The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882)
THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK
INTRODUCTION
APPENDIX
THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK
THE TEXT REVISED BY
BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, D.D.
CANON OF PETERBOROUGH, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE
AND
FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D.
HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE
INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX
BY THE EDITORS
NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE
1882
IPSA SUMMA IN LIBRIS OMNIS SALVA RES EST EX DEI PROVIDENTIA: SED TAMEN ILLAM IPSAM PROVIDENTIAM NON DEBEMUS EO ALLEGARE UT A LIMA QUAM ACCURATISSIMA DETERREAMUR. EORUM QUI PRAEDECESSERE NEQUE DEFECTUM EXAGITABIMUS NEQUE AD EUM NOS ADSTRINGEMUS; EORUM QUI SEQUENTUR PROFECTUM NEQUE POSTULABIMUS IN PRAESENTI NEQUE PRAECLUDEMUS IN POSTERUM: QUAELIBET AETAS PRO SUA FACULTATE VERITATEM INVESTIGARE ET AMPLECTI FIDELITATEMQUE IN MINIMIS ET MAXIMIS PRAESTARE DEBET.
BENGELMDCCXXXIV
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
vii | |
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1 | |
I. | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
4 |
II. | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
19 |
III. | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
73 |
IV. | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
288 |
APPENDIX | ||
I. | Notes on Select Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
1 |
II. | Notes on Orthography, with orthographical alternative readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
141 |
III. | Quotations from the Old Testament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
174 |
PREFATORY REMARKS | ||
PAR. | PAGES | |
1—4. | 1—3 | |
1. | Purpose of this edition. Four heads of the Introduction | 1 |
2. | Textual criticism not needed for most words in most texts; | 1 |
3. | and always negative in nature, consisting only in detection and removal of errors | 3 |
4. | Reservation of emendation, as but slightly needed in the N.T. owing to comparative abundance and excellence of documents | 3 |
PART I | ||
THE NEED OF CRITICISM FOR THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT | 4—18 | |
5. | Need of criticism for the text of the N.T. explained by the circumstances of its transmission, first by writing, and then by printing | 4 |
A. 6—14. | Transmission by writing | 4—11 |
6. | Loss of autographs | 4 |
7. | Cumulative corruption through transcription | 5 |
8. | Variability of corruption under different conditions: relation of date to purity | 5 |
9. | Special modifications of average results of transcription; as | 6 |
10. | (a) by transition from 'clerical' errors into mental changes (intended
improvements of language) |
6 |
11. | as in the earlier, and only the earlier, centuries of the N. T.; | 7 |
12. | (b) by 'mixture' of independent texts, which prevailed in the N. T. in Cent. (iii) iv, | 8 |
13. | such mixture having only fortuitous results; | 8 |
14. | and (c) by destruction and neglect of the older MSS | 9 |
B. 15—18. | Transmission by printed editions | 11—16 |
15. | Disadvantages of Erasmus, the first editor: his text substantially perpetuated in the 'Received Text' | 11 |
16. | Preparatory criticism of Cent. (xvii) xviii, ending with Griesbach | 12 |
17. | Lachmann's text of 1831, inspired by Bentley's principles, the first founded directly on documentary authority. Texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles | 13 |
18. | Table showing the late date at which primary MSS have become available | 14 |
19. | Recapitulation | 15 |
C. 20—22. | History of present edition | 16—18 |
20. | Origin and history of the present edition | 16 |
21. | Nature of its double authorship | 17 |
22. | Notice of the provisional private issue | 18 |
PART II | ||
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM | 19–72 | |
23. | Successive emergence of the different classes of textual facts | 19 |
Section I. Internal Evidence of Readings (24—37) | 19–30 | |
24. | The rudimentary criticism founded on Internal Evidence of Readings, which is of two kinds, Intrinsic and Transcriptional | 19 |
A. 25—27. | Intrinsic Probability | 20—22 |
25. | First step, instinctive decision between readings by the apparently best sense: | 20 |
26. | its untrustworthiness as leading in different hands to different conclusions, | 21 |
27. | and as liable to be vitiated by imperfect perception of sense | 21 |
B. 28 — 37. | Transcriptional Probability | 22—30 |
28. | Second step, reliance on the presumption against readings likely to have approved themselves to scribes | 22 |
29. | Relative fitness of readings for accounting for each other, not relative excellence, the subject of Transcriptional Probability; | 22 |
30. | which rests on generalisations from observed proclivities of copyists ('canons of criticism') | 23 |
31. | Its uncertainty in many individual variations owing to conflicts of proclivities | 24 |
32. | and its prima facie antagonism to Intrinsic Probability | 26 |
33. | Apparent superiority and latent inferiority the normal marks of scribes' corrections | 26 |
34. | Fallacious antagonisms due to difference of mental conditions between scribes and modern readers | 27 |
35. | Contrast of cursory criticism of scribes and deliberate criticism of editors: real excellence of readings often perceptible only after close study | 28 |
36. | Ulterior value of readings that are attested by Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability alike | 29 |
37. | Insufficiency of Internal Evidence of Readings proved by the numerous variations which contain no readings so attested | 29 |
Section II. Internal Evidence of Documents (38—48) | 30—39 | |
38. | Transition from immediate decisions upon readings to examination of the antecedent credibility of the witnesses for them. (Knowledge of documents should precede final judgement upon readings.) | 30 |
39. | Presumptions, but not more, furnished by relative date | 31 |
40. | The prevailing textual character of documents, as learned from readings in which Internal Evidence is decisive, a guide to their character in other readings | 32 |
41. | A threefold process here involved; (1) provisional decision or suspense on readings; (2) estimate of documents by this standard; and (3) final decision (or suspense) on readings on comparison of all evidence | 33 |
42. | Relative weight of documentary authority variable | 34 |
43. | Greater security given by the combined judgements of Internal Evidence of Documents than by the isolated judgements of Internal Evidence of Readings | 34 |
44. | Uncertainties of Internal Evidence of Documents due to the variously imperfect homogeneousness of texts; as shown in | 35 |
45. | (a) concurrence of excellence of one kind and corruptness of another kind in the same document; | 36 |
46. | (b) derivation of different books within the same document from different exemplars; | 37 |
47. | (c) simultaneous derivation of different elements of text in the same document from different exemplars (Mixture) | 38 |
48. | Moreover Internal Evidence of Documents difficult to apply in texts preserved in a plurality of documents wherever there is a cross division of authority | 38 |
Section III. Genealogical Evidence (49—76) | 39—59 | |
A. 49—53. | Simple or divergent genealogy | 39—42 |
49. | Transition from character of individual documents to genealogical affinities between documents. (All trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history) | 39 |
