Text of the New Testament (continued) – Text of the New Testament (continued)

Text of the New Testament (continued)

19. The need for a Latin version of the Christian books was consequently not so pressing as might be supposed. Nevertheless there was one large and important province in which Greek had no place, and where Latin was alike the literary and the spoken language. This was Africa, where the Mediterranean coast, and especially the district which is now Tunis, was inhabited by a large Latin-speaking population. When Christianity was first introduced into the province is uncertain; but in the 2nd cent, it was strong and flourishing there, and had for its spokesman the most eloquent of early Christian writers, Tertullian (c. 150-220). Two lines of argument combine to .show that the earliest Latin version of the NT known to us had its home in Africa. The first mention of the existence of a Latin version occurs in Tertullian; and that type of text which, of all those represented by our extant OL MSS, appears on Internal grounds to be the earliest, is identical with the Biblical quotations in the writings of Tertullian’s junior contemporary and compatriot, Cyprian (c. 200-258). Whether the version was actually made in Africa cannot be determined with certainty. It is true that its Latinity agrees with that of certain African writers of the 2nd cent. (Apuleius, Arnobius, Lactantius, besides Tertullian and Cyprian); but it so happens that there is very little non-African Latin of that period in existence for comparison with it. The kinship which the text of the OL has with the Old Syriac has caused Antioch to be suggested (by Sanday) as the original home of the version, that being a metropolis where Syrian and Latin elements met, and whence versions of the Scriptures in either tongue might radiate from a common centre. But with a strong general resemblance between the two versions, there is also a considerable amount of divergence in details, so that one cannot be certain that the connexion is not more remote. What is certain is that the earliest form of Latin version known to us was circulating in Africa in the first half of the 3rd century.

20. The extant MSS of the OL are mainly fragments; for after the supersession of this version by the Vulgate its MSS naturally fell into neglect, and survived only fortuitously. The number of them is a little over 40, and they are habitually indicated by the small letters of the Latin alphabet. The following are the most important:

a. Codex Vercellensis, at Vercelli, containing the Gospels (Mt., Jn., Lk., Mk., the usual Latin order), somewhat mutilated, assigned to the 4th century.

h. Codex Veronenais, at Verona, containing the Gospels on purple vellum; 5th century,

a. The Latin text of Codex Bezae in the Gospels and Acta, and of Cod. Claromontanus in the Pauline Epistles.

c. Codex Paiatinus, at Vienna, containing the Gospels, considerably mutilated; 5th century. One leaf is at Dublin. In the Acts, e is the Latin text of Cod. Laudianus; in Paul., that of Cod. Sangermanensis.

/. Codex Brixianus, at Brescia, of the Gospels, on purple vellum; 6th century.

ff’. Codex Corbeiensis, at Paris, containing the Gospels, but imperfect. Generally assigned to the 6th cent., but by its latest editor (E. S. Buchanan, Journ. of Theol. Studies, 1905-6) to the 5th.

g. Codex Gigas, at Stockholm; a complete Bible, of the 13th cent., with Acts and Apoc. in an OL text. Written in Bohemia, and a remarkalDle example of a late survival of OL.

h. Palimpsestus Floriacensis, at Paris; palimpsest fragments, formerly at Fleury, of Acta, Cath. Epp., Apoc, in an African text.

k. Codex BobienaiSt at Turin, where it fortunately escaped from the recent fire with slight injury. Contains Mk 8-16 (ending at 16:8). Mt 1-15; probably 5th cent, (according to Burkitt, 4th cent.), Contains the OL version in its earlieat form, closely alsin to that found in the writings of Cyprian.

m. The Speculum of paeudo-Auguatine, which contains copioua quotationa from the NT. It is probably of Spanish origin, and should be reckoned rather with the Fathers than with the MSS.

q. Codex Monacensis, at Munich, containing the Goapels; 6th or 7th century.

The remaining MSS are, for the most part, only small fragments, of a few leaves each. The Apoc. ia also found, almoat complete, in the commentary of Primaaius, written in Africa in the 6th century.

