M, H, 67**, African and 221, etc. "^e-, European Latin, Syr. Theb. (Memph.). In the Apocalypse : N, also A, P, African and European Latin, Theb. (Memph.). The Alexandrian text is most prominently represented by the following documents In the Gospels : C, L, N% A (in Mark), X, 33, Z, 3, E, 1, 57, Memph. Theb. (Pst. Syr.). In the Acts and Catholic Epistles
^^:

A, C,

N,

E, 13, 61,

(in Cath. Epistles except 1 John).

Also 27, 29, 36, 40, 68, 69, 102, 110, 112, Memph. Theb. (Pst. Syr.). In Paul: A, C, n, P, 5, 6, 17, 23,
39, 47,
73, 137,
:

Apocalypse

x, P,

Memph. Theb. (Pst. Memph. Theb.

is
:

Syr.).

In the

The Syrian

text

found in the following uncials,

together with most minuscules

In the Gospels A, E, F, G, H, S, U, V, A, IT, and in less degree in C, L, N, P, Q, R, X, M. r, A. In the Acts and Catholic Epistles : H, L, P, K, and in large part P, and in

THE METHODS OF
less

CRITICISM.

169
also in

degree in A, C, E.
12

H,

M, O, 0^ Q,
:

the Apocalypse
degree C, A.

In Paul : K, L, N, and in less degree in A, B, and in large part P, and

E,,

C,

In

in less

The post-Nicene
Apollinaris (Kara

fathers generally, present a Syrian

text in their citations, although Cyril of Alexandria,

yitepos Trtcrrt?),

and

less

markedly Epi-

phanius, and even John of Damascus, are to greater or

less

extent exceptions to this rule.

citations are prevailingly

patristic

The ante-Nicene Western this is

;

true of those of Marcion, Justin, Irenreus, Hippoly-

Methodius, Eusebius, and even to some extent of Clement of Alexandria and Origen. A large nonWestern pre-Syrian element is found, also, however, in the Alexandrian fathers, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, Peter, and also in a less degree in Eusebius and others. The ready application of the genealogical method
tus,

to practical use in criticism will

to read the digests of readings,

expressed in terms of

depend on our ability where the evidence is individual MSS., in terms of

other words, to translate

the classes of MSS.,

or, in

testimony expressed in terms of individual

testimony expressed in terms of classes of
proper
follows:

MSS. into MSS. The

as

procedure

may

be tabulated
out
all

somewhat

(1) First, sift

Syrian evidence from

the mass of witnesses recorded in the digest, and thus

confine attention to the pre-Syi-ian testimony.
sifting out the Syrian evidence, only
left, it
is,

If,

on
is

one reading

of course, the oldest transmitted reading,

is

and as such

to be accepted.

(2)

Next, identify the

pre-Syrian classes, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral,

170

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
of each

by separating the chief representatives

from

the hody of the witnesses, allowing everywhere for mixture. (3) If, now, we have three readings, one
supported

by each

of

the

pre-Syrian classes,

the

Neutral reading should have the preference. (4) If we have only two readings, that supported by the

Neutral and Western against the Alexandrian is to be preferred or that supported by the Neutral and
;

Alexandrian against the Western is to be preferred or (since all prominent AJexandrian documents have
a large Western

element)

that

supported

by the
is

Neutral against the Western and Alexandrian

be preferred,

to

few examples are needed to

rules.

illustrate practice

under these
evidence
is

The

sifting

out of the Syrian

rendered necessary by the relation which

the Syrian class bears to the others as dependent on

them and made out of them, by which its evidence is made collusive and confusing. It will be sufficiently
accurately accomplished at
to the following
X, B, C,
first

by confining attention
viz.
:

documents,

in

the Gospels

D, L, P, Q, R, T, Z, A (in Mark), E, 33, Latin versions, Curetonian and Jerusalem Syriac, Memphitic,

and Thebaic in Acts, n, A, B, C, D, E, 13, 61, and the same versions (except the Curetonian Syriac, which is not extant here); in the Catholic Epistles, n, A, B,C, 13, the Latin versions, Memphitic and Thebaic; in Paul, s<. A, B, C, D, G, 17, 67"*, and the same versions;
;

Nicene fathers.
of

and everywhere the certain quotations of the anteAny reading which has thsue pport no one
of

these

witnesses

may

be

safely set
if

aside as

Syrian or post-Syrian; and even

a few

THE METHODS OF
of these witnesses join with the

CRITICISM.

171

which contain a large Syrian element mass of later witnesses against the

body of those named here, the reading

safely

may

still

be

neglected as
is
;

Syrian.

Not infrequently the

is

reading

settled

by the
instance

sifting out of the Syrian

documents

when they

are removed, the variation

removed

too.

An

may

be found in Marki.

2,

where " in the prophets " is read by A, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, U, V, r, n, many minuscules, the text of the
Harclean Syriac, the Armenian according
edition, the -^thiopic,
to

Zohrab's

and some

late fathers, including

the Latin translation of Irenseus in opposition to the

Greek elsewhere.
the test
list

Only

in

this

list

occurs in

given above, and the whole support of

is,

the reading

therefore, distinctly Syrian,

is

so that

when the Syrian testimony

left

sifted out

we have

only " in Isaiah the prophet" supported by the

whole pre-Syrian array

viz.,

n*

33,

A, D, about

twenty-five minuscules, the Latin versions, the

phitic, Peshitto, Jerusalem,

Mem-

and margin
of

of the

Harclean
fathers.

Syriac,

the

Gothic,

and codices
addition of Iv

the

Armenian
in Matt,

versions, with Irenseus

and Origen among the

to) cfjavepia

In
vi.

like

manner the
is sifted

4 and 6

out with the Syrian testimony,

leaving

the whole
its

body of pre-Syrian witnesses at

In
such
is

one for

omission.

cases

our work

is

easily done,

and the text

restored with the very

greatest certitude.

Any
is

reading supported only by

of

the Syrian class

after a.d. 250.

convicted

having originated
goal, after

Often, however,

we seem no nearer our

the Syrian evidence has been sifted out, than

we were

172
at the start.
still

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
Two
to

or sometimes three readings

real task
is

may
The
in

face us,
is

and our

yet before us.

next step

identify

the classes represented

the groups of witnesses supporting each reading, by

attending very carefully to their constituent elements,

whether pure representatives of any one mixed representatives of more than one.
often a very delicate piece of work, but
also easy,

class

or
is

This

it is

often
It is

and

is

generally at least possible.

usually best to begin by identifying a class of which

we have pure
to

representatives,

and
is

to proceed thence

those the only

extant representatives of which

it

are mixed.

In the Gospels

nearly equally easy

and the Western readings in Paul we should begin with the Western in Acts and the Catholic Epistles, again, we may almost
to identify the Neutral
;

equally

well

begin

with

either
iii.

the Western or

Neutral,

Let us look at
''

Mark

29 as an example.

Here the reading

of readings

judgment

"

sifts

out with the

Syrian testimony, and

81

we

are confronted with the pair

dfjiapT-^fx.aTo<;

(=

2^"),

and

d/xapTta?

supported byX, B, L, A, 28, 33, supported by 0*^'*^, D, 13,

G9, 346,

help,

Ath. The versions here can give but little and we omit them altogether. We note at once

that purely Western

of adherents, all of

support of

ufxapTia';,

D is united with a small body which have Western elements, in which we may thus recognise as
B
which therefore
class.
is

Western,
certainly

On

the other side, the purely Neutral

stands in the

midst of a group
the

embraces
is

Neutral

Whether
doubtful,

a/u.apT^^aT05

also

Alexandrian

more

inasmuch as the Alexandrian documents supporting

THE METHODS OF
it

CRITICISM.

173

have

all

Neutral elements.

On

the whole, however,

this reading

may

be safely set down to the credit

of both the Alexandrian

and Neutral

classes.

But

in

either

contingency
it

internal

evidence of classes

determines for
similar example
of TO in

as probably the true reading.

may
ix.

be found in the vivid insertion

23,

Mark
A,

which has the support of

X,

C L
69,

X r,

involving the typical Neutral and

Alexandrian witnesses against the omission by D, 13,

Western.

(= 2P), 124, 131, which is recognisably In the next verse (Lx. 24) the /acto. haKpxxav is in the same way recognised as Westerr, supported as it is by D, N, X, r, the European, Italian and Vulgate Latin, Peshitto and Harclean Syriac and Gothic versions, while its omission is testified by B n, C* L A, 28, k of the African Latin, the Memphitic, Armenian and ^thiopic versions i.e., by the combined Neutral
28,

81

and Alexandrian witnesses.

of the "Western text
is

considerable insertion

found in

Mark

ix.

45 and 4G,

supported only by D, N, X, V, Latin, Syriac, Gothic

and -^thiopic versions, while the omission is supported by B N, C L A, 1, 28, 81(= 2i'), 118, 251, k of the African Latin, Memphitic, and Armenian.

On

the same kind of evidence

Mark

ix.

49,

last

and xi. 26, are recognised as interpolations of the Western text. In all these cases we have proceeded by identifying and rejecting the Western reading, and the help in determining the text has been sure and immediate. In such a reading, on the other hand, as the addition of prifjia in Matt. v. 11, which is witnessed by
clause,

C, r, A, Peshitto

and Harclean

Syriac,

and Origen,

174

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

against n, B, D, Latin, Memphitic, Jerusalem Syriac,

and ^thiopic versions, and Cyril of Alexandria; or such an one as the addition of rot? d/axatots in Matt.
V. 27,

by L, A, 33, later Latin, Curetonian Syriac and

Syriac versions,
Irenseus,

and Eusebius, and European Latin, Memphitic, Peshitto Syriac, Armenian, ^thiopic, and Gothic versions, and Origen we must proceed by identifying and rejecting the Alexandrian reading, which appears to be opposed by the combined Neutral (B, N, etc.) and Western (D, etc.) witnesses. In such
against

Harclean

B x,

D V,

African

cases the

Alexandrian
:

reading

is

identified

by a

process of exclusion

for example, in the former case

C, A, are not Neutral, for they separate from the Neutral documents, and they are not Western, for

Western documents; they Alexandrian or Syrian, and the presence of the reading in Origen seems to point to the former. In these cases, too, the reading is
the

they separate from

be,

must

then,

either

by the combination of Western and Neutral witnesses.

settled securely
Still

another class of variations

may

be illustrated

by the insertion or omission of " which art in heaven " at the opening of the Lord's Prayer in Luke's account
of
it.

The
also

insertion

is

supported by the Syrian text,

X, 33, etc., Old Latin codices, Curetonian, Peshitto and Harclean Syriac, Memphitic, and -^thiopic and the omission by B, N, L, 1, 22, 57, 130, 346, Vulgate Latin, and Armenian versions, Origen and Tertulhan. The Neutral text certainly is for omission (B, n, etc.), and the Western for insertion (D, Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac). But representaV, A,
;

and

by D, C,

THE METHODS OF
tives of the
1,

CRITICISM.
:

175
N, L,

Alexandrian text are on both sides

57,

on one, and C, F, A, X, 33,

If

Memph., on the
its

other.

we

could be sure that this latter g^roup

represented the Alexandrian here,

union Avith the

it
;

Western Avould carry our

single

decision with

but every

mixed with Western readings that it would be dangerous in the extreme So that Ave to count it anything but Western here.
of it is so strongly

member

can only believe that we have here a case of Neutral

versus Western, and follow the former
accordingly.

As

for the Alexandrian reading,

it

is

either lost or

else represented

by L,

1,

57.

Internal

evidence

of

groups not only supports this conclusion, but forces

it

upon

us.

Quite similarly " Let

" is

Thy kingdom come,

inserted at the end

as in heaven, also on the earth

of

the same verse by x, C, V, A, X, D,

against

Old Latin,
22, 130, 31:0,

Peshitto and Harclean Syriac, Memphitic, and ^-Ethio^

pic,

the

protest

of

B, L,

1,

Vulgate Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Armenian, and Origen and Tertullian. The transference of :?, wLich
has a very marked Western element in Luke, makes

no

essential difference in the testimony

every codex

ari-ayed here with

has a large Western element,

and the whole combination is explicable as a Western So that again we treat the matter as an inheritance.
instance of
ingly,

Western versus Neutral, and decide accordof classes, for the Neutral.
class of readings, called

by internal evidence

special

but very small

by Dr. Hort " Western non -interpolations," deserves a separate notice. An example may be found in the odd insertion into Matt, xxvii. 49, to which attention was called when we were speaking of internal evidence

176
of groups.

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
The
B,
insertion
is

U,

r, 5, 48, 67, 115, 127,

(x,
etc.),

supported by x, B, C, L, ^thiopic, including the

Neutral
of

and

Alexandrian (C, L, r,

5,

48, 67, etc.) witnesses.

only D, A, E, F,

The omission has the support G, H, K, M, S, V, A, n, most

minuscules, the Latin, Peshitto and Harclean Syiiac,

Memphitic, Gothic, and Armenian versions, and the

like,

which are

easily seen to

be Syrian and Western.

Yet, as already pointed out, internal evidence of readings seems to forbid our accepting these words as
genuine,

and thus forces us

to

decide against the

combination of the Neutral and Alexandrian and for

In this reading, and some others like it (for each must be treated apart), we have the exception to the general
possibly in

the Western standing alone.

rule that the Neutral-Alexandrian class

is

better than

the Western, which the genealogical scheme on which

we

are working allows for and hence presupposes.

If

the Neutral

and
it

Alexandrian

have

been

rightly

accounted two branches of one stem set over against

the Western,
it

would be

difficult to

understand how

could happen that the Western should be always

wrong, without exception, and this stem always right.

The process

of internal evidence of classes, like internal

evidence of groups and documents, determines only

general and usual relations, and the exceptions to the

general rule can be detected only by internal evidence

of readings. line
If, for

the moment,

we

conceive of the
line of abso-

in the last

diagram as not the

lutely true descent, but the actual line of descent of

from which z q diverges when the descent becomes Western, k v when it becomes Alexandrian,
codices,

THE METHODS OF
and
t s

CHITICISM.
it

177

when

it

becomes Neutral,

will be evident

to the eye that the Neutro-Alexandrian descent co-

incided for the space represented

by

z k,

after the

separation of the Western descent had taken place,

and hence

it is to

be expected that the combination

will
testify

Neutral-Alexandrian
introduced into their

to

some

errors

common stem

dui'ing the series

z k.

of copyings represented

by the space

In other

words, reverting to the former diagram, the very fact

that the Neutral and Alexandrian classes are arranged,

not as two independent classes co-ordinate with the

Western, but as two sub-classes of X, which

is

co-

ordinate with the Western, presupposes that they will

combine against
all

tlie

Western

in

some

errox\s.

From

which we learn that textual

criticism,

even with

the aid of the genealogical evidence, cannot, any more

than in the case of other methods, be prosecuted mechanically; but each reading must be very carefully
considered, separately, ere our conclusion concerning
it

be announced.

Proceduie under the genealogical method in Paul's

enough of speciality to render it desirable some illustrations of it. It is a good practical rule to go by in the Gospels, to follow the group which contains B, at least provisionally. The best practical rule to go by in Paul is, to suspect the group which contains D, G, unless practically all the primary
Epistles has
to give

witnesses join with them.

results

This difference of procedure

is purely Neutral in the and hence forms there the rallying point for the documents of the best class to gather around. In Paul B has a Western element, and hence may stand

from the

fact that

Gospels,

12

178

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

with only Western documents the worst class With no pure representative of either around it.
the Neutral or Alexandrian class, we are reduced in Paul to identifying, as our first step, the Western class by the aid of its pure representatives D and G,

and
it

this

we

identify

only to

i-eject,

if

it

stands

alone.

And
its

as all codices have a

Western element,
to

follows

further that any addition

character
as

DG

need
or

not alter
corrupt.

Western and probably

G,

Hence
G,

ABD
alike,

X
a

A D G, B D G, N D G, C D G, C D G, A C D G, B C D G,
n-

need represent nothing better than a Western

error.

No

priori

reason
;

exists

why B n D G

might

not equally do so

but internal evidence of

groups here steps in and proclaims this group so good that we are obliged to account it usually a union
This (B x) and Western (D G) classes. B and x, although both having Western elements, get their Western elements independently, and do not usually coincide in the same
of iSoutral

only shows that

Western corruption

hence,

while

thoroughly con-

sistent with the genealogical scheme, this finding is inconsistent with the supposition that these two

codices

come from a proximate

even, such as

original only a step

or two older than themselves.

tions,
still

The
or

larger combina-

A C x D G,
;

A B C D G,

may

and we are thus led to be merely Western give the preference, on genealogical grounds, often to small groups which include only one or more
primary uncials when opposed by a group including

DG.
As an
example,

we may

look at 2 Cor.

ii.

9,

where

TEE METHODS OF
after the

CRITICISM.
we have

179
d,

Syrian evidence

is

sifted out,

read by x, C, D, G, P, Latin versions, whereas ^ is the reading of B, A, 17, 109. Here, although all the
recent editors read
placing
is
Tj

in their text (Westcott

and Hort

in their margin), the genealogical evidence

-q,

distinctly in favour of

the group x

C D.C G P
{rj,
i,

being distinctly Western,

It

may

be added that the

,)

transmutation of
easy and frequent

r}

into

ct

either

by itacism
(ei

or by mistake of the uncial letters

:

for h)

is

very

a case of

it

occurs in the neighbouris

ing 2 Cor.

iii.

1,

where

dt

/xy

read by A, P, and

Syrian authorities, while

i) ixrj

stands in N, B, C, D, G,

31, 37, 67**, Latin, Memphitic, etc. Here we have a combination of the Neutral and Western at least, if not of all pre-Syi'ian classes against Syrian or possibly Syrian

and Alexandrian, and though

it

easily follow this

group even

contains the ominous

D G,

since along with

D G stands

C,

which

is

differentiated

from other

groups including

G, by a very emphatic verdict of

internal evidence of groups.

The complications that

7,

can arise by dividing the testimony a step further are

well illustrated in 2 Cor.
ii.

where fxukXov

is

placed

before i/^a? by n, C, L, P, Vulgate Latin, Memphitic,

Harclean Syriac, Armenian, and Syrian authorities,

after v/aSs

by D, E, F, G,

17, Goth.,

together by B, A,

Peshitto Syriac,

and omitted aland Augustine.

and Tregelles follow the first array, places " omit " opposite in the margin, and Westcott and Hort follow the last, placing
Tischendorf

although

Tregelles

fxaXkov in their

margin before v/aSs. Who is right t group is Alexandrian, the second Western, and the third Neutral; and were this the

Primd facie the

first

180
time finding

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
it

would be difficult to resist the comWestern and Alexandrian texts in an insertion in which they did not stand in collusion.
bined evidence of the

More
in

likely,

however,

the insertion of
it

fxaXkov

is

Western, and the misplacing of

a later divergence
will re-

which case Westcott and Hort's conclusion

sult.

Another instructive reading occurs in 2 Cor. xii. 7, where ^{, B, A, G, 17, ^thiopic, insert a 8to, which D, P, the Latin, Gothic, Sj'riac and Armenian versions and the Syrian evidence omit. The omission is here
easily seen to

be Westei'u, while the insertion has the

combined support of the Neutral and Alexandrian

documents and on genealogical grounds is preferable. In Gal. ii. 12, where n, B, D*, G, 73, 45, Origen read ^Oev against ^i^X^ov read by A, C, D^^^^'i^H, K, L, P, most minuscules, Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Memphitic,
of the rare cases in

Armenian, Gothic versions and fathers, we have one which n B together unite with
D, G, in a Western corruption ; for corruption this is Again, certainly shown to be by internal evidence.

we
less

learn that the rule ascertained by internal evidence

n*

of groups that
;

is

usually right

is

not exception-

and that though ^< and B do not usually unite in the same Western readings, they do unite in one This is an example of this rarity. occasionally.
logical

with variations on geneagrounds culminates in that portion of the Epistles (Heb. ix. 14 to Philemon inclusive of the

The

difficulty of dealing

Pastoral Epistles) where

for instance,
*'

is lost.

Shall

we

read,
x. 11
?

priest " or " high priest " at

Heb.

All three of the great editions read

Tregelles and Westcotfc

" priest,"

but

and Hort put the alternative

THE METHODS OF
in the margin. For "priest"
47,

CRITICISM.
n,

181
17,

we have

D, E, K, L,

most minuscules, Old Latin codices, Vulgate Latin, Memphitic, the text of the Harclean Syriac, Chrysostom, Euthalius, Theodoret; while for "high priest"

we have A,
sixteen
asterisk),

C, P, 31, 37, 46, 73, 74, 80,

137,

and
(with

others,

Peshitto and Harclean Syriac

We

Armenian, ^thiopic, Cyril of Alexandria. B if B should stand by N, D, etc., we should have the approved group n B D = Neutral
long for
:

+ Western if it should take its place alongside of A, C, P we could recognise it as Neuti'al versus x, D> Western. Internal evidence of readings and a care;

ful

study of grouping inclines

us to suppose the

former most likely to be the right solution.

weight of genealogical evidence
verso
of
is

The

more

clearly trace-

able in the case of three interesting readings in the

first

the same chapter, where x

adds

avTuiv (after dva-ias)

omits

DHL,
Bvva^at.
of

which the Western class, A C D, x C reads a? against the Western class, which supports als; and N P 17 G7'''*

AC

reads Swavrat against the Western

D H L, supporting
would the presence
evidence

In no one
side

of these cases

on either

change the determination.

finally,

In the Apocalypse,

genealogical
all,

can as yet be scarcely employed at

greatest doubt and difficulty.

without the

CHAPTER
THE rUAXIS OF

III.

CRITICISM.

IN

the foregoing pages the available methods of

criticism

have been considered separately, and

thus stock has been taken of the instruments within

reach for the performance of this very delicate work.
It remains to inquire

how

these instn.iments are to

be used in the actual prosecution of criticism.

Each

method makes
its

its

own

results.

own promises and attains for us But we must not permit ourselves
by one method
and checks and each by the
the
is

to be satisfied with results obtained only.

The

best criticism
all

rather that which makes

the

fullest use of

the methods,
results
of

conditions and extends the

results
of
is
all.

of

The value

combination of

methods
checks
:

twofold.

We

thus obtain a system of

we may

method by the
repeated trials

obtained by one by another, and by preserve ourselves from error. And

test the results

results obtained

we obtain what may be called a system of relays where one method fails to give a confident verdict, another may be called in, and thus their combination

may
The

enable

us

to

carry criticism

several

stages
alone.

farther than would be possible by one

effect of

method

using a variety of methods, therefore,

TUE PRAXIS OF
is

CRITICISM.

183
is

both to extend the sphere which our criticism

more firmly to settle the text over The first rule for the application of its whole extent. Let these methods, therefore, is to apply them all. no one be slighted let each be used carefully and independently, and the results obtained by each carefully compared together. "When the findings of the various methods agree the conclusion is certain, and we
able to reach and
;

may
text.

feel sure that

we have

attained the autographic

is

When

they disagree, opportunity

given for

review and revision of the whole process, with the

not infrequent result of the discovery of an
erroi-,

the correction of which will harmonise the evidence.

By

this

repeated and,
of

if

need be, again repeated

very seldom indeed Until they

verification

our processes, our conclusions attain

;

ever firmer standing

and

it

is

that the verdicts of the diflerent kinds of evidence

may
sions;

not

be brought into agreement.

agree some doubt continues to cling to our conclu-

and the canon may safely be formulated that no reading can be finally accepted against which

any form

of evidence

immovably

protests.
it

Experience further indicates to us that

the various methods of criticism.
are

is

not

a matter of entire indiflerence in what order

we use Certain of them

a good rule to
of

more

liable

than others to be swerved by the

critic,

mental state of the

and

it is

begin with the most objective.

yield at best only probable results,

Certain

them

and

it is

a good

rule

to

begin with

the most

decisive.

Certain of

them are
is

largely negative

in their findings,

a good rule to begin with the most positive.

and it For

184

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
it

each of these reasons

external evidence,

is safest

to begin
its

with the

and only when

bearing has

been at

least provisionally determined, to proceed to

the internal evidence of readings.

To begin with
with intrinsic

intei^nal evidence of readings, especially

evidence, runs very great risk of so filling the

mind

with the feeling that such or such a reading ought

to stand in the text, that

making
is to

it

stand there, against the evidence.

we may end by unconsciously The

likely to issue soundly,

best procedure,

and that most

its results

begin with the consideration of the genealogical

evidence, and
to- internal

when

are obtained, to proceed

evidence of groups, and thence to internal

evidence of readings,

usually

in the order of,

first,

the transcriptional,
dence.

and, secondly, the intrinsic evi-

When

genealogical

evidence

speaks

with
all

force, it yields

a testimony which ranks above

others in ease and

certainty of interpretation, and

it,

consequently, by beginning with

we

consider,

first,

the surest evidence, and gradually proceed

of

to that

finality

more doubtful interpretation, although of no less when its meaning is certainly attained.

After the evidence is all in, our next duty is to compare and harmonise the several results. When they are finally and hopelessly discordant, nothing
is left

us but to consider whether the oldest trans-

mitted text

may not itself be corrupt, and thus differ from the autographic text. Perhaps the best way to exhibit the right procedure in criticism is by means of an example or two. Let us look at the famous reading in Acts xx. 28, where we have the following variations
:

THE PRAXIS OF
^.
Kvpiov,

CRITICISM.

185

A, C*, D, E,^13,

15, 36, 40, 69, 110, 118,

and

eight others; g of the Old Latin, Memphitic, Thebaic,

margin

of the

Harclean Syriac, Armenian,

Irenaeus (Latin), (Athanasius), Didymus, Jerome,

etc.

Oeov,

B, N, 68, lectionary 12, and twelve others

Yul-

gate Latin, (Peshitto), text of the Harclean Syriac,

Epiphanius, Basil, Theodore of Mopsuestia (Latin),

Cyril of Alexandiia, etc.
Xpicrrov,

u^thiopic, perhaps the Peshitto,

of the

Old

Latin {Jesu Christi).

Kvpiov

Km

Oeov, C^,

H, L, P, most minuscules,
etc.

Slavonic,

Theophylact,
6eov Kai KVpLOV, 47.

Kvpiov Oeov, 3, 95**.

If

we should undertake

to estimate the relative

weight of these groups of testimony by the weight

of the separate codices included in each,

we might

well despair of ever reaching a conclusion.

uncials are for eoii, the best minuscules
for

The best and versions

KvpCov, the most witnesses for Kvptov kuI cou.

thei-e is

Fortunately

a better way.

Beginning with
all

the genealogical evidence,

we

sift

out

readings but

Kvpiov and @eov in sifting out the Syrian evidence.

We observe next that the typiciil Western document D stands on the side of Kvpiov, and the t)rpical
Neutral
certain

on the side

of Qeov,

and considering the

other testimony for each,

:

we

see that this

much

is

eov

is

the Neutral reading, and Kvpiov the

Western.

The. most constant representatives of the

class

Alexandrian

stand by the side of

and the

186

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
;

Western witnesses, in support of Kuptow here A, C, 13, 36, 40, 69, 110, Memph., Theb. Were all these documents full of Western readings, might find the Alexandrian reading in Kvpiov,
this
all
is

are

not

we
but

not presumable

these documents,

in the mixed condition of and internal evidence of classes

ground to believe that the union of the Western with the chief Alexandrian documents is a union of the two classes. We must treat this reading, therefore, as a case in which the Western and Neutral classes oppose one another, and internal
evidence of classes forces us to accept in such cases

gives us no

the Neutral reading as presumably right.

genealogical evidence sujiports eoO.
internal evidence of groups

Thus the
turning to

On

we obtain
to

the same result.

The high character given

whether
it

n by this process, stands alone, or in whatever combination

it

with other documents, aflbrds strong ground for preferring eou, especially as

has the important further

support of the Vulgate Latin and Cyril of Alexandria. This result is cumulative to the former, so that the external evidence throws a very strong cumulative
pi'obability in favour of coi).

We

next appeal to the transcriptional evidence.

eoi),

The three readings Ivvpiov koX and Kvptou eoi), are clearly all

eow koX Kvpiov,

conflate readings,

and

presuppose the previous existence of both the others.

They
is

are,

therefore, out

of considei-ation.

Xpia-Tov

easily

accounted for either as a substitution of

a synonym for Kxpiov or eoi) (for whichever word

was

used, Christ

was the person meant), or a misky

or

reading of an abbreviation,

Gy being taken

TUE PRAXIS OF CRITICISM.

for XY, or even perhaps kpy
(cf.

187
i.

krn,
:

1 cf.

Cor.

1
vii.

of

Codex Augiensis) in n). In either

for XPY (D. ssepe

Rom.

case it

is

a derivative reading and

of transcriptional relative

may

be neglected.
then,
is

The problem
to

evidence,

decide

between the

originaHty of

l\.vpiov

and

eov, tlie difference between

:

which again concerns only a single lettei' ky and ey. As a mere blunder, either might equally easily pass
into

the other.

They are equally

brief.

Either

reading would be characteristic enough ; the phrase " Church of God " is as common as the phrase " the
blood of the Lord."
is

But

it

is

undeniable that

0eoJ}
it

the

more

ditficult

reading,

and

this

commends

to us as probably genuine.
is

easy to see that

it

were original, it would be startling, and that the

If eou
it

scribe's

mind working upon

its

might

(scribe-like)

intrude

mental explanation into

the text

so

that the very unusual character of the phrase here

becomes,

transcriptionally

considered, its
if

strongest

commendation.

On

the other hand,

is

Yivpiov

were

no jag in the phrase to catch the mind of the scribe and throw it off he would write smoothly on and tind its balance
the original reading, there
;

full

satisfaction

in

the langunge as
find

it

stood.

It
for

seems,

indeed,

impossible to

any reason

altering Kupi'oD into eou except a dogmatic one,

if

and

dogmatic considerations be brought into the case

they certainly authenticate &eov rather.

For a dog-

matic alteration of K.vpiov into eoO could have no

incitement except a cold determination to manufacture a proof text there is nothing offensive to any one in the reading Kvpiov, and nothing that could
:

188

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
to extreme Arians,

suggest alteration.

many

But &iov might give offence to and to the orthodox antiof

Patripassians alike, and even to simple orthodox souls

whose philosophical way

looking at theological
this sharp paradox.

language would be offended at

Apollinar.,

Like language horrified Athanasius himself {Cont.

ii.

11,

12,

13).
it

If dogmatic

alteration

has taken place, therefore,

certainly has softened

the original Qeov into the less startling KvpLov.

And

from every point

supports @ov.

of

view the transcriptional evidence

unalterably

Does

intrinsic

evidence
alike

oppose this

conclusion,

commended

internal evidence of

by genealogical evidence, groups, and transcriptional evi-

dence

For

this is the

way

in

which

this

branch of
it

evidence

may

be fairly approached, seeing that

delivers negative positive ones.

judgments with far more force than

It is difficult to see

how

the reading

cou

fails

to

accord

with

the contextual flow of

thought or the rhetoric.

priety in
it,

beneath

it.

There is rather a fine proand a solemn and moving motive lies Paul incites the elders to more heedful

attention to their duties to their flock by the con(1) that it was the Holy Ghost who made them bishojis, and (2) that it was the blood of God Himself that bought the flock now placed under

siderations

their care.

It

is said,

however, that
is

it is

un-Pauline
easy to

to call Christ God.

The argument
small weight.
5
;

a merely verbal
it is

one,

and hence

of
ix.

And
ii.

point to

Rom.
Jesus

does

call

God

and Titus and when

it is

13,
is

where Paul
objected that

it

these are disputed passages,

just to

remind the

THE PRAXIS OF
as

CRITICISM.

189

objector that this will exclude his original statement well

as

our rebuttal of
it is

it.

Apart from such

passages, however,

very easy to show that Paul

held a veay exalted doctrine of Christ's person, and

the

might as well as John (John i. 1) have given Him name which his descriptions imply and this is
;

enough to set aside the force of the objection that the unwontedness of the phrase is fatal to its genuineThis very unwontedness is from the tranness.
scriptional point of view its best proof of genuineness,

and

it

is

not the part of intrinsic evidence to pare

unusual.
if

down the

The phrase would oppose

it

its

own

genuineness only

contradicted Paul's otherwise

known

opinions, or at least were not only unexamjjled

but inexplicable.

But

since this

same Paul has

else-

where declared that Christ was begotten before every creature, we need find nothing to stumble at in his
applying to

Him

here,

where the context bids us look

is
is

for a solemn enhancing of the greatness of the gift

of

His blood, the name which

efiect of
;

elsewhere implied.

The
tive

these considerations

not merely nega-

it is

corroborative of the other evidence.

And

since all forms of evidence unite to

here, their cumulative effect
is

commend eou

makes it

certain that this

the original reading.

Our next example

variation that
is

shall

be the very important

i.

found at John
:

18.

Here the

chief rival readings are

o ixovoyvr]<i vlo?

A,

C^, E, F, G,

H, K, M,

S, XJ,

V, X,

r. A, A, n,

and all minuscules except 33; the Old and Vulgate Latin, the Curetonian Syriac,

190

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
the text of the Harclean Syriac, the Jerusalem
Syriac, the

Armenian
Eusebius,

in Piatt's edition [Irenseus

(Latin)],

Athanasius,
etc.

Theodore

of

Mopsuestia, Chrysostom,
/xovoycvr]';

6eo%: N, B,

C^'',

L, 33 (33 prefixing o)

the

Memphitic, Peshitto Syriac, margin of the Harclean Syriac, the Yalontinians [Irenrens (Latin)],
Clement, Origen, Epiphanius,

Didymus,

Basil,

Gregory

of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, etc.

Genealogically,
vtos is the

it

is

to

be noted that 6 /xovoyev^s

class,

reading of the Syrian

is

Syrian testimony
witnesses,

sifted out, of the typical

;

is

defective here

and when the Western but the union of

X, Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac, cannot well have more than one meaning. On the other hand,
the Neutral documents (B, n) unite with constant Alexandrian
phitic),

the most
33,

documents

(C, L,

Mem-

CO?,

and the Alexandrian fathers, for /xovoyevTJs which thus seems to have the combined support
Alexandrian
very
classes.

of

the Neutral and

of
classes

Internal

evidence

strongly

commends the
evi-

Neutral-Alexandrian readings, and genealogical

Internal evidence of groups casts
in

dence thus gives a very strong verdict for /xovoyev^?

0?.
its

weighty

vote

the same

scale,

as

x, supported by an

additional

body

of

important witnesses, advises

is

us.

So that again external evidence

in favour of one reading,

cumulatively set
eos.

/Aovoyei/jj?

The chief divergent words in the two readings differ from one another in this case, too, by a single letter, since they stand in the MSS. yc and 00 ; and transcrip-

TEE PRAXIS OF
tionally either one of these

CRITICISM.

