Images de page
PDF
ePub

of Hebrew-Chaldaic literature down to the middle, minutely analysed by modern German critics, who of the 2d c. B. C. By an artificial arrangement have attempted to show that they bear internal under the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, the evidence of having been composed generally at a number of books has been limited among the Jews later period than is ordinarily believed. This opinto 22. These writings were spoken of in the time ion, however, has met with little acceptance out of of Christ as graphé, Scripture, or Holy Scripture, or, Germany, as it is considered to be incompatible with more distinctively, with regard to their principal the view of inspiration which has been, and still is, contents, as 'the Law and the Prophets.' Some- commonly held both by Jewish rabbis and Christian times the Psalms and the remaining holy writings divines. (hagiographa) are distinctively noticed. The Law The Samaritans, who were at enmity with the includes the Pentateuch, or the first five books. Jews, recognised only the five books of Moses, and The Prophets are subdivided into earlier and later: a corrupt version of the book of Joshua, as canonical. the former-which, however, are not properly pro- On the other side, the Egyptian Jews, for whom the phetical-including the books of Joshua, Judges, Alexandrine version of the Old Testament was Samuel, and Kings; and the latter containing made, received as canonical several writing which the three great prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and were rejected, or subordinated as apocryphal (see Ezekiel to whom the Christians, in accordance Apocrypha), by the Jews of Palestine. The primitive with the Alexandrine translation, add Daniel as church, in the period which elapsed before the canon well as the minor prophets. The third division of the New Testament was completed, referred to of the Old Testament includes the hagiographa, the Old Testament for proof of doctrines; but, on consisting of the books of Job, Proverbs, Psalms, account of the prevalent ignorance of the Hebrew the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Ruth, Lamenta- and Chaldee languages among the early Christians, tions, and Esther. With regard to the order of the Alexandrine Greek version was the authority these several books, the Alexandrine translation, employed. As this included the apocryphal books, the Fathers of the Church, and Luther on one rejected by the Jews of Palestine, the earliest side, differ from the Jews; again, among the Jews, Christian Fathers made the same use of these writthe Talmudists differ from the Masoretes, while a dif- ings as of the others; but the growth of criticism ference is also found between Spanish and German during the next two centuries was fatal to their MSS. Hence have sprung the different arrangements reputation, or at least to their authority. We do not of the books of the Old Testament. find, however, that they were formally designated apocryphal' until the time of Jerome (5th c.), though the Greek Church, in the previous century, had approximated to this mode of viewing them, by affirming them to be not canonical, but only edifying, and also by issuing lists or catalogues of those books which were recognized as canonical. the Latin Church, on the other hand, these writings were received as canonical after the 4th c., though Jerome, Hilarius, Rufinus, and Junilius wished to distinguish them from the canonical books by the name of libri eeclesiastici. The Protestants, at the Reformation, returned to the distinction originally made by the Palestinian Jews between the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament and the apocryphal works included in the Alexandrine version and the Latin Vulgate. Luther, in his translation of the B., included the Apocrypha as 'books not to be placed on a level with the canonical Scriptures; but profitable for reading.' The council of Trent, which seemed to think that the only safe path for Catholicism to pursue was the exact opposite of that on which Protestantism moved, declared that whoever denied the canonical character of the Apocrypha should be anathema.

The Septuagint is generally adduced in proof of the existence of these books in a collected form as early as 285 B. C., but as most scholars now doubt whether at that period more than the Pentateuch was translated into Hellenistic Greek, we cannot safely build upon such evidence. The earliest indubitable notice is found in the prologue to the Alexandrine translation of the book of Jesus Son of Sirach, written by his grandson probably about 130 B. C., and which not merely demonstrates that the Law and the Prophets then existed in a collective form, but that they must have so existed for a considerable time. His language, however, does not prove that the third division was then concluded, though neither does it disprove it. This conclusion is first definitely ascertained from the catalogue given by Josephus, who flourished after the middle of the first century of the Christian era, while Philo, who flourished 41 A. D., quotes casually from nearly the whole of them.

In

As regards the genuineness and authenticity of the Old Testament, there has been much discussion in modern times. The generally received opinion is, that the various books were originally written wholly or chiefly by the persons whose names are affixed to them, except Judges (Samuel), Ruth (Samuel), The NEW TESTAMENT, or the collection of canoniEsther (Mordecai), Kings and Chronicles (Ezra cal scriptures containing the history and doctines and Jeremiah), and perhaps Job (Moses?); but of Christianity, may be divided into three chief that these MSS. having perished in the detruction sections: 1. The historical books, or the four gosof the first temple, when Nebuchadnezzar took pels, and the Acts of the Apostles. 2. The didactic Jerusalem, the members of the great synagogue- and pastoral writings, which include the Epistles which included Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Malachi, and afterwards Simon the Just-50 years Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, after the building of the second temple, acting in Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Hebrews, the two accordance with a divine commission, rewrote the Epistles of Peter, the three Epistles of John, the Old Testament; or rather made a recension of other Epistles of James and Jude. 3. The prophetical existing copies, to which were subsequently added section, consisting only of one Book, the Apocalypse, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus the canon or Revelation of St. John the Divine. The primitive was concluded. This was the belief of the Jews Christians referred for proof of doctrine, &c., only, themselves at a later period; the Pirke Aboth (Sayings of the Fathers), one of the oldest books of the Talmud, as well as other Jewish records, distinctly assert it. It is, however, simply a tradition, and though possibly true, is necessarily incapable either of demonstration or refutation. In the absence of any direct and conclusive evidence on this point, the contents of the Old Testament have been

so far as we are aware, to the Old Testament, and quotations from it by the apostolie Fathers are numerous enough; but we find few clear and certain references to the didactic portions of the New Testament. The reason of this appears to be, that the lapse of time had hallowed the Old Testament, and given to it that superior authority which springs from venerable age. The generations which immediately

succeeded that of the apostles-and indeed, so far as we can see, the same may be said of the apostles themselves-did not consider the apostolic writings of equal importance as writings with the sacred books of the Old Testament. Besides, most of the epistles were of little use in controversy, for the earliest heretics denied the apostleship of St. Paul; while both parties admitted the authority of the Septuagint, and found in it their common weapons of argument. Nevertheless, we occasionally find references to the didactic portions of the New Testament, such as those to Romans, 1st Corinthians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and James, in Clemens Romanus; to 1st Corinthians and Ephesians, in Ignatius; to Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2d Corintians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Timothy, 2d Timothy, 1st Peter, and 1st John, in Polycarp. Still more uncertain are the references of the apostolical Fathers to the gospels. The notices found in Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp are only sufficient to indicate that all the great facts of Christ's life were known to the churches, and that the doctrinal significance of these had begun to be realised. They do not, however, demonstrate the existence of written gospels, but they prove that Christianity rest on a historic basis. Their silence in relation to the written gospels now constituting a portion of the canon of the New Testament, is at first sight singular; but when we reflect that the facts of the Saviour's life and teachings were apparently quite familiar to the churches-so familiar, indeed, that no explanation was needed in alluding to them-we see that the necessity of the apostolic fathers quoting from the evangelists ceases. It is contended, that any specific quotations would have been a work of supererogation; whereas, in the case of the didactic epistles, which were written originally for the benefit of particular churches, and conditioned by their special circumstances, and the contents of which, therefore, could not be so well or widely known, quotations or allusions might more naturally be looked for. But evidence of this negative character for the existence of the evangelical records, however probable, is very uncertain, and its uncertainty is increased by the use made of writings which, at a later period, were rejected as apocryphal. First, in the second half of the 2d c., more distinct references to the gospels are found in Papias (died 163), in Justin Martyr (died 166 a. D.), in his pupil Tatian (died 176), in Athenageras (died 180), and in Theophilus, who wrote about the year 180. None of these writers, however, name the authors from whom they quote, though Papias-the earliest, but not the most trustworthy of them-bears direct and minute testimony to the existence of gospels by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. John, the catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse, whence it has been concluded that the authenticity of the apostolic memoirs was not then settled, and perhaps not even investigated; but anonymous quotation seems to have been a characteristic carelessness of the time, for of this kind are 117 of Justin Martyr's references to the Old Testament. The great fact on which a constructive Christian criticism leans in regard to the evidence of these writers is, that they do not speak of the gospel or apostolic memoirs as things which had only recently made their appearance, but as well known and long established. Justin even states that the 'apostolic memoirs' were regularly read in the churches for the edification of believers a fact which clearly indicates their superior sanctity and universal reception. The Tübingen school contend, that these apostolic memoirs, could not have been the canonical gospels, but must rather have been the primitive evangelical

records out of which the canonical gospels were formed; but this opinion appears to be utterly untenable, when we remember that only twenty or thirty years can be allowed for the transmutations to take place in, and that the churches must have silently consented to the change, for there is no murmur of complaint or hint of opposition expressed in the whole history of the time.

Nevertheless, the idea of a strict and pure New Testament canon (See CANON) is not discernible in the church in Justin Martyr's time. There is no positive evidence in favour of its existence; but this is not to be wondered at, for the consciousness of freedom in the Holy Spirit, which penetrated the Christians of the 1st c.; the opposition of what in continental theology are termed the Pertine and Pauline (q. v.), i. e., the Judaising and anti-Judaising parties, which does unquestionably appear to have existed, though not in that exaggerated form in which it is apprehended by the Tübingen school, who consider it an unanswerable proof of the nonexistence at the time of a catholic church; the still living tradition of the apostles; the difficulty of diffusing apostolic writings sent only to particular churches; the absence of criticism; the vascillation in determining the point where the apostolic men ceased; the use in the worship of God of the Old Testament, and, in particular churches, of casual Christian writings, not now looked upon as canonical: all these causes together operated in hindering, till the middle of the 2d c., a formal collection of New Testament writings of any compass or critical value, though it seems quite clear that they existed separately, and were regarded as the most authoritative records of the new dispensation. The earliest trace of such a collection (the ten Pauline epistles without the pastoral epistles) appears after the middle of the 2d c., in opposition to that gnostic perversion of primitive Christianity which had been introduced by Marcion of Pontus. In the close of the 2d, and in the beginning of the 3d c., Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Tertullian bear testimony to the recognition of the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the thirteen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of Peter, the 1st Epistle of John, and the Apocalypse, as canonical writings. But they do even more than bear testimony to their recognitionthey appeal to antiquity for proof of the authenticity of the books which they used as Christian Scriptures. On this point, Tertullian is especially precise, and his most convincing argument on behalf of the 'surety of the gospels' is, that the very heretics bear witness to them.' They did not, it is admitted, acknowledge the whole of the New Testament canon, but this is explicable on the hypothesis, which is justified by investigation, that the portions rejected were those that seemed alien to their own opinions. Two distinct collection of writings are now noticed-the Instrumentum Evangelicum, containing the four gospels; and the Instrumentum Apostolicum, containing the Acts of the Apostles, along with the Pauline and other epistles. Respecting several parts of the New Testament canon, differences of opinion prevailed in early times, nor was the war of criticism closed until the 6th c., for considerable difference of opinion existed in regard to the value of the testimony of the early apologetic authors. Origen doubted the authority of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the Epistle of James, of Jude, of the 2d of Peter, and the 2d and 3d of John; while, at the same time, he was disposed to recognise as canonical certain apocryphal scriptures, such as those of Hermas and Barnabas, which were decidedly rejected by the Church. The Apocalypse was treated as a dubious part of the canon down to the 7th c. The learned and

[graphic]

circumspect Father, Eusebius, in the 4th c.,in a passage | strife could not always remain confined to Germany. of his Church History, distinguishes three classes of New Testament scriptures: 1. Universally recognised scriptures (homologoumena), the four gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the fourteen Pauline epistles, the 1st Epistle of John, and the 1st of Peter. 2. Scripture not universally recognised (antilegomena or notha), including the Epistles of James and Jude, two Epistles (2d and 3d) of John, the 2d of Peter, and the Apocalypse of John; also the Acts of Paul (afterwards universally rejected), the Book of the Shepherd (Hermas), the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Doctrines of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews. 3. Absurd and heretical scriptures.

The Western Church, which which was more conservative and less eritical than the Eastern Church, completed the canon with greater rapidity. Although the eastern Council of Laodicea (360—364), in determining the canon of the New Testament, excluded the Apocalypse, the western synods of Hippo-Regius (393), Carthage (397), the Roman bishop, Innocent I. (in the beginning of the 5th c.), and the Concilium Romanum under Gelasius I. (494), recognised the entire canon of the New Testament as we find it in the present day. The doubts entertained by individuals respecting, some parts of the canon had become exceptional and unimportant at the close of the 7th c. Owing to the want of Greek scholarship, as also, perhaps, to the growing idea of an infallible church papacy, there was no criticism worthy of the name during the middle ages. Doubts, therefore, respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Jude were first revived, after a long quietude, at the time of the Reformation. Luther himself ventured to declare the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse 'apocryphal.' The spirit of orthodox dulness which ruled the Protestant Church from the latter part of the 16th to the middle of the 18th c., had a deadening effect on true biblical criticism. This was first revived by a liberal Catholic writer, Richard Simon (died 1712), who first conceived the plan of an historicocritical introduction' to the B.; afterwards, the labours of Lowth, Semler, Herder, Griesbach, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others, gave a new impulse to scriptural exegesis. In Germany, we may name among writers on the conservative and orthodox side, the Catholic divines, Jahn and Hug, with the Protestant writers, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, Guerike, Delitzsch, and Caspari: on the other side, Berthold, De Wette, Credner, Reuss; and since the publication of the Life of Jesus by Strauss, the New Tübingen school,' with F. Baur (q. v.) at its head, has questioned the authenticity and apostolical antiquity of all the New Testament scriptures, except the four larger Epistles of Paul-to the Romans, the Corinthians (1st and 2d), and the Galatians; while recently, Bruno Bauer (q. v.) has even denied the authenticity of the Epistle to the Galatians. The German controversy respecting the New Testament canoncanon-one class of critics asserting that the majority of the New Testament scriptures were written (in their present form) after the middle of the 2d c.; the opposite class ascribing to these scriptures an apostolic origin-still remains in agitation; but, excluding the 'Tübingen' and 'Young Hegelian' schools of criticism, it may be asserted that a majority of the biblical critics of Germany now recognise the substantial authenticity of the whole New Testament canon, except the 2d Epistle of Peter, leaving, however, at the same time, a wide margin for supplementary interpolations, both in the Old and New Testaments.

