Criticism on the Text of the New Testament.*

Reviews

Bible Treasury, 2nd Edition, Volume 1, November 1857.

(1st. Edition, November [01 279])

* 1. A Course of developed Criticism on passages of the New Testament, materially affected by various readings. By the Rev. Thomas Sheldon Green M.A., etc. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons.

2. A Supplement to the Authorised English Version of the New Testament. By the Rev. F.H. Scrivener, M.A. Vol. 1. London: William Pickering.

(1) [01 1857 275]

As reference to the chief MSS. and editors of the Greek Testament may be frequent in this and other papers, it seems desirable to give a brief sketch for the sake of those readers who are not versed in such matters. The first printed Greek Testament was that contained in the Complutensian Polyglott. It was completed, it seems, about the beginning of the year 1514; but difficulties occurred to delay its publication till (after the death of its patron, and at least nominal editor, Cardinal Ximenes in 1517) Pope Leo X. formally sanctioned its issue in 1520. Previously to its publication the celebrated Erasmus brought out his first edition in 1516. There can be little doubt that the less costly volume of the Rotterdam scholar contained a text founded on fewer and inferior MSS. and drawn up with censurable haste, when one considers that the word of God was in question. Indeed, Erasmus himself was sensible of the imperfections of the work, though it was not till 1527 that he availed himself of the help afforded by the Complutensian Bible. The MSS. examined by Erasmus remain for the most part at Bâle, where his first edition was printed; those which were used by the Complutensian editors are supposed to be chiefly at Alcala and Madrid. The last edition of Erasmus bears the date, we believe, of 1535, and this, with extremely few changes, was what R. Stephens adhered to in his third edition (1550), though he also collated, to a certain extent, some MSS. in the Royal Library of Paris, etc. A little later Beza published some five editions, which follow Stephens' very closely. In 1624 appeared the first of the Elzevir editions, and in 1633 their second was published, which presumed to give the "Textus ab omnibus receptus," as they styled it.

In England, Bishops Walton (London Polyglott, 1657) and Fell (twenty years later) made some considerable collations of various readings; but there they stopped. It was in 1707 that Dr. John Mill published his edition, which, like the Elzevir, professed to adopt the text of Stephens' third edition; but at the same time furnished about 30,000 various readings, with notes expressive of his judgement on the more important of them. Kuster's reprint, three years afterwards, furnished additions from a dozen new MSS.

The excellent J.A. Bengel took the first step in 1734 of editing the Greek Testament, or rather the Revelation, according to the best authorities then known. For it is remarkable that even J.J. Wetstein, in his celebrated edition of 1751-2, did not venture to depart from the "Textus Receptus," but set the readings which he thought genuine immediately below the text. His two large volumes are not less remarkable for the mass of MSS., in general carefully collated, than for its copious Greek and Hebrew quotations in illustration of the sentiments, phrases, words, etc. In 1782-8, C.F. Matthæi published his Greek Testament in 12 vols., 8vo., with readings from more than thirty previously uncollated Moscow MSS. But two of these manuscripts contained all the New Testament, and almost all belonged to what is known as the Byzantine family. Nearly about the same time Alter published his text, chiefly from a Vienna MS., with a valuable comparison of some manuscript copies of the Coptic, Sclavonic, and Latin versions. Birch soon followed, first with an edition of the gospels in 1788, and afterwards with a collection of various readings of the rest of the New Testament, collated with great care throughout the best libraries of Italy, Austria, Spain, and Denmark.

Even before Matthæi, Alter, and Birch, Griesbach's first edition had appeared (1775-7); but it is the second (1796-1806) which has given that editor so high a place among the critics of the New Testament. He has spared no pains, and neglected no document which was accessible to him. In acumen, too, he was nearly unrivalled.

Dr. M.A. Scholz * was the next editor of importance. He published, in 1830-6, an edition which assumes that the common Constantinopolitan text, met with in the vast majority of more modern copies, is purer than that of the more ancient Alexandrine class to which Griesbach had given (cæteris paribus) a decided preference.