191

the other by a mere scribe's bhinder.

plicated, liowever,

might very readily pass into The case is comof the insertion

by the connection

or omission of the 6 nine letters back with the valuation in the

main word.

This seems to exclude a mere

;

error of the eye as the cause of the change

and dog-

matic considerations stand in this case just as in Acts

XX. 28.

The

insertion of eo's for dogmatic reasons

of a proof text, as

would be a barefaced manufacture

the reading
vios

could give offence to no one, while,

on the other hand, the reading eos might be an ofience

to a great

body

of readers.

If dogmatic considera-

tions, therefore,

are responsible for

either
rlos,

reading,

surely they have produced the softening

and not

the startling eo?.

is

to be preferred,

The canon that the harder reading again, commends eo?. If o vl6%
.
.

stood here originally, there would be nothing to attract

" The scribe's attention or to suggest a change. only -begotten Son " is a sufficiently common phrase in

John
is

to give itself readily to the

pen when

fxovoy^rj'i

being written.
" is

On
;

the other hand, " only begotten

it,

God

unique

if

the scribe observed

his

might

unconsciously

transmute

it

into

the

mind more

familiar phraseology,

and

if

he merely glanced at the

it

phrase he might readily take

" only begotten Son."
tional evidence

for the

more familiar

In every way, thus, transcripyu.ovoyv^s cos.

commends

had we known it alone, would be satisfactory enough. " The only begotten Son " is a Johannean phrase, and John might be expected to use it here too. But to call the Logos ' God " is also Johannean, and " only begotten God "
Intrinsically, either reading,

192

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
1,

only unites here the two predicates which had just

before been assigned to the Logos (eos ver.
/tAovoyvr;s ver. 14).

and

When

the sequence of the thought

in the prologue

is

carefully examined, a fine appro-

priateness for "only begotten

God"

just here emerges,

Avhich goes far towards authenticating that reading.

John

describes to us,
1 )
;

first,

the

relations (verse

then, the
;

Word in Plis eternal Word in His relations to

of

creation (verses 2

13)

and then the revelation

God
in

through theWord (14

the
facts,

18) culminating with putting

what was already implied
(ver.
1),

into words in verse 18

that

tlie

AVord was God

and yet

Himself became
tion

flesh (ver. 14),

viz.,

that this revela-

was self-revelation. If no one has seen God at any time, who is His revealer if not the Word who was God (ver. 1), and only begotten (ver. 14) God only

begotten (ver. 18)

The

intrinsic evidence, thus, not

only

fails to

oppose the

reading commended alike

by genealogical evidence, internal evidence of groups, and transcriptional evidence, but even corroborates it.

And
one.

again

we may

accept the fourfold support as

is

giving us a reading which

certainly the original

It

is

natural

to take as our
1

next

example the
varia-

famous reading in
tions

Tim.

iii.
:

16.

Here three

demand our attention "^

6(o<;'.

296 minuscules; [Harclean and Sclavonic versions PseudoDionysius, Didymus, Gregory of Nyssa, [Diodorus]
Syriac], Georgian
;

O.D'KLP^ and
I

Chrysostom, Theodoret [Cyril of Alexandria],

os:

etc.

N (A*) (C-) G,

17, 73

[181] and lectionaries 12,

TEE PRAXIS OF
85,

CRITICISM.
[Thebaic],
Grothic,

193

86;

[Memphitic],
Syriac's

[Peshitto],

Hai-clean

margin,

[^thiopic],

[Armenian], [Origen] Epiphanius, (Theodore of

Mopsuestia),
o
:

etc.

D, Zahn's Codex (Sapplementicm Clementinuia, p. 277), Old Latin, Vulgate, [Peshitto], [Harclean
Syriac],

[Memphitic],

[Thebaic],
etc.

[iEthiopic],

[Armenian], Latin fathers,

The

greatest difficulty that faces the critic here lies

in the uncertainty that attends so

much

of the e\'idence.

Expert palaeographers
the reading of
in

differ diametrically as to

is,

whether ec or oc (0eds or
state of the
is

os),

what and

the present worn

MS.

decision by

renewed examination
of controversy has

impossible.

The same kind

;

been held as to the reading of C.

although

much less reason and we have inclosed C also in doubting parentheses we entertain no great doubt as to its
although apparently with
support of
OS.

large proportion of the versions so

it

deUver their testimony as to make

indeterminable

whether they read

both
also
lists

os or o

they have been placed in

inclosed in square brackets.

its

Codex 181 has

been inclosed in brackets, as

existence has been

doubted.

Codex 73 has been personally examined by

os.

Dr. Schaff, and certainly reads

On
0eos

applying

genealogical

considerations
is

to

this

evidence, all the testimony that

sifts

at all certain for

testi-

out with the sifting out of the Syrian

mony.

This reading appears in no father until late

in the fourth century, in

no version until at

least

the

seventh century, and in no

MSS.

until long after the

13

194
Syrian
text

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
had
If

become

everywhere the virtual

textus receptus.

be adjudged to read eds the

Syrian character would not be

determination of
affected
;

its

and the very late character of all other witness for it is itself an argument against the likelihood of either A or C having ever had this reading, and

much more
rests

against both having

is
d.

it.

On

genealogical

gi'ounds, thus, eds

at once set aside,

and the choice

os

between

ds

and

It can scarcely be doubted that

is

Western; while the attestation x (A) C 17 gives

classes.

the appearance of having the suppoi-t of the Neutral

and Alexandrian

The doubt that hangs over

is

the testimony of the versions

of the less

moment

because of the certainty of the Latin reading, which

enables us to identify the Western type; and the

absence of

is

here of no importance, as
afiect

its

presence

on either side would not

our determination.

Genealogical evidence thus very pointedly

commends ds.

Internal evidence of groups corroborates this finding.

AC

or X

alone

is

one of the best groups attain-

able in this part of the

New

Testament, and although

here, yet the transcripit

the absence of
tional evidence

disturbs
to

vis

comes

our help by making

impro-

bable that d can be the correct reading, and hence

enabling us to account

all

the testimony for both ds

and
to

combined against that for eds.

is

The

result is

condemn eds hopelessly. The transcriptional evidence

round
letters,

thus in a true sense

ds and d, the would render

the key to the problem.

succession of

As between
lONOcecl)*,

the change easy either way, whether by mistaking the c

for the succeeding
e,

or the already written c for the

TEE PRAXIS OF
half-finished
e.

CRITICISM.

195
it

Unless, however, os were original,

A^Titten

could never have been

"
;

except by a mere

blunder, and could scarcely escape the eye of the "corrector

while o could easily be passed over on account

of the easy sense

which

it

introduced, and would be

apt to be written by the scribe after the neuter antecedent

fxvoTrjpiov.

As between

os

canon

of the

harder reading decides for

and 0eds the same Here the os. and

difference is only in the fine lines that distinguish the

o from e and

thus one reading

again, as os
is

mark the contraction ec and oc may easily pass into the other.
:

But

grammatically easy, forming a pi'oper

while os
is

apposition for fxva-r^pLov,

grammatically
could

hard,

nothing
os,

but

a mere

blunder

have

originated

while the difiiculty of the sense would

have operated as an incitement to the conscious or

unconscious transmutation of
os into cos.

Unless, then, intrinsic evidence immovably protests

against os
is

it is

to be accepted as the true reading.

it

It

indisputable that
difficulty
;

introduces a difficult reading,

and the
founded
rise

seems to disappear with the change

to o or eo's
its

on these facts the transcriptional evidence

os.

preference for

But does the

is

difficulty
1

to so high a pitch that os

impossible

The
is

difficulty is

wholly grammatical, and the grammar

os,

not

made

intolerable by
eo's,

but only relatively hard.

difficulties of its

Moreover,
to

while apparently reducing everything

an easy smoothness, introduces

first of

own.

It accords well with the

the following clauses,

but immediately becomes an unnatural antecedent to

the next, and continues so throughout.
fair

It

is

thus a

sample of

scribes'

work, and combines the surface

196

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

appearance of fitness with a real unfitness for its "When, next, the antithetic and rhythmical place.
character of the succeeding phrases
gesting that
is

observed, sugof

we have here a fragment

a hymn,

which would allow us to suppose that the grammatical antecedent to os is to be sought in the hymn
rather than in this context,
clause
is

or, better,

that the
;

first

the subject followed by five predicates

the
os,

intrinsic evidence, so far

from immovably opposing

its

appears to be slightly in

favour.

No

doubt, o
it is

would be
preferable

intrinsically

unobjectionable, but
in

not

to

os

save
;

the

strict

and narrow
readily

grammatical sense
gives

and

intrinsic

evidence

way here to
os.

transcriptional evidence in its strong

preference for
as it at first
finally

In this reading, therefore,

all

difficult

seems,

varieties

of evidence
os,

come

to agreement upon a single reading

which
readings

we may, therefore, confidently accept. Our next example shall be one of those few
which
text
:

affect

large

sections

of the

New
?

Testament
is

Shall

we

inseit or
vii.

omit the famous pericope of

53

^he adulteress, John

as follows
:

viii.

11

The evidence

Insert

D, F, G, H, K, U, T

(also

E,

M,

S, A,

H,

etc.,

more than three hunknown to Jerome codices many minuscules dred

with asterisk or obelus),
;

the Latin

MSS.

b, c, e, K^, g,

j,

1;
;

the Vulgate
" Apostolical

Latin, Jerusalem Syriac, ^^Ethiopic

Constitutions,"

Nicon,

Euthymius,

Ambrose,

Augustine, Jerome, and later Latin fathers. Omit : N, (A), B, (C), L, T, X, (A) codices known to
;

THE PRAXIS OF

CRITICISM.
many
f,

197
other
rhe,

Jerome, 22, 33, 81, 131, 157, and the Latin MSS. a, minuscules ;

q,

Jerome and Augustine, Curetonian, Peshitto and Harclean Syriac, best MSS. of the Memphitic, Thebaic, Armenian,
and
others
to

known

Gothic;

(Origen),

(Eusebius),

(Theodore
etc.

of

Mopsuestia), (Apollinaris), Chrysostom,

On
ing

sifting out the Syrian witnesses, the testimony

for insertion plainly becomes merely Western, includ-

and the European Latin

but not certainly

it,

the African Latin, although e contains

inasmuch as

the early Latin Fathers are strangely silent about this

passage.

The testimony The only

for omission includes every-

thing typical in both the Neutral and Alexandrian

classes.

difficulty that

meets us in deter-

mining the genealogical

trace the

classes arises

when we

try to

Spian
and

class.

Most
it

of the later

documents
fathers.

contain the section, but

cannot be traced in the

Antiochian

early

Constantinopolitan

seems that this pericope found no place in the Syrian revision, but has passed into the Syrian
it

Whence

text from the Western, say, at some time about the

seventh century.
class,

Whatever
is

its

relation to the Syrian

however, the section

strongly discredited by
finding
of

genealogical evidence.

The
is

internal eviis
is

dence of groups, which

very strongly given,

in the
solidly

same direction.

So that the external evidence

is

arrayed against the genuineness of the section.

Transcriptional evidence

generally ambiguous in

readings of great length

insertion or omission

must

have been alike a mere blunder.

It seems difficult to

198

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
its

account for such a blunder as

omission, however,

except by some such accident as the loss of a leaf or

two from the exemplar.

Mr.

J,

R. Harris has shown

that the matter of this section corresponds, in extent,

very exactly to two leaves of what seems to be a form which might very well belong to an ancestor of B. But he also shows that it would not all have fallen on
four pages,
if

belonging to the present place in John.

its

On

the other hand,

insertion

may

readily

be

accounted for as an incorporation into the text of an

explanatory gloss drawn from some extraneous source.

