Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

mulamin atti I R mëpritur

karlmam melioza. Coadbaceme Mentaczem tem uobis demonftid.8tlings quês qui Wamim laquarrangelog antar até mudador

ñ hêam:fts samuti e fonamfatto am automa wlum annens-aft huo mphiuminote, (tunt una tem milha omnia romnan ammatt ha tan dtfta Vreto am fiam ira uomonds stñsfetam facto!

cartout au nhâam:il ium.ff diftet A intette bttad in abos paupm.omnes frautransme fead willen

Afi muadtrew cozpus metinta itu antam farmonien carnate autéñihuo:n un part. Cartas para auminai en eltbenigna eb. Carical neulatur generatin

ti aga peram. inflamurietanbratofa fine route & quierte que fila funw.ron nitiatiño aetat lata

gerar malium. fi gaudet Timiquitate.con- Mits. Stea Fig. 7.—13th Century Latin Bible. (From copy belonging

to Robert de Bello, abbot of St. Augustine's, Canterbury. British Museum.)

[merged small][graphic]
[graphic]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to Thomas of Woodstock, duke of Gloucester, writes towards the end of 14th century. British Museus.)

The fyfth Chapter. ihm he sawr the prople, he

ilinguis hoim loĝrıāgreorī:

caritati aüt no habeã:fad, sum welut es lonád aut ambalū tinnitus, Et fi haburto pheriā- 7 nouetī misteri Ja oia et omnē laittā zhabueco omnē fidé ita ut mötes trāllera-caritatê aūt nõhaburto: nichillum. £t fi diftribu tro i abos paupetū omes facultates meas. Ta xadidero corpo meū ita ut ardrā:caritate aūt no babutto:nichil michi pdett. Laritas paties elt: betu

dent vp into a mountainc/and iron be wis lett! brs disciples canı unto him/ and be opened bis

Umnoutb andranghethem faringe: Elcfied are ibe povuc inp:crc:foz thersis the Fyngdom of beven. Elased arcther that mourne:fo:tbeys halbe comforted. Blcfied are the meke:fo: therīball in beret *tbeertbc.Elefies are bei which hüger and thursi forrigbterrenco: fo:thotshalbefels kd.Blisted are the mercefull:fo:thcy Ibatt obecene mercr.

Blessed are the pure in bert:for tbcy (ball se god. Elof: fed are the maynteyners of peace: for cher (baibe catid the dyldeen of god. Blessed aretbex whid fuffre persecucko fo:righrevence rate: fo:thers istbc tyngdom ofberen. Bletledare ycwbê mensbalfrevile you and perfecute pea: and shal falsly rare all manner of cole sisingi agarnft seu, formefaki.ciosce ad begladde/fo:greate is youre rewar: Fig. 10.-Tyndale's Quarto Edition of New Testament.

(Printed by P. Quente, Cologne, 1525, from the only remaining fragment, in British Museum.)

Fig. 9.—The 42-Line Bible. (Printed at Muinz, 1452-6.

British Museum.)

B Though piophecienges fayle, or tunges

ceafs, or knowlege per she, yet lone falleth neuer awaye. Soz care Enon lege is onparfecte,and ourc prophecienge is vnparfecte. But n bätbar wbichis perfecte, commeth, then the unparfecte be done awaye. Whan I was a dyilde, I ipake as a childe, Jonderstode as a chiloe, J ymagined as a childe.But as soone as I was a man, I put awaye childishnes. 17ow we re choiow a glasse in a darke speakynge,but thé halwe le face to face.r7ow jenowe onperfectly: but the mal knowe cue as Jamenowne. 17o.v abybeth fath, bope, loue,chese thre: but the greatest of these is louc.

The XI. Chapter. Fig. 11.-first printed English Bible, 1535. British

Museum)

[graphic]

CHAP. XII.
Allgiftes, 2. 3 how excellent foeuer,are no-
thing worth without charitie. 4 The praises
thero ,and 13 prelation before hope & faith.

hough I speake with the
tongues of men of An-
gels and hane not charity,
Jam become as founding

balle oz a tinkling cymbal 2 And though I have the gift of prophesie,and vnderstand all myfterics and all kuolledge: and though 9 haue all faith, so that could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, F Fig. 12.-First Edition of the Authorized Version, 16li.

(British Museum.)

ii. 4.)

by T. K. Abbott, A Collation of Four Important MSS. of the Gospels, on the "Old Latin Version," in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible. (Dublin, 1877). It is best discussed by Rendel Harris's books, For the textual character and importance of these versions see the The Origin of the Leicester Codex (1887). The Origin of the Ferrar section Textual Criticism below.) Group (1893), and The Ferra, Group (1900), all published at Cam. 2. The Vulgate or Hieronymian version. To remedy the con. bridge; the text of jam. with a discussion of its textual relations fusion produced by the variations of the Latin text Pope Damasus is given in K. Lake's “ Codex I and its Allies (Texts and Studies, asked Jerome to undertake a revision, and the latter vii. 3, 1902): 565 was edited by J. Belsheim in Das Evang. des published a new text of the New Testament in A.D. 384.