50. | Variable relation of each of ten MSS to the rest according as (a) the genealogy is unknown; | 40 |
51. | (b) or descent of nine from the tenth is ascertained; | 40 |
52. | (c) or descent of the nine from one lost MS is ascertained; | 41 |
53. | (d) or descent of some of the nine from one lost MS and of the rest from another is ascertained | 42 |
B. 54—57. Genealogy and number | 43—46 | |
54. | The authority of number indeterminate apart from genealogy | 43 |
55. | Confusion between documents and votes the only ground for the supposed authority of mere number; | 43 |
56. | except so far as extreme paucity of documents may introduce the chance of accidental coincidence in error | 45 |
57. | Variability of multiplication and preservation renders rival probabilities derived solely from relative number incommensurable | 45 |
C. 58, 59. Manner of discovering genealogy | 46, 47 | |
58. | Identity of origin inferred from identity of reading | 46 |
59. | Successive steps of divergent genealogy shown by subordination of arrays of documents having identical readings | 46 |
D 60—65. Complications of genealogy by mixture | 47—52 | |
60. | Detection of mixture by cross combinations of documents | 47 |
61. | Deceptive comprehensiveness of attestation given by mixture to readings originally of narrow range | 48 |
62. | Mode of disentangling texts antecedent to mixture by means of conflate readings; | 49 |
63. | the attestations of which interpret the attestations of many variations containing no conflate reading | 51 |
64. | Inherent imperfections of this process; | 52 |
65. | and its frequent inapplicability for want of sufficient evidence antecedent to mixture | 52 |
E. 66—72. Applications of genealogy | 53—57 | |
66. | Summary neglect of readings found only in documents exclusively descended from another extant document | 53 |
67-69. | Process of recovering the text of lost document from its extant descendants; and its various steps; | 53 |
70. | ending in the rejection and in the ratification of many readings | 55 |
71. | Two uncertainties attending this process; one occasional, due to mixture with a text extraneous to the line of descent; | 56 |
72. | the other inherent, the irrelevance of genealogical evidence in ultimate independent divergences from a common original | 56 |
F. 73—76. Variable use of genealogy according to unequal preservation of documents | 57—59 | |
73. | Where extant genealogy diverges from a late point, the removal of the later corruptions often easy, while the earlier remain undiscovered | 57 |
74. | Detection of earlier corruptions rendered possible by preservation of some ancient documents, but the application of the process always imperfect for want of sufficient documents | 58 |
75. | Presumption in favour of composite as against homogeneous attestation increased by proximity to the time of the autograph ; | 58 |
76. | but needing cautious application on account of possible mixture | 59 |
Section IV. Internal Evidence of Groups (77, 78) | 60—62 | |
77. | Inference of identical origin from identical readings applicable to groups of documents; | 60 |
78. | and thus available for separating the elements of mixed documents, and determining their respective characters | 61 |
Section V. Recapitulation of methods in relation to each other (79—84) | 62–66 | |
79. | The threefold process and the results of the Genealogical method | 62 |
80. | This method the surest basis of criticism, wherever sufficient evidence is extant for tracing genealogical relations | 63 |
81, 82. | Subordinate verification by other kinds of evidence, more especially Internal Evidence of Groups | 63 |
83. | Sound textual criticism founded on knowledge of the various classes of facts which have determined variation, and therefore governed by method | 65 |
84. | Personal instincts trustworthy only in virtue of past exercise in method | 65 |
Section VI. Criticism as dealing with errors antecedent to existing texts (85—95) | 66—72 | |
A. 85—92. Primitive errors | 65—70 | |
85. | Agreement or disagreement of the most original transmitted text with the autograph indeterminable by any documentary evidence | 66 |
86. | Occasional paradox of readings authenticated by Genealogical and Transcriptional Evidence, yet condemned by Intrinsic Evidence (a); | 67 |
87. | explained by the inability of documentary evidence to attest more than relative originality; which does not exclude corruption | 67 |
88. | Such readings sometimes further condemned by decisive Internal Evidence for rival readings, which are in fact cursory emendations by scribes (b) | 68 |
89. | Variations falling under these two types not really relevant as to the value of the preceding methods | 69 |
90. | Two other cases of primitive corruption, (c) with variants apparently independent of each other, and the best attested variant condemned by Intrinsic Evidence, and (d) with no variation, and the one extant reading condemned by Intrinsic Evidence | 69 |
91. | In all four cases the use of Intrinsic Evidence as the basis of decision exactly analogous to its use in ordinary cases; | 69 |
92. | (a) (b) and (d) identical in principle, the best attested reading of (a) and (b) corresponding to the one reading of (d); while in (c) decision rests on both Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence | 70 |
B. 93—95. Removal of primitive errors by conjecture | 71, 72 | |
93. | Necessity of distinguishing recognition of primitive error from correction of it | 71 |
94. | Conjectural emendation founded on combination of Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence | 71 |
95. | The N. T. but slightly affected by the need of it | 72 |
PART III | ||
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM TO THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT | 73—287 | |
96. | Identity of methods for the N. T. and for other books, with difference of evidence | 73 |
CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY OF DOCUMENTS (97—128) | 73—90 | |
97. | Greek MSS, Versions, Fathers | 73 |
A. 98—106. Greek MSS. | ||
98. | The four great uncial Bibles | 74 |
99. | Contents of other uncials | 75 |
100. | Chronological distribution of other uncials | 75 |
101. | Bilingual uncials | 75 |
102. | Cursives | 76 |
103. | Greek Lectionaries | 76 |
104. | Imperfect knowledge of cursives; | 76 |
105. | within what limits more complete knowledge could affect the text | 77 |
106. | Uncials almost completely known | 77 |
B. 107—122. Versions | 78—86 | |
107. | The chief groups, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian | 78 |
108. | The Old Latin, (1) African, | 78 |
109. | The Old Latin, (2) European, | 78 |
110. | The Old Latin, (3) Italian | 79 |
111. | The Vulgate Latin | 80 |
112. | Corruption of the Latin Vulgate by mixture, and successive attempts to purify it | 81 |
113. | The extant Old Latin documents for the Gospels | 81 |
114. | Mixed Vulgate Gospels | 82 |
115. | The factitious Latin texts of bilingual ΜSS | 82 |
116. | The extant Old Latin documents for the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse | 83 |
117. | Latin Fathers | 83 |
118. | The Old Syriac and the Vulgate Syriac: Syriac Fathers | 84 |
119. | The Philoxenian or Harklean Syriac and the Jerusalem Syriac | 85 |
120. | The Egyptian versions, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Bashmuric | 85 |
121. | The Armenian and the Gothic | 86 |
122. | The versions of later times | 86 |
C. 123—126. Fathers. | 87—89 | |