When we
here,
it

add that some codices place

it

at the end of

John's Gospel and some after

Luke

xxi.,

instead of

becomes

ing with
omission.

more probable that we are dealphenomena of insertion rather than of

still

On
is

the whole, the transcriptional evidence,

if

while able to accept the passage

otherwise comits

mended,

itself

rather in favour of

omission.

more strongly so. For the fact that the stoiy is worthy of our Lord and bears every mark of historic truth has no bearing on the question whether it is part of John's Gospel any true story of Jesus would be beautiful, especially if it came
Intrinsic evidence is
;

ultimately from the apostolic

circle.

While, on the

other hand, the

and diction are very unlike John's writing elsewhere several words are used which seem strange to his vocabulary and some matters of
style
; ;

detail

fit

ill

with the context,

e.g.,

Jesus

is

left

alone with the

**

woman

at verse 9, and yet addresses

This

and the Pharisees answer at ver. 13. might be of small moment, except that in these very matters verses 12 and 13 fit on directly

them"

at ver. 12,

last fact

THE PRAXIS OF CRITICISM.

with verses 45

199

52 of the seventh chapter, and so the

which they seem to belong.

omission of the disputed verses restores verses 12 sq.

to a context with

Nor

is

this close connection of verses 12 sq. with the seventh

chapter merely verbal

the presence of the pericope

progress of

of the adulteress seriously disturbs the

a discourse the order of which would be admirable

without
it

it.

This intrinsic evidence

is

so strong that

would almost cast doubt on this section of itself and in union with the external evidence, and with
the allowance of the transcriptional,
it

forces us to

omit the passage.

that
It

Here

too, therefore,

we may

feel

we have
is

attained the original text.

appropriate to draw our next example from

the only other various reading that involves so large

section,

that
Mark.

which

concerns

the

last

twelve
as

verses
follows

of
:

The evidence may be

stated

Insert: A, C, A, D, X, 2, ^, V,

etc.,

1,

33,

69,

and

nearly

all
;

minuscules

all

Old
;

Latin
the

codices

except k
Peshitto,

the Vulgate Latin

Curetonian,

Harclean and Jerusalem Syriac ; the Memphitic, and Gothic ; Justin, Tatian,
Irenajus, [Hippolytus],

Macarius Magnus

and

post-Nicene fathers generally.

Omit

B, N, L^22, 743 (on the authority of the

;

Abbe

Martin)

codex k of the Latin

the Armenian, and

^thiopic; [Clement], [Origen], Eusebius, [Cyril of

Jeru.salem], and,

among

the post-Nicene fathers,

Jerome, Victor of Antioch,.Severus of Antioch. Also such minuscules as 15, 20,

the
{iTTo^ecrtV,

200

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
300, 199,
1,

206, 209, which preserve knowledge

of the doubt.

Some words
evidence,

are necessary in explanation of this

n simply omits the passage. B omits it, but leaves a blank space, which is apparently intended
from

for it; this seems to prove that the exemplar

which
is

was copied lacked these

verses,

but that

they were

known

to B's scribe.

As

the weight of

due to the character of its exemplar, not to the knowledge of its scribe, this does not affect B's testimony. L closes at verse 8, but adds at the top of
the next column
'
:

" These also are somewhere current

But

all

things that were commanded, they immedito those about

ately announced

Peter,

And

after

this Jesus also Himself,

from the east even to the west, sent forth by them the sacred and incorruptible
salv'ation.'

proclamation of eternal

These are
afraid.'

also,

however, current, after

'

For they were

"...
gives

And
;.

then our usual twelve verses are inserted. /^ The

existence of this shorter conclusion (to which

the preference)
longer one.
clusion

a fortiori evidence against the For no one doubts that this shorter conis
;

is a spurious invention of the scribes but it would not have been invented, save to fill the blank. L's witness is, then, to MSS. older than itself, which not only did not have our twelve verses, but had invented another conclusion in their place. The Abb6 Martin tells us of another codex, which he numbers

743, that repeats the arrangement of L.

closes the Gospel at verse 8,

Codex 22 marking it as " The End,"

also

and then adds

" In

some
;

of the copies the Evangelist

finishes at this point

in

many, however, these

THE PRAXIS OF
are
current,"
. .

CRITICISM.
our
verses
9

201

and

inserts

20,

closing again with "

The End."

The Old Latin MS.

is

contains the shorter conclusion only, and hence

a specially strong witness to the omission of our twelve verses. The Thebaic version might possibly
be added to the witnesses for insertion, but we have from it only a mediocre paraphrase of verse 20, and it cannot be confidently determined what disposition

was made
first

of

it.

Proceeding

now

to estimate the evidence,

we note
it is left

that the Syrian text inserts the passage, and,

the Syrian witnesses are sifted out,

when
with

Western (D, Latin, Curetonian Syriac), and apparently Alexandrian {C, A, 33, Memphitic) witnesses only, and since all Alexandrian witnesses are

Western readings, this means with Western For omission we have the Neutral witnesses (B, n) with L, 22, and other support.
full of

witnesses only.

Where
discover
classes

the Alexandrian reading stands

;

we cannot

but on appealing to internal evidence of

apparent conjunction of
is

the

Alexandrian witnesses
omission.

discredited,
is

Western and and we must

in favour of

decide that the genealogical evidence

L may represent
;

the Alexandrian text and

k the

primitive Western

and

in the case of either

of these hypotheses, the verdict for omission receives

additional strength.

Internal evidence of

groups,

which throws strong favour on B x, only confirms genealogical evidence, and we have the whole weight
of external evidence for omission.

The

transcriptional

evidence leads

to

the same

conclusion.

No

good account can be given of the

202

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
To suppose that they were

omission of these verses.

is to presuppose a freedom and boldness in dealing with the Gospel narratives never elsewhere experienced, and that to

omitted in a harmonic interest

serve a purpose far

more

easily attained.

To suppose

the omission to have arisen from the misunderstand-

ing of a note placed here to

lesson
is

mark

the end of a liturgical

to assign a greater age to the present lessonto this

system and
lost

can be proved for either.

verses, will best of all
will not

method of marking MSS. than To suppose that a leaf was

account for their omission, but

from the end of the Gospel, containing these

account for
its

wide distribution, nor for the

of the next Gospel,

failure of the beginning

on the
stands

other side of the

leaf, to

get lost too.

Mark

Co

/i^t/Vlii,very

rarely at the end of the book of the Gospels,

and

the loss of a leaf early enough to affect the ancestors

of
^<,

of B, of L,
all

and of Western
as well.

k,

must have

affected

nearly

MSS.

On

the other hand, the

an ending is transcriptionally easy The abrupt ending of verse 8 demanded something more. That the scribes felt this
insertion of such
to account for.
is

evidenced by their invention of the certainly spuiious

shorter ending.

Why
And

should not other scribes have

tolerably
fitting

sought and

found
?

another

close

for the Gospel

that this ending does not beis

long here, but

careful

fits its

place only tolerably,

clear
is

on
not

examination.

The

tear at verse 8

tell

mended by verses 9 20. Only Matthew and Luke us what actually happened after verse 8. And if verse 8 demands a different succeeding context, verses 9 20 no less need a different preceding one from

TEE PRAXIS OF
that here furnished them.

CRITICISM.
is

203
to be

Jesus

presumed

the subject in verse 9

but the subject that would be

is

taken over from verse 8

versative to verse in verse 8
is

the women.

The

" but

that opens verse 9 does not introduce anything ad8.

The new

specification of time

surprising, after verse 2.

" First

"

looks

strange here.

The identifying

description of

Mary

Magdalene in verse 9 is very remarkable after verse 1. Every appearance, in a word, goes to show that the
author of the Gospel did not write verses 9
conclusion of the
narrative begun in

20

as the
1

verses

8.

And
has

if so,

the transcriptional evidence that makes an

insertion here easier to conceive of than

full play,

an omission and we can recognise verses 9 20 as only another way of filling up the gap left by the

unfinished appearance of verse

8.

The

intrinsic evi-

dence

is

not fully stated, however, until

we add

that

there are peculiarities of style and phraseology in

verses 9

20 which render

it

easy to believe that the

author

of the

Gospel did not write these verses.

force of external

The combined

and internal

evi-

dence excludes this section from a place in Mark's

Gospel quite independently of the

critic's ability to

account for the unfinished look of Mark's Gospel as

it is left

or for the origin of this section

itself.

The

nature of the matter included in them, and the

way

they are

fitted to

the Gospel, seem, however, to forbid

the supposition that these verses were composed for

this place

by any scribe. It is nearly as hard to beanybody wrote them for this place as it is that Mark did. They seem to be a fragment rather, adopted from some other wi-iting and roughly fitted
lieve that

204

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
This fragment
is

on to the end of Mark.

certainly

as old as the first third of the second century,

and

may

as

may

also the pericope of the adulteress in-

serted into

John

be taken from the book of

illustra-

tions of the Gospel narrative

apparently about 120 a.d.

the
critic to

which Papias composed, Neither is it necessary for

be able to give an account of the mutilated

condition of Mark's Gospel.

To recognise that
of
it

this

fragment does not belong at the end

does not

make

it

any more mutilated than

it

was

before.

The

evident incompleteness of verse 8

is

evidence against

the opinion that the Gospel was intended to close at

that point
;

but no evidence that just this conclusion,

fit

which
intended. at this
his

does not

on to verse 8 nor complete

it,

nor the subject then in hand,

was

the conclusion

incomplete,

Mark's Gospel has come down to us we do not know. Was Mark interrupted point by arrest or martyrdom before he finished

Why
Was

book 1

a page lost off the autograph

itself

Or do

all of

our witnesses carry us back only to a

mutilated copy short of the autograph, the

original of

common

them

all,

so that

our oldest transmitted

is sadly different from the original text 1 There room for investigation here but, apparently, no room for accepting this conclusion for the one that

text

is

Mark wrote

or intended to write.
all

We

have purposely chosen

all

these examples of

such a sort that the evidence can readily be seen to be

harmonious through

the methods.

But we have also

purposely placed last

among them

a case in which the

intrinsic evidence, while uniting

with the other forms

is

of evidence in determining this reading,

left still

TEE PRAXIS OF
somewhat
genuine
this

CRITICISM.

205

unsatisfied

by

its

determination.

It opposes

the acceptance of the last twelve verses of

:

Mark

as
of

but

it

no

less

opposes the acceptance

verse 8 as the end of the Gospel.

is

It consents that
it

not the limb that belongs here, but

no

less

insists that

some limb does belong here. This may remind us that the work of the critic may not always be done when he has passed on all the readings which
have been transmitted to us in our extant witnesses.
It
is

at least conceivable that the oldest transmitted

text

may

not yet be the autographic text, or in other

all

words, that

our extant documents spring from a

common

is removed by a few copyings from the autograph, and may, therefore, contain some Of course, this is not to be assumed to be the errors. fact but neither is it to be assumed not to be the fact. This, too, is to be settled only on trial and by

original that

the evidence.

And

here

it

will be

of use to us to

remember
error,

that the

office of textual criticism is

it is

not

merely to restore a text where

but to examine

known

to be in

all texts in

every part in order

to certify their correctness or discover that

and where

they are corrupt.

Where

the sev^eral documents give

various readings the presence of error in some of

is

them

already demonstrated, and the

if

office of criticism is

to determine which,

any,

is

right.

But by

this very

act

it

contemplates the possibility that none of them

it

are right, and

very frequently actually determines

that the most documents

may

be in error.

How

narrow the chance that has preserved for us the true

reading in
all

palm

to the

those cases in which we adjudge the few old documents as against the many
!

206

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
the destruction of

By

and a half-dozen other docuall

ments we
several

should destroy
impoi^tant
;

extant evidence for

quite

readings
all

which we
readings a
all

now
false

adjudge right
reading
is

and

in

these

prevented from standing in

texts with-

out variation only by the accident of the preservation

of these half-dozen documents.

The

possibility

must

be frankly confessed that other false readings

stand in
all

may

our extant documents.

is

So that, even

where there
correct
it

to certify to us that the text

no variation, criticism is still necessary is free from error or to

in error. of

when
is

Wherever, therefore, the evidence for any body

variations
so hopelessly in conflict that
all
it

cannot be

harmonised, and in
there are no

that part of the text on which

it is

variations,

right to consider the text

to

only provisionally determined, and

further criticism.

subject

it

to

In

all cases of

variation in which

the evidence

is

in ineradicable conflict the high prois itself

bability is that the oldest transmitted text

error,

in

and we may assume that here is a case that In all that part of the text needs further criticism. no variations the strong presumpare there which on
tion
is

that

we have not only the

is

oldest transmitted

text (which

certain, since it

is

identically transmitted
:

in all witnesses), but also the autographic text

but

nevertheless this presumption

may

not be everywhere
is

equally well grounded, and examination

in order to convection.

necessary

Only in that part of the text which has been settled by the combined and harmonious testimony of all kinds of evidence may we
confidently accept
it

as the autographic text.

For,

THE PRAXIS OF CRITICIS2I.

in all these cases alike, the only evidence that
is

207
valid

whether

to discover if the text be corrupt

where no

various readings occur, or to suggest the right reading

wherever we know or suspect

internal evidence
;

it to

be corrupt

is

where the text has been already settled on the harmonious iinding of all kinds of evidence, this has already spoken and has
and in
all

cases

already been satisfied.

Before

we

close

our discussion of

the praxis of

criticism, therefore,

we must

explicitly recognise the

legitimacy and duty of examining the text of the whole

New

Testament

Avith the

most scrupulous
its

care,

with a

view to discovering whether

perfect
;

transmission has been

and

of

appealing to internal evidence to

all cases of

suggest and settle for us the true text in

variation

where the evidence

is

hopelessly in conflict,

and in

all

cases where, in the absence of variation,

an

examination of the text has resulted in leading us to

suspect corruption.
calling in a

It

is

evident that

we

are not here

new method

of criticism

beyond those
criti-

enumerated

but only extending the practice of

cism a step further than

we had need

to go in the
it is

examples which we have adduced.

in

And

further

evident that the validity of this extension

is

involved

any use
all.

of internal evidence for settling readings

at

The
it

technical

name given

to this extension of

which is meant which suggests the emendation which the text is shown either by the presence of irreconcilable variations or by internal considerations to need, from the conjecture of the mind,
criticism is "conjectural emendation,"

to describe

as a process

working on internal

hints.

208

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
of calling

The need

determining the text of the

upon conjecture to aid us in New Testament depends

on the provable presence of variations the evidence as

to

which

is

in hopeless conflict, or of passages which,

clearly

while without variation, are

corrupt.

In
ex-

dealing with this question of fact, the utmost tact,

good judgment and candour are necessary.

tremes are equally to be avoided.

Two

We

must neither

allow ourselves so to sharpen our acuteness that

we

discern an error in every corner, and lose the power to

catch the plain intent of a plain man's plain speech

nor must we so blunt our minds, by attempting to

explain as correct and good Greek
tolerate in

what we could not

of

any other language, that no amount

evidence can convince us of the presence of a textual

error.
tion.

Licence has not been

unknown

in either direc-

have seemed ready to cast the whole text into " pie," and set it up again to suit their own (and no one else's) conceits. Others have even
critics

Some

savagely guarded each fragment of the transmitted text

as
if

the scribes had wrought under Divine inspiration.

is

The whole matter

fact,

nevertheless simply a matter of

and

is

to be determined solely

by the evidence,

investigated

under the guidance of reverential and

candid good sense.

as a Divine book, every

The nature of the New Testament word of which is precious, bids

:

us be peculiarly and even painfully careful here

ful not to

care-

obtrude our crude guesses into the text, and

careful not to leave

scribes in
it.

any

of the guesses or slips of the

Drs. Westcott and Hort enumerate in their edition some threescore or more passages in which they (or

TEE PRAXIS OF

CRITICISM.

209

one of them) suspect that a " primitive error " is found in the text i.e., an error older than our transmitted text, for the removal of which we are
confined to conjectural emendation.

ment would

greatly reduce this number.

Our own judgWithout

it is

discussing, however, the special cases,

enough for
:

our primary purposes to lay down two rules of action

(1) Critical conjecture
is

not to be employed in settling

all

the text of the

of
criticism

New

Testament until

the methods

have been exhausted, and unless clear occasion for its use can be shown in each instance.
(2)

No

conjecture can be accepted unless

it

perfectly

fulfil all

the requirements of the passage as they are

interpreted by intrinsic evidence, and also perfectly

fulfil all

the requirements of transcriptional evidence

if

in accounting for the actual reading, and

exist
also

variants

for

them

(either

directly

or

mediately
of the

through one
process are
reasonable,

of their

number).

The dangers

so great

that these rules are entirely

and indeed necessary.

is

The only
it

test of
itself

a successful conjecture
as
inevitable.

that

it shall

approve

Lacking inevitableness,

remains
to need

doubtful.

Few

as the passages are that can be

shown

conjecture to settle their text, the passages in which

succe.ssful conjectures

have been made are

still

fewer.

Perhaps no absolutely satisfactory one has yet been made. The best examples are probably two on Col. ii. 18, one by Bishop Lightfoot and the other

by Dr.
reading,

C.

Taylor.

Instead
i/x/^aTevoiv,

of

the best

attested

a iopaKcv

the

former scholar

proposes iwpa or aiwpa

KfvejxjiaTeviiiv,

which

is

attained

14

210

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
of letters, eo into
Kevejji/SaTevoiv,

by a change of only a single pair

ICO.

The

latter scholar
o.

proposes aipa

which simply omits

listen

In such matters we may well

the

to the advice of

Jemsh

sage and

"be

deliberate in judgment."

CHAPTER
THE HISTORY OF
earher THE New Testament
history of the
is

lY.

CRITICISM.

periods of the text of the

naturally enough a history of

progressive corruption.

The multiplication

of copies

was the
readers
;

chief concern of

an ever-increasing body of

corruption, as well

and though we early hear complaints of we might fi'om the rapidity with

which corruption seems to have grown, and from the

grossness of the corruptions which found their
particularly into the Gospels,
effort

way
the

we hear

of little serious

to secure a correct

text.

Nevertheless,
in

earliest

fathers
of

show

themselves

some

sense/

guardians

the text,

and

ready to distinguisly

between the common and the best and oldest copies. The autographs of the sacred A\Titings disappeared

and an Irena^us and an Origen appeal to aught but the more accurate copies. Already by their time the current type of text had long been that which is now
exceedingly early,

were already

^\ithout

known

as the

Western

and which attained early

in

the second century the position and circulation of a

virtual tex tu s receptu s,

about two centuries.

and retained this position for A purer and more carefully

guarded text was, nevertheless, throughout this whole

212
period
in

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
use
in

various

places,

apparently

commonly
its

at Alexandria,
it

where

also in

most one line of

transmission

suffered before the middle of the

third century sufficient deflection from the absolute

standard to give vise to another strongly marked type

of

text

that

Ti'adition has not

which is now called the Alexandrian. handed down to us account of any

tells

very early attempts to provide a standard edition.

Although Jerome
Lucian

us that Origen in Palestine,

in

at Antioch,

and Hesychius

Egypt, each

revised the text of the

Testament, as well as that of the Greek Old Testament, it is not clear how

New

much dependence can

which
is

be placed on this statement,

ditticultios.

not free from

The

scribes give

us occasional

notes which betray

a belief in the
" at Csesarea,
;

existence of something like a standard copy in the

library of " the holy

martyr Pamphilus

conformity with which was the norm of correctness but of this we

theless, the

know nothing but

this fact.

Never-

more unmistakable evidence

of the textual

remains that have come down to us prove that at

least one se t revis ion of the text was made in Syria, and probably at Antioch, at about the time that would fall in with the period of Lucian's activity. The

object of this revision,

the
New

earliest

attempt to issue

Testament text of which we can be sure, and of which we possess documentary knowledge, seems to have been to furnish for the
a
critical edition of

the

use of the Syrian churches a sounder substitute for the

very corrupt Western text which had for so long held

the ground.

The

revision

purpose in view and for the times.

was well done for the It is an honour

THE HISTORY OF
to the scholarship

CRITICISM.

213

and good judgment

of the school of

Antioch, and presents characteristics quite in keeping

with the exegetical reputation of that school.

It

was impossible

at that time

views of criticism to

and under the ruling form a sound text but these

;

scholars succeeded in substituting in popular use for

the exceedingly corrupt textus receptus then current, a

text free from all

the

gross

corruptions that

dis-

figured

it,

smooth and readable in structure, and

all

competently exact for

practical purposes.

The Christian world, which has been the heir of theii" labours for a millennium and a half, owes a debt
of

thanks to a superintending Providence for the good

in a corner,

work done thus

a local intent.

and probably with only

of

For the scholars

Antioch were, in

God's grace, doing a greater work than they knew.

Soon the persecutions of the dying heathenism broke

out with redoubled fury, and everywhere the Christian

books were sought and destroyed.

Then came Con-

stantino and the Christian empire, established wdtli

its seat

on the Bosphorus.

cally the

text of

Antioch became ecclesiastimother of Constantinople, and the revised Antioch the ecclesiastical text of the centre

of the world.

copies of Scripture ordered

churches of
of Csesarea,

The preparation of the magnificent by Constantino for the Constantinople was intrusted to Eusebius whose afliliations were with Antioch and
;

everywhere the Syrian text began to make

its

way.

The separation of the Eastern and Western Empires was followed by the separation of the Eastern and
Western Churches, with the effect of confining the use of Greek to narrower limits, and giving increased

214

TEXTUAL CRITICISM,

power to the Constantinople tradition wherever the Though some serious Greek Scriptures were used. alterations were suffered by it in the process of time, it was, thus, the Constantinopolitan text that became the text of the Greek world, and with the revival of Greek letters in the West, under the teaching of Byzantine refugees, of the whole world. How the
process of substitution took place
to
trace.
it is

not necessary

Sometimes it was, no doubt, by direct At others it importation of copies from the capital. was by the correction of copies of other types by Syrian models, which secured that their descendThus, Codex E of Paul is ants should be Syrian.
largely Syrian, although
it
is

a copy of the purely

it is

Western D;
while in

and thus, too, probably, is explained that Codex A in the other Gospels

to be

Syrian,

Mark

it

remains mostly pre-Syrian. The great

exegetes and
of

popularity of the Antiochian

the

homilies of such orators as Chrysostom carried with

it

a preference for their text.

century,

What

efiect

on this

process the edition of Euthalius had, in the last half

of the
fifth

which

was rather a handy

impossible to deter-

edition than a purified text,

it is

mine.

At

all

events,

traces of other texts

became

rarer and

rarer

as

time

passed

although mixed

texts were exceedingly

gradually gave

way

abundant at first, even these and thi-oughout the middle ages

printing the Syrian

and down

to

the invention of

text reigned everywhere, as indisputably the received

text of the Church universal, had been from the second to the

as the

Western text

foui'th century.

The passing

of a text

through the printing press

THE HISTORY OF

CRITICISM.

215

has no tendency to revise it. The first printed Greek Testament was that included in the " Complutensian

But as its issue was Greek Testament was Erasmus' first edition, published by Froben, at Bale> in 1516. Hurried through the press at breakneck speed, in the efibrt to forestall the " Complutensian Polyglot," it was taken from late and almost contemporary manuscripts, and mirrored the state of the received text of the time. It bore, indeed, sundry but its editor felt printer's boasts on its title-page free to say in private that it was " precipitatum verius quam editum." The "Complutensian" itself, when it did appear (1520), proved to have been made, as was natural, from older manuscripts of the same
Polyglot," and
is

dated 1514.
published

delayed,

the

first

type.