Vulgate. Alarcus nach d. greck. Cod. Theodorae, &c. (Christiania, 1885), many and the rest of the Bible probably within two years. This version corrections to which are published in the appendix to H. S. Cronin's gradually became accepted as the standard text, and after a time * Codex Purpureus," Texts and Studies, v. 4: 700 was published was called the “ Vulgata," the first to use this name as a title being, by H. C. Hoskier in his collation of cod. Evan. 604, London, 1890; it is said, Roger Bacon. In the Old Testament Jerome made a a 78 is edited by E. von der Goltz in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.F. new translation directly from the Hebrew, as the Old Latin was

based on the LXX., but in the Testament he revised the existing

version. He did this fully and carefully in the gospels, but some(B) The Versions. These are generally divided into (a) what superficially in the epistles. He seems to have taken as the primary and (B) secondary; the former being those which basis of his work the European version as it existed in his time, represent translation made at an early period directly from perhaps best represented by cod. Monacensis (9) of the 7th century Greek originals, and the latter being those which were made of the 6th century would be added if it were not probable that it is

and by the quotations in Ambrosia ster, to which cod. Brixianus (1) either from other versions or from late and unimportant Greck mcrcly a Vulgate MS. with intrusive clements. This type of text texts.

he revised with the help of Greek MSS. of a type which does not

seem to correspond exactly to any now extant, but to resemble (a) The primary versions are three--Latin, Syriac and Egyptian. B more closely than any others.

Latin Versions.-1. The Old Latin. According to Jerome's of Jerome's revision we possess at least 8000 MSS., of which the letter to Pope Damasus in A.D. 384, there was in the 4th century earliest may be divided in the gospels at all events) into groups Old Latio. a great variety of text in the Latin version, Tot enim connected with various countries; the most important are the

exemplaria pene quoi codices.' This verdict is confirmed Northumbrian, Irish, Anglo-Irish and Spanish, but the first named by examination of the MSS. which have pre-Hieronymian texts. might also be called the Italian, as it represents the text of good It is customary to quote these by small letters of the Latin MSS. brought from Italy in the 7th century and copied in the great alphabet, but there is a regrettable absence of unanimity in schools of Wearmouth and Jarrow. One of the most imp ant, the details of the notation. We can distinguish two main types, cod. Amiatinus, was copied in this way in the time of Ccollrid, African and European, The African version is best represented Benedict Biscop's successor, as a present for Pope Gregory in 716. in the gospels by cod. Bobiensis (k) of the 5th (some say 6th) century From these MSS. the origina! Hieronymian text may be reconat Turin, and cod. Palatinus (e) of the 5th century ai Vienna, both structed with considerable certainty. The later history of the version of which are imperfect, especially k, which, however, is far the is complicated, but fairly well known. The text soon began to superior in quality; in the Acts and Catholic epistles by cod. deteriorate by admixture with the Old Latin, as well from the process Floriacensis ((, h. or reg.) of the 6th century, a palimpsest which once of transcription, and several attempts at a revision were made before belonged to the monks of Fleury, and by the so-called speculum (m) the invention of printing. Of these the earliest of note were underor collection of quotations formerly attributed to Augustine but taken in France in the 9th century by Alcuin in 801, and almost at probably connected with Spain. This scanty

evidence is dated and the same time by. Theodulf, bishop of Orleans (787-821). In the localized as African by the quotations of Cyprian, of Augustine 19th century a similar task was undertaken by Lanfranc, arch(not from the gospels), and of Primasius, bishop of Hadrumetum bishop of Canterbury (1069-1089); in the 12th century by Stephen d. c. 560), from the Apocalypse. It is still a disputed point whether Harding (1109), third abbót of Citeaux, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Tertullian's quotations may be regarded as evidence for a Latin Maniacoria (1250), whose corrected Bible is preserved in the public version or as independent translations from the Greek, nor is it library at Dijon. But these were not successful, and in the 13th certain that this version is African in an exclusive sense; it was century, instead of revisions, attempts were made to fix the text by undoubtedly used in Africa and there is no evidence that it was providing correctorio, or lists of correct readings, which were the known elsewhere originally, but on the other hand there is no proof equivalent of critical editions; of these the chief are the Parisian, that it was not. The European version is best represented in the the Dominican (prepared under Hugo de S. Caro about 1240), and gospels by cod. Vercellensis (a) of the 5th century and cod. Vero- the Vatican. In the 15th century the history of the printed Vulgates nensis (b) of the same date (the latter being the better), and by others begins. The carliest is the Mentz edition of 1452-1456 (the Mazarin of less importance. It is possible that a later variety of it is found or 42-line" Bible), but the carliest of a critical nature were those in cod. Monacensis (q) of the 7th century, and cod. Brixianus (1) of Robert Etienne in 1528 and 1538-1540. In 1546 the council of the 6th century, and this used to be called the Italic version of Trent decided that the Vulgate should be held as authentica, and owing (as F. C. Burkitt has shown) to a misunderstanding of a in 1590 Pope Sixtus V. published a new and authoritative edition, remark of Augustine about the “ Itala " which really refers to the which was, probably at the instigation of the Jesuits, recalled by Vulgate. In the Acts the European text is found in cod. Gigas Pope Clement VIII. in 1592. In the same year, however, the same (g or gig) of the 13th century at Stockholm, in a Perpignan Ms. pope published another edition under the name of Sixtus. This is, of the 12th century (p), published by S. Berger, and probably in according to the Bull of 1592, the authoritative edition, and has cod. Laudianus (e) of the 7th century at Oxford. In the Catholic since then been accepted as such in the Latin Church. The critical epistles it is found in cod. Corbeiensis (? or ff) of the oth century cdition by J. Wordsworth (bishop of Salisbury) and H. J. White at St Petersburg. In the Pauline cpistles it is doubtful whether probably restores the text almost to the state in which Jerome it is extant at all, though some have found it in the cod. Claro left it. montanus (d) and its allies. la the Apocalypse it is found in cod. The text of the Vulgate may be studied in Wordsworth and Gigas.

White, Novum Testamentum Latine; Corssen, Epistula ad Galatas. The main problem in connexion with the history of the African Its history is best given in S. Berger's Histoire de la Vulgate (Paris, and European versions is whether they were originally one or two. 1893), in which a good bibliography is given on pp: xxxii.-xxxiv. As they, stand at present they are undoubtedly two, and can be The section in Kenyon's handbook to the Textual Criticism of the distinguished both by the readings which they imply in the under- New Testament is particularly clear and full.). Tying Greek, and by the renderings which they have adopted. But Syriac Versions:-1. The Old Syriac. This is only known to us there is also a greater degree of similarity between them than can at present through two MSS. of the gospels, containing the Evanbe explained by accidental coincidence, and there is thus an a priori gelion de. Mepharreske, or separated gospel, probably case for the theory that one of the two is a revision of the other, so called in distinction to Tatian's Diatesseron. These

Old or that there was an older version, now lost,

which was the original MSS. are known as the Curetonian and Sinaitic. The Syriac. of both. If one of the two is the original it is probably the African. Curetonian is a MS. of the 5th century. The fragments of it which for which there is older evidence, and of which the style both in we possess are MS. Brit. Mus. addit. 14:451, which was brought in reading and rendering seems purer. The chief argument against 1842 from the monastery of St Mary in the Nitrian desert, and this is that it seems paradoxical to think of Africa rather than was edited by Cureton in 1858; and three leaves in Berlin (MS. Rome as the home of the first Latin version: but it must be Orient. Quart. 528) which were bought in Egypt by H. Brugsch remembered that Roman Christianity was originally Greek, and and published by A. Roediger in 1872. It was given to the monasthat the beginnings of a Latin church in Rome seem to be surpris tery of St Mary in the oth century, but its earlier history, is ingly late.

unknown. It contained originally the four gospels in the order Mt., Éditions of Old Latin MSS. are to be found in Old Lalin Biblical Mk.. Jo., Lc. It is generally quoted as Syreur or Syr C. The Sinaitic Texts, 1-iv. (Oxlord); in Migne's Patrologia Latina. tom. xii.; and was discovered in 1892 by Mrs Lewis and Mrs Gibson in the library their history is treated especially in F. C. Burkitt's Old Latin of St Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai, where it still remains and and the Itala (Texts and Studies, iv. 3), as well as in all books was published in 1894 by R. L. Bensly, J. Rendel Harris and F. C. dealing with Textual Criticism generally; other important books Burkitt, with an introduction by Mrs Lewis, It is a palimpsest are Ronsch's Itala und Vulgata (1875): Corssen's Dercyprianische MS., and the upper writing (lives of saints). dated A.D. 778. is the Text der Acta Apostolorum (Berlin, 1892); Wordsworth and Sanday work of " John, the anchorite of Beth Mari Qanon, a monastery of on the " Corbey S. James " in Studio Biblica, i. (1885); the article 'Ma'arrath Meşrên city in the district of Antioch." This town is between Antioch and Aleppo; though the monastery is otherwise (See Gwilliam's “ Materials for the Criticism of the Peshito N.I." unknown, it seems probable that it was the source of many of the in Studio Biblica, iii. esp. pp. 60-63-) MSS. now at Sinai. The under writing seems to be a little earlier 7. Tatian's Dialessaron." This is something more than a version than that of the Curetonian; it contains the gospels in the order It was originally a harmony of the four gospels made by Tatias, the Mt., Mc., Lc., Jo. with a few lacunae. There is no evidence that this pupil of Justin Martyr, towards the end of the 2nd cen

Tatias's version was ever used in the Church services: the Diatessaron was tury. In its original form it is no longer extant, but it always the normal Syriac text of the gospels until the introduction exists in Arabic (published by Ciasca) and Latin (cod. of the Peshito. But the quotations and references in Aphraates, Fuldensi.) translations, in both of which the text has unEphraem and the Acts of Judas Thomas show that it was known fortunately been almost entirely conformed to the ordinary tipe even if not often used. It seems certain that the Old Syriac version These authorities are, therefore, only available for the reconstructies also contained the Acts and Pauline epistles, as Aphraates and of the order of the selections from the gospels, not for textual criticis Ephraem agree in quoting a text which differs from the Peshito, properly so called. For the latter purpose, however, se can use an but no MSS. containing this text are at present known to exist. Armenian translation of a commentary on the Diatessaron by

(The text of this version is best given, with a literal English Ephraem, and the quotations in Aphraates. The Diatessaros translation, in F.C. Burkitt's Evangelion do Mephitreshe (Cambridge, appears to have been the usual form in which the gospels were read 1904).)

until the beginning of the 5th century, when the Peshito was pat 2. The Peshito (Simple) Version. This is represented by many in its place, and a systematic destruction of copies of the Diatessarca MSS. dating from the 5th century. It has been proved almost to was undertaken. Peshito. demonstration by F. C. Burkitt that the portion contain- (The Diatessaron may be studied in Zahn, “ Evangelies.

ing the gospels was made by Rabbula, bishop of Edessa harmonie," article in the Protestantische Realencyklopedie 1981: (411), to take the place of the Diatessaron, and was based on the J: H. Hill, The Earliest Life of Christ (Edinburgh, 1893); J. Rende Greek text which was at that time in current use at Antioch. The Harris, Fragments of the Commentary of Ephraim the Syrien (Lordia, Old Testament Peshito is a much older and quite separate version. 1895); F. C. Burkiit, Evangelion da Mepharreske (Cambridge, 1904 The exact limits of Rabbula's work are difficult to define. It seems vol. ii.).) probable that the Old Syriac version did not contain the Catholic Inter-relation of Syriac Versions. The relations which subsist epistles, and as these are found in the Peshito they were presumably between the various Syriac versions remain to be discussed. Thare added by Rabbula. But he never added 2 Peter, Jude, 2 and 3 John, is little room for doubt that the Harklean was based on the P?? or the Apocalypse, and the text of these books, which is sometimes oxenian, and the Philoxenian was based on the Peshito, the res sca bound up with the Peshito, really is that of the Philoxenian or of being made in each case by the help of the Greek MSS. cf the day. the Harklcan version. A comparison of the Peshito with quotations but the relations which subsist between the Old Syriac, the Diatesin Aphraates and Ephraem shows that Rabbula revised the text saron and the Peshito are a more difficult question. There are o of the Acts and Pauline epistles, but in the absence of MSS. but few, il any, scholars who think that the Peshito is an entirely of the Old Syriac for these books, it is difficult to define the extent separate version, and the majority have been convinced by Burkit or character of his work. The Peshito is quoted as Syr P, Pesh., and recognize (1) that the Peshito is based on a knowledge of the and Syrsch (becausc Tischendorf followed the edition of Schaal). Old Syriac and the Diatessaron; (2) that it was made by Ratbula

(The best text of the Peshito is by G. H. Gwilliam. Telraevan. with the help of the contemporary Greek text of the Antiochere gelium Sanctum (Oxford, 1901): its relations to Rabbula's revision Church. But there is not yet the same degree of consensus as to are shown by F. c. Burkiit, S. Ephraim's quotations from the the relations between the Old Syriac and the Diatessaron. Hoe Gospel" (Texts and Studies, vii. 2, Cambridge, 1901), which renders it is necessary to distinguish between the original text of the old out of date F. H. Woods's article on the same subject in Sludia Syriac and the existing MSS. of it-Cur. and Sin. There is no Biblica, iii. pp. 105-138.1

question that many passages in these show signs of Dutessarea 3. The Philoxenian Version. This is known, from a note extant influence, but this is only to be expected if we consider that i-om in MSS. of the Marklean version, to have been made in A.D. 508 the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the sth century the DhaPhilox

for Philoxenus, bishop of Hierapolis, by Polycarpus, a tessaron was the popular form of the gospels. A large discount ealaa.

chorepiscopus. No MSS. of it have survived except in has there!ore to be made from the agreements between Ditessana

2 Peter, Jude, ? and 3 John and the Apocalypse. The and Syr. S and c. Still, it is improbable that this will explais four former are found in some MSS. of the Peshito, as the everything, and it is generally conceded that the original Dia. Philoxenian was used to supply these epistles which were not in tessaron and the original Old Syriac were in some way connected the older version, and the Apocalypse was published in 1892 by Dr The connexion is variously explained, and efforts have been made Gwynn from a MS. belonging to Lord Crawford.

to show on which side the dependence is to be found. The most [This version may be studied in Isaac H. Hall's Williams MS. probable theory is that of Burkitt. He thinks that the first Syriac (Baltimore, 1886): in the European editions of the Syriac Bible so translation was that of Tatian (c. A.D. 175), who brought the Da far as the minor Catholic epistles are concerned; in Hermcthenc, tessaron from Rome and translated it into Syriac. There, in the vol. vii. (1890), pp. 281-314 (article by Gwynn); in Zeitschrift für last days of the 2nd century, when Serapion was bishop of Antich Assyriologie, xii. and xiii. (series of articles by Merx); in Gwynn's (A.D. 190-203), a new start was made, and a translation of the The Apocalypse of St John in a Syriac Version (Dublin, 1897).) separated Gospels" (Evangelion da Mepkaneske) was made from

4. The Harklean Version. This is a revision of the Philoxenian the MSS. which was in use ai Antioch. Probably the maker of this made in 616 by Thomas of Harķel (Heraclea), bishop of Hierapolis. version was, partly, guided, especially in his choice of renderings Harkleso. It was apparently an attempt to replace the literary free: by his knowledge of the Diatessaron. Nevertheless, the Diatessera

dom of the Philoxenian by an extreme literalness. It remained the more popular and was only driven out by Theodoret represents in the main the text of the later Greek MSS., but it has and Rabbula in the 5th century, when it was replaced by the important textual notes, and has adopted a system of asterisks Peshito. If this theory be correct the Syriac versions represes: and obeli from the Hexaplar LXX. The source of these notes seems three distinct Greek texts :-(1) the 2nd-century Greek text from to have beerr old MSS. from the library of the Enaton near Alex. Kome, used by Tatian; (2) the 2nd-century Greek text from Antioch, andria. The marginal readings are therefore valuable evidence for used for the Old Syriac: (3) the 2nd-century Greek text from the Old Alexandrian text. This version is quoted as Syr H (and Antioch, used by Rabbula for the Peshito. when necessary Syr Hc or Syr HTM8) and by Tischendorf as Sypp The best discussion of this point is in vol. ii. of Burkitt's Eses (= Syra posterior). It should be noted that when Tischendorf gelion da Mepharreshe.). speaks of Syrut he means the Peshito and the Harklean.

