Of variations on doctrinal grounds, or in favor of cur- rent opinions, no decisive case has been adduced; yet subjective considerations might influence the choice among different extant readings. In Acts xx,28 is the reading iKKkrjruai' tov Qiov (B, X) for tKK\i]mav tov Kvpiov of A, C, D, E. The former being, as Meyer sug- gests, Paul's invariable usage (once Xpiarov, never kv- piov), it was written parallel with the latter in the mar- gin, and thence passed into the text. For the substi- tution of Bfoc in place of nioc, John i, 18, other causes maybe assigned more probable than a purposed change of the text from doctrinal preference (see SchaflF's ex- haustive note on the passage in his edition of Lange's Commentary, and Tischendorf's 8th ed. ). Tregelles edits the reading Gfof; Tischendorf, with a truer criti- cal sense and appreciation of evidence, retains the cor- rect reading vioi;. To a reverent feeling are probably due such variations as lioGijcp and o narijp avruv, Luke ii, 33; laicrj/^ (cat ») /*j;r/jp and oi yoptii;, ver. 44.
A case of special historical interest, not falling under any of the above classifications, occurs in Rev. xv, 3 (Engl, version), "just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." But the MS. from which the book was first printed (professedly) reads, ''thou King of the nations" {twv fSj'oiv); appropriately here (comp. the next verse). This is also the reading of A, B of the Apoc. and P (Porphyrian palimpsest). But X and C read "King eternal" {aiwvujv, as in 1 Tim. i, 17), Lat. Vulg. seeculo- rum (Cod. Am. cceloi-uni). It is probable, as suggest- ed by Tregelles {The Revelation in Greek, Edited from Ancient Authorities, p. 95), that the true reading, EGNQN, was in some MSS. written i^IBNQN (see above, I, 2), then AlONQN = AIQNQN. Instead of the true reading in his MS., Erasmus followed a cor- ruption of the Vulg. reading sacnhrnm, its MS. ab- breviation xrloriim being easily mistaken for scto7-um, the abbreviation of aanctoi'um. Thus the reading of the current Greek text, and of the English version of it, rests solelv on a mistaken abbreviation in the Latin Vulg.
To an error of sight and ofitacism we owe that won- derful beast of the Apocalypse (xvii, 8) " that was, and is not, and yet is." The above-named MS. reads koi
irapi<7Ti (e<TTi slightly removed from the preceding syl- lable, as often in MS.), with a distinctly written a in that syllable, and the accentuation of Kai irc'ipiaTi. The read- ing is undoubtedly that of the ancient MSS. : X naptir- TE ( —Trap(rTTai), A ( C is defective here), B of the Apoc, and P, which have iraptaTai. Erasinus's copy- ist, mistaking a for e in ivap, and making a false di- vision of syllables, wrote KatTrtp tart ; hence that beast, so long the ci-ux interpretum.
II. Value. — Only readings attested by uncial MSS. are now recognised by most critics; while others, well attested by the best cursives, are not taken into ac- * count, these later ISISS., dating from about the 10th centur_v and onward, being appealed to only as corrobo- rative of earlier authorities, or in cases where these dis- agree. But as the character of a j\IS., tested by com- parative criticism, is often entitled to as much consider- ation as its age, it is not improbable that the most ap- proved will yet be allowed their due weight claimed for them by Scrivener, their strenuous and able advocate (see his Manual of Text. Crit. [2d ed.], p. 465, and ch. ix).
Comparative criticism is " that delicate and impor- tant process whereby we seek to determine the compar- ative value and trace the mutual relation of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of the New Test, is based" (Scrivener, lit sup. p. 4()2). It has al- ready been employed to a certain extent with highly satisfactory results; but its laws, and their proper ap- plication, are yet to be fully developed. See Criticism, Biblical.
III. Number The number of various readings is not
easily ascertained. Since the time of]\Iill,when they are estimated to have been about thirty thousand, it has been greatly increased by the numerous MSS. since discovered and the more thorough collation of those then known. As it often happens that of several read- ings one gives the clue to the origin of them all, reduc- ing all to one {Canons of Criticism, ii, 2), so a new read- ing may be welcomed as supplying that which is sought. For a long time the utmost diligence has been used in searching through MSS. and recording every deviation from a common printed text, even to the slightest pe- culiarity in spelling, till the number is increased four- fold. Of these at least a fifth part respect only clerical errors, dilTerences in spelling, in the form of a tense or a case, in the order of words, and the like ; while of doubt- ful readings that affect the sense the number is far less, and those that affect a doctrine or a duty are few, if anj*.
Attention was directed to discrepancies in the IMSS. of the New Test, by the controversies between Erasmus and Stunica on the respective merits of the Compluten- sian and Erasmian texts. (For the earliest allusions to them in patristic writings, see Nkw Testament, II, 3, 4, If 3 ). A formal comparison of different readings and their value was first made, though unsatisfacto- rily, in Stephens's third or royal edition (1550). His te.xt, very negligently and often capriciously formed, be- came the current (ireek text in England and America. Tlie Elzevir editions ( 1624, fol.), formed chicfiy from Beza's and the tiiird of Stephens, adding notliing of critical value, l)ecame the current Greek text on the continent of Europe. Various readings of the Codex A lexandrinus, and a digest of numerous others in Wal- ton's Polyglot Bible (1654-57), are the first collection of any value. Of subsequent contributions to textual criticism the following may be named as having made epochs in the progress of the science [for a full account of the printed editions of the New Test., see Ckiticism B]: Mill's Greek Test. (1707; 2d ed. by Kuster, 1710), with various readings from all sources then accessible, was the first attemjit for a com- plete critical apparatus. Bengel (1725-34) led the way in the classification of MSS. and versions, relying on the oldest authorities. Wcttstein's Xeir Test. (1761-52) added much to the materials for textual criticism, in-