718
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
(iii.) But a few of our earliest Greek MSS, sup- ported by the quotations of the most scholarly Fathers of the earlier centuries, and by a few Versions, present a different text, which has com- mended itself on its intrinsic merits, as well as on account of its proved antiquity, to most modern critical scholars : it forms the base of practically all the modern critical editions, and of our English RV.
2. The Received Text. — A text substantially the same as the TR has been called by Dean Burgon and his school the ' Traditional Text ' ; by Dr. Hort (in the Introduction * to Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek) the ' Syrian ' Text. Hort also suggests the name ' Antiochian,' which is preferable, because it avoids any chance of confusion with the totally distinct Syriac versions. For reasons that will be explained later on in this article, Hort considers that the Antiochian text atiords practically no evidence for the reconstruction of the original Greek of the NT, and he may therefore be considered as the most extreme opponent of the TR. In his opinion {Introduetion, § 185) the Antiochian text ' must be the result of a recension in the proper sense of the word, a work of attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors and not merely by scribes.' He further distinguishes two stages in the revision, and thinks (§ 190) that the final process was com- pleted by 350 or thereabouts, and that the first process took place at some date between 250 and 350. According to Burgon and his close follower Miller, these recensions are purely imaginary crea- tions ; they believe the Church of Antioch (in company, no doubt, with practically all the Greek- speaking Churches) to have preserved the pure text from the first. It is at any rate certain that Chrysostom used this text : he was born at Antioch about the middle of the 4th cent., and lived in that city till 398, when he became bishop of Con- stantinople. We have seen above that even the main opponents of this text allow that it took its final shape probably about the time of Chrysos- tom's birth. From that time onwards it held practically undisputed sway, and the main mass of later MSS contain it. When at length, some time after the introduction of printing, the first New Testaments in Greek were published, they naturally rested on the MSS in ordinary ecclesi- astical use, and thus the Antiochian text became the ' Received ' Greek text of modern Christendom, from which our own AV was made.
As has been shown above, the history of the printed text in the 16th cent, is part of the history of the Antiochian text; although of no critical importance, it is a subject very full of interest. [A good short account of the early printed editions will be found in Scrivener's Plain Introduction (ed. Miller, 1894), vol. ii. ch. vii. Cf. also Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the Greek NT, 1854], The NT was first printed in Greek as vol. V. of the Coniplutensian Polyglott Bible. This magnifi- cent work was prepared at the cost of Francis Ximenes de Cisneros, Cardinal-Archbishop of Toledo, and was printed at AlcalA (Complvtum), where he had founded a university. The OT was given in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek ; the Apocr\T3ha and NT in Greek and Latin. The volume containing the NT (which was the first to be printed) was completed on 10th Jan. 1514 ; but owing to the death of the truly great Cardinal, the publica- tion of the whole work was delayed, the Pope's license not being granted till 22nd March 1520. Meanwhile, in order to forestall the Spanish edition, John Froben, the celebrated publisher at Basle, employed Erasmus to prepare an edition of the NT in Greek, accompanied by a revised Latin version : this was hurried through the press, and published in 1516. Erasmus published other editions in 1519, 1522, 1527, and 1535. Other important editions are those of Robert Stephen (especially the folio of 1550, which is regarded by many as the standard text), Theodore de B6ze (Beza), and the brothers Elzevir. All printed editions, even those prepared by the great founders of textual criticism, were based upon the TR until 1831, when Lachmann published a text constructed directly from the ancient docu- ments.
* This Introduction was written by Dr. Hort, and will in this article be cited under his name, though the two editors accept joint responsibility for it.
Whatever may be the ultimate verdict of textual criticism, the TR must always remain a monu- ment worthy of deep veneration and of close study. It is an essential factor in the history of the development of Christianity. Through it the Spirit of God has, during the greater part of the existence of the Church of Christ, spoken to the greater number of her members. It has controlled the doctrine and the life of Christians, and by its means we have been freed, in part at least, from the heavy yoke of mediaeval sacerdotalism and superstition. Those who translated it into modern languages have left us in their work something of their own life and spirit. If extent of influence for good is to be our criterion, then surely, what- ever its origin, the TR and the translations made from it bear the impress of the seal of God's Spirit, and have an unsurpassed and almost unsurpassable claim to the veneration and gratitude of mankind.