f'^. m n TEXTUAL GUIDE. ERRATA. Page 2, line 20, read\\\\'. ^iforwxw 15. Page 3, line 9, read the for its. Page 7, line 2, r^a^!' affected yi?;* effected. Page 9, line 20, r^fl' manuscript yi?rnianusciipt^. Page 13, line 21, rt'^ffli' appeared yi?/- apeared. Page 17, line 17, read ^ for ^. Page 21, line 14, ;raa' manuscriptsy^r manuscrij)!. Page 27, line 4, read Ano-xx for Asian. Page 54, note 3, read ix. 14 /i?;' ii. 14, Page 56, note 2, ?r«^ collating/^r collecting. Page 73, line 23, read The for That. Page 93, note, 7V<7rt^ contravened yi?;* controvened. Page 95, line 6, 7rad 'Lwc^v for Lucas. Page 112, note 3, read t, for <\. 2,^ Page 121, line 20, read Itacism yi?;- Italicism. Page 128, line 23, ;rar/ authenticityy^^r authencity. ■; A GUIDE TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY EDWARD MILLER, M.A. RECTOR OF BUCKNELL, OXON. OJ Xoyot Mof oh fit) TzafjkXQojai. — St. Matt. xxiv. 35. ' ' Truth crushed to earth shall rise again. " — Bryant. GEORGE BELL AND SONS, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON. 1886. CHISWICK press: — C. WHITTINGHAM AND CO., TODKS COURT, CHANCERY LANK, TO THOSE WHO, WHETHER AT THE OUTSET OF THE WORK, OR AT THE CLOSE, HAVE KINDLY GIVEN HELP OR ENCOURAGEMENT, CJis little ^uatm IS GRATEFULLY INSCRIBED, WITH THE PRAYER, THAT IT MAY MINISTER IN SOME DEGREE, HOWEVER HUMBLE, TO THE ASCERTAINMENT AND ACCEPTANCE OF The Genuine Words of Holy Scripture. PREFACE. THE ensuing treatise is intended to be a brief Manual on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament for ordinary students of the Bible, and to induce those who may be disposed to enter more deeply into the important subject of it to prosecute further research in "The Plain Introduction " of Dr. Scrivener, the learned works of Dean Burgon, and in other well-known sources of information upon Textual Criticism. The foot-notes will ordinarily indicate how much 1 have been indebted to the labours of other men in a work which pretends to be little more than a faithful representation of stores accumulated by the learned, and an independent esti- mate of the conclusions drawn by them. To the Dean of Chichester I am indebted for many pre- vious hints which I have found invaluable during my prose- cution of a task both laborious and difficult. The under- taking of it was originally pressed upon me from without, and I am myself convinced that some such assistance as is here offered to the general Reader is greatly needed at this time. But I lay down my pen with the conviction derived from the accomplishment of my work, that every Reader who would really understand, and form an opinion for him- self upon the great questions at stake, must bestow on the problem which has suddenly emerged into prominence a PREFACE. considerable amount of individual, unprejudiced attention. He will be able to see with which of the contending parties the Truth must lie : but he must approach the problem in a calm, judicial spirit, must require Proof (as far as Proof is attainable) instead of putting up with Hypothesis, and above all must never cease to exercise a large amount of vigilant sagacity, — in fact, of Common Sense. My thanks are also due to the Rev. R. Hutchison, M.A., Rector of Woodeaton, and late Scholar of Exeter College, Oxford, who has kindly helped me in correcting the proof sheets. E. M. BucKNELL Rectory, Eviber Week, Sept., 1885. s>' ■^o ■^ JUL ^ l«M '^ ^. Officii Sf^ CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Introduction. Importance of the Subject. The question stated — seven instances of serious change — others also advocated — the number introduced into the Revised Version — more into other editions — the subject not generally known — importance of it — plan of the work pp. 1-5. CHAPTER 11. history of textual criticism. First Part. Earlier Stages. The natural growth of the science influenced by investigation and discovery ......... pp. 6-7. I. Infancy : — The New Testament not printed till the sixteenth centuiy — I. Complutensian Polyglott. 2. Erasmus. 3. Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs — the Received Text . pp. 7-12. II. Childhood: — Introduction of various readings, i. Bishop Walton, Codex A, Courcelles, and Fell. 2. Mill. 3. Bentley, Codex B. 4. Bengel, Wetstein, Matthsei, Birch, Alter, and Moldenhawer. 5. Griesbach, families and recensions of manuscripts, and Scholz — the free advance of boyhood ...... pp. 12-19. CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF textual CRITICISM {conthiued). Second Part. Contemporary Growth . p. 20. III. Youth : — Impatience under an overwhelming mass of materials — CONTENTS. Extreme Textualism. i. Lachmann— rejects all but a few witnesses. 2. Tregelles — follows Lachmann — great services in collating and edit- ing. 3, Tischendorf— amazing labours— discovers the Sinaitic — zigzag course. 4. Drs, Westcott and Hort — develop Lachmann's principles —extreme deference to B — surprising results — followed mainly by Two Members of the Revisers' Company — must we follow them ? pp. 20-30. IV. Signs of Coming Maturity : — Opposition, i. Dr. Scrivener — his published works— large-minded principles. 2. Dean Burgon — his works — misrepresented — his sound and wide principles. 3. Canon Cook — The Bishops Wordsworth, J. G. Reiche, Kuenen and Cobet, Dr. Michelsen, Vercellone, Ceriani, Abbe Martin — other Roman Catholics . pp. 30-37. CHAPTER IV. SCHOOL OF EXTREME TEXTUALISM. The origin attributed by the leading masters to Lachmann . p. 38 A. Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. i. Knowledge of Documents derived from date and character a prior requisite : B and n are the best MSS. 2. Importance of Genealogy, under which these two MSS. are brought back nearly to the Apostolic autographs. 3. Four families, sc. (a) Syrian, made in a recension at Antioch, {h) Western, {c) Alexan- drian, and(fl^) Neutral, which is the best. 4. Of these, two are corrupt {b and c) ; the Neutral alone reaches back to earliest times ; Syrian shewn to be worthless by analysis, want of antiquity, and internal evidence. 5. Hence N B together nearly always right, and B alone seldom wrong pp. 38-44. B. Refutation, i. Too easy to be true, grounded on only part of the evidence, and destitute of real proof. 2. Sound sense is violated, anxl opinion unsupported by facts is balanced by opinions of other nipsters. 3. Genealogy affords an unsafe analogy, and in fact points the opposite way. B and K are also condemned for want of descendants. 4, The theory about Families is disallowed by other Doctors, and lacks evidence. 5. The " Syrian," or Traditional Text, is not proved to be posterior, whether by an imaginary recension, or by a fanciful theory of conflation, or by ignoring proof of early existence, or by sup- posed internal evidence. 6. The characters of B and K not superfine ; CONTENTS. they were rejected by the Church, were the products of Semiarian times, are condemned by experts, and are full of blunders . pp. 44-59. CHAPTER V. THE RIVAL SCHOOL, The tenets of the Rival School already implied — i. They do not maintain the Received Text, and are not indiscriminate in the use of authorities. 2. Insist that all authorities should be weighed and em- ployed ; and thus widen the basis. 3. They maintain the Traditional Text, which the Church of all ages has acknowledged, and no age therefore can reject — extreme importance of this part of the contention ; hence the need of a history of the Traditional Text — the question depends upon a just estimate of proportion . . . pp. 60-64. CHAPTER VI. HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT TILL THE ERA OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM. Difference between Sacred and Classical Textual Criticism, i. Con- jectural Emendation inadmissible. 2. God the Holy Ghost the Pre- server as well as Inspirer of the Holy Scriptures. 3. Corporate as well as individual productions ..... pp. 65-68. Early Corruption derived from oral teaching, tampering with the text by heretics, carelessness of scribes, ignorance of Greek or of doctrine — Gnosticism — Marcion — Tatian — evidence of corruption . pp. 68-72. Exceeding care employed by the faithful — Traditional Text — Peshito — Old Latin Versions — Egyptian pp. 72-77. Alexandria — Origen — followers of Origen — Eusebius — persecution of Diocletian — celebrated order of Constantine — transcription of B and N PP- 77-83- Proofs of the Traditional Text in this period found amidst corruption in its subsequent supremacy, in the MSS. used by the Fathers, and in contemporaneous Versions . .... pp. 83-85. CONTENTS. CHAPTER VII. HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT FROM THE ERA OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM TILL THE INVENTION OF PRINTING, The previous period an era of speculation — the great Patristic Era — commentaries, dictionaries, and grammars — punctuation — breathings — spelling — improvement in the art of Transcription — monasteries — ibraries — canon of Holy Scripture— supremacy of the Traditional Text pp. 86-94. Gothic Version — Codex Alexandrinus (A) — Parisian Codex (C) — the Fathers not uncritical — Uncial manuscripts — Versions — Vulgate — Armenian — Georgian— Ethiopian — other Uncials . pp. 94-100. Cursive manuscripts — their value— their agreement with the Uncials — Lectionaries — other Versions — undisputed predominance of the Tra- ditional Text pp. 100-104. CHAPTER VIII. MATERIALS OF CRITICISM. I. {a) Uncial manuscripts — in Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, and Apocalypse .... pp. 105-106. ((^) Cursive manuscripts — their value and vast number pp. 106-107. Table of Uncials pp. 108-109. II. Lectionaries and Liturgies — lectionary-system — their value — influence in mischief — Evangelistaria — Praxapostoli — Liturgies pp. 1 10- II 2. III. Versions — Table — value^Kirawbacks — Old Latin pp. 113-115. IV. Ecclesiastical Writers — drawbacks — value — the oldest class of manuscripts, but at second hand .... pp. 116-117. The field to be explored — MSS. at first hand wanting in antiquity p. "7. CHAPTER IX. PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM. No evidence must be discarded — responsibility of the Church — CONTENTS. I. The first object the discovery of the Traditional Text — begin with the Received Text. 2. All evidence must be mastered — and followed. 3. Internal Evidence not on a par with External proof— seven canons — conclusion ........ pp. 1 18-122. Appendix I. The last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel pp. 125-127. II. The First Word from the Cross . pp. 127-128. III. The Record of the strengthening Angel, the Agony, and the Bloody Sweat . . pp. 128-130. IV. The Angelic Hymn . . . pp. 130- 131. V. The Doxology in the Lord's Prayer pp. 131- 133. VI. The Son of God's Eternal Existence in Heaven pp. 133-134. VII. God manifested in The Flesh . pp. 134-137.- A GUIDE TO THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. CHAPTER I. introduction . Importance of the Subject. WHAT is the genuine Greek — what the true Text of the New Testament ? Which are the very words which were written by the Evangehsts and Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ under the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost ? Have we up to this period received and used for the infor- mation of our faith and the guidance of our lives a Form of Text, which in a vast number of particulars, many of which are of great importance, has been fabricated by the device or error of men ? This question has been raised in the research of recent times, which has brought to light an amount of evidence residing in ancient copies and translations of the New Testament, that has led many eminent scholars to reject, as being in their estimation corruptions of the pure Text, various passages which have endeared themselves to Chris- tians in the course of centuries. Thus, according to prin- ciples largely adopted, (a) The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to B INTRODUCTION. St. Mark must be cast aside, and an abrupt close made after the words, ' for they were afraid.' (b) In the Lord's Prayer as given by St. Luke (xi. 2-4), the following clauses must be excised : — ' Our .... which art in Heaven'; 'Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so on earth ' ; — ' but deliver us from evil.' (c) The Doxology must be omitted from the Lord's Prayer in St. Matthew (vi. 13), and so all record of it lost in the Gospels. (d) Vv. 43, 44 must no longer be reckoned in the 22nd chapter of St. Luke, and thereby the account must disappear of the strengthening Angel and the ' Bloody Sweat,' as well as the evangelical record of ' the Agony in the Garden.' (e) The first of our Lord's seven Sayings from the Cross (St. Luke xxiii. 34) must be regarded as unauthentic, * Father, forgive them, for they knew not what they do.' (f) Also St. Luke's assertion of the Ascent into Heaven (xxiv. 15), — an omission of the more importance, because St. Mark's account of the same event, which included also the session at the Right Hand of God, is supposed under these principles to have vanished with the last twelve verses of his Gospel. (g) St. Luke's recital of the Institution of the Holy Sacra- ment (xxii. 19, 20) must be lost, except as far as ' This is My Body.' These seven instances, which might be multiplied ex- tensively by the addition of other omissions, — such as of the descending angel and the cure wrought in the pool of Bethesda, of the last cry in St. Mark's description of the centurion's faith, of the greater part of St. Luke's account of RESULTS OF RECENT CRITICISM. the Inscription on the Cross, of St. Peter's visit to the Sepulchre in the same Gospel, of the salutation ' Peace be unto you,' of the Lord shewing His Hands and His Feet, of the word 'broken,' whereby a gash is made and a blank space left in St. Paul's grand version of the Institution of the Holy Sacrament, and others too numerous to recount here — not to do more than allude to startling statements, such as that our Lord's Side was pierced before death, and that the sun was eclipsed at its full,^ — may teach all who revere and love the Word of God what precious points are at stake. If the changes advocated by the modern school leave enough behind in Holy Writ to support without doubt the essentials of the Faith of Christendom, yet they are so momentous in themselves as to produce a painful wrench in earnest affections which have attached themselves to words familiar and deeply loved from childhood, and to prove that, at least to first appearance, general and special attention should be directed to what may really be a corruption of the Holy Scriptures. Besides this, the number of alterations, amounting in the most moderate of the new recensions to 5,337,'^ reveals the formidable nature of the operations that are threatened. If the majority of these alterations are small, it must be remembered that the instance taken is one which presents much less change than other editions of the New Testa- ^ St. John V. 3, 4 : St. Mark xv. 39 : St. Luke xxiii. 38 : xxiv. 12 : xxiv. 36 : xxiv. 40 : I Cor. ix. 24, /cXw^utvor : St. Matt, xxvii. 49 : St. Luke xxiii. 45. iKkii-KovToq, which, as Dean Burgon truly says ("Revision Revised," p. 65), ' means an eclipse of the sun and no other thing,' though the Revisers translate it *the sun's light failing.' ^ The number of changes in the Greek Text of the Revised Version as estimated by Dr. Scrivener (Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 405). The changes in the English of the Revised Version are said to amount to 36,191. INTRODUCTION. ment. Enough is shown to establish beyond doubt that it is the duty of all Christians, who take an intelligent inte- rest in the controversies of their day, not to sit still when such concerns are in jeopardy. Yet at the present time there are comparatively few per- sons, clerical or lay, who have an intelligent acquaintance with the grounds on which this important question rests. The subject at first sight presents a forbidding aspect to most minds : — the exceedingly valuable treatises on it are too full of learning, and too long for such as are not really students to master : — and the hurry and haste of modern life demand a simpler mode of treatment. It is therefore with the hope of presenting the chief features of Textual Criticism, or such elementary con- siderations as are immediately involved in determining the Greek Text of the New Testament, to readers in a clear and not uninteresting way, that in deference to the urgent solicitations of some who enter deeply into the controversy, the composition of this little treatise has been undertaken. Inexpressibly dear to all true Christians, whether they range themselves on the one side or the other, must be the very expressions, — the sentences, the phrases, the words, and even the rhythm and the accents, — of the genuine utterance of the Holy Spirit of God. The general sentiment of Christianity has applied with plenary enlarge- ment the warning given at the close of the last Book in the Bible against addition or omission.' ' Let no man add to the words of the Holy Scriptures or detract anything from them,' said one of the most renowned of the Fathers.' ' Let ^ Rev. xxii. i8, 19. ' Athanasius, "Ex Festali Epistola," xxxix. (t. ii. p. 39, Eil, Colon). OBIECTS OF THE TREATISE. them fear the woe which is destined for them who add to or take away,' was the consentient admonition of another.^ The leading points in the contention on either side will be given in the Narrative. The questions in debate are questions of fact, and must be decided by the facts of history, the origin and nature of the documents on which they depend, and due regard to the proportion of the Christian Faith. They cannot be settled piecemeal. All the counts of the case must be before the court. An attempt will therefore be now made to represent with all candour the chief grounds on which opinion should rest, as they have been set forth in the career of the Science of Textual Criticism, in the principal arguments employed by the Rival Schools of the present day, in the history of the transmission of the New Testament from age to age, and in the leading Materials of Criticism ; and it will be our duty to deduce in conclusion the main principles that ought to regulate critical operations in any endeavour to revise and remodel the Sacred Text. ^ Tertullian, "Adv. Hennogenem," xxiu CHAPTER II. history of textual criticism. First Part. Earlier Stages, (i) Infancy : — Forma- tion OF THE ' Received Text.' (2) Childhood : — Critical Operations before 1830. THE Science of sacred Textual Criticism is the child of circumstances, and has been fostered by the zeal and industry of learned men. It has arisen from the large number of existing Copies of the New Testament, which has now, so far as inquiry has extended, reached no less than some two thousand.^ These primary sources of information are further augmented by Translations into various languages, and by quotations occurring in the works of early Ecclesias- tical Writers. Accordingly, as these numerous witnesses render evidence which is discordant in thousands of parti- culars, there is plainly a need of guiding principles and of a recognised system in estimating their testimony. Thus the Science of sacred Textual Criticism has been gradually grow- ing almost since the time of the invention of printing. And as was natural, its growth and tendency have been largely influenced from time to time by the materials that research and discovery have continually produced. When new Manuscripts have been brought to light, or the verdict of old ones has been ascertained by the slow process of col- ^ 2003. Burgon, **The Revision Revised," p. 521. Dean Burgon added 374 in 1883. Dr. Scrivener, including these 374, reckons 2094. " Plain Introduction," Appendix, p. xxx, 3rd edition. THE INFANCY. lation, the importation of fresh evidence has necessarily effected the conclusions previously drawn. A science de- pending upon facts that can be ascertained only after pro- tracted processes of investigation, cannot but be late in coming to maturity. At the present time, hundreds of Manuscripts are waiting to be collated, various Versions need re-editing, and indexes have to be provided of the quotations in the Fathers, before all that is to be said upon controverted points can be collected with exact accuracy. Besides that, the relative value of the various classes and subdivisions of evidence cannot yet be determined so as to meet with universal acceptance. Four Periods in the history of Textual Criticism may be distinguished, so far as it has been yet evolved, viz.. Infancy, Childhood, Impetuous Youth, and Incipient Maturity. I. The Infancy. Although a folio edition of the Bible in Latin was printed by Gutenberg as early as a.d. 1455, none in the original Greek appeared till the beginning of the sixteenth century. The demand at the time was not great. Greek Scribes dependent upon employment for their living abounded in Europe after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. Print- ing would be much more difficult in the unfamiliar Greek type : and the prevalence of clever and graceful abbrevia- tions made the work of copying at once more rapid and more artistic. Therefore half a century passed by before the Church saw the accomplishment of a task so formidable, of which the want was at once so easily and so well supplied. I. Cardinal Ximenes, founder of the University of Alcalk, and an eminent patron of literature, was first in the field. In THE INFANCY. the course of his advancement he had passed from a dungeon, where he had spent six years of his Hfe, to the Archbishopric of Toledo and the Regency of Castile; and in his later days laid out the vast income of his See upon charitable or public objects. Having collected together as many Manuscripts as he could, he set Lopez de Stunica and other learned editors to the work in 1502, on which he expended more than 50,000 ducats, or about ;;^2 3,000. It was intended to commemorate the birth of Charles V. But many years elapsed ere the completion of the New Testament in Greek and Latin on Jan. 10, 1514; and the book was not pub- lished till 1520, after Ximenes' death, and did not get into general circulation till two years after. The Complutensian Polyglott — for such was the title, derived from the Latin name {Co?nplutu??i) of Alcalk — was said by the editors to have been constructed from selected Manuscripts of great age and accuracy, supplied by Pope Leo X., who was the patron of the undertaking. Attempts have been made without success to ascertain what these Manuscripts were. The only result is that we must abide by the assertion of the editors and the character of the work. The Complutensian is admitted to be a fair but not by any means a faultless edition of the text that had already been in vogue, as is universally admitted, for upwards of a thou- sand years. 2. But the Complutensian Polyglott was actually antici- pated in publication by a Greek Testament in Germany. Froben, the printer of Basle, hearing of the operations in Spain, and wishing to forestall them, sent to Erasmus, who was then staying in England, and pressed him earnestly to undertake the office of editor. Erasmus received the first overtures on April 17, 15 15. But such was the haste made THE COMPLUTENSIAN AND ERASMUS. 9 that the New Testament was printed before the end of February, 15 16. Erasmus had however, as it appears, made some preparations of his own before he heard from Froben. He seems to have used what copies he could procure, but in a few cases where he either found or supposed his Greek authorities to be deficient, he translated from the Vulgate into Greek.^ Erasmus' first edition made its way into Spain, where the Coraplutensian was lying complete, but awaiting the Pope's imprimatur for publication. Stunica found fault with it in the spirit of rivalry : but the fine old Cardinal replied, * Would that all the Lord's people were prophets ! produce better if thou canst ; condemn not the industry of another.' ^ Erasmus was, however, attacked by Stunica, and also by Edward Lee, afterward Archbishop of York, because he had omitted the testimony of the heavenly Witnesses in i John v. 7, as well as on other grounds. Erasmus rephed that he could not find the passage in his Greek manuscripts, and that even some Latin copies did not give it. But at length he promised that if any Greek manuscripts were produced containing the words, he would in future insert them. It is remarkable that the celebrated Vatican Codex (B) was on this occasion for the first time appealed to on a point of textual criticism.^ In course of time the Codex Montfor- tianus, now at DubHn, was brought forward, and in conse- quence the passage was printed by Erasmus in his third edition in 1522. A fourth edition exhibited the text in three parallel columns, the Greek, the Latin Vulgate, and a recen- sion of the latter by Erasmus. The last in 1535 contained ' This was notably the case in the last six verses of the Revelation. ^ Scrivener's "Plain Introduction," p. 431. ^ Tregelles, " Printed Text," p. 22. THE INFANCY. only the Greek. Each successive edition underwent cor- rection, but the last did not differ much from the fourth. Erasmus died at Basle in 1536. 3. The editions of Robert Stephen, Theodore Beza, and the Elzevirs, complete this period. The two first of Stephen, published at Paris respectively in 1546 and 1549, were most elegantly printed with type cast at the expense of Francis L, and are known to connois- seurs by the title ' O mirificam ' from the opening words ex- pressing an encomium upon that king's liberality. The third, in folio, came out in 1550, and for the first time in the his- tory of editions of the Greek Testament contained various readings. Reference was made to sixteen authorities, viz., the Complutensian Polyglott and fifteen manuscripts, amongst which the Codex Bezae (D), now at Cambridge, is thought to have been numbered.' Erasmus is not mentioned, although Stephen's two earliest editions were mainly grounded upon Erasmus' readings ; and his third, according to Dr. Scrivener's computation, differs from them conjointly in only 361 places."-^ Robert Stephen did not collate his authorities himself, but employed the services of his son Henry. His record of readings in the margin of his folio caused great offence to the doctors of the Sorbonne, and Stephen withdrew to Geneva to escape their enmity. Here he pub- lished in 1 55 1 his fourth edition, almost unchanged in the Greek text from the previous one, but with one remarkable alteration. The chapters, into which Cardinal Hugo, of Santo Caro, had divided the books of the Bible in the thirteenth century, were in this edition first subdivided into ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 121, 438. - " Plain Introduction," p. 436 ; i.e., 334 times in the text, and 27 in punctuation. STEPHEN, BEZA, THE ELZEVIRS. ii verses. His son Henry said that his father made the sub- division 'whilst riding' from Paris to Lyons, probably during the intervals of his exercise. His object was to facilitate reference in a Concordance which he had in prospect.^ Beza's text did not differ much from Stephen's. He pub- lished five editions, slightly varying upon one another, and ranging from 1565 to 1598. Of these the fourth, published in 1589, has the highest reputation, the fifth having been produced in 'extreme old age.' Besides the advantage of Stephen's collections, Beza was the possessor of two very important MSS., the one already mentioned (D of the Gospels and Acts), which was presented by him to the University of Cambridge, and the Codex Claromontanus (D of St. Paul's Epistles) at Paris, both of which con- tained Greek and Latin texts, being therefore ' bilingual ' manuscripts. The Elzevirs — Bonaventure and Abraham — brought out two editions at their celebrated press, one in 1624, and the other in 1633. Their text was made up from those of Stephen and Beza. The latter edition was remarkable from the expression ' Received Text ' occurring for the first time. Addressing the reader they said, ' So you have now a text universally received, in which we give no alteration or corruption.' " The text of Stephen, which was afterwards carefully repro- ^ This is the ordinary account. Dr. Gregory however (" Prolego- mena," pp. 164-66) maintains that Stephen Langton was the author of the present division into Chapters, as usual in the West. Some sort of division had been in existence from the first (Ibid. pp. 140-163). ^ ' Textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus,' referring to the edition of 1624. (Pref.) 12 THE CHILDHOOD. duced by Mill, has been generally taken in England as the standard or ' Received ' text, and that of the Elzevirs has been thus regarded on the continent. The translators, how- ever, of our Authorized Version did not adhere exclusively to any one of the chief editions.^ When their authorities were at variance, they sometimes in their interpretation of the ' Received Text ' followed Beza, sometimes Stephen, sometimes the Complutensians, Erasmus, or the Latin Vulgate. 11. The Childhood. In the period hitherto indicated, there was hardly any weighing of opposed readings. Such as presented themselves were ordinarily accepted with impHcit confidence. The free instincts of infancy guided the Science mainly along a track that had previously been trodden with the continued approval of the Church for centuries. It would be reckless haste, not discerning judgment, that would off-hand condemn results thus reached. The copies chiefly followed were known to be specimens more or less exact of what had been preserved in the Church as the recognised form of the inspired Word." The Received Text of the sixteenth and seventeenth ' Dr. Scrivener has collected 252 passages, out of which the trans- lators follow Beza against vStephen in 113, Stephen against Beza in 59, the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate against both Stephen and Beza in 80. — "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible," &c., by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., Cambridge, 18S4, Appendix E. 2 This is acknowledged by both the Rival Schools of the present day. See Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," pp. 91, 92, no, 142, 145, 146. Vol. i., pp. 547, 550, 551. Burgon, "The Revision Revised," pp. 257, 258. RECEIVED AND TRADITIONAL TEXTS. 13 centuries represented with general, but far from invariable accuracy, the Traditional Text of the previous ages of the Church. But, on the other hand, the Church of later times could not properly rest without ascertaining, by all such wide and deep inquiry as was possible, whether these instinctive processes had issued in well-grounded conclusions. What was right would be proved to be right in full and free investi- gation, if candour and largeness of mind and firmness in faith kept away prejudice and narrowness and unbelief. I. In 1657, Brian Walton, afterwards Bishop of Chester, published a Polyglott, to which were appended some various readings both in the fifth and sixth volumes. In company with some colleagues he had devoted himself to this work for twelve years during the dark troubles that had befallen the Church of England. He included various readings from the Codex Alexandrinus (A), now in the British Museum, which had been presented by Cyril Lucar to Charles I. in 1628. There were comprised in his pages also the results of collations of sixteen Manuscripts made by Archbishop Ussher. In the next year apeared at Amsterdam a New Testament by Curcellaeus or Courcelles, marked by Socinian tendencies. And soon after, in 1675, Dr. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, published a small edition, in which collations from fresh Manuscripts were given, and citations were added from the Memphitic or ancient Version of Lower Egypt, and the Gothic, which was made soon after the Goths settled on the confines of the Roman Empire. 2. But a greater and stronger start was made at the end of the seventeenth century. In large measure through the help of Bishop Fell, who during his lifetime supplied impetus and funds, Dr. John Mill devoted the labour of 14 THE CHILDHOOD. thirty years to the preparation of a grand New Testament which was intended to surpass Stephen's in beauty as well as in other respects. The good bishop's death in 1686 seems to have delayed the work : and it was not till 1707, three years after Archbishop Sharpe obtained for the struggling editor a stall at Canterbury and Royal aid in the prosecution of his purpose, that the volume came out. Mill himself died just a fortnight after the publication. Thence- forward the science of Textual Criticism proceeded upon a new career. Mill only attempted to reproduce the text of Stephen, though he has departed from it in a few particulars.^ But he added some 30,000 readings, and an invaluable Prole- gomena. He far excelled all his contemporaries and prede- cessors in accuracy of collation and comprehensiveness of method. " Of the criticism of the New Testament in the hands of Dr. John Mill it may be said, that he found the edifice of wood, and left it marble." ^ 3. We now come to the grand design of the great Richard Bentley, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, which broke forth with lofty promise but never reached realization. He unfolded his plan to Archbishop Wake in a long letter, in which after explaining his own studies he professes his belief that he should be able to restore the Text of the New Testament to the form in which it was couched at the time of the Council of Nicaea. He was led in his enthusiasm to add, * so that there shall not be twenty words, or even par- ticles, difference.' After describing the history of the Vul- gate, and the editorial labours since the invention of printing, ^ Dr. Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 450 and note, has speci- fied instances of this deflection. '^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 448. MILL, BENTLEY, AND BENGEL. 15 he concludes : ' In a word, I find that by taking 2000 errors out of the Pope's Vulgate, and as many out of the Protestant Pope Stephen's, I can set out an edition of each in columns, without using any book under 900 years old, that shall so exactly agree word for word, and, what at first amazed me, order for order, that no two tallies, nor two indentures can agree better.' ^ This was in 17 16, and in four years his plan was definitely made up. John Walker, fellow of Trinity College, who had already been employed in collating MSS. in Paris for the edition, was announced as ' overseer and corrector of the press.' John Walker continued to labour ; and Bentley himself too, so far as other occupations and the strife with the Fellows of his College would allow him : but the edition never came out. He bequeathed a valuable collection of papers to his nephew, who made no use of them. After the death of the latter, they were published, including amongst several collations one which he had procured, and had got afterwards corrected, of the Vatican Manuscript (B). This vv'as transcribed by Woide and printed. 4. A step in advance was next made by Bengel in 1734. The large number of authorities that had now come to light had created embarrassment. Were they all equally to be trusted ? Did revision simply consist in a process of mar- shalling the witnesses on the right and left, and then counting heads? or had these witnesses special characters of their own, which must be investigated and known in order to the formation of a true estimate of their credibility ? Bengel therefore suggested that inquiries should be made into the origin of each,^ ' whether taken smgly or in pairs, or ^ Ellis, " Bentleii Critica Sacra," Introductory Preface, p. xv. 1 6 THE CHILDHOOD. associations, or families, tribes, and nations : ' ^ so that they should be reduced to a genealogical table illustrating their several features and relationships. He divided manuscripts generally into African and Asiatic. In his text he was the first to depart on principle from the received standard." He introduced the division of the New Testament into para- graphs, with which we have become familiar. Bengel was followed by Wetstein, who enlarged greatly the materials ready for criticism. He spent many years in collation, including in these labours about one hundred and two Manuscripts. He was the first to cite the Manuscripts under their present designation, quoting from A to O of the Uncials in the Gospels, and i — 112 of the Cursives.^ He attached great importance to the Codex Alexandrinus (A), the oldest then generally known. He shed much light upon the Versions, or early Translations into other languages. And he also laboured, though it is thought not so success- fully, upon the Fathers. His services were so considerable that Bishop Marsh was of opinion that he had accomplished more than all his predecessors put together.* His edition of the Greek Testament came out in 1751-2. Most important service was rendered in the collection and collation of existing manuscripts by C. F. Matthaei, Andrew Birch, and others. Matthasi, a Thuringian by birth, who held the Professorship of Classical Literature at Moscow, found in that capital a large number of Manuscripts brought ^ Bengel, "Apparatus Criticus," p. 387. 2 Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 457. ^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 460. Uncial Manuscripts are those which are written in Capital Letters : Cursives, in the running hand of ordinary writing. Uncials are designated for convenience by capital letters, and Cursives by numerals. ^ Tregelles, "Printed Text," p. 77. WETSTEIN, MATTH.EIy AND GRIESBACH. 17 in the seventeenth century from Mount Athos, both Biblical and Patristic. ^ He collated with an accuracy which has drawn down strong praise ^ seventy copies, consisting of these and some others ; and besides he assembled the citations from Holy Scripture contained in about thirty manuscripts of St. Chrysostom's works. His Revision of the Greek Text was exclusively founded upon the manuscripts of his own examining. Whatever may prove to be its critical value, no difference of opinion can be entertained about the remark- able accuracy of method and scholarship, in which he has set a bright example to all who come after him. His colla- tions will remain a treasure for all time." About the same period Alter was doing work at Vienna, similar in kind, but inferior in degree. And Birch, with the assistance of Adler and Moldenhawer, laboured in Italy, Germany, and Spain. 4. Thus a large mass of evidence grew up : what seemed vast in the days of Mill was extensively multiplied. And in consequence another attempt was made to classify the accumulated materials of criticism. John James Griesbach, a pupil of Semler, following out, though with corrections, what his master had begun, urged that three great families of manuscripts existed, each of which was founded upon a special ' Recension,' or edition. He distinguished these as respectively Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. He considered that the testimony of two of these classes should prevail against the third. His theory was no doubt grounded upon a certain, or rather an uncertain, amount of truth. But as he carried it out, it was overthrown by Archbishop Laurence. And as to his 'recensions,' as J. G. Reiche ' Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 463. ^ Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 246. C i8 THE CHILDHOOD. afterwards shewed/ there was no ground for them beyond speculation. Nothing that can be termed historical evidence has been produced for any such operations having been ac- complished as would account for Griesbach's classes. But Griesbach also carefully edited a Greek Testament, and thoroughly examined the citations of Holy Scripture made by Origen. This latter operation, of which the results may be seen in his SymbolcB. Criticce^ affords a specimen of what must be done in the case at least of the more important Ecclesiastical Writers before all the evidence adducible can be brought to bear upon controverted points. Griesbach carries us into the present century : he died in 1812. The work was continued by John Martin Augustine Scholz, who added, though with much incorrectness, a large amount of materials to the stores previously known. His contribution consists of no less than 616 Cursive manus- cripts. But confidence cannot be reposed in his productions, as has been shewn more than once.^ It is remarkable that he modified Griesbach's theory of supposed Recensions of manuscripts, including the Western of Griesbach amongst the Alexandrian, and thus making two instead of three. " In the Alexandrian family," says Dr. Scrivener, " he in- cluded the whole of Griesbach's Western recension, from which, indeed, it seems vain to distinguish it by any broad line of demarcation." ^ ' Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 3S0 and notes. Cook, "Re- vised Version," pp. 4-7. J. G. Reiclie, " Commentarius Criticus," torn, iii., Observatio Prcevia. - Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 474, and note, in which he quotes from Dean Burgon's letters to the "Guardian." ^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 475. 'The untenable point of Griesbach's system, even su])posing that it had historic basis, was the impossibility of drawing an actual line of distinction between his VIGOROUS GROWTH. 19 Such was the growth of the Science till towards the middle of the present century. It was the natural develop- ment of boyhood, invigorated and enlarged by constant action, and extending freely on all sides. There was con- tinually an amplification of materials, and operations were progressively prosecuted over wider and wider fields. Theory was pursued less actively, and with not so happy results. Different minds succeeded in different provinces ; hardly any one in all. ' We are thankful,' says Dr. Davidson, ' to the collators of manuscripts for their great labour. But it may be doubted whether they be often competent to make the best critical text out of existing materials. . . . We should rather see the collator and the editor of the text dissociated. We should like to have one person for each department.' ^ Alexandrian and Western recensions.' — Tregelles, "Printed Text," p. 91- ^ 'Biblical Criticism," vol. ii., pp. 104-5, quoted by Tregelles, " Printed Text," p. 172. CHAPTER III. HISTORY OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM. Part II. Contemporary Growth. (3) Youth : — Lach- MANN and the SEVERAL DOCTORS OF THE EXTREME School. (4) Signs of Maturity : — Other Doctors. Widening of the Basis. BUT now came a change. The impetuosity of youth lacked the patience to await a further growth of the Science, and to abstain from drawing conclusions till all the evidence had been gathered out of all quarters, thoroughly examined, sorted, and duly valued. A short and easy method of decision was sought and taken. It was too hard a lot to leave the inheritance of the promised land to a coming generation. If the evidence were too unwieldy to be managed in the mass, some was valuable, and some not at all. Why not select the valuable, and be guided by the verdicts it gave ? So arose the School of Extreme Textualism. I. Lachmann, the celebrated philologist and critic, pub- lished with the aid of Philip Buttmann, an edition of tlie New Testament in two volumes, one of which came out in 1842, and the other in 1850, and both of them at Berlin, where he was a professor. His first principle, at which he had hinted in a small edition eleven years before, was to discard LACHMANN. the readings of the ' Received Text,' as being in his opinion only about two centuries old ; whereas they conflicted with what he conceived to be better authority. His main object was to restore, according to the design of Bentley, the text of the fourth century, which he supposed had been lost. For this purpose he laid aside all the later manuscripts, and confined himself to the few older ones. He also admitted the earliest Latin versions which existed before St. Jerome effected the Vulgate revision. And lastly, he employed the testimony of a few of the oldest Fathers. Thus in the Gospels he had the guidance of the Alexan- drian (A.), the Vatican (B.), the Parisian (C), and four fragments,' besides an occasional use of the Cambridge manuscript (D) : — the old Italian manuscript in Latin: — and the quotations of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Origen, Lucifer, and Hilary. He made a clean sweep of all the rest, — a very satisfactory process as far as easiness of revi- sion was concerned, — choosing a 'voluntary' and comfort- able ' poverty ' of materials, with a haughty disregard of the earnest labours of his predecessors." Of his manuscripts, only one, the Vatican B, really conducted him into the fourth century, and of that he could then use only imperfect collations. The most important part of his work has been considered to be the toil which he expended upon the old Latin texts, and his vindication of their critical value, though that is not now held to be quite so high as his esti- mate would make it. 2. Lachmann was succeeded by Samuel Prideaux Tre- gelles, whose labours were much more prolific. Brought up ' P, Q, T, Z. ^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 478, 9. Tregelles, "Printed Text," p. 104. YOUTH. amongst the Society of Friends, he passed through the body of Plymouth Brethren into the position of a lay member of the Church of England/ The most important part of his work is to be found in his editions, and especially his colla- tions of manuscripts. He edited two, the " Codex Zacyn- thius"(S7), belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the fragment O. He collated with great accuracy- eighteen Uncials, and thirteen Cursives. And he devoted much attention to Versions and Fathers, especially to Origen and Eusebius."^ He discussed Lachmann's method, in his " Account of the Printed Text of the New Testament," and accepted unreservedly the first principle. ' To Lachmann must be conceded this, that he led the way in casting aside the so- called Textus Receptus, and boldly placing the New Testa- ment wholly and entirely on the basis of actual authority." With this utter disregard of the Received Text, Tregelles went on to the endorsement of the next principle, which was found in drawing a line of demarcation between the critical aids that are to be neglected as valueless, and those upon which dependence was to be placed. He divided manu- scripts into three classes. The assent of those which were anterior to the seventh century was held by him to be essential for the settlement of any reading. The Cursives, dating since the tenth century, were erroneously regarded by him as in general opposed to the ancient copies. And the later Uncials, between the seventh and the eleventh centuries, appeared to him to be divided in their agreement between the modern and the ancient. So that the only trustworthy ^ Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 4S7. 2 "Plain Introduction," p. 486. 3 Ibid. ' " Printed Text," p. 99. TREGELLES AND TISCHENDORF. 23 authorities were the oldest of these. ^ In a similar spirit, he attended to none but the earliest Versions, and to those sparingly, and cited no Fathers later than Eusebius in the earlier half of the fourth century. The reasons for this latter Hmitare : (i) because Eusebius ' is on the Hne of demarcation between the earlier text, and that which afterwards became widely diffused ; and (2) because of the absolute necessity of confining such an examination between such limits as it might be practicable for one individual to reach in any moderate number of years.' ' Tregelles died in 1875, before his Greek Testament was fully out. 3. But the most conspicuous figure in this school was Constantine Tischendorf, a man of the most remarkable energy and success, who in the services that he rendered in assembling materials for Textual Criticism, and in present- ing them for employment to establish the genuineness of any reading, has out-topped even the most considerable figures in the long Une of his predecessors. The eighth edition of his Greek Testament is an amazing monument of the incessant toil which occupied a life that ended on Dec. 7, 1874, shortly before the completion of his sixtieth year. A record of his contributions to the critical aids to Textual Criticism has been given by Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, who with some assistance from Professor Ezra Abbot, has written the first part of the " Prolegomena " to Tischendorfs Greek Testament. Tischendorf^ discovered ' "Printed Text," p. 180. "Prolegomena to Greek New Testa- ment," ix. He virtually rejected all Uncials later than the end of the sixth century, except L. X., A., 9, and all Cursives whatever, except I, 33, 69, i.e., all that sided with the Textus Receptus. * "Prolegomena," xviii. Home and Tregelles "Introduction to the New Testament," p, 342, ^ P. 91. 24 YOUTH. fifteen Uncials, including the great Sinaitic manuscript ({<), besides using for the first time twenty-three ; he edited twenty-one, copied out four, and collated thirteen, not to reckon much labour spent upon more than thirty others, and toil of a smaller kind that is scarce recorded. In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manu- scripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here observing some old-looking docu- ments in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty- three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. He was allowed to take these : but in the desire of saving the other parts of the manuscript of which he heard, he explained their value to the monks, who being now enlightened would only allow him to copy one page, and refused to sell him the rest. On his return he published in 1846 what he had succeeded in getting, under the title of the " Codex Fride- rico-Augustanus," inscribed to his benefactor. In 1859, he was again in the East, being sent by Alexander II., Em- peror of Russia, and was received at the convent as an emissary from the Great Protector of the Eastern Church. One night in a conversation with the steward, he was shewn a manuscript, ' written on loose leaves and wrapped in a red cloth,' and was allowed to examine it. He sat up all night with his treasure, for as he said, ' it seemed wicked to sleep.' He found a complete New Testament, a large portion of the Septuagint, the Epistle of St. Barnabas, and a fragment of the Shepherd of Hermas. After this, he was allowed to copy the manuscript, and the Codex was in course of time presented to the Emperor, and is now at St. Petersburg.^ ' "Christian Remembrancer," xlvi., p. 194. Scrivener's "Plain TISCHENDORF. 25 Before the discovery of this important manuscript, Tis- chendorf had issued seven editions of his Greek Testament. In these, so far as the third, he had paid scarcely any attention to the Cursive manuscripts. After that edition, the course of his studies led him to introduce their record into his lists of authorities on passages. The consequence was that his seventh edition has been calculated to differ from the third in 1,296 instances, 'in no less than 595 of which (430 of the remainder being mere matters of spelUng) he returned to the readings of the Received Text, which he had before deserted, but to which fresh materials and larger experience had brought him back.' ^ The eighth edition was constructed with the help of the newly discovered Sinaitic manuscript (^) and his attachment to the treasure that he had rescued proved too much for him. He altered his seventh edition in no less than 3,369 instances, generally in compliance with the Sinaitic copy, * to the scandal,' as Dr. Scrivener justly remarks, 'of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discern- ment and accuracy.'" Much therefore as we may and must ever feel indebted to Tischendorf for the invaluable results of his labours, we cannot regard him as a man of sober and solid judgment. I lis zigzag course does not impress us with the soundness of any position upon w^hich he found himself throughout it. 4. But the principles of this School of Textualists have reached their most complete exposition in the " Introduction to the Greek Testament," edited by Professors Westcott and Hort. This edition was founded upon labour in the case Introduction, pp. 87, 88. Tischendorf, " Codex Sinaiticus, " Proleg., " p. xxii. Scrivener, "Codex Sinaiticus," vii — ix. ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 529. '^ Ibid. 26 YOUTH. of both those erudite men extending through nearly thirty years, including the period when as Revisers they were assisting in the Revision of the English Translation. Copies were however printed privately and placed in the hands of all the Revisers. It was not till the revision was out that they became public property. And shortly after- wards an elaborate and ingenious Introduction was pub- lished, from the hand, as is stated, of Dr. Hort.^ The object of the Introduction is evidently to reduce to a definite system the principles of Lachmann, and to advance grounds upon which the testimony of a few authorities standing by themselves may be accepted in preference to the verdict of the great majority of witnesses. Accordingly it is argued that a text which is found in the fourth century, although it was rejected and lay in all but oblivion through- out the succeeding ages,' is the genuine form and therefore must be followed. This doctrine leads to the exaltation of B and K — but especially B ^ — into such an unique [)Osition, that after an examination of these principles and their appli- cation, an observer unacquainted with the history of manu- scripts would imagine that these two very far surpassed all others both in antiquity and in an indisputable purity of expression. And indeed an attempt is made, based upon a large amount of speculation, but the very slenderest degree of evidence, to add a couple of centuries to their virtual age. But it must ever be remembered that A and C are nearly as ancient as B and K. Indeed, one opinion makes ' P. 1 8. Yet it is true that, ' barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accom- plished editors.' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 531. ■^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 91, 92, no, 142. Vol. i., PP- 547. 550- ^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 171, no. DKS. WESTCOTT AND HORT. Vj A only about fifty years younger than B the eldest of the pair.^ Besides which, according to dates now admitted, B and probably {^ were produced under the dark gloom of Asian ascendency ; A and C in the light of the most intel- lectual period of the early Church. This deference to B, amounting almost to a superstitious adulation,- leads the two learned Professors to follow it when- ever it is supported by only slight testimony from other quar- ters.^ Thus they adopt all the readings already enumerated in the Introduction to this little Treatise, and a vast number of others of the same kind.^ For example, they make St. Mark ' declare that the dancing-girl who demanded the head of John the Baptist was Herod Antipas' own daughter, and that her name was Hero- dias, in flat contradiction to the account in St. Matthew as edited by themselves, and at variance also with the his- tory of the family, as given by Josephus.*^ Again, the Lord is represented by them in St. Luke ' as preaching in the synagogues of Judea at the very time which He is said by St. Matthew and St. Mark to have spent in doing the same in the synagogues of Galilee, and when He ought to have been in the latter part of the Holy Land according to the context of the passage itself. Also in Acts x. 19, the Holy Spirit is described as telling St. Peter that two men were ' Cooke, " Revised Version," p. 185. - Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," pp. 529, 530. ■' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction, 230-246. * Pp. 2, 3: — Occasionally, as in St. Luke xxii. 19, 20; xxiv. 3, 6, 9, 12, 36, 40, 52, even against the authority of B and N. '' St. Mark vi. 22. avTov for avrtig. The context in St. Mark is against this reading, which is besides ungrammatical. ^ St. Matt. xiv. 6. Josephus, " Antiq.," xviii., 5, §§. I, 2, 4. ' St. Luke iv. 44. 'lovdaiag for TaXiXaiac. St. Matt. iv. 23, St. Mark i. 39. 28 YOUTH. seeking Him, when the seventh verse had made it clear that there were three, viz., two of CorneHus' servants and a sol- dier who was his constant attendant.^ And in Acts xii. 25, St. Paul and St. Barnabas are said to have returned from Jerusalem to Jerusalem, when they were really going back from Jerusalem to Antioch. Lastly, — not to make thesj3eci- men instances too numerous, — the Professors omit, and the Revisers too, 'the precious verse' (St. Matt. xvii. 21) * which declares that this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting,' notwithstanding that only three manuscripts, B and N and 33, testify by themselves for the omission against a very host of varied witnesses.^ This servile submission to B, in the face of copious testi- mony, may be also seen in their presentment of proper names. Such are Melitene for Melita, evidently a transcriptional blun- der,^ Nazara in two places only for Nazareth,' Beezebul for Beelzebul,' Joanes for Joannes,^ the uncouth trunks Koum and Golgoth,'' and — also a transcriptional mistake — the singular appellative Titius Justus.^ They have also, with ' Also Acts xi. II. ^ Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 91, 92, supplies these witnesses. Omission of verses is very common with these editors. ^ MELITIiHNH202. By eliding the article »'/, and attaching the first syllable of i^jjcroc to MtX/r??. Acts xxviii. i. See Burgon, "Re- vision Revised," p. 177. The letters in the oldest Uncial Manuscripts had no spaces between them. ** St. ?klatt. iv. 13 : St. Luke iv. 16. They read elsewhere Na^opjf^ and No^rtpar. ^ E. g. St. Matt. X. 25. ^ Though only due to the scribe of B, /. c. also in the parts of n written by that scribe. " Introduction," p. 159. ' St. Mark v. 41 : St. Matt, xxvii. 33 : St. Matt. xv. 22 : St. John xix. 17. 8 ONOMATIIOUiiTOU. Insert a second T between the last syl- EXTREME RESULTS. 29 more reason and authority on their side, but with needless eccentricity, changed the order of Books, placing the CathoHc Epistles before those of St. Paul. To such results as these Professors Westcott and Hort have been guided in obedience to inexorable theory. Never- theless, they have here and there sacrificed their consistency to some extent, as, for example, when they have shrunk from disfiguring St. Paul's exquisite description of Charity by the assertion that Charity ' seeketh not what is not her own,' and therefore that she adds to numerous sublime traits a freedom from gross violations of the eighth and tenth commandments. But this fitful courage does not keep them from admitting that such a bathos as this might possibly not have ofl:ended the inspired taste of St. Paul, inasmuch as they have placed in their margin this stupid blunder of the scribe of B.^ The Theory of the Cambridge Professors that leads to such results will be explained and sifted in the next chapter. But one feature in it must be noticed here. The authors adduce the slenderest support from actual evidence : in- genious as it is, their course of reasoning is ' entirely destitute of historical foundation.' " Dr. Hort gives no array of autho- rities in text or notes, and does not build up his theory upon acknowledged or produced facts. The system thus unfolded has derived greater prominence from its having been mainly adopted by ' Two Members of the New Testament Company ' in their defence of the lable of ovofiari and the first two of 'lovcrrov, and Tiriov is made imme- diately, and is due alone to B. ^ oi) ZrjTH TO. fxi) tavTrjg after a faulty MS. used by Clement of Alexandria (252 Potter, 92 Migne), who, however (947 Potter, 345 Migne), gives the true words. ' Scrivener, " Plain Introduction," p. 537. 30 S/GNS OF COMING MATURITY. Revisers' Greek Text. No one can read their pamphlet/ or examine the readings admitted by a majority of the Revisers and defended by them, without seeing that, although their action is in some respects independent of Drs. Westcott and Hort, they generally uphold the principles advocated by those learned men. Indeed, alterations depending only upon B and J>^, and sometimes upon B alone with some other support, are frequently preferred in the Revised Version before readings of the Textus Receptus, notwithstanding that the latter are so numerously and strongly attested, that on no other grounds except extreme deference to those Uncials could such a verdict be rejected. The championship and support of men so learned and illustrious must carry great weight. And the question arises whether it be not so strong as to lead all who admire their great qualities to abide by their conclusions. Or is it possible, that as in the history of much human opinion, even they may have been induced to take a wrong turn in early days, and that they have been led into a valley attractive in itself but whence the best views have been excluded ? Strange as such a conclusion might seem, the results of the present inquiry seem to point imperatively in no other direction. And such is the contention of men quite as eminent in this province as the upholders of the opinions just described. IV. Signs of Coming Maturity. Textual Criticism would not be governed by the principles that underlie all movements of human thought, if the strenuous pursuance of so limited a course as the one ' "The Revisers and The Greek Text of the New Testament," by Two Members of the New Testament Company, 1882. DR. SCRIVENER. 31 recently followed did not provoke a departure in another direction. Accordingly strong opposition was made within the Revisers' Company by a stout minority headed by Dr. Scrivener the first textual critic of the day, and tacitly sup- ported by Members of the Company who had ceased to act, as well as by other deep students of the subject, such as Dean Burgon and Canon Cook. And their advocacy has been developed into the teaching of a Rival and rising School, under which the basis is widened, and the building is being constructed out of all the materials within reach. I. The labour spent by Dr. Scrivener upon Textual Criticism is well known from his admirable Introduction to the Science, a handbook ^ which leaves hardly anything, if anything, to be desired. Dr. Scrivener's candour, and patient and conscientious consideration of every point that presents itself, and of every opinion resting upon intelligence, are conspicuous in all that he has written upon this subject. And his accuracy, a matter of extreme importance in these matters, stands at the very top of editorial and collational work. ' Let the truth be told,' says the Dean of Chichester, *■ C. F. Matthaei and he [i.e. Dr. Scrivener] are the only two scholars who have collated any considerable number of sacred codices with the needful amount of accuracy.' " In 1853, Dr. Scrivener published 'A full and exact Colla- tion of about twenty Greek manuscripts of the Holy Gospels.' In his Introduction he said : 'The following pages comprise a humble yet earnest attempt to revive among the country- men of Bentley and Mill some interest in a branch of "' "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of Biblical Students," by F. H. A. Scrivener, M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., tVc, 3rd edition, 1883. - "The Revision Revised," p. 246. SIGNS OF COMING MA TURITY. Biblical learning which, for upwards of a century, we have tacitly abandoned to continental scholars.' The success of this attempt, if limited in these earlier days of Dr. Scrivener's influence to comparatively a small band of scholars, never- theless has been conspicuous. This work was followed in 1859 by 'An exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis . . . to which is added a Full Collection of Fifty Manuscripts.' To both of these works valuable Introductions are prefixed, explanatory of the principles of the Science, and containing discussions upon controverted questions, such as whether there are families of Manuscripts, and against the partial use of only a few authorities, as advocated by Lachmann and Tregelles. In 1864, he published 'A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus' (K), with corrections of errata in Tischen- dorf 's editions of the same manuscript. And in the same year he edited for the University of Cambridge a handsome volume containing the great Cambridge manuscript (D). Such, with his ' Plain Introduction ' already noticed, have been his chief, but by no means his only works. The line taken by Dr. Scrivener has uniformly been that all evidence must be employed in comparative or Textual Criticism. Yet not all indiscriminately; but each being assigned its proper value. Thus he by no means accedes to the proposal of neglecting the Received Text. But, on the other hand, he has ever admitted that revision is required, and has been ready to submit to the clear verdict of evidence. He would proceed with far-sighted and wide-viewed caution ; and would urge that everything possible should be done to make all documents of whatever sort ready to minister in their several places to well-pondered conclusions. 2. Of about the same age as Dr. Scrivener, but in the en- joyment of better health, the Dean of Chichester is a re- DEAN BURG ON. 33 doubtable champion upon the same side. His first Book in this department was a vindication of " The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel/' published in 1871, in which ac- cording to the award of the first living judge, he ' has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him.' Even so unfavourable a judge as Mr. Hammond admits the cogency and success of his arguments.^ Another, marked with the natural impetuosity of Dean Burgon's contro versial style, but bristling with learning, and built upon re- markably strong and detailed foundations, which, as it appears, many of his opponents have not the patience to examine accurately, is "The Revision Revised," a republica- tion of Articles in the " Quarterly Review," with additions, chiefly upon the disputed text in the First Epistle to St. Timothy." Besides these books the Dean is constantly at work, and is beUeved to have copious materials for future publication. And his "Letters from Rome" (1862), and sundry letters from time to time in the " Guardian " news- paper, as well as contributions to editions of Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduction," to the last of which he has added particulars of three hundred and seventy-four manuscripts previously unknown to the world of letters, are results of toil which has been continued for many years. Dean Burgon has incurred much misrepresentation. He does not maintain the faultlessness of the Received Text ; he is not a devoted adherent of the Alexandrian Codex (A) ; ^ "Outlines of Textual Criticism," &c., by C. E. Hammond, M.A., 3rd ed., pp. 116-23. - I Timothy iii. 16. Geog instead of the advocated oq or b. See below, "Appendix," vii. D 34 SIGNS OF COMING MATURITY. he does not simply count his authorities, or follow the largest number, irrespectively of their weight and value. But he urges that all should be taken into account ; 'that the Truth of the Text of Scripture is to be elicited exclusively from the consentient testimony of the largest number of the best Copies, Fathers, Versions ; ' ^ that that is the Truth which * enjoys the earliest, the fullest, the widest, the most respect- able, and — above all things — the most varied attestation ; ' ^ that all the existing Copies must be assembled and accu- rately collated, the Versions edited, and the Fathers indexed before a revision of the Greek Text can be successfully ac- complished ; ^ that evidence and examination prove con- vincingly that the Vatican (B)and the Sinaitic (K) manuscripts exhibit really bad, instead of good, texts ; ^ and that all must be rested upon definite external attestation, not upon the shifting sands of conjecture, opinion, taste, and other internal sources of inference.^ It should be added, that Dean Burgon surpasses everyone in acquaintance with Patristic evidence of readings. 3. Another learned maintainer of this view of the contro- versy is Canon Cook, the editor in chief of the " Speaker's Commentary." His controversy with the Bishop of Durham upon the rendering of the last petition in the Lord's Prayer, on which his last and longest letter has remained as yet unanswered, and his treatise upon the " Revised Version of the First Three Gospels," have been important contributions to the literature of this subject. Calm, moderate, weighty in argument, learned, persuasive, he has controverted the main positions of the opposed School in the latter of these two ^ " The Revision Revised," p. 51S, ^ Ibid., p. 339. ■'' Ibid., pp. 125, 247, note. * Ibid., pp. 11-17, 249, 262-265. ' Ibid., pp. 19-20, 253. CANON COOK AND OTHERS, 35 works with great cogency. He maintains that the Vatican (B) and Sinaitic (N) Codices have been unduly exalted ; that the Alexandrian (A), which in the Gospels fairly repre- sents the text used by St. Chrysostom and his great contem- poraries, is superior to them ; that the former two were probably written under the direction of Eusebius ; and that the theories and arguments of Drs. Westcott and Hort are destitute of solid foundation. Also those eminent Scholars, Bishops Christopher and Charles Wordsworth — ' Par nobile Fratrum ' — the loss of the first of whom we are now deploring,^ have spoken upon the same side in Charges delivered to the Clergy of their Dioceses, deprecating amongst other things ' too much confidence in certain favourite manuscripts.' ^ Nor is this contention without contemporary support upon the Continent. In 1862, Dr. J. G. Reiche warned scholars against the dangerous principles introduced by Lachmann, and the almost superstitious veneration that was then paid to Lachmann's text. And especially he spoke against the prac- tice introduced by that learned scholar of consulting only a few witnesses, observing especially that several of the Ver- sions are older than any manuscripts.^ In i860, writing from Leyden, A. Kuenen and C. G. Cobet, in the Preface to an ^ Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, Charge, Nov. 1881. ^ I cannot pass on without a tribute to the fearless faithfulness, the vast mass of learning ever at hand, the open munificence, and the administrative capacity of that great man. ' Cui Pudor, at Justitise sorer, Incorrupta Fides, nudaque Veritas, Quando ullum invenient parem ? ' ^ " Commentarius Criticus," Tomus iii. Ep. ad Heb. et Ep. Cath. continens. Observatio prsevia. Cook, "Revised Version," pp. 4-7. Burgon, "The Revision Revised," pp. 380-Sl. 36 SIGNS OF COMING MA TURITY. edition of the Vatican Codex, protested against the notion that because that was the oldest manuscript it therefore pos- sessed an authority paramount to that of all others. On the contrary, they asserted, proving the assertion with a copious array of evidence, that ' there is no kind of error that is not frequently found in that manuscript as in all the rest.' ^ Also at the beginning of 1884, Dr. J. H. A. Michelsen, in the " Theologisch Tijdschrift," a monthly magazine pub- lished at Leyden, submitted the text of B and K to a vigorous examination. From internal proofs, such as glosses intro- duced from other passages, readings plainly bad where better exist, and omissions of verses and paragraphs, all copiously illustrated, he drew the conclusion that the so-called Neutral Text is not so good as the advocates of it claim, and directed attention to the dangerous traversing of the principle, ' Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus,' which is involved in the acceptance of that form of Text. Besides these, we may reckon the strong sentiment pre- vailing in the Roman Branch of the Church. Vercellone, the editor of B, now no more, held no such opinions as those of Extreme Textualism. Ceriani, of Milan, and a learned writer in the "Dublin Review,"^ seem to represent what is held in those quarters. And the Abbe Martin, of Paris, in his elaborate " Fascicules " maintains the same side of the controversy. It will be seen from this sketch, that so far from ques- tions being already settled amongst the learned and ripe for a general decision which would enjoy universal assent, two Rival Schools are now contending for the ascendency. ^ "Novum Testamentum, ad fid. Cod. Vat., ed. A. Kuenen et C. G. Cobet," Praefatio, p. xiii. &c. ^ Jan. 1884. On " New Testament Vaticanism." THE TWO RIVAL SCHOOLS. 37 The one, of German origin, is strongly and ably maintained in England, and reckons large support amongst Biblical Scholars. The other, headed by the first Textual Critic of the day, and earnestly advocated by accomplished Theolo- gians, counts also among its adherents Roman Catholics in England and on the Continent, including experts in Italy and elsewhere. Therefore careful and respectful considera- tion is further necessary, in order that after contrasting and weighing the several characteristics of both Schools, we may know from solid considerations which of the two to follow. CHAPTER IV. the school of extreme textualism. Theory of Westcott and Hort explained and REFUTED. ' A NEW period began in 1831, when for the first time a jr\ text was constructed directly from the ancient docu- ments without the intervention of any printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination of various readings.' So the leading masters in the First of the Rival Schools attribute its foundation to Lachmann.^ Drs. Westcott and Hort began with Lachmann's principles,' and after many years have brought them to their natural and extreme development in the elaborate system which they have constructed, and which is in the main accepted and upheld by other adherents of this School.'' Therefore the chief characteristics of the teaching of this School, so far as they have been hitherto unfolded in public, may be derived from Dr. Hort's elaborate Introduction. So far as they are peculiar to the School, they are suscep- tible of classification under the following heads : — Internal ^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 13. 2 Ibid., p. 16. 3 So the two members of the Revisers' Company ; Professor Sanday in the " Contemporaiy Review," Dec. 1881 ; Archdeacon Farrar, "Ex- positor," 1882 ; and a writer in the " Church Quarterly,'' Jan. 1882. THEORY OF IVESTCOTT AND HORT EXPLAINED. 39 iLvidence, Genealogy, Families or Groups, the worth lessness of the Syrian Text (so-called), and the super-eminent excel- lence of B and the other representatives of the (so-termed) Neutral Text/ I. In dealing with the divergent evidence which is con- stantly presented in different passages, two main considera- tions, so Dr. Hort tells us, offer themselves, viz.. Which is in itself the most probable reading? and, What is the cha- racter of the documents by which it is supported ? Now a reading may in the first place be recommended by its own likeHhood. It may make better sense than the rival word, or phrase, or clause, or sentence. It may be more in keep- ing with the author's style of writing, or his matter of com- position, as gathered from other passages. But Dr. Hort lays no stress on all this, and urges that the most important part of what is called Internal Evidence consists in acquaint- ance with the character of the Documents themselves in which the readings are found. Hence his first principle : — ' Knowledge of Documents should precede Final Judgments upon Readings.' Now the character of a Document, he says, depends, ia) chiefly upon its date, {b) next upon the purity or cor- ruption of its text. The character of the text may be dis- covered by a large comparison of its readings with other ascertained readings, according to careful methods." Judged in this manner, the Vatican MS. especially, and the Sinaitic also, are predominant, not only by reason of their un- ' These terms, Syrian, Alexandrian, Neutral, as used by the two Professors, can only be employed under protest, till they can be proved to have anything but an imaginary existence. ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp, 30-39. The entire ac- count is too involved to give here. 40 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. rivalled antiquity, but also because of the excellence of their text. 2. But now, as Dr. Hort argues, another important factor comes into sight. Scribes transcribed from documents, and thus one document became the parent of the next. So we are introduced to the use of arguments derived from Genealogy. ' All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded upon the study of their history, that is of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several documents.'^ In this way, one manuscript may be found, as Dr. Hort thinks, to have proceeded from another, and the weight of authority from both becomes only the weight of authority possessed by the earlier of the two. Again, two or more documents are observed to be so similar to one another that they must have been transcribed either directly, or through one or more intervening ancestors, from a common original. Accordingly, their united authority, how many soever they are, does not exceed the authority of their single original. But ' identity of reading implies iden- tity of origin ; ' and the outlines of such a common original may be deciphered in the resemblances of manuscripts, and the purity of a text inferred in discarding individual traces of corruption. Thus Dr. Hort concludes, upon close exami- nation, that B and K were derived from a common original much older than themselves, ' the date of which cannot be later than the early part of the second century, and may well be yet earlier.' This would bring our chief documen- tary authority nearly back to the Apostolic autographs, and would invest it with paramount importance. 3. The same conclusion is reached by Dr. Hort from a consideration of the families or groups into which docu- ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 40. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HOKT EXPLAINED. 41 ments are divided by him. History shews that one mainly uniform text has prevailed from the present time as far back as the second half of the fourth century. This he denomi- nates the ' Syrian' text (i.), which he declares to have derived its origin from a recension made at Antioch, and to have come thence to Constantinople, since Antioch was the ' true ecclesiastical parent of Constantinople.'^ Enthroned thus in the Eastern capital, it became dominant in the Christian world. But there are said by him to have been three other texts ' which can be identified through numerous readings distinctively attested by characteristic groups of extant documents.' These are called by Dr. Hort (ii.) the Western, which was found in Italy, Africa, and other parts of the West, as well as originally in Syria, and dealt largely in paraphrase and interpolation, as may be seen in the Cam- bridge Codex Bez?e (D), its chief existing representative ; (iii.) the Alexandrian, of which but little evidence remains; and (iv.) the Neutral, which is free from the peculiarities of either, and of which there are traces, ' indubitable and signi- ficant,' 'in the remains of Clement and Origen, together with the fragment of Dionysius and Peter of Alexandria,' and ' in a certain measure in the works of Eusebius of Cajsarea, who was deeply versed in the theological literature of Alexandria.' ' 4. It appears, therefore, Dr. Hort continues, that of these four types of text, two are affected with peculiar traces of corruption, viz., the Western which degenerated into para- phrase, and ' incorporation of extraneous matter,' and the Alexandrian, which is oppressed with minor faults, such as 'incipient paraphrase and skilful assimilation.' The Neutral alone of the remaining two reached back to earliest times. ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 143. - Ibid., p. 127, 42 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. The Syrian is represented as worthless, because it was made up in the fourth century, as is attempted to be proved in the following manner : — (i.) The analysis of certain passages, of which eight are given, is declared by Dr. Hort to prove that the ' Syrian ' Text was made up by an eclectic combination of the read- ings of other texts into one ' conflate ' reading. For instance, in St. Mark vi. 33, at the end of the verse, the 'Neutral' reading is said to be Ka\ TrpoiiXSov avrov(, the '^Vestern' avvriXdov avrov, both of which are supposed to be com- bined in the 'Syriac' into Kal TrpoiiXdoy avrovi;, teal avvrjXQov irpoQ avTov. Dr. Hort argues at some length that the last phrase spoils St. Mark's diction. And from this and similar instances he draws the conclusion that at some authori- tative revision the other texts were blended into a 'form lucid and complete, smooth and attractive, but appre- ciably impoverished in sense and force, more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.' (2.) The same conclusion is supposed to be reached by the evidence of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, none of whom — it is contended — exhibit a 'Syrian' Text. The Latin Fathers, of course, quote the Western ; and they are said to be fol- lowed by Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Hippolytus, Methodius, and Eusebius.^ In the works of Clement of Alexandria, it is maintained that non-Western as well as Western quota- tions are discoverable, but no 'Syrian;' and in those of Origen all the other kinds of texts can be found, but none, Dr. Hort thinks, of a distinctively ' Syrian ' character. (3.) This position, as Dr. Hort argues, is confirmed by ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 113. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT EXPLAINED. 43 the internal evidence of various passages, though it is ad- mitted that the authors of the ' Syrian ' Text ' may have copied from some other equally ancient and perhaps purer text now otherwise lost.' ^ But Dr. Hort says that examina- tion shews that this text was made up by revisers from the rest, sometimes by following one or other, sometimes by modification, or by combination, or pruning, or by intro- ducing changes of their own when they had none to follow.^ Hence, Dr. Hort concludes that 'all distinctively Syrian readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating after the middle of the third century, and therefore, as far as transmission is concerned, corruptions of the apostolic text.' He even asserts that they can attest nothing by themselves, and do not always add strength to attestations of the other texts, because they may themselves be only derived from the original autographs through those very texts. 5. It follows, he thinks, that the Neutral, where it can be verified, remains as alone the pure representative of the un- alloyed Scriptures of the New Testament. It has been already declared that, in his opinion, B and ^^, the leading MSS. which set forth this text, enjoy a special pre-eminence, because of their superior antiquity, and by reason of their purity of text. Accordingly, with slight exception, 'readings of K B should be accepted as the true readings until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary, and no readings of K B can safely be rejected absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place them only on an alternative footing, especially where they re- ceive no support from Versions or Fathers.' Of the two, B is the purer, which ' must be regarded as having preserved ' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 115. ^ Ibid., p. 118. 44 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. not only a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient text,' ' K having on its way fallen upon ' at least two early aberrant texts.' ' When therefore B stands with any other leading manuscript alone without {<, its readings nearly always ' have the ring of genuineness.' ' And * even when B stands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly re- jected.' * Such, so far as the present limits will admit, are the lead- ing points in the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. If it has been improperly portrayed, this is not due to any want of desire to do justice to it. And indeed even what has been here said, and still more the elaborate treatises in the Introduction and at the end of the text of the Greek Testament, must impress all persons deeply with the patient ingenuity, the critical acumen, and the mastery of the subject evinced by those distinguished scholars. But whether this Theory has a strong and solid foundation, and will endure the shock of the long examination and vigorous analysis that it is sure to encounter, or indeed whether it has any foundation at all, is quite another matter. The solution which it offers in all difficulties is too suspi- ciously easy. It almost amounts to this : — ' Do not trouble yourself about other authorities, but attend to B and J<, which will supply all you want.' How can it be right to cast to the winds at least four-fifths of the evidence — if it be not vastly more — and to draw the inferences solely from the remainder ? Such a course cannot but carry with it its own condemna- tion. And on studying and testing the Theory, the first thing that strikes a man of logical mind is, that he sees an ' Westcott and Hort, "Introduction," p. 251. - Ibid., p. 249.^^'^^ ^ Ibid., p. 227. ^ Ibid., Preface, p. 557. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 45 ambitious and lofty outline, which upon closer examination turns out to be merely cloud reared upon cloud. There is no firm footing for the feet of an inquirer. The impal- pable and shadowy nature of the investigation contrasts strangely with the gravity and earnestness of the writer. There is abundance of considerations, surmises, probabili- ties, generalizations, made both from known particulars of history and from details lying in the memories or in the private note-books of the authors ; but an array of facts strong enough to establish satisfactorily each stage in ad- vance is wholly wanting, whilst the leaps made in ardent speculation here and there over wide chasms reveal the in- security of the country traversed. Proofs are required : and no real proofs are offered. Seldom indeed has a theory been advanced with so few facts for its basis. Passing now to the examination of the general considera- tions that are presented, we find too litde stress laid upon such Internal Evidence as is grounded upon clear facts or sound sense, and too much upon a classification of docu- ments which rests exclusively upon individual opinion. The real judge of Internal Evidence is the sanctified intellect, applying the conclusions, not of separate minds of a peculiar cast, not of single schools of opinion neutralized by other schools, but of the corporate thought of the Church, resting upon a clear foundation of sense or fact, ascertained in a vigorous exercise of mental power. And the illumination of the sanctified intellect proceeds from the Great Inspirer of the Holy Scriptures themselves, the true Interpreter of their form and meaning, the Source of all the mental strength in the world, the Holy Spirit of the Eternal God. But we do not hear from the Extreme Textualist School of any such judgment, and so they leave their common sense behind 46 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. them, and we are told that the Lord's side was pierced before death, that the sun was ecHpsed when the moon was full, and that it is possible that St. Paul may have added to the high traits of Charity that she actually refrains from seeking what is not her own. On the other hand, such in- ferences as are drawn from the natural or known proclivities of copyists must be employed sparingly, and cannot support much weight in the face of positive attestation. And judg- ments upon the Internal character of documents, unless generally accepted within the boundaries of the Science, or supported by definite, produced, clear reasons, cannot be accepted as foundations to build upon. Even pure anti- quity, when evidence is scanty, is too rude an instrument of relative decision. The comparative assessment of the value of ancient origin is not of necessity measured by centuries or de- cades, because some of the associations ofthe earliest ages were far from good, and any document may reflect them, whilst another of later date may be more free from such disturbing influences. We do not go back merely to Ante-Nicene times for the Canon of Scripture, or we might find cause to include the Epistle of St. Barnabas in the list of books. At the same time, if we light upon a pure strain of the best antiquity, we cannot fail to be on the right track. Again, there may be a great variety of opinions upon the purity of any text. Drs. Westcott and Hort, and others, rate B and K very high. It may perhaps be more than doubted whether such would be the verdict of critics, if they approached them without knowing what they were. Dr. Scrivener, in his calm and dispassionate manner, places the estimate some way down. Dean Burgon, upon plain and definite grounds, rates them very low. Kuenen and Cobet say that B is full of errors. Till agreement is reached, it is evident that reasons so shift- THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 47 ing and unstable can constitute no real pillar of support for any superstructure/ Next of Genealogy. Here evidently lurk the pitfalls which are involved in an analogy made the groundwork of an argument. The reasoning is correct, so far as it is impos- sible for a good copy to be made from a bad exemplar, though to a slight extent external influence, such as the re- collection in the copyist of a better guide, may somewhat improve the offspring, like good companionship or the effects of study ; or secondly, as to the probability that better as well as worse features will be reproduced in the copies made from it. Again, we are told that, ' so far as genealogical re- lations are discovered with perfect certainty,' ' being directly involved in historical facts,' ' their immediate basis is his- torical, not speculative.' " But indeed inasmuch as ' no single step in the descent can be produced, in other words, no genealogical evidence exists,'^ all is precarious instead of ' Dr. Hort goes so far as to admit the use of conjectural emenda- tion. (" Introd.," p. 7.) Well may Dean Burgon say, 'Conjectural Emendation can be allowed no place whatever in the Textual Criti- cism of the New Testament.' This is an established principle (Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," p. 490-1.) It is too dangerous an instrument in the hand of any man, and wholly devoid of authority, which is of the essence of Holy Writ. Besides, the wealth of illustra- tion makes it scarce anywhere needed. " When ... it was clear that the channels of transmission was sufficient to supply evidence on the text, there was no one thing as to which critical editors were more unanimous than in the rejection of all conjecture in the formation of a text." — Tregelles, "Introduction to the Critical Study," &c., pp. 149, 150. - Westcott and Hart, "Introduction," p. d'l. * Dean Burgon, "The Revision Revised," p. 256. The Dean further shows (p. 257) that close relationship is known only in three instances, (i) F. and G. ; (2) 13, 69, 124, and 346; and (3) B and H ; and that these are related as brothers (or sisters) or cousins, not in 48 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. being historical, and there are no premisses and therefore no inference. Between the actual facts and the supposed conclusion often lies a long space into which speculation is but too apt to enter. For instance, when Dr. Hort argues that the similarity to one another of those numerous Uncials in what he terms the Syrian class shows that they came from one ancestor, and that although they largely outnumber X and B, they can therefore have at the best only the authority of one ancestor set against another ancestor, he entirely disregards the pre- sumption that a larger number of descendants came from a larger number of ancestors, and that the majority may be only thrust back from one generation to a previous one. In truth, the argument from genealogy — such as it is — con- ducts the unprejudiced inquirer to results the very opposite to those of Dr. Hort. Again, when it is assumed that the common ancestor of K and B came into existence in the early part of the second century, there is, so far as genealogy is concerned, a lofty disregard of the obvious truth that generations might be propagated as fast as the pens of scribes would admit ; and that after the wholesale destruction of copies in the persecu- tion of Diocletian and Galerius, it is almost certain that transcription must have proceeded at a rapid rate. Gene- alogy therefore is misleading, for it supplies no warrant for any conclusion as to time, and in fact suggests an untrue analogy. If on other grounds this is a speculative inference, the instinct of such experienced scholars as Drs. Westcott and Hort is entitled to respectful consideration. But it any direct line of genealogy. To these three instances must now be added, since the discovery of 2, the affinity between i: and N. Scrive- ner, "Plain Introduction," p. 159. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 49 cannot be endorsed by other students than themselves, until it is proved to have foundation in well-authenticated facts duly represented. But the principle of Genealogy must be regarded on the side of descendants as well as of ancestors. Manuscripts in high repute ought to have been largely copied. Was the great era of Chrysostom, of Basil, of the Gregories, when the Canon of Scripture was settled, and the Faith of Christen- dom fixed, so innocent of the value of pure Texts, that the learned let the true type preserved in at least two pre- eminently good ones languish in obscurity and disuse ? Yet whilst the other form of Text numbers its many hundreds, Dr. Hort reckons only twelve Neutral MSS. in all of the Gospels.^ Can this fact be accounted anything else than a deliberate and unremitting condemnation of the tv/o docu- ments under investigation ? Incidental proofs are not want- ing that the character of disputed passages and of manuscripts came under careful discussion during this and the succeed- ing ages.^ It is inconceivable that, amidst the wealth of dissident documents, and at a time when the literary intellect of the world was occupied with ecclesiastical questions, and the monuments of past authorship were being stored, there could have existed such neglect of the purity of the sacred writings of the Church as is taken for granted by Dr. Hort. The abundance of contemporary commentaries forbids such a supposition. Therefore the Vatican and Sinaitic manu- scripts cannot but receive very serious discredit from their want of following. ' Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 171. These are B, h, 'T of St. Luke and St John, S of St Luke, L., 33, ^ (in St. Mark), C, Z of St. Matthew, R of St. Luke, Q, and P.' ^ See below, Chapter VIL E 50 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. Again, the theory of Families, or groups, of manuscripts cannot stand in any definite or clearly cut shape. Since it was first proposed by Bentley, it has passed through constant modifications. The foundations laid by one master hav^e been disturbed by his successor, whose own excavations and masses of cement have been re-made by the next. The difficulties to which the constructors of an inexorable theory have been driven are shown by the severing of one manu- script, after the example of Solomon's award, into portions supposed to belong to three Families. Dr. Scrivener is surely right in describing this process as ' that violent and most unlikely hypothesis, that Cod. A follows the Byzantine class of authorities in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and the Alexandrian in St. Paul.' ^ But it may be asked, is there then no truth at all in the assignment of characters to manuscripts, or in any sort of grouping ? And the answer of a candid inquirer must be that there may perhaps be an amount of justice in the con- notation of characteristic features, but that great care must be taken not to lay too much stress upon it, and certainly not to draw a few broad and dark lines separating one province from another. And especially, generalizations con- structed upon such induction as the case admits, must be employed most sparingly in deductive arguments, or logic will stand aghast. And as to the Families, or groups, suggested by Dr. West- cott and Hort, there are no doubt a number of documents ' " Plain Introduction," p. 472. 'Qure cum ita sint, sequitur exercen- tibus rem criticam summa opus esse cautione in adhibenda classium sive recensionum distinctione : quam ut summam normam aut fundamentum ponere et temerarium et frustra est.' — Tischendorf, quoted by Dr. Caspar Rene Gregory, Prolegomena, 1884, p. 196. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 51 which ordinarily support the Traditional Text, there are also others which make for what they call the Neutral Text, and others which support Western readings. And there are many that take different sides : and most of those which are gene- rally found on one, occasionally appear on the other. There are also Western readings and Alexandrian readings. But the existence of an 'Alexandrian' text, as distinct from their * Neutral ' text, is more than doubtful. Dr. Hort's descrip- tion of it is of the vaguest, and the materials of proof, which are all that he can point to, are of the scantiest. We now come to the position resting upon the supposed posteriority of the so-called Syrian Text. Here again we are in the region of pure speculation unsustained by historical facts. Dr. Hort imagines first that there was a recension of the early Syrian Version, which this School maintains was represented by the Curetonian Version, somewhere between 250, A.D., and 350, at Edessa, or Nisibis, or Antioch.^ The result of this recension is said to have been the Peshito Ver- sion, which has hitherto been referred to the second century. We may remark, by the way, that the Peshito must be got rid of by Extreme Textualists, or it would witness inconveniently before the Fourth century to the 'Syrian' Text. Well indeed may Dr. Hort add 'even for conjecture the materials are scanty.' It would have been truer to the facts to have said, ' for such a conjecture there are no materials at all, and therefore it must be abandoned.' " But Drs. Westcott and Hort also maintain that an authori- tative recension of a much larger character was made after ^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," pp. 136, 137. •^ See Dr. Scrivener, "Plain Introduction," pp. 233-4, and Dean Burgon's elaborate proof of the groundlessness of the supposition of any authoritative recension at all, in "The Revision Revised," pp. 272-281. 52 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. this at Antioch, and resulted in the formation of the ' Syrian ' Text of the Gospels in Greek, which was formed upon the Vulgate, or common Syriac Version. What proof exists any- where of such an important proceeding ? A recension, be it observed, so thorough and so sweeping in its effects, that, according to the theory under consideration, it must have placed the text it produced in such a commanding situation that it has reigned for fifteen centuries without a rival. How could this have occurred without an achieve- ment so great and famous that the report of it must have gone abroad ? Surely this must have been another Council of Nicaea, or at least a Council of Ariminum. Such results could not have issued from a mystery like that of the view- less wind. Yet there is positively no record in the history — not to speak of a Council of the Church — but of any single incident justifying the assumption that such an authoritative revision ever took place. ^ Never surely was there such an attempt before made to foist such pure fiction into history. But besides that, the arguments for the formation of a new text in the Fourth century thoroughly break down. (i.) The evidence in only the eight' instances given is certainly not enough to establish the existence of such a ' conflation,' or a combination of supposed other texts into one eclectic reading throughout the New Testament. But supposing for a moment that these eight were specimens of what constantly occurs, who, from internal evidence alone, can say dogmatically which is posterior — the entire text, or the respective portions of it ? Surely the integral whole, ^ See Burgon's, "The Revision Revised," pp. 272-88; and Cook's " Revised Version," pp. 195-204. Dr. Scrivener calls the two supposed recensions 'phantom revisions.' "Plain Introduction," p. 534. ^ Westcott and Hort, Introduction. THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 53 which Dr. Hort (p. 134) admits to possess 'lucidity and completeness,' and to be ' entirely blameless on either lite- rary or religious grounds as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction,' has the better title to be held to have been the original form than any of the separate portions. Omission must be a possible fault with all copyists ; ^ and indubitable instances show that the scribes of K and B were habitual offenders in this respect. With reference to the character of the texts, many scholars would not agree with Drs. West- cott and Hort in the value which they set upon a Thucydidean ruggedness.^ (2.) As to the alleged absence of readings of the Tradi- tional Text from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Dr. Hort draws largely upon his imagination and his wishes. The persecution of Diocletian is here also the parent of much want of information. But is there really such a dearth of these readings in the works of the Early Fathers as is supposed? Dr. Scrivener^ maintains that Dr. Hort speaks much too sweepingly. Besides this, Dean Burgon has cited against the readings advocated by the New School more than fifty authorities from Ante-Nicene writings upon five pas- sages.' Are these ten testimonies on an average to each ' St. Jerome traces transcriptional error to three sources : — (i) Vel a vitiosis interpretibus male edita, (2) Vel a presumptoribus imperitis emendata perversius, (3) Vel a librariis dormitantibus addita sunt.' Prcefatio ad Damasum. ^ See note at the end of the chapter. ^ " Plain Introduction," pp. 533-540. ^ Last twelve verses of St. Mark ; i Tim. iii. 16 ; St. Luke xxii. 43, 44; xxiii. 34; ii. 14. 'The number of Early Fathers,' ending always with Eusebius, is about 100. Burgon, "Last Twelve Verses," p. 21 ; " The Revision Revised," p. 290. See below. Chapter VL, end. Dean Burgon's command of Patristic evidence is simply mar- 54 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. passage to be reckoned as alien to the Traditional Text, or not rather as evident indications of an earlier origin reach- ing back to the Apostolic age ? Besides the Fathers, some of the Versions — notably the Peshito, which is referred by the best critics to the second century ' — that are older than any MSS., give frequent support to the readings of the Traditional Text. (3.) What is said about Internal Evidence is much too vague and misty to sustain so strong a conclusion. And it is balanced with the candid admission, that after all the peculiar readings of the Received Text may perhaps be derived from ' some equally ancient and perhaps purer text now otherwise lost.'" What seems to Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort to constitute internal evidence in each instance does not seem so to others. Where is the rock amidst this peri- lous sand-drift ? We are driven therefore to the characters of N and B as the last refuge of the Theory under examination. And we cannot but be struck with the great argument in their favour. They are the oldest MSS. in existence. They are extremely handsome, and in some respects are complete.^ Their verdict in the opinion of nearly all judges is entitled to respectful attention. But besides that they are not much older than A and C, how can Drs. Westcott and Hort get over the central fact that these MSS. have hardly any following in the ages after vellous. It is to be hoped that he will communicate to the Church the treasures that he must have been long amassing. ^ See below, Chapter VI. ^ Westcott and Hort, " Introduction," p. 115. ^ N is the only complete Uncial copy of the New Testament. B ends at Heb. ii. 14, but is complete so far, except in its numerous omissions. THEORY OF IVESTCOTT AND HOKT REFUTED. 55 them, and so have been condemned by Catholic antiquity ? They were probably produced about a.d. 330-340/ a short time before the Canon of Holy Scripture was settled, when the general subject of the Holy Scriptures must have come under discussion. They just antedated the most intelligent period of the early Church, when the finest intellects in the world were engaged in ascertaining the exact lineaments of ' The Faith once delivered to the saints.' How could these men have escaped from spending particular care upon the Sacred Text ? We learn that St. Jerome did so upon the Latin Versions. And the fact, acknowledged over and over again by Dr. Hort, that one uniform text has prevailed from that period till now, surely alone constitutes a decisive con- demnation of this so-called ' Neutral Text.' The period too of the production of these two MSS. is in- structive. It was when the Church was all but Semiarian : of this there is no doubt. But it appears also extremely probable that they were made under the direction of Euse- bius of Csesarea, a leader of the Semiarian party. The scribe of the Vatican B is supposed by Tischendorf, with the agree- ment of Dr. Scrivener and by the admission of Dr. Hort, to have written part of the Sinaitic K.^ The date of the execu- tion, as fixed upon other grounds, was about the time when Eusebius was commissioned by Constantine to prepare fifty manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures, and send them to Con- stantinople. These two MSS. stand unrivalled for the beauty of their caligraphy, and of the vellum on which they are written, and in all respects are just what we should expect ' See Cook, "Revised Version," p. 160. - I.e., ' six conjugate leaves of Cod. N, being three pairs in three distant quires, one of them containing the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel.' "Plain Introduction," p. 92, note 1. 56 EXTREME TEXTUALISM. to have been produced in obedience to an imperial man- date.^ And, as has been already stated, the text of these two manuscripts is not so perfect as would be necessary, if they were worthy to be placed upon the high pedestal that is prepared for them by their ardent advocates. Dean Burgon after collations extending through many years has supplied figures which it seems impossible to withstand." The marks of carelessness spread over them, especially prevailing in K,are incompatible with perfection. Tischendorf, after collating B, speaks of the blemishes that occur throughout.^ Dr. Dobbin reckons 2,556 omissions in B as far as Heb. ix. 14, where it terminates.' Vercellone, the editor, tells of ' perpetual omissions,' 'of half a verse, a whole verse, and even of several verses.' ' This is just what examination reveals : and K is unquestionably worse. Yet doubtless in the tem- perate words of Dr. Scrivener, ' we accord to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any document in existence.' ^ But we cannot agree with those who rate either it or the Sinaitic extravagantly high : and the fact that these two are frequently found with a few others in a small minority must ^ See below, Chapter VII, Canon Cook, "The Revised Version," pp. 159-183, argues this admirably. Dean Burgon thinks otherwise. - "Revision Revised," p. I4, 94-5, 249, cf. 376,384-6. My own figures, derived from a smaller collation of the five Uncials, agree mainly with those of the Dean, who says that * the task of laboriously collecting the five "old uncials" throughout the Gospels, occupied me for five-and-a-half years, and taxed me severely.' (P. 376.) " Universa Scriptura; Vatican^ Vitiositas." Dublin University Magazine," 1859, p. 620. Dr. Dobbin calcu- lates 330 in St. Matthew, 365 in St. Mark, 439 in St. Luke, 357 in St. John, 384 in the Acts, and 681 in the Epistles. ^ Burgon's " Lettere from Rome," p. 18. " See "Plain Introduction," p. 116. 4 (I THEORY OF WESTCOTT AND HORT REFUTED. 57 make us always examine their testimony, unless it is strongly supported, with suspicion and care/ ^ Character of B. Judged by the ordinary rules of criticism, the text of B is far from being of such a superior character as to wai-rant the excessive submis- sion that Extreme Textualists claim for it. Thus, besides serious blemishes which have been already mentioned (above, pp. 27-29), we find in the face of superior readings well attested : — (i.) Omissions of an entire verse, or of a longer passage, having all the appearance of being intrinsically genuine : — Matt. xii. 47 ; xvi. 2, 3 (a verse and eight words) ; xviii. 1 1 ; xxiii. 14 ; Mark vii. 16 ; ix. 44, 46 ; xi. 26 ; Luke xvii. 36 ; xxiii. 17 ; John v. 3, 4 (a verse and five words) ; Acts xxiv. 6, 7, 8 (a verse and fourteen words) ; xxviii. 29 ; Rom. xv. 24. (2.) Similar omissions of more than three words : — Matt. V. 44 (12 words) ; xx. 16 (7) ; 22 (6) ; 23 (7) ; xxviii. 9 (7) ; Mark vi. 11 (15) ; 33 (4) ; 36 (4) ; viii. 26 (6) ; x. 7 (6) ; 24 (5) ; xi. 8 (5) ; xii. 30 (4) ; 33 (5) ; Luke i. 28 (angelic salutation, 4), iv. 4 (5) ; 5 (5) ; vi. 45 (5) ; viii. 16 (6) ; 43 (6) ; ix. 55, 56 (24); x. 22 (8) ; xi. 44 (4) ; xvii. 19 (5) ; 24 (4) ; xxii. 64 (6) ; xxiv. i (4) ; 42 (4) ; John i. 27 (7) ; iii. 13 (5) ; viii 59 (7) ; xiii. 32 (6) ; xvi. 16 (6) ; Acts xv. 18 (7) ; 24 (6) ; xviii. 21 (11) ; xxi. 22 (4) ; 25 (6) ; Col. iii. 6 (5) ; i Thess. i. I (8) ; Heb. ii. 7 (9); vii. 21 (4). (3.) Short but important omissions : — Matt. i. 25. avTijg tov irpojToroKov ; v. 22. tlKt] ; vi. 4, 18. kv T(^ tpavtptfi ; xxvi. 28. icaivijg (Words of Institution) ; Mark ix. 29. icai yqcTTeig,; x. 6. 6 Qe6(; ; 21. dpag tov crravpov ; xiii. 18. ?'/ cpvyt) vfioJv ; xiv. 22-24. (payeTc-rb-KaLvfjg (Words of Institution) ; 6S. Kal I'jXtKTUjp i(P(jjvi])v kui ; 2 Cor. v. 14. ei ; Eph. i. I. Lv 'Es'0f- xvi. 12. I'lfifrepoi' for vn'iTfpov, — a patent blunder. Acts XXV. 13. d(T7raadi.ievoi for a(T7roo-o)t ^^^ reff. there given. Cook, " Revised Version," pp. 136-141. Michelsen, in " Theologisch Tijdschrift," Jan. 1844. See also Kuenen and Cobet, " Novum Test, ad fidem Cod. Vaticani." Leyden, i860. Prcefatio. N is admitted everywhere, except in the fond eyes of Tischendorf and of a few admirers here and there, to be greatly inferior to B. CHAPTER V. the rival school. Tenets of the Rival and Sound School stated and considered. IN treating of Extreme Textualism, so much has been borrowed from the representations of the Rival School, which of late years has perhaps been chiefly known in re- sistance to aggressive tenets, that much less explanation of the principles maintained in it is now needful than would otherwise have been required. Nevertheless the position of the chief doctors in this School must be defined. Their attitude has been frequently and indeed strangely misrepre- sented. Besides which, their teaching is given, not merely in opposition or protest, but in clear and definite expression of principles. I. And first, it must be remarked, that it is unjust to in- sinuate that they are set against all revision of the Greek Text. They would not be Textualists at all if they were not ready to adopt what are really the verdicts upon all the evidence. ' Again and again,' says Dean Burgon, ' we shall have to point out that the Textus Receptus needs correc- tion." ' No one can read Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduc- tion," a work which every clergyman should possess and study, without observing that so stiff an adhesion to the Text received from the last three centuries has no place in ^ " The Revision Revised," p. 21, note. THEIR SOUND TENETS. 6i his thoughts. Quotation or proof of so notorious a circum- stance are absolutely unnecessary. Nor again must it be imagined that discrimination in the employment of authorities is repudiated by them. Whilst Dr. Scrivener rejects the idea of families of manuscripts, he allows that grouping in a moderate manner is necessary in order to judge of their character and value. 'Now that theories about the formal recensions of whole classes of these documents have generally been given up as purely visionary, and the very word fajnilies has come into disre- pute by reason of the exploded fancies it recalls, we can discern not the less clearly that certain groups of them have in common not only a general resemblance in regard to the readings they exhibit, but characteristic peculiarities attach- ing themselves to each group.' ^ It is inevitable that one document should have a high reputation, and another be rated deservedly low. The relative antiquity, the circum- stances attending the production so far as they are known, the nature of the text so far as it reveals itself to clear and definite criticism, are admitted as demanding to be taken into account. Objection is felt to * the glorification ' of a few, so as to make them almost ' objects of superstition and iaolatry : ' but there the objection ceases. 2. The leading principle of the School is that all autho- rities should be fairly and relatively weighed. The old Uncial manuscripts according to their age and character, the later Uncials of the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries, the Cursive manuscripts from the tenth century onwards ; the Versions with reference to their antiquity and excellence ; Lectionaries, as they were accredited and agreed with one another and with other manuscripts; and quotations from ^ "Plain Introduction," pp. 553, 4. The italics are Dr. Scrivener's. 62 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. Fathers after their ascertained merit.^ There is much work to be done in editing, collating, and indexing before this vast mass of evidence is ready for use. Thus these men widen the basis, and endeavour to build their superstructure upon the broadest and surest foundation. If it be objected that the work of revision is indeed formidable and must be delayed under this method of proceeding for many years, the answer is ready. It is dangerous to meddle with the Holy Scrip- tures, which are bound up so closely with the Faith. The changes proposed are numerous and momentous : and what if they are found to be really corruptions and depravations of the Sacred Deposit ? Reverence and caution are essen- tial in the things of God. Whatever is done must by all means be well done. A few years, or a life-time or two, long indeed in our sight, are little in the history of mankind, and still less in the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. It is better to aid humbly in a steady and wise advance than to attempt hastily to settle questions, and to end by un- settling them. 3. Such is the general system of this school of Sound or High Textualists. But in one grand point the school is at issue with the last. Extreme Textualism seems to look upon any support derived from the Traditional or Received Texts as merely supplying to readings a title to be abused and spurned,^ instead of securing for them considerations of respect. Yet the fact, admitted several times by Drs. Westcott and Hort,'' that the Tradi- tional Text is fifteen hundred years old, ought surely ' For particulars, see below, Chapters VIII. IX. ^ Any reading labelled by Dr. Hort as * Syrian,' is summarily rejected by him with something very like ignominy. ^ See above, p. 26, note 2. THEIR SOUND TENETS. 63 to ensure for it other treatment. Is is probable that St. Chrysostom, the Gregories, and St. Basil, amidst an abun- dance of early manuscripts, with which our present stores could not be mentioned on the same day in comparison for antiquity and value, would all have been led away in the company of their great contemporaries to prefer an inferior strain of copies ? Is it likely, that if they had missed the right turn, their successors in the following ages would not have discovered that they were on the wrong road, and would have failed to work back into the Royal Highway ? Is it indeed possible that the great King of the new King- dom, Who has promised to be with His subjects 'alway even unto the end of the world,' should have allowed the true text of the written laws of His Kingdom to lurk in obscurity for nearly fifteen hundred years, and a text vitiated in many important particulars to have been handed down and venerated as the genuine form of the Word of God ? Could the effect of the sacred Presence of the Holy Ghost in the Church be looked for in any more important and peculiar province, than in the preservation of the fashion and lineaments of that body of written records and teaching which He Himself has inspired? Therefore the Rival School of Sound or High Textualists is right in attributing the greatest importance to the Tradi- tional Text, as the Text undoubtedly handed down in the Church, and importance also to the Received Text, as an excellent though by no means an exact exponent of the former of the two. This is a matter of so much moment, that the present inquiry would be far from complete, even in the limited scope which belongs to a concise guide to the main features of Textual Criticism, if it did not include a descrip- tion of the salient points in the history of the Sacred Text, 64 THE RIVAL SCHOOL. SO far as it is known. Error usually arises from our ignoring some essential element. And the question really is, whether we ought to make a clean sweep of the past, except so much as dates of documents are concerned, and rest solely upon the uncertain glimmer of criticism formed centuries after the materials for that criticism were produced, or whether we cannot indeed discover in the course of actual events, so far as they have been made known to us, the virtual determina- tion of this important controversy, and solid grounds of judgment which may compel and sustain a mature and sound decision. But before entering upon a brief view of such history, one remark is needed as to the nature of the points at issue. They depend upon an estimate of proportion, — how much value we ought to attribute to this point, and how much to that. The evidence is mainly before us, and its existence is undisputed. This indeed is the pivot upon which judg- ments must turn. As in sculpture, symmetry and beauty of form depend upon each limb and feature being represented in due measure, and he carries about with him the true sculptor's eye, who with readiness and precision sees where any part of the outline is enlarged or diminished or out of place; so in our decisions, whether of a pettier or a more weighty kind, the greater part of them are involved in the stress that we lay, or do not lay, upon the particulars pre- sented to us — in fact, upon the proportion which they seve- rally assume in our view. We may indeed err from insuffi- ciency of evidence, or narrowness of survey : but more often our success or failure is determined by correctness or error in laying emphasis, or else by just or false discernment in the formation of our estimate. CHAPTER VI. HISTORY OF THE TRADITIONAL TEXT TILL THE ERA OF ST. CHRYSOSTOM. Early Corruption. A Pure Line. Early Versions. Rise within the Church of Semi-Sceptical Philo- sophy, and Production of a Vitiated Text. Proof OF the Prevalence of the Traditional Text. COMPARATIVE Criticism must not be prosecuted in the case of the writings of the New Testament upon exactly the same principles as those which prevail in ascer- taining the text of Classical Authors. It is true that gene- rally speaking what is sound in the one case cannot be gain- said in the other. The verdict of the manuscripts must be taken according to the principles dictated by critical acumen and established by experience. But Sacred criticism super- adds some considerations of a very grave nature. In the first place, the mass of materials of criticism is so vast, and the wealth of attested readings is so great, that there is no need of any Conjectural Emendation. The sole duty of the Textual Critic is found in assembling, weighing, and balancing the different kinds of evidence that can be brought to bear upon the passage under review. There is no demand therefore for conjecture; it is an ascertainment of facts : besides that conjecture or surmise are entirely ex- F 66 BEFORE ST. CHRYSOSTOM. eluded by reason of the peculiar dignity and loftiness of the subject.^ Secondly, the position of the Holy Scriptures as inspired by God the Holy Ghost must never be allowed to pass out of recollection. The great Inspirer of the Writings is also Himself the great Guide of the Church. Accordingly, the overruling care exercised by Him according to promise is a factor all through the history which must ever be borne in mind. Not of course that evil has been excluded from co- existing along with the good — such is the universal expe- rience : but nevertheless the Church, as the ' Witness and Keeper of Holy Writ,' has, under His direction, cast out the evil from time to time, and has kept to a generally defined course. Serious errors might have been committed in the transmission of the works of Homer, or of Thucy- dides, or of Aristotle : and indeed many of the books of the last of these are supposed to have perished. But it can hardly be conceived that the Holy Ghost, after communi- cating His Inspiration in the composition of books, would in the midst of His overruling care have allowed those books to be varied according to changing winds of human opinion and human action, without the maintenance throughout of a form mainly at least free from error. It can scarcely be but that a succession of copies pure from any great corruption must have existed, and existed too in predominance, all down the Church's history. Thirdly, although the separate books of the New Testa- ^ See above, p. 47, note i. Indeed, Conjectural Emendation in editing classical writings must ever be hazardous, and is not now rated nearly so high as it used to be. Dindorf's earlier text of Sophocles is much better than his later one. Successive editors usually return to the unamended text. TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 67 ment were unquestionably the productions of separate authors, and bear the traces of a distinct personality in each instance, it would be nevertheless wrong to regard them — especially the Gospels — as solely individual compositions. In their corporate, apart from their individual aspect, they were embodiments of a Teaching and Faith, which had been imparted to the Church, and taught by the Church, before those books were severally written. Immediately after the Lord's Ascension and the coming of the Holy Ghost, there came into operation a continual exercise of oral teaching, which must have gradually assumed definite system and recognised fashion and form. Since the events of our Lord's Life must have been related continually in all evangelizing action, and there must of necessity have been a large number of eager narrators, and since the subject too was one that must have enlisted all the reverence in their souls, there must also have been at work a never-ceasing corrective criticism, under which the stories told must have become, so to speak, almost stereotyped with few variations.^ In course of time, when either the converts demanded manuals for elementary information, or Lections were needed ' The accordance in so many respects with one another of the Synoptic Gospels has been explained upon three main theories : — (i) That the Evangelists made use of a common document, or common documents, (Eichhorn), (2) That the later Evangelists made use of the writings of their predecessor, or predecessors, (Townson), (3) That each Gospel was made up from a permanent type of oral teaching, (Gieseler.) See Lee on " Inspiration," Appendix L. The last seems to me to be the best explanation, as being truest to the facts. Cf, St. Luke i. 1-4. Ty lv^pa<^t{> rod Oeiov KrjpvYfiaroQ ^iSa