TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAilENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 733
interjiretationem ACCURATE recogniti, opera studi- eque D. Eraxmi Jioterodami. This ad Grmcam veritatem does not mean oiilj' ' tlie Greek Originiil' or ' the ori^nnal Greek ' in contradistinction to tlie Latin translation, but was meant to include the idea of orijjinal correctness and integrity. Erasmus was convinced tliat ho liad (on the whole) edited the original Greek Testament. In like manner, it was no empty boast, but an expression of their full persuasion, when the Elzevir printers put in the preface of their edition of 1633 the words : textum ergo hnbcs nunc ab omnibus receptum IN
QUO NIHIL IMMUTATUM AUT COKKUPTUM I)AMUS.
I'or the following comparison with the faithful representation of ancient monuments and inscrip- tions shows that they were really persuaded that they had given t/ie original text to their readers {qut,cu>n lapidesacmonumentaantiquorumquidam venerentxr ac religiose reprcesentent, inulto magis clutrtas has ab origine Scoirvivarovi vindicandas a mut'itione ac cvrrtiptcla iiidicamus). And yet the ditVurence is clear. In the case of an ancient monument and inscription, the original is before our eyes, in our hands ; in the case of literary works, we are removed from the original by thou.sands of years, and are brought into con- nexion with it only through a series of repeated copyings ; and every fresh copy — perhaps even the lirst — was a source of errors, even when the copyists took all possible pains to be correct. We have alreadj' pointed out and accounted for the fact that in the case of the NT there was at first a period of textual laxity (cf. Westcott-IIort, §§ 6-14, ' Transmission by writing,' where it is shown how, even when the copyist has the intention of tran- scribing language (not sense), he, by mental action, passing from unconscious to conscious, may come to introduce free modification of language and even rearrangement of materials). A few examples may show to what diU'erences copying gave rise —
What is the name of the tenth apoatle in Mt 103?
(a) One set of our witnets^^es give* iietiioitM,
(b) Another, Ai>ipaitff.
(e) A third, combioiog (a+iX 9tMxiK i trixXyiSiU Ai|3-
(d) A fourth {b+aX Ai/spaiof i i. Btciiaioe.
ie) A IHth, Judas Zelolet.
(/)Asixth, Judan the son 0/ James.
(x;) A lieveutb (^e+b+aX 'Uihat i 3w\oCu.lvoi Af,3-
(A) An eighth, Thalhmt Zelotit.'
Or, wli;it was the clothing of John the BaptiHt ? According to Ml{ 1*> 'Ciitncl'8 hair uiid a Icatliern girdle altout his loins'? or only 'the skin of a cuniel ' without a girdle (iippi* xa/x^A4u)? The latter is the rca^iini; of D, while the girtllc is missing also in several Old Latin .MS6.
How does the Apoijalypse and the NT conclude? We have — leaving' out such minor variations as the addition of * .\nien ' or ' Amen, Amen,' or the irrace 'of the Lord Jesus,' or *our Lord Jesus,' or ' tlie Lord Jesus Christ,' or * Christ ' &loae — the vario- tiouj —
(1) 'With the saints '(BV^
(2) ' With all ' (KVm).
(3) ' With j/ou all' (AV).
(4) ' Witli \u all.'
(5) ' With all the sainta.' (8) ' With all men.' t
* WII ado)ited (a) on the authority of KB 17, 124 e carb vg me the Uier. toe. (apparently), and adduced g S04 among the examples of important ur interesting rea<lings, attested by KB, hut lost from the rest of all extant uncials ; 'I'ischcndorf, on the contrary, preferred {b) on the strength of 1) \tt k Orig. Aug. — and so does Blase now — a reading which is by WH here and in Mk Ifis declared 'a Western corruption,' these being tlie only two plai-es where either name occurs, ie) Is a well- 8iipi>orted 'Old l.atiri' reading (a, b, h, found also in tlie Roman Chronugraphy of ti64, see art. 'rilAt)n^cs) ; (.'/) is found in 243 and the Apvstotic Conslitutitms ; (/i) in the iCushworth Uospels, on which see JThSl, lii. p. 00.
t The third reatling, ' with wot* all,' has no Or. M.S authoritv at all, but was retranslated by Erasmus from the Ijitin \"ul-
Sate because the only Or. MS of Uevolation which was at his is[K)8al woe defective at the and ; it has been retained in the Lutberan Vetvion even ,Vter it« revision, while the UV replaced
On internal grounds it would be quite imi>os.sible to decids which is the true reading; how ditlicult a decision is on the basis of alt arguments (witnesses and internal grounds) is shown by tlie dilTerence between the latest editors.
For more exumples it is sullicieiit to refer to the margins of the AV (Mt in 'Some read' ; 2t)2« 'M.iny Greek cojiies have" ; Lk 10'.^ 'ilany ancient copies add these words'; 17^ 'This 3(jth verse is wanting in most of ttie tireek copies' ; Jn 181^, Ac 268 'as some copies read' ; 1 Co loai, Eph 612, Ja 218, 2 P 2». ", 2 Jn8); but especially to those of the UV which are crowded with such remarks as ' Some (many) ancient authorities read (insert, omit, etc.)' from Mt 1^** down to Kev 2:^'''^ Cases like the Doxulogy of the Lord s Prayer, tlie close of the Second Gospel, the comma Johanneum, (1 Jo 67), will readily occur to the mind of the reader.