And

thus the printed text of the

history of

New

Testa-

ment simply continued the

text, and, leaving its

the written

character unchanged, gave it

only a

new mode

of reproduction.

printed text of any

The normal history that is worked out by the work which has previously been
is

propagated for a long time in manuscript

like this
:

something

The

first

edition
;

is

taken from the manucon-

scripts nearest at

hand

then some one edition gains

its

such circulation and acceptance, usually from

venience or beauty, as to become the standard, and

thus also the received text

critically to restore

and then
its

eftbrts are

made

the text to

original purity.

Just this histoiy has been wrought out by the

New

Testament
those of
in type,

The editions immediately succeeding Erasmus dLflered little in detail, and nothing from the text he published but the magnitext.
;

216

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
and the con-

ficence of Stephens' editio regia (1550),

venience and beauty of the small Elzevirs, especially

those
of 1^24 and 1633, enabled these editions to determine the standard text, the one for English and

the other for continental readers.

Reverence for the

Word
norm

of

God, perversely but not unnaturally exerthe standard or received text into the
;

cised, erected

of a true text

and

a]

though pi-eparations for

and were seriously undertaken by the editors of Walton's " Polyglot

critical editions

began very

early,

(1657), yet

many

years passed

away

before the hard-

ening bondage

to the received text could

be shaken,

was not until 1831 that it was entirely broken by the issue of Lachmann's first edition. The history of the editions from 1657, therefore, falls into two pei'iods the one containing the editions which were striving to be rid of the bondage to the
it
;

and

received text (from 1657 to

1831),

and the other

day).

those which have been framed in conscious emancipation from

it

(from 1831 until our

own

the former period, the task

men

set before

During them was

latter,

to correct the received text, as far as the evidence

absolutely compelled correction.

During the

the task has been to form the best attainable text

from the concurrence of the best evidence. The chief editions of the former pei-iod were those of the Walton "Polyglot," 1657; John Fell, 1695; John
Mill,

1707

Wells,

1709-19

Bentley's

proposed

edition,

1720;

Bengel,
;

1734; Wetstein,
Matthsei,
chief
editions of

1751-2;
;

Griesbach,

1775 1807
The

1782-88

and
espe-

Scholj^, 1830-36.

the later

period have been those of

Lachmann, 1831, and

THE HISTORY OF
daily 1842-50
;

CRITICISM.

217

Tischendorf, 1840-72, especially his

eighth critical edition, published in parts from 1864

to 1872; Tregelles, in parts

Westcott and Hort, 1881.

from 1857 to 1879; and In one way or another the

sequence of these editions marks a continuous advance,

although in special points an eddy

backwards.
all

now and then sets For instance, Wetstein, Matth;ei, 8choltz,

in

V*

mark a retrograde movement

and
It

principles
;

of

criticism

in the text actually set forth

but each

an advance
the text.

in the collection of materials for

Avill

framing

be desirable, therefore, to present

the history of criticism briefly under four heads, including

:

The

collection of the

documentary evidence for

the text.
2.
3.

The classification of The formulation of

this ever-increasing matexial.

critical lules for

the applica-

tion of the evidence in reconstructing the text.

4.

The

actual formation of the text.

1.

The work

of

collecting the material, heralded

by Stephens and Beza, was commenced in earnest by Walton's "Polyglot" (1657). The great names in this work include those of Archbishop Usher, Bishop Fell, Mill (who already could appeal to his thirty
thousand various readings), Bentley, and those in his employment, Wetstein (who marks an advance on
Mill, chiefly in accuracy

and completeness, comparable

predecessors), Mattha?i, Birch,

to Mill's advance on

liis

Alter, Griesbach, SchoLtz, Tischendorf (whose editions^';

of

MSS. exceeded

in

number aU that had been put

218

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
whom
be also named

forth before him), Tregelles, and Scrivenei-, with

may

Dean Burgon.

Until Tischen-

dorf's labours

were undertaken, a satisfactory edition

Testament was impossible, if for no other reason than insufficient knowledge of the testimony.
of the

New

Now,

practically all the uncials,

and a large body of

the minuscules are accurately known, and have been

included in the digests.

N was not published until 1862; no satisfactory edition of B existed until 1868 ; C, Q, D, Do, N, P, II, Z, L, H, E., P^, 2, have all been

issued since 18-43.

2 was not

discovered until 1879,

and

W*-'

and

not until 1881.

even yet

critically edited.

The versions are not But we have at last attained

the position of having evidence enough before us to

render the sketching of the history of the text possible,

and

to

certify

us

that

new

discoveries

will

only

enlighten daik places, and not

fabric.
2.

overturn the whole

the

It

was inevitable that

in

first

youth

of

textual criticism all documents should be treated as

practically of equal value.

We cannot

blame Erasmus

that he set aside the only good

it

differed so

cult to see

much from the why the collations

MS. he had because others. Nor is it diffi-

early editors rather

of Stephens and other ornamented their margins than

emended

their texts.

By

Mill's time (1707),

however,
of classi-

enough material was

fication to be
fited

cullecteil for

some signs

dimly seen.

Bontley (16G2

1742) prodivision line

i.e.

by

his hints,

and perceived the great

that rims between the old and the late codices

(speaking generally), between the pre-Syrian and the

Syrian.

John Albrecht Bengel (1687

1752)

was

THE HISTORY OF
the
first,

CRITICISM.

219

however, to do a great work in this depart-

\ment
I

His acuteness perceived the classification, and his diUgence worked out the main outlines of the true distribution. Like Bentley, he drew a broad line of demarcation between the ancient and more modern
of investigation.

advantages of a genealogical

copies,

African and Asiatic families.

which he classed under the names of the And, then, he made the

new

step of dividing in a
itself

more or

less

firm

manner the

African family
respectively

into two sub-tribes, represented

by

(the only purely Greek uncial at

that time in use), and the Old Latin version.

He
it

held the African class to be the more valuable, and

was a

critical rule

with him that no reading

of the

was likely to be genuine unless supported by some African document. Semler (1764) followed, and handed down Bengel's classification to the even
Asiatic class

greater Griesbach( 1745

divided
all

1812).

Griesbach (1775
classes,

+)

documents into three

which he

called respectively
(1)

by

B
(2)

The Alexandrian, represented (in the Gospels) deemed it (except in Matthew, where he
1,

Western), C, L,
codices, the
(3)

33, 69,

Memphitic,

etc.

The Western, represented by the Gr?eco-Latin

;

Old Latin, etc. and The Constantinopolitan, represented by A, E, G, H, S, and the minuscules as a class, etc.

F,

He
(thus,

perceived that a somewhat different distribution

for the other parts of the

was needed

New

Testament
1 )

elsewhere rose to the height of Class

that a

and

also

number

of

texts occupied

inter-

220
mediate

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
positions.

Classes

and 2

he held to
fifth.

present texts at least as old as the third century

Class 3 one not older than the fourth or

misunderstanding of the meaning of the phenomena

of

mixed texts

(shai-ed in part

did

much

to prevent this theory

it

by Griesbach himself) from receiving the

obtained the hearty

acceptance

deserved, though

it

adherence of some of the best scholars of the day.

Hug's (1808) vagaries, who sought to prove

cally

histori-

that
L,

three texts

represented respectively by

B C

ER

minuscules, and

A K

M, were

alike

set revisions of

one corrupt text represented by

further blinded

and the Old Latin, which was universally current in

the second century,
still

men

to the

value of these classifications.

Hug, however,

recog-

nised the three classes of Griesbach (though trying

unsuccessfully to add a fourth to them),

and brought
broad cur-

out the important

the

new

fact of the early

rency of the Western text.

And

his publication

had

good

efiect

of

bringing Griesbach

once more

before the public (1811), to redemonstrate the

outlines of his classification,

main

and

reiterate his

mature

conviction that on the study of " recensions," as on

a hinge,

all

criticism of the text

peculiarities of

must turn. The Nolan and Schol/z succeeded, however,

in throwing
until
it

an undeserved discredit on such studies, became common to assert that no divisions

could be traced

among

the documents, of any practical

utility in criticism, except the

broad one that sepacopies

rates

the ancient and

modern

into

classes

corresponding to Ben gel's African and Asiatic, and

Griesbach's

Alexandrian-Western and Constantino-

TEE HISTORY OF
politan.

CRITICISM.
by
his

221
of

Tregelles

(1813-75),

method

comparative criticism, redemonstrated this distribution,

fact.

and put

it

upon an
it

invincible basis of observed

Nevertheless

has been everywhere practically

by writers as widely separated as and Scrivener that the farther facts of affiliation brought out by Griesbach, although not available for criticism, yet rest on a basis of truth, and further that the documents that class w^ith B are
Tregelles

aclvnowledged

greatly better than those that class with D.

At

this

point Dr. Hort's investigations (1881) have entered

the

field,

with the result of justifying Griesbach's

general conclusions, and so adding to and elucidating

them

as to develop a usable system of textual criti-

cism by a genealogical method.

conclusions have

The
above.

outlines of his

been already explained under the

caption " Genealogical

3.

Method "

The continued

efforts of a succession of scholars

to revise the text of the

New

Testament necessarily

issued in a critical practice, and a critical practice

is

capable of being formulated in critical rules.

leadei's in this

We
was

can mention only the

ciple that the

work.

It

Bentley (1720) who first laid down the great prinwhole text is to be formed, apart from the influence of any edition, on evidence ; a principle
which, obvious as
universal
(1831).
it is,

only succeeded in conquering

adoption
It

through

Lachmann's

example

was due

to Bengel (1734) that transcrip-

tional probability received early recognition,

of its great generalisations

and one was formulated by him in

:

words that have become

prtestat ardua," which,

classic

" proclivi scriptioni

beyond doubt, he meant in a

222

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
After him
critics,
its

transcriptional sense.

principles have

been developed by bach

;

many

especially

by Griesand Dr.
it

and more

latterly they

have been carefully

Ellicott,

re-stated

by Tischendorf, Bishop

Hort.

Intrinsic evidence has never lacked its often

;

too earnest advocates

some have pushed

to

to the

verge of subjecting the whole text

re-writing
editot",

according to the personal idiosyncrasies of the

and many have been willing

overweening powers.
elucidated by Dr. Hort.

to give it occasionally

Its true character as

mainly

negative, and its true uses, have been lately admirably

Since Tregelles (1854, 1856,

1860) the suffrages of scholars have been given to the

doctrine that the documentary evidence
at
all
is

decisive

if

capable of sure interpretation,

so only that

both varieties of internal evidence of readings are

not arrayed against
evidence
is
it,

or,

at

least,

that intrinsic

not unalterably in opposition.

The

ten-

dency has also been ever more and more pronounced,

since Tregelles developed the
criticism,

method

of comparative

to rely on

the ancient evidence,

its

and to
is

count

its

witness decisive whenever

so.

testimony

undivided or nearly

But not
all

until Dr. Hort's

sufficiently

"Introduction" appeared (1881) was a

safe

procedure indicated for

is itself

those cases where

ancient evidence

divided.

Dr. Hort's main

canons of criticism are as follows: (1) Knowledge of documents should precede final judgment on readings; and (2) All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on a study of their history. By the

former he means to assert the necessity of attending

to a carefully weighed external evidence before

we

TUE niSTOnY OF
decide

CRITICIS}f.

223

on readings, and to exclude thereby crude

appeals to internal evidence alone.