123. | Various forms of patristic evidence | 87 |
124. | Patristic statements about variations or MSS | 87 |
125. | The range of extant patristic evidence limited, especially as regards continuous commentaries | 87 |
126. | Collections of biblical extracts | 88 |
127, 128. Documentary preparation for this edition | 89, 90 | |
127. | Distinctness of the three processes, collection of documentary evidence, discussion of its bearings, and editing of a text | 89 |
128. | In this edition collection of fresh evidence inconsiderable, though sufficient for the acquisition of personal experience | 89 |
CHAPTER II. RESULTS OF GENEALOGICAL EVIDENCE PROPER (129—255) | 90–186 | |
Section I. Determination of the genealogical relations of the chief ancient texts (129—168) | 90—119 | |
129. | Exploration of ancient ramifications the starting-point | 90 |
A. 130, 131. Priority of all great variations to Cent. v | 91—93 | |
130. | The text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of Cent. iv substantially identical with the common late text | 91 |
131. | The text of every other considerable group of documents shown by analogous evidence of Fathers and Versions to be of equal or greater antiquity | 92 |
B. 132—151. Posteriority of 'Syrian' (δ) to 'Western' (β) and other (neutral, α) readings shown (1) by analysis of conflate readings |
93–107 | |
132. | Enquiry how far whole groups of documents have been affected by mixture | 93 |
133. | Illustrations of conflation from single documents | 94 |
134. | Conflation in groups of documents, as in Mark vi 33, which has three principal variants, α, β, δ: | 95 |
135. | attestation of α, β, δ in this place: | 96 |
136. | Transcriptional Probability marks out δ as a combination of α and β; | 96 |
137. | and, less clearly, α as the parent of β: | 97 |
138. | Intrinsic Probability condemns β, and on examination commends α as far preferable to δ: | 98 |
139. | hence the provisional conclusion that the common original of the documents attesting δ was later than either that of the documents which attest α or that of those which attest β | 99 |
140. | Similar results in Mark viii 26 | 99 |
141. | Similar results in„ Mark„ ix 38 | 100 |
142. | Similar results in„ Mark„ ix 49 | 101 |
143. | Similar results in„ Luke ix 10 | 102 |
144. | Similar results in„ Luke„ xi 5 | 102 |
145. | Similar results in„ Luke„ xii 18 | 103 |
146. | Similar results in„ Luke„ xxiv 53 | 104 |
147. | Table of distribution of the chief MSS and versions in α, β, or δ in these eight variations | 104 |
148. | Concordant testimony of these variations to the conflate character of the δ readings, and the originality of the α readings | 104 |
149. | What documents habitually attest the α, β, and δ readings respectively | 105 |
150. | No exceptions being observed elsewhere, the original scribes of δ must have in some manner used α documents and β documents in these conflate readings; | 106 |
151. | and so may be inferred to have used them elsewhere | 106 |
C. 152—162. Posteriority of 'Syrian' to 'Western' and other (neutral and 'Alexandrian') readings shown (2) by Ante-Nicene Patristic Evidence |
107—115 | |
152. | The next step to observe the attestations of 'distinctive ' readings of the several groups: special value of patristic evidence here as chronological | 107 |
153. | Designation of group β as 'Western', with explanation of the term; of group δ as 'Syrian'; and of another group (γ) as 'Alexandrian' | 108 |
154. | How far the several groups can be traced in the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse: | 109 |
155. | their relations analogous throughout, so far as extant evidence allows them to be traced | 110 |
156. | Preliminary cautions as to uncertainties of patristic quotations; (1) as liable to incorrect transmission; |
110 |
157. | (2) as originally lax, and so liable to misinterpretation | 111 |
158. | Most of the pertinent patristic evidence confined to the 75 years ending about A.D. 250, though with partial exceptions on each side | 112 |
159. | In the period ending A.D. 250 Western readings abundant and widely spread; | 113 |
160. | and also Alexandrian and other Non-Western readings: but no Syrian readings found | 113 |
161. | Origen's testimony specially significant on account of his peculiar opportunities | 114 |
162. | Importance of this external and independent evidence of the relative lateness of Syrian readings | 114 |
D. 163—168. Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other (neutral) readings shown (3) by Internal Evidence of Syrian readings |
115—119 | |
163. | General inferiority of distinctive Syrian readings as tested by Internal Evidence; | 115 |
164. | seen most clearly where other texts differ among themselves, when the Syrian reading is often found to be a modification of a reading not itself original | 116 |
165. | Summary of the various modes of Syrian procedure in relation to the earlier texts | 116 |
166. | The Patristic and the Internal Evidence shew the Syrian text not only to have been formed from the other ancient texts, as the evidence of conflation proved, but to have been formed from them exclusively; so that distinctive Syrian readings must be rejected as corruptions | 117 |
167. | Similarly the Syrian element of attestation adds no appreciable authority to the Non-Syrian element of attestation for earlier readings adopted by the Syrian text (non-distinctive Syrian readings); | 118 |
168. | though sometimes the elements cannot be sufficiently distinguished owing to Non-Syrian mixture | 118 |
Section II. Characteristics of the chief ancient texts (169—187) | 119—135 | |
169. | Concurrence of the Pre-Syrian texts having been accepted as decisive authority, the several differences of reading between them can be dealt with only by ascertaining the characteristics of each text | 119 |
A. 170—176. Western characteristics | 120—126 | |
170. | Prevalence of obvious corruption in the Western text, chiefly owing to bold licence of treatment; | 120 |
171. | distinctive Western readings and non-distinctive Syrian readings originally Western bearing the same testimony | 121 |
172. | The Western text not single and created at once, but various and progressive | 122 |
173. | Its two chief characteristics boldness of paraphrase and readiness to adopt extraneous matter; | 122 |
174. | other tendencies found at work in other texts, but specially exuberant here, being (1) to incipient paraphrase, as shown in petty changes of form, | 123 |
175. | and (2) to assimilation, especially of parallel or similar passages (harmonistic corruption) | 124 |
176. | Similar licence found in the texts of other literature much read in early Christian times, and probably due in the N. T. to inconsiderate regard for immediate use and edification | 125 |
B. 177—180. The neutral text and its preservation | 126—130 | |
177. | The patristic evidence for Non-Western Pre-Syrian readings chiefly Alexandrian, and the evidence of versions in their favour chiefly Egyptian; as was natural from the character of the Alexandrian church: | 126 |
178. | but they often have other scattered Pre-Syrian attestation, Greek Latin and Syriac, chiefly in the very best Western documents; shewing that the Non-Western text in remote times was not confined to Alexandria: | 127 |
179. | and Alexandria can hardly have furnished all the Non-Western readings found in Fathers and Versions of the fourth and fifth centuries | 128 |
180. | Fallacy of the term 'Alexandrian' as applied to all Non-Western Pre-Syrian texts and documents; still more, to Pre-Syrian texts or documents generally | 129 |
