Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

called Uncials,1 because written with capital letters without any separation between the words, the others of a more modern character being called Minuscules or Cursives, because written in a small running hand. Of the latter there are about 2000-an immense array of witnesses compared with the few MSS. of classical works preserved to us, which can frequently be counted on the ten fingers.3 Owing to the greater liability to error in copying with the hand than in the use of the printing press, about 200,000 Various Readings have been discovered in the extant MSS. of the New Testament.4 Happily the differences between the

1 From the Latin uncia, an inch, referring to the size of the letters.

2 For further information regarding MSS. see Note B at end of this chapter.

3 The MSS. of Horace amount to about 250; those of Virgil are also very numerous, one of them dating from the second century. But of Catullus, the earliest MS. is of the fourteenth century; of Cornelius Nepos, of the twelfth; of Thucydides, of the eleventh; of Herodotus, of the tenth; of Cæsar's Commentaries, of the ninth; while the six Books of Tacitus' Annals only exist in one MS., which was brought to light in the fifteenth century. "The correspondence of Pliny with Trajan," Professor Ramsay remarks, "depends on a single manuscript of unknown age, found in Paris about 1500, apparently taken to Italy in the next few years, used by several persons before 1508, and never since seen or known. In spite of this suspicious history, the correspondence is indubitably genuine."

4 By 200,000 Various Readings, it must not be supposed to be meant that there are 200,000 passages of Scripture in which the text is variously represented. The Readings are ascertained by comparing every MS. in turn with the standard text, and every instance in which a difference is found, even though it should affect nothing but a word, is reckoned as a Various Reading, the number of such instances in all the different MSS. (including Versions and quotations in the Fathers) being summed up to ascertain the whole. Moreover, many of the readings are plainly erroneous and do not cause the slightest doubt or perplexity, while many others affect the form of expression only. Hence we find Westcott and Hort (Intro

duction, p. 1) giving it as their opinion that "the words still subject to doubt only make up about one-sixtieth of the whole New Testament"; and again they state that "the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small part of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. As compared with other ancient books, it must be remembered that the large number of various readings in the New Testament is due, not to the excessive corruption of the text, but to the immense number of copies that have been preserved for us. The process of copying was in every case sure to be attended with more or less error, and every time a copy became itself a model for transcription, new errors were inevitably added to the old. Every addition to the number of MSS. thus brings an addition to the number of readings; but instead of wishing to get rid of any MS., critics find each one to be a witness in some sort to the true text, and welcome every addition to their number. The result of a critical examination of the immense array of documentary evidence that is now at our disposal has been to give us a much purer textadopted, with substantial unanimity by the greatest authorities of our day (Tischendorf, New Testament, 8th edition, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort),-than that which was known and accepted by the scholars of the sixteenth century (Textus Receptus). Hence the famous words of Bentley have only been verified by time: Make your thirty thousand (various readings) as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum: all the better to a knowing and serious reader, who is

readings are for the most part so minute that they do not affect the substance of revealed truth. As it is the duty of the Church, however, to ascertain as far as possible, the exact words of the sacred writers, a special department of study has been instituted, commonly known as Textual Criticism, which has for its aim to adjudicate on the rival claims of the various readings, with due regard to the age and special characteristics of the several manuscripts, as well as to the common risks of misapprehension and inadvertence to which all copyists were liable.1

5. Other Witnesses.

In the performance of the difficult and delicate task just mentioned attention must be paid to two other valuable sources of information. (1) Those writings of Church Fathers ranging from the end of the first century to the fourth or fifth century of the Christian era-which contain quotations from the New Testament.2 The value of the Fathers as a help in determining the exact text of Scripture is a good deal impaired by the fact that, not having the advantage of a Concordance, or of our divisions into chapters and verses, they frequently quote from memory and not with strict accuracy.3 This is of less moment,

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

however, when the object is not so much to ascertain the precise language of Scripture as to prove the existence and general reception of the books of the New Testament at an early period in the history of the Church.1 (2) Ancient Versions or Translations, some of which (for example, the Syriac and Old Latin) were made within a century after the time of the apostles.2 These, also, afford valuable evidence as to the canonicity of particular books-some of them having been current as early as the second century, and being still preserved in ancient MSS. dating, in some cases, from the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries. As regards readings, their testimony is often uncertain owing to the want of exact correspondence between their language and that of the original; but where the translation is of a literal character, as it is, for example, in the case of the Old Latin Versions, the language of the original in a disputed passage may be inferred with a near approach to certainty. Even the errors of the translator sometimes indicate quite plainly what words he had before him in the Greek; while, in a question of the omission or insertion of a clause, an ordinary version speaks

equitandum," as his son informs us), which may account for the imperfect manner in which the task was executed.

