t See The Teatual Controversy and the Twentieth Century, by Edward Miller, M.A., p. 24: ‘Thus I submit my case to all the learned in Christendom. When I speak of the Traditional Text, Imean that recension of the Received Text which shall ulti- mately be settled by the voice of Christendom upon an ex- haustive examination of all the evidence in existence. My own Commentary, so far as it goes, is meant to be a contribution towards such a settlement. ‘
‘Accordingly, neither does my theory consciously override facts, nor must my expressions be taken to be dogmatic, when convenience in writing leads me to drop hypothetical lan-
uage.’
i] t See Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text, pp. 115-117, 254-256,
210 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
MSS, a few select cursives, all the Versions, and the Fathers up to Eusebius—has a real advantage, as it concentrates attention on that period in the history of the text about which there is room for serious difference of opinion. *
Editions which aim at giving only a selection of readings such as Baljon’s (1898) are radically un- satisfactory. It is impossible to estimate the value of any authority in any single book without study- ing the whole of its readings through that book.
Editions such as that published by E. Nestle at Stuttgart in 1899 are convenient as indicating con- cisely the differences between the most important among recent critical editors, but do not profess to give the grounds on which their judgments are based. A Textual Commentary upon the Holy Gospels, edited by E. Miller largely from materials collected by the late Dean Burgon, of which part i. (Mt 1-14) appeared in 1899, will afford a useful index to the Gospel references to be found in the Fathers down to the latest period. This list is based directly on the indexes compiled with enormous labour by Dean Burgon, now in the British Museum. It has not apparently been supplemented by reference to other sources, ¢.g. Tregelles, or Hort in the Notes on Select Read- ings in his Appendix. It needs, besides, and will no doubt in due course receive, careful sifting. Scholars, however, cannot but be grateful for the labour that has been bestowed on its preparation.
It is only right to add that Mr. Miller’s judg- ment on the drawback to the use of Patristic evidence from the uncritical character of the current editions of their works + must be checked in the light of Barnard’s edition of the Quis dives salvetur, and his account of ‘The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria’ in Cambridge Texts and Studies, v. 2 and 5. Nestle also has some pertinent remarks, with illustrations, in his Textual Criticism of NT, p. 144 ff., Eng. tr.
Mr. Miller’s edition embodies, besides, the re- sults of recent collations, chiefly of cursives. A certain number of misprints are inevitable in a work of this scope. Students, however, should be warned that Mr. Miller has not incorporated all the various readings for which there is MS evi- dence. Nor does he always quote completely the subsidiary authorities, ¢.g. the MSS of the Latin Versions, in the passages which he selects for com- ment. Again, the authority of the Revisers is quoted constantly for readings on which it is clear that they were never called upon to pronounce an opinion.
iii, METHODS AND PRINCIPLES.—5. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the methods and principles by the help of which we may hope to secure the best result from our use of the materials available for Textual Criticism. This, it is well to remember, is the true province of the textual critic. It is, no doubt, of first-rate importance for any one who wishes to bring out a critical edition, that he should have a certain amount of experience in the direct handling of MSS. But to imagine, as Dean Burgon seems to do, that the value of a
Devon Soden’s Die Schriften des N7, etc, (Bd. i. Abt. 1, 1902) is a worthy fruit of the recent revival of German interest in NT Textual Criticism, He has already revolutionized the catalogue of NT Greek MSS. When completed, the work cannot fail to mark an immense advance in the scientific presentment of the pone for Oriticism.,
tlc. p. xiii: ‘I am persuaded that more is made of thi drawback than would be if it were generally known how ithe modern editing of the best kind, perhaps not in Eusebius but in most authors, alters the quotations.’ :
A somewhat lurid light is thrown on this remark by a sentence in Nestle, /.c, p. 145, Eng. tr. ‘As late as 1872 an Oxford editor, in bringing out Cyril of Alexandria’s Gom- mentary on the Gospel according to St. John, wrote down only the initial and final words of the quotations in his manuscript, and allowed the compositor to set up the rest froma printed edition of the Textus Receptus.’
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
man’s opinion on a matter of Textual Criticism depends directly on the extent of his first-hand acquaintance with original documents, is very like measuring the skill of a jeweller by the amount of his experience in the work of a diamond field or of a gold mine, or refusing to accept a historian’s estimate of a document unless he has himself inspected the MS from which it was printed. In fact, the qualities that go to make an ideal collator, such as Scrivener for instance, are very rarely combined with the capacity and the opportunity for taking such a comprehensive and intelligent survey of the whole evidence as can qualify a man to pronounce a sound judgment on the relative importance of any particular element in it. The constant growth of available material makes it increasingly important to lay stress on the radical distinction between the two functions —the function of collecting and the function of interpreting the materials of criticism.