Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

The External Evidence. The essential facts of the evidence are included in the following summary : For envuotás: [? **], B, D2, E, H, L, P, almost all uncials,

all cursives except one (including 13, 61, etc.), [Pst. ?], Eus.

[? Chrys.]. For člnvas: A,A, D*, cser. [= Hort's 112], [? Chrys.].

In explanation of this summary we need to remark:

(1) C is here defective ; but in no other case in Acts does it desert the mass of documents when they read either έλληνες Or ελληνισταί.

(2) It is exceedingly doubtful whether * should be cited for ελληνιστάς. It actually reads ευαγγελιστάς, which is usually assumed to presuppose érotés, on account of its like termination. But since it seems certain that evayyeduotás was suggested by, and results from, the proximity of evayyeli cópevol, the inference does not seem secure. No doubt ελληνιστάς could be more readily than έλληνας mistaken for evayyeductus ; but if any substantive were derived from ευαγγελιζόμενοι, it could not fail to take the form ευαγγελιστάς. It is only with grave doubt, therefore, that the weight of X* can be thrown in favor of ελληνιστάς. .

(3) The force of A, as a witness for envas, is somewhat weakened by the fact that this MS. reads éxinvas also at ix. 29, where the true reading is undoubtedly Anotás. D is defective at ix. 29; but, as Mr. Purves notes, both A and D insert kai before envwv in xvii. 4as do also the good cursives, 13 and 61. If this be due, as he suggests, to a tendency in A and D to put forward the Gentile work of the Church, the testimony of these MISS. here to exanvas should be somewhat suspected. The existence of such a tendency in A and D needs, however, justification.

(4) The versions fail to distinguish between the terms enruotas and exinvas, and hence are not valid witnesses in this matter. Only the Peshitto may be an exception, inasmuch as it reads, at ix. 29, " those Jews who knew Greek”; but even it reads “Greeks" at vi. 1.

ed. 3, 1883 [defends "Enimvas]; HAMMOND, C. E., in his Outlines of Textual Crit., etc., ed. 2, 1876, p. 113 [defends "E27. mvac]; Hort, F. J. A., in his Notes on Select Readings, Gr. Test. vol. II., p. 93, 1881 [defends 'Ezinvorác] ; PURVES, G.T., “ The ReadingE22.nraç in Acts xi. 20,” in The Presbyterian Review, vol. IV., p. 835 sq., 1883 [defends "E7.2 was against Hort]. See also the elaborate notes in the critical editions; in the commentaries of Alford, Wordsworth, Bloomfield, Plumpire and Howson and Spence, in loc.; and in Farrar's Life of Paul, I. 285, etc. (5) Chrysostom (whose words, iows dià un cidéval éßpaiori exinvas aŭrojs érúdov, both Theophylact and Ecumenius repeat) reads "Greeks" in his commentary clearly, although envuotis stands in the text commented on. This throws his testimony somewhat in doubt. It may be that the quotation from Acts has been conformed by later copyists to the Syrian type of text (which undoubtedly read eanνιστάς); or it may be that Chrysostom understood ελληνιστάς as equivalent to elinvas, either in the general import of the word or in this context, and hence, though reading the former, could cry out, όρα, έλλησιν ευαγγελίζονται. Τhe weight of his evidence for έλληνας is weakened in proportion to the probability of his being able to thus interpret ελληνιστάς.

The evidence being thus before us, its estimation is not without its difficulties, although the issue can scarcely remain doubtful.

