| Bible Research > Textual Criticism > Abbott |
The following discussion of the text of the New Testament, by Ezra Abbott, is reproduced from the article "Bible Text" in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge edited by Samuel Macauley Jackson, vol. 2 (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1908). I have omitted Abbott's (now obsolete) catalog of manuscripts, and have made some corrections to the titles of the books he cites in the bibliography. —M.D.M.
1. The Autographs of the New Testament Books. The autographs of the New Testament very early disappeared, owing to the constant use of the perishable papyrus; for this appears to have been the material (II John 12). If they were really not in the handwriting of the apostles, but in that of their amanuenses, as Paul's Epistles generally were (Rom. xvi, 22; II Thess. iii, 17), it is easier to account for the phenomenon. The papyrus rolls preserved to the present day were never much used; indeed, the most of them have been found in sarcophagi, and so, of course, were never used at all. The ink was lampblack mixed with gum dissolved in water, copperas (sulphate of iron) being sometimes added. The pen was of reed (calamus). The writing was entirely in uncials (capitals), with no separation of the words (except rarely to indicate the beginning of a new paragraph), no breathings, accents, or distinction of initial letters, and few, if any, marks of punctuation. The evangelists may have denominated their compositions "Gospels," although Justin regularly speaks of the "Memoirs of the Apostles"; but all addition to the name is later, and presupposes a collection of the Gospels. In the case of the Epistles the brief address, e.g., "To the Romans," was probably added by the original sender, and other marks of genuineness given (cf. II Thess. iii, 17). The Muratorian Canon (second half of the second century; see Muratorian Canon) calls Acts and the Apocalypse by these names, and so proves the early use of these designations. The designation "Catholic (i.e., General) Epistle" is first met with at the close of the second century (Apollonius, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., V, xviii, 5, where the First Epistle of John is probably meant). The application and limiting of the term to the whole of the present collection is of later date; for even in the third and fourth century it was customary to give this term to epistles, like that of Barnabas or those of Dionysius of Corinth, which were not specially addressed.
2. The Manuscripts. The external history of the New Testament text for a thousand years prior to the invention of printing can be traced by means of manuscripts. Before the formal close of the canon (end of fourth century) there were probably few single manuscripts of the entire New Testament. Of the three thousand known manuscripts of the New Testament, only about thirty include all the books. Some of those of the fourth and fifth century now preserved contain not only the Greek Old Testament (א, A, B, C), but also writings which, though not canonical, were read in churches and studied by catechumens. Thus, attached to the Codex Sinaiticus (א) were the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas; to the Codex Alexandrinus (A), two "epistles" ascribed to Clement of Rome and the so-called Psalterium Salomonis. The four Gospels were most frequently copied, the Pauline Epistles oftener than the Catholic Epistles or the Acts, least often the Apocalypse. The Gospels were usually arranged in the present order, then came the Pauline Epistles, the Acts, and the Catholic Epistles; the Apocalypse always last. The arrangement of the Epistles differed; indeed, there was no model. (On the various arrangements cf. C. A. Credner, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, ed. G. Volkmar, Berlin, 1860; C. R. Gregory, Prolegomena, Leipsic, 1884, pp. 131 sqq.; T. Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, Erlangen, 1883, ii, 343 sqq.)
3. Their Material and Form. After papyrus had gone out of use, parchment or vellum came in and was used from the fourth to the eleventh century; then came in cotton paper, and afterward linen paper (cf. W. Wattenbach, Das Schriftwesen im Mittelalter, Leipsic, 1896, pp. 139 sqq.). The growing scarcity of parchment led to the reuse of the old skins, the former writing being erased or washed off; and unfortunately it oftener happened that it was a Biblical manuscript which was thus turned into a patristic one than the reverse. Such manuscripts are termed Codices palimpsesti (palimpsests) or rescripti. By the use of chemicals the original text has often been recovered in modern times. The most famous New Testament palimpsest is the Codex Ephræmi (C), of the fifth century, rewritten upon in the twelfth. As papyrus disappeared from use, the book form was generally substituted for the rolls, in manuscripts written on parchment or paper. The books were mostly made up of quaternions, i.e., quires of four sheets, doubled so as to make sixteen pages, less frequently of five, though later quires of six sheets were common. The division of the page into columns was at first retained, two being the usual number (e.g., Cod. Alex.); but in many manuscripts (e.g., Cod. Ephræmi) the lines ran across the page. [Exceptionally, א has four columns, B three.] From the seventh and eighth centuries the present accents were more or less used, but very arbitrarily and irregularly. The uncials gradually changed their earlier simple round or square forms, and from the tenth century yielded to the cursives. The earliest punctuation was by means of a blank space and a simple point. Euthalius, a deacon in Alexandria, in the year 458 published an edition of the Epistles of Paul, and soon after of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, written stichometrically, i.e., in single lines containing only so many words as could be read, consistently with the sense, at a single inspiration. This mode of writing was used long before in copying the poetical books of the Old Testament. It involved, however, a great waste of parchment, so that, in manuscripts of the New Testament, it was superseded after a few centuries by punctuation-marks.
4. The Ammonian Sections. Divisions of the text were early made for various purposes. In the third century Ammonius of Alexandria prepared a Harmony of the Gospels, taking the text of Matthew as the basis. Eusebius of Cæsarea, in the early part of the fourth century, availing himself of the work of Ammonius, divided the text of each Gospel into sections, the length of which, varying greatly (in John xix, 6 there are three, and in twenty four other instances two, in a single verse), was determined solely by their relation of parallelism or similarity to passages in one or more of the other Gospels, or by their having no parallel. These sections (often erroneously ascribed to Ammonius) were then numbered consecutively in the margin of the Gospel in black ink; Matthew having 355, Mark 233 (not 236), Luke 342, and John 232. They were distributed by Eusebius into ten tables or canons prefixed to the Gospels, and containing the sections corresponding in—
I. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 71. II. Matthew, Mark, Luke, 111. III. Matthew, Luke, John, 22. IV. Matthew, Mark, John, 26. V. Matthew, Luke, 82. VI. Matthew, Mark, 47. VII. Matthew, John, 7. VIII. Luke, Mark, 14. IX. Luke, John, 21. X. Sections peculiar to Matthew 62, Mark 21, Luke 71, John 97.
Under the number of each section in the margin of the several Gospels was written in red ink the number of the canon or table to which it belonged. On turning to its place in this table, the number of the corresponding section or sections in the other Gospels stands with it, so that the parallel passages may readily be found. For example, the first verse of Matt. iv forms the fifteenth Eusebian section; the number two under this refers to the second canon or table, where it appears that section fifteen in Matthew corresponds to six in Mark, and fifteen in Luke; i.e., to Mark i. 12, and Luke iv. 1. In some manuscripts the parallel sections are indicated at the bottom of the page. They thus correspond to our marginal references. Cf. Eusebias, Epist. ad Carpianum; J. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of S. Mark (London, 1871), pp. 295 sqq.