C. 181—184. Alexandrian characteristics | 130—132 | |
181. | Existence of a distinct class of truly Alexandrian readings | 130 |
182. | Their derivation from the rival Pre-Syrian readings attested by Internal Evidence. Their documentary attestation, and the circumstances which obscure it | 130 |
183. | Temperate forms of incipient paraphrase and of skilful assimilation, with careful attention to language, and without bald paraphrase or interpolation from extraneous sources, the chief Alexandrian characteristics | 131 |
184. | Instructiveness of ternary variations in which a single cause has occasioned two independent changes. Western and Alexandrian. Alexandrian readings sometimes adopted by the Syrian text | 132 |
D. 185—187. Syrian characteristics | 132—135 | |
185. | The Syrian text due to a 'recension' in the strict sense, being formed out of its three chief predecessors, used simultaneously, with an elaborateness which implies deliberate criticism | 132 |
186. | Its probable origin the inconvenient conflict of the preceding texts, each of which had claims to respect; the only guide in the choice of readings being probably a rough kind of Intrinsic Probability | 133 |
187. | Lucidity and completeness the chief qualities apparently desired: little omitted out of the earlier texts, much added, but chiefly expletives and unimportant matter: the general result to introduce smoothness and diminish force | 134 |
Section III. Sketch of Postnicene Textual History (188—198) | 135—145 | |
A. 188—190. The two stages of the Syrian text | 135—139 | |
188. | Probable connexion between the Greek Syrian revision or 'recension' and the Syriac revision to which the Syriac Vulgate is due | 135 |
189. | Two stages in the Greek Syrian text indicated by minor differences of reading, the first being probably followed by the Syriac revision, the second alone being perpetuated in Greek | 137 |
190. | The first Syrian revision of uncertain date, between 250 and 350: possibly made or promoted by Lucianus of Antioch in the latter part of Cent. iii | 137 |
B. 191—193. Mixture in the fourth century | 139—141 | |
191. | Destruction of early texts under Diocletian, and diffusion of mixed texts to the loss of local peculiarities through the circumstances of Cent. iv | 139 |
192. | Similar mixtures in Latin texts, with revisions in partial accordance with Greek MSS, sometimes containing a Syrian text | 140 |
193. | Similar mixtures, with progressive disappearance of the Pre-Syrian texts, in patristic texts of this period | 140 |
C. 194, 195. Final supremacy of the Syrian text | 141—143 | |
194. | Notwithstanding the long persistence of mixed texts, eventual triumph of the (almost unmixed) Syrian text; | 141 |
195. | due partly to the contraction of the Greek world, and the destruction of copies by invaders in outlying regions, partly to the centralisation of Greek Christendom round Constantinople, the heir of the Syrian text of Antioch | 142 |
D. 196, 197. Relics of Ρre-Syrian texts in cursives | 143—145 | |
196. | Substantial identity of text in the mass of cursives, along with sporadic, or occasionally more extensive, occurrence of Pre-Syrian readings in some cursives | 143 |
197. | Such readings in effect fragmentary copies of lost ancient MSS | 144 |
E. 198. Recapitulation of the history of the text | 145, 146 | |
198. | Continuous course of textual events from the rise of the Western text to the attempt made to remedy the confusion of texts by the Syrian revision, and the disappearance of the unmixed Pre-Syrian texts; and thence to the gradual supersession of rival mixed texts by the Syrian text of Constantinople | 145 |
Section IV. Relations of the principal extant documents to the chief ancient texts (199—223) | 146—162 | |
A. 199, 200. Nature of the process of determination | 146—148 | |
199. | Application of the history to criticism of readings begins with determination of the ancient text or texts represented by each principal document | 146 |
200. | The process of finding by readings of clearly marked attestation whether a document follows this or that ancient text, or a mixture of two, or a mixture of more | 147 |
B. 201—212. Texts found in Greek MSS | 148—155 | |
201. | Preliminary | 148 |
202. | D a Western MS of the Gospels and Acts | 148 |
203. | D2G3 Western MSS of St Paul's Epistles. No purely Alexandrian MSS extant | 149 |
204. | B Pre-Syrian, not Alexandrian, nor (except within narrow limits) Western | 150 |
205. | א Pre-Syrian, with large Western and Alexandrian elements | 151 |
206. | All other extant MSS mixed, and partially or wholly Syrian: three heads of difference in respect of mixture | 151 |
207. | The mixed text of A: Syrian predominance in the Gospels of A, not in the other books: affinity of A with the Latin Vulgate | 152 |
208. | The mixed text of C | 152 |
209. | Various mixed texts of other uncial MSS of the Gospels, | 152 |
210. | and of the other books; | 153 |
211. | also of some cursive MSS of the Gospels, | 154 |
212. | and of the other books | 154 |
C. 213—219. Texts found in Versions | 155—159 | |
213. | Mixed Latin texts | 155 |
214. | The Old Syriac Pre-Syrian, chiefly (as far as known) Western: the Vulgate Syriac incompletely Syrian | 156 |
215. | The Harklean Syriac chiefly Syrian: its secondary ancient element | 156 |
216. | Peculiar mixture in the Jerusalem Syriac | 157 |
217. | The Egyptian Versions Pre-Syrian, predominantly neutral and also Alexandrian, with Western elements of uncertain date: the ÆEthiopic partly the same, partly Syrian | 157 |
218. | The Armenian mixed, having various very early as well as Syrian elements; the Gothic mixed, chiefly Syrian and Western, resembling the Italian Latin | 158 |
219. | General correspondence of the textual elements of versions with the dates of versions | |
D. 220—223. Texts found in Greek Fathers | 159—162 | |
220. | Compound evidence (author's text and translator's text) furnished by Greek works extant in translations, as (Latin) the treatise of Irenæus, | 159 |
221. | and various works of Origen; | |
222. | and (Syriac) the Theophania of Eusebius, and Cyril on St Luke | |
223. | Later Greek writers having texts with large Pre-Syrian elements | |
Section V. Identification and estimation of readings as belonging to the chief ancient texts (224—243) | 162—179 | |
A. 224. Nature of the process of identification | 162 | |
224. | Assignation of readings to particular ancient texts frequently possible through knowledge of the constituent elements of the attesting documents | 162 |
B. 225, 226. Identification and rejection of Syrian readings | 163, 164 | |
225. | Documentary criteria for detecting Syrian readings | 163 |
226. | Causes and limitations of their occasional uncertainties | 164 |
C. 227—232. Identification of Western and of Alexandrian readings | 164—169 | |
227. | Assignation of Pre-Syrian readings to the several Pre-Syrian types a larger task | 164 |
228. | Documentary criteria of distinctively Western readings; | 165 |
229. | and of distinctively Alexandrian readings; | 166 |
230. | and also of Western readings which became Syrian, and of Alexandrian readings which became Syrian | 167 |
231. | The attestation of Non-Western and Non-Alexandrian readings essentially residual | 167 |
232. | Causes of occasional uncertainty of assignation | 168 |
D. 233—235. Identification of neutral readings | 169—172 | |
233. | In ternary variations Pre-Syrian readings by the side of Western and Alexandrian readings may be either modifications of the others or independent and neutral | 169 |
234. | The attestation of neutral readings ascertained partly by direct inspection of ternary readings, partly by comparison of the two chief types of binary readings | 170 |
235. | Details of neutral attestation | 170 |
E. 236—239. Suspiciousness of Western and of Alexandrian readings | 172—175 | |
236. | Western and Alexandrian texts, as wholes, aberrant in character | 172 |
237. | The possibility that individual Western or Alexandrian readings may be original not excluded by any known genealogical relations; | 173 |
238. | but internal character unfavourable to the claims of all but a few | 173 |
239. | The apparent originality of some Western readings due to derivation from traditional sources | 174 |
F. 240—242. Exceptional Western non-interpolations | 175—177 | |
240. | Certain apparently Western omissions in the Gospels shown by internal character to be original, i. e.. non-interpolations | 175 |
241. | The probable origin of the corresponding Non-Western interpolations | 176 |
242. | No analogous exceptional class of genuine Alexandrian readings | 177 |
G. 243. Recapitulation of genealogical evidence proper | 178, 179 | |
243. | Results of genealogical evidence proper summed up in five propositions | 178 |
Section VI. Review of previous criticism with reference to ancient texts (244—255) | 179–186 | |
A. 244—246. Foundation of historical criticism by Mill, Bentley, and Bengel | 179—181 | |
244. | The necessity of considering the studies of Cent. xviii on ancient texts | 179 |
245. | Mill's detached criticisms: importance of Bentley's principle of Greek and Latin consent; not directly embodied in a text before Lachmann; | 180 |
246. | but instrumental in suggesting Bengel's classification of documents by 'nations' or 'families' | 180 |
B. 247—249. Development of historical criticism by Griesbach, in contrast with Hug's theory of recensions | 181–183 | |
247. | Bengel followed by Semler and others, but especially Griesbach: misunderstandings arising from the ambiguity of the term 'recension' | 181 |
248. | Hug's comparatively true view of the Western text, and his fanciful theory of recensions founded on words of Jerome | 181 |
249. | Griesbach's disproof of the existence of the supposed Origenian recension: the Syrian recension perhaps due to Lucianus: the possibility of a recension by Hesychius | 182 |
C. 250—253. Defects of Griesbach's criticism | 183—185 | |
250. | Griesbach's confusion between classification of ancient texts and of extant documents, and consequent inadequate sense of mixture, and neglect of groupings: | 183 |
251. | his confusion of Alexandrian readings with readings preserved chiefly at Alexandria, and consequent failure to detect neutral readings: | 183 |
252. | his excessive confidence in Transcriptional Probability: and his use of the Received Text as a basis | 184 |
253. | The limitations of view in Griesbach, and in the critics of Cent. xviii generally, due to the slenderness and the peculiar character of the materials accessible to them | 185 |
D. 254, 255. Permanent value of Griesbach's criticism | 185, 186 | |
254. | Griesbach's greatness as a critic: his criticism historical in character, and derived from classification of the actual phenomena: the validity of its principle and chief results not affected by his later observations | 185 |
255. | Disregard of the genealogical basis laid down by Griesbach an element of insecurity in the texts of his successors | 186 |
CHAPTER III. RESULTS OF INTERNAL ΕVIDENCE OF GROUPS AND DOCUMENTS (256–355) |
187–271 | |
Section I. Documentary Groups as limited by reference to Primary Greek MSS generally (256—280) | 187—206 | |
A. 256—260. General considerations on Documentary Groups | 187—191 | |
256. | Internal Evidence of Documents already taken into account for the great ancient texts, in reference to their internal character; | 187 |
257. | and this process equally applicable to any group of documents that recurs in isolation from the rest, | 188 |
258. | on the assumption that the text of the group is homogeneous | 189 |
259. | Isolation a necessary condition, because readings attested by other documents as well as by the group exhibit the character not of the group's special ancestor but of an earlier ancestor of all | 189 |
260. | Virtual identity of groups found to be compatible with a certain amount of variation in their composition | 190 |
B. 261—264. Progressive limitation of Groups with reference to Primary Greek MSS | 191—194 | |
261. | Groups worthy of attention found to be comparatively few, being marked by the presence of one or more primary Greek MSS | 191 |
262. | Enumeration of primary Greek MSS | 192 |
263. | Internal excellence of readings attested by all the primary Greek MSS; | 193 |
264. | or by all except D or D2G3 | 193 |
C. 265—267. Relation of Primary Greek MSS to other documentary evidence | 194—196 | |
265. | The need of determining whether Primary Greek MSS can be decisive as to a reading opposed by all or nearly all other documents of any class | 194 |
266. | The chief means of determination (a) Internal Evidence of the Groups thus formed by Primary Greek MSS, to be discussed hereafter, and (b) the textual character of the several classes of secondary documents, to be considered now | 195 |
267. | Important fragmentary documents to be noticed in variations for which they are extant, that it may be ascertained whether their absence has to be allowed for elsewhere | 196 |
D. 268. Absence of Secondary Greek MSS from Groups containing Primary Greek MSS | 196, 197 | |
268. | The large amount of various mixture in all secondary Greek MSS sufficient to account for their opposition to many genuine readings of Primary Greek MSS | 196 |
E. 269—273. Absence of Versions from Groups containing Primary Greek MSS | 197—201 | |
269. | Versions are liable to be found supporting wrong Western readings in consequence of the wide range of Western corruption among them; | 197 |
270. | and the versions most free from Western corruption are the versions oftenest found supporting the Primary Greek MSS | 198 |
271. | Apparent dissent of versions is not always a mark of difference of text, their apparent renderings being often due to inability to express Greek distinctions, or to freedom of diction, | 198 |
272. | or to love of paraphrase, found in translators even more than in scribes | 199 |
273. | The existence of true cases of opposition of all versions to genuine readings of Primary Greek MSS is consistent with the textual composition of the versions, as given above; and the absence of attestation by versions is not accompanied by suspiciousness of internal character | 200 |
F. 274—279. Absence of Fathers frotn Groups containing Primary Greek MSS | 201—205 | |
274. | Negative patristic evidence irrelevant against a reading except in the few cases in which quotation would have been morally inevitable; | 201 |
275. | even when it is supported by positive Post-Nicene patristic evidence, the force of which is weakened by the prevalence of mixture in Post-Nicene patristic texts | 201 |
276. | The force of the apparent opposition of Ante-Nicene patristic evidence is weakened (1) by the assimilation of patristic texts to the current texts in transcription or printing, which is often indicated by varieties of reading or by the context; | 202 |
277. | or even in the absence of such marks, conscious or unconscious recollection of the current texts being virtually inseparable from transcription and editing: | 203 |