By

the latter

he means to emphasize the necessity of understanding the genealogical aiiiliations of documents before they
are appealed to as witnesses, and to exclude thereby

crudely allowing each

document equal weight, no

matter what
not to

its

relation to the autograph

may

be,

as well as allowing each

its

document Aveight according

or few of its kindred.

purity, but to the chances of reproduction

that have preserved

4.

many

No

satisfactory text coidd be

formed so long as
of

editors

set

before

them the task

text.

emending the

received text, instead of drawing from the best evi-

dence the best attainable

therefore,

Not

until

Lachmann,

who put

forth in 1831 the first text framed

entirely on evidence, can

efforts

we

expect to find more than

towards a good text.

Nevertheless

much

that

was done before Lachmann deserves our notice and admiration. The Greek Testament of Simon Colina}us
(1534)
the

pare what

may be considered the earliest attempt to premay be called a critical text by emending received text on MS. authority. Edward AVclls

published so early as 1709-19 a text emended from

the Elzevir type in some two hundred and ten readings,

the most of which have been

commended by

later critics.

And

Richard Bentley in 172U proposed

to set forth
only, Avhich,

an edition founded on ancient autliority had he completed it, would have ante-

dated the step of

Fell, Mill,

Lachmann by

a century.

Walton,

Bengel (except in nineteen readings in the

readings into the printed text, but confined

Apocalypse), and Wetstein, did not venture to intro-

duce

new

224

TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
margin and
notes.

their suggested improvements to the

Griesbach (1775

1807) made a great advance, and by

that could be done at his day and

the acuteness of his criticism and the soundness of his

judgment did

all

with his material for reforming the text. of the earlier period can be compared with
his

No
his,

text

and

accomplishment with his

insufficient material concritical skill.

stitutes

no

less

than a wonder of

But

not only did even he seek to emend the received text,

but the insufficiency of the material at that time

within reach of critics would alone have rendered
the formation of a satisfactory text impossible.

The

retrograde

movement
of

of Matthsei

and

Sehol^z,

who

returned to the received text, was suddenly reversed

by the bold step

its

Lachmann (1831)

in casting off

and giving the world for the first time a text founded everywhere on evidence. Lachmann's actual text was, however, not yet satisinfluence altogether,

factory

both because of the

still

continuing

insuffi-

ciency of evidence, and because he did not set himself

to form the true

and autographic
the fourth

text,

but only an

early

text,

current in

century,

which

should serve as the basis for further criticism.

use which has sometimes been
text,

The

made

of

Lachmann's

therefore,

as

if

it

might be accepted as the

thoroughly mistaken.

earliest attainable text, is

We

cannot go further back than the texts of Tischendorf

and
ment.

Tregelles for

examples of what criticism has

text
of

attained, as

the original

the

New
but

Testa-

Tischendorf's text fluctuated

considerably in
it

the various editions which he put forth,

unfair to judge his results

is

now by any

but his great

THE HISTORY OF CRITICISM.

and
final

225

eighth edition, the text of which was com-

pleted just before his death.

of the three great

The comparative values

modern

texts

Tischendorf (1864
Tregelles (1857
of Westcott

1879), and the recently issued edition and Hort (1881, and reissued 1885) need hardly be discussed here. It is enough to set down

1872),

the eighth

edition of

the one great edition of

plainly the fact that these three editions indicate the

high- water

mark

of

modern

criticism,

and

to point

out

that they agi-ee in their settlement of the greater part

of the text.

Where they
and

differ,

we may

decide

now

with one, now with the other, most frequently with

the latest
:

in these comparatively

few passages

future criticism

may

find her especial task.

Printed by Hazell, Watson,

& Viney,

Ld.,

London and Aylesbury.

15

THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.

EDITED BV THE

REV. W.

ROBERTSON NICOLL,
"

M.A.,

EDITOR OF

THE EXPOSITOR."
be published a series of

Under

this

title

will

Manuals which
grounding
It is

will give a solid

and trustworthy

in all

branches of Theological study.

that,

remarkable

while such works on

lite-

rature and science abound, the field in Theology

is still

unoccupied.

The books

will be

wholly unsectarian, and will

as authorities on

be written by
their subjects.
to the
in

men recognised
They
will

be specially adapted

needs of those preparing for examinations

Theology.

While the Manuals

will

be specially useful to

Theological Students, the clearness and simplicity

of their style

will, it is

hoped, attract the

many
inter-

laymen interested in these subjects; while their

freshness and scholarship will

make them

esting even to proficients in Theology.

The

price of each

Manual

will

be Half-a-Crown
Fcap. 8vo.
[p.

and they

will be neatly

bound

in cloth.

T.

THE THEOLOGICAL EDUCATOR.

READY.

A
An

Manual
of the

of Christian Evidences.

By

the

Rev. C. A. Row, M.A., Prebendary of St. Pauls.

Introduction to the

Textual Criticism
By
the Rev, Prof.
B. B.

New

Testament.

Warfield, D.D.

A Hebrew

Grammar.
A

By

the Rev.

W. H. Lowe,

M.A., Joint-Author of " Commentary on the Psalms," etc., etc. ; Hebrew Lecturer, Christ's College. Cambridge.

PREPARING.

Preaching.
Hole, M.A.

By

the

Rev.

Canon

S.

Reynolds

The Prayer-Book.

By

the Rev.

Charles Hole,

B.A., Professor at King's College, London.

Manual
By

History. In, of Parts. the Rev. A. C. Jennings, M.A., Author of " Ecclesia Anglicana," etc.
of

Church

Two

A Grammar
the Rev.

New

Testament Greek.
etc.

By

William Henry Simcox,

M.A., late Fellow of

Queen's College, Oxford,

An An

Introduction to the Old Testament.

the Rev. C. Lecturer, etc.

By

H.

H.

Wright,

D.D.,

late

Bampton

Introduction
By
the Rev.

to the Marcus Dods, D.D. Articles.

New
By
Hall,

Testament.

The Thirty-Nine
The Creeds.
late

MouLE, M.A., Principal of Ridley

the Rev H. C. G. Cambridge.

By the Rev. J. E. Yonge, M.A., Fellow of King's College, Cambridge and Assistant Master in Eton College.
;

Guide to Theological Literature.

Rev.

By

the

Marcus Dods,
London

D.D., and the Editor.

HODDER AND STOUGHTON,

27,

Paternoster Row.

THE

FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARYEDITED CV THE

REV. W.

ROBERTSON NICOLE,
"

M.A.,

EDITOR OF

THE EXPOSITOR."

The

Foreign Biblical Library is intended to provide prompt and accurate translations at a moderate price of the best and newest contributions of

Orthodox Foreign Scholarship to Biblical Study and Research.

While the
series will

mainly consist of Standard Commentaries

in their latest editions, other

works interesting

to the Biblical

student will be from time to time included.

Special pains will be taken, in the first place, to include no books but those of permanent value and, in the second place, to provide accurate and scholarly translations of the latest editions of all volumes selected.
;

While the series will mainly consist of works hitherto untranssome earlier volumes will be translations of Biblical works represented in this country only by renderings from early editions
lated,

now superseded. It is the habit of Foreign scholars to revise elaborately and often almost to re-write their Commentaries and it is obvious that injustice is done both to for new editions authors and readers by continuing to reproduce the earlier form. As in all these cases the translations will be produced under the supervision of the author, each work will have the advantage of his latest corrections, and thus represent his present opinion even better than the original.

Arrangements have been made with the leading Scholars of the Continent for the prompt translation and publication of their principal forthcoming works and the books in the following list are all in a forward state of preparation.
;

A new binding has been designed for the Series, which will be strong and substantial as well as elegant, and thus suitable for works that will be in constant use.
Each Volume
at the

uniform price of

of the Series will be issued in large cro\^ni 8vo, "js. 6d. per volume.

London

HODDER & STOUGHTON,

27,

Paternoster Row.

THE

FOREIGN BIBLICAL LIBRARY.

I.

STILL HOURS.
By Richard Rothe.
Translated

by Jane T. Stoddart. With an Introductory Essay by the Rev. John Macpherson, M.A. The Rev. Marcus Dods, in the British Weekly^ says " It is a book of
:

the first order, full of Rothe himself, and of which one wearies as little as of the face of a friend. It forces its way into our regard, and becomes our constant companion, refusing to lie put on the shelf. It has something for every mood. It wins us with a ceaseless attraction to open it, and it never disappoints. should not greatly pity the man on the desert island who had brought ashore a copy ; nay, it would be a discipline of infallible efficacy

We

for

mind and

spirit."
II.

A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS.

By From
Professor

Franz Delitzsch,
/ three volumes.

of Leipzig.

the latest edition, and specially revised and corrected by the Author.
I.

Vol.

Translated by the Rev.

III.

David Eaton, M.A.

SELECTED SERMONS OF SCHLEIERMACHER.

Translated by

Mary
IV.

F.

Wilson.
German
preachers.

The

greatest sermons of one of the greatest of

CHURCH HISTORY.
By
Professor

KURTZ.
by the Rev. John by the Author.

Translated and Edited from the

latest edition

Macpherson, M.A., and

specially revised
V.

A COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ISAIAH.

By
edition,

Professor

Translated by the Rev.

Franz Delitzch. James Denny, B.D. From

the latest

and specially revised by the Author.

27,

London

HODDER & STOUGHTON,

Paternoster Row.

THE CLERICAL LIBRARY

Price Six Shillins:s each.

Anecdotes
Texts.

Illustrative

of

Old Testament
the

New

Outlines

of

Sermons on
Preachers.

New
un-

Testament.
published.

By Eminent

Hitherto

Platform Aids.

Expository Sermons
ment.

on the

New

Testa-

Expository Sermons on the Old Testament.

Three
the

Hundred Outlines of Sermons on New Testament.

Outlines of Sermons on the Old Testament.

Outline Sermons to Children.
Anecdotes.

With Numerous

Anecdotes
Texts.

Illustrative

of

New

Testament

Pulpit Prayers by

Eminent Preachers. Sermons

on
the
Hitherto

New

Outlines

of

Old
un-

Testament.
published.

By Eminent

Preachers.

[In April, 1887.

Two Hundred

Outlines

of
tJie

Sermons
Scries^

for

Special Occasions.

\Coinplcting

[In October, 1887.

London

HODDER & STOUGHTON,

27,

Paternoster Row.

THE

HOUSEHOLD LIBEAEY OE
Croivn %vo, nicely bound in

EXPOSITIOl^.

cloth,
C.

"A
St.

delightful series, both cheap

and good."

H. Spnrgeon.

The Parables
Luke.

of our Lord, as Recorded By Marcus Dods, D.D. 3^-. dd. of our Lord, as
By
the

by

The Parables
St.

Recorded by
3^. bd.

Matthew.

same Author.

The Law
etc.

of the
6d.

Ten
"

Dykes, D.D., Author of

y.

"Words. By From Jerusalem

as
y.
6d.

J. to

Oswald
Antioch,"

The

Life

of

David,

Reflected

in
of

his
Man-

Psalms.
chester.

By Alexander JNIaclaren, D.D.,

Sixth Thousand,

Isaac, Jacob,
D.D.

and Joseph.
y.
6d.

By Marcus Dods,
Lord, and

Fourth Thousand,

The Last Supper

Words
of

of

our

His

Marshall

Consolation to His Disciples. By J. Lang, D.D., Barony Church, Glasgow.

3^.

Second Thousand.

6d.

The Speeches
D.D.

of the Holy Apostles. By Donald Frasf.r, D.D. Second Thousand, y. 6d. The Galilean Gospel. By Professor A. B. Bruce,
Third Thousand.
3^. 6d.

The Lamb
of St. John.

of God. Expositions in the Writings By W. Robertson Nicoll, M.A. Second

2s. 6d.

Thousand.

The Lord's Prayer.

D.D.
3^. 6d.

By Charles Stanford,

The Temptations
B.A.
London3.f.

of Christ.

By G.

S.

Barrett,

6d.

HODDER

& STOUGHTON,

27,

Paternoster Row.

Prmceion Theological Seminary-Speer Library

1012 01126 4548