TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

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 ot 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 Prole-gomena, 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 classifica-tion 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 classifica-tion 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 ot 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 con-siderably 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 service-able chiefly as a means of testingTischendorf's judgment, and of showing how far two scholars, working inde-pendently 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, Tisch-endorf, 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 aU 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 prin-ciples upon which their text was based, in the following September. This volume (written by Hort, but repre-senting the views of both scholars) is the text-book of modern textual criticism as applied to the Greek Bible.

40. The principles of WH are an extension of those of Semler and Griesbach, as described above (§ 35), and rest upon a classification of our authorities into families, and a discrimination between the merits of these famUies. It is in the Gospels and Acts that the textual phenomena are most plainly marked, and it is to them that the characteristics to be described apply most fully; but they are likewise true, in a lesser degree, of the other books ot the NT. If the apparatus criticus of the Gospels be studied, it will be found that certain MSS and Versions tend to agree with one another, and to form groups distinguishable from other groups. Four such groups are in fact distinguished by WH, as follows; the reasons for the names assigned to them will appear shortly, (a) The Syrian famUy, often headed in the Gospels by the manuscripts A and C, but more fully and characteristically represented by the later uncials, such as EFKMS, etc., and by the great mass of the minuscules, by the Peshitta version, and by most of the Fathers from Chrysostom downwards; from this tamUy, in its fully developed form, is descended the TR. (^) The Neutral family, of which the main representative is B, often supported by ^, by LRTZ, by the minuscule

925