21. With these MSS must be reckoned the quotations of the early Latin Fathers, notably Tertullian (who, however, appears often to have made his own translations, and is also too inexact to be of much service in this respect), Cyprian, Hilary, Lucifer of Cagliari, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Tyconius, Priscillian, and (as just noted) Primasius. It is usual to classify all these authorities (MSS and Fathers) under the three heads of (1) African, (2) European, (3) Italian; the African type of text being the earliest and also the roughest in style and vocabulary, the European being so far modified in both these respects as to be supposed by some scholars to be due to a fresh translation, and the Italian being a revision of the European, and itself providing the basis for Jerome’s Vulgate.

The question is complicated by the fact that no two MSS represent quite the same type of text. All (except perhaps k) have undergone modification in nome respect, either by the correctiona introduced by scribes in early times, or by contamination with the Vulgate. Cyprian and k, so far aa they go, represent the African text of the Gospels in what appears to be a fairly pure form; e and m come next to them; A ia a good African authority in Acts and Apoc, and Priscillian, Tyconius, and Primasiua in the Epp. and Apoc. a and b are the leading representatives of theEuropean family in the Gospels, with the Latin version of Irenseus; in Acts, g and Lucifer. Of the Italian group, f is the moat pronounced, and haa been taken by Wordaworth and White aa the best representative of the OL text which Jerome had before him when he undertook hia reviaion of the Latin NT; next to / in thia character comes 9. The Latin texts in the bilingual MSS have to be used with caution, as tiiey show signs of assimilation to the Greek. The remaining MSS are either too fragmentary to be of much service, or too mixed in their text to be classified definitely with any family.

In general character, as already indicated, the OL version (especially in its earliest form) belongs to the same class of authorities as the Old Syriac and Codex Bezae, the class, namely, which is distinguished by rather striking divergences from both the TR and the text represented by BN. The character and claims of this type of text will be considered later; here it will be sufficient to point out the high antiquity which can be established for it through the OL (and still more through the consensus, so far as it exists, between OL and OS), and the great amount of divergence which exists between the several MSS which contain it. It is not possible, even approximately, to reconstruct the original OL text; it is even a matter of dispute whether it had one original or more. What is certain is that it underwent constant revision and alteration, and that the few and fragmentary MSS which have come down to us, and of which no two agree even approximately with one another, do but reiiect a state of textual confusion which was rampant in the Latin Bibles of the 4th century.

22. The Vulgate. — This state of contusion is described in emphatic terms by the great Latin Fathers of the 4th cent., Jerome (c. 34S-420) and Augustine (354-430), and it was to the former that the task fell of attempting to reduce the chaos to order. The credit of inspiring the work which was to become the Bible of the West for a thousand years is due to Pope Damasus (pope, 366-84). At his request, Jerome, the leading Biblical scholar of the day, who had devoted many years to the study of the Scriptures in the East in their original tongues, undertook, as he says in his preface to the NT, to ‘make a new work out of an old one’ by revising the existing Latin texts with reference to the original languages. He began with the Gospels, about the year 382; and at first his revision was on conservative lines. Where the existing text fairly represented the sense of the original, he let it stand, without enforcing complete accuracy; only where errors affected the sense did he feel bound to make alterations. The Greek manuscripts which he employed as his guides appear to have been similar in character to Bn. The revision of the Gospels was completed in 383; that of the Epistles followed, but was conducted more superficially than the previous work, partly, no doubt, because the divergences in the extant texts were less pronounced in these books. At about the same time he was commencing his work on the OT by a revision of the Psalter; but for the history of this see Text of the OT, 15 (7).

23. The later history of the Vulgate (as Jerome’s version eventually came to be called) is the subject of a separate article. Here it is only necessary to mention that the received text of it, which is found in all ordinary Latin Bibles, is that which was officially sanctioned by Pope Clement viii. in 1592; and that the one critical edition of it is that now being produced by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury and Prof. H. J. White, in which the Gospels and Acts have already been published (1889-1905). Their estimate of the principal MSS of the Vulgate is the necessary basis of the following description of a selection from among them:

A. CodexAmiatinus,in the Lauren tian Library at Florence, containing the whole Bible. Its history (which was only established in 1887) is unusually well known. It was written in the north of England, at Wearmouth or Jarrow, by order of Ceolf rid, abbot of these monasteries, early in the 8th cent., and was taken by him in 716 as a present to Pope Gregory. Ceolfrid died on the way, but hia companions completed the gift, and in Italy the MS has since remained; for some time it was at Monte Amiata, whence its name. Its text was probably derived from one or more MSS brought to England from Italy; and it is generally regarded as the best extant MS of the Vulgate.

