mentioned by Blass in 1805 (Oott.), has been received by him into his text in lbd6(Lip&). On certain readings of B see Introd,. p. 2S9. On 1 P 1'9 Tiscbendorf states tlmt KO have in yiyfuT- reti, in reality they have i'i yiy/>. et«. F. C. Burkitt was the first to make out, in 1899 (JThSt. i. 278), that the Old Latin .MS k read in Mk 15W by its first hand rnaledixiati, corroborating thus itiiiiraeot D. In regard to the Gothic translation of UllUas, Tiscbendorf does not mention the very curious reading viana- gaini, Jn 7^^ = turbce, for 'Utiiaioi (see cod./), and the fact that there are various readings on the margins, as j€ituxx<rti;Mu 1 Co 13;', i.«}.;.i«-«4Ti Oal 42', ;,ni( Eph l'».
The same holds good of the 1 ersions and of the Fathers, that a new revision will greatly enlarge or rectify the critical appa- ratus of our present editions. Cf. .Mk V Ti/.ut: aya-ra I) a be; yet cf. Clem, of Alexandria, who is older than any of our il.SS; 0 ^i»
ycLp Ttlt x**^*'" ecyxToit Xao< (583) ; iirrj yafi Mcti i >Mf i xtit
xu>.trtf iymr^f (C14). The use Of iyarif is of course a re- miniscence of Ps "836 ; Bee Clem. Strom, iv. 32 (Dind. ii. 334, 1. 2, compared with 333, 1. 27, where Ps 581* is a misprint for '78') is-ixii : mrbrriif L 2P« Clem. Rom. ; but in Clem. Oil Cor. 1. 16 only; cod. A has ec^Tta-nr, cod. II uTixn- The reading ;«««» or pecxjMf (cod. O) Mt 522, in the Apostolic Coiuitilututns, ii. 22 ; kfxmi" for trpim< in Lk 1522, ib. iL 41 (c(. Kfi'mp in the Syriac translation of 1 Clem, ad Cor. 47 for ifixx'xt).
We leave out — for want of space — all variations concerned \vith the later additions to the text, as headings, summaries, numbering of sections, sticki. Quotations, miracles, Eusebian sections, notes on the voyages of I'aul, noting of church lessons, etc. ; though some of these particulars are of great im- portance for the history of the text, especially for the classilication of MSS. Only by way of ex- ample we may mention that Tiscliendorf gives, for the inscription of the Eiustle of Juile, eleven, and for its subscription twelve dillcrent forms ; for the heading of the Apocalypse their number actucdly riics to eighteen. We confine ourselves strictly to the text.
If any of our readers is startled by this mass of variations, though it will no longer cause him dogmatical anxieties and heart-burnings as it did to J. A. Bengel in former times, he may console himself, in the first place, by observing that the variety is not nearly so great as it might have been, and ixa it actually is in a closely allied deji.artment, — that of the Apocryphal literature (Gospels, Acta, etc.).
Let us compare the statement of A. C. Headlara, on the Clementine literature {JThSt, iii. 48), and sinijdy cast a glance at the very hrst item in Tischendorf's 2nd ed. of the Evangclia Apocrypha, the so-called ' Protevangelium Jacobi.' 'lake as an example Tisch. 24, where the original text said that ' the chapiters of the temple wailed and were rent from, the tap to the bottom' at the murder of the lather of John the liapti.st by Herod. One manuscript writes that the priests rent rd i/tana a iJrui', another changes this into /tai ^ffpiinjaoK Sprjiiov Hiyav.
We have nothing like this in the cnncinical NT. Even the greatest variations oU'ercd liy U
• How common such variations are may be seen from W is liw, where the very same example occurs : •>■!>» x>m'\""' kAR.
MTIlTCPTIf I^Xll,a*0, C.
736 TKXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAilE^ T
(in Luke and Acts, which have been called ' mnn^tra jiDtius (juam variae leotiones') are tame coMipaied « itii these. Nevertlieless, we should be only too };lad to have a thread of Ariadne to guide us through the labjTinth of NT criticism.
5. Jiules of Textual Criticixm. — To meet this want, the rules dra^vIl up for literary criticism iu general have been ai)pliea to the NT in particular. We can only touch on some of them. First of all, tliat of Bengel : proclivi scriptioni prmatnt ardua, which is commonly quoted in the sliorter but less balanced form : difficilior lectio placet or r/il/icilior lectio primipatum tenet. Under this rule falls that of Griesliach : Brevior lectio prmfercnda est verbosiori ; also that which Wordsworth-White formulated (in the Oxford Latin NT) : Vera lectio ad finem vie- toriam rcportat [i.e. where a phrase occurs several times with variations, that reading is the true one which is attested at the later places : ' s* pe enim scribPE quod primo loco pro mendo habent, secundo pro vero agnoscunt'].* But it is clear that these rules have a very limited application. Internal judgment is liable to much error, even if the textual Clitic has a special gift — and has developed it by
firactice — of divining what the author is likely to lave written {intrinsic probability), and what a copyist is likely to have made him seem to have written {transcriptional probability).
Of greater importance is the external evidence, the MSS, Versions, Quotations. But here again some warnings are necessary. For instance, the rule of Sauppe : ' Do not overrate your Codex' that which you may have discovered (as Tischen- dorf did with N), or in which you are for some reason or other specially interested. Or the rule from the Ten Commandmetitsfor a p/iilolvgist—vie think they are by the late Professor A. Lehrs of Kiinigsherg — ' Thou shalt worship no Codices.' Or the saying : ' Common sense is older than any Code.v ' ; or in Latin : ' Ratio et iudicium centum codicibus potior.a.'