Evidence of Readings.’ 70. The relation of B to other primary authorities. 71-76. The relation of x to B.
77-81. 8 and B in relation to the oldest forms of the Latin
and Syriac Versions, especially k and Syr-sin.
82. The value of 8B in opposition to Syriac and Latin
evidence combined. 83 f. Conclusion.
i, OBJECT.—1. The object of Textual Criticism is to recover the ipsissima verba of the docu- ments of which the NT is composed, and to pre- sent them to modern readers as nearly as possible in the form in which they left their authors’ hands. This definition is based on the assump- tion that all the copies of the different books
- We possess, whether in Greek or in a transla- tion, are capable of being traced back in the last resort to one and the same original. The assump- tion is a natural one, and not to be surrendered without very cogent reason. Still we cannot ex- clude the possibility that any particular book may have been current from Apostolic times in two closely related but distinct forms. St. Paul may, as Lightfoot suggested,* have issued a second edition of his Epistle to the Romans. St. Luke may, as Blass maintains, have issued two editions, both of his Gospel and of the Acts. The pheno- mena presented by the text of St. Mark, not only in regard to the last twelve verses but throughout the Gospel, may need the same hypothesis for their adequate solution.t In such cases the task of the critic becomes still more delicate. He has to dis- entangle and present distinctly not one original but two, which were once current side by side, but which have in the course of time been blended together, in almost inextricable confusion, in all our extant authorities. f .
2. From this definition of the object which all textual critics alike have before them two conse- quences follow, to which it will not be superfluous, judging from the past history of the science, to call attention before we pass on.
The first is this. There is at present, and there must remain, room for legitimate difference of opinion. We must be careful not to arrogate to the form of text which we ourselves prefer an
exclusive right to represent the true ‘ word of God.’
*See the papers by him and by Hort, reprinted from the Journal of Philology in Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. t See Blass, Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus.
EXTRA VOL.—14
. Evidence of editorial activity in the production of
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 209
The necessity for this caution is perhaps not so great as it was in the days of Griesbach.* The appeal made in a recent pamphlet by the leading supporter of one of the two rival schools of Textual Criticism to a standard which has yet to be fixed is a most hopeful sign. +
The second consequence which follows from our definition of the object of Textual Criticism is this. As all textual critics are engaged on one and the same sacred study, and are fellow-workers to a common end, they will do well to take special pains to cultivate mutual respect. It is strange, but it is none the less true, that the study of Textual Criticism seems to have a peculiarly dis- astrous effect neve the temper. The virulence with which Walton, Mill, Griesbach, and Lach- mann were assailed, not to speak of more recent examples, is a deep stain on the annals of the study.t
ii, MATERIALS.—3. It does not fall within the scope of this article to describe at length the ma- terials available for the Textual Criticism of NT. In part they are dealt with under separate heads (see A, 8, B, C, D, Arabic Version, etc.). For a complete list (and for purposes of reference any- thing short of a complete list is unsatisfactory) the student must be referred to the recognized store- houses of information, ¢.g. Tregelles, vol. i. of Horne’s Introduction to the New Testament, revised 1856, by no means to be neglected ; Prolegomena to Tischendorf, ed. C. R. Gregory, 1884-94 ; Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament’, 1894, revised by E. Miller and others; Gregory, Textkritik des Neuen Testa- mentes, Leipzig, 1900. The evidence, so far as it had been ascertained at the time of publication, was collected in two great critical editions.
4. The edition by Tischendorf, ed. viii. 1869-72, is at present indispensable for students, but it needs throughout to be carefully checked and supplemented. The edition of Tregelles (1857-79) is no less a marvel of patient accuracy. Unfortu- nately, the first two Gospels were issued before
the discovery of S, and, though the evidence is supplied in an Appendix issued by Hort and Streane after the author’s death, it is awkward to use. The statement of the evidence is, how- ever, given with great clearness. And the method adopted—a deliberate limitation of the authorities, whose evidence was to be represented, to the uncial
* See the Prolegomena to his second edition, Sect. 1. § 3, p- xlvf. [ed. London, 1809], esp. ‘Deinde non ideo verbum Det mutatur, quia in textu vulgari unum alterumve vocabulum deletur aut additur aut cum alio permutatur. Quod hebraico magis quam latino nomine verbum Dei appellare solent, con- tinetur sensu Scriptura sacre ; non autem ita in ipsis syllabis atque literis consistit, ut mutato (ob gravissimas rationes et auctoritates, ac salvo sensu) vocabulo quodam, ipsum Dei verbum, hoc est doctrina Christi ac Apostolorum, pereat. Nulla emendatio a recentioribus editoribus tentata ullam Scrip- ture sacre doctrinam immutat aut evertit; paucea sensum sententiarum afficiunt. _Ad has posteriores quod attinet, tenendum porro est, principium, ut aiunt, peti ab iis, qui verbum Dei ab editore mutari existiment. Nempe hoc est id ipsum, de quo disputatur, utrum scilicet lectio vulgarium editionum, an vero lectio aliorum ac meliorum codicum, genuina sit verbi divini pars. Nemo itaque verbum Dei se defendere ideo jactet, quia textum Elsevirianum tuetur. Nam ceequo jure ii, qui manuscriptorum codicum textum defendunt, dicere possent, verbi divini integritatem a se propugnari contra corruptorum interpolationes.’