Egyplian Versions.--Much less is known at present about the (There is no satisfactory critical edition of this version, nor have history of the Egyptian versions. They are found in various the Philoxenian and the Harklean been disentangled from each other. dialects of Copric, the mutual relations of which are not

Count The printed text is that published in 1778-1803 by J. White at yet certain, but the only ones which are preserved with Oxford under the title Versio Philoxenia; for the marginal notes any completeness are the Bohairic, or Lower Egyptian, and Saldie see esp. Westcott and Hort, Introduction, and for Acts, Pott's or Upper Egyptian, though it is certain that fragments of inter Abendlandische Text der A postel gesch. (Lcipzig, 1900).)

mediate dialects such as Middle Egyptian, Fayumic, Akhrine 5. The Palestinian or Jerusalem Version." This is a lectionary and Memphitic also exist. The Bohairic has been edited by G which was once thought to have come from the neighbourhood of Horner. It is well represented, as it became the official versedia of Pales.

Jerusalem, but has been shown by Burkitt to come from the Coptic Church; its history is unknown, but from internal end

that of Antioch. It was probably made in the 6th century ualan.

ence it seems to have been made from good Greek MSS. of the type in connexion with the attempts of Justinian to abolish of XBL, but the date to which this points depends largely or the Judaism. Usually quoted as Syr Pa and by Tischendorf as Syrbier. general view taken of the history of the text of the New Testamist

(The text may be found in Lewis and Gibson's The Palestinian It need not, b:it may, be earlier than the 4th century. The Sabrice Syriac Lectionary (London, 1899). (Gospels), and in Studia Sinaitica. is not so well preserved. G. Horner's researches tend to show tha: párt vi. (Acts and Epistles): its origin is discussed best by F. C. the Greek text on which it was based was different from that repre Burkitt in the Journal of Theological Studies, vol. i. (1901), pp. sented by the Bohairic, and probably was akin to the “ Westen 174.183.1

text, perhaps of the type used by Clement of Alexandria Us 6. The Karkaphensian. This is not a version, but a Syriac fortunately none of the NISS. seems to be good, and at present it is “ Massorah of the New Testament, i.e. a collection of notes on the impossible to make very definite use of the version. It is possible texts. Probably emanates from the monastery of the Skull. Little that this is the oldest Coptic version, and this view is supported is known of it and it is unimportant.

by the general probabilities of the spread of Christianity in Eppt.

1

which suggest that the native church and native literature had their scriptional and intrinsic probability. No book, however, presents
strength at first chiefly in the southern parts of the country. It
must be noted that Westcott and Hort called the Bohairic Mem.

such a complicated problem or such a wealth of material for the
phitic, and the Sahidic Thebaic, and Tischendorf called the Bohairic textual critic.
Coptic.

In a certain wide sense the textual criticism of the New TestaSee G. Horner's The Coptic Version of the New Testament in the ment began as soon as men consciously made recensions and Northern Dialect (Oxford): Scrivener's' Introduction (ed. Miller), versions, and in this sense Origen, Jerome, Augustine and many vol. ii. pp. 91-144; and especially an article on Egyptian Ver. sions" in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, vol. i.. by Forbes

other ecclesiastical writers might be regarded as textual critics. Robinson.)

But in practice it is general, and certainly convenient, to regard (p) Among the secondary versions the only one of real importance their work rather as material for criticism, and to begin the is the Armenian.

The Armenian Version. --The early history of this version is history of textual criticism with the earliest printed editions obscure, but it seems probable that there were two translations which sought to establish a standard Greek Text. It is, of course, Armenian. made in the 4th century: (!) by Mesrop with the help of impossible here to give an account of all these, but the following Sahak, based on Syriac. After the council of Ephesus (A.D: 430) beginning to the present time.

Hrofanos (Rufinus?) based on a Greek text; (2) by may fairly be regarded as the epoch-making books from the Mesrop and Sahak compared and revised their work with the help of MSS. from Constantinople. The general character of the version The Complutension. The first printed text of the Greek Testais late, but there are many places in which the Old Syriac basis can ment is known as the Complutensian, because it was made under be recognized, and in the Acts and Epistles, where ihe Old Syriac the direction of Cardinal Ximenes of Alcalá (Lat. Complulum). is no longer extant, this is sometimes very valuable evidence. It was printed in 1514, and is thus the first printed text, but is not

(Sce Scrivener (cd. Miller) vol. ii. pp. 148-154: Hastings' Dictionary the first published, as it was not issued until 1522. It is not known of the Bible, article on " The Armenian Versions of the New Testa- what. MSS. Ximenes used, but it is plain from the character of the ment," by F. C. Conybeare; J. A. Robinson, “ Euthaliana " (Texts text that they were not of great value. His text was reprinted in and Studies, iii. 3), cap. 5; on the supposed connexion of Mark xvi. 1569 by Chr. Plantin at Antwerp. 8 ff. with Aristíon mentioned in this version, see esp. Swete's The Erasmus.-The first published text was that of Erasmus. It was Gospel according to St Mark (London, 1902). p. cxi.)