The Genealogical Ezilence. — The application of genealogical considerations leads immediately to the conclusions that both readings are pre-Syrian, and that neither is Alexandrian in its origin, -as, indeed, the presence of B in the one group and of D* in the other sufficiently evinces. Beyond that, progress is more difficult. It is certainly striking that, with the exception of D*, elinvas is not supported by any of the typical Western documents. It is not easy to suppose, on the one hand, that exinvas arose as a Western corruption and yet failed to propagate itself in the later Western texts, or, on the other, that érinatus was originally Neutral or Neutral-Alexandrian, and thence seeped, by mixture, into all late Western texts. One is almost tempted to suppose the support of Xanvas due to the accidental conformity of independent obvious conjectural emendation. On .closer consideration, however, it appears that all the documents which class here with B have Neutral or Neutral-Alexandrian elements; and thus envuotis is readily accounted for as the NeutralAlexandrian reading, and exinvas as the Western. On genealogical considerations, therefore, there is a probability that élnuotás is the more original reading. This probability fails to be decisive only because genealogical evidence only assigns readings to their respective classes, and leaves it to internal evidence to determine the relative purity of the classes ; and internal evidence of classes can only determine usual, not invariable, relations. Although, therefore, it is certain that the Neutral-Alexandrian readings are generally better than the Western, the rule is not absolutely without exceptions, and there is a possibility that the present case may be an exception.

Internal Evidence of Groups. — We appeal, consequently, to In

[ocr errors]

ternal Evidence of Groups for additional evidence and greater surety. Here we find ourselves embarrassed at once by the doubt resting on the testimony of 2*. If its witness were clearly for Elnuotás, the

4** known high character of the combination BX, here increased greatly by the adjunction of many other important witnesses, would throw the weight of the external evidence overwhelmingly for that reading. Just in the degree that we judge it probable that the present reading of X* is only a stupid blunder for enviotós, must the testimony for that reading appear to us to approach the overwhelming point.

Even when we lay aside the testimony of S*, however, the internal evidence of groups appears still to support équiotús, -B being rarely wrong when in conjunction with such a train as here sides with it.

Still another mode of procedure is open to us, by which we may reach an independent result, and thus test the probabilities already raised. We may try, by internal evidence of groups, the special value of the group which here appears as the evidence for exanvas. We have noted something over a hundred cases in which the group , A, D* occurs in the Book of Acts. In the great majority of these, however, it has either actually or practically the support of all other MSS. except ** ; in other words, the rival reading is a mere individualism or slip of the careless scribe of X*, which has been corrected into conformity wath the universally supported reading by the scholarly hand whom we know as 84. These cases are only valuable in helping us estimate the value of $, to whom hardly due credit is usually attached. The remaining instances may be conveniently classified as follows:

(1) Instances in which S, A, D* have the support of two or more of the primary documents :1

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

!

και τα παντα

4 xiii. 50 omit kai B C 13, 61, al. Copp. L. T. Tr. H. A. right.

Syrr. etc. 5 [xvi. 30 po-[ayazov] (**) B CE L P al. 13, L. T. Tr, H. A. right.]

61, al.plu. 6 xvii. 25

** B E al.10+ vg. Cop. L. T. Tr. H. A. right.

Syr.p. etc. 1 The letters in the fifth column explain themselves: L. Lachmann; T.= Tischendorf's viii. ed.; T.vii. = Tischendorf's vii. ed.; H. = Westcott and Hort; and A. = Alford.

(2) Instances in which they are supported by B and secondary authorities only: 7 iv. 34 | insert UNPYOV B E P al.plu. 13, 61, al. L. T. Tr. I. A. right.

Eus, Chrys. 8

xiii. I τετραρχον BEHL Pal. 13, 61, al. L. T.vii. Tr. A. 9 xvii. 25 omit os BE KLP al. vg. etc. L. T. Tr. H. A. right.

Clem. 10 xviii. 21 omit kar before B 8 cursives, vg. Theb. T. Tr. H. A. right.

etc. xix. 16 omit ka before B E gr. 13, c. scr. al. L. T. Tr. H. A. right. h(Tax

Copp. etc. 12 xxi. 28 insert de kal B E H L P al.plu. vg. L. T. Tr. H. A. right.

Syrr. Eth, etc.

avn.

