4. The generally accepted Critical Text. — Once again, it is with Hort's views that Me must princi- cipally concern ourselves, because WH's text is the only one published which can be regarded as in any way self - consistent. No textual student would place much confidence in Tischendorf's judgment, which is embodied in his cditio octava critica major ; the Greek text underlying the RV does not appear to have been formed in accordance with any ascer- tainable principles ; and Weymouth's ' Resultant Text,' and similar editions, founded on the con- sensus of critical editors, from their nature have no independent critical value. We have, therefore, to consider the principles on which \VH founded their text. AVe have already shown how the great mass of dooiments, containing an Antiochian text, were set on one side. The pre-Antiochian texts Hort divided into three families, and, on what ap- pear to many students insufficient grounds, assumed tliat they stood in certain genealogical relations to one another. One of these families consists of the group of texts commonly called 'W^estern'; after setting these aside as obvious coiTuptions of the original text, only a small body of MSS, Versions, and Fatliers remains. This small residuum, how- ever, Hort proceeds to again divide into ' Neutral ' and ' Alexandrian ' documents. It is now, we think we may ,;ay, generally acknowledged that this dis- tinction cannot be maintained (cf. Salmon, Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the NT, p. 5U (f. j. Practically, he classes as ' Alexandrian ' tiie readings of documents which usually agree with Codex B, when they dill'er from B and are not supported by much Western evidence. We shall therefore treat these documents as forming one group, and distinguish the readings, as Salmon suggests, as early and later Alexandrian. Hort frankly admitted the close relation existing be- tween his Neuti'al and Alexandrian readings, since he conceived both sets of readings to be derived from a common non - Western ancestor ; this led him, in the case of an important set of readings, which he called ' Western non-interpolations,' to prefer the testimony of a small group of Western documents to the practically unanimous evidence of all other documents.
It will ba convenient here to give a list of the main documents with which criticism has to deal. We begin with those which more or less regularly support the Alexandrian readings. See also art. Maxuschipts.
B, the famous Codex Vatioamis, assisnerl to the 4th cent., is
by far the most interesting ; aocortlintf to Ilort, it con- tains a purely ' Neutral ■ text in the Gospels. N, Corlex Sinailii'us, discoverert by Tischendorf on Mt. Sinai, and proliably to be assia;ned to the 4th century. This MS is thou'j;ht by Ilort to be free from Antiochian readings, but to contain a ' mixed ' text, that is, one in which Western, Neutral, and Alexandrian elements are all found, though in the Gospels he looks on it as largely Neutral ; this is equivalent to saying that its agreements with B are very numerous.
C, Codex Ephrsemi Rescriptus, a palimpsest preserved at
Paris, and belonging jirobably to the ,'Jth century. The text of this .MS is undoubtedly of great importance. Miller (P^rti/t Intr.* \ct\. i. p. 123) well describes its text as ' standing nearly midway between A and B, somewhat inclining to the Latter.' Ilort considers C to contain an Antiochian and also a Western clement. L, Codex Regius, preserved at Paris, belonging to the Sth century. This MS is especially remarkable for the number VOL. U 4t)
of readings it has in conuuon wiLli B. Ai'cording to Hort (S 2U9), ' The foundation of the text is Non-Western Pre-Syrian.' But he adds: 'The fundamental text lias been largely mixed willi late Western and with Syrian elements.' T. Under this symbol are placed several fragments of MSS containing a Greek text and a translation in the dialect of Upper Kgypt(Sahi(lic or Tliebaic). They range in date from the .'ith to the 7th century. X, Codex Monacensis, preserved at Munich, of the 9th or 10th cent., has a fundamentally Antiochian text, but is of interest because it often joins with CL in giving readings which maj' be regarded as late Alexandrian. Z, Codex Dublinensis Rescriptus, perhaps to be assigned to the 4th cent., contains 295 verses of Mt. in 22 fragments. The text is apparently pre-Antiochian, and agrees more closely with N than with B. A, Codex Sangallensis, of the 9th or 10th cent., has an ordi- nary Antiochian text, except in Mk., in which Gospel it has manj' readings in common with CL. S, Code.x Xacynthius, a palimpsest, probably of the Sth cent., belonging to the British and Foreign Bible Society in London. This MS contains 342 verses of Lk., giving an apparently pre-Antiochian text, in which both Western and Alexandrian elements are found. 1, A minuscule, preserved at Basle, assigned to the 10th,
12th, or 13th cent., often agrees with NB and BL. 33, A minuscule of the 10th cent., preserved at Paris, has been called ' the queen of cursives.' It has a very interesting text, containing many ancient elements, but agreeing now with one, now with another type of readings. The ancient Egj^jtian Versions, as might be expected, to some extent sujiport the Alexandrian text ; but there is so much uncertainty in regard to these Versions that it is not easy to reckon with them as an element in the critical problem pre- sented to us. Forbes Robinson, in his art. ' Egyptian Versions' in Hastings' DB, declines to follow Lightfoot and Hort in assigning one, if not both, of the principal Egyptian Versions {i.e. the Bohairic and the Sahidic), or at least parts of them, to the close of the 2nd century. He gives good reasons for thinking that the Sahidic Version, which was current in Upper Egypt, was the earlier of the two ; and it must be regarded as funda- mentally Western rather than Alexandrian. The Bohairic (mis- leadingly called Coptic, and also Meraphitic) Version, current in Lower Egypt, confessedly agrees in general with B, and perhaps even more closely with the text used b3' Cyril of Alexandria. If it has to be assigned to a date as late as the middle of the 3rd cent., it is evident that it maj' be the result of the type of text then current in Alexandria, and cannot be used as evidence for the greater antiquity of that text. The remains of the Bashmuric Versions — those current in Middle Egypt — are so scanty that they offer little help at present.