* "If the value of a production is to be estimated by the amount of labour which has been spent upon it, Wetstein alone [?] can enter into competition with this Roman divine. For twelve years he was engaged in searching the chief libraries of the continent in quest of manuscripts of the New Testament and its principal versions. He has even extended his travels to the Archipelago and the Greek monasteries of St. Saba, near Jerusalem. By these means he has nearly doubled the list of MSS. of the Greek Testament named by Griesbach and his predecessors. To the 674 MSS. which had been collated or referred to by others, Scholz has added no less than 607, which he enjoys the honour of first making known to the world. It must not, however, be supposed that any large portion of them has been carefully examined by this indefatigable editor; we ought rather to wonder that a private individual could do so much, than to murmur at the slight and cursory manner in which the great bulk of his documents has been inspected. The following table will convey some notion both of what Scholz has effected in this matter, and of what he has been compelled to leave undone.

. … In truth, so far is his edition from realising his confident boast … that it has rendered further investigation on a large scale more indispensable than ever." — Scrivener, pp. 16-19.

In 1831 appeared the first edition of C. Lachmann, a mere manual, without a statement of his principles or his authorities. But the omission has been repaired in his larger edition of 1842-1850. He professes to fill up the plan projected by the famous Dr. Bentley. But we are convinced that, in the two main characteristics of his system of recension, he is rather an antagonist than a disciple. The one is an utter rejection of internal evidence, on the plea that to introduce that element in judging of conflicting readings is rather to interpret than to edit. The other is a slavish and exclusive adhesion to witnesses (MSS., versions, and fathers) before the fifth century. Of course, it is not contended that the internal evidence should be abused to set aside the clear and consentient testimony of external vouchers; but surely it is a most important veto, in the rare instances where a manifest error has very ancient support, as it is an extremely effective casting-vote, where there may seem to be a pretty even balance of outward evidences. And so far was the learned and penetrating Master of Trinity from a mechanical copying of one or two old MSS., that he himself somewhere explicitly states the value of the more modern and even comparatively faulty copies in correcting the occasional slips of the most ancient and the best MSS.

Prof. Tischendorf is the last great editor, whose labours need be noticed. His first edition appeared at Leipsic in 1841; the second, of Leipsic, in 1849, a marked advance on its predecessor, not more in accuracy and fullness of research, than in moderation. In his seventh edition, which is now in course of publication, he has the moral courage and candour to correct many of his immature innovations, and to restore a multitude of ordinarily received readings which his earlier criticism had rashly disturbed. If we can say little in commendation of his first issues at Leipsic and Paris, we may add with truth that his invaluable reprints of some of the best uncial MSS., his laborious and successful collations of the weightiest documents of various sorts and languages throughout the old world, and his generally accurate, prompt, and able application of all to the establishment of the Greek text in as pure a form as possible, and carrying its own proofs in the subjoined authorities, have laid Christian students under deep obligations to him. Indeed, he furnishes in his foot-notes the means, for those who are more jealous for God's word and more cautious in judgement than himself, to set aside the conclusions arrived at in his text.

But it is high time to leave others, and to say a few words upon the works before us. Mr. Green has proved himself, in former labours, to be learned and sensible, even where one is not convinced by his reasons. Of his "Developed Criticism," we cannot speak in the same strong terms of praise as were due to his "Treatise on the Grammar of the New Testament." The tendency appears to grow in him, as in others, to give an overwhelming preponderance to a very few hoary-headed witnesses. Let him remember that the most acute and experienced of the continental living critics is retracing many a hasty step taken in younger days. In this respect, there is a wholesome wariness in Mr. Scrivener's "Notes," published some years back, though we think that he pushes his maintenance of the common text to excess. For it is well to bear in mind that to accredit received readings, if not scripture, is dangerous, no less than to reject those which really are scripture because of a deficiency in the known extant evidence. It cannot be doubted that there are in the common Greek text intrusions from the hand of man, which must be judged if we would enjoy as we ought the perfect word of God. For the value of that word is the measure of the value of a text as immaculate as can be procured and ascertained. Details we may take up another time, if the Lord will.