278. | (2) by laxity of quotation, which naturally follows in most cases the same lines as laxity of transcription: | 203 |
279. | and (3) by the large Western element in the texts of even the Alexandrian Fathers | 204 |
G. 280. Absence of Versions and Fathers from Groups containing Primary Greek MSS | 205, 206 | |
280. | Versions and Fathers, as representative of lost MSS, are not generically different in ultimate authority from MSS: nor is there any inherent improbability in the supposition that all Versions and Fathers may occasionally coincide in complete defection from a right reading | 205 |
Section II. Documentary Groups as limited by reference to the Best Primary Greek MSS (281—355) | 207—271 | |
A. 281—283. Relation of variations between Primary Greek MSS to the chief ancient texts | 207—209 | |
281. | Natural harmony between a true interpretation of the relations between important groups and the known relations between the chief ancient texts | 207 |
282. | Its apparent violation by the apparent opposition of composite attestation to probable readings; | 208 |
283. | explained by the early adoption of Western readings in eclectic texts, and by the mixed texts of most extant MSS | 209 |
B. 284—286. General relations of B and א to other documents | 210–212 | |
284. | Preeminence of אB combined, and comparative preeminence of Β alone, ascertained by Internal Evidence of Groups; | 210 |
285. | as it was virtually by analysis of the texts of documents in relation to the chief ancient texts | 210 |
286. | Substantial independence of the two processes, and consequent mutual verification | 211
|
C. 287—304. Origin and character of readings of אB combined | 212–227 | |
287. | Enquiry into the preeminence of אB combined | 212 |
288. | Question as to the independence of their respective texts; not answered by the participation of the scribe of Β in the writing of א | 213 |
289. | Community of readings in any two MSS insufficient for determining the proximity or distance of the common source, which may even be the autograph | 214 |
290. | The hypothesis of a proximate common origin of א and B, obviously incredible in its literal sense, has now to be examined as limited to a common element in א and Β | 215 |
291. | Their texts being simplified by neglect of readings evidently due to mixture and of 'singular' readings, | 215 |
292. | the remaining discrepancies, in which each has very ancient support, are unfavourable to the hypothesis | 216 |
293. | Community of manifestly wrong readings in any two MSS is a proof that the common original was not the autograph, but is indecisive as to degree of remoteness | 216 |
294. | Community of a succession of mere blunders is a sign of proximateness of common source: but only one such is found in אB combined, and that easily explicable by accidental coincidence | 217 |
295. | Positive indications of the remoteness of the common source are furnished by the genealogical relations of א and Β under two heads. | 219 |
296. | (a) The identity of internal character between the least attested and the better attested readings of אB combined is a reason for referring both to the same common source, which in the latter case cannot be proximate | 219 |
297. | The primitiveness of text thus established for the common source of אB is compatible with either (1) the primitiveness and consequent extreme remoteness of the actual common source, or (2) transcription from a primitive MS, or (3) inheritance from a singularly incorrupt ancestry | 220 |
298. | But (b) the two latter alternatives are excluded by the second kind of genealogical considerations; that is, each MS is shown by readings having a small very ancient accessory attestation to contain a separate text of its own, at once analogous in character to the other and distinct from it; | 221 |
299. | these two separate texts being likewise perceptible in ternary variations: | 221 |
300. | so that it is unnatural to take the text of אB as a third independent text rather than as representing the coincidences of the independent texts of א and of Β. | 222 |
301. | Hence א and Β are descended through separate and divergent ancestries from a common original not far from the autographs | 222 |
302. | Readings of אB are virtually readings of a lost MS above two centuries older. The strong presumption of relative purity due to this high antiquity is confirmed by Internal Evidence of Groups | 223 |
303. | Absolute purity is negatived by Western non-interpolations, possible concurrences of א and Β in wrong Western readings in St Paul, and 'primitive' errors, besides accidental coincidences in e. g. itacistic errors. With these exceptions, readings of אB should be accepted when not contravened by strong internal evidence, and then only treated as doubtful | 224 |
304. | Illustrative examples of good but prima facie difficult readings of אB | 226 |
D. 305—307. Binary uncial combinations containing Β and א respectively | 227—230 | |
305. | Peculiar excellence of the binary combinations BL, BC, BT &c. | 227 |
306. | Exceptional and variable character of BD2 in the Pauline Epistles | 228 |
307. | Questionable character of most binary combinations containing א | 229 |
Ε. 308—325. Singular and subsingular readings of B | 230—246 | |
308. | Definition of ' singular ' and ' subsingular ' readings | 230 |
309. | The authority of the singular readings of any document variable according to the number and genealogical relations of all the extant documents: in a complex pedigree no presumption against singular readings of a document known to have an exceptional ancestry | 230 |
310. | Separation of the singular readings of the proper text of a document, due to its ancestry, from its mere 'individualisms' originating with the scribe | 231 |
311. | Use of the determination of characteristic individualisms, whether clerical or mental, in the examination of singular readings | 232 |
312. | Individualisms of Β chiefly slight mechanical inaccuracies: | 233 |
313. | groundlessness of the supposition that its scribe was addicted to arbitrary omissions, (its supposed omissions being due only to an inverted view of the interpolations of the 'Received' and the intermediate texts,) | 234 |
314. | except perhaps as regards petty words, as articles and pronouns: | 235 |
315. | its other individualisms simple and inartificial (chiefly easy assimilations), such as would proceed from a dull and patient but sometimes negligent transcriber | 237 |
316. | Subsingular readings of Β various in character according to the accessory attestation | 237 |
317. | Singular readings of Β often individualisms only, but also often probably right | 238 |
318. | Excellence of singular and subsingular readings of Β in ternary and especially in composite ternary variations, made up of two or more binary variations with varying distributions of attestation | 239 |
319. | Reasons why the readings of Β in such cases cannot be the result of skilful choice, | 240 |
320. | which must not be confounded with the incomplete adoption of composite Western readings in the Pauline Epistles, due only to negligence | 240 |
321. | Examples of the excellence of subsingular readings of Β in ternary variations; whether of the simpler kind (James v 7); | 241 |
322. | or composite, consisting of a single phrase (Mark vi 43); | 242 |
323. | or formed by a series of separate variations (St Mark's account of the denials of St Peter) | 243 |