undertaken at the request of Joannes Froben (Frobenius), the Other secondary versions which are sometimes quoted are the printer of Basel, who had heard of Cardinal Ximenes' project and Gothic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Arabic, Anglo-Saxon. 'Frankish and wished to forestall it. In this he was successful, as it was issued in Persic. None has any real critical importance; details are given 1516. It was based chiefly on MSS. at Basel, of which the only in Gregory's Prolegomena and in Scrivener's Introduction.

really good one (cod. Evan. 1) was seldom followed. Erasmus issued (C) Quotalions in Patristic Writings. The value of this source

new editions in 1519, 1522, 1927 and 1535. and the Aldine Greek

Testament, printed at Venice in 1518, is a reproduction of the Qirst of evidence lies in the power which it gives us to date and localize edition. texts. Its limitations are found in the inaccuracy of quotation Stephanus:--Perhaps the most important of all early editions of the writers, and often in the corrupt condition of their text.

were ihose of Robert Étienne, or Stephanus, of Paris and afterwards

of Geneva. His two first editions (1546, 1549) were based on ErasThis latter point especially affects quotations which later scribes mus, the Complutensian, and collations of fifteen Greek MSS. frequently forced into accord with the text they preferred. These are 16mo volumes, but the third and most important edition

(1550) was a folio with a revised text. It is this edition which is All writers earlier than the 5th century are valuable, but particu. usually referred to as the text of Stephanus. A fourth edition (in larly important are the following groups:-(!) Greek writers in the 16mo) published at Geneva in 1551 is remarkable for giving the diviWest, especially Justin Martyr: Tatian, Marcion, Irenacus and sion of the text into verses which has since been generally adopted, Hippolytus; (2) Latin writers in Italy, especially Novatian, the Beza.-Stephanus' work was continued by Theodore Beza, who author of the de Rebaptismale and Ambrosiaster; (3) Latin writers published ten editions between 1565, and 1611. They did not in Africa, especially Tertullian and Cyprian; (4) Greek writers in greatly differ from the 1550 edition of Stephanus, but historically Alexandria, especially Clement of Alexandria, Origen: Athanasius are important for the great part they played in spreading a knowand Cyril; (5) Greek writers in the East, especially Methodius of Iedge of the Greek text, and as supplying the text which the Elzevirs Lycia and Eusebius of Caesarea; (6) Syriac writers, especially made the standard on the continent. Aphraates and Ephraem: it is doubtful whether the Diatessaron Elzevir.-The two brothers, Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir. of Tatian ought to be reckoned in this group or in (1). None of these published two editions at Leiden in 1624 and 1633. based chiefly groups bears witness to quite the same text, nor can all of them be on Beza's text. In the preface to the second edition the first is identified with the texts found in existing MSS. or versions, but it refcrred to as textum ... nunc ab omnibus reccptum," and this may be said with some truth that group 2 used the European Latin is the origin

of the name Textus Receptus" (or T.R.) often given version, group 3 the African Latin, and group 6 the Diatessaron in to the ordinary Greck Text. The Elzevir text has formed the basis the gospels and the Old Syriac elsewhere, while group i has much of all non-critical editions on the continent, but in England the in common with cod. Bezae, though the difference is here somewhat 1550 edition of Stephanus has been more generally followed. The greater. In group 4 the situation is more complex; Clement used

importance of both the Stephanus and Elzevir editions is that they a text which has most in common with cod. Bezae, but is clearly formed a definite text for the purposes of comparison, and so prefar from identical; Origen in the main has the text of x B: Athan.pared the way for the next stage, in which scholars busicd themasius a somewhat later variety of the same type, while Cyril has the selves with the investigation and collation of other MSS. so-called Alexandrian text found especially in L. Group 4 has a Wallon's Polyglot. The first to begin this work was Brian Walton, peculiar text which cannot be identified with any definite group of bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 in the 5th and 6th volumes MSS. For further treatment of the importance of this evidence see

of his “

polyglot" Bible the text of Stephanus (1550) with the the section Textual Criticism below.

readings of hlieen new MSS. besides those employed by Stephanus (There is as yet but little satisfactory literature on this subject. hinsell. The collations were made for him by Archbishop Ussher. Outstanding work is P. M. Barnard's' “ Clement of Alexandria's John Fell.-In 1675 John Fell, dean of Christ Church, published Biblical Text" (Texts and Studies, v. 5), 1899; Harnack's " Eine the Elzevir text with an enlarged apparatus, but even more imSchrist Novatians," in Texte und Untersuchungen, xiii. 4: Souter's portant was the help and advice which he gave to the next important " Ambrosiaster" in Texts and Studies, vii. 4: the Society of His. editor-Mill. torical Theology's New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers; an John Mill, of Queen's College, Oxford, influenced by the advice, article by Kostschau," Bibelcitate bei Origenes," in the Zeitschrif! and supported bị the purse of John Fell until the latter's death, f. wissenschaftliche Theologie (1900), pp. 321-378; and on the general published in 1707 a critical edition of the New Testament which subject especially Nestle's Einführung in das griechische Neue has still a considerable value for the scholar. It gives the text of Testament (Göttingen, 1909), pp. 159-167.)

(K. L.) Stephanus (1550) with collations of 78 MSS., besides those of Ste

phanus, the readings of the Old Latin, so far as was then known, the 3. Texlucl Criticism.

Vulgate and Peshito, together with full and valuable prolegomena.

Benlley.--A little later Richard Bentley conceived the idea that The problem which faces the textual critic of the New Testa- it would be possible to reconstruct the original text of the New ment is to reconstruct the original text from the materials Testament by a comparison of the earliest Greek and Latin sources; supplied by the MSS., versions, and quotations in early writers, entitled " Proposals for Printing" in 1720, but though he amassed

collect matcrial for this purpose, and issued a scheme which have been described in the preceding section on the

many notes nothing was ever printed. ap paralus crilicus. His object, therefore, is to discover and W. Mace.-Fairness forbids us to omit the name of William (or remove the various corruptions which have crept into the text, Daniel?) Mace, a Presbyterian minister who published The Nero by the usual methods of the textual critic—the collection of pated many of the verdicts of later critics. He was, however, not in

Testament in Creek and English, in 2 vols. in 1729, and really anticimaterial, the grouping of MSS. and other authorities, the re- a position to obtain recognition, and his work has been generally construction of archetypes, and the consideration of tran- overlooked.

J. J. Wetstein, one of Bentley's assistants, when living in Basel in New Testament to the methods of Griesbach. Their great rokas 1730, published " Prolegomena to the Text, and in 1751-1752 (at published in 188! under the title of 7 he New Testament in the hall Amsterdam) the text of Stephanus with enlarged Prolegomena and Greek. Their view of the history of the text is that a comparsa apparatus criticus. His textual views were peculiar: he preferred of the evidence shows that, while we can distinguish more than x to follow late MSS. on the ground that all the earlier copies had type of texe, the most clearly discernible of all the varicties is erst been contaminated by the Latin-almost reversing the teaching recognizable in the quotations of Chrysostom, and is presented in of Bentley. His edition is historically very important as it intro- almost all the later MISS. Though found in so great a number of duced the system of notation which, in the amplified form given to witnesses, this type of text is shown not to be the carliost best it by Gregory, is still in general use.

by the evidence of all the oldest MS. versions and Fathers, as wel J. A. Bengel, abbot of Alpirspach (a Lutheran community), pube as by internal evidence. Moreover, a comparison with the cara lished in 1734, at Tubingen, an edition of the New Testament which sources of evidence shows that it was built up out of prethesky marks the beginning of a new era. For the first time an attempt existing texts. This is proved by the “connations

which are was made to group the MSS., which were divided into Alrican and found in it. For instance in Mark ix. 38 the later MSS zad Asiatic. The former group contained the few old MSS., the latter os oux &xo doudei muir, kai exw licauey airos óri ois écolabai sina the many late MSS., and preference was given to the African. This clumsy sentence which is clearly inade up out of two earlier innovation has been followed by almost all critics since Bengel's readings. gai iww.lover avrir óri oix yeloitti riv, found in * EL time, and it was developed by Griesbach.

boh., and os oux á o louden wel duar, cal eksionet eltér, food J. J. Griesbach, a pupil at Halle of J. S. Semler (who in 1764 in DX fam.', fam.'8 28 latt. It is impossible, in face of the reprinted Wetstein's Prolegomena, and in comments of his own

fact that the evidence of the oldest witnesses of all sorts is contook over and cxpounded Bengel's views). collated many MSS., stantly opposed to the longer readings, to doubt that WH scre and distinguished ihree main groups :-the Alexandrian or Origenian right in arguing that these phenomena prove that the later text *25 (which roughly corresponded to Bengel's African), found in ÅBCL, made up by a process of revision and conflation of the cartier forms the Egyptian version and Origen: the Western, found in D and Influenced by the use of the later text by Chrysostom, UH Cain Latin authorities: and the Constantinopolitan (Bengel's Asiatic), it the Syrian or Antiochene text, and refer to the revision shich found in the later MSS. and in Byzantine writers. His view was produced it as the Syrian revision. They suggested that it het that the last group was the least valuable; but, except when in perhaps be attributed to Lucian, who is known to tave made a ternal evidence forbade (and he thought that it frequently did so). revision of the text of the LXX. The earlier texts which were xd he followed the text found in any two groups against the third. His for the Syrian revision may, according to WH, be divided no first edition was published in 1774-1775. his second and improved three:-(1) the Western text, used especially by Latin utin edition in 1796 (vol. i.) and 1806. For the second edition he had and sound also in cod. Becae and in Syr C; (2) the Aleuocrise the advantage not merely of his own collection of material (pub-text used by Cyril of Alexandria and found especially in CLB lished chicfly in his Symbolae Criticae, 1785-1793), but also of many and (3) a text which differs from both the above mentioned and collations by Birch, Matthaei and Adler, and an edition with new is therefore called by WH the Neutral text, found especially in * S collations by F. K. Alter.

