It is strange, and not a little sad, that after nearly two centuries of discussion there should as yet be no general agreement among textual critics on the fundamental principles or even the methods of their science. Yet so it is. Critics have from the first been divided into two main schools—the ‘Traditional’ and the ‘Critical.’ They approach the problem from diametrically opposite points of view, and are at present almost as far from coming to an agreement as they have ever been. The ‘Oxford Debate,’ however, at least indicates a desire for mutual understanding, and is so far a sign of better days in store.
6. The Traditional School is represented by a small but vigorous band of English scholars, at the head of whom stands Mr. Miller,* to whom reference has already been made more than once.+ This school has, so far as known to the present writer, no support on the Continent, though read- ings of the Traditional Text constantly com- mended themselves to the veteran French commen- tator, Godet.
7. Traditionalists are strong in the prescriptive right due to fifteen centuries of almost un- challenged supremacy. They have, or had,—for the 19th cent. has not left matters as they were in this respect,—what Mr. Gwilliam in writing of the Peshitta (Serivener4, vol. ii. p. 17) fairly calls ‘the advantage of possession.’ They are, however, fully alive to the necessity of establish- ing their position on the ground of a reasoned and not an unreasoning faith. They are busy, there- fore, in, justifying their position by argument in the court of truth and fact, which, as they cannot but feel, must cast prescription to the winds if there is a flaw in their title. Their fundamental canon, as formulated by Mr. Miller (Oxford Debate, p. xii), runs as follows :—
‘Tt (the true text) must be grounded upon an exhaustive view of the evidence of Greek copies in manuscript in the first place, and, in all cases where they differ so as to afford doubt, of Versions or Translations into other languages, and of Quotations from the NT made by Fathers and other early writers.’
On p. xiv we read further: ‘In the ascertainment of this text, or these readings, guidance is to be sought under Seven Notes of Truth, viz.—(1) Antiquity, (2) Number, (8) Variety, (4) Weight, (5) Continuity of Witnesses, (6) The Context of Passages, (7) Internal Evidence. These Seven Notes of Truth, which are essential to the Traditional Text, sufficiently exhibit the agreement of it with the Canons laid down. In fact, coin- cidence with the first Canon implies coincidence with all the rest.’
* Mr. Miller died while the present art. was passing through the press.
+ Mr. Miller is the author of—(1) A Gwide to the Teatual Criticism of the NT, 1886 ; (2) The Oaford Debate, 1897 ; (8) The Present State of the Textual Controversy, 1899; (4) The Teat- ual Controversy and the Twentieth Century, 1901. He is joint author with Dean Burgon of The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 1896; and The Causes of the Corruption of the Tradi- tional Teat, 1896. He also edited the 4th ed. of Scrivener’s Introduction.
_TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
8. There is no indication of the kind of differences between MSS which ‘afford doubt,’ and render it necessary to call in the evidence of Versions or Quotations; nor is there any hint of the method of determining the ‘weight’ of a witness. J udging from his Textwal Commentary » Mr. Miller’s own habit is to weigh uncials against uncials and cursives against cursives, and he feels no doubt 8o long as there is a clear numerical preponder- ance in each class in favour of the same reading. In 7 cases an adverse group is characterized as ‘Western.’ In 5 of these it includes 8 and B. In
one case (Mt 9") a reading attested by NBD + 6me 30 all latt. exc. ¢ gl > Syr-vg (against cur and su) and Clem. Rom. (ii. 2), is described as
Syrio-Low- Latin with Alexandrian support.’ These are the only cases in which he gives any guidance in the classification of MSS.
Tn 4 cases, viz. Mt 6°8 (pl. verb after ra Kptva), 1325 (€méomecpev for éometpev), 13°5 (Gtacdgnooy for ppacov, ‘prob. a Latin gloss adopted by Origen’), 13°? (/dtq for atrod, disregarding Jn 444), he suspects ‘ Latini- zation.” In 144 (¢radious roddovds ard THs Vis dmelyev for uécov rHs addons jv) he hints at retranslation from Syriac. Here, again, we might wish that the Suggestions were more illuminating. In 5 cases he discusses the possibility of the influence of Lection systems; in 2 of assimilation to St. Mark ; in one case (14°) he appeals to ‘internal testimony ’ (construction of B\érw). For the rest, he is content to let his lists speak for themselves. The mere recital of a long list of authorities ought, he has no doubt, to bear down opposition by sheer weight of numbers. It is true that in the ‘Seven Notes of Truth’ antiquity stands before number. But his power to estimate the antiquity of witnesses is limited by his failure to grasp clearly the distinction between the date of a docu- ment and the date of the text contained in it, or at least by his failure to apply this distinction con- sistently.* In practice, his convenient assumption,