But, as might have been expected, the effects of the

[ocr errors]

They have been felt more or less over all Protestant countries; and even Catholic France, which has no theology to contend for, shews the influence of the new movement in those departments of art and science which are most nearly allied to theology. In England, during the 18th c., several valuable apologetic works were published, such as Lardner's Credibility of the Gospel History, and Paley's Hora Paulina. In the early part of the 19th c., appeared Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, which has been frequently reprinted. Since then, Tregelles, Davidson, Westcott, and numerous other scholars, have entered the field; and it is not too much to affirm, that, at least among the higher, more philosophic, and more earnest class of British theologians, there exists at this moment a keener spirit of impartial inquiry, as regards the foundations of biblical criticism, than Britain has ever previously witnessed. The practical tendencies of the AngloSaxon mind long restrained it from interfering in what seemed to be a mere maze of unprofitable speculation; but now that its deep and vital relations to the groundwork of men's actual and possible beliefs have begun to be felt, these same practical tendencies are manifestly asserting themselves, and we may confidently anticipate that a large measure of attention on the part both of the clergy and laity will soon be given to this most important of all branches of knowledge.

EDITIONS OF THE BIBLE: HISTORY OF THE TEXT. -As both the Old and the New Testament were written in ancient languages, and transcribed in times when philological criticism hardly existed, the examination and comparison of various editions, with a view to obtain the greatest possible purity of text, forms an important part of theological study.

Text of the Old Testament.-The first duty of an impartial critic of this question is to lay aside both of the extreme and untenable opinions regarding the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, viz.-1st, that it has come down to us in an absolutely faultless condition, by miraculous preservation; and 2d, that it has been wilfully and unscrupulously falsified by the Jews. That there are erroneous readings, nobody doubts. The real task devolving on a student of this branch of theological science is to explain these on natural principles, and by collating the various recensions, to endeavour to obtain a pure text, or as close an approximation to that as may be possible. The following is a tolerably complete classification of the causes of errors. 1. Errors arising from imperfect sight or occasional inattentiveness; as when transcribers substituted one letter for another similar in appearance, transposed letters, words, and sentences, and omitted the same; of which there are various examples. 2. Errors arising from imperfect hearing, of which there are not many examples. 3. Errors arising from defective memory; as when a transcriber fancied that he knew certain words, phrases, or clauses, on account of their having occurred before; of these there are occasional examples. 4. Errors arising from defective judgment ; as when words were wrongly divided, or abbreviations wrongly resolved; also from the custodes linearum (i. e., the letters which filled up the occasional vacant space at the end of lines) and marginal remarks being sometimes incorporated with the text. These not unfrequently happen. 5. Errors arising from a well-meant desire on the part of the transcriber to explain or amend a text, really or apparently obscure. In this respect the Samaritans are greatly to blame. See SAMARITAN VERSION OF THE PENTAteuch, A very knotty point is, the condition of the text before and at the close of the canon. The opinion of Eichhorn, De

Wette, and others is, that while the books circulated singly in a sphere of uncertain authority, they were greatly corrupted; in support of which, considerable evidence is adduced, but still the probabilities are, on the whole, against such a supposition, and it is better to suppose that the conflicting accounts of the same events which are to be met with, especially in the historical books, arise not from the carelessness or corruptions of copyists, but rather from the original authors or compilers having consulted different documents.

From recent investigations, it appears clear that the strict dogmatic Jews of Palestine and Babylon were generally far more careful in their preservation of sacred records than the Samaritans and the Alexandrines, the latter of whom were remarkable for their free, philosophising, non-textual spirit. In the schools of learning in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, presided over by Hillel, who had come from Babylon, and Shammai, and in those which flourished elsewhere in Palestine, after the fall of the metropolis, for instance, at Lydda, Cæsarca, Tiberias, &c., as also in the academies of Sