It is not po.ssible here to count np all the ways in which errors may originate ; every one who has to do with copjin"; and printing has some testimony to bear regarding it. One of the com- monest is, for instance, the so-called homoioteleutun, by which arise what our printers call ' match' or ' funeral,' whereby a passage is either written twice or tot.'illy omitted ; the latter being, of course, the more dangerous case. By such an omission in the editions of Erasmus the words x"-!"-" ' — xop'" " (J"' 4') were wanting in the Bibles of Luther tUl 1568 or even longer. Another equally frequent source of error is the transposition of letters (especially where liquid(B are concerned) or of words. In Jn 8'' six possibilities are represented in the position of the words : ' Jesus spake unto them ' —
(1) ainois iXdXrjffev b'\y}(jovs, XB,
(2) at>T0($ 6 'It/ctoOs l\a\y](jeVy EK,
(3) i\a.\7}(rev avroli b'l'qffovs, U 1, 33,
(4) i\6.\riatv b 'Iriaous airroh, Cyril, iv. 484,
(5) 6 'ItjcoDs ainots iXdXrjaev, TK,
(6) b 'lT}aous ^\ii\7](T€v airrots, N^ ;
and a seventh, the combination of (1) and (4), is given by N* airroU ^XdXijtrei' 6 'lijcout avroU.
A third source is the addition of words which the copyist found missing ; the subject, for instance, as ' God,' ' the Lord,' ' Jesus.' By such a (wrong) sup- position, e.g., the text is e.xplained which ascribes the Magnijicat, Lk 1, to Mary instead of Elisabeth (see Introd. ad loc).
In view of all the perils to which literary works like the NT have been exposed, it is really astonish- ing to find how much luis been preserved, and, on the whole, how faithfully. And we willingly subscribe to the words ot Bengel, placed at the end of tlie editio minor of the ' NT in the original Greek,' which is at present the nearest approach to the goal, that of >VH: Ipsa summa i« libris omnibus salva e.-it, ex Dei procidentia: sed tamen illam ipsam providcntiam non dehcmus eo allegarc, ut a liina quam accuratissima dctcrreamur. But also the sequel will still hold good : Eorum, qui prmressere, neque defectum exagilabimus, neque ad eum nos adstringcmus : eorum, qui sequent ur, pro- fectum neque post ulabimus in prmsenli, neque pro:- cludem^is mposterum: quiclibet ii:(as pro sua fuul- tate veritatem investigare et amphuti, Jidclitatcmque in minimis et maximispraf,t<irc debet.
ii. Materials for Restoration of the Text. — The means of arriving at the original text, and the rules for the application of these means, are of course the same for the NT as for other literary works of antitiuity ; only that for the NT wo are in a much better situation than for mo.st other works, as, for instance, the Greek and Latin classics, or the OT, owing to the abundance, variety, and comparative excellence of the docu- ments at our disposal. These documents are : Manuscripts, Version.-., Quotations. The colophon
it by the tirst (and second). Also the fourth does not seem to have any MS authority, but to be, us 1x1. Reiiss styled it, pium MrrecturiJt ant li/pothi'lu' sjt.^tnrium in ii Basle t-dltion of 1646, from which it juis-sud over into the edition published in the same vcar and place by Melaiiclithon, who meiitioiis, however, iuMf in his Appendix (introd. p. 169 is to be supplemented) With (6) compare the reading ol O* (for 8) io He U^.
734 TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAJIENT
of the fiist edition of Erasmus, quoted above, mentions these three classes of documents.
1. Manuscripts (cf. WH, §§ 98-106).— The first place in the class of MSS would be held by those of the authors tlieiuselves if they were e.xtant — the autographs. The possibility of their existence cannot oe denied, seeing that we have documents ■written on papyrus, i.e. on the same writing material which was used in NT times, and from refrions not far removed from the birthplace of the NT, of twice, almost three times the age which the autographs of the NT would have today (see art. 'Writing, p. 950''). But, as a matter of fact, the NT autographs have been lost. Already Irenteus appeals only to careful and old copies {^v irSffi Toi! (Tirovdaloi^ Kal dpx'^o" ii/riypatfioii), and the testimony of those who have themselves seen the author (fcai napTvpovvrujv ainC>v iKelvwv tuiv kot' lipiv rbv 'Iwaviiriv iupaKirruv), and to internal evidence (koJ rov \irfov didd<rKOfTos ^/xas).
On the style in which the autoiirraphs of the NT may have been written, and the whole question how we have to conceive of them, see Introd. p. 29 ff., and art. Wkiti.no, p. 951. Of expressions referring to books and writing we have in the NT : $iS>M, 0i0x:»r, ffiSxccp,iicv (only in NT tRev.], with the variant
The hope which Bengel expressed with reference to the much disputed passage 1 Jn 5' etiam atque etiam sperare licet, si non autographum Johanncum at alios vetustissimos grwcos . . . iji oecultis divinm providentim fnrulis Intentes suo tempore product um iri, has been fulfilled lately in a way that could not have been expected at his time.
Erasmus (1^1^) ^^ &t ^is disposal for his first edition only one or two MSS, the oldest being of the 10th cent. : Stephen used for his Reijia (1650), besides the printed edition of Ximenes, two uncials (DL) and 13 cursives. The London Polyglot (1657) was for the first time able to make use of the Codex Alexan- drinus. More additions to the stocic of witnesses were made by Mill (1707). Bengel (1734), especially Wetstein (1751) ; but of the two MSS which are now reckoned best, the Vaticanus was not yet accessible in a trustworthy form, and the Sinaiticus waa not yet discovered.