RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Bible Text
present. Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this "field since 1881.
Of the many other scholars whose labors have aided in the establishment of the text of the Greek New Testament, the Anglican scholar Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (q.v.) deserves mention especially for his editions and collation of manuscripts. His Plain Introduction 9. Other tQ ^g Criticism of the New Testament theText (Cambridge, 1861; 4th ed., by E. Miller, 2 vols., London, 1894) is a standard work. Scrivener was an able defender of the later manuscripts as witnesses to the original text against Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort. In this contention he had the doughty support of John William Burgon (q.v.) in The Revision Revised (London, 1883). Among Americans, Ezra Abbot and Joseph Henry Thayer; among Hollanders, W C. Van Manen, J. Cramer, and J. J. Prins; among Frenchmen, P Batiffol, J. P P. Martin, and E. Amelineau; among Italians, Angelo Mai, Carlo Vercellone, and J. Cozza; and among Germans, F. Blass, E. Nestle, B. Weiss, E. Riggenbach, and 0. von Gebhardt have made important contributions to textual criticism.
When Westcott and Hort published their text in 1881 and when, in 1882, Hort's masterpiece on introduction followed, there was a disposition in some quarters to believe that New Testament scholarship had come somewhere near a critical textus receptus. The genealogical theory first broached by Bengel seemed, after a century and a half of toil, to have led the student into a definite path which would surely lead to a final goal. But significant changes, in feeling if not in opinion, are beginning to manifest themselves. Westcott and Hort mark a main epoch in text- 1R Mo5e study. More clearly than their pred- Tenden- ecessors, they showed that the study cies. of the text was inseparable from the study of church history. But the hypothesis which Hort so powerfully worked out has to some extent wrought its own undoing. The lines of study that it suggested have brought to light so many new facts and so many serious problems that the tone of certitude at one time in fashion has passed away. To Scrivener's description of Westcott and Hort's text as a spl.endidum peccatum few will assent. Yet, beyond question, the situation has materially changed. The " Western Text " or, to call it by a safer name, the " Syro- Western Text," which Westcott and Hort took to be a fairly well delineated fact, has become an imperious problem. The genealogical theory has fulfilled the chief function of a good working hypothesis by introducing order into chaos and pointing to the promising lines of attack upon the vast body of data awaiting the student. But genealogical cartitude has declined. With its decline has come a growing disposition to concede to exegesis a certain right against the overweening authority of any group of manuscripts, however imposing. The good text-critic should also be an accomplished exegete. In Bemnara Weiss the two
qualities are in a measure blended. Hence, at a critical point like Rom. v, 1, the exegete in him goes against the authority of ABGDEKL, Vulgate, Peshito, etc., and adopts ixo/iev instead of ix^Htv.
Monumental work is not at present the order of the day. The searching investigations of the versions, the detailed and comprehensive study of patristic quotations, larger and clearer knowledge of the mental conditions under which an entire group of texts are likely to have undergone perceptible, even if inconsiderable, changes — in a word, a vast amount of labor lies ahead. The doing of it will require a very considerable time. Meanwhile the confidence and finality of a quartercentury ago are to be replaced by a restrained skepticism .
3. Principles of Textual Criticism: It is impossible, within the limits here allowed, to state and illustrate the principles of criticism applicable to the text of the Greek Testament. A few hints may, however, be given. The object, of course, is to ascertain which, among two or more variations of the text presented by our manuscripts or other authorities, is the original. No kind of evidence, external or internal, is to be
neglected. The problem is to be
\i -he solved by a process of reasoning
Rule. upon probabilities; and what has
to be considered, in every case, is which hypothesis will best explain all the phenomena. This fact is sometimes partially stated under the form of the rule that that reading is to be accepted as genuine which will best explain the origin of the other variations. This is an important rule; but there must be taken into account not merely the nature of the variations, but the number, independence, and character of the witnesses that support them. The process of criticism is not a mechanical one. Authorities must be weighed, not counted. One good, very early manuscript may be worth more than a thousand copies derived from a late and corrupted archetype. Again, though the presumption is in favor of the oldest manuscripts, mere antiquity does not prove the excellence of a copy.
One of the essential prerequisites to intelligent criticism is a thorough study of the occasions of error in manuscripts. This involves a knowledge of paleography and of the history of pronunciation. The similarity of certain letters or abbreviations in their older forms gave occasion to errors which can be only thus explained; and in the corruption of the Greek language, vowels and diphthongs originally distinct in sound
were pronounced alike (itacism). A Canons! study of the tendencies and habits of
transcribers is also involved. Many manuscripts, in the alterations they have received from later hands, illustrate the manner in which the text was corrupted. Among the maxims resulting from such a study, in connection with the consideration of external testimony, are these: (1) The more difficult reading is to be preferred (Bengel's great rule). This applies to those variations which are to be ascribed to design.
Bible Text