324. | Excellence of many subsingular and even singular readings of Β in binary variations, though many have to be rejected | 244 |
325. | Many genuine readings in the Acts and Epistles virtually subsingular readings of Β with the Syrian attestation added | 245 |
F. 326—329. Singular and subsingular readings of א and other MSS | 246—250 | |
326. | Individualisms of א bold and careless: subsingular readings of א mostly suspicious, but a few possibly or probably right | 246 |
327. | Probability that the reading of the archetype of אΒ is usually preserved in either א or Β where they differ | 247 |
328. | Hence subsingular readings of either MS may be either virtually equivalent to subsingular readings of אB or early corruptions of limited range: subsingular readings of Β frequently the former, subsingular readings of א usually the latter | 248 |
329. | Internal Evidence of Groups and Documents unfavourable to singular and subsingular readings of all other MSS, and to all binary combinations of other MSS | 250 |
G. 330—339. Determination of text where B and א differ | 250—256 | |
330. | Erroneous results obtained by simply following Β in all places not containing self-betraying errors | 250 |
331. | Use of Secondary documentary evidence and Internal evidence in conflicts of Β and א | 251 |
332. | Value of Secondary documentary evidence as proving readings not to be individualisms, and throwing back their age; | 252 |
333. | its special value when it includes mixed documents (e.g. cursives) having an ancient element; | 252 |
334. | recognition of their weight in Non-Syrian readings being consistent with neglect of their Syrian readings | 253 |
335. | Illustration of the composite texts of mixed documents from E3, a transcript of the Western D2 made after D2 had been partially assimilated to the Syrian text by correctors, | 254 |
336. | as exemplified by Rom. xv 31 ff., which shews incomplete copying of an incompletely assimilated text; and consequent survival of some Western readings: | 254 |
337. | comparison of E3 as interpreted by D2 with E3 as it would appear if D2 were lost a key to the doubleness of text in other mixed documents, warranting neglect of all readings not discrepant from the current or Syrian text; | 255 |
338. | such neglect being the only means of avoiding much positive error | 255 |
339. | Cumulative absence of attestation by late mixed documents proved unimportant by the numerous certain readings which have no such attestation | 256 |
H. 340—346. Determination of text where B is absent | 256—263 | |
340. | Three portions of text in which Β (or its fundamental text) is wanting | 256 |
341. | (1) Variations including Western readings supported by B in the Pauline Epistles: difficulty of distinguishing Alexandrian from genuine readings opposed to largely attested readings of BD2G3: | 257 |
342. | possible but rarely probable Western origin of readings of אBD2G3 | 258 |
343. | (2) Parts of Ρauline Epistles for which B is defective: difficulty noticed under the last head repeated; also of detecting readings answering to subsingular readings of Β: absolute authority of א not increased by its relative preeminence | 259 |
344. | (3) Apocalypse: obscurity of documentary relations: א full of individualisms, and otherwise of very mixed character: relative excellence of A, and special value of AC combined: lateness of text in most versions: internal evidence | 260 |
345. | Need of further examination of documentary genealogy in the Apocalypse | 262 |
346. | Anomalous relation of the 'Received' to the Syrian text in the Apocalypse | 262 |
I. 347—355. Supplementary details on the birth-place and the composition of leading MSS | 264—271 | |
347. | Uncertainty as to the birth-place of the chief uncials except the bilingual MSS: absence of evidence for the supposed Alexandrian origin of some | 264 |
348. | Slight orthographical indications suggesting that Β and א were written in the West, A and C at Alexandria; | 265 |
349. | supported as regards Β and א by their exhibition of a Latin system of divisions in Acts, though not due to the first hands | 266 |
350. | Other indications from divisions of books altogether uncertain | 266 |
351. | Surmise that Β and א were both written in the West, probably at Rome, but that the ancestry of א contained an element transmitted from Alexandria: the inclusion of Hebrews about the middle of Cent. iv compatible with this supposition | 267 |
352. | Similarity of text throughout Β and (except in the Apocalypse) throughout א probably due to sameness of average external conditions, the greater uncials being probably copied from MSS which included only portions of the N. Τ. | 267 |
353. | Various forms and conditions of corrections by the different 'hands' of MSS | 269 |
354. | Changes of reading by the second hand (the 'corrector') of Β: worthless character of the changes by the third hand | 270 |
355. | The three chief sets of corrections of א. Erasures | 270 |
CHAPTER IV. SUBSTANTIAL INTEGRITY OF THE PUREST TRANSMITTED TEXT (356–374) |
271–287 | |
356. | The ultimate question as to the substantial identity of the purest transmitted text with the text of the autographs to be approached by enquiring first how far the text of the best Greek uncials is substantially identical with the purest transmitted text | 271 |
A. 357—360. Approximate non-existence of genuine readings unattested by any of the best Greek uncials | 272—276 | |
357. | The preservation of scattered genuine readings by mixture with lost lines of transmission starting from a point earlier than the divergence of the ancestries of Β and א is theoretically possible: | 272 |
358. | but is rendered improbable, (a) as regards the readings of secondary uncials, by the paucity and sameness of their elements of mixture, and by the internal character of readings | 273 |
359. | There is a similar theoretical possibility as regards (b) reading's wholly or chiefly confined to Versions and Fathers, which exist in great numbers, and a priori deserve full consideration: | 274 |
360. | but they are condemned by Internal Evidence of Readings, with a few doubtful exceptions | 274 |
B. 361—370. Approximate sufficiency of existing documents for the recovery of the genuine text, notwithstanding the existence of some primitive corruptions | 276—284 | |
361. | The question as to the possibility of primitive error not foreclosed by any assumption that no true words of Scripture can have perished, nor by the improbability of most existing conjectures | 276 |
362. | Presumption in favour of the integrity of the purest transmitted text derived from the small number of genuine extant readings not attested by א or Β | 277 |
363. | Absence of any contrary presumption arising from the complexity of attestation in the N.T., which is in fact due to unique advantages in the antiquity, variety, and excellence of the evidence; | 278 |
364. | and yet more in the preeminent excellence of two or three existing documents | 279 |
365. | The existence of primitive errors, with variety of evidence, illustrated by 2 Pet. iii 10; | 279 |
366. | and not to be denied even where there is no variation, especially if the existing text gives a superficial sense | 280 |
367. | Impossibility of determining whether primitive errors came in at the first writing by the author or amanuensis, or at a very early stage of transmission: transitional class of virtually primitive errors in places where the true text has a trifling attestation | 280 |