C. Codex Cavensis, at La Cava, near Naples; 9th century. Contains the whole Bible, written in Spam, and is the best representative of the Spanish family of Vulgate MSS.

A. Codex DunelTnensis, in Durham Cathedral Library; 7th or 8th century. Contains the Gospels, with a text akin to that of A.

F. Codex Fuldensis, at Fulda in Germany; between 541 and 546. Written by order of Bishop Victor of Capua. Contains the whole NT, the Gospels being arranged in the same manner as in Tatian’s Diatessaron, on the basis of a copy of a Latin version of that work accidentally found by Bishop Victor.

H. Codex Huberiianits,a,nd®yCodex Theoduliianus, contain the edition of the Vulgate produced by Bishop Theodulf of Orleans, for which see art. Vulgate.

K. Codex KaroUnus, and V, Codex ValUcellianus^ similarly represent the edition of Alcuin. (See ib.)

O. Codex Oxoniensis, in the Bodleian (formerly at St. Augustine’s, Canterbury): 7th century. Contains the Gospels, in a text affected by Irish influences.

Q. Codex Kenanensis, the Book of Kells, at Trinity College, Dublin; prob. 8th century. Contains the Gospels, lavishly decorated in the Celtic style. Its text, naturally, is of the Irish type.

S. Codex Stonyhurstensis, at Stonyhurst College; 7th century. Coiitains Jn. alone, in a text akin to that of A> Formerly at Durham, and probably written in that neighbourhood.

V. See K, above.

Y. Codex Lindisfamensis, in the British Museum; contains the Gospels; written at the end of the 7th cent., in honour of St. Cuthbert (d. 687^, with beautiful Anglo-Celtic ornamentation. Some hturgical directions inserted in it show that it was copied from a MS written in Naples, no doubt one brought to England by Hadrian, abbot of a monastery near Naples, who came to England with Archbishop Theodore in 669. Closely akin in text to A.

Z. Codex Harleianus, in the British Museum; 6th, or 7th century. A well-written copy of a good text, but of a different family from A.

These are the principal MSS of the Vulgate in the Gospels . A, C, F, ®, K, T, V are also used by Wordsworth and White in the Acts. To them may be added —

G. Codex Sangermanensis, at Paris; 9th century. Contains the whole Bible, but is particularly good in Acts, so that Wordsworth and White state that their text agrees with it oftener than with any other MS.

O. Codex Oxoniensis, in the Bodleian Library; 8th century. Known as the ‘Selden Acts.’ The text is of the Irish type.

The MSS of the Pauline Epistles and Apocalypse have not yet been classified, but the MSS described above as containing the whole NT will no doubt re-appear among the principal authorities for these books also.

24. As indicated above, the Codex Amiatinus (A) is regarded aa the best MS of the Gospels, and with it go the other Northumbrian MSS, ASY, witn F in attendance. A second group of MSS, which, generally speaking, is of inferior merit, is headed by Z, and includes several MSS not described above. CT represent the Spanish type of text, which had an important mfluence on the history of the Vulgate, and Q the not less important Irish type. In Acts, Wordsworth and White give the first place to G, with CA and F in close attendance. These three last-named MSS represent different groups, the A group being generally preferable to the F group; out no one MS or group has a monopoly of merit. In general character, as stated above, the Vulgate tends to agree with the type of Greek text represented by Bn> It is clear that the Greek authorities which Jerome regarded as the most trustworthy were of this type; but since(in the NT_)his revision retained a considerable quantity of the OL version, which is largely of a different type, the result, as it now stands, is of a composite character. By reason of this composite character, and also of its relatively late date, the Vulgate is not of the same textual importance as OS or OL; nevertheless it is to be remembered that Jerome must have made use of Greek MSS at least as old as the oldest which we now possess. The historical importance of the Vulgate will be dealt with in a separate article.

Of the OL version the most comprehensive account is that given by H. A. A. Kennedy in Hastings’ DB. See also Burkitt, The Old Latin and the Itala (Cambridge, 1896), the prefaces by Wordsworth, Sanday, and White to their editions of Old Latin Biblical Texts (parts i.-iv., Oxford, 1883-97), and articl’es by Gebhardt (in PRE^, 1897J and Corssen (in Bursian’s Jahresbericht uber die Fortschntt der classischen Altertumswissenachaft, bd. 101, 1899). On the Vulgate see Westcott’s art. in Smith’s DB, White’s chapter in Scrivener’s Introduction, ed. 4 (which deals with both versions), and the prefaces to Wordsworth and White’s edition of the Vulgate, now in progress (Oxford, 1889 ff.).

C. Coptic Versions. —

25. Coptic is the literary form of the vernacular language of Egypt, the descendant of the ancient tongue which we know first in its hieroglyphic, and later in its demotic form, but differing from them in adopting the Greek alphabet, with the addition of certain letters to represent sounds not employed in Greek. Coptic is the outcome of the Greek settlement in Egypt, which took place under the empire of the Ptolemys and continued under that of Rome; and along with the Greek characters the native tongue adopted also a considerable number of Greek words. When this form of writing came into being is uncertain. It appears in a primitive form in a certain horoscope, now in the British Museum, the date of which is probably a.d. 95; and it is reasonable to suppose that it became established as a literary medium in the course of the 2nd century. It is quite possible that its growth was promoted by the need of its services in making the gospel known to native converts. Christianity was no doubt Introduced into Egypt even in Apostolic times, but it would have come in tiie first instance to the Jews of Alexandria and the Greek-speaking population generally. Even when it penetrated farther, and addressed the native population in its own tongue, its message would at first have been oral, and the earliest Coptic versions of the NT may well have been merely oral paraphrases, such as were the earliest Anglo-Saxon versions in our own country. The first mention of Coptic Scriptures occurs in the Life of St. Antony, who is said to have heard the Gospel read in church as a boy about a.d. 270; and since be was not acquainted with Greek, this must have been a Coptic version, whether oral or written. Early in the 4th cent, the monks of the order established by Paehomius were required by their rule to study the Scriptures; and this, at any rate, implies the existence of a written Coptic version. In the 3rd cent., therefore, at latest, and possibly by the end of the 2nd (since the Coptic versions unquestionably have some very early characteristics), a Coptic translation of the NT (except the Apocalypse) was in circulation.

26. The Egyptian language was not uniform throughout the country, but possessed various local dialects. Two of these are well marked, and possess a respectable quantity of literature, almost wholly theological. These are the Bohairic, or dialect of Lower Egypt, and the Sahidic, or dialect of Upper Egypt. The former derives its title (first conferred on it by Athanasius, bishop of Cos in Upper Egypt in the 11th cent.) from the Arabic name of a district near Alexandria, the latter from the Arabic name for Upper Egypt. Between the two lie several dialects collectively known as Middle Egyptian, with local varieties in the Fayyum, at Akhmim, and elsewhere, which certainly possessed a translation (or translations) of the Bible, but of which very little is known at present, for lack of materials.

27. The Sahidic Version (Sab., formerly Thebaic). — It was formerly held that the Bohairic version (Boh.) was the first in point of age, since it was the version of Lower Egypt, which would have been the first to receive Christianity; but Coptic scholars are now generally agreed that the order of precedence must be inverted. Lower Egypt was very largely Greek-speaking, and the language in which the Septuagint was already familiar would have been sufiicient for a considerable time. In Upper Egypt, though there were considerable Greek communities there also, and In the principal towns Greek must have been generally understood, the population as a whole must have been more Egyptian, and an Egyptian version of the NT would have been required there sooner than in the neighbourhood of Alexandria. The characteristics of the Sahidic version also suit this hypothesis of an earlier date. It is rougher and less literary in style than the Bohairic, and its text is of a very early type, akin in many details (though not as a whole) to the OL and OS; in the OT its text is in some books pre-Origenian. Unfortimately it is known to us only in fragments. It was ultimately superseded by Boh. and dropped out of use; and, with the exception of some small but complete volumes recently acquired by the British Museum, all that we now have of it are isolated leaves of vellum or papyrus which have been rescued from the buried towns and monasteries of Egypt. The Apocalypse is the only book of the NT that exists complete in a single MS, though some books approach completeness. But the number of extant fragments is large and increasing, and from these it will be possible soon to put together an almost continuous Sahidic NT. The earliest MSS appear to go back to the 5th cent., but none is of sufiicient size and importance to merit individual description. Some are bilingual, containing Greek and Sahidic texts in parallel columns; the most important of these has been described above (5 7) under the heading T.

28. The Bohairic Version. — This, which ultimately became the accepted Bible of the Coptic Church, is much better known than Sah., and Is preserved in a considerable number of MSS. The date of its origin, however, is quite uncertain. In favour of an early date is the fact that the Apocalypse was apparently not originally contained in it; this book seems to have been generally accepted after the end of the 3rd cent., but was regarded with some doubt before. In the OT, Boh. contains the insertions made by Origen, which implies a date not earlier than the latter part of the 3rd century. In general, the text represented by it is of the same character as that found in BJ<; and this again points to a date not substantially later than the first half of the 4th century. The cent, from A.D. 250 to 350 seems, therefore, the most probable period for its origin; though some writers (notably Guidi) think that Coptic Christianity (as distinct from Greek) did not develop in Lower Egypt until the middle of the 6th cent., and consequently that all Bohairic literature is subsequent to this date.

The Bohairic version follows the Greek very closely, being more faithful and less free than Sah.; hence it is trustworthy evidence of the readings of the Greek MSS from which it was made. These MSS, as indicated above, were of the same general character as B^, and especially B. Divergent readings of the type represented by OL and OS, which are found not infrequently in Sah.. are practically absent from Boh. The earliest Boh. MS of the Gospels is the Curzon Catena (an intermixture of text and commentary) in the Parham Library, which is dated a.d. 889; the oldest and best continuous MS of the Gospels is Huntington MS 17, in the Bodleian, dated 1174. Several others are of the 12th and 13th cents.; but none goes back to anything like the age of the fragments of Sah. Many of them have Arabic versions in the margins. An excellent edition of Boh. has recently been completed by the Rev. G. Horner (Oxford, 1898 and 1905), who is now engaged on Sah.

29. The Middle Egyptian Versions. — Of these very little is yet known, though ‘enough to establish their existence. Our knowledge rests upon a few fragments of vellum and papyrus which have come to light of late years, notably in the Fayyum, in the neighbourhood of Akhmim, and in that of Memphis. These differ in dialect from both Boh. and Sah., and also to some extent among themselves; but they are more akin to Sah. than to Boh. Also the NT text found in them differs from both Boh. and Sah.; and evidence has been found of the existence of more than one Middle Egyptian version. The largest NT fragment as yet extant is a 6th cent, palimpsest in the British Museum (Or. MS. 5707), containing parts of John 3 and 4 in Greek and Middle Egyptian, with a good text.

30. Other versions exist^Georgian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Persian, Gothic; but on these it is not necessary to dwell. The first two have been too little studied to be practically available, and the others are too late in origin, and too secondary, or even tertiary, in their character, to be of much use. The versions that are of first-rate importance are those that have been described above, — the Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions. Of these the Old Latin and Old Syriac take the first place, both on account of their age, and because they are the chief extant representatives of a very early and important type of text, as will be seen below. Next in textual importance are Sah. and Boh., which give us the evidence of Egypt, the country which has perhaps played the largest part in the history of the Greek Bible. Then follow the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, each just too late and too composite in character to be of first-rate importance as evidence of the primitive Greek text, but each the authorized Bible of a great Church. Finally, evidence of some value is to be obtained from the later Syriac and the Armenian versions.

See articles by Forbes Robinson in Hastings’ DB, and Burkitt in Encyc. Bibl. (s.u. ‘Text and Versions’); [G. Homer], The Coptic Version of the NT in the northern dialect (Oxford, 1898-190S) ; W. E. Crum, Catalogue of Coptic MSS in the British Museum (London, 1905); Hyvemat, ‘Etude aur les veraiona coptes de la Bible’ in RB 1896—97.

31 . Patristic Quotations. — The third class of evidence available for textual purposes is that which is derived from the quotations from the NT in the writings of the early Fathers. It we can be sure that a writer is quoting from a MS lying before him, then his quotation gives us the reading of a MS which in many cases must have been earlier than any which we now possess. Sometimes we can be fairly sure of this, as when the quotation occurs in a continuous commentary on a single book; or when the writer expressly emphasizes a certain reading as against other variants; or when he quotes the same passage several times in the same way. In other cases it is impossible to be certain that he is not quoting from memory; and this makes quotations from the Synoptic Gospels especially fallacious, since it is so easy to confuse the wordings of the different Evangelists. There is always the danger also that a copyist may have assimilated the wording of a quotation to the form with which he was himself familiar. Consequently evidence of this class, though highly valuable when its surroundings guarantee it from suspicion, has to be handled with great caution. In one respect Patristic quotations have a special value, because they can be both dated and placed. The dates of the earliest MSS and versions are uncertain, within half a century or more, while the date of any given Patristric work can generally be fixed within a few years. The advantage of being assignable to a certain country is one which Patristic quotations share with versions, but it is of great importance in fixing the origin and range of certain types of text. In both respects it will be found that the evidence of the Fathers is of great value in elucidating the textual history of the NT. It is impossible to treat the subject at length here, but the names and dates of some of the most important Fathers may be mentioned, and subsequent sections will show what sort of part they play in the operations of textual criticism.

32. The earliest Patristic writings, such as the Epistles of Clement, Barnabas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, and the ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas, contain very few quotations from the NT, and those few are inexact (see NT in Apost. Fathers [Oxf. Soc. of Hist. Theol.]). In the third quarter of the 2nd cent, we have the vnritings of Justin Martyr and Tatian, and we know something of the Gospel text used by the heretic Marcion. From about 180 onwards the evidence becomes much fuller. Irenaeus (whose principal work was written between 181 and 189) worked mainly at Lyons, though his home was in Asia Minor. Western texts are also represented by Tertullian (about 150-220), Cyprian (about 200-258), and Hippolytus (flourished about 220) ; the two former being African writers, and the last-named of Rome. In Egypt there are the two very important theologians, Clement of Alexandria (about 160-220) and Origen (185-253), and the two scholars who succeeded to the latter’s literary inheritance, and founded the library of Caesarea largely upon the basis of his works, Pamphilus (d. 309) and Eusebius (about 270-340). In Syria the most notable names are those of Aphraates (flourished about 340) and especially Ephraem (d. 378); in Asia Minor, Gregory Thaumaturgus (d. 265), Basil of Caesarea (329-79), Gregory of Nyssa (flor. about 370), and Gregory of Nazianzus (d. 389); in Palestine, Cyril of Jerusalem (bishop, 351-86), and especially Chrysostora (347-407). Returning to the West, the important writers, from a textual point of view as well as from others, are Hilary of Poitiers (bishop, 354^68), Lucifer of Cagliari (d. 371), Ambrose of Milan (bishop, 374-97), Tyconius (an African writer of the end of the 4th cent.), Priscillian (a Spaniard, d. 385) ; and, finally, the two great Fathers of the Western Church, Jerome (about 345-420) and Augustine (354-430). Later than the first quarter of the 5th cent, it is not necessary to go; for the settlement of the great issues in the textual history of the NT had taken place before this date.

A list of ecclesiastical writers and their principal works is given by Gregory ^Prolegomena and Textkritik). An index of Patristic quotations was compiled by Dean Burgon and is now in the British Museum, Critical texts of the Latin andGreek Fathers are beingissued under the direction of the Vienna and Berlin Academies respectively.

33. Such are the materials — MSS, Versions, Patristic Quotations — with which the textual critic has to deal; but it is only within comparatively recent years that his resources have become so extensive. Two centuries of diligent work were spent in the collection of the evidence of Greek MSS; the most important of all, the Codex Vaticanus (B), has become fully known only within the last forty years, and the next most important (X) was discovered only in 1859 and published in 1862. Of the two most important versions, the Old Syriac was wholly unknown before 1848, and quite inadequately known until 1894; while the Old Latin, though known and studied in the 18th cent, (when Sabatier published his Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae, Rheims, 1743), cannot be said to have been rightly understood and classified before the publications of several scholars who are still living. For many of the Fathers, we still are without editions which can be trusted with regard to their Scripture quotations. The textual criticism of the NT, as now understood, is consequently a science of comparatively modern growth. As was shown above (§ 1), the earliest editions of the Greek NT were in no sense critical texts. It is true that MSS were collated for them, but only such MSS as chanced to be easily at the disposal of the editor. No search was made for specially good or old MSS, and (except for a very slight use of Cod. Bezae by Stephanus) the TR was made and established before any of the great uncial MSS had been examined. This is the more remarkable because B was used as the main basis of the text which became the standard text of the Septuagint, that, namely, which was printed at Rome in 1587; but it chanced that no Roman edition of the NT was issued, and consequently the great Vatican MS was little knovra and less used until the 19th cent, was far advanced.

34. At stated in § 1, the TR of the NT took final shape in the editions of Stephanus in 1550 and the Elzevirs in 1624. It was not until after the latter date that the scientific collection of evidence began. The Codex Alexandrinus (A) was brought to England in 1627, and a collation of it (with D Th, and several minuscules) first appeared in the great Polyglot Bible edited by Brian Walton in 1657. Walton’s Polyglot (modelled, so far as its plan and scope were concerned, on the Antwerp Polyglot of 1571-72, and the Paris Polyglot of 1630-33, but greatly superior to both in its textual material) may be said to be the fountain-head of the textual criticism of the NT. It was followed during the next century and a half by a series of editions in which, while no attempt was made to modify the actual text, an increasing number of MSS was laid under contribution to supply materials for the apparatus criticus. The first of these was that of Dean Fell in 1675; the greatest was that of John Mill in 1707, which was remarkable not only for the number of Greek MSS quoted in it, but for its use of the versions, its collection (for the first time) of Patristic quotations, and its valuable prolegomena. In the 18th cent. Bentley (whose first appearance in the field of Biblical criticism was stimulated by Mill’s great work) made large collections for a new edition, but was unable to make use of them. J. J. Wetstein, a Swiss assistant of Bentley, produced in 1751-52 an edition in which our present notation of the MSS was first introduced; and the list was considerably extended by C. F. Matthsi (1782-88), F. K. Alter (1786-87), A. Birch (1788-1801), and, finally, J. M. A. Scholz (1830-36), with whom the first stage of NT textual criticism may be said to have come to a close.

35. During this first, and most necessary, stage of the collection of evidence, which extends from 1657 to 1830, little was done in the way of classifying the materials thus obtained, or laying down the principles upon which they should be employed and interpreted. There are, however, some notable exceptions. Mill, in his Prolegomena, discussed the true reading of many passages. J. A. Bengel, in 1734, divided the MSS and Versions into two families, which he called African and Asiatic, and asserted the superiority of the former, consisting of the few most ancient witnesses, over the latter, which included the great mass of later authorities. In this we find the germ of the principle of the classification of authorities, which is now the guiding principle of textual criticism, whether Biblical or classical. It was opposed by Wetstein, who anticipated the advocacy of the TR in our own time by Dean Burgon and others, maintaining that all the most ancient MSS had been contaminated from the Latin, and that only the later authorities were worthy of attention. J. S. Semler (1767) developed Bengel’s theory, making a triple classification of authorities, as Alexandrian, Eastern (i.e. Antiochian and Constantinopolitan), and Western; and this was elaborated by his pupil J. J. Griesbach (1774-75) , who adopted the same classification, but carried much further the assignment of the then extant MSS and Versions to their several classes. Both in his classification and in his estimate of the characteristics of the various families Griesbach went far to anticipate the theory of Westcott and Hort, which is the foundation of contemporary criticism.

36. None of the scholars hitherto named, however, put his principles to the test by producing a reformed Greek text of the NT. This step, which marked the opening of a new era in textual criticism, was taken in 1831 by K. Lachmann, a distinguished classical scholar, who, like Bentley before him, but with greater success, resolved to apply to the text of the NT the principles which were admitted as sound in the case of the Greek and Latin classics. This method consisted of selecting some of the oldest authorities (MSS, Versions, and Fathers), and forming his text solely from them, while ignoring the great mass of later witnesses. In putting faith mainly in the most ancient witnesses, in spite of their numerical inferiority, Lachmann only did what every editor of a classical text would do; but he departed from sound principle, first, by absolutely ignoring all evidence outside his selected group; and, secondly, by adopting in all cases the reading given by the majority of his selected authorities, without regard to the internal probabilities of the various readings, or applying any of the tests which textual science provides for discriminating between alternatives the external evidence for which is approximately equal. Moreover, the knowledge of the earlier authorities at Lachmann’s disposal was by no means so complete as that which we have at the present day. For these reasons Lachmann’s text could not long hold its ground precisely as it stood; nevertheless it did very great service in ‘breaking the monopoly of the TR, and in preparing the way for furthe^ progress.

37. The next stage in this progress is marked by the names of Constantine Tischendorf and S. P. Tregelles. As the discoverer of the Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf achieved the most sensational success in textual history; but he also did admirable service by his collation of almost all the uncial MSS of any importance (except that he was allowed only very limited access to B), and his collection of evidence in his successive editions of the NT (culminating in the 8th, published in 1869-72) remain? the fullest apparatus criiicus to the present day. His own printed text of the NT fluctuated considerably from one edition to another, and his Judgment between various readings was hardly equal to his industry in collecting them; still in the main he followed the best authorities, and his edition remains one of the principal examples of a text constructed on critical lines. The ■prolegomena to his 8th edition was compiled after his death by Dr. C. R. Gregory, and is a perfect storehouse of bibliographical information; in its latest form (published as an independent work, in German, under the title of Textkritik des neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1900) it is the standard book of reference on the subject.

38. Tischendorf’s industry as a collator was rivalled by that of his English contemporary, Tregelles, who collated all the extant uncial MSS and some of the chief minuscules, so that his results serve to check and test those of Tischendorf. In his text (published in 1867-72) he confined himself almost wholly to the uncials, with the Versions and Fathers, completely ignoring the TR. In fact, he followed very much the same principles as Tischendorf, and his edition is serviceable chiefly as a means of testingTischendorf’s judgment, and of showing how far two scholars, working independently on the same evidence, arrive at the same results. Unfortunately his text of the Gospels was published before the discovery of H, and his knowledge of B was even less than that of Tischendorf.

39. The evidence accumulated by Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, aided by the public interest excited by such discoveries as those of the Codex Sinaiticus and the Curetonian Syriac, produced a general sense of dissatisfaction with the TR, and in England led to an increasing desire for a revision of the AV in the light of modern knowledge, culminating in 1870 in the appointment of the Committees which produced the RV (for which see art. English Versions, §§ 36-37). Meanwhile two English scholars were at work on the text of the NT, whose results were destined not only to affect very greatly the revision of the English Bible, but also to lay the foundations of all the textual work of the succeeding generation, and whose influence remains paramount to this day. These were B. F. Westcott (afterwards Bishop of Durham) and F. J. A. Hort. Their joint work began as far back as 1853, when they were colleagues at Cambridge; and it bore fruit in 1881, when their text of the NT appeared on May 12th (five days before the publication of the RV of the NT), and the Introduction, embodying the principles upon which their text was based, in the following September. This volume (written by Hort, but representing the views of both scholars) is the text-book of modern textual criticism as applied to the Greek Bible.