and the quotations of Origen. Of these three types WH thought J. L. Hug. Roman Catholic professor of theology at Freiburg, that the Neutral was decidedly the best. The Alexar.dras sus published (Stuttgart and Tubingen) his Einleitung in die Schriften clearly a literary recension of it, and WH strore to show tha: the des N. T. (1808): he is chiefly remarkable for the curious way in Western was merely due to the non-literary efforts of scribes in the which he introduced many critical ideas which were not appreciated parts to improve the narrative. The only exception which they ar the time but have since been revived. He accepted Griesbach's allowed to this general rule was in the case of certain pasares views as a whole, but starting from the known recensions of the especially in the last chapters of Luke, where the "Wesen LXX. he identified Griesbach's Alexandrian text with the work of authorities omit words which are found in the Neutral and Alex Hesychius, and the Constantinopolitan with that of Lucian, while andrian texts. Their reason was that omission seems to be coorn he described Griesbach's Western text as the court doois.

to the genius of the Western text, and that it is therefore probable J. M. A. Schols, a pupil of Hug, inspected and partially collated that these passages represent interpolations made in the text ca nearly a thousand MSS. and assigned numbers to ihem which have the Neutral side after the division between it and the Weste since been generally adopted. His work is for this reason important, They might be called Neutral interpolations, but WH preferred the but is unfortunately inaccurate.

rather clumsy expression " Western non-interpolations." Having K. Lachmann, the famous classical scholar, opened a new era in thus decided that the Neutral text was almost always right, it only textual criticism in 1842-1850, in his N.T. Graece et Latine. In this remained for. WH to choose between the various authorities sho great book a break was made for the first time with the traditional preserved this type. They decided that the two best authorities text and the evidence of the late MSS., and an attempt was made were x and B, and that when these differed the reading of B, except to reconstruct the text according to the oldest authorities. This when obviously an accidental blunder, was probably right. was a great step forward, but unfortunately it was accompanicd great importance of this work of WH lies in the facts that it sot by a retrogression to the pre-Griesbachian (or rather pre-Bengelian) mercly condemns but explains the late Antiochene text, and that days; for Lachmann rejected the idea of grouping MSS., and it attempts to consider in an objective manner all the exist as having selected a small number of the oldest authorities undertook evidence and to explain it historically and genealogically. Oferims always to follow the reading of the majority.

differ as to the correctness of the results reached by WH bi there C. Tischendorf, the most famous follower of Lachmann, besides | is scarcely room for doubt that as an example of method their works editions of many MSS. and the collation of many more, published is quite unrivalled at present and is the necessary starting-poiar los between 1841 and 1869-1872 eight editions of the New Testament all modern investigations. with full critical notes. The eighth edition, which for the first time Since Westcott and Hort no work of the same importance appeared contained the readings of x. has not yet been equalled, and together up till 1909. Various useful texts have been issued, amonguide with the Prolegomena, supplied by C. R. Gregory alter Tischendorl's those of Nestle (Novum Testamentum Graece, Stuttgart, 1904, bered death, is the standard critical edition which is used by scholars on a comparison of the texts of Tischendorf, WH and Wais, and all over the world. At the same time it must be admitted that of Baljon (Novum Testamentum Graece, Groningen, 1898), are the it gradually became antiquated: Fresh collations of MSS., and best. The only serious attempt as yet published to print a ccante especially fresh discoveries and investigations into the text of the text independently of other editors is that of B. Weiss Du To versions and Fathers, have given much new information which Testameni, Leipzig. 1894-1900). but the method followed in this entirely changed the character of the evidence for many readings, is so subjective and pays so little attention to the evidence of the and rendered a new edition necessary (see Soden, H. Von). As a versions that it is not likely to be permanently important. The collector and publisher of evidence Tischendorf was marvellous, but text reached is not widely different from that of WH. The ses as an editor of the text he added little to the principles of Lach. work in course of preparation by von Soden at Berlin, which pro mann, and like Lachmann does not seem to have appreciated the mises to take the place of Tischendorf's edition, must certainly do value of the Griesbachian system of grouping MSS.

this so far as Greek MSS. arc concerned, for the whole fel lashes S. P. Tregelles, an English scholar, like Tischendorf, spent almost | reinvestigated by a band of assistants who have grouped and coliated his whole life in the collection of material, and published a critical specimens of all known MSS. edition, based on the earliest authorities, at intervals between Besides these works the chief efforts of textual critics since WH 1857 and 1872. His work was eclipsed by Tischendori's, and his have been directed towards the elucidation of minor problems and critical principles were almost the saine as the German scholar's, the promulgation of certain hypotheses to explain the characters so that his work has obtained less recognition than would otherwise istics cither of individual MSS. or of groups of MSS. Among these have been the case. Tischendorf and Tregelles finished the work the works of Sanday. Corssen, Wordsworth, White, Burnt and which Lachmann began. They finally exploded the pretensions of Harris on the history of the Old Latin and Vulgate, and especisih the Textus Receplus to be the original text: but neither of them the work of Burkitt on the Old Syriac, have given most lichi va che save any explanation of the relations of the later text to the earlier, subject. These lines of research have been described in the praying nor developed Griesbach's system of dealing with groups of MSS. section on the apparalus criticus. Other noteworthy and iarc rather than with single copies.

esting, though in the end probably less important, work has been B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Horl (commonly quoted as WH), the done by Blass, Bousset, Schmidike, Rendel Harris and Chase Cambridge scholars, supplied the deficiencies of Lachmann, and The outline of the chief works is as follows: without giving up the advantages of his system, and its develop- F. Blass.-In his various books on the Acts and third gospel Blase meat by Tischendors, brought back the study of the text of the 'has propounded a new theory as to the " Western taat. He was

« PreviousContinue »