368. | Paucity of probable primitive errors, and substantial integrity of the purest transmitted text, as tested by Internal Evidence | 281 |
369. | Total absence of deliberate dogmatic falsification as an originating cause of any extant variants, notwithstanding the liability of some forms of bold paraphrase to be so interpreted | 282 |
370. | Dogmatic influence limited to preference between readings antecedently existing: baselessness of early accusations of wilful corruption, except in part as regards Marcion. Absence of dogmatic falsification antecedent to existing variations equally indicated by Internal Evidence | 283 |
C. 371—374. Conditions of further improvement of the text | 284—287 | |
371. | Future perfecting of the text to be expected through more exact study of relations between existing documents, rather than from new materials, useful as these may be: | 284 |
372. | but only in accordance with principles already ascertained and applied | 285 |
373. | Inherent precariousness of texts constituted without reference to genealogical relations of documents | 286 |
374. | Certainty of the chief facts of genealogical history in the N. T., and of the chief relations between existing documents | 287 |
PART IV | ||
NATURE AND DETAILS OF THIS EDITION | 288—324 | |
A. 375—377. Aim and limitations of this edition | 288—290 | |
375. | This text an attempt to reproduce at once the autograph text; | 288 |
376. | limited by uncertainties due to imperfection of evidence, and by the exclusive claims of high ancient authority in a manual edition; | 289 |
377. | and thus modified by alternative readings, and by the relegation of probable but unattested or insufficiently attested readings to the Appendix | 290 |
B. 378—392. Textual notation | 291—302 | |
378. | Three classes of variations or readings, with corresponding notation: forms of variation also three, Omission, Insertion, Substitution | 291 |
379. | First class. Alternative readings proper, placed without accompanying marks in margin, or indicated by simple brackets in text | 291 |
380. | Second class. Places where a primitive corruption of text is suspected, marked by Ap.† in margin (or †† in text) | 292 |
381. | Third class. Rejected readings of sufficient special interest to deserve notice; | 293 |
382. | (1) Rejected readings worthy of association with the text or margin, classified as follows | 294 |
383. | Nine Non-Western interpolations in Gospels retained in the text within double brackets, to avoid omission on purely Western authority; | 294 |
384. | and five apparently Western interpolations, containing important traditional matter, likewise enclosed in double brackets | 295 |
385. | Other interesting Western additions (interpolations) and substitutions in Gospels and Acts retained in the margin within peculiar marks | 296 |
386. | (2) Rejected readings not worthy of association with the text or margin, but interesting enough to be noticed in the Appendix, indicated by Ap. | 298 |
387. | Explanation of the course adopted as to the last twelve verses of St Mark's Gospel; | 298 |
388. | the Section on the Woman taken in Adultery; | 299 |
389. | the Section on the Man working on the Sabbath; | 300 |
390. | the interpolations in the story of the Pool of Bethzatha; | 300 |
391. | the account of the piercing by the soldier's spear, as inserted in the text of St Matthew; | 301 |
392. | and the mention of Ephesus in the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians | 302 |
C. 393—404. Orthography | 302—310 | |
393. | Determination of orthography difficult, but not to be declined without loss of fidelity and of the individual characteristics of different books | 302 |
394. | The orthography of classical writers as edited often conventional only; and the evidence for the orthography of the Greek Bible relatively large | 303 |
395. | Most of the unfamiliar spellings in the N. T. derived from the popular language, not 'Alexandrine', nor yet 'Hellenistic'; | 303 |
396. | illustrated by other popular Christian and Jewish writings and by inscriptions | 304 |
397. | Most spellings found in the best MSS of the N.T. probably not introduced in or before Cent. iv, but transmitted from the autographs; and at all events the most authentic that we possess | 305 |
398. | Orthographical variations treated here in the same manner as others, subject to defects of evidence, and with much uncertainty as to some results | 306 |
399. | Orthographical change was more rapid than substantive change, but followed the same main lines of transmission: the fundamental orthographical character of documents is disguised by superficial itacism | 306 |
400. | Western and Alexandrian spellings: habitual neutrality of Β | 307 |
401. | Tabulation of recurring spellings indispensable for approximate determination, notwithstanding the impossibility of assuming an absolute uniformity | 307 |
402. | Orthographical alternative readings reserved for the Appendix | 308 |
403. | Digression on itacistic error as diminishing but not invalidating the authority of the better MSS as between substantive readings differing only by vowels that are liable to be interchanged; | 308 |
404. | with illustrations of the permutation of ο and ω, ε and αι, ε and η, ει and η, and ἡμεῖς and ὑμεῖς | 309 |
D. 405—416. Breathings, Accents, and other accessories of printing | 310—318 | |
405. | No transmission of Breathings (except indirectly) or Accents in early uncials | 310 |
406. | Evidence respecting them extraneous, that is, derived from grammarians and late MSS. whether of the N. T. or of other Greek writings | 311 |
407. | Peculiar breathings attested indirectly by aspiration of preceding consonants | 311 |
408. | Breathings of proper names, Hebrew or other, to be determined chiefly by their probable etymology: | 312 |
409. | difficulty as to the breathing of Ιούδας and its derivatives | 313 |
410. | Special uses of the Iota subscript | 314 |
411. | Insertion of accents mainly regulated by custom, with adoption of the frequent late shortening of long vowels | 314 |
412. | Syllabic division of words at end of lines generally guided by the rules of Greek grammarians and the precedents of the four earliest MSS | 315 |
413. | Quotations from the O.T. printed in uncial type, transliterated Hebrew words in spaced type, titles and formulæ in capitals | 315 |
414. | Distinctive use of Κύριος and [ὁ] κύριος; | 316 |
415. | of Χριστός and [ὁ] χριστός; | 317 |
416. | and of Ὕψιστος and ὁ ὕψιστος | 318 |
Ε. 417—423. Punctuation, Divisions of text, and Titles of books | 318—322 | |
417. | No true transmission of punctuation in early uncials or other documents; necessity of punctuating according to presumed interpretation | 318 |
418. | Simplicity of punctuation preferred. Alternative punctuations | 319 |
419. | Graduated division and subdivision by primary sections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, and capitals | 319 |
420. | Metrical arrangement of passages metrical in rhythm | 319 |
421. | Peculiar examples and analogous arrangements | 320 |
422. | Order of books regulated by tradition, that is, the best Greek tradition of Cent. iv: position of the Pauline Epistles in the N. T., and of Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles | 320 |
423. | Traditional titles of books adopted from the best MSS. The collective Gospel. The forms Colassae in the title, Colossae in the text | 321 |
F. 424, 425. Conclusion | 322—324 | |
424. | Acknowledgements | 322 |
425. | Last words | 323 |
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse