fUt fA<>^„f '^iZl ii iXirtriif^, vipt 2i it tT,M^b/{)i, »u< ii itytLWr.irUi
:e seems one of the best examples
iirip T-^v •^t/x'i'' foti. The pa! — ----- — - - - -
of the vaiue of quotations, and yet the latest commentator does not even quote it (Bigg), and Falconer declared that nothing can be made of the supposed reference in the Didache on the question whether there are three or two clauses in the
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 737
Mt 17*° <!\i7o:ri(rTiai', NB CUV3. syr'" . . .
diTiffriai', CDEl'" . . . it vg . . .
((•) Of tlie third for additions, omissions, and transpositions —
Mt 5^ 4 dpyiiifievot rf a5e\4"i ai>7-oD, KB. + elK~j, most.* 25' ToO yv/i<t>lov, NBC . . .
+ Kai T-q! vvn<j>Tis, DX*2 . . . latt Byi*'" vg hi, with tlie remark of Thomas that ' tlie bride ' is not found in all copies, especially not in the 'Alexandrian ' ; see on the importance of this dillerunce for the explanation of^ the parable a paper of A. Hilgenfeld in ZWTIi, xliv. (1901) pp 545-553.
It is sufficient to recall the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, the end of Marli, 1 Jn 5'.
Transpo.-.ition3 —
Jn 7"-S" stands after Lk 21»» in the closely- related M.SS 13-69-124-3-16, the principal members of the so-called Ferrar group.
In Romans 'the great doxology' (16^'") is found also after 14-' in AP 5, 17, here alone in the 'SjTian' text (Greek, Gothic, and Syriac). On the inferences which may be drawn from this fact, see WH, Appendix, Liglitfoot, Bihl. Ess. 28711'., and Zahn, Einleituxg, on Uie one hand, and on the otlier l"'r. Sjiitta, Unte.rsiirh. iiber den Brief des Paulus an die Jiumer (Zur Gcsch. und Lift, des Urch>i--tentums, iii. 1, 1901). Textual criticism here passes over into higlier criticism. Cf., further, B. W. Bacon, "Tlie Hoxology at the end of Romans' {JIU. xviii. 167-176).t
Tliese examples sliow that, according to WH at least, N and B, and especially the combination NB, have preserved in most cases the true reading. Hut WH came to this decision not on the basis of the intrinsic merits of the.se readings, but led by their important principle : Knmvledije uf documents .•y/iuuld precede Jtnal judgment of readings (§ 38) ; and : All trustworthy restoration of corruiited texts is founded on t/ie studij of their history, that is, of the relations of descent or allinity which con- nect the several documents (§ 49). This is un- doubtedly the true principle, and may be c.-illed the historical or geneaIo;.'ii-al nietliod of textual criticism. It consists in tlie attempt to retrate tlie history of the text in the opposite direction from that which it has taken, i.e. from recent times ba(tkwards, step by step, if possible to the very original. In many cases (compare the Heb. O'l"
• To the w-itncHSeB for the omiBsion of ilxn is to be orlded the Didnjtcalia aa cdiled hy ljkgart\c (p. .S-'i"-^)'; the Conntftvtiini.i, 11. fi;j (p. 711-', ed. L.a|^arde, not mentioiicd in his Index), und the MS oi ttiL. Didancalia published by Mrs. Gibson in the &tudia Sinaitica, odd uxn, *p'K.
t In a note at least we mny touch on the question of Con- jectural Ktiifiulation, There iiaa been so much iniause of this art, that of late It bos fallen somewhat into contempt ; and, on the other hand, there are so many good documents lor the NT at our disposal, that its place is very Inconsiderable (WH, J} 93-05) ; but to say that Conjectural Emendation must Ti^i-^r t»e resorted to, even in passages of acknowledged difficulty (Scrivener*, ii. 244), or to say that it la not allowed ' prOter de I'esprit ik ri-^prit saint' (Lagrange, Revue Biblimte. ItHM). 20(1), is to go too far. The reading f feniri of the TR in Ja 4^ seems to be a conjecture of P'rasmus put forward in his second edition; itKt-^fjxfrt^, mcntinne<l by WH among the suspected renrlings, is a conJo<^ture of Nosselt,' approved by J. C. \ollgratT {lU Irihus liicit iiUerpolalin in Kvaiujdio aci-mulmn Marcum, Mnemosyne, 11)01, 143-161). When the presetit writer hit uuon the reailing l-ri T«»To» instead of i*i toi«» or itj TAo<ft.»(Kev ls'7), re<!eived into the text by Baljon, it was by mere conjecture, though it was con- firmed afterwards by the reading sitjjer mart of I'rlmasius (the confusion of Torrovond roirti is very common, see Ens. llE'w. 15, V. 15, 2;l). Baljon's edition gives a convenient collection of the conjectnrea of nls countrymen. Fr. Hlass receive<l Into the text of his F.fanfjeiium teeundmn MaUhanua cum varice Uctionig delectu (LipsiiB, 1901) 7 conjectural emendations, marking them with a slur (•) : 7* «^<riT»i»«., ItfO Uiri riu, 17" ivwii. 22-'> \^.; (for afa.rTarwt), 261 i>.gc^, .... i^iXfll7>, 211^ ahl for
traipi, 27** ei\<K^6att, Of remarkable rcoxlings of this eilili^a note n»«/>,«, for lf^/«* 4^ (a comptet« ooUutioo of It at the end of the 3rd ed. of Nestle'i Gr. Ttut.). VOL. IV.— 47
and the Greek and Latin Classics) the scantiness of our materials does not allow of such a method ; in the case of the NT it is, on the contrary, made dillicult by the wealth of materials and the complicated character which this history must have had. And the great question of the textual criticism of the NT at present is, whether the study of its history led W H to cor- rect conclusions. Only the principal results can be mentioned here : for all particulars see vol. ii. of their great edition, or the Appendix of their manual edition.