II

(3) Instances in which they are supported by C and secondary authorities only:13 1. Η εμβλεποντες Cal. plu. Chrys. Cyr. | L. T.vii. A.

wrong. Thdrt, etc. 14 ii. 26 η καρδ. μου CEP al. omn. L.

wrong. (order) 15 iii. 16 insert Eml C E P al.plu. Copp. vg. L. T. Tr. A. wrong

etc. Ir. 16

С

L. T.vii. A.

wrong

vid.

ex

cept ** B

x. 33

[ocr errors]

20

17 xiii. 10 omit tov before CEII L P al. omn.vid. L. T. Tr. !I.mg. A. right? kip.

except ** B 18 XV. 24 εξελθοντες CE Pal.plu. Copp. Syrr. L.T. Tr. [Trimg.]A. right?

vg. Ir. Or. 19 xvi. 32 [Tov] Kup'ov CEII L P al. omn. vid. L. T, Tp. II.mg: A. wrong?

except BN* XX. 22 μου

CH L P al. omn. vid. L. T.vii. Tr. A. wrong

except B **[Egr.] (4) instances in which they are supported by X* and secondary authorities only : 21 [xxi. 22 | Tav7.del.ovve2. ** (? E II L P al.plu. | L. T. A.

wrong.) πληθ.

13, vg (5) Instances in which they are supported by secondary authorities only:

iii. 22 vuov after Otoç | 61, al. vg. Ir. Or. Chrys. L. T.vii. Tr. A. wrong. 23 [iv. 18 To before ka

E P al.plu. Chrys.

T.vii. Tr. A. wrong?] Οοίον 24 v. 31 omit tov before E II P al.plu. Chrys. L. T.vii. Tr. [H.] A. right?

δουν. 25 [vii. 16 insert tov be- E H P al. vg. Syr.p. L.

wrong. ] Eth. Chrys. 26 xi. 20 ελληνας cser. Arm. Eus. (Chrys.] L. T. Tr. A. conflict. 27 xvii. 30 Tapayreizu EH L P al.plu. 13, 61, L. T.vii. Tr. A. wrong.

etc. Cyr. 28 xviii. 3 [up/a-] ETO EL P vg. Syrr. Arm. L. T. ii. Tr. II.mg. A. right?

22

fore ei'.

29

xx. 24 (see digests]

13, 40, 43, 68. (vg.]

L.

wrong

This last list, of course, furnishes the truest parallels to our present passage, and it must be confessed that the most of them are clearly wrong, while none of them are clearly right, and (besides xi. 20) only two seem capable of being plausibly defended. The case is little better with the other instances which lack the support of B; out of nine cases, only three apparently can be plausibly defended, and these are all of such character that internal evidence is of somewhat doubtful value in regard to them. The result of this investigation also, thus, is to discredit envas.

Three, or perhaps four, independent methods of examining the evidence thus elicits from the external testimony a consentient witness for the probable originality of Investis. The exact force of this cumulative probability is not easy to estimate. It is certainly strong enough to give us full confidence in the correctness of eadnutus, in the absence of strong rebutting considerations drawn from internal evidence. And in the presence of such rebutting considerations, it is strong enough to demand from us very anxious questionings and very strenuous efforts after harmony before we set it aside.

а

The Internal Evidence. Transcriptional Probability. --- That the transcriptional probability goes with the external in favor of elimiotús is scarcely open to doubt. Any ordinary reader would naturally expect expras here; and, therefore, a scribe, finding it here, would be very unlikely to alter it into the difficult reading and rare word, edniotás. This is not to assume in scribes a nice appreciation of the true course of the history, but only a slight attention to the immediate context in its most obvious appearances. The contrast with 'Ioudalous that would inevitably suggest itself to the mind of any copyist would be the standing one, - envas, – which he would almost venture to write without reference to his copy; only if he had just written Εβραίους, would he think of ελληνιστάς as its contrast. The strengthening kaí before the após would render it all the more inevitable that he should expect to find, and hence should write, envas. The general progress of the narrative from v. 19 points in the same direction. All combined renders einvlotás so difficult a reading as to forbid our supposing that any scribe would consciously or unconsciously) write it here for envas, — points out ēdinvas as so obvious a correction as to make it very probable that scribes might even independently consciously or unconsciously) write it here for ελληνιστάς.

On the assumption that enanva; is the original reading, explanations

« ÎnapoiContinuați »