The

Other modes of division, however, existed from a very early period. division into lines (σrixo), known as stichometry, seems to have been in use before the beginning of the Christian era and was applied to Scripture by Euthalius, a deacon of Alexandria, about the middle of the fifth century, who prepared an edition of the Acts and Epistles in which every fiftieth line was noted in the margin and the text was divided into lections and chapters. Corresponding to these Kepalaιa (chapters) of Euthalius are the still earlier Tirλo of the Gospels, being a kind of summary of contents placed at the beginning of each Gospel or at the top or bottom of each page. With the name of Ammonius (third century) is associated a system of division into sections, which was originally employed as a means of presenting a Harmony of the Gospels

in four parallel columns. In connection with this arrangement a plan was devised by Eusebius for enabling a reader to ascertain at once the corresponding passages in the several Gospels. He distributed the sections under ten tables called Canons, the first containing the numbers of the sections common to all the four Gospels, the second those found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and so on. These Canons were frequently prefixed to MSS.; and in the margin of the text, under the number of the section, the number of the canon in which it was to be found was frequently marked in red ink.

[blocks in formation]

as plainly as a MS. in the original. When the testimony of a version is clear and unmistakable, its confirmation of a reading may be even more valuable, especially if supported by another version, than if it were in Greek, owing to the improbability of a passage being corrupted in the same way in two or three languages.

Although the New Testament has been translated into almost all tongues, it is only the earliest translations, represented by MSS. of sufficient age, that have testimony of any value to offer, either as regards the canonicity of books or the correctness of readings. Such versions are comparatively few in number, and many of the MSS. in which they are preserved have not yet been examined with sufficient care to put us in possession of a thoroughly reliable text and render their evidence fully available.

6. English Versions.

The first English version was completed by John Wycliff in 1383. It was, however, only the translation. of a translation (the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome). The first English translation from the Greek was finished by William Tyndale in 1525, and put in print the following year at Worms. This was followed by Miles Coverdale's translation of the whole Bible in 1535, the Great Bible, usually called Cranmer's (for use in Churches), in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1557, the Bishop's Bible in 1568, and King James's Bible (the Authorised Version) in 1611. The most recent and reliable results of Biblical criticism are embodied in the Revised Version of 1881, which has in this respect, as in regard to accuracy of translation, an unquestionable superiority over the Authorised Version, the latter having been made at a time when the science was still in its infancy, and before any of the three chief MSS. above referred to were available for reference. Possibly the next generation may see further improvements, as the result of a closer examination of MSS., Versions,

and other ancient writings, as well as through an enhanced appreciation of the language of the New Testament, in the light of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) and other Hellenistic literature; but, after all, any points in which our English Bible is capable of improvement are infinitesimal compared with the general trustworthiness of its contents. Of its imperfections as a translation it may be said, with scarcely less truth than of obscurities in the original, that "like the spots upon the surface of the sun, they neither mar the symmetry nor impair the glory of the great Source of our Life and Light which is imaged in them.”1

NOTE A on the Canon.

The original meaning of the word canon (kavúv) is a rod, especially as a standard of measurement. As applied to the Scriptures it may either be taken in an active or a passive sense, as determining the Church's faith, or as itself approved and sanctioned by the Church; but in actual use the two meanings can hardly be separated. Although the word occurs in the New Testament (2 Cor. x. 13-16, Gal. vi. 16), and in some of the early Fathers (in such expressions as rule of faith, of truth, of the Church), the first writer that clearly and directly applies the term to the Scriptures is Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, in the latter part of the fourth century. More than a hundred years earlier, however, we find in the writings of Origen the words canonical, canonized, in the sense of being acknowledged as authoritative, whence it would seem that the passive sense of the word was then dominant. The formation of the Canon was a very gradual process. As the New Testament writings only came into existence by degrees to meet the practical needs of the Church, so the collection of these writings and their setting apart for sacred uses was only accomplished by degrees, with the general consent of the Church, as its leading representatives in different parts of the world came to realize the insufficiency and uncertainty of oral tradition and the need for securing its faith and doctrine against invasion and corruption.

1 Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels, 7th edition, p. 399.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »