PRINCETON, N. J. ^L.^^-^,ctii ij S. £. A'^ufu^/^: Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/fivepapersOOwarf .v >\ O- A v » -. i\ c>> »\ -^ '^- -•Jtj. A 5 ' . i ^ r . \ V i ^ , - f >v ^\ _> r VI. THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT.* AFTER twenty-eight years of preparation, the text of Drs. Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament was at length given to the world in May last, followed in September by an Introduction discussing the principles of text criticism, and an Appendix compris- ing, among other important matter, a much needed series of notes on select readings. Long expected as it was, the reception which the published work has met with has been unprecedented among books of its class. It has not merely been greeted by critical jour- nals, but it has been extravagantly lauded and extravagantly con- demned by publications of purely popular character. So that, thus, a work which ordinarily would have passed silently to the shelves of specialists, has sprung suddenly into the notice of the general reader, and has, in this new sphere, made parties and raised wordy strife on subjects hitherto alien to its whole thought. This remarkable recep- tion is due partly, doubtless, to the accident of the time of its ap- pearance — the Text, just when men were looking eagerly for the publication of the Revised English New Testament, f and their minds were full of the textual problems necessarily brought before them in connection with that work, and the Introduction, just when the dis- putes concerning those problems and the proper methods of solving rhem were at white heat. It is due also partly, doubtless, to the excellent advertising which, prior to the publication, was given to the forthcoming work. Nearly every English writer on the subject has, * The New Testament in the Original Greek, the text revised by Brooke Foss Westcott, D.D., and Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. [Vol. I.] Text, [Vol. II.] Introduction, Appendix. Cambridge and London : Macmillan & Co., 1881. In the American edition (New York : Harper & Bros., i83i and 1S82) an " Introduction to the American edition, by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D." (pp. v. — Ixxxvii.), is prefixed to the first volume. f It was published five days before the Revision. 326 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. for a term of years, pointed to its coming as a boon in store for us ; so that men's minds have been on a stretch with expectations which they were eager to see fulfilled. It is undeniable, however, that it is . also due partly to the character of the text which has been found on publication to be contained in and defended by the new volumes. Naturally enough it has been looked upon as a gage thrown down in defence of the main principles adopted by the Revision Committee ; and, naturally enough, it has, therefore, only poured oil on the al- ready blazing controversy, and has called forth praise or condemna- tion according as it fell in with previously held principles or rubbed already abraded sores of prejudice. Thus, for instance, on the one hand, the Quarterly Review,^ " with regret records its conviction that these accomplished scholars have succeeded in producing a text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing" ; while, on the other, the C/mrc/i Quarterly Review thinks that "all students of the New Testament must hail with delight the appearance" of a text which, having been framed " with a splendid patience, which is at once an example and an encouragement to younger scholars," pre- sents " the New Testament in the form most approaching the original autographs which is accessible." f Other journals range themselves on one or the other of these sides with more or less enthusiasm. It is, therefore, clearly worth our while to turn aside for an hour from more attractive subjects to ask after the truth here, and seek to know just what the principles expressed by Dr. Hort:}: are, and just what kind of text has been formed from them. It may affect the » expectations with which we enter on this inquiry to know that, among previous inquirers, the opinions of those of critical judgment are pretty much all one way ; § but this cannot exonerate us from * October, 1881, p. 391 (supposed to be by Dean Burgon). f July, 1S81, pp. 514 and 519. X The Introduction, though expressing the common views and conclusions of the editors, is yet from the pen of Dr. Hort. § Dr. Schaff (Introduction to American edition, p. viii.) thinks that this work presents a more ancient and purer text than any other edition. Dr. Ezra Abbot believes {Sunday School Times, Nov. 5, 1881) that it will mark an epoch in the history of New Testament criticism. Dr. William San day (T"/;.? Expositor, October, November, December, 1881, and Contemporary Revieiv, December, 1881) enthusiastically advocates it. Dr. William Milligan {Catholic Presbyterian, September, 188 1) plainly likes it. From Germany we have seen but two brief statements : one from Hilgenfeld, who merely mentions it as a " noteworthy edition " {Zeitsch. far Wissenschaftl. Theologie, 25, II., p. 212), and the other from Dr. Von Gebhardt {Novum Test. Gmce, etc., Tauch- nitz, 1881, pp. vi. and vii.) who believes that the new edition " novum certo et inexspec- tatum his studiis emolumentum afferet," and " omnibus quotquot adhuc publicatse sunt editionibus eo praestat quod ad testimonia in diversas quasi classes discribenda et THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 327 the task, but rather renders it the more incumbent that the investi- gation shall be careful and the exposition clear. THE HISTORY OF THE PRINTED TEXT. Before, however, we enter upon this our proper task, it will be well to take a general review of the history of the printed text of the New Testament in order that we may see clearly just where the new edi- tors take up the task, — with what basis of established fact behind them and with what unsettled problems before them. The printed text of any work which has been previously propagated for a con- siderable period in manuscript usually passes through three stages : an cditio princcps is published, — then, some one edition acquires a circulation and acceptance which gives it the position and authority of a '' received text^' — and then, critical editions are framed and pub- lished in the effort to amend the received text into nearer conformity with the autographs. This is the legitimate course of history. For, the first edition is naturally printed from whatever MSS. lie nearest at hand ; and a text becomes the received text usually not from any peculiar purity that belongs to it, but from some commending exter- nal quality, — such as the beauty of its presswork or the convenience of its form, — which wins it popular favor. In a much-read work, this stage is, naturally, reached early in its printed history, before any im- portant critical amendment has been undergone. Hence, as knowl- edge is acquired of older and better MSS. than those which accident- ally fell into the way of the editor of the first edition, it becomes necessary to prepare critical editions. There must, therefore, result a striking peculiarity of procedure in the preparation of a pure edition of such a text, as distinguished from that of a work which was first published in a printed form : in the latter case the first edition is com- monly the standard to which all others {reprints, therefore,) should conform, — in the other, as the representative, ordinarily of the latest and therefore presumptively the most corrupt MSS., it i:^ the standard of that from which subsequent editions should diverge. This is pe- culiarly true of a work which has been very popular during a long period of existence in MS. and has lost none of its popularity by be- ing put through the press. The one circumstance secures the rapid multiplication of MSS. and consequently rapidly growing corruption ; the other, the early formation of favorite passing into received texts, fixing the early corruption, acute dijudicanda certa.cum ratione et tanta prolixitate quanta antehac a nemine, ibi adhibita est textus historia." Journals for 1882 were received too late for mention here. 328 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. It is not strange, therefore, that just such a history has been wrought out by the text of the New Testament. Its editio princeps (Erasmus, 1516), hurried through the press at break-neck speed in the effort to forestall a rival edition (the " Complutensian Polyglot ") known to be already printed and ready for distribution, was simply a printer's speculation and was taken from almost contemporary and utterly un- satisfactory MSS. without attempt at critical revision. It was doubt- less only a printer's device that it bore on its fore-front, its boastful title-page ; its editor was certainly free to confess in private that it was " precipitatum verius quam editum." Yet it was this text that was, without important alteration, gradually hardened into the Re- ceived Text, through the magnificence of Stephens' " Editio Regia " (1550) and the convenience of the small Elzevirs (1624-33). Though it reigned, therefore, as by prescriptive right for centuries, it is clear that the circumstances of its formation can lend it no authority ; and even were we to frame, as our final text, one practically the same, it would necessarily be " non propter Receptum sed cum Recepto," After it had been once established, however, as the Received Text, men were a long time in learning this. Although preparations for critical editions began as early as 1657 (Walton's Polyglot), yet the bondage of the Recepta was not completely shaken off until the appearance of Lachmann's New Testament in 1831. The history from 1657, therefore, falls naturally into two periods: that of bond- age to and that of emancipation from the Recepti, divided at 183 1. Lachmann thus marks an epoch, and criticism owes him a debt which can be scarcely estimated, as the bold spirit who at last actually made the step so long'^repared, of shaking ofif the shackles which so clogged it as to render a really critical edition impossible. The result of this step was to introduce the age of editions founded no longer on tra- ditionary but rather on critical principles, so that, varying the phrase- ology, we may say that 1831 separates the periods of preparation for, and of publication of, critical editions. The text which Lachmann actually published, however, was unsatisfactory: it was intended by him as preliminary to further criticism, and the material for framing a satisfactory text was not yet in the hands of scholars. So then we may say with equal truth that the preparation for criticism really continued until the days of Tischendorf and Tregelles. And there is obvious propriety as well as convenience in considering the later editions of Tischendorf and the one great edition of Tregelles as marking the first issue of really critical editions, — and even in remem- bering that these (as combining with the text much valuable new THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 329 matter in prolegomena and digests) were preparations for future criti- cism as truly as critical editions themselves. In this long-continued preparation was included the pressing of three separate lines of labor, issuing in: i. The collection of docu- mentary evidence for the text ; 2. The classification of this increas- ing material ; and 3. The formation of critical rules for the applica- tion of the evidence in the final reconstruction of the text. It is clear that no text at all worthy of the name of critical could be formed un- til the mass of evidence was collected ; and just as clear that the value of the text actually framed would depend on the soundness of the work done in the other lines. I. The work of collecting the material, heralded by Stephens and Beza, began in earnest with Walton's Polyglot (1657). The great names in this work are such as Archbishop Usher, John Fell, John Mill, in whose hands the collected various readings already amounted to 30,000, Bentley and his employes, Wetstein who made nearly as great an advance on Mill as he had done on his predecessors, especially in the matter of detailed accuracy and completeness, Mat- thaei, Alter, Birch and his compeers, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischen- dorf whose editions of MSS. " exceeded in number all that had been put forth before him," Tregelles and Scrivener. Until Tischendorf's labors were undertaken, from insufficient knowledge of material alone satisfactory editions of the Greek Testament were impossible. Now, however, we have, accessible to all, accurate editions or collations of a great number of documents, including all of great age that are known, and a sufficient number of all ages to furnish material for block- ing out with accuracy the history of the text. The exceeding modern- ness of our accurate knowledge of the contents of even the most essen- tial documents seems to be hardly realized by scholars at large ; it is made plain to the eye by a table given at the end of § 18 of Dr. Hort's Introduction. Let us only remember that ^ was not published until 1862, and B not adequately until 1868, while the present satisfactory editions of C. Q. D. D^. N. P. R. Z. L. H. E^. Pg. have all been issued since 1843. One sixth century MS. of Matthew and Mark — 2 — was only discovered in 1879" ; ^^^ thirty-four leaves (palimpsest) of an eighth or ninth century MS. of the Gospel were brought to light in i88i.t So that we do not even yet know all that may be in hiding for us. But we have at least reached this position : now, for the first time, we can feel sure that we have a sufficient body of evidence of all * In Southern Italy, by Harnack and Von Gebhardt. f In Great Britain, by Profs. Mahaffy and Abbott. 330 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. kinds before us to render possible the sketching of the history of the written text in a somewhat close and accurate manner, and to certify us that new discoveries can but enlighten dark places and not over turn the whole fabric. 2. It was inevitable in the first and earliest stage of the science, that all documents containing evidence for the text should be treated as of practically equal value. We can hardly blame Erasmus, that he set aside the readings of the only good MS. he possessed, because it differed from the rest. Nor is it difficult to understand why Stephens' collations rather ornamented his margin than emended his text; nor why the earlier editors printed the usual 'text unchanged, and relegated their MS. readings and their infirm conclusions from them alike to the Appendix or Pro- legomena. By Mill's time, however, the mass of material was already too great to be manageable when treated in separate units, like a pile of sand ; and his study of it was too intense and his mental vision too acute for him to fail to see signs of agglutination in the particles. Bentley seized these hints, and drawing a broad line between the old and the recent copies, proposed to set forth an edition framed out of the agreement between the ancient MSS. of the Greek original and those of the Latin Vulgate. The really telling work in this department was not, however, to be done on English soil. John Albert Bengel was the first who, with zeal and earnestness, set himself to the classification of documents according to their text-afifinities. He saw clearly that if they could be arranged in affiliated classes, the science of textual criticism would be greatly simplified : the individual varia- tions of document from document within the bounds of the same class would be convicted of an origin later than that of the class itself, and the class variations of family from family would alone deserve consider- ation. Thus a large number of variations would be eliminated at the outset, and the determination of the text be made comparatively easy. With no less of acumen than of patience, Bengel attacked his task. Col- lecting all the various readings of each document, he compared each of these lists with all the others, and thus sought to discover its rela- tions, and so laboriously to construct his families. The result was to follow Bentley in drawing a broad line of demarcation between the ancient and the more modern copies under the names of the African and the Asiatic families, and to make the new step of dividing, in a more shadowy manner, the African family itself into two, represented respectively by A (which was practically the only purely Greek uncial at that time known) and the Old Latin version. In his opinion THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 331 also, as in Bentley's, the African class was of supreme value ; and it was a critical rule with him that no Asiatic reading was likely to be genuine unless supported by some African document. Semler followed Bengel, and handed down his classification to Griesbach, who tested and modified it into harmony with the advancing knowledge of docu- ments, and handed it on, commended anew by his genius and scholar- ship. According to their text Griesbach found the documents of the Gospels to fall into three classes, the first two of which, no matter when the documents themselves were written, presented a text which was ■ at least as old as the third century, but the third of which contained. a text not older than the fourth or fifth. He called these classes: i. The Alexandrian, represented by B "" C L, 1,33,69, Memphitic, etc. 2. The Western, represented by the Graeco-Latin codices, the old Latin, etc. ; and 3. The Constantinopolitan, represented by A E F G H S, cursives, etc. A somewhat different distribution of docu- ments was necessary for the other portions of the New Testament ; thus A rose to the more ancient classes after the Gospels. And a long list of intermediate texts was given ; it was held, indeed, that no document preserved any one text uninjured. A misunderstanding — shared in part by Griesbach himself — of the bearing of these two facts (which simply proved that the typical texts had suffered severe admixture^ with one another in framing our existing documents), went far in throwing doubt on the details of Griesbach's distribution, and thus in preventing an universal acceptance of it, although it could not hide its true character from the best scholars of the day, many of whom enthusiastically adopted it. Hug's \^agaries, who sought to prove historically that three texts represented respectively by the groups B C L, E R cursives, and A K M were alike set recensions of a corrupt text (represented by D and the old Latin) universally current in the second century, still farther blinded men to the reality of the divergence, considered simply as a text phenomenon, between the three classes recognized by Griesbach and Hug alike, as well as to the truth of the important new fact brought out by Hug, viz: the early broad extension and popularity of Griesbach's Western text. Hug's publication had, however, the good effect of bringing Griesbach once more before the public on the subject (181 1), to call attention to Hug's testimony to the correctness of the lines which he had drawn between his classes, prove the impossibility of raising Hug's fourth class (which he himself admitted was untraceable outside the Gospels) to the dignity of a co-ordinate division, and reiterate his mature con- * Except in Matt., where he (wrongly) deemed it Western. 332 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. viction that the study of " recensions " was the hinge upon which all criticism of the text must turn. The follies of such writers as Dr. Nolan and the peculiarities of Scholz succeeded, however, not unnat- urally, in throwing discredit on all recension theories, until they have fallen under something like a ban, and the prevalent idea seems to be that no classes can be distinguished of such sort as to be, at present at least, practically valuable in text reconstruction except the two broad ones — now universally recognized — of ancient and modern. At the same time it is generally practically acknowledged that the further facts of type-character as brought out by Griesbach, al- though not available in text-criticism, yet rest, in the main, on a basis of truth. Even Dr. Tregelles'^ would admit a genealogical de- scent, which he moreover practically acted upon in framing his text, which divides the MSS. into three classes corresponding with those of Griesbach. And, at the other extreme. Dr. Scrivener specifically allows a like trichotomy of documents capable of bearing like names.f It is furthermore admitted on all sides that the oldest documents are included in the first two classes ; and, as a result of the process of comparative criticism introduced by Tregelles, that these documents are not only the oldest, but also the best, so that whenever they are fairly unanimous they must carry our suffrages with them. It is hardly less generally agreed that within the ancient division those documents which class with B— which itself is the best single MS. — are of greatly higher value than those which class with D. These conclusions — although not undisputed by some individuals — are accepted by the best writers of all schools, and may, therefore, be looked upon as well- proved and already settled facts. 3. Meanwhile, also, the continued efforts of many scholars toward forming a text out of the existing material were issuing in critical rules for applying the evidence to the text. We can pause only to point out the leaders in the work. Bentley first laid down the great principle that the whole text is to be formed apart from the influence of any edition, on evidence, — a principle which, obvious as it is, first succeeded in conquering its way to practical and universal adoption through the weight of Lachmann's example. It was due to Bengel that the value of transcriptional probability received early recognition through the rule : ' Proclivi scriptioni prsestat ardua,' which undoubt- edly he meant in this sense ; after him it has been more fully defined *" Home's Introduction." Ed. 13, Vol. IV., p. 106. f "Plain Introduction," etc. Ed. 2, p. 481 (Egyptian, Western, and Syro-Constan- tinopolitan classes). Yet compare p. 415. THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 333 and defended by many critics, especially by Griesbach, by Tischen- dorf (in the broad statement that the reading is to be preferred from which the origin of all the others can be explained), and by EUicott (under the name of Paradiplomatic evidence). Internal evidence proper also, — the asking which reading it is most probable that the author would have written — has not lacked its full recognition, and has been pushed by some to the verge of subjecting the whole text to the personal idiosyncrasies of the editor. Since Tregelles the suffrages of students have been given to the doctrine that documentary evidence is decisive, if at all capable of sure inter- pretation, — so only the reading commended by it does not make nonsense. But the claims of paradiplomatic and internal evidence have never lacked defenders of excellent scholarship, and it can- not be said that any universally recognized rule has yet been for- mulated to guide in cases where documentary and internal con- siderations seem in conflict. While also the tendency has been more and more to rely on the ancient documentary evidence and its decisive authority where at all unanimous, is now universally (save by an erratic individual here and there) allowed, yet in those passages where this evidence is apparently somewhat divided the way has been open to a great variety of methods of procedure issuing sometimes in diametrically opposite conclusions even in readings of some interest. A backward glance like this over the work that has been done, leaves standing clearly out in our consciousness the problems as yet unsettled. It was clearly not necessary for the new editors to seek to add to the mass of evidence before them ; the day has now come when the true estimation of that evidence is the duty laid on the shoulders of scholars. Two great tasks lay before them : the inves- tigation of the true extent and meaning of the affiliations of MSS., and the pointing out of the true method of applying the evidence when marshalled to the framing of the text. It was not enough to classify the MSS. ; the true relations of the classes to one another needed study, and the true value of the evidence of each class. Therefore, here, not only was it necessary to re-examine the whole distribution of the MSS. into classes, but also the relations of the classes to one another had to "Be investigated with a view to account- ing satisfactorily for the intermediate types on the one hand and to assigning its own value as evidence to each class and each combina- tion of classes on the other. It was not enough to simply marshal the evidence — it was necessary to discover how to apply it when marshalled ; with how much regard to each variety of evidence, documentary, paradiplomatic, and internal. With great sagacity, 834 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. Drs. Westcott and Hort recognized from the very first the true nature of their task, and devoted themselves to fulfil it. Our exam- ination of their methods need take account, therefore, only of the results which they have reached in these two departments of labor. THE GENEALOGIES OF DOCUMENTS. We turn next, therefore, to an exposition of Dr. Hort's investiga- tions in the great sphere of MS. classification. The obvious and uni- versally accepted two-fold division of documents as to their text, rep- resented by the ancient MSS. and the cursives respectively, is of course recognized by him at the outset. The important unsettled question of the relation of these two texts to one another is, therefore, faced imme- diately. It is first proved, from the citations oi the fourth century fathers, that the cursive type of text existed fully formed in that century, /. e., in MSS. contemporary with B and ^. Thus, the mere fact that our only extant fourth century MSS. represent the opposite forms of text is not at all conclusive as to the greater age of those forms. We can reconstruct from the cursives MSS. which beyond doubt ex- isted, representing their type, in the fourth century ; and the preser- vation of early documents representing the one class and not of those representing the other, is a pure accident. Thus far, therefore, noth- ing is determined concerning the comparative age or value of the two forms of text.* Going back beyond the fourth century, however, no * It is worth our while at the outset of this discussion to guard against misconcep- tions as to the meaning of the phraseolog)' used. We speak of difTerent types of text, and the words have meaning in them. It is very important, however, that the reader should not exaggerate that meaning. The total difference is very small. What is very large when viewed from the point of view of the textual critic, is piliabl}' and meaning- lessly small when viewed from the point of view of the dogmatic theologian or the general reader. The textual critic does not exaggerate the difference ; but every letter omitted, every word misspelled, every synonym substituted is a difference to him, although the vast majority of them cause no change of sense in the passage by their presence or ab- sence. They are nevertheless — though only textual phenomena — yet [exlual p/iei/omcna. And on their basis types and wellm-arked types of text may be recognized and described. To juggle with this, however, as the Quarter/}/ Revieiver has done (p. 314), trying to shift it into another sphere and pouring into the terms totally alien concepts, is beneath the dig- nity of the scholarship which he undoubtedly possesses. Dr. Hort (§ 2) is careful to show how small a part of the N. T. is affected by various readings of any likelihood. And the statement of Bentley, as true now as in his day, is worth keeping constantly in mind: "The real text of the sacred writers .... is competently exact in the worst MS. now extant ; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them; choose asawkwardl}' as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings." " But even put [the various readings] into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chajiter, nor so disguise Christianity but that every feature of it will still be the same." Our whole discussion concerns — not sense-ual — but textual varia- tions, and MSS. cannot be distributed into doctrinal or even sense-ual types, but only THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 335 trace of the cursive peculiarities can be found in the citations of the Ante-Nicene fathers ; while on the other hand their citations, when critically obtained, all range with the opposite classes, and especially with that form of them which has been named the Western, and which was certainly the most broadly current text from the early part of the second century until the fourth. We have, therefore, to face this phenomenon : universal and, so far as evidence goes, sole currency of the ancient types of text, which Dr. Hort therefore calls the pre- Syrian, until the fourth century, with the sudden presence of the other, which Dr. Hort from the predominance of Syrian influences at this period calls the Syrian, in its full-formed state from the fourth cen- tury onward. Negative evidence cannot be demonstrative : but the presumption hence arises that the pre-Syrian texts are the oldest, and this in turn throws a presumption against the purity of the Syrian, The next step is to compare the Syrian and pre-Syrian texts in their internal characteristics with a view to determining their relative values. If we collect two lists — one of all the readings which the Syrian text as a class offers in opposition to the pre-Syrian as a class, and the other of all the pre-Syrian readings where, as a class, they differ from the Syrian as a class, the two together thus forming the two sides of the same collection of various readings between the two classes — and then test the two lists separately by paradiplomatic and internal evidence, we shall reach this result : the pre-Syrian read- ings usually commend themselves as genuine ; the Syrian readings usually present the appearance of corruptions. Hence, it doubly follows that the pre-Syrian text is certainly the better of the two ; since it approves itself as such wherever it can be tested, the infer- ence is strong that it is such also where the test cannot be applied. Thus we reach the same conclusion (and by largely the same meth- ods) that Tregelles obtained by the application of what he happily called comparative criticism, but what Dr. Hort would call a com- bination of historical evidence and the internal evidence of docu- ments. The result is sure, and the process by which it is obtained, in either case, trustworthy. But Dr. Hort's method has the advan- tage of being the more precise and methodical. Although the Syrian text is thus presumptively the later, and cer- tainly the less valuable, our problem is not yet solved, and cannot be until we answer the query: Whence came this Syrian text? It is still conceivable that it may preserve in itself an independent line of into text types. So far as general sense is concerned, the New Testament is the same in all MSS. ; and the dogmatic theologian or preacher of righteousness does not need to consider the variations save in determining which texts to use as proof-texts. 33ef THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. evidence, which ran underground during the early centuries and first came to light in the fourth, and which, though not so valuable as the pre-Syrian, cannot be safely neglected. The question so constantly put : " What right have we to pass over the testimony of this class as if it were impossible for it to contain independent evidence?" can never be answered without a very careful search into the origin of the class. Undertaking this work. Dr. Hort has instituted a very careful comparison between the Syrian and pre-Syrian texts, with this conclusion : the Syrian preserves nothing from antiquity not in the pre-Syrian — it was, in fact, bodily made out of the pre-Syrian forms. The proof of this is manifold and convincing. We need not stop here, however, to do more than point out one element of it — that derived from conflate readings. These arise from cases of ternary variation where the third reading is a combination of the other two. Now the Syrian text abounds in conflate readings, made by a more or less skilful combination of two pre-Syrian forms. One such read- ing might be accounted for as an accident, but the mass of them prove conclusively that the Syrian text in all these passages was derived from a combination of these earlier types. It becomes im- mediately (when the other phenomena are also taken into account) morally certain that other readings in the Syrian text, exactly the same as readings found in a pre-Syrian type, thus proved to have been used in its making, also came from this previous text. The inference can- not fail to extend further to those Syrian readings which, while not the same as those found in pre-Syrian texts, are yet declared by para- diplomatic evidence to be derived from them. The result, after careful investigation, is, that the Syrian text preserves nothing not in the pre- Syrian forms, out of which it was made ; and, further, that it was made, not by accidental and slow growth, but intentionally, and by a set ef- fort to frame a full, smooth, flowing, easy text out of the already ex- isting abounding variations. It is, therefore, not only presumptively later than the pre-Syrian, but certainly ; not only of less value as evidence, but of no value at all, where we have the pre-Syrian, out of which it was made. Its testimony is not to the original, but to the pre-Syrian texts, and it could be of value, in their presence, only if we could believe that it had been framed on critical principles, and so could guide us to a proper choice among pre-Syrian readings. But, to say nothing of what is otherwise known of the critical pro- cesses of the time, the internal evidence is decisive that the principles which guided its formation did not rise above the effort to obtain easy smoothness.* The presence of Syrian documents, therefore, ■ We trust that we can count on the assent of the Quarterly Reviewer here, so soon 1/ THE GREEK TESTAMENT OP^ WESTCOTT AND HORT. 337 in attesting groups is simply confusing — multiplying variations or lending fictitious weight among early variations to this or that one which happened to find its way into it. Two important rules of critical procedure may now be formulated: I. All distinctively Syrian readings must be rejected, and : 2. All purely Syrian support to earlier readings must be neglected. Here, for the first time, is the practice of Tregelles in neglecting all late testimony fully vindicated. It is neglected, not because the evidence of this class is too small to be appreciably felt, but because it is not independent evidence but a mere repetition of that already in hand. All the evidence is certainly to be taken into account until the history of the text is recovered and the mutual relations of the witnesses determined. Then all purely derived evidence is to be sifted out. * Here, too, a full answer emerges to the scoff, that, from the mass of the cursives, those which happen to agree with the old MSS. are arbitrarily selected, while the rest are as arbitrarily rejected. Of course, all those which prove to transmit the independent lines of evidence are justly selected, v/hile, in like manner, those that betray themselves to be mere repeaters of the testimony already heard are as justly re- jected. This is simply to protect the ballot-box; and it is certainly a great gain to criticism to be thus fully justified in setting aside the clamors of the mob and giving its attention to the trusty few alone. Thrown back on pre-Syrian witness the difficult question is broached: How proceed when this witness is divided? Dr. Hort answers again, primarily by seeking the genealogical affiliations of the documents. The clear distinction between the groups headed by B and D respectively, is, of course, recognized and abundantly re-proved, and evidence is found of the existence of a third less strongly marked type, differing from the B group only by the pres- ence of certain careful (grammatical, etc.) corrections. The three classes are called, respectively. Neutral, Western, and Alexandrian. So far was clear sailing. The difficulty arises when the relations of these groups to one another are considered — relations compli- cated most tryingly by the existence of intermediate types of almost every possible variety. Here the second great unsettled as he examines the evidence adduced by Dr. Hort. Certainly he can have no a priori objection to the conclusion, since he writes (p. 321) : " We know that Origen in Pales- tine, Lucian at Antioch, Hesychius in Egypt ' revised ' the text of the New Testament. Unfortunately, they did their work in an age when such fatal misapprehension pre- vailed on the subject that each, in turn, will have inevitably imported a fresh assort- ment of monstra into the Sacred Writings." Jast so. We call upon him to recognize just such a text as he describes in the class (Syrian) to which he has hitherto accorded mistaken suffrage, and to hold with Dr. Hort that it possibly represents the Lucianic revision. 22 338 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. problem appeared, which, however, like the first, seems to have been successfully solved. It is remarkable, indeed, that these in- termediate texts should have so long disturbed scholars. Clearly their presence does not in any way lessen the actual divergence between, say B and the Old Latin version. The only problem is their origin. Explanations might be sought by considering them representatives of the links in the gradual chain of corruption from a type, say like B, to one like the Old Latin — or, in both directions, from a type intermediate between the two — or of mix- ture of the two diverging texts already formed. Undoubtedly all these causes may, and ought to, be called in to account for the phenomena. Corruption was clearly progressive — the result of a gradual growth — and the marks of the growth are preserved in the extant documents. But Dr. Hort has shown that much the largest portion of intermediate phenomena is due to mixture between two or more already existent types. There is no difficulty in accounting for mixture : it could arise in a variety of ways — sometimes from the scribe actually using two originals in making his copy ; sometimes from the tricks of a memory full of the details of a different exem- plar than that now before the eye; sometimes from the use, as exem- plar, of a MS. which had been corrected in part, or throughout, from another of a different class. But, however produced, the existence of mixed texts can by no means throw doubt on the original diver-f sity of the parts out of which they were made. They may, and sometimes do, render difficult or impossible the assignment of a simple genealogy to a given document, or, in cases where unmixed evidence is lacking, the definite assignm.ent of given variations to their own proper classes ; and thus, in some passages, they may ren- der the application of genealogical evidence to the elucidation of the textual history and the formation of the text impracticable. But they most certainly do not affect either the reality of the groups or the surety with which we may assign the variations, for whose affinities there does not exist safe evidence, to their own proper classes. In a word, they do not affect the value of genealogical evidence wher- ever it can be applied. Having thus determined the existence of three pre-Syrian groups, and assigned to each group its own proper contingent of the read- ings, the next step is to test the relative values of the pre-Syrian groups. The process by which this is done is altogether similar to that by which the pre-Syrian readings, as a class, were proved superior to the Syrian. Having made lists of the readings of each group, so far as mixture allows of their assignment, paradiplo- THE GKEEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 339 matic and internal evidence is appealed to to decide as to the value of each. They proclaim the Neutral readings generally right, and the Western and Alexandrian generally corruptions. Hence follow, as critical rules of ordinary validity : i. The reading supported by the Neutral and Alexandrian groups against the Western is probably genuine ; 2. That supported by the Neutral and the Western against the Alexandrian is probably genuine ; 3. Where the pre-Syrian variation is ternary the Neutral is probably genuine, and is usually supported as such by paradiplomatic and internal evidence ; 4. The reading supported by the union of the Western and Alexandrian groups should be preferred to the'Neutral reading ; but, as all existing Alex- andrian documents contain Western corruptions, such apparent union is suspicious, and paradiplomatic and internal evidence generally decides here also in favor of the Neutral. It is plain that we have here an exceedingly clear and trustworthy scheme, and it only remains for us to note the observed group-char- acter of our best documents to enable us to apply the rules to a large number of readings. Exammation shows that only five of our MSS. are purely pre-Syrian, viz : B, J^, D, D2, Gj, although a con- siderable number of others, such as C, L, P, Q, R, T, Z, A (in Mark), H, E2, and some cursives, contain a pre-Syrian element of greater or less extent. D, D2, and G3 may be taken as representative Western documents, and seem to present that text unmixed, but in different stages of development. C and L, though with much mixture, possess the largest Alexandrian element. B is purely Neutral almost throughout {i. c, except in Paul, where a limited Western element is found). ^ is largely Neutral, but in admixture with a considerable Western and Alexandrian element. After ^, and with about as great an interval between them and it as between it and B, the. largest Neutral element is found in F of Luke and John, H of Luke, L, 33, ^ of Mark, C, Z in Matt., R in Luke, Q and P among MSS. of the Gospels. In Acts A, 13 and 61 come forward, and in Paul, A, P2, 17 and 6f"^. Among the versions the Old Latin (not the Itala) is found to be purely, and the Curetonian Syriac probably predomi- natingly Western ; the Memphitic was probably originally wholly pre-Syrian and predominatingly non-Western, but in its printed form it has a slight Syrian element also. The Thebaic is similar, except that its Western element is larger. The others present mixed texts with larger or smaller Syrian elements. Thus, it appears that the old verdict of scholars is confirmed, and the Memphitic is proved the best, followed next by the Thebaic, of all versions in 340 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. text-criticism. Among the Fathers the non-Western, pre-Syrian element is largest in Origen, Didymus, and Cyril Alexandrinus. Of course, genealogical evidence will not settle everything; but by its systematization very much has been gained. The early history of the text has been recovered ; a vast number of readings have been win- nowed away with the Syrian text as not worthy of consideration ; a large number have been rendered very improbable by their definite assignm.ent to aberrant texts like the Western and Alexandrian ; a large number — rivals of these — have been, therefore, shown to be probably parts of the original text ; and thus a goodly portion of the text has been securely reconstructed, and the choice confined in a numerous class of other passages to narrow limits. A comparatively very small portion of the text is thus left in uncertainty.'"' INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPS. In order to determine the true reading in those cases where from whatever cause genealogical evidence is inapplicable or fails to be decisive, as well as to test the results obtained by that form of evi- dence, Dr. Hort calls in next another process which he appropriately names Internal Evidence of Groups. Internal evidence of readings * Perhaps the genealogy of the text and the results which flow from its determina- tion may be rendered easily comprehensible through a rough diagram, thus : m 2 k b t True Text ->r If X y represents the line of absolutely true descent, z q. along the course of which the various Western documents may be ranged in growing corruption, will roughly represent the Western divergence — k s the Neutral and t v the Alexandrian; wp represents the Syrian. Now it is evident that B, placed at a point between k and t, is the nearest to the originals of any MS. B X will carry us back to a point on k s, or to a point between z k or (when N is Western) to z, B D takes us to z. S D, on the one hand, may be equal to B D, and, on the other, may be equal to D alone, i. e., may take us to z or else somewhere amid the abounding corruption of z q, and so on. THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 341 is the evidence for itself yielded by each reading's own probability when tested by the combined use of paradiplomatic and internal evidence proper. Internal evidence of documents is the evidence which each document yields to its own value ; and is elicited by noting what proportion of its readings approve themselves as proba- bly genuine when tested by the combined use of paradiplomatic and internal evidence proper. If we take a list of all variations between two documents, and finding them to be eleven hundred in all, then discover that in a thousand of them all the probability is in favor of the correctness of one of the MSS., and only in a hundred of the other, wc have thereby determined the probable comparative values of the MSS. The result is essentially altered neither where the con- testants are one hundred instead of two, nor where the evidence applied is decisive in only a portion of the passages compared. Now we may carry this process one step higher until it becomes internal evidence of groups. If two MSS. agree in a reading, this is evidence, barring accidents, of community of origin in that reading. If they agree thus in a number of readings, accidents are barred, and their common ori- gin in these portions — immediate or remote — is proved. It is imme- diately evident that by noting the readings in which two MSS. agree we are really constructing a list of readings from an older MS., the common parent of both in these portions. Nor does it introduce any new factor if we make the two MSS. a dozen or a hundred. And nothing prevents our testing through this list the comparative value of this lost MS. thus reconstruclied, in relation to others re- claimed in like manner, just as if they were all extant and in our very hands. The compound of symbols (B ^, or ^ D, or B C 5«^, etc.), the largest proportionate number of readings attested by which are ap- proved by combined paradiplomatic and internal evidence, repre- sents the best lost original, and should command our suffrages. This method enables us to deal with groups as units, and greatly simplifies the labor of criticism as well as adds, by freeing us from the old arith- metical balance of individuals and enabling us to assign a constant value to any given group, untold surety to its conclusions. It seems, on the face of it, to be impossible to doubt the legitimacy of the process or the surety of its results. But were doubt to arise, it ehould certainly be set aside on noting how fully these results con- firm those reached by genealogical evidence, and are in turn con- firmed by them. This is a veritable case of undesigned coincidence, and is entitled to all the force of that argument. Tested after this fashion, the compound B ^ is found to approve itself almost uniformly as genuine, and next to it B plus some other 342 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. primary uncial ; while on the other hand compounds of ^ and an un- cial other than B generally fail to makS good their claim. The only frequent exception to this law consists of compounds of B and a Western document in tlie Pauline c'J?ist/cs, which, are usually discredited. We cannot resist the temptation to turn aside here long enough to call attention to the striking accordance of these results with the facts reached by the entirely different process of genealogical evidence. If B is the only document which (except in Paul) has no other than a Neutral element, its compounds will naturally (usually) present a com- bination of two independent groups ; while all other documents (in- cluding ^) when conjoined, are apt to be so, only because they par- take of common Western, Alexandrian, or Syrian corruption. The high comparative value assigned to compounds of B by the method being now considered, is thus just what should be expected. B plus only one or more secondary MSS., or B plus versions alone, or B plus fathers alone, commonly approves itself by the same test ; whereas ^ plus only such support (and much more any other uncial than ^) is almost uniformly condemned. Even individualisms of B when they cannot be ascribed to clerical errors of its scribe, quite frequently, and especially in ternary variations approve themselves ; while individual- isms of other MSS. are almost always condemned. After the Gos- pels, A rises to the value of a primary uncial, and in Paul no MS. is without some Western element. Consequently we are not surprised to find that such groups as " B D^ G3, J^ D, G3, A D2 G3, C D^ G3, and even A C Do G3, and occasionally ^ A C D2 G3" are condemned by internal ev- idence of groups. On the other hand the same test is usually fa- vorable to the apparently non-western groups ; and even, with rare exceptions, to ^ B D, G3, thus vindicating even here the combination B ^.'" In the apocalypse ^ falls to a perceptibly lower level than else- where, and the strongest combination is A C ; and even A alone stands the test excellently. The most striking results reached by this investigation are the high authority given to B and to the combination B {^. Dr. Hort proves the immediate independence of these MSS.,t and thus shows that the ■* Tliis simply amounts to an indication that X and B gain their Western corruptions independently of one anoiiier (and forms another mark of the independence of the two MSS ), and hence do not usually partake of the sawd Western corruptions ; and hence when combined B and N agree even with typical Western documents, we are not to look on the Western line of corruption for the original parent of the groups, but on the original Inc of descent, that is, at z on the diagram. And this means, doubtless, in the first centur)', f Wc content ourselves with this simple statement here, referring for proof to Dr. Hon's Introduction, §§ 287-304. The rash repetition by the Quarterly Reviewer of the old and worn-out charge : " Between B and K there subsists an amount of sinister THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 343 combination represents a document of the early second century — if not a generation earlier ; which itself represents seemingly the pure stock from which all others in existence appear to have diverged.* This high estimation of these documents has been even made the pre- text of attack upon the system of criticism adopted by the whole school to which Dr. Hort belongs, and that although it is universally admitted that B is the best single MS. in existence.f The answer is resemblance wliich proves that they must have been both derived at no very remote pe- riod from the same corrupt original " (p. 312), is there fully set aside, if indeed the Re- viewer has not himself succeeded in destroying its meaning by his subsequent words: " It is easier to find two cottsccuiive verses in which the two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entiiely agree." (The italics are his). The fact that a small portion of K is from the same hand that wrote B as much proves a com- munity of text as the fact that Dr. Scrivener's Greek Testament and Wescott and Hort's came from the same press, proves that they present the same text. * Represents, not is that pure stock. Such passages as Matt, xxvii. 49 (compare Dr. Hort, ^ 240), prove that B and X possess exceedingly rarely a common corruption not shared by Western documents, so that B X D represents the same stock at an earlier point. Thus B D or non-Western X connected with D may differ in value from B X, not in giving a less ancient or less pure reading, but only as giving so many fewer read- ings. B D when it does exist may be (save in Paul) equally as good as, or better than B X- f Of course it is not meant that no individual has ever disputed the supreme excel- lence of B ; but onl}' that all recognized authorities of whatever school are united at present on this point. The Quarterly Revieiver docs not shrink from ranging himself against the consensus of critical opinion. With him B is not only a MS. of " bad character," and one that " exhibits a fabricated text " (p. 312), but one of the depraved trio (DxB), which he can " venture to assure" his readers "are three of the most cor- rupt copies extant," and " have become by whatever process the depositories of the larg- est amount of fabricated readings which are anywhere to be met with " (p. 315). It is pleasant to learn that B is, however, even in the eyes of this critic, on the whole the least terrible of this terrible trio. The answer to all this is found in the statements of the text, supported as they are by all writers of repute on the subject. What confidence can be put in the Reviewer's broad statements on the subject maybe not unjustlj' esti- mated by the aid of two circumstances: i. He refers for detailed information on such points to Dr. Scrivener's " Plain Introduction," etc., as (and we take great pleasure in expressing our assent to the words) the work of a "judicious, impartial, and thoroughly competent guide " (p. 311) — of one even (he tells us) " vastly Tischendorf's superior in learning, accuracy, and judgment "(p. 318). And yet Dr. S. is explicit in his state- ment (p. 471) that Bis "the most weighty single authority that we possess." 2. He allows himself (p. 321) in his zeal against B to quote Dr. Scrivener's description of the corrupt Western text (pp. 452-3), and apply it to B as one "of the class thus character, ized hy Dr. Scrivener"; and that aUliough Dr. S. had carefully distinguished it from the class described (p. 452). It is true the Reviewer guards his statement somewhat by saving X B C D are "■specimens — in vastly different de^^^rees — of the class thus characterized," but this will not exonerate him from having printed a very misleading statement. For that the very small Western element in the Pauline portion of B will not be sufficient to justify the words used is apparent ; and becomes still more so on remembering that the object of the passage is to exhibit the untrustworihiness of these MSS. because they class with D, whereas all the documents which the writer himself follows have a larger Western ele- ment than B. The details which are given (as e.g., p. 312) of the di\'ergence of each of the great MSS. from a given standard are very interesting, but, as the Reviewer puts them, misleading in the extreme. When we read that " in the Gospels alone, B is found to omit at least 344 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. ready and complete ; only such authority is yielded to B ;s^ or to B alone as that group or that MS. when tested by paradiplomatic and internal evidence vindicates for itself. The further scoff so often ventured, that the discovery of a fourth century MS. of Syrian type would revolutionize criticism and utterly change the balance of evi- dence, of course is equally meaningless. Such a discovery would have absolutely no effect on either. MSS. are to be valued, not counted ; and the age of the document is presumptive of value of text only prior to examination. Even though the Syrian text should be traced further back than now seems possible, nothing can alter the two facts: that it is inherently — paradiplomatic and internal evidence being judges — the inferior text, and that it was made out of the pre-Syrian. Nor will it do to raise objection to the reconstruction of lost MSS. from group — attestation as a chimera of the imagination furnishing only shadowy basis for farther inferences. If this be so, then any recon- strjiction of the New Testament text is a fortiori a dream. For in- -ternal evidence of groups only undertakes to do repeatedly and on a small scale what its opponents would attempt to do once for all on a large scale. The recovery of each lost MS. is only on narrower ground, and with more manageable and surer evidence, performing the task that all attempt in seeking the autographic text from documentary attes- tation. The only difference between the two methods is that one 2,877 words; to add 536; to substitute 935 ; to transpose 2,098 ; to modify 1.132 (in all, 7,57s) " — the thing looks alarming, and we feel a flesh-creeping all over. But wiien we revive sufficiently to ask : Omits from what? adds to what? etc., we discover, from a subsequent part of the article, that the 01 ditiarily printed text is riicanf, and breaihe free!)- again to know that this is but a list of divergences between B and the corrupt 'J exlits Receptits, and therefore, roughly marks the corruption of that edition, not of B. It may be safely left to the public to decide on the fairness of quietly assuming that, in spite of the history of its formation, the Textus Receptus is all but perfect, and then before a popular audience quietly condemning the old MSS. for not agreeing with it, without a word of warning as to the exact nature of the question-begging which will alone give the words any sense or meaning. This quiet begging cf the question — this quiet assuming t^e truth of a disproved fancj- — is what gives at once the appearance of strength to the Quarterly's article and the reality of almost laughable weakness. As to critical rules the Reviewer seems to have but two : i. Witnesses must be counted, not weighed ; and 2. Internal probability consists in the pleasingness of a reading to us — with all our long use of a particular text and natural and ingrained love for its every detail. Perhaps we may be allowed to borrow a phrase which is most strangely strewed up and down the Reviewer's pages, and "venture to assure him" that the day is past when men can be allowed to mistake their personal preference for in- ternal probability on the one hand, or on the other to give the inheritance of the lawful heir or two to the twenty children of the illegitimate son, just because they arc more. And what is counting MSS. instead of weighing them but this? Communism, — the theory that each individual, mereh- by right of his existence, can demand an equal share in all the rightful possessions of his neighbors. — seems to us inherent!}- unlovely, whether among MSS. or men. Before v/e yield credit, let us by all means examine titles. THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 345 would wish to proceed slowly and surely — step by step — working its way from one fact to another by a strictly inductive method ; and the other to jump at once crudely to its last conclusion. The difference, in a word, is the same as that between Bunsen's and Mackenzie's theories of Geysers — between the Baconian and the so-called Aristo- telian methods of thought — between science and guessing. THE APPLICATION OF THE EVIDENCE. With the documentary evidence thus in hand, and thus estimated, how is it to be applied in reconstructing the text? From what has' already been said, it goes without saying that the new editors do not apply it mechanically; and, on a moment's consideration, it must be seen that such a method of application would not be practicable. Clearly, even the purest line of transmission (say the Neutral) may contain errors introduced into that line subsequent to the divergence from it of a very corrupt line (say the Western), in which alone the true reading may thus be preserved, and the exceedingly early origin of Western divergence leaves it not a priori impossible that this may in certain instances be the case. In such instances the true reading would lie outside of the evidence usually considered conclusive in the formation of the text. The fact that such cases do occur, and the proof that any given asserted instance falls under this class, can only be sought through paradiplomatic and internal evidence. Other considerations of a somewhat like nature lead to the same conclusion. Hence, as the original, and not the best authenticated transmitted text is sought, it fellows that the evidence cannot be applied me- chanically. If, therefore, Dr. Hort's first great critical rule is: Knowledge of documents must precede judgment on readings ; and his second : Knoivledge of genealogies mnst precede Judgment en evidence ; his third, co-ordinate with these, even if not so formally stated, is: No reading is to be finally accepted unless commended by internal evi- dence as ivell as documentary — ip internal evidence including both para- diplomatic and internal proper, under the names of transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. Thus, to internal evidence is allowed a veto power, and its function is to a large degree analogous to the veto power the President of the United States has allowed him over bills of Congress. Recognizing the uncertainties and dangers that attend appeal to in- ternal considerations, every attempt is made to guard against them. It is not in either sort to be primarily invoked ; it has a right to be heard, indeed, but it must keep silence until the testimony of the documents has been sifted and thoroughly understood. Then, when 34G THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. offered, it must be unanimous ; both kinds must point in the same direction. Care must be taken that we try the readings intrinsically, not by our own notion of what should be read., but by an anxious attempt to reproduce the writer's own thought. Equal care must be taken that we judge the transcriptional probability by the actual men- tal tendencies of the scribes, and not by our own which may be oppo- site. And, still further, internal evidence must be allowed to over- ride documentary probabilities only when, after repeated, and still again repeated testing, it persists in ranging its combined testimony in opposition. Often what is originally judged intrinsically proba- ble is afterward seen to be untenable, and the reading at first im- agined intrinsically improbable is seen, on repeated study, to be intrinsically certain. Often what is originally judged transcription- ally improbable is, on further study, seen to be transcriptionally certain. When, however, after this repeated testing and re-testing, the verdict is clear, that one reading is intrinsically best while apparently troublesome, while all others combine latent inferi- ority with open plausibility, then this combined testimony can never be safely disregarded, and, practically, is judged supreme. Thus, the clear united testimony of transcriptional and intrinsic evidence, though it is only secondary evidence in the sense that it must not be considered until the last word from the documents is in, is yet, in Dr, Hort's scheme, primary evidence, in that it is supreme and may override any and all documentary evidence. No doubt it is easy to say that thus very great authority is assign- ed to a class of evidence which is peculiarly liable to mistake, and to be especiall}'^ swayed by subjective feeling. True, we may answer, but how can we do otherwise ? It may be admitted that it is easier to gather the external evidence, determine its meaning, and then apply it mechanically to the text. But will the result be truer? Royal roads to truth are not usually judged highly estimable, and the difficulty of a task is hardly sufficient reason for declining to undertake it altogether. It is undoubtedly difficult to abstract per- sonal likes and dislikes, educational prejudices, the prescription of use and wont from our judgment of the bearing of internal proba- bilities; but these difficulties must be faced and laid, or, in ruling one half of the evidence out of court, we rule all hope of a perfect text out with it. At every step of a valid critical procedure we are forced to call in internal evidence to decide for us the relative value of rival documents or classes of documents: how can we refuse it, then, a final voice in deciding between rival readings? It may be open to question whether Drs. Westcott and Hort have not allowed it in THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 347 certain particular passages too much weight ; or vice versa in certain passages, too Httlc weight ; but there can hardly be continued ques- tion but that the principle is correct, that no reading can be held to be absolutely certain unless it can be shown to be commended alike by documentary and both sorts of internal evidence. And the great merit of the scheme of criticism which Dr. Hort offers is just this: that it takes full account of every variety of testimony, and will not allow that its work is done until it has heard the united voice of the three great forms in which evidence reaches us. Certainly a text constructed thus is, above all others, a sure text. CRITICAL CONJECTURE. The high value thus assigned to internal evidence leads to the revival, as an adjunct in the settlement of the text, of the old method, once so popular, of critical conjecture. The vagaries of those who have most used this method long since brought it into not undeserv- ed contempt. But a priori it will be difficult to see why it should be excluded from possible resort in reconstructing the text of the New Testament alone, of ancient books. The documentary evidence, mechanically applied, will take us here, too, only to the earliest trans- mitted text ; and whether this be the autographic text as well, or a more or less corrupt descendant of it, can be learned only by an appeal to the two varieties of internal evidence. But the mere fact of questioning internal evidence on the subject implies that it may give its testi- mony against the transmitted text, and if so, in any passage, what is left us for the reconstruction of the text but pure or impure* con- jecture? The very act of reconstructing the text on any other method than that of absolutely mechanically applying the docu- mentary evidence admits the legitimacy of conjectural emendation. It may be said here, again, that thus a wide door is opened for the entrance of deceitful dealing with the Word of Life. The danger is apparent and imminent. But we cannot arbitrarily close the door lest we incur the same charge. It is true here, as elsewhere, that wicked men have it in their power to deal wickedly with God's Word, and that our only safeguards against it are piety and right * By pure conjecture is meant conjecture unsupported by any external testimony ; by impure, conjecture supported by documents of insufficient authority to of itself authenticate the text. Impure conjecture is, then, simply (in all ordinary cases) the adoption, by a modern editor, of a successful conjecture of an ancient scribe. It is worthy of note that every editor (most of all, those who retain the Syrian text) admits impure conjectures into his text, and those of such sort that their MS. attestation can- not be possibly accounted for by any theory of transmission ; and it is difCcult to see why sixth or tenth century scribes should be allowed the monopoly of conjectures, >-^c4tA -^A-a iX ^*^ ^ s ayciTzriv T, Tr, P-mg with (x^ D F G 47 etc.— omit, P. W. [Tr-mg] with N* A B (P). 17. 3. Eph. i. 20. Evi'ipytjaev P. Tr. W-mg with N D F G K L P etc. — ivypyrjKEv T. W. Tr-mg. with A B etc. 4. Eph. i. 20. avT6v after KaQiaaq T. with X A 17 Syrr. Memph, etc. — omit P. Tr. W. with BDEFGKLP etc. 5. Eph. iii. I. X. 'lr]aov P. W. Tr. with ^^ KBCD" etc— omit 'Iricbv T. with N* D*FG. 6. Eph. iii. 9. Travrag P. Tr. W-mg. with Bn'^CDFGKLP. etc.— omit T. W. P-mg. with N* A. 67.** 7. Eph. iii. 18. v^og Kal padoq P. W. Tr with B C D F G, etc.— transpose T. Tr-mg. W-mg with {.? A K L etc. 8. Eph. iv. 2. TrpaoTjjTog P with A D F G L O" etc. — npavTjjToq T. Tr. W. with B X C. 17. g. Eph. iv. 7. T] before x^P'^ P- T. [W]. with N A C D= E K etc. — omit Tr. with B D* F G E P* etc. 10. Eph. iv. 8. Koi before Mokev P. Tr.- [W.] with B N'^ C* D= K L P. 37 47 etc.— omit T. with N* A C^ D* F G. 17. 11. Eph. iv. i6. kav-bv P. W. Tr. with B A C D'= etc — avrov T with X D* F G etc. 12. Eph iv. 18. ecKOTicfiivoi P with D F (G) K L (P) — ecKorcj/iivoi T. Tr. W. with X B A 17 etc. 13. Eph. iv. 28. TO aya^bv before ralg P. with L etc. — after ;i:ep r. k. Tr. with (A. N<= D F G P 67) K L etc. 21. Eph. V. 22. i'TTOTaaaeax^uemv Tr. [Tr-mg], with X A P 17. Memph. Vulg. Arm. Aeth. etc.— omit, P. T. W. with B. Clem. Hier. 22. Eph. V. 28. Kal 01 av6. P. Tr. [W] with B A D F G P 17. Memph. Vulg. etc.— omit aal. T. with N K L 37. 47. Pst. Arm. Aeth. etc. 23. Eph. V. 31. rov Tvar. P. T. [W] with N A D- K L P. 17. 37. 47.— omit tov. Tr, with B D* F G etc. 24. Eph. V. 31. TTiv uTjT. P. T. [W] with ^{ A D° K L P etc. as above — omit rz/v, Tr. with B D* F G etc. 25. Eph. V. 31, 'irpoQ Tijv ywaiKa P. W . with B X'^ D'' K L (P) 47. Orig. — ry ywaiKt. T. Tr. W-mg. with X* A D* F G. 7. 37 etc. 26. Eph. V. 31. add avruv P. W. Tr. with MSS. mss. — omit T with K. Marcion. 27. Eph. vi. 5. TT/g (before Kap6.) Tr. W. P. with MSS. mss. etc. — omit. T. with X. and 13 mss. Orig. Catena-Cr. 28. Eph. vi. 6. TOV (before xP'<^tov) P. with 0"= L K 37. — omit T. Tr. W with X B A D* F G etc. 29. Eph. vi. 8. o eav P with N'= (L) 47 etc— o dv Tr. v/ith (A) D F. G. P. (37) Vulg. (Memph) etc.— mv T. W. with B. L*. Peter of Alex. 30. Eph. vi. 8. KnfiLElraL P. with X" D"-' K L 17. 37. 47. — KOfi'iacrai T. Tr. W with B X* A D* F. G. etc. 31. Eph. vi. 21. Kat v/ielr after elS/jre P. W. with B K L 37. 47. Syrr. Arm. Aeth. [Memph]— before, T. Tr. W-mg. with X A D F G P etc. The eight case.s (8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 28, 29, 30) where P stands alone are all such that the variants would not be represented as variants in a translation, and, therefore, on which the Revision Committee refrained from expressing an opinion ;* they ought to be omitted from our count. Of the rest, W stands alone in one case (15) and alone with the Revisers in five more (i, 2, 14, 25, 31); that is, T + Tr, stand against W in six cases. These will naturally be looked upon as t/ze test-passages, and the question asked whether W is here justified in deserting the consensus of editors. Put the evidence for the rejected readings in these cases together, and we arrive at the principle of action. Here they stand in a column : No. ( I). X D E K, etc. " ( 2). (X<=) D F G 47, etc. " (14). X* A D F G L P, etc. " (15). XADFGKLP. " (25). B D* F G. " (31). X A D F G P, etc. We see at a glance that the rejected reading — however much or however little is added to them — has yet always on its side the dzs- * Compare Revised N. T., Oxford ed., pica demy 8vo, p. xiii, ; Palmer's edition of its text, p. I ; Scrivener's edition of its text, p. vi. 352 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. tindively Western documents ; and moreover, that this is the only- thing the rejected groups have in common. We see at once the prin- ciple involved, and the correctness of the procedure. How fully the new text is governed by the consistent application of this genealogi- ical principle will appear on noting the authority which has swayed it in all the 31 cases. Except in such cases as 13, 18, 26, 27, 28, 30, where the Western text unites with the Neutral against Alexandrian or later corruption, and where, therefore, the accepted text rests on a peculiarly sound basis, — W rejects the reading supported by the West- ern documents throughout — with only three exceptions (4, 7, 22), and two of these (7, 22) it accepts with some doubt. The groups thus re- jected include nearly every possible variety of further attestation, short of the union with the Western of the whole Neutral group, and agree only in this one particular, — that they all embody the specifically Western documents. On a calm consideration we can feel no doubt as to the correctness of the decision given ; and indeed, can entertain doubt as to choice of the new editors only in one or two of the three exceptions they have made to their usual rule (4, 7, 22). On the other hand, Tischendorf stands alone nine times (4, 5, 7, 10, II, 16, .22, 26, 27), and Tregelles also nine times (3, 6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 29). A single glance at Tischendorf's peculiar readings shows that they are all probably due to overestimation of ^. The attesta- tion for them runs all the way from ^ alone among MSS. (as in 26 ; see also 27) up to ^ A C* D F G (10); and in most cases it seems certain that W. has rightly sided with Tregelles in rejecting them {e. g. in 26, 16, II, 10, and 5). Where Tregelles stands alone, it is always through following a numerical majority of old documents and a com- bination of Western documents with other primary uncials. Thus we have Western documents in 3 supported by ^, — in 6 by B C, — in 9, 23, 24 by B, — in 19, 20 by A, — in 21 by ^ A. This would have been sound procedure provided that these uncials were really inde- pendent of the Western group, — and it was on this assumption that Tregelles so proceeded, — but since they all have an element of Western corruption (in Paul), manifestly to act on such a rule is sim- ply to betray the text into the hands of Western error. We cannot, therefore, fail to conclude that W. has rightly sided with Tischendorf against Tregelles in all these passages. If the Epistle to the Ephesians is a fair sample of the new text,'^ * That it is a fair sample of the text in Paul's epistles may be gathered from a com- THE GREEK TESTAMENT OF WESTCOTT AND HORT. 353 therefore, it is pretty evident that in the newly-pubhshed edition we have the best considered and most carefully framed — and therefore, also, the most perfect — text which has yet been given to the public. It is, consequently, a matter of deep gratulation, that the company of Revisers for our English New Testament not only had this text in their hands, but seem to have — not, indeed, mechanically, but with intelligent coincidence of judgment, — followed it pretty closely, — just how closely in this epistle is somewhat remarkable. A glance at the list given above will show that in only three cases would one have to alter Westcott and Hort'stext to obtain the text which underlies the present Revised New Testament (3, 6, 15). It is right to mention, how- ever, that if our sample were not Ephesians, but the Gospel of Matthew, this resemblance (unfortunately) would not be quite so striking. Dr. Sanday" compares the various editions in 195 selected passages out of Matthew, and finds that the Revisers agree with Westcott and Hort in 146 of these, in about 100 of which there is practical agreement among the editors. In other words, the Revisers agree with West- cott and Hort in 46, and disagree with them in 49 disputed cases. It will be well for us to note the MS. attestation of these readings. B and ^ stand alone in 26 cases, and Westcott and Hort follow them each time, but never alone among editors ; Tischendorf accepts them 2T, times, Tregclles 13, Weiss 25, and even McClelland at least 12. So also the readings supported by B plus some other one MS. (not ^) amount to some 14 in this list. Again Westcott and Hort in com- pany with a larger or smaller combination of editors, but never alone, parison of the following table of the passages in which the three great editions differ in the course of 1 Cor. i.-iv. : No. Passage. Rejected by Evidence for rejected reading. I i. I W B DFG37. 2 2 T. Tr-mg. W A N D" L P 17, 37, 47. 3 4 [Tr-mg] W A N" C D F G L P, etc. 4 14 T. W A X" C D F G L P. 17, 37, 47, etc. 5 28 [W] A N= C* D* F G, 17. 6 ii. I W B x-^ D F G L P 17, 37. 47- 7 2 Tr. W A N F G L 47. 8 9 Tr. W N D F G L P 17, 37, 47- 9 ID Tr-mg. \V A N C D F G L P 17, 47. 10 15 [Tr] W AC D* FG. II iii. 16 Tr-mg. W B P 17, 37- 12 iv. 13 Tr-mg. T. W B wS'^ D F G L 37, 47- 13 14 T. Tr-mg. W B D F G L 37, 47. 14 17 Tr. W A N* P. 17- 15 17 T. [W] A B D<= L P 47. * TVi^ ^;r/i/feri?/g Kal -d airaTTj^ b xP^vog upa icrrl fiia' rj/g oe [iaadvuv (jpai TpiciKOVTa I'lfiEpCiv 6uva/itv f joucrai. 'Edv oi'v iiinv i/ulpav rcg -pv^T/aT] nal aTTaTTjOii. Compare 2 Peter ii. 13 : -yv h> yfiipa rp'vcpT/v kvTpv(puvT£Q h Tali cnrdrarc avruv. Much Stronger still are those urged from Justin. In Dial. c. 81, we read: iivvt/na/uv kuI to elpijfievov utl 'Hfiepa Kvpiov ug ;i;//lm erri, elg tovto avvdyeiv, wllicll, like the parallel passage in Irenaeus, must be assigned to 2 Peter iii. 8 as its source. Again in Dial. c. 82, Ave read : "In the same manner also as there Avere ipevdoKpofyrai among the holy prophets that Avere with you, so also among us noAv are also many fevch^iddaKakoi, of Avhom our Lord foreAvarned us." But where can this forcAvarning be found? ^On the Canon, 3d Ed., p. 202, note 2. 52 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jan., Does it exist anywhere but in 2 Pet. ii. 1 [cf. i. 21): "But there were ■tpsv6oTTiiu(p7iTai among the people, as also among you shall be ■^svdoSiSncyKaAoi, wlio shall subintroduce damnable heresies" ? It is exceedingly difficult to see how there can be any reasonable doubt but that these passages are drawn from 2 Peter. And if so, it is noticeable that Justin refers to 2 Peter with respect, as Scripture, as, practically, the words of the Lord — in a word, as an authoritative book giving the Lord's teaching. All that was said above about the value of Clement's testimony may, therefore, be transferred now to Justin's, with this difference, that the period now before .us is the years before A. D. 147, instead of after 195. It will not be surprising, therefore, if we find testimonies for 2 Peter in the next earlier age. From this next age — called the sub-apostolic, because the next succeeding to that in which the A])ostles lived — and stretching from the apostolic age to A. D. 120, parallels have been adduced with 2 Peter from the Testaments of the twelve Patriarchs, Poly- carp, Barnabas, and Clement of Rome. That from Poly carp (iii. 2, with 2 P. iii. 15, 16,) may be passed over as only possibly derived from 2 Peter, Those from the Test. xii. Patt. are more striking and render it probable that the author had and used 2 Peter. They are such as the very rare phrase fj-iacr/ioic [Oxford MS. — ^uidafiaai'] r^f y^g in Benj. 8, cf. 2 P. ii. 20 — a phrase found in 2 Peter only in the New Testament and in the Test, xii. Patt., only in its age; the rare ])hrase rov ■7v7arTEiv 'Auyovg in Reuben 3, which seems to have been suggested by 2 P. ii. 3 ; the use of Typsiv in Reuben 5, just as it is used in 2 P. ii. 9, and some peculiarities of vocabulary common to the two writings ; all of which combined raise a probability of some force of depen- dence on 2 Peter. ^ The parallel with Barnabas seems decisive as to the earlier existence of 2 Peter ; and it is difficult to see how assent can be withheld from the statement, that we have here a plain reference to 2 Peter. We read in Barn. xv. 4 : ?} ynp ///uipa Trap' ahru xi'^aa ETT], avrog df fioi juaprvpei XejuV 'Idov aiijiepov 7) fit pa inrai uf X'^^"^ ^~V- It V ^Tliese points are fully stated in Presbyterian Review', January, 1880, p. 65. 1882.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. 53 is to be observed that the closeness of Barnabas to 2 P. iii. 8, is greater than was the ease in the like parallel in either Irenreus or Justin. What was said there is therefore a fortiori strong here. Nor can the difference of context in Barnabas be urged ajrainst liis dependence on 2 Peter ;^ this is too characteristic of Barnabas elsewhere to be of any importance here. The case Avith the parallels in Clejiext of Rome is not quite so plain. We have, first, Noah and Lot adduced in vii. 5, and xi. 1, similarly to what is done in 2 Peter ii. 5—9. And then we have two passages l ix. 2, "Let us fix our eyes on them that min- istered perfectly n] jie-jaiaTTiiETvai 66^1} ai'-ni; compared with 2 p. i. 17 ; and XXXV. 5, ry itJw T?)g aA?/6dag, Compared w^th 2 P. ii. 2 — the strength of which rests in this fiict : that in each case a very rare and peculiar phrase occurs, peculiar in the New Testament to 2 Peter, and in the sub-apostolic age to Clement. Certainly this is ^There is a tyeat deal of error abroad as to what and how much is needful to prove literary dependence. We need greatly a full, weli- thought-out essay on the general question of literary dependence — its proofs, marks, and signs. Dr. Sanday in his "Gospels in the Second century," has made a fair beginning as to the question, With how much looseness may a second century father l»e allowed to quote and his quotation be recognised? But all is not done yet that is essential. Something is wrong or insufficient in tlie general understanding of this subjeiit when men will universally and immediately recognise this pas- sago as exhibiting dependence on Matthew — "All this preliminary fer- ment, then, [speaking of the brood of American poets in the second quarter of the nineteenth century] was in some way needful. The en- perin>ents of many who thought themselves called, enabled the few who were chosen to find motives and occasions for work of real import.'' — {Mr. Stedmaii in Scrihner for October., 1881 j). 82J), and yet at the same time will doubt or deny any dependence on the same passage in the fol- lowing — 'flf }'iypa-ra(, tto'AJ.oI kAtitoI, 6a! yoi 6e £K?ieK-ol ehpettuuev — {T^p- of Barnabas, iv. 14), or doubt or deny a dependence on 2 Peter in the pas- sages in the text. Is Mr. Stednian's context a vouchor for his borrowing from Matthew ? Or is there something in being a nineteenth century writer, and in English, which renders it more probable that he should (piote from the Now Testament, than if he were a second century writer and a Greek? Certainly something is wrong with the critics. Or is if that Mr. Stedman's ])assage does not help the ^^ Apolor/ists,'^ while Bar- nabas' s does? We are ashamed to even think such a thing. 54 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jan., enough to raise-some probability that as early as 97 A, D., Cle- ment had and borrowed a peculiar phraseology from 2 Peter. Now, it must have been already observed that these parallels do not turn, as Reuss sneers, on Christian commonplaces, but that they contain marked peculiarities of phraseology and thought. W Some of them seem insoluble save by — all of them easiest soluble by — the assumption of dependence on 2 Peter. If we had, earlier than Clement of Alexandria, only the probable references of Theophilus, Melito, Hennas, Test. xii. Patt., ani Clement of Rome, the only rational course would be to ascribe 2 Peter to the first century and to the apostolic period. The presumption of its early date thus raised would be convincingly strong. Yet this is but the weaker half of our evidence. To a moral certainty 2 Peter Avas used by Irengeus (A. D. 175), Justin Martyr (c. 147), and Barnabas (c. 106). One probable quotation from the early second century would have so supported the inference flowing from the testimony of Clement of Alexandria and Origen as to render the first century origin of the book the only probable hy- pothesis. Instead of that we have fifteen or sixteen quotations. The two earliest of the post-apostolic writers both furnish refer- ences : the one such as almost demonstrates his use of the book, the other such as raises his use of it to a high degree of proba- l)ility. There are no earlier witnesses to call. How can we fail to see that to a moral certainty 2 Peter came from the first cen- tury, and may very well, therefore, have sprung from the bosom of the apostolical circle ? II. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY ACCEPTANCE OF THE EPISTLE AS CANONICAL. In seeking to discover the attitude of the early Church towai-d 2 Peter, too much cannot possibly be made of the fact that this Epistle was finally accepted as genuinely Peter's and part of the Canon by the whole Church. On the theory of its ungenuineness (which implies uncanonicity) this is exceedingly difiicult to ac- count for. And this agreement as to its canonicity extends back certainly to the fourth century, in which, with the exception of 1882.] Tlie Canonicity of Second Peter. 55 one branch of the Church only, 2 Peter was universally accepted as part of the Canon. The Byzantine, Alexandrian, and Western branches of the Church had at this time all accepted and were all holding confidently to this Epistle as of divine authority. The Syriac Church alone had omitted it from her canon. Not only is it found in those great monuments of the New Testament text as it existed in the fourth century, Avithout a word or sign to dis- tinguish it from the other books, ^ codices B and X; but it is '^ witnessed to as existing in the Church Canon by the great writers of the day — by Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazi- anzen, Epiphanius, by Athanasius, by Augustine, Rufinus, Jerome, Philastrius, by the third Council of Carthage, by the [Canons of Laodicea], Adamantius, Synopsis Athanasii, the De- creta of Damasus, Gelasius, and Hormisdas, the apostolical canons, and so on, down to our own time. Now, it has been well said that such a general support yielded to a book in the fourth century-!^ an antecedent j^roof of the truth of its claims, so that with regard to it the question is not. What further proof have we for its canonicity ? but rather. What proof have we Avhich will justify us in putting it out of the Canon, authenticated as the Canon of the fourth century, as a whole, is ?^ Beyond all con- troversy this is a true position. That a book held so firm a po- sition in the fourth century Canon is presumptive proof that it ])elonged of right in it ; and this presumption is valid to deter- mine our faith and rational assent unless it be set aside by cogent reasons. The (juestion, therefore, is not, Independently of this presumption, what sufficient grounds have we for placing 2 Peter in the Canon ? but. What sufficient grounds have Ave for putting it out of the Canon, Avhere it seems so firmly instated ? Three facts have been and mav be iileaded as such iirounds : (1) The absence of the book from the Syriac Canon. (2) The doubts expressed concerning it by fourth century and earlier writers ; and (3) The small amount of very early evidence for the existence of the book. Some remarks on each of these asser- tions will be proper. 4n B the marjrira' marks of division are lacking. ^Westcott on the Canon, p. 319. 56 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jan., (1) It is to be a-lmittetl that 2 Peter was absent from the Syrian Canon current in the hite fourth century, and after. ChiTsostom accepts only three catholic epistles; Amphilochius of Iconium, in his catalogue, while mentioning that some accepted seven, mentions also that some accepted only three. Junilius himself accepts only two, though he athnits that quamplurimi in his day accepted seven. Even as late a writer as Ebed Jesu (14th century) confines the catholic epistles to only three. Still further the Peshito vei-sion, as it comes down to us, in all its copies of any weight of evidence, omits the same foul" catholic epistles (together with the Apocalypse) which all these writers omit. And the loose and manifestly exaggerated remarks of Leontius of Byzantium' are doubtless to be underetood as classing Theodore of Mopsuestia with this Syriac school. It is clear, therefore, that from the fourth century the Syria.c Church omitted 2 Peter from her Canon. On the other hand, however, it is i-emarked that, even if this truly represented the original Syriac Canon, it would be the testimony of only one corner of the Church and could not overbear the testimony of the whole of the rest ; but in truth it is more than doubtful whether the early Syriac Church rejected these epistles. Chrysostom is the earliest witness to the shorter form of the Syriac Canon, while earlier than his time that Canon seems to have included all of our New Testament books. Thus Ephraem Syrus^ of the preceding generation, confessedly possessed all seven catholic epistles and the Revelation in an older Syriac translation of ecclesiastical authority^. He is our earliest witness to the Peshito. The original Peshito is therefore admit- ted by such critics as Thiersch, Liicke, and even Hilgenfeld, to have doubtless contained the omitted books, while the form in which it was possessed by Chrysostom represents the result of a '^Contra Kettor. et Eiih/ch. lit. III. (Galliind. Biblio. XII., 686 sec[.) Compare also the wild statements of Kosmas' Indicopleustes. ^See Ililgenfeld's Einleituni^ in das N. T., pp. Ill, 112, 122, and the authorities there quoted. Ephraem's use of 2 Peter may be noted in 0pp. Syr., T. II., p. 342. Grtec, T. XL, p. 387. 1882.] The Ganonicity of Second Peter. 57 critical Antiochene revision of the fourth century.^ Thi.s conclu- sion, sound in itself and in its own right, is yet still farther borne out by two further considerations : The later Syriac Church was not agreed as to the number of the catholic epistles — the school of Nisibis (represented by Junilius) accepting only two ; and this diversity can be best accounted for by the supposition that the objection proceeded on critical grounds, and critical grounds were for each individual to determine also how mucli was to be rejected. And the earlier Syrian writers certainly possessed and esteemed the rejected books. Thus Theophilus of Antioch (1(38-180) had 2 Peter and Revelation,^ Malchion had Jude,^ and Pamphilus had Revelation,* (wdiich he assigned to John,) and seemingly also the whole seven of the catholic epistles.^ The testimony of the early Syrian Church, therefore, is for our completed Canon ; and the omission of 2 Peter from the later fourth century Syrian Canon resolves itself simply into another case of fourth century critical doubts. (2) The doubts expressed by certain of the fourth century writers constitute the most serious objection to the force of the fourth century evidence for the genuineness of the epistle. Re- ported by Eusebius at Constantinople and Didymus at Alexan- dria, — acted on, as we have seen, by the Syrian Church, — re- peated by Jerome in Italy, — the air seems heavy with them. Nor wei'e they of late origin. Early in the third century, Origen, in one brief statement, lets us see that they existed even then. It is necessary, therefore, that we should give them detailed attention. ^It has been customary to say that Ephraem witnesses to a Greek, not the Syrian Canon (so Westcott). Bnt it is clear that his Canon all ex- isted in Syriac, and it is doubtful how fiir his knowledife even of the Greek languajfe extended. See Smith and Wace's Diet, of Christ. Blog. II., 142 and 143, for a just estimate of his Greek learning. ^Eus. II. E., IV., 24. ^lEus. II. E., VII., 30. ^Pampli. Apol., VII. ^Westcott, p. 362. 58 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jan. In his catalogue of New Testament books, ^ which, as a formal passage, must take precedence of all others, Eusebius arranges 2 Peter among the Antilegomena or disputed books. This, how- ever, does not imply more than that it had not passed thus far Avithout having been disputed, and, therefore, adds nothing to our knowledge. He moreover distinctly states that it was among those that had been ''recognised by most," and betrays the fact that his own opinion as to its genuineness was favorable. In brief, therefore, his testimony is that the book is genuine and was held to be such by the Church, although it had been disputed by un- named individuals on unmentioned grounds.^ It cannot be said, therefore, that he raises doubts as to the genuineness of 2 Peter; he simply recognises and records the doubts that had already been raised. Born probably and brought up certainly at Caesarea, he had been from his earliest childhood in contact with the Syrian Church, and could not but be deeply affected by their critical opinions. He had the writings of Origen in his hands, and quotes the passage in which he communicates the fact that there were doubters of 2 Peter's genuineness in his day. There is no reason to believe that what he says of the position of 2 Peter has anything further than this at its base ; he had promised to tell us whatever was said by earlier writers about the Antilegomena; and he tells us only of Origen's remarks against 2 Peter. We may with considerable confidence, therefore, affirm with re- spect to Eusebius, that he witnesses to the canonical position of iH. E., III., 25. ^Canon WevStcott has shoAvn (p. 388, seq.,) that this formal statement must explain the other looser statements of Eusebius. Elsewhere (III., 3,) he declares that the book current under the name of 2 Peter had not been handed down {~apEi.?^T/(pa/i£v) ns ivdtddeTov, — ''still, since it appeared useful to many, it had been dili<:;ently read with the other Scriptures^ And later, he says somewhat unrfuardedly and inconsistently : "I recog- nise only one Epistle [ol" Peter] as genuine and acknowledged by the ancient presbyters ;" though doubtless he meant the whole predicate here to be taken as one single thought, which would void the inconsis- tency. However difficult it may be to us to harmonise all this perfectly, it is clear that the passage given in the text, as being the only formal statement, must be the one followed. 1882.] The Canonieity of Second Peter. 59 2 Peter in the Cliurch of his day, — tliat his own opinion was favorable to its genuineness, — that while he recognises the fact that it had been disputed, he yet tells us nothing of the grounds on which it had been disputed, and does . not imply that he had knowledge of a greater or more wide-spread doubt than we have the items of. In other words, his remarks add nothing to the evidence against the epistle, but do add to the argument for the genuineness of the epistle. The shadows of the doubts whose complete selves could not shake his faith, need not shake ours. The state of the case with reference to the doubts expressed by Didymus of Alexandria is much the same. He wrote a commen- tary on this epistle — Avhich is itself a significant fact — at the close of which we find a sentence which in the Latin translation (wliich has alone come down to us) appears to read as follows : "It ought not, then, to be unknown that the epistle is accounted spurious [falsatam, probably a rendering of vodtvEra.i'^, which although it is in public use, is nevertheless not in the Canon. "^ Like the state- ment of Eusebius, this only recites a fact without giving the grounds on which it is based. But, unlike the case of Eusebius, ; the fact here stated, if taken strictly, is demonstrably false, and Didymus' personal opinion seems to be involved in the state- ment. If the original Greek stated, as the slovenly Latin seems to imply, that in Didymus' day 2 Peter was not generally con- sidered canonical, then Didymus has simply misinformed his readers. For, after the middle of the fourth century, when he flourislTed (born 309 or. 314) it is confessed on all sides that 2 Peter was in the Church Canon. It is difficult to believe, how- ever, that the Latin accurately represents the original Greek. Didymus uses 2 Peter most fully as Petrine and Scripture, in his work on the Trinity,^ and this proves either that he himself ^Mifine, XXXIX., p. 1,774. ''In De Trinitate, he calls it a catholic epistle (Ed. Minjijarcll, p. 234), ascribes it distinctly to Peter (pp. 21, 2S, 99, 151, 2.34), and cites it just like the other Scriptures (pp. 90, 1 15). Moreover, he cites 1 Peter under that name, thus iniplyinif in 2 Peter, (99, 182, 276, 34U). It is worth "while to note further that he seems to use 2 Peter as "genuine, also in the Enarratio in Ep. Judce, in defiance of his (seemin^i;) adverse statement at the end of the Enarratio in 2 Peter. It may, perhaps, be worth noting further that the Enarrationea were a youthful work. 60 The Canonieity of Second Peter. [Jan., held it to be genuine, or that he was so accustomed to see it used and to use it as genuine that his critical opinion to the contrary Avas apt to be forgotten in practice, — that is, that it was generally considered genuine, and had been so considered through a long past. In all probability, Didymus simply repeats his master Origen ; and at all events his own use of 2 Peter in his work on the Trinity sucks the poison out of his adverse statement. At the worst, it can only represent the personal opinion of Didymus supported by an anonymous minority, and therefore cannot stand against the faith of the mass of the Church. Jerome, at last, informs us of the grounds of the early doubts. "Peter wrote," he tells us,^ "two epistles which are called cath- olic ; the second of which is denied by very many (plerisque) to be his on account of dissonance of style with the first." Jerome is not himself a doubter. His notice is valuable only because it assures us that the doubters of the early Church based their objec- tions on purely internal, not historical considerations. From this hint we can understand the whole history. This explains why it is that these objections iirst appear at Alexandria, and Avhy it is that they bore their fruit-ftirrrrin Syria. The Alexandrian school was notable above all others for internal criticism. It was in it that the style of Hebrews and Revelation was first discussed and infer- ences drawn from the discussion. If this was the source of objection to 2 Peter, it is not stmnge that objections are first heard of there. The Antiochene school, on the other hand, was the legitimate heir of Alexandrian speculation, and was the first to drive in many matters the critical hints of its predecessor to a practical end. It is not strange, that this same course was followed in this matter also. Jerome thus unties the whole knot for us, and in doing so voids these early objections of their terror. Let there have been many or few affected by them, (and Jerome's '■'•very many" doubtless refers to the numbers involved in the rejection by the Syrian Church,) they are, as founded on internal considerations, of no value to us. We appeal to the fathers not for internal but for external arguments ; and we can, iDe Yir. 111., c. 1. 1882.] The Canonkity of Second Peter. 61 when all the external testimony is in, examine opinions as to style at our leisure. Origen, finally, was the earliest Avriter who mentions doubts as to our epistle; and his words are not unambiguous: "Peter . . . has left behind one epistle which is 6/MAo-/nvf!iv?/v ; perhaps also a second, for it is disputed."'^ Perhaps no more colorless words could have been chosen. Origen's own opinion cannot be gath- ered from them, and must remain in doubt. When this state- ment is taken in connexion with Origen's own practice in regard to the epistle,^ it is plain, (1,) that some in Origen's day disputed the genuineness of this epistle, and yet, (2,) it Avas the usual if not universal habit to think and speak of it as Scripture and Peter's. It is clear from this that it was individuals who doubted, but the Church that received, and that the Church had received it through a long past. Taking a general revicAv of the early doubts expressed, we are justified in saying that, except the later Syrians, it is difficult to put our finger exactly on the doubters. Didymus possibly, Origen possibly, were among them ; but most probably they were not. They are an anonymous body. And they are a minority and a hopelessly small one ; in Jerome's day they are ver}^ many — before that, plainly few. The grounds of their doubt were purely internal, perhaps solely questions of style. It is plain, therefore, that they ai'e by no means of sufficient importance to rebut the presumption already raised for the genuineness and canonicity of the epistle. The testimony of the Church, as the Church, rings clear and strong above all doubt in favor of the letter. (3.) While it may be confessed that the evidence for the exist- ence of 2 Peter drawn from writers earlier than Origen, is not as copious as could be desired, it has already been shown that it exists in abundant (piantity to prove the letter to be as old as the apostolic times. Further evidence might make this proof more overwhelming, but could not alter its import. It is only where one shuts his eyes to this array of passages and refuses to consider reallv its meaning and strength, that he can allow himself to y 'Eus. H. E., VI., 25. ''See p. 4G above. 62 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jan., speak of an insufficiency of early references to that book. The amount- of evidence for it seems small, and is in danger of ap- pearing insufficient, only when it is viewed in comparison with the remarkable mass which God has preserved for the chief books of the New Testament. When compared with what is thought — and justly so — amply sufficient to authenticate any other early writing, it looms up before us great and invincible. 2 Peter is to a moral certainty quoted by two writers, and most probably by three or four more, within the first century after its composition ; and long before the next century has rolled away, it is fully wit- nessed to as occupying an assured position in a Canon held all-holy, and thoroughly witnessed to as a whole. Now, Herodotus is quoted but once in the century which followed its composition, but once in the next, not at all in the next, only twice in the next, and not until its fifth century is anything like as fully witnessed to as 2 Peter is in its second. Agai^i, Thucydides is not distinctly quoted, until quite two centuries after its composition ; while Tacitus is first cited by Tertullian.^ Yet no one thinks of disputing the genuineness of Herodotus, Thucydides, or Tacitus. Clement of Alexandria's testimony alone puts 2 Peter on a par with Tacitus ; Origen's testimony alone would put it on a better basis than Thu- cydides stands securely on. Save for the contrast between the testimony for it, and that amazing abundance Avhich stands for the greater New Testament books, it would be simply astonishing how any one could speak of insufficient witness ; and that con- trast is due not to insufficiency of evidence for 2 Peter, but to astounding over-sufficiency of evidence for the other books. Thus no one of these lines of argument, nor all together, are able to raise any cogent re1)utting evidence against the presump- tion from the attitude of the fourth century in favor of the book. A strong presumption still remains untouched, that this book thus accepted by the great writers and the Church in general, in that century, was always in the Canon — not to be set aside save on cogent grounds. And, resting on this presumption, we might here rest the case, asking simply for reasons why this book should ^Cf. for these facts Rawlinson's Hist. Evidences, p. 376 (American edition). 1882.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. 63 be ignominiously cast out of the Canon of the fourth century. This question clamors in vain for an answer. Yet the fourth century evidence is not all that can be adduced, and it Avill be in- structive to go farther. We have seen incidentally that the notices of Origen prove that the book was a part of the Church Canon of the early years of the third century. And corrobora- tive witness is at hand. Firmilian, in Asia Minor (t270), quotes it as an authoritative letter of Peter "the blessed apostle," when writing to Cyprian in North Africa ; Avhence it is hard not to conclude that he could naturally count on Cyprian esteeming it just as he did — in other words, that at this period 2 Peter was part of the Canon of the universal Church. That it was part of the North African Canon of the third century is certain from the fact that it is included in the Claromontanian Stichometry.^ In Italy, Hippolytus at the same time seems to quote it.^ It cannot be denied, therefore, that it was a part of the Church Canon of the early third century ; and the evidence goes further and proves that it was naturally in the Canon at this time — that the men of the early third century did not put it in, but found it in the Canon. It was, therefore, in the Canon of the later years of the second century. And indeed this is independently proved. Not only was it known to several authors of the time, but it was com- mented on by Clement of Alexandria, and has a place in both the Egyptian versions and in the early form of the Peshito, all of which date from the second century.^ No stronger evidence of its canonical authority at the time could be asked. We must shift our question back two centuries then, and ask. What reason exists to degrade 2 Peter from the Canon of the late second cen- tui"y ? Known all over the Church at this period and securely fixed in the Canon, we find it quoted here and there, back to the 'See the proof that this represents the African Canon of the third century in Credners Einleitung, p. 175, and IIilgenfeld\s, p. 107. ''De Antichristo, c. 2. 'This is the old opinion as to the Pesliito; and Dr. Lij!;htfoot has ren- dered it the most probable date for the others. See also the opinion of Dr. SohafF and of Drs. Westcott and Ilort in their new edition of the New Testament. 64 The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jax. very earliest Christian writers ; nay, Justin Martyr, before 147, quotes it in such a way as to prove that he esteemed it authorita- tive. What evidence is there which will compel us to revise the decision of the late second century and put the letter out of its Canon ? Absolutely nothing is hazarded in asserting that its position in the Canon of this period peremptorily authenticates it as divine. Even were there no trace of it earlier, this would be enough ; how much more so, with the traces we have of its earlier possession and estimation ! One has but to catch the grounds on which this age held its canon, to be convinced of this. Irenffius tells us that he holds only to what has been handed down from the elders, the companions of the apostles ; Clement appeals as boldly to tradition as his only dependence. Now, the teachers of these men were those very companions of the apostles. Polycarp was Ireniieus's teacher, and he was the pupil of John. Clement had studied under many masters of the previous generation in all parts of the Church. The one sine qua non with all the writers of this age, for the reception of a book as canonical, was that it should come to them from these fathers as having come to them from the bosom of the apostolical circle. That a book was a recognised part of the New Testament of this period, therefore, authenticates it as having come from the elders Avho could bear personal witness to its apostolicity. So that the wit- ness of the age of Irenteus alone, if fairly wide-spread, is amply sufficient to authenticate any New Testament book. 2 Peter has that witness. And it has more than that : it is independently witnessed to as coming from the apostolic times (Barnabas, Cle- ment of Rome, etc.), and as being esteemed authoritative (Justin). Surely the presumption of its canonicity amounts to a moral certainty. III. THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF ITS GENUINENESS. But what witness does the letter bear to itself? The Church lias from the bearinnino; held it to be an authoritative letter from Peter ; fXnit it is its own witness in this direction^ It bears on the forefront the name of Peter, and this is tlie first thing we note in asking after internal evidence: the letter asserts itself to be by 1882.] The Canonicity of Second Peter. 65 Peter (i. 1, 14, 1(>). It is, therefore, either Peter's, or else a base ,y^ and designing forgery. It cannot be hekl to be an innocent pro- duction which by some mistake has found its way into the Canon ; it is cither genuinely Peter's, or else it is an embodied lie. Noav this raises a very strong presumption in favor of its genuineness. For it is apparent on any reading of it that a very "holy and apostolic spirit breathes through this letter." Not a false note is struck throughout the whole of it. "We feel," says Frouraliller with as much truth as eloquence, "that the author stands in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ ; that he loves truth above all things (i. 12; i. 3) ; that he is thoroughly in earnest about Christianity (i. 5) ; that he fears the judgments of eternity (ii. 1) ; that he believes in God's justice (ii. 9) ; that he despises cunningly- devised fables and speaks from a sure and personal autoptic knowledge (i. 16)." The Epistle's claim to be by Peter is thus reinforced by every mark 'of honesty in its form and matter. We note next that what it tells us about its author is in strik- ing harmony with its assertion that he was Peter. Not only does the double name Symeon Peter (with its Hebraic sound) fit, and the character of the writer reflect itself as the impulsive, quick, out- spoken Peter of the Evangelists, but there are some minute points of coincidence brought out which certainly identify him. Thus, only three of the disciples witnessed our Lord's transfiguration. The author of this Epistle Avas one of them (i. 16-18). Can this natural reference to his own experience be the trick of a forger? That seems scarcely credible on the face of it, but it is rendered quite impossible by some minute signs in the context which prove that that scene had burnt itself into the writer's heart. His mins exhibit striking resemblances of style, resemblances much more striking and far-reaching than the differences so freely adducei'Aaik?.^ia (1 Peter i. 22, 2 Peter i. 7); jo/i;;veh' (1 Peter iv. 11, 2 Peter i. 5, 11); aTcdOemc (1 Peter iii. .21, 2 Peter i. 14); «pfri^ (1 Peter ii. 9, 2 Peter i. 3) ; avaorpodij (1 Peter i. 15, 2 Peter ii. 12) ; alifina in a peculiar sense (1 Peter i. 22, 2 Peter i. 12); iwfiii^caOai (1 Peter i. 9, 2 Peter ii. 13), etc. f all of which are rare words in the New Testament. In the face of such considerations as these. 'Nachapost. Zeitalter, I. 512, scq. ^See Pluiii))tre"s Christ and Cliristendom, )). 'Jio. 68^ The Canonicity of Second Peter. [Jaf,, it would certainly ret:][iure very cogent rebutting evidence to con- vince us that 2 Peter did not come from the same hand which gave us 1 Peter. Before leaving this genei'a.l subject, however, we must present two other internal considera*tions which cannot be passed over^ and which possess considerable weight as evidence : (1). The relation of our Epistle to the Gospel of Mark must be considered. All antiquity tells us that Mark's Gospel bears a special relation to Peter. Now compare 2 Peter ii. 1 and Mark xiii. 22 ; 2 Peter iii. IT and Mark xiii. 28; 2 Peter iii. 10 and Mark xiii. 36 ; 2 Peter iii. 4 and Mark xiii. 19. These are cer- tainly striking parallels ; and if 2 Peter preceded Mark in time we may say they are conclusive that Peter wrote this Epistle. Yet there is a still more striking connexion between the two Avhich seems to have all the force of a complex undesigned coincidence. All antiquity tells us that Mark wrote down what Peter orally taught of the Lord's life and teaching; and internal criticism of Mark's Gospel corroborates this external testimony. In 1 Peter v. 13, we find Mark on intimate terms with Peter (^V\) 2 Peter iii. 5-7. Let our souls be bound to him For this they wilfully foriret that is faithful kizayyE'/Jaiq . . . iv [speaking of the surety of God's AdyuTT/g fieyaAuavv/jg ai'Tov cvvear/jtyaro E7iayye7Ja] that . . nvpavol -ijaav tuna- ra Tcavra Kal iv 'Aoycj dvvaTai avra na- Aai Kal yf/ . . cwEaruaa^ ru ~ov Qeov . . oi TacTpi\pei. de vvv ovpavol Kal t/ yfj rw avr(d 'koyu te- dr/aavpca/ievot Eial, wvpl T7!pov/j.Evoi Eig Tjjiepav npicEug. (5.) Clement xxiii. 3. 2 Peter iii. 4. Let this Scripture be f-AV from us In the last days mockers shall where it saith : "Wretched are the come . . sayinj^, "Where is the pro- double-minded which doubt in their mise of his coming, for, from the soul and say, 'These things we did diiy that the fathers fell asleep, all hear in the days of our fathers also, things continue as they were from and behold we have grown old, and the beginning of the creation.'' none of these things have befallen us.'" (6.) Clement xxxv. 5. 2 Peter ii. 2. If we accomplish such things as And many shall follow their las- beseem his faultless will, and follow civious doings ; by reason of whom the way of truth, casting off from the way of the truth shall be evil ourselves all unrighteousness and spoken of. iniquity, etc., etc. The first and sixth of these parallels hardly give indication of the direction of the borrowing : the second, third, fourth, and fifth, however, (independently of the statement of Clement, that he borrowed the fifth) all severally give clear hints of the fact that the passage in Clement is the borrower. Note, e. g., the compression in the fourth by Clement, as he briefly takes from Peter's larger context the exact thought he needed. The way in which the peculiar phrase, "excellent glory," is introduced in the third, in each writer, is again decisive that Peter's is the original. The phenomena of the fifth are even stronger in the same direction, etc. ^ Compare how Clement smelts together reminiscences of diflPerent passages in chapter xiii. (Matt. v. 7 ; vi. 14 ; vii. 12 ; Luke vi. 38 ; vi. 37 ; Matt. vii. 2), and from the Old Testament, passm. 1883,] (xenuineness of Second Peter. 399 Peter which arises from the varied proofs which combine to estab- lisli it ' is against the hypothesis that it has borrowed from Clement : not because we do not regard this as a valid or convincing argu- ment, but because we deem it unnecessary for the establishment of our point and do not wish to be delayed to show the strength of the presumption. The result of an examination of the relation be- tween 2 Peter and Clement therefore seems to be that to a moral certainty Clement had and used 2 Peter and that probably as Scripture. This one fact, taken alone, burdens any argument which would go to prove a later date than say A. D. 75 for 2 Peter with an almost insuperable objection at the outset, and it is under a realisation of this that we would v*'ish the reader to pro- ceed with us in our further discussion. We purpose to examine, 1. Dr. Abbott's arraignment of 2 Peter's style, and 2. The rela- tion of 2 Peter to Josephus. DR. Abbott's arraignment of 2 peter's style. Dr. Abbott has a very low opinion of the style of 2 Peter. He thinks it "throughout that of a copyist and 'fine writer,' ignorant of ordinary Greek idiom, yet constantly striving after grandilo- quent Greek, an affected and artificial style, wholly unlike that of the First Epistle of St. Peter, a style so made up of shreds and patches of other men's Avritings and so interpersed Avith obsolete, sonorous, and meaningless words, that it really has no claim to be called a style at all, and resembles nothing so much as the patch- work English of a half-educated Hindoo aping the language of Lord Macaulay and Dr. Johnson with an occasional flavor of Shakespeare."^ He believes it possible "to show that there is probably not one original thought and scarcely one natural ex- pression in the whole of it."^ This would be enough .to take one's breath away, except that it admits of a very easy demonstra- tion that the criticism itself is only a piece of "fine writing" and cannot be by any possibility true. Common sense refuses to be persuaded that native Greeks of culture and scholarship — acute critics of language and style, great scholars and rhetoricians, pro- * See Southern Presbyterian Review, Jaauary, 1882, p. 45, seq. =*?. 153. 3p^ 15Q_ 400 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, lific writers — like Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, Athanasius, should have read this Epistle for ages, studied it, criticised it, written commentaries on it, and honored it all this time as divinely inspired without ever discovering that its style was such as "would induce a Greek reader to form about it the same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native Esti- mate' 'V i^i a word, that "there is no style, no naturalness" about it, nothing but "a barbarous medley of words." ^ Calm judgment again refuses to believe that scholars like Ewald, Briickner, Hofmann, Huther, Weiss, could be so wofully deceived as to ad- mire a style which is "essentially ignoble" both in thought and wording, which is characterised by "vulgar pomposity, verbose pedantry, and barren plagiarism," and can be but the natural expression of "a pedantical phrase-compiler who bungles and blurs" everything he touches. Surely a sober reader is entitled to brush away such a ftmfaronade with a justly impatient gesture. It will be of use to us, however, to observe the kind of specifi- cation that is made to support this wholesale attack at once on the style of 2 Peter, the discernment of the Greek fathers, and the scholarship of the best modern masters of Hellenistic Greek, as well as the manner of argumentation by which the style of 2 Peter is made an evidence of its spuriousness. Dr. Abbott recognises the fact that neither apostolicity nor inspiration secures to a writer Attic purity of Greek. "Let it be clearly understood," he says, ^ "that we do not ground our objections to the genuineness of the Epistle on its bad Greek." The argument bases itself on the con- tention that the style is bad in such a way as to exhibit not sim- ply ignorance of Greek, but certain bad mental and moral traits: "barrenness," "inanity," "shallowness," "pedantry," "vanity," "dulness," "vulgarity," "ignobility," and so on, through almost "a glossary of the rarest words in the [English] language." It is observable, therefore, that Dr. Abbott's argument is confessedly not valid unless it be shown not merely that 2 Peter contains bad Greek, rare, otherwise unknown, or even falsely framed or used ^A characteristic specimen of the "half-educated Hindoo English," mentioned above. 2 P. 206. 3 P. 214. 1883,] Genuineness of Second Peter. 401 words, rare, difficult, or even solecistic constructions; but nlso that these words are so used as to exhibit an ignobility of mental or moral constitution in the writer. Dr. Abbott must certainly be held in his specifications to items supporting one or the other of these two assertions: 1. That the style bears witness to a men- tally or morally ignoble writer; or 2. That it is ineradically and inexplicably different from that of First Peter. A careful reader will look in vain through Dr. Abbott's very interesting pages for such items. His three main contentions are that the Epistle is full of "barren plagiarisms," "artificial tautol- ogy of fine words," and "vulgar pedantry," concerning which it is immediately to be observed that the argument in each case lies in the adjective, while the facts do not justify even the noun. It is indeed true that 2 Peter has freely borrowed from Jude and adopted phrases here and there from other writings ; but it is just as certainly not true that the borroAving has been done in any unworthy, ignoble, or barren manner, or can be justly described as plagiarism. There certainly do occur repetitions of words and phrases in the Epistle, and some unusual, not to say unique, words may be turned up in it; but this mere fiict is certainly nor un- worthy or vulgar, nor are the circumstances of the various cases such as will render them so. We have already said all that Ave need say concerning the borrowing from Jude ; it will be instruc- tive to note here Dr. Abbott's way of dealing with the asserted cases of "tautologies" and "solecisms" in order to obtain a correct notion of the soundness and carefulness of his methods of Avork, and to guard the reader against the fear that we are dealing as unfairly Avith Dr. Abbott as he had dealt Avith 2 Peter. By "tautology" Dr. Abbott does "not mean the mere repeti- tion of the same word or phrase to express the same thing. Euclid is not tautological." He means the barren repetition of "fine words" — due to "paucity of vocabulary" and the desire of an empty writer to "make the most of the handsome phrases Avhich he has accumulated," AA'hereby he is led, "having found a bright patch," "to insert it tAvice or thrice before he can bring himself to let it go." It is clear noAV, that the words adduced to prove such a tautology must be poetical and striking ; above all, they must not be such as 402 Dr. Edwin A. Ahhott on the [April, can be shown to have been in natural and familiar use in the sense in which they occur in "the tautology." A very fair exam- ple of the kind of tautology meant Dr. Abbott adduces from an estimate of Lord Hobart's character which appeared shortly after the death of that statesman, in the Madras Mail. It will be suf- ficient for our purposes to quote the first paragraphs of it: "The not uncommon (a, 1) hand of A^-Ath. has distilled from febrile ■wings from amongst a debris of bereaved relatives, friends, and submis- sive subjects into (6, 1) the interminable azure of the past, an unexcep- tionably finished politician and philanthropist of the highest specific gravity, who, only a few days ago, represented our Most Gracious Ma- jesty the Queen in this Presidency. "The hand of (a, 2) destiny has willed that he should be carried into the infinite (ft, 2) azure of the past, when the (c, 1 ) iiicijjient buds, and {d, 1) symptoms of his fostered love and hope for the (e, 1) Oriental element were observed to be gradually blossoming. The (e, 2) Oriental mind was just in the (c, 2) incipient stage of appreciating his noble men- tal and moral qualities, and consequently can only confine itself to a prediction of what his indefatigable zeal would have achieved for it, had he remained within the category of 'the survival of the fittest.' " Dr. Abbott thinks that 2 Peter is the same kind of Greek as this trash is English ! We are not concerned now, however, with tliis already refuted and self-refuting charge, but only with the tautologies. These are marked by italics and figures in the above passage, and are all striking, either because they are figurative expressions, or intensely poetical expressions, or are used in strange senses. The only exception is, possibly, ^''Oriental," and that probably would not attract attention, or be noted as a tau- tology of this class, except in association with the others. Now, Dr. Abbott thinks that in respect to its tautologies, 2 Peter ii. 14—20, is parallel to this ; he admits, indeed, that the words there "are capable of being rendered into veiy simple English," but contends that "their use, and still more their repe- tition in this Epistle, would induce a Greek reader to form about it the same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native Estimate.'" We might ask. Even were this true, what of it ? Would this prove ignobility of soul or ignorance of Greek ? Pov- erty of Greek vocabulary might be proved ; a book-learned and half-understood vocabulary might be proved. But Dr. Abbott's 1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 403 brief requires him to prove mental or moral unworthiness. Jt behoves us, rather, to ask, however, is it true ? We can deter- mine how the style of this Epistle would affect a Greek reader of say the last half of the first century A. D., only in two ways: 1, by observing how it actually aifected the Greek readers who read it nearest to that time ; and, 2, by noting whether the words thus "tautologically" used are of the same class that occur in the Madras Mail extract. Many Greek readers, sufiiciently close to Peter's day to stand as examples, used this Epistle; some of them did not fail to observe the difference between its style and that of 1 Peter — a far more hidden phenomenon than this to which Dr. Abbott appeals. Yet none of them has seen this — which has been reserved to him to discover some eighteen centuries after the advent of the Epistle into an unbelieving and critical world. Again, the words used are found on examination to bear abso- lutely no real resemblance to those in the Madras Mail quota- tion ; but, on the contrary, are used by 2 Peter in senses justified as simple and natural by either known usage or strong analogy. Dr. Abbott's contention is that some of these words "are very rare in Greek literature;" and others, "though good classical Greek in themselves, are rare or non-existent in the New Testa- ment." Elsewhere we learn that he deems a word not found elsewhere in the New Testament, or in the LXX., an uncommon word to the circle of ideas of a writer like 2 Peter, even though it be otherAvise a common Greek word. But would the use of such words repetitiously be enough to convict a passage of being similar in style to the extract from the Madras 3Iail? Dr. Abbott seems to forget for the moment the kind of Greek he is dealing with, and the characteristics of* the period to which it -belongs. Winer ^ gives us, as the chief lexical peculiarities of Hellenistic Greek, as distinguished from classical, the mixture of dialects ; great changes of sense in words ; the comminglii^ ^^-.^h*'*** ^ poetical and other lofty words ; changes of form ; and an inilux of newly made words, or of words new to the literary language. From these main characteristics of the kind of Greek occurring ^ Winer's Grammar, etc., ^ 2 •, where a sufficient number of examples are given. 404 Br. Edtvin A- Abbott 07i the [April, in 2 Peter, it is already apparent that Dr. Abbott has engaged in a rather difficult task, when he wishes to prove that its author has used his words in as ridiculous a way as the writer in the Madras Mail. That a word is a curious dialectic form, does not prove it was not in the commonest currency in Peter's day ; tliat it occurs in the classics only in the loftiest of poetic speech, does not prove it was not the flattest prose in Peter's day ; that old acquaintances are used in the most unheard of senses, or reappear in entirely strange dresses, or give way to utter strangers, obtained no one knows whence — all this would not only be no proof of ignorance of Greek in the author of a writing of this date, but is just what we are to look for and expect in him. It is just what we do find in all the writers of the time. Every one of the New Testament writers has his own a-a^ le-yo/neva, absolute, or in the New Testament. Queer phenomena are continually cropping out. The same woixl, for instance, appears in only two places in all Greek literature ; in both cases independently, and in both it is used with the utmost fiimiliarity ; or a word can be found only in a single passage in the totality of Greek writing, until it suddenly turns up in an inscription ; or a familiar word is used by two widely separated authors, and by them only, in a new and strange sense. The period in which 2 Peter was composed, was, in a word, linguistically speaking, an unsettled age, and an age of transition. Language, as a literary vehicle, was in a fer- ment ; the old vocabulary was no longer clung to jealously ; popu- lar phrases and forms of speech were clamoring for recognition, and each man did, in the Avay of choosing a vocabulary, pretty nearly what was right in his own eyes. Nor is it possible to speak of the LXX. as almost the only mine from which the writers of the New Testament drew their vocabulary ; their great mine was doubtless the popular usage of current speech, as distinguished from any written sources. Pro- fessor Potwin, in his very interesting papers on the New Testa- ment vocabulary,^ gives us a summary view of the matter, which may help us here. He estimates that the New Testament con- tains eight hundred and eighty-two (882) native Greek words ^Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1880, pp. 653, seq. 1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 405 not found anywhere until after Aristotle, or an average of about two to a page ; and yet he has not counted merely dialectic forms, or slight changes of declension or pi'onunciation, or even the widest changes of meaning, so long as the form was pre- served. Of these eight hundred and' eighty-two words not found at all in the classical age, only some three hundred and sixty- three in all, or a little over tivo-jifths, are found in the LXX. Only one conclusion can be drawn from such facts as these. It Avill require much more than the adduction of repetitions of words that are rare in the New Testament, or rare in the New Testament and LXX., or rare in Greek literature, to fasten such "tautologies" as occur in the Madras Mail extract on 2 Peter. The author of that Epistle ought to be given the benefit of the doubt that would necessarily arise in each case as to whether this or that word, known to us only as a rarely occurring word in Greek literature, or perhaps only as an intensely poetical one of the classical period, was not plain and familiar prose in his circle of acquaintances. It is another ques- tion whether he needs to ask for the benefit of this doubt. And we hasten to add that an examinarion of Dr. Abbott's chosen examples from 2 Peter will convince the sober reader that he does not. The "barren tautology of fi/e words" is discovered / to exist, not at all in 2 Peter's Greek, liut only in Dr. Abbott's English representation of it. It is only by such a forced trans- lation — proceeding by the resurrection of the etymological senses of derivatives and compounds, and the literal senses of figurative words which had acquired well-settled and simple derivative mean- ings — as would make any author ridiculous, that the "tautolo- gies" can be found in 2 Peter at all. This may perhaps be made plain to the reader by placing Dr. Abbott's forced translation of the first of the two passages he adduces, side by side with an- other, not at all smooth, but which takes the words in justifiable senses, as the added notes Avill show. We trust the reader will carefully observe the effect. Any one who thought it Avorth his while, could readily make Dr. Abbott's own thoroughl}^ clear English style muddy, by treating it as he has treated 2 Peter's. It is to be observed that the passage begins in the middle of a sentence : 406 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, Dr. Abbott's. (a, 1) Setting baits to catch souls (//, 1) unconfirmed, havina; a heart practised o/'^ f^reediness, and child- ren of curse, havin^i left the straight way, they went astray having fol- lowed after''- the way of Bahiatn the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of iniquity,^ but had the refutation'^ of his own^ law-breaking ;^ a dumb beast of burden with the voice of a man (c, 1) uttering a sound,'' hin- dered the maddishness^ of the pro- phet. . . For (f, 2) uttering sounds of swellina; thino;s* of vanity, in the lusts of the flesh by wanton acts they (a, 2) set baits to catch those who are in the least ^^ {d, \) fleeing mcay from those who are spendinif their life in error ; promisinij them free- dom, being themselves slaves of cor- ruption — for one is enslaved by that by which one is (e, 1) defeated. For if [d, 2) having fled aivaij from the pollutions of the world by the recog- nition^^ of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but afterwards having been entangled in these things they are (e, 2) defeated, their last state is worse than the first. 2 Peter. . . . enticing unstable souls ; hav- ing hearts practised in covetous- ness ; children of cursing. They have left the straight way and are gone astray, following after the way of Balaam the son of Bosor who loved the wages of unrighteousness, but received a rebuke of his own transgression. The dumb beast of burden, speaking with the voice of a man, hindered the prophet's mad- ness. For, speaking great swelling , things of vanity, they entice, in the lusts of the flesh, by wanton acts, those who are just escaping from them that pass their lives in error, promising them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of corruption ; for one is enslaved by that by which he is overcome. For, if having es- caped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but hav- ing become again entangled in them, they are overcome, their last state is become worse than their first. ^ "A rare and pedantic use of the genitive" (Dr. A.). It will be enough in reply to refer to Winer, ^ 30-4. ^See^josif. ^ Ditto. * C/l Job xxi. 4 ; xxiii. 2 (LXX.). ^ "The word l6iog, private, ought not to be used where there is no anti- thesis between what is one's own and another's: but the author is . . . fond of the abuse of this word" (Dr. A.). Perhaps, however, Wiof is not so unessential here as Dr. Abbott seems to think ; there is a contrast be- tween the '"sin" of Balaam and of his ass. Balaam, supposing his ass to be stubborn and vicious, was punishing her for it, when the dumb beast spake and gave him a rejiuke for hisoM7?i sin. Neither is ISioq in ii. 22 unessential, as the careful reader will readily see. ® Cf Prov. v. 22; Ps. xxxvi. 7 ; common in classics (e. g., Polyb., Di- on. Hal.). Hence, only rare in the New Testament. ^ See post. * Ditto. ^"The use of virepoyna, without the article, yet followed by a genitive, is bad Greek" (Dr. A.). Why? Cf Winer (Moulton's Ed.), p. 235. ^"''The word bliyug is rare, and most used in the phrase ovk oAiyug, in no slight degree, like our 'not in the least.' It probably means here: 'to some small extent.' " True enough ; valeat tantum. ^' See 2}ost. 1883.] Grenuineness of Second Peter. 407 Relegating to the foot notes all notice of words and phrases which have been forced from their obvious senses, in order to give the passage as a whole the appearance of the Madras Mail ex- tract, we confine ourselves here to the cases of "tautology." Five of these are adduced, to which three more, marked as repeated elsewhere than in this passage, are to be added (marked 2, 3, and 11 above), amounting to eight in all. It is observed with refer- ence to them that while in the left hand column they bear a strange appearance, as they stand in the right hand column they appear natural enough, and their repetition ceases to strike upon the ear unpleasantly or even markedly. Their "tautological" char- acter (in Dr, Abbott's sense), then, depends on the necessity of looking at them from the standpoint of the left hand column, and the real question before us is : Are they fitly represented by the translation given in the right hand column ? If no violence has been done to them in this translation, then violence has been done to 2 Peter by Dr. Abbott. Let us take a brief view of the usage of the words involved. 1. {a) Setting baits to catch. This is the translation which Dr. Ahbott offers of the word SeTiEa^eiv, which he further informs us is used only once elsewhere in the New Testament. But is it justifiable to dio; up the lit- eral sense of the word here? or has its metaphorical sense a recoi^nised simple and no longer fiifurative meaninj^? The primitive 6E?.Eap {cf. (5<$Zof), meaning "a bait,"' has itself a settled metaphorical sense, as in Plutarch, De Ser. Ahim. Vind., rb yTivKv r^f kniBvuiaQ uaa-ep 6e/>.eap i^e^KEiv [av6 poi-ovg] ; sind Plato, Tim.,\xix. 6: "Pleasure, the greatest mciYe?«eft< of evil" (.Jowett). The derivative verb 6e2,Ed!^eiv means, in accordance with its form, 1, literally, to bait, /. e., either to put on the hook as bait or to entice or catch by bait; and 2, metajyh., to bait — to entice. In this, its metaphorical sense, it obtained great currency, always in sensu malo ; and, as it became common, lost its figurative implication. The literal sense is already out of sight in such passages as Demosthenes, pp. 241—2: paart'ovy kol (jx^^V ^^'^la^o/ievov (by all means compare the con- text), and Philo. q. omn. lib. prob. §22 (cited by Grimm), irpog iTridv/ilac t/MvvE-at 7/ i'0' TjdovTjQ 6E?iEd^ETat. In the only one other New Testament passage in whicli the word occurs, the resurrection of the literal sense would even introduce confusion: James i. 14, "But each is tempted by being drawn out and having baits set by his own lust." The order of the words here, e^eTiKdfievoc first, and dElEalofjEvoq second, demonstrates that the latter is used in total neglect of its literal sense, and therefore / 408 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, in no sense figuratively,. but only as a current expression for "enticino;." To insist on translatinji; the word in 2 Peter, "setting baits to catch,'" is the same as to insist on ^ivin;; dilapidate its original sense of scattering stones in such a passajie as this . "The patrimony of the bishopric of Oxon was much dilapidated" (Wood).^ 2 Peter simply uses a common Greek word, not unknown in the New Testament in its most natural, common, and obvious sense ; his repeated use of it in the course of four verses is neither strant^e nor sitfniticant when once we recognise the commonness of the word and the naturalness of the sense. 2. [h.) uncoafirjned. The word here is aarT/ijUroi, which occurs in 2 Peter alone in the New Testament. It is rare also in the classics, cf. Longin. de Subl., 2. 2., and Musaeus, 295 ("the unstable deeps and wa- tery bottoms of the sea*'). It may or may not have been a somewhat rare word in St. Peter's day. Certainly its use at 2 Peter ii. 14, iii. 16, cannot be called "tautological," and can occasion no surprise. It is at worst a vivid mode of speech. And it is w^orthy of note that words cog- nate with oTTipii^u (Luke xxii. 32) are favorites with Peter and seem to have had peculiar significance to him : cf. 1 Peter v. 10; 2 Peter i. 12; iii. 17. and Souther.v Presbyterian Review, 1882, p. 69. note 1. 3. (2) Jiacing followed after. The word here is i^nKoAovSElv. concern- ing which Dr. Abbott remarks truly enough that it is used here, i. 16 and ii. 2, only, in the New Testament. This fact has, however, abso- lutely no significance, unless the word itself is either rare or peculiar in some way. It is, on the contrary, however, an exceedingly common ■word, whether in the LXX. [e.g., Isa. Ivi. 11 ; Sir. v. 2; Amos ii. 4 ; Job xxxi, 9. etc.), or the writers of the kolv?] {e.g., Josephus, Polybius, Plu- tarch), or of the early Church [e.g., Testt. xii. Patt., p. 644). It is used by 2 Peter in three separate (though only slightly divergent) senses, all of which are justified as natural and current by other writers. {Cf. Grimm's anal3'sis of the word.) 4. (3) the wages of.iniquiti/, jiiaBov a^iKiac, "repeated," says Dr. Ab- bott, "from ii. 13," and but once used elsewhere in the New Testament, "namely, in the Acts (i. 18) in a speech of St. Peter, whence it has been probably borrowed by our author." We are at somewhat of a loss to un- derstand what is thought to be proved by this. If there is anything curious or "fine-wordy" or pedantic about this phrase, then how account for its use by the genuine Peter (Acts i. 18, for we understand Dr. Ab- bott to accept that as "a speech of St. Peter")? at the least, then, this use, pedantic or not, is common to Peter and 2 Peter, and is a mark of the Petrine origin of this Epistle just in proportion as it is strange and unusual. On the other hand, if this phrase is not strange in Acts, why is it strange here? We have no wish to haggle over the point whether 2 Peter actually borrows the phrase from Acts, and the less so as it 'Or, "Christ took our physically dilapidated nature" [IlodgeJ, I 1883.] Grenuineness of Second Peter. 409 seems certain that Acts was published some five or six years earlier than 2 Peter, and verses 18 and 19 of Acts i. do not appear to us part of Peter's speech. This much, however, is clear: in Luke's words we have an example of the same phrase that is here held to be "fine-wordy" and pedantic. Essentially the same phrase occurs also in 2 Mace. viii. 33 ; while /uiaddg in a bad sense is common in Greek literature {rf. e. g., Cal- lim. Hi/mn. in Diaii., 2G3, "For neither did Atreides boast in a small uiadC;''' Eur. Hipp., 1050, the fiiaOoc due to an impious man, etc.). 5. ((-■) uttering a sound, (pdeyyo/jai. Dr. Abbott falls into a slight er- ror in saying (p. 206) that this word does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; it occuirs in a precisely similar sense in Acts iv. 18: "charged them not at all to 'utter a sound' or teach in the name of Jesus." This fact is fatal to the adduction of the word here as pedantic or strange in the simple sense of- "speak." Add that it is common in this same sense in the LXX. ; cf. Job xiii. 7, ivavri. rff ahrov (pdcyyeGde 66\ov ("utter a sound" of guile?) ; Wisdom i. 8 : "no one 'uttering a sound' of wicked things." Sir. xiii. 22. Cf. Hdian, iv. 6, 12; Xen. Com., ii. 7; Mem., iv. 2, 6. Certainly, as we go on, we become more and more amazed at the items which must be adduced to prove pedantic tautology — if it be proved at all. '6. [d) fleeing aicay from, aTTO(j)Evyeiv, used in New Testament in 2 Peter i. 4; ii. 18, 20, only. For the construction with the genitive (as in 2 Peter i. 4) cf katpehyeiv in Xen. An. 1, 3, 2, and the simple verb in Philoct., 1034. For the construction with the accusative as in our present passage, c/. Batr., 42, 47; Theogn., 1159; Ildt., i. 1; Plato Apol., 39 A.; Dem.', 840, 8; Plato Tim., 44, c. ; Xen. Mem., 3, 11, 8. The sense in which 2 Peter uses the word is sufficiently illustrated by Plato Apol., 39 A : "For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every way of escaping death" (JowettJ ; Plato Tim., 44 c. : "And escapes the worst disease of all" (Jowett). As a pedant and tine writer 2 Peter's author can certainly be content to stand alongside of Plato. 7. (e) defeated, //Traadac; not found elsewhere in New Testament, {cf 2 Cor. xii. 13), but not, therefore, necessarily rare, pedantic, or ignoble. Cf. Isaiah liv. 17: "And every voice that shall rise up against thee unto judgment, — them all //rr^/rrezf ;" Josephus Ant., I. 19, 4, epuri t^q TTatdoc T/TT7/6eig. The word is common in the profane Greek, and 2 Peter's use of it is in no sense strange or unwonted. 8. (11) recognition, kTr'iyvuaig ; "repeated above, I. 2, 3, 8, but the word is common in St. Paul's Epistles," and, we may add, in exactly the same sense that it occurs in here: cf Rom. i. 2S ; Eph. iv. 13 ; Col. i. 10, etc. And thus just as we reach the climax of our wonder at what Dr. Abbott is able to adduce as tautologies like those of the Madras Mail extract, we reach the end of his enumeration. The candid reader who has taken the trouble to read through 410 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, what we have thus thrown into small print, can certainly be trusted to bring in the verdict of "not guilty" to the charge of "tautology" as urged by Dr. Abbott. We must remember, how- ever, that our author does not stop at the charge of "tautology;" that charge is, indeed, in reality only subsidiary to the ftirther one, that the author of the Epistle is full of the "vulgar pedant- ry" of forcing in the "fine words" of his vocabulary everywhere, without really understanding their meaning, and even of coining other "fine words" from the base metal of his own vain and pom- pous ignorance. We have seen already a sample of what he means by this in the passage we have quoted above from his trans- lations of 2 Peter. That Avas not, however, quite a full sample ; let us look further. Dr. Abbott declares that the use of such words as napaippovia (ii. 16), Kavaor/iiEva (iii. 10), Kvltafza (ii. 22), e^ioafia (ii. 22), raprapwcraf (ii. 4), are "exactly parallel" to "gairish," "cognoscence," "sickishness," in such Indian English as: "He had one and uniform way of speaking. He made no gairish of words;" "bolstering up the decision of the Lower Court Avith his sapience and legal acumen and cognoscence;" "on multitudinous^ occasions, when the hope and affiance of the clients of Justice Mookerjee toto coelo suspend- ed on his pleading, and he was absent from court on account of some sickishness, he even on such a day came and pleaded their causes, when they importuned him to do so." He even thinks that "such idiomatic blunders" as "inducing [the Court] to his favor," and "their hope suspended toto coelo on his pleading" may be fairly matched by the corresponding blunders, fivfifirjv noieiadaL (i. 15). a-ovdj/v iraaav Tra/jEiaEvdyKavTeg (i. 5)^ the omission of the article (ii. 8, iii. 10, 12), and the use of iiySonc (ii. 5). "As for the mis- use of j3?Jfi/iia (ii. 8), it can be matched with nothing so justly as the passage of the Bengalee writer in which he describes Mr. Jus- tice Mookerjee as 'remaining sotto voce till half-past four in the evening.' " This arraignment is certainly thorough-going, and, if in accordance with facts, opens up a new and hitherto unsus- pected characteristic. of 2 Peter; not, certainly, inconsistent with its inspiration and authority, but, at all events, startling to one ^Cf. Macbeth II., ii., 62. 1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 411 who has been accustomed to read it reverently. It behoves us to test the charge somewhat in detail. Let us begin with the word 7rapapovia.'' If Dr. Abbott thinks it unAvorthy of ^See above, p. 406. VOL. XXXIV., NO. 2 — 12. 412 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, an apostle or sensible man to choose a little-used or coin a new ■word for such a purpose, he will be obliged to sit aloft on some misty height in literary loneliness. Few writers, whether in the New Testament or out of it, scorn such "pedantry." Is Dr. Ab- bott prepared, for instance, to condemn Paul's KaraKpifia . . 6iKaLufia (Rom. V. 16, cf. also verse 18) ? or Mr. J. A. Symonds' "Anti- christ . . . Antiphysis?" ^ If 2 Peter falls on account of this word, he falls in a great company. The word Kavaov^eva occurs in 2 Peter iii. 10, 12, only in the N. T. ; it does not occur in the LXX. ; and seems to be found in the classics only late, and in the sense of "to be feverish," "to be in a state of fever" (Dioscorides and Galen). Hence Dr. Abbott translates here "elements in fever heat shall be dissolved," "elements in fever heat are to be melted." Is this fair? Note: 1. The sense of "to be feverish" is late; it seems not to occur earlier than Dioscorides (c. 100 A. D.). 2. That sense is undoubtedly a derivative sense, the natural sense of the word, and therefore its primitive sense, being "to burn intensely." 3. All its cognates have this primitive sense, although several of them, such as Kavfia, Kav/uaTl^o), Kav/iardidr/g, Kavaog (primitive of Kavaoofini)^ acquired a secondary derivative sense as applied to fevers. How Dr. Abbott can think he is dealing scientifically with a word Avhich oc- curs four times, in two pairs, separated by both a century of time and the technicalities of the subjects treated, when he tries to force the derivative sense used technically by physicians of 100 A. D. -)-, on the term so used a century -a«4-ft half earlier as to demand the primitive sense of the same word, passes our compre- hension. He Avould be scarcely passing beyond this were he to attempt to translate its cognates in Rev. xvi. 8, 9, thus: "And the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun ; and it was given unto it to put men in a fever heat with fire. And men were put in fever heat with great fever heat." How would it do to say ^Age of the Despots, p. 412: "And now in the pontificate of Alexan- der, that memorable scene presented to the nations of the modern world a pageant of Antichrist and Antiphysis — the neo^ation of the gospel and of nature." A7itiphi/sis appears to be a coinacje of Mr. Symonds; althouo;h the adjectives antiphysic and antiphysical (Of>;ilvie) seem to be in use, medical and otherwise. The Greeks used ■7rapa), and the latter on the strengtli of the medical use of the verb ava/.a/ufiavu as equi- valent to "to restore to health and strength,'' etc. Dr. Ilobart, indeed, presents quite a number of instances quite as bad as Dr. Abbott's. 416 Dr. Edivin A. Abbott on the [April, anywhere in classical Greek ; and as easy to admit that even its primitive raprapog is never found in the N. T. or the LXX., and may therefore be, in somewhat strong language, said to be "alien to both." That it was capable of being used by Jewish lips is, however, plain from, say, Josephus c. Apion ii. 33 ; although it is probably true that the N. T. avoids the use of the word "Tar- tarus," in order to avoid suggesting heathen associations. The verb is, however, a different matter. And although it is not found elsewhere in this short form, it is certainly impossible to say, in the face of the common KaTaraprnpou, that it is "uncouth ;" "almost as uncouth as it would be in English to speak of 'hell- ing' some one, instead of 'sending him to hell.' " That this is the very opposite of the fact, the current Greek expression "down-helling" some one is a standing and convincing witness. We have before us, indeed, only one of the well known, though somewhat rare, cases (like dearpl^eiv for ekO., or SEiyfiaTc^eiv for TrapaSsij.)^ in which the later Greek [i. e., probably the popular Greek) preferred, contrary to its usual custom, the uncompounded to the compounded form. See Moulton's Winer, p. 25, note 4. In connexion with Taprapou, however, Dr. Abbott makes much of another "curious" word, aeipoig, which he thinks, "to a well- educated Greek," would convey the meaning of "store-pit," and on the strength of which he proposes the following translation of ii. 4 : "If God spared not angels Avhen they sinned, but having helled them, delivered them to store-pits of darkness." What can be gained by such a mysterious appeal to the "well-educated Greek," in the face of Hesychius' recognition of the sense of "prison" for the word, it is difficult to divine. The word, used here only in the New Testament, and not at all in the LXX., is tolerably common in the classics in the spellings aetp6g (Pollux, Plut., Varro, Demosthenes [v. 5] ), enppog, and more properly mpSr ; and its standing sense seems to be Pit. This seems clearly its primitive sense. It has three secondary meanings : (1) a pit for keeping corn, and hence a magazine or store-pit. So Eur., Anaxim., Demosth. (2) A pit for catching wild animals, and hence a pit-fall. So Longus. (3) A pit for keeping prisoners. So Hesychius tells us, giving "prison" as one of its meanings, and 1883.] Cf-enuineness of Second Peter. 417 informing us that the Laconians used a Avord, aip'ia, for "safe-keep- ing." While it is to be freely admitted, therefore, that the word was most correctly used in literature in that one of its secondary senses which expressed "store-pit," it is certainly not clear that we must translate "store-pit" in 2 Peter any more than in Lon- gus ; or that its context would not determine the sense naturally and simply to "an educated Greek," provided he was educated enough. To an "uneducated" Greek, on the other hand, who might well know more of "pits" of the (2) and (3) kinds than of the (1), the suggestion might be more natural of a pit-fall or prison-house than of a store-room or magazine. Turning from single words to phrases, we somewhat wonder that iivTjjXTjv noiEi(T0ac is singled out for the first strictures on 2 Peter's idiom ; nor is it very consonant to speak in one place strongly : this phrase is a blunder, corresponding to "inducing [the Court] to his favor" (p. 210), and in another mildly : "it is not known to be used in the author's sense (Thuc. II. 54, is am- biguous)." Thucid. II. 54 ought to be much more than ambigu- ous in order to justify the statement. To us, the probability is, that Thuc. uses the phrase in just 2 Peter's sense ; though, per- haps, we can never be certain about it. At all events, does any- body suppose that if we should blot out 2 Peter i. 15, and then prove that Thuc. ii. 54 took the phrase as 2 Peter does here. Dr. Abbott would push the charge against him which he here raises against 2 Peter ? If not, why not ? It is not, however, so very unexampled that a phrase commonly used in the sense of "make mention," should sometimes be used in that of "entertain recol- lection." We need only recall the kindred phra.se, fivr/fiTiv exeiv, which occurs in both senses. Of. Hdt., i. 14 ; Soph. Elect., 346 ; Plato Phaed., 251. D. "Still more objectionable," we are told (and if objectionable at all, we do not wonder at the "still more"), "is (i 5) anov67/v Tzaaav TvapeiaeveyKavTeg.''^ JosepllUS and Diod. Sic. both USe the phrase with the uncompounded verb, and rightly enough. "But the sonorous extra syllable added by our author makes nonsense of the phrase, by converting it into 'contribute all zeal in an in- direct manner' ; or 'as a secondary or subsequent consideration.' " 418 Dr. Edivin A. Abbott on the [April, And then the conjecture is hazarded, that what led "■our author" "so superfluously astray," was the grandiose sound of the word and the reminiscence of Trapem-tdrcai' in the parallel passage in Jude. Let us, however, rememher the full pail and dead fish, and be sure of our facts before we explain them. Is the author so clearly astray ? The reader who will read Huther or Alford in loc, may be in a fair condition for deciding. He who will study the word criticised will be in better condition. Why are Ave told that either the idea of indirectness or subordination is expressed by the Tcnpal Siibscquence may be implied, but Avhat is expressed is simply addition, along-sided-7iess. Compare the use of TvapeiaijAdev in Rom. V. 20, when the sense is not "came in be- tween" or "subordinately," but simply "beside," "along with." When sin entered, then law had also entered ; they came side by side. This thought, which is the natural thought of our phrase, too, is very consonant with its context ; and the only one who is astray is the expositor. The omission of the article before the word fiiKaiog, in ii. 8, and before ohpavoi and crro/jeZfl, in iii. 10, 12, seems to Dr. Abbott very blameworthy indeed. In the first case, it is very doubtful whether the article is rightly omitted, seeing that it is contained in all MSS. except B. But letting that pass, its omission can cause no surprise and produce no difficulty ; we would simply read, instead of, "for that righteous man dwelling among them by sight and hearing, vexed his righteous soul day by day," rather, "for dwell- ing as a righteous man among them, he by sight and hearing vexed his righteous soul day by day," wherein the 6iKaioQ is taken as predicate, instead of subject, perhaps with an adverbial eftect, as Dr. Abbott suggests ; but perhaps, however, not. We do not assert that this is the way it ought to be taken ; we merely assert that it is a way that it might be regularly taken, which is enough to void Dr. Abbott's objection of all force. If any one cares to know, however, how we understand the passage, we have no ob- jection to telling him. We think the article is probably to be omitted ; and then the passage reads as follows : "/or dwelling among them to both sight and hearing^ a righteous man, he day ^Literally, "in appearance and report." 1883.] Cfenuineness of Second Peter. 419 hy day vexed his righteous soultvith their lawless deeds.'' Many advantages flow from such an understanding of the passage : from an involved it becomes a simple passage ; and to pass over the rest and come to one related to our present subject, it takes (3?.efifia in its most natural sense, and hence forever destroys one of Dr. Abbott's chief charges against the purity of Peter's style. We do not assert or allow that j3/J/i^ia cannot be used for the "sense of sight ;" nor do we admit that on any other understand- ing of the passage, 2 Peter lies open to such charges as Dr. Abbott brings against it. The Greek writers do, however, use the word rather in the sense of "appearance," "expression," than in that of "siglit," "seeing ;" i. e., rather of the objective than the subjective "look" of a person (in the plural the word means the "eye" itself) ; and, although the transition from the objec- tive to the subjective is very easy, and its meaning would argue no unworthiness, ignorance, or pedantry in the author, yet it is perhaps better to take his words in their more obvious and natural sense, and understand him to say that Lot gave every proof to his neighbors — both to their eyes and ears — of his right- eous character. The absence of the article before aroixeia, needs no remark, as it seems paralleled by Wisdom vii. 17 : "He gave me to know ci'CTaaiv K6(jfiov koI ivtpyeiav arotxeiuv.^ The article's omission before ovpavoi, is in general quite regular (Moulton's Winer, p. 150) and is only peculiar here because it does not elsewdiere occur before the nominative case. This cannot argue, in a case like the pres- ent, any ignorance or pedantry or barrenness, however , but is only to be noted (as Winer does) as one fact of language. This class of words, like ifhoq, p/, ovpavoi, etc., quasi-proper names, are, indeed, in a transitional and unsettled state in N. T. Greek, and may and do take or omit the article according to the individual's fancy or training or mode of looking upon the object. Thus, this very word ovpnvog is treated differently by the various N. T. writers : the Apocalypse stands at one extreme, 2 Peter at the other. In the Apocalypse it ahvays takes the article, in the Synoptists it is prevailingly omitted in certain phrases, in Paul regularly in those phrases, in 2 Peter it is omitted in new cases. 420 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, There is no more reason to object to or feel surprise over one writer's mode of viewing the matter than another's. We do not feel drawn to join earnest issue, finally, with Dr. Abbott concerning the use of '"'■eighth" before instead of after its noun in ii. 5. Greek order was more flexible than he seems to imagine ; and we may content ourself with simply referring to the commentators on the passage, and to Winer (Moulton's Ed.), p. 312, where everything unusual or strange in the phrase is dis- cussed and illustrated. A reference to Alford's note on i. 9, is sufficient to set aside the strictures off'ered on fivcjwd^Eiv (see also Lumby) ; and we can well content ourselves with declaring at this point that the difficulty found with the use of fielA^cu (i. 12) is wholly imaginary. And so it appears that these frightful ghosts of "barren pe- dantry" are like other ghosts — they need but calm looking at to disappear. The negative character of an examination such as we are carrying on, is apt to leave a false impression on some minds, and to weaken their confidence in an Epistle about whose good character there must be so much discussion. Caesar's wife ought to be above all attack and defence. Ought not, however, such a discussion as the foregoing to have rather an opposite effect ? Without mercy, ruthlessly, and even cruelly, 2 Peter has been plunged into the caustic acid of Dr. Abbott's sharp criticism, and as it lies in the seething fluid, we are boldly told that we need not even look for it : it is dissolved and has passed away. But we look, see, reach down, and draw it out ; and lo ! the pure gold has not so much as felt the biting touch of its bath. Out of the fiery furnace it comes without even the smell of smoke upon it. The result is negative. We have only shown that these objec- tions are not fiital to the book ; but there is a positiveness about it, after all. The argument based on an ignobility in the style of 2 Peter, framed with learning and pleaded with skill, as it has been, certainly entirely fails ; and its failure means simply the failure of all arguments against the Epistle's genuineness, drawn from the phenomena of its style. There is, indeed, one refuge left. Though it is not ignoble, it may at least be hopelessly diverse from that of 1 Peter. Dr. 1883.] Crenuineness of Second Peter. 421 Abbott is too good a general not to supplement his chief argu- ment with such a contention (pp. 215, seq.). We have already seen how he frames this contention.^ But its great support falls with the falling of the charge of ignobility ; for Dr. Abbott's first point, here too, is that 2 Peter cannot be by the author of 1 Peter, because the latter Epistle has no trace in its style of the plagiar- ism, tautology, and pedantry that abound in the former. Beyond this he urges nothing which is new or which has not already been repeatedly fully answered. We do not permit ourselves to be drawn into this old discussion, but are content here with quoting the true Avords of so liberal a critic as Reuss : "On the theological and linguistic differences between the two Epistles, Ave lay no stress ; the two Epistles are too short, have to do with wholly dif- ferent circumstances, and especially present no direct contradic- tions ; only if the Epistle is on other grounds proved to be un- genuine, can this also be brought into account ;" ^ and with referring the reader especially to the most convincing discussion of the relation between the style of the two Epistles given by Prof. Lumby in the introduction to his Commentary.^ RELATION OF SECOND PETER TO JOSEPHUS. The way is thus cleared for us to devote the remainder of our space to a discussion of, by all odds, the ncAvest, most important, and most earnestly urged part of Dr. Abbott's argument — that which is founded on the relation between 2 Peter and the An- tiquities of Josephus. Dr. Abbott is the inventor of this argu- ment, and therefore may be, perhaps, credited Avith a certain measure of pardonable pride in his contemplation of it. Cer- tainly he has made it a very striking argument, and certainly he expresses great confidence in it. He conceives that he has de- monstrated that the author of the Epistle had read Josephus.'* Since the Antiquities of Josephus, from which the borrowing is made, were published in A. D. 93, it foUoAvs, in that case, Avith inevitable certainty, that 2 Peter could not have been written *See above, pa^jes 393, seq. ^Geschichte, u. s. w., Neue Test., § 270-2. * Speaker's Commentary, Vol. IV., pp. 228, seq. ^Expositor (1882), Vol. 3, p. 61. 422 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, until after A. D. 93, and therefore cannot be by the Apostle Peter, and must needs be a forgery. Certainly, the evidence by which the dependence of 2 Peter on Josephus is thus "demon- strated," demands, therefore, our most earnest scrutiny. We ask the reader to follow us as we very baldly state the evidence as adduced by its discoverer, and then attempt to test its relevancy and validity. I. Dr. Abbott's stateynent of the evidence. As a matter of course, the only evidence available is internal to the two writings compared ; and it is just as much a matter of course that it con- sists not of direct quotations of Josephus by 2 Peter, but of more hidden and subtle marks of literary dependence. As a matter of fact, the whole stress of the argument is laid upon one kind of evidence, namely, that Avhich arises from the common posses- sion by the two writers of a peculiar vocabulary, distributed in such a way in their writings as to suggest to the mind that 2 Peter, in penning his Epistle, must have had in his mind a very vivid reminiscence of certain assignable passages in Josephus. This main and central argument is, indeed, bolstered by two further considerations : the occurrence in the two writings of a couple of similar sentences which may be deemed parallels, and of a couple of common Haggadoth. But Dr. Abbott clearly assigns small value to either of these facts, and apparently would hardly con- sider them worth adducing in the absence of the more important marks of literary connexion. And this rightly enough ; for nothing can be clearer than that neither of them possesses the slightest force as evidence of literary connexion between the two writings. The Haggadoth, the common knowledge of which by Josephus and 2 Peter is supposed to point to borrowing of the latter from the former, concern the statements that Noah was a "herald of righteousness" (2 Peter ii. 5), and that Balaam's ass rebuked him (2 Peter ii. 16). What 2 Peter says may be read in the English version. Josephus' words are : Noah "being ill- pleased at their deeds, and pained at their counsels, tried to per- suade them to amend their lives and actions" (Antiq. I., 3. 1), and "the ass, having received a human voice, blamed Balaam as unjust, having no cause to find fault with it for its previous 1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 423 services, yet now he inflicts blows on it, not understanding that noAv, in accordance with the purpose of God, he was being hin- dered," etc. (Antiq., IV., 6. 3). It is extremely doubtful whether any Haggadah needs to be assumed at the basis of the latter statement at all ; it is very difficult to see wherein 2 Peter ii. 16 goes beyond the warrant of the account in Numbers xxi., and not easy to see that anything beyond it need be assumed beneath the account in Josephus. The Haggadah with reference to Noah, on the other hand, occurs in the Mishnah, in a form much closer to 2 Peter than Josephus' account is: "There rose up a herald for God in the days of the deluge; that Avas Noah" (Bereshith Rabba XXX. 6) ; and, indeed, also, in Clement of Rome (ix. 3). In both cases, thus, common sources of information underlay l)oth 2 Peter and Josephus, covering the whole case ; and, in general, any number of Haggadoth misrht be common to the two writings, without in the slightest degree suggesting dependence of one on the other, provided they were not the invention of one of them. By as much as it would be probable that they were current le- gends of the time, by so much could they fail to suggest direct literary connexion. The pair of parallel sentences that are adduced are equally in- valid for the purpose for which they are put forward, as will be- come plain on one moment's consideration. They are as follows : 2 Peter ii. 10, KvpLOTtjTog KaTatppovovvrag. ToTifiijrai k.t. 1.^ compared with Jos. B. J. 111. 9, 3, TO?.ix?/Tat Kal Oava.Tov KaTa