(2)

2nd Edition, Volume 1, December 1857.

(1st. Edition, December 1857 [01:295])

[01:291]

Our object, in the present paper, is to give such a sample as our narrow limits may permit, of some remarkable changes which it has been proposed to make in the common text of the Greek Testament. For though God, in His providence, has not failed to watch over His word, yet was it entrusted to the responsibility of man, who has broken down here, as everywhere else. Man has not known how to keep the holy deposit as became him. There were accidental slips of the copyists, as even yet there are, spite of extreme care, not a few errors of the press. Words, clauses, sentences might be, and often were, omitted by oversight. Interchanges of words that bore some resemblance occurred now and then. Then, again, it was not uncommon for marginal notes, originally meant as explanations, etc., to creep into the text through the ignorance or negligence of some after-scribe. Finally, it can hardly be doubted that there are traces of intentional tampering with the copies, occasionally in the way of wholly unfounded additions; more frequently attempts at correcting terms and expressions, grammatical or other supposed errors; and, last of all, assimilations of scripture statements, as, for instance, in the corresponding parts of the four gospels. To these and other kindred causes are due the various readings of the ancient MSS. Numerous as they are, they are not out of proportion to the vast body of the copies.

But the task of correcting the Greek vulgate (i.e., of settling, in each particular case, what were the precise words of the Spirit) is one of no ordinary delicacy. And to us the matter for marvel (we must add, for deep thankfulness) has been the comparative purity, and, indeed, the substantial excellence, of that very "Textus Rec." which it has been of late so much the fashion to despise. It is fully allowed that there are faults in it which not only older and better MSS., but a more careful examination of the then extant documents, might have corrected. Nevertheless, we gravely question whether the critical results of Lachmann, and Tischendorf in his early editions, are preferable on the whole. Sure we are that, in very many instances of serious moment, their latest products are not so trustworthy as yet. For, while the editions of the sixteenth century were formed on insufficient data and were slovenly as to details; the meddling criticism of our own age has made frequent and fearful inroads on the true text. The carelessness of the one and the self-complacent confidence of the other injures to an amount which, if it be not equal in number and weight, is at least highly discreditable to our era with all its boasted appliances.

This is strong language, but it is hardly so stern a condemnation, we submit, as strict righteousness would demand. The reader must be content with a few sheaves out of an abundant harvest. Every Christian is familiar with the parable of the two sons in Matt. 20:28-31, and with the striking picture their respective conduct afforded — the one who promised ill but afterwards repented, of the despised people who turned from their sins to John the Baptist; and the other of the fair-spoken religious leaders who were willing for a season to rejoice in his light, but soon rejected him and the truth to which he witnessed. Nothing can be clearer than the language of our Lord and its drift. The first son was openly evil and refused his father's will, but afterwards he repents himself and goes as he was commanded. The other answers well and nothing more. Can there be a doubt which of the two did the will of his father? It was "the first;" and such is the testimony of eleven old uncial MSS., the mass of the cursives, and some of the best ancient versions, eastern and western; yet, sad to say, Lachmann and Tischendorf, followed, we believe, by their English imitators, Alford and Tregelles, have boldly made the people give the absurd answer, "The last"! Now this is against the very evidence which themselves adduce. For the Vatican MS. (B) is the sole Greek witness of importance (if not, in fact, the only witness) which gives ho hysteros (4 exhibiting deuteros, and 13, 69, ho eschatos, supported by some versions and fathers). But then it is most unfair to base the proposed change upon this authority; because in the Vatican MS. and its reflectors, the answers of the two sons stand in inverted order; so that in effect the sense is the same as that of the common text. The Cambridge Codex Bezæ (D) has the unenviable distinction among the uncials of reading ho aischatos (= ho eschatos) while it retains the usual order. Manifestly, then, these critics have slipped into the false position of rejecting the overwhelming majority of the best authorities, and of furnishing, as the real text of the evangelist, that which is the reading of not one uncial MS. in existence, for it is neither the order of B nor the text of D; and this in spite of strong and unambiguous internal reasons which fix the right word, and in opposition to their own professed and almost mechanical attachment to the ancient external evidence! It is but fair to observe that Dr. Tischendorf has long abandoned this with many burlesques (as we must call them) on scripture — the more wretched because accompanied by a vast deal of ill-founded pretension to accuracy. But the lesson of the Leipsic Professor seems to have been lost on Mr. Green, who weaves an elaborate cobweb (pp. 23-26) round this plain question. He appears to lean towards eschatos, a term stronger than hysteros, and he explains it, after a mode unprecedentedly far-fetched, as = protos! He takes the second son's answer as the language of a sincerity (!) inconsiderate and fruitless; and in that case, the first son was in the rear of the other, for he had not advanced as far as well-meant profession!! He might as well argue that white = black. Happily, however, such a vagary as this was destined to the ephemeral existence it deserved, if it could be said to deserve existence at all. In a revised or new version of Matthew, which Mr. G. has published since his "Developed Criticism," he has wisely returned to the king's highroad from the bye-path of a crotchety reading and a still more crotchety explanation.

But such uncertainty of sound, painful as it is, is less painful than the dishonour done to the entire closing section of St. Mark. Lachmann, usually presumptuous, did not dare even to bracket a concluding scene worthy of and inseparable from the gospel to which it belongs. Alas! Mr. Green is not afraid to sum up his judgement in these words:— "Thus does the hypothesis of very early interpolation satisfy the body of facts in evidence" (p. 53). Nor is Mr. G. alone. Not to speak of foreigners, Mr. Alford and Dr. Tregelles will have it that the veritable Mark ends with ephobounto gar, the rest being authentic, but not Mark's. Now we agree with Mr. G.'s admission, that "it cannot be imagined that the evangelist formally brought his narrative to a close at the end of the eighth verse," save only remarking that this is just what Mr. A. and Dr. Tregelles seem to have "imagined." But what does Mr. G. "imagine?" As bad, we fear. Does Mr. G. conceive that the inspired conclusion of St. Mark is lost? or that the surviving sections were inspired and so preserved, and the close of the same evangelist not inspired and so lost? Does Mr. G. fancy that Mark never finished his brief gospel, but left a most important part to be added by another and unknown hand? To what a land of shadows and morass these gentlemen invite us, with the vain inducement of new light! Their inconsistency, too, is as egregious as their doctrine is deplorable. Thus Mr. Alford admits that the authority of Mark 16:9-20, is hardly to be doubted, and withal maintains that it is irreconcilable with the other gospels, as well as disconnected with what goes before. Singular marks, they would seem to us, of authentic scripture! But they are no difficulty to the Dean of C., who holds that the occurrence of demonstrable mistakes in the gospels (as in the Acts of the Apostles) "does not in any way affect the inspiration or the veracity of the evangelists." Assuredly, that cannot be inspired of God wherein Mr. A. can point out demonstrable error.

But we must have done with this shameless Anglo-Germanism, and have only to add that the external evidence is decidedly in favour of this disputed passage. Is the omission of B and of some copies of the Armenian and Arabic versions with a single Latin MS. — is the silence of the Eusebian and Ammonian sections, with the marks in L, etc., to overthrow the vast mass of positive testimony? It seems probable that much of this, if not all, may be accounted for by the difficulty found in harmonising the passage with others; and so the knot was cut, instead of leaving it as it was for the Lord to untie by more patient hands. As to the alleged internal difficulties, we have examined them with care, and believe that the characteristics of the passage confirm and require its reception.

Another notable piece of recent editorship appears in Luke 14:5. The common and true reading, onos, (ass,) has good ancient support, but undoubtedly huios has far more valuable extant MSS in its favour. It will hardly be credited by the uncritical reader that Scholz, Lachmann, Tischendorf, with an admiring herd, have renounced not only spirituality but even common sense, and have consecrated the obvious blunder of these early copies. They represent our Lord as saying, "Which of you shall have a son or an ox," etc. But this, as Mr. G. remarks, quite destroys the reasoning a fortiori — nay, throws the stress on the wrong side of the argument. And why, then, does not Mr. G. deal summarily with such a monster of criticism?

As to the next passages which we refer to, Luke 22:43-44, and Luke 23:34, Mr. Green, we regret to say, seems to be more sceptical than Tischendorf, who prints them without hesitation. The Christian has only to refer to his Bible in order to feel what is endangered.

It will suffice to give two specimens from the fourth gospel.

John 5:3-4, is the first considerable passage which has been improperly disturbed; and here, as in Mark 16, it is remarkable that the incredulous Lachmann rises up to condemn Tischendorf and Mr. Green. These last omit from ekdechomenon to nosemati, because of its absence, wholly or in part, in three or four first rate MSS. (pr.m.) some other authorities and suspicious circumstances confirming this. Now, to a simple mind, we think that the words of the impotent man, verse 7, decide the question in favour of the corrected A, C, and of D, E, F, G, H, K, (L in part) M, S, U, delta, etc. They are grounded on the obnoxious statement relative to the troubling of the water, and are hardly intelligible without it. But when men get habituated to the textual manipulation of Germany, the most palpable gaps are turned into an evidence of genuineness, and the omitted words are viewed with the suspicion of being marginal glosses.

Still more blameable appears to us Mr. Green's dealing with John 8, following Lachmann, Tischendorf, Alford, and Tregelles. We frankly admit that the passage is wanting in a good many of the best MSS. It is contained, with some variations, in many uncials, and the mass of cursives; it has respectable testimony from versions of nearly every quarter, and from fathers. But it does seem extraordinary that Mr. G. should omit to give the weighty words of Augustine (De conj. Adult. ii.), not so much because they positively attest the presence of this portion in the copies of his time, but more because he gives the clear, simple, and satisfactory key to the shiftings of place, the fluctuations of shape, the stigma of distrust, and the non-recognition in Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, and many more, where a notice might have been looked for. Enmity to the true faith, according to Augustine, was the cause of its retrenchment. Some unwilling to go so far, would insert it with marks of doubt; others might hide it elsewhere, or more boldly leave a blank; which of itself intimates that its existence was known, but that for some reason it was omitted by those who little appreciated the glory of Christ, or the perfectness and the authority of His word. To say that "the genuineness of the passage cannot be maintained" is the conclusion of Mr. G.! Some of these editors allow it to be true and inspired, but not St. John's: evidently a mere halfway towards discarding it altogether. It could be easily shown, were this the place, that the narrative bears the indelible marks of that disciple's style, and of the design which the Holy Ghost has imprinted on his gospel and on no other book.

With these unfavourable instances of Mr. G. we must close. They will serve to show, in some measure, why we think his "Developed Criticism" superficial and unworthy of unreserved confidence. Other opportunities may offer of referring to many places in the common text where he has succeeded. They are chiefly verbal corrections, and are nowhere perhaps, so numerous and happy as in the Acts of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 1:25; Acts 3:20; Acts 4:27; Acts 6:8; Acts 8:10, 27; Acts 9:5-6; Acts 10:6; Acts 11:20; Acts 13:18; Acts 15:17-18, 33; Acts 16:7; Acts 18:5; Acts 23:9; and Acts 24:18, if not 6, 7, 8). In the Epistles, we think he is often rash and mistaken. Only four passages in the Apocalypse are discussed briefly but with judgement.