5. Early Divisions of the Text. Wholly different in character and purpose from the Eusebian sections, and probably older, is a division of the Gospels into sections called titloi, also kephalaia majora (in Latin manuscripts, breves), found in most manuscripts from the Alexandrine and the Ephræm (A, C) of the fifth century onward. Of these sections Matthew contains 68, Mark 48, Luke 83, John 18. The numbers by which they are designated in the margin of manuscripts refer to the titles describing their contents at the top or bottom of the page, or in a list prefixed to each Gospel, or often in both places. A certain portion at the beginning of each Gospel is not numbered; for example, the first chapter in Matthew corresponds with our chap. ii, 1-15, and is entitled peri ton magon, "Concerning the Magi." There is a similar division in the Acts and Epistles, to which Euthalius (about 458 A.D.), though not its inventor, gave wide currency by his stichometric edition of these books. The Apocalypse was divided by Andrew, bishop of Cæasrea in Cappadocia (about 500 A.D.), into twenty-four logoi, or chapters, and each of these chapters into three kephalaia, or sections, the former number answering to the twenty-four elders spoken of in the book (Rev. iv, 4); the latter suggested by the threefold division of human nature into body, soul, and spirit (comp. I Thess. v, 23), as the author himself declares. In the Vatican manuscript (B), there is a division of the Gospels into much shorter chapters (Matt. 170, Mark 62, Luke 152, John 80), very judiciously made. This has been found in only one other manuscript, the Codex Zacynthius (E). In the Acts and Epistles the Vatican manuscript has a twofold division into chapters, one very ancient, the other later, but both different from the Euthalian. In the older division, the Pauline Epistles are treated as one book. (For further details see Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, Leipsic, 1867, p. xxx; Scrivener, Introduction, i, London, 1894, pp. 56 sqq.) Other ancient divisions of the New Testament into chapters were more or less widely current, especially in Latin and Syriac manuscripts. The superscriptions, "Epistle of Paul," "Catholic Epistles," etc., can not be earlier than the fourth century, since they imply a canonical collection. The subscriptions at the end of the Pauline Epistles in many manuscripts are generally ascribed to Euthalius. At least six of these are untrustworthy (I Cor., Gal., I and II Thess., I Tim., Tit.). For the modern divisions of the Bible into chapters and verses see III below.
6. Divisions for Liturgical Reading. An ancient division of the text is the lessons, or lections, from the Gospels on the one hand, and the Acts and Epistles on the other, read in the public services of the Church. The history of these is obscure, and they varied much at different periods and in different regions. The lessons for the Sundays and chief festivals of the year seem to have been the earliest; next were added lessons for the Saturdays, and finally for every day in the week, with special commemoration of saints and martyrs. Euthalius marked, in the Acts, 16 of these "lessons"; in the Catholic Epistles, 10; in the Pauline Epistles, 31; in all, 57. He was probably not, as many have supposed, their inventor. The system of lessons which ultimately prevailed in the Greek Church appears in our evangelistaries and lectionaries (more properly praxapostoli), containing the lessons from the Gospels and the Acts and Epistles respectively. The ordinary manuscripts of the Greek Testament were often adapted for church service by marking the beginning and end of each lesson, with a note in the margin of the time or occasion for reading it, and by prefixing to them a Synaxarion, or table of the lessons in their order; sometimes also a Menologion, or calendar of the immovable festivals and the saints' days, with their appropriate lessons.
7. Early Corruption of the Text. Turning to the internal history of the New Testament text, it is evident that its original purity was early lost. The quotations of the latter half of the second century contain readings which agree with later texts, but are not apostolic. Irenæus alludes (Hær., V, xxx, 1) to the difference between the copies; and Origen, early in the third century, expressly declares that matters were growing worse (in Matt., xix, 19, vol. iii, p. 671, ed. De la Rue, Paris, 1733-59), as is proved by the quotations of the Fathers of the third and fourth centuries. From this time onward we have the manuscript text of each century, the writings of the Fathers, and the various Oriental and Occidental versions, all testifying to varieties of reading for almost every verse, which undoubtedly occasioned many more or less important departures from the sense of the original text. How came this? The early Church did not know anything of that anxious clinging to the letter which characterizes the scientific rigor and the piety of modern times, and therefore was not so bent upon preserving the exact words. Moreover, the first copies were made rather for private than for public use; copyists were careless, often wrote from dictation, and were liable to misunderstand. Attempted improvements of the text in grammar and style; proposed corrections in history and geography; efforts to harmonize the quotations in the New Testament with the Greek of the Septuagint, but especially to harmonize the Gospels; the writing out of abbreviations; incorporation of marginal notes in the text; the embellishing of the Gospel narratives with stories drawn from non-apostolic though trustworthy sources, e.g., John vii, 53 to viii, 11, and Mark xvi, 9 to end,—it is to these causes that we must attribute the very numerous "readings," or textual variations. It is true that the copyists were sometimes learned men; but their zeal in making corrections may have obscured the true text as much as the ignorance of the unlearned. The copier, indeed, came under the eye of an official reviser; but he may have sometimes exceeded his functions, and done more harm than good by his changes.
8. Varieties of Text Produced by Early Criticism. Attempts were made by learned Fathers to get the original text; and three men of the third century—Origen, the Egyptian Bishop Hesychius, and the Presbyter Lucian of Antioch—deserve mention for their devotion to this object. The last two undertook a sort of recension of the New Testament (cf. Jerome, Epist. ad Damasum); but it is not known exactly what they did, and their influence was small. In regard to Origen, while he did not make a formal recension of the New Testament text, his critical work was of the highest importance. Notwithstanding these diversities, there were, as early as the fourth and fifth centuries, affinities between manuscripts prepared in the same district, which seem to betray certain tendencies, as is proved by the Fathers, the versions, and the Greek manuscripts themselves. Thus critics are justified in speaking of an Oriental and Occidental, or, more correctly, an Alexandrian or Egyptian, and a Latin, as also of an Asiatic or Greek, and a Byzantine or Constantinopolitan text. According to this theory, the Alexandrian was used by those Jewish Christians of the East who already used the Septuagint; particularly was this text preserved and spread by the learned Alexandrian school. The Latin text characterizes not only the manuscripts prepared by Latins, but the Greek manuscripts they used. The Asiatic manuscripts were used chiefly by native Greeks in Greece, or in the Asiatic provinces having intercourse with Greece. The Byzantine manuscripts belonged to the Church of that empire. The latter alone had a certain official uniformity, and were, in the latter centuries, almost the only manuscripts circulated in the empire. This class of manuscripts is also the only one perfectly represented in existing documents, and is the result of the gradual mixture of older recensions under the predominance of the Asiatic or Greek. Each of these recensions is more or less altered and corrupted; so that it is often more difficult to assign a particular reading to its proper class than to find out the original. Finally, the differences and relationships are by far most strongly marked in the Gospels, least so in the Apocalypse, and again are more distinct in the Pauline Epistles and the Acts than in the Catholic Epistles. (Cf. C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Græce, editio academica viii, Leipsic, 1875, pp. xxiv sqq.)
9. The Uncial Manuscripts. The number of uncial manuscripts of the New Testament, ranging in date from the fourth to the tenth century, is 114. This does not include eight psalters containing the text of the hymns in Luke i, 46-55, 68-79, ii, 29-32, designated by Tischendorf O a-h, nor the lectionaries, evangelistaries, and praxapostoli. About half of these 114 are mere fragments, containing but a few verses or at most a few chapters. They may be arranged as follows with reference to their probable date: ... [Here I omit Abbott's catalog of manuscripts, which is now obsolete; the student is advised to consult the catalog in Aland's Introduction. — M.D.M.]
1. Complutensian and Erasmian Editions. For more than half a century after the invention of printing, the original text of the New Testament remained unpublished. The credit of first printing it belongs to Cardinal Ximenes de Cisneros, archbishop of Toledo, who made it vol. v of his Polyglot Bible. The manuscripts depended upon were comparatively modern and of inferior value. Though the volume is dated June 10, 1514, the New Testament was not published before 1521 or 1522, and thus was preceded by the Greco-Latin New Testament of 1516, published by Froben of Basel, and edited by Erasmus, who used as the basis of his text, in the Gospels, an inferior Basel manuscript of the fifteenth century (cod. 2), and one of the thirteenth or fourteenth century in the Acts and Epistles (cod. 2). With these he collated more or less carefully one more manuscript of the Gospels (cod. 1), two in the Acts and Catholic Epistles (codd. 1 and 4), and three in the Pauline Epistles (codd. 1, 4, 7). The oldest of these (cod. 1, tenth century) has a good text in the Gospels; but Erasmus made very little use of it; the others are comparatively modern, and poor. For the Apocalypse he had only a single manuscript of the twelfth century, wanting the last six verses, which he translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate. In various other places in the Apocalypse he followed the readings of the Vulgate in opposition to the Greek, as he did in a few cases elsewhere. The first edition of Erasmus was sped through the press with headlong haste (præcipitatum fuit verius quam editum, as Erasmus himself says) in order that the publisher, Froben, might get the start of the Complutensian. It consequently swarms with errors. A more correct edition was issued in 1519: Mill observed about four hundred changes in the text. For this and later editions, one additional manuscript (cod. 3) was used in the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles. In the third edition (1522) the changes were much fewer; but it is noted for the introduction of I John v, 7, from the Codex Montfortianus (sixteenth century). In the fourth edition (1527) the text was altered and improved in many places, particularly in Revelation, from the Complutensian Polyglot. That of the fifth (1535) and last (Erasmus died in 1536) hardly differs from the fourth.
2. Editions of Stephens and Beza. The next editions which call for notice are those of the great printer and scholar Robert Stephens (Estienne, Stephanus), three published at Paris (1546, 1549, and 1550; the first two, in small 12mo, are known as the O mirificam editions, from the opening words of the preface, which is the same in both; the last, a magnificent folio, is called the editio regia), and one at Geneva (16mo, 1551), in which the present division into verses was first introduced into the Greek text (see below, III, § 3). The edition of 1550, notwithstanding its various readings in the margin from fifteen manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, is mainly founded on the fourth or fifth edition of Erasmus. Scrivener has noted a hundred and nineteen places in which it differs from all of the manuscripts used. The text of the edition of 1551 varies but slightly from that of 1550. The four folio editions of Theodore Beza (Geneva, 1565, 1582, 1588 or 1589, and 1598), as well as his five 8vo editions (1565, 1567, 1580, 1590, 1604) follow, for the most part, Stephens's editions of 1550 or 1551, with changes here and there, many of which are not improvements. Stephens's edition of 1551 is commonly spoken of in England as the textus receptus; but on the Continent the first Elzevir edition, printed at Leyden in 1624, has generally received that designation. The expression is borrowed from the preface to the second Elzevir edition (1633), in which occur the words, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum. The text of the seven Elzevir editions (1624, 1633, 1641, Leyden; 1656, 1662, 1670, 1678, Amsterdam), among which there are a few slight differences, is made up almost wholly from Beza's smaller editions of 1565 and 1580; its editor is unknown. The textus receptus, slavishly followed, with slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot, in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places its reading is supported by the authority of no known Greek manuscript.
3. Editions between 1657 and 1830. The editions from 1657 to 1830, with the exception of that of Griesbach (see below, § 3), are important, as regards the text, mainly for their accumulation of critical materials. In Walton's Polyglot (London, 1657), Stephens's Greek text of 1550 was accompanied by the Vulgate, Peshito-Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and, in parts of the New Testament, other ancient versions, with a critical apparatus including the readings of Codd. A, D1, D2, Stephens's margin, and eleven cursive manuscripts collated by or for Archbishop Ussher. In Bishop Fell's edition (Oxford, 1675), which reproduces substantially the Elzevir text, other authorities, including readings of the Coptic and Gothic versions, are given in the notes, though the title page (ex plus 100 MSS. codicibus), is very misleading. The edition of John Mill (Oxford, 1707, fol.; improved and enlarged by Ludolph Kuster, Amsterdam, Leipsic, and Rotterdam, 1710), the work of thirty years, marks an epoch in the history of textual criticism by its vast additions to the store of critical material through the collation of the new manuscripts, the collection of readings from the ancient versions, and especially from the quotations found in the writings of the Christian Fathers, and by its very learned and valuable prolegomena. Mill gave his judgment on many readings in his notes and prolegomena, but did not venture to form a text of his own, reprinting Stephens's text of 1550 without intentional variation. The projected edition of the Greek Testament and Latin Vulgate in parallel columns, by the illustrious critic Richard Bentley deserves a brief notice. Proposals for printing were issued in 1720, and a large amount of materials was collected at great expense, including a collation of cod. B (published by Ford in 1799); but the work was never completed. It was to have been founded on the oldest Greek and Latin manuscripts compared with the principal ancient versions and the quotations in the Fathers of the first five centuries. (Cf. A. A. Ellis, Bentleii critica sacra, Cambridge, 1862; R. C. Jebb, Bentley, London, 1882.) The edition of Johann Albrecht Bengel (Tübingen, 1734, 4to), while it had the advantage of some new manuscripts, was specially valuable for its discussions and illustrations of the principles of criticism, and its classification of manuscripts; but, except in the Apocalypse, Bengel did not venture to introduce any reading, even though he believed it unquestionably genuine, which had not previously appeared in some printed edition. His judgment of the value of different readings was, however, given in the margin (cf. E. Nestle, Bengel als Gelehrter, Tübingen, 1893, pp. 39 sqq.). The magnificent edition of Johann Jakob Wetstein (2 vols. fol., Amsterdam, 1751-52), the work of forty years, greatly enlarged the store of critical material by extensive collation of manuscripts and researches into the quotations of the Fathers, and by his description of this material in very valuable and copious prolegomena (reprinted, with additions by Semler, Halle, 1764). He gives also the readings of the chief printed editions which preceded him, and describes them fully. He introduced the present method of denoting the uncial manuscripts by Roman capitals, and the cursives and lectionaries by Arabic figures. Besides the critical matter, Wetstein's edition is a thesaurus of quotations from Greek, Latin, and Rabbinical authors, illustrating the phraseology of the New Testament, or containing passages more or less parallel in sentiment. His publisher insisted on his reprinting the textus receptus (substantially that of the Elzevirs); but he gives his critical judgment in the margin and the notes. Other editions to be briefly mentioned are those of F. C. Alter (Vienna, 1786-87), giving the readings of twenty-two Vienna manuscripts and of four manuscripts of the Slavonic version; of Andrew Birch (Quatuor Evangelia Græce, Copenhagen, 1788, 4to, and Variæ lectiones, 1798, 1800, 1801), exhibiting the readings of many manuscripts collated in the libraries of Italy, Spain, and Germany, by himself and others; and of C. F. Matthæi (Novum Testamentum Græce et Latine [the Vulgate], 12 vols., 8vo, Riga, 1782-88; also Novum Testamentum Græce, 3 vols., 8vo, Wittenberg, etc., 1803-07), for which over a hundred manuscripts were used, mostly from the library of the Holy Synod at Moscow. Matthæi was a careful collator, but a very poor critic; and his manuscripts generally were of inferior quality.
4. Griesbach and his Followers. The first edition of Johann Jacob Griesbach was published in 1774-75 (the first three Gospels in synopsis); but it was only in the second edition (2 vols., 8vo, Halle, 1796-1806) that be first made really good use of the materials gathered by his predecessors, and augmented by his own collections. A manual edition was issued at Leipsic in 1805, the text of which, differing somewhat from that of the larger edition, expresses his later critical judgment. Following in the track of Bengel and Semler, Griesbach sought to simplify the process of criticism by classifying his manuscripts and other authorities. He made three classes or recensions—the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine—to the latter of which the mass of later and inferior manuscripts belongs. Though his system is not now accepted in its details, much truth lay at the bottom of it. His principles of criticism were sound; and in his application of them he displayed rare tact and skill. In 1827 a third edition of the first volume of his Greek Testament was published, with important additions, under the editorship of Dr. David Schulz. Griesbach's Symbolæ criticæ (Halle, 1785-93), and Commentarius criticus on Matthew and Mark, parts i, ii, with Meletemata critica prefixed to part ii, Jena, 1798, 1811, are still valuable. A number of manual editions founded on that of Griesbach, but inclining more to the textus receptus, as those of H. A. Schott (Leipsic, 1805,1813, 1825,1839), with a good Latin translation; G. C. Knapp (Halle, 1797, 1813, 1824, 1829, 1840), with a useful Commentatio isagogica, or introduction, and carefully punctuated and divided; J. A. H. Tittmann (ster., Leipsic, 1820, 1828, 16mo; 1824, 1831, 8vo); A. Hahn (Leipsic, 1840, 1841, revised ed. 1861; reprinted at New York, 1842, by Edward Robinson); K. G. W. Theile (ster., Leipsic, 1844, 11th ed. 1875, by O. von Gebhardt), with the variations of the chief modern editors, parallel passages, etc.; also S. T. Bloomfield's Greek Testament with English Notes (London, 1832, 9th ed., 1855, 2 vols., 8vo), mark no progress in criticism beyond Griesbach, but rather a retrograde movement. The same is true of the large edition of the Catholic scholar J. M. A. Scholz (2 vols., 4to, Leipsic, 1830-1836), whose extensive travels and researches in libraries enabled him to add a very large number of new manuscripts (according to Scrivener, 616) to the list of those previously known. But of these only thirteen were collated entire; a few others in the greater part; many in only a few chapters; many more simply inspected, or only enrolled in the list. Scholz was a poor critic, and as an editor and collator incredibly careless. He divided his manuscripts into two classes or recensions—the Alexandrian and the Constantinopolitan, giving the preference to the latter. But in applying his system, he was happily inconsistent, particularly in his second volume, and at a later period of his life (1845) abandoned it. His edition met with no favor from intelligent scholars; but in England, where Biblical criticism was at its lowest ebb, it was welcomed and praised by many, and its text reprinted.
5. Lachmann. A new period in the history of textual criticism was inaugurated by the appearance (Berlin 1831) of a small edition of the Greek Testament by the distinguished classical scholar Carl Lachmann, followed by a larger edition, in which the authorities for the Greek text were supplied by Philipp Buttmann, with the Latin Vulgate in the lower margin, critically edited from codd. Fuldensis, Amiatinus, and other manuscripts (2 vols., 8vo, Berlin, 1842-50). Lachmann's aim in these editions was not to reproduce the original text according to his best judgment (for this he deemed conjectural criticism to be necessary in some cases), but to present as far as possible on purely documentary evidence the text current in the Eastern churches in the fourth century as a basis for criticism. He paid no attention to the textus receptus, and used no cursive manuscripts, but founded his text wholly on ancient authorities; viz., codd. A B C D P Q T Z of the Gospels, A B C D E in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, A B C D G in the Pauline Epistles, and A B C in the Apocalypse, with the Latin Vulgate, and codd. a (Vercellensis, fourth century), b (Veronensis, fifth century), and c (Colbertinus, eleventh century) of the Old Latin, for the Gospels, besides the Latin versions of the Greco-Latin manuscripts in the above list; of the Fathers he used Irenæus, Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and, in the Apocalypse, Primasius. His attempted task was not fully accomplished, partly because the text of some of the most important manuscripts which he used (B C P Q, and the Latin Codex Amiatinus) had been but very imperfectly collated or edited, partly because the range of his authorities was too narrow, and partly because he was sometimes, apparently at least, inconsistent in the application of his principles. But he was the first to found a text wholly on ancient evidence (Griesbach disregarded what he deemed unimportant variations from the received text); and his editions, to which his eminent reputation as a critic gave wide currency especially in Germany, did much toward breaking down the superstitious reverence for the textus receptus which had long prevailed.
6. Tischendorf. Next to be noted are the editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Through their combined labors we have a solid basis for a completely critical edition of the Greek Testament in the accurate knowledge, not possessed before, of all manuscripts of the oldest class (not including lectionaries), comprising many newly discovered, among them the Sinaitic of the fourth century. Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf spent about eight years of his life in travels in search of manuscripts (for which he visited the East three times—in 1844, 1853, and 1859), or in collating with extreme care or transcribing and preparing for publication the most important of those in the various libraries of Europe which were before known, but had not been published or thoroughly examined. The following uncial Greek manuscripts (see the list above) were discovered by Tischendorf: א G2 I N2 O2 Tb.d Γ Θa-d Λ Π; first used by him: Fa Ib N1 Ob-f Ob2 P2 Q2 R1.2 Ta.c Wb-e Θe-h; published: א B1.2 C D2 E2 Fa I Ib L1 M2 N1 Oa P1.2 Q1 R1 Wa.c Y Θa (cf. C. R. Gregory's Prolegomena to Tischendorf's Novum Testamentum Græce, ed. viii, i, Leipsic, 1884, p. 31). His editions of the texts of Biblical manuscripts (including some of the Septuagint) comprise no less than seventeen large quarto and five folio volumes, not including the Anecdota sacra et profana (1855, new ed. 1861), or the Notitia editionis Codicis Sinaitici (1860), two quarto volumes containing descriptions or collations of many new manuscripts; and many of his collations, or copies of manuscripts, remain unpublished. The titles of Tischendorf's various writings, most of them relating to Biblical criticism, fill pages 7-22 of Gregory's Prolegomena. His first edition of the Greek Testament (Leipsic, 1841) was promising as a first essay, but of no special importance except for the refutation, in the prolegomena, of Scholz's theory of recensions. In the Editio Lipsiana secunda (1849) the critical apparatus was much enlarged, and the text settled on the basis of ancient authority, generally with good judgment. In 1859 appeared the Editio septima critica maior (2 vols.), in which very large additions were made to the critical apparatus, not only from manuscripts, Greek and Latin, but from the quotations in the writings of the Christian Fathers, and the evidence was for the first time fully stated, both for and against the readings adopted. In the first volume, Tischendorf, influenced perhaps by Scrivener, showed a tendency to allow greater weight to the later uncials and cursives than he had done in his edition of 1849; but he soon found that he was on the wrong track; and on the whole, if orthographical changes are included, his edition of 1859 differs more widely from the textus receptus than that of 1849. Its publication was immediately followed by Tischendorf's third journey to the East, and the discovery of the great Sinaitic manuscript, together with the acquisition of much other new critical material. After the publication of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1862, in a magnificent edition of four volumes folio, in facsimile type, with twenty-one plates of actual facsimiles, at the expense of the Russian Government, the edition being limited to three hundred copies, he issued in 1863, in 4to, his Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, in ordinary type, but representing the manuscript line for line, with full prolegomena; and his Novum Testamentum Græce ex Sinaitico Codice, Vaticana itemque Elzeviriana lectione notata, in 1865, 8vo, with a supplement of additions and corrections in 1870. After some other publications, particularly the second edition of his Synopsis evangelica in 1864, in which the Sinaitic manuscript was first used, he undertook his last great critical edition of the Greek New Testament, Novum Testamentum Græce, editio octava critica maior (issued in eleven parts, i, Leipsic, Oct., 1864, xi, at the end of 1872; collected into two volumes, 8vo, 1869-72). This edition far surpassed all that had preceded it in the richness of its critical apparatus, and, as compared with that of 1859, rests much more on the authority of the oldest manuscripts, particularly the Sinaitic. The preparation of the prolegomena by Tischendorf himself was prevented by his sudden illness and subsequent death, and was entrusted to an American scholar residing in Leipsic, Caspar René Gregory, who had also the valuable assistance of Ezra Abbot. In the interest of the work Dr. Gregory made special journeys through Europe and into the Orient, and was thus enabled to give first-hand descriptions and collations of many manuscripts. It was published in three parts at Leipsic, 1884-94. Besides the works mentioned, the most important publications of Tischendorf pertaining to the textual criticism of the New Testament are: Codex Ephræmi Syri rescriptus (1843, 4to; Old Testament part, 1845); Monumenta sacra inedita (1846, 4to); Evangelium ineditum (1847, 4to); Codex Amiatinus (Vulgate; 1850, new ed.1854); Codex Claromontanus (1852, 4to); Monumenta sacra inedita, nova collectio, vols. i-vi, ix (1855-70, 4to); Novum Testamentum Vaticanum and Appendix Novi Testamenti Vaticani (1867-69, 4to); cf. Responsa ad columnias Romanas (1870, 8vo), also Appendix codicum celeberrimorum, Sinaitici, Vaticani, Alexandrini (1867, 4to); Die Sinaibibel, ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe, und Erwerbung (1871, large 8vo). His Novum Testamentum triglottum, Græce, Latine, Germanice (Leipsic, 1854, 2d ed., 1865) is a convenient book, the three parts of which were also issued separately, and in various combinations. The Greek is his own text, with the variations of the textus receptus; the Latin, the Vulgate critically revised from the oldest manuscripts, with the variations of the Clementine edition; the German the genuine text of Luther, though in modern orthography. Tischendorf also issued many manual editions of the Greek Testament, the three latest in his lifetime being published in 1875 by Tauchnitz, Brockhaus (to match his edition of the Septuagint), and Mendelssohn (Editio academica septima), respectively. His large editions of 1859 and 1869-72 were issued with the critical apparatus greatly abridged, but giving the chief authorities for all the important various readings, with the titles Editio septima critica minor (1859) and Editio octava critica minor (1872-77).
7. Tregelles. Samuel Prideaux Tregelles ranks next to Tischendorf in the importance of his critical labors, and in single-hearted devotion to his chosen task. In 1848 he issued a Prospectus for a critical edition of the Greek Testament, the text of which was to be founded solely on the authority of the oldest Greek manuscripts, the ancient versions to the seventh century, and the citations of early writers, including Eusebius. No account was made of the "received text," or of the great mass of cursive manuscripts. Completeness and accuracy in the exhibition of the evidence of the witnesses used were especially aimed at. Like Tischendorf, Tregelles visited (in 1845-46, 1849-50, and 1862) the principal libraries in Europe for the purpose of collating manuscripts the text of which had not before been published. These were the uncials B2 D2 E1 F2 G1 H1.2 Ib K1 L2 M1.2 R1 U X Z Γ Λ, the cursives 1, 13, 17, 31, 37, 47, 61, 69, and also Codex Zacynthius (Ξ). In many cases Tregelles compared his collations with those of Tischendorf, and settled the differences by a reexamination of the manuscript. In 1861 he edited the Codex Zacynthius (Ξ), republishing in an appendix the fragments of O. His edition of The Greek New Testament, Edited from Ancient Authorities, with their Various Readings in Full, and the Latin Version of Jerome, was issued in London in seven successive parts: i, Matthew, Mark, 1857; ii, Luke, John, 1861; iii, Acts and Catholic Epistles, 1865; iv, Romans to II Thessalonians (iii, 3), 1869; v, Hebrews (with II Thess. iii, 3-18) to Philemon, 1870; vi, Revelation, 1872. Part vii, Prolegomena and Addenda and Corrigenda, appeared in 1879, four years after his death, edited by Dr. Hort and A. W. Streane. Though Tregelles added far less than Tischendorf to our store of critical material, he did more to establish correct principles of criticism, and his various writings had a wide and most beneficial influence in England. He also published, in 1854, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, and, in 1856, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, forming part of vol. iv of the tenth and later editions of Horne's Introduction. This volume was also issued separately, and in the eleventh edition of Horne's Introduction (1861) appeared with "Additions" and a "Postscript."
8. Westcott and Hort. In 1881 appeared The New Testament in the Original Greek. The Text Revised by Brooke Foss Westcott . . . and Fenton John Anthony Hort (Cambridge and London). The American edition (New York) has a valuable introduction by Philip Schaff, with the cooperation of Ezra Abbot. Dr. Schaff also prepared a compact manual of New Testament criticism, A Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version (New York, 1883), which embodies the substance of this introduction, thoroughly revised. The text of Westcott and Hort is accompanied by an Introduction and Appendix (1882) in which the authors discuss the need of criticism for the text of the New Testament, the methods of textual criticism, the application of its principles to the text, the nature and details of their edition, and add notes on select readings and orthography, with orthographical alternative readings, and quotations from the Old Testament. In 1895 the text appeared in larger form, and, in 1896, the Introduction in finally revised form. This edition is not accompanied with any critical apparatus; it rather was the object of the authors, by a careful study of the materials furnished by their predecessors, augmented somewhat, however, by their own researches, to trace the history of the text as far as possible; to distinguish its different types, and determine their relations and their comparative value; to investigate the special characteristics of the most important documents and groups of documents; and, finally, to apply the principles of criticism which result from these studies to the determination of the original text. Their view of the genealogical relations of the chief ancient texts excited strong opposition in certain quarters, but their work was recognized as the most important contribution to the scientific criticism of the New Testament text which had yet been made. They distinguish four principal types of text: the Western, characterized by a tendency to paraphrase or to modify the form of expression, and also to interpolate from parallel passages or from extraneous sources, represented especially by D and the Old Latin versions, also in part by the Curetonian Syriac; the neutral represented by B and largely by א, preserving best the original form; the Alexandrian, much purer than the Western, but betraying a tendency to polish the language; and the Syrian, the latest form, a mixed text, borrowing from all, and aiming to be easy, smooth, and complete. They regard B as preeminent above all other manuscripts for the purity of its text; the readings of א and B combined as generally deserving acceptance as genuine, their ancestries having "diverged from a point near the autographs"; and they attach great weight to every combination of B with another primary Greek manuscript, as L C T D Ξ A Z 33, and, in Mark, Δ. Westcott and Hort began their work in 1853. Their method of cooperation was first independent study, then comparison. The Introduction is chiefly the work of Dr. Hort, whose name is one of the greatest in the history of text-criticism. He carried into the study of the text a large knowledge of church history and patristic theology, and it was this breadth of historical knowledge which made the Introduction the great work it is. The genealogical theory, suggested by Bengel and elaborated by later scholars, was here worked into a truly monumental form. A thorough acquaintance with this book is necessary to the student if he would have a clear insight of the deepest tendencies in the text studies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries or an understanding of the course taken by text-study in the present. Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.
9. Other Critics of the Text. Of the many other scholars whose labors have aided in the establishment of the text of the Greek New Testament, the Anglican scholar Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener deserves mention especially for his editions and collation of manuscripts. His Plain Introduction of to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1861; 4th ed., by E. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894) is a standard work. Scrivener was an able defender of the later manuscripts as witnesses to the original text against Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. In this contention he had the doughty support of John William Burgon in The Revision Revised (London, 1883). Among Americans, Ezra Abbot and Joseph Henry Thayer; among Hollanders, W. C. Van Manen, J. Cramer, and J. J. Prins; among Frenchmen, P. Batiffol, J. P. P. Martin, and E. Amélineau; among Italians, Angelo Mai, Carlo Vercellone, and J. Cozza; and among Germans, F. Blass, E. Nestle, B. Weiss, E. Riggenbach, and O. von Gebhardt have made important contributions to textual criticism.
10. More Recent Tendencies. When Westcott and Hort published their text in 1881 and when, in 1882, Hort's masterpiece on introduction followed, there was a disposition in some quarters to believe that New Testament scholarship had come somewhere near a critical textus receptus. The genealogical theory first broached by Bengel seemed, after a century and a half of toil, to have led the student into a definite path which would surely lead to a final goal. But significant changes, in feeling if not in opinion, are beginning to manifest themselves. Westcott and Hort mark a main epoch in text study. More clearly than their predecessors, they showed that the study of the text was inseparable from the study of church history. But the hypothesis which Hort so powerfully worked out has to some extent wrought its own undoing. The lines of study that it suggested have brought to light so many new facts and so many serious problems that the tone of certitude at one time in fashion has passed away. To Scrivener's description of Westcott and Hort's text as a splendidum peccatum few will assent. Yet, beyond question, the situation has materially changed. The "Western Text" or, to call it by a safer name, the "Syro-Western Text," which Westcott and Hort took to be a fairly well delineated fact, has become an imperious problem. The genealogical theory has fulfilled the chief function of a good working hypothesis by introducing order into chaos and pointing to the promising lines of attack upon the vast body of data awaiting the student. But genealogical certitude has declined. With its decline has come a growing disposition to concede to exegesis a certain right against the overweening authority of any group of manuscripts, however imposing. The good text-critic should also be an accomplished exegete. In Barnnard Weiss the two qualities are in a measure blended. Hence, at a critical point like Rom. v. 1, the exegete in him goes against the authority of A B C D E K L, Vulgate, Peshito, etc., and adopts εχομεν instead of εχωμεν.
Monumental work is not at present the order of the day. The searching investigations of the versions, the detailed and comprehensive study of patristic quotations, larger and clearer knowledge of the mental conditions under which an entire group of texts are likely to have undergone perceptible, even if inconsiderable, changes—in a word, a vast amount of labor lies ahead. The doing of it will require a very considerable time. Meanwhile the confidence and finality of a quarter-century ago are to be replaced by a restrained skepticism.
1. The Basal Rule. It is impossible, within the limits here allowed, to state and illustrate the principles of criticism applicable to the text of the Greek Testament. A few hints may, however, be given. The object, of course, is to ascertain which, among two or more variations of the text presented by our manuscripts or other authorities, is the original. No kind of evidence, external or internal, is to be neglected. The problem is to be solved by a process of reasoning upon probabilities; and what has to be considered, in every case, is which hypothesis will best explain all the phenomena. This fact is sometimes partially stated under the form of the rule that that reading is to be accepted as genuine which will best explain the origin of the other variations. This is an important rule; but there must be taken into account not merely the nature of the variations, but the number, independence, and character of the witnesses that support them. The process of criticism is not a mechanical one. Authorities must be weighed, not counted. One good, very early manuscript may be worth more than a thousand copies derived from a late and corrupted archetype. Again, though the presumption is in favor of the oldest manuscripts, mere antiquity does not prove the excellence of a copy.
2. Other Canons. One of the essential prerequisites to intelligent criticism is a thorough study of the occasions of error in manuscripts. This involves a knowledge of paleography and of the history of pronunciation. The similarity of certain letters or abbreviations in their older forms gave occasion to errors which can be only thus explained; and in the corruption of the Greek language, vowels and diphthongs originally distinct in sound were pronounced alike (itacism). A study of the tendencies and habits of transcribers is also involved. Many manuscripts, in the alterations they have received from later hands, illustrate the manner in which the text was corrupted. Among the maxims resulting from such a study, in connection with the consideration of external testimony, are these: (1) The more difficult reading is to be preferred (Bengel's great rule). This applies to those variations which are to be ascribed to design. Transcribers would not intentionally substitute a harsh, ungrammatical, unusual, Hebraistic expression, one that caused a difficulty of any kind, for an easier one. (2) The shorter reading is to be preferred (Porson's "surest canon of criticism"). The tendency of scribes was almost always to add, rather than to omit. They did not like to have their copies regarded as incomplete. It was common to insert in the margin of manuscripts, or between the lines, glosses; or explanations of unusual or difficult expressions, also words or clauses which served to supplement the language of one Gospel from the parallel or similar passages in another, or to complete abridged quotations of the Old Testament from the fuller text of the Septuagint. Words accidentally omitted were also placed in the margin, or between the lines. A transcriber might thus easily mistake these glosses, or supplements, of his predecessor for accidental omissions and transfer them to his text. This rule does not apply to cases where an omission can be satisfactorily explained by homœoteleuton; that is, cases where two successive sentences or parts of sentences have a like ending. The scribe copies the first of these, then his eye glances to the like ending of the second, and he thinks that that is what he has just copied, and omits unconsciously the intervening words. Another prerequisite to successful criticism is a careful study of the principal documents and groups or classes of documents, in connection with the history of the text, so far as it can be traced, in order to determine by a process of comparative criticism their peculiar characteristics, their weak points and their strong points, and the relative antiquity and value of their texts. This process includes the ancient versions and the quotations in the writings of the principal Christian Fathers. It can not be here detailed. Griesbach did good work in this direction, and it has been the special study of Westcott and Hort. It is thus possible to weigh the external evidence in particular cases with some approach to accuracy.
4. Results of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament: The host of "various readings" which an examination of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations, has brought to light, perhaps a hundred and fifty thousand in number, alarms some simple-minded people. Analysis at once dispels the alarm. It is seen that a very large proportion of these readings, say nineteen-twentieths, are of no authority, no one can suppose them to be genuine; and nineteen-twentieths of the remainder are of no importance as affecting the sense. Of how much, or rather, of how little, importance, for the most part, the remainder are, can readily be seen by comparing the Revised Version of the New Testament (with its marginal notes) with the text of the Authorized Version, or by an examination of the various readings of the chief modern editors in Scrivener's Novum Testamentum textus Stephanici A.D. 1550 . . . accedunt variæ lectiones (8th ed., Cambridge, 1877). The great number of various readings is simply the result of the extraordinary richness of critical resources. Westcott and Hort remark, with entire truth, that "in the variety and fulness of the evidence on which it rests, the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose-writings."
On the paleography of the N. T.: S. P. Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament; with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with that in Common Use, London, 1854; E. A. Bond and E. M. Thompson, Facsimiles of Ancient MSS, ib. 1873-82; W. Wattenbach, Anleitung zur griechischen Palæographie, Leipsic, 1877; idem, Schrifttafeln zur Geschichte der griechischen Schrift, 2 parts, Berlin, 1876-77; idem and F. A. von Welsen, Exempla codicum Græcorum litteris minusculis scriptorum, Heidelberg, 1878; idem, Scripturæ Gracæ specimina, Berlin, 1883; N. Gardthausen, Griechische Palæographie, Leipsic, 1879; J. R. Harris, New Testament Autographs, in supplement to AJP, no. 12, 1882; idem, Stichometry, New York, 1893; T. W. Allen, Notes on Abbreviations in Greek MSS, with Facsimiles, Oxford, 1889; F. Blass, Palæographie, in Handbuch der klassischen Alterthumswrissenschaft, vol. i, Munich. 1892; W. A. Copinger, The Bible and its Transmission, London, 1897; F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient MSS, ib. 1897; idem, Bible Manuscripts in the British Museum, Facsimiles, ib. 1901; C. F. Sitterly, Praxis in Greek MSS of the N. T. The mechanical and literary Processes involved in their Writing and Preservation, New York, 1898; R. Proctor, The Printing of Greek in the Fifteenth Century, no. 8 of Illustrated Monographs, issued by the Bibliographical Society, London, 1900; DB, iv, 944-957.
For the old printers consult—on Christopher Plantin: M. Rooses, Christopher Plantin, imprimeur Anvernois, Antwerp, 1884; idem, Christopher Plantin, Correspondance, Ghent, 1886; T. L. de Vinne, Christopher Plantin and the Plantin-Moretus Museum at Antwerp, New York, 1885; L. Degeorge, La Maison Plantin à Anvers, Paris, 1886. On the Stephens: G. A. Crapelet, Robert Estienne, imprimeur royal, Paris, 1839; A. A. Renouard, Annales de l'imprimerie des Estienne ib. 1843; L. Feugère, Essai sur la vie et les ouvrages de Henri Estienne, ib. 1853. On the Elzevirs: C. Pieters, Annales de l'imprimerie Elsévirienne, Ghent, 1860; A Willems, Les Elzévier: histoire et annales typographiques, Brussels, 1880.
Late critical editions are C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Græce, ed. 8. critica major, Leipsic, 1864-72; Prolegomena, by C. R. Gregory, ib. 1884-94, small ed. of text of 8. ed., with selections of readings, ib. 1878; F. H. A. Scrivener and E. Palmer, The Greek Testament with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers of the Authorized Version, Oxford, 1882; B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, N. T. in the Original Greek, Am. ed. with introduction by P. Schaff, 3d ed., New York, 1883; W. Sanday, Lloyd's ed. of Mill's Text with Parallel References, Eusebian Canons . . . and three Appendices (published separately, containing variants of Westcott and Hort, and a selection of important readings with authorities, together with readings from Oriental versions, Memphitic, Armenian, and Ethiopic), Oxford, 1889; O, von Gebhardt, Novum Testamentum (with variants of Tregelles and Westcott and Hort), 6th ed., Leipsic, 1894; B. Weiss, Das Neue Testament, Textkritische Untersuchungen and Textherstellung, ib. 1894-1900; F. Blass, Acta Apostolorum sive Lucæ ad Theophilum liber alter secundum formam quæ videtur Romanam, ib. 1896; idem, Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucæ ad Theophilum liber prior secundum formam quæ videtur Romanam, ib. 1897; E. Nestle, Testamentum Novum Græce cum apparatu critico, Stuttgart, 1898 (the use of editions with the MS. variants will still be required); Novum Testamentum Græcum, editio Stutgardiana, ib. 1898 (based on collation of Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Weymouth, and Weiss; contains for the Gospels and Acts a selection of MS. readings, chiefly from Codex Bezæ).
Treatises on various phases of the history of N. T. textual criticism are: F. H. A. Scrivener, A Full and Exact Collation of about twenty Greek MSS of the Holy Gospels (hitherto unexamined) . . . in the British Museum, the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth, . . . with a critical Introduction, Cambridge, 1853; idem, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., by E. Miller, London, 1894 (conservative); O. T. Dobbin, The Codex Montfortianno, ib. 1854; F. W. A. Bäthgen, Der griechische Text des Cureton'schen Syrers, Leipsic, 1885; J. R. Harris, The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the N. T., London, 1887; U. J. M. Bebb, Evidence of the Early Versions and Patristic Quotations on the Text of . . . the N. T., in Studia Biblica, ii, Oxford, 1890; H. C. Hoskier, A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evang. 504, London, 1890 (contains in Appendix C, A full and exact comparison of the Elzevir Editions of 1624 and 1635); G. H. Gwilliam, The Material for the Criticism of the Peshitto N. T., in Studia Biblica, iii, 47-104, Oxford, 1891; F. H. Chase, The Old Syriac Element in the Text of Codex Bezæ, London, 1893; Mrs. A. S. Lewis, A Translation of the Four Gospels from the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpsest, ib. 1894; R. C. Bensley, J. R. Harris, and F. C. Burkitt, The Four Gospels in Syriac transcribed from the Syriac Palimpsest, Cambridge, 1894; G. N. Bonwetsch and H. Achelis, Die christlichen grischischen Schriftsteller vor Eusebius, Berlin, 1897; E. Miller, The Present State of the Textual Controversy respecting the Holy Gospels, London, 1899 (conservative); idem The Textual Controversy and the Twentieth Century, ib. 1901; G. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the N. T., ib. 1897; M. R. Vincent, A Hist. of the Textual Criticism of the N. T., New York, 1899; K. Lake, The Text of the N. T., London, 1900; F. G. Kenyon, Handbook to Textual Criticism of the N. T., ib. 1901; idem, Evidence of Greek Papyri with Regard to Textual Criticism, ib. 1905. On the Revisers' text consult W. M. Sanday in Expositor, 1881.
The principles of textual criticism are discussed at length in Hort's Introduction to Westcott and Hort's Greek Testament, London, 1881, where also is found the most elaborate discussion of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS. On the Sinaitic MS. consult also F. H. A. Scrivener, Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, 3d ed., London, 1867; C. Tischendorf, Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel, Leipsic, 1883; idem, Die Sinaibibel, ihre Entdeckung, Herausgabe und Erwerbung, ib. 1871; idem, Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel, ib. 1863. Convenient manuals are: E. Nestle, Einführung in das griechische Neue Testament, Göttingen, 1897. A valuable collection of editions of the Greek Testament, mostly amassed by the late Dr. Isaac H. Hall, is in the library of Union Theological Seminary, New York.
During the last three years considerable discussion has been aroused on the subject of the text, to which the following are the most important contributions:
For 1902: J. M. Bebb, in DB, iv, 848-855, 860-864; F. Blass, Evangelium secundum Johannem cum variæ lectionis delectu, Leipsic; F. C. Burkitt, The Date of Codex Bezæ, in JTS, vol. iii; F. C. Conybeare, Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels, in Hibbert Journal, i, 96-113; M. D. Gibson, Four remarkable Sinai MSS, in Expository Times, xiii, 509-511; S. K. Gifford, Pauli epistolas qua forma legerit Joannes Chrysostomus, Halle; E. J. Goodspeed, The Haskell Gospels, in JBL, xxi, 100-107; C. R. Gregory, Textkritik des N. T., vol. ii, Leipsic; C. E. Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the N. T., Oxford; J. R. Harris, A curious Bezan reading vindicated, in Expositor, pp. 189-195; idem, On a Recent Emendation in the Text of St. Peter, ib., pp. 317-320; idem, The History of a Conjectural Emendation (ib., pp. 378-390); A. Hjelt, Die altsyrische Evangelienübersetzung und Tatians Diatessaron, in T. Zahn's Forsehungen, viii, 1, Leipsic; K. Lake, Codex 1 of the Gospels and its Allies, Cambridge; idem, Texts from Mount Athos, in Studia Biblica, vol. v, part 2, pp. 89-185, London; A. S. Lewis, Studia Sinaitica XI. Apocrypha Syriaca, London; G. R. S. Mead, The Gospels and the Gospel. A Study in the Most Recent Results of the Lower and the Higher Criticism, London; A. Merx, Die vier kanonischen Evangelien nach ihrem ältesten becannten Texte. Uebersetzung und Erläuterung der syrischen im Sinaikloster gerfundenen Palimpsesthandschriften, part 2: Erläuterungen, 1st half: Matthäus, Berlin; E. Nestle, The Greek Testament, with Introduction and Appendix on irregular Verbs, by R. E. Weidner, New York; idem, in DB iv, 645-652, 732-741; H. von Soden, Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt, vol. i, part 1, Berlin; B. Weiss, Das Neue Testament, 3 vols., Leipsic; H. J. White, in DB, iv, 873-890.
For 1903: L. Blau, Ueber den Einfluss des althebräischen Buchwesens auf die Originale und auf die ältesten Handschriften der LXX, des N. T. und der Hexapla, Berlin; F. C. Burkitt, On Codex Claromonianus, in JTS, iv, 587-588; idem, The Syriac Interpretation of John xiii, 4, in JTS, iv, 436-438; idem, in EB, iv, 4981-5012; idem, Further Notes on Codex k, in JTS, v, 100-107; W. E. Crum, Coptic Ostraka from the Collection of the Egypt Exploration Fund, the Cairo Museum, and others, London; M. D. Gibson, Four Remarkable Sinai Manuscripts, in Expository Times, xiii, 509-511; J. E. Gilmore, Manuscript Portions of three Coptic Lectionaries, in PSBA, xxiv, 186-191; G. H. Gwilliam, The Age of the Bodleian Syriac Codex Dawkins 3, in JTS, iii, 452 sq.; idem, Place of the Peshitto Version in the Apparatus criticus of the Greek N. T., in Studia Biblica, v, 3, pp. 187-237; K. Lake, Dr. Weiss' Text of the Gospels, in AJT, vii, 249-258; A. Schmidtke, Die Evangelien einer alten Unzialcodex, Leipsic; W. B. Smith, The Pauline Manuscripts F and G, in AJT, vii, 452-485, 662-688; C. Taylor, The Pericope of the Adulteress, in JTS, iv, 129-130; B. Weiss, Die Perikopa von der Ehebrecherin, in ZWT, xlvi, 141-158; A. Wright, A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 2d ed., London; O. Zöckler, The Textual Question in Acts, transl. by A. Steimle, New Rochelle.
For 1904: F. Blass, Ueber die Textkritik im N. T., Leipsic; F. C. Burkitt, Evangelion Da-Mepharreshe. The Curetonian Version of the four Gospels, with the Readings of the Sinai Palimpsest and the early Syriac patristic Evidence, 2 vols., Cambridge; Codex Veronensis . . . denuo ed. J. Belsheim, Prague; R. D'Onston, The Patristic Gospels. An English Version of the Holy Gospels as they existed in the second Century, London; J. T. Marshall, Remarkable Readings in the Epistles found in the Palestinian Syriac Lectionary; in JTS, v, 437-445; J. B. Mayor, Notes on the Text of II Peter, in Expositor, pp. 284-293; idem, Notes on the Text of the Epistle of Jude, ib., pp. 450-460; J. O. F. Murray, Textual Criticism, in DB, extra vol., pp. 208-236; W. Sanday, The Present Greek Testaments of the Clarendon Press, in JTS, v, 279-280; A New Greek Testament, prepared by E. Nestle. Text with Critical Apparatus, London; Novum Testamentum . . . Latine secundum editionem sancti Hieronymi . . . recensuit J. Wordsworth—H. J. White, part ii, fasc. 2, Actus Apostolorum, Oxford; C. H. Turner, A Re-Collation of Codex k of the Old Latin Gospels, in JTS, v, 88-100.
1905: R. F. Weymouth, The Resultant Greek Testament, with readings of Stephens (1550), Lachmann, Tregelles, Lightfoot, and (for the Pauline Epistles) Ellicott, also of Alford and Weiss for Matthew, the Basel ed., Westcott and Hort and Revisers, London, 1892, 3d ed., 1905.
1906: F. H. A. Scrivener, Novum Testamentum, Textus Stephanici &c. with Variæ Lectiones of Beza, the Elzevirs, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers, London, 1887, ed. E. Nestle, 1906; A. Deissmann, The New Biblical Papyri at Heidelberg, in Expository Times, pp. 248-254.
The literature of the work which is being done may be found year by year in the Bibliographie der theologischen Literatur and in AJT.
| Bible Research > Textual Criticism > Abbott |