Criticism employs the ample materials frimished by these sources. To attain its end, it must work upon them with skill and discrimination. They affbrd wide scope for acuteness, sobriety, and learning; and long experience is necessary in order that they may be used with efficiency and success. (See Jour. Sac. LU.j Jan. 1864; Heinfetter, The True Text of the [Heb.] Scrip- turesy 2d ed. Lond. 1861.) See Makuscbipts ; Veb-
SIONS.
CANONfi OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. I. ErrsBKAi. OS OBJSorrvs.
1. Readings found in the most ancient and more ear^fuUff vrritten MSS. should be pre/erred. Hence " unciar* copies are in general more weighty than ^* curaive/' Yet great una- nimity in the latter may overbalance fluctuation in the former.
2. Independent vntnesses must ehiej^ he regarded. Hence the necessity of classifying authorities, and of reckoning all that can be traced to a common origin or edition as but one, since no copy can rise higher in value than its source, and each transcription is an additional opportunity for error. On this account the critical materials of the O. T. are meagre, as all existing Heb. MSS. are of the Masoretic recension ; and but for the eridence (both historical and internal) of great competency, care, and scmpnlonsness on the part of these ed- itors, their woik would be of much less utility than it now is. In the N. T., too, this rule greatly reduces the testimony of the earliest extant MSS., inasmuch as they all seem to belong to the Alexandrian type, and for this reason their provincial- isms in orthography ought especially to be nijected
8. Readings found in the original tea^t are not to be UgMp set aside through deference to versions or citations. This not only follows as a corollary ftom the preceding rule, but its importance is enhanced by the ignorance, prejudices, special objects, and laxity of translators and writers quoting (some- timps m>m memory). In doubtful cases onlv (either from conflict, faflnre, or improbability In the original readings), therefore, can these be safely resorted to. Hence is evident equally the absurdity of exalting the Septuagint as a wh(4e above the Hebrew, and the Vulgate above the Greek Testa- ment When not liable to suspicion from the above causes, howrever, and where sufficiently exact to be verbally appre- ciable, translations and quotations, like direct and explicit historical stntement« as to particular readings, are entitled to consideration in proportion to their antiquity and excellence of opportunity.
n. Internal or SuBjrBorm
N. B.— This whole kind of evidence is only to be used, and that but sparingly, when the foregoing rules fkVL short, or are opposed by some palpable inconsistency in point of exegesis or philology in the text
1, Purely conjectural emendation may sometimes be cau- tiously employed in such cases^ because it is possible that some derioal errors may have existed in the original auto- graphs themselves, and others probably crept in at the earli- est date in copying ; these would therefore be liable to cor- rupt all later testimony. On the other hand, arbitrary cor- rections must never be made except where they axe absolute-
CRITICISM
fi68
CRITICISM
ly demanded, and where they can also he shown to hare heen naturally diaplaoed by the errata; nor yet nnleee they are each aa wocdd be likely to have eluded the diligence c^ earlier coUators.
2. Among MoeniZ voariom readingn^ wMeh ore otharwtM nearli/eqtuiUyngaporUd.tJuUonsi»tobe9eUetedfromxthie^ thB others eon most reamy be derived. On this principle is bailed the famous law of critics in general, that '* the most difficult reading Is to be preferred," which is bat partially true, however, dnoe the harshest readings may hare been the result of inadvertence In copying, and on thb principle they could never be eliminated ; whereas the design of criticism is the common-sense one of lessening rather than increasing the incongruities of the text It Is only meant that we should choose that reading, rather than another, which, if originally in the text, would not be so obnoxious to copjists ; yet the rule must not be so construed as to come into coLUaion with the foregoing canon.
8. Whm tAe evidences in favor 0/ the omiagUm or inaertion of a paesage^ clause^ or highly sigmjleant word are nearly eqttaliy dimdedy it is safer to reject it (If it be not already con- tained in the received text), or (if It be retained for the sake of convenience) to mark It as probably spurious; for the dis- position of the Church, fh>m quite an early to a comparative- ly recent period, has leaned towards the adminion of more and more matter (whether marginal gloases or apocryphal ad- dition?) into the sacred canon, and copyiits as well as editors have felt the influence of that reverent familiarity which ren- ders it ever increasingly difflcult to expunge any thing once included in Scripture. But in Judging of the genninenesa in such instances, little stress can be laid upon considerations drawn from doctrinal propriety or concinnity with the con- text, because these are greatly affected fay the individual sentiments and conventional ophiions of each critic
II. The remainder of this article (which is chiefly drawn from Kitto's Cyclop, a. v.) will contain a brief historical sketch of Biblical criticism, or a history of the texts of the Old and New Testaments ; the condi- tion in which they have been at diflisrent periods ; the evidences on which our knowledge of their purity or corruption rests, and the chief attempts that have been made to rectify or amend them. A history of criticism must describe the various -stages and forms through which the texts have passed. It will be con- venient to reserve an enumeration of the causes which gave rise to various readings for a future article [see Various Readings], and in this place to detail the phases which the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments have presented both in their un- printed and printed state, in connection with the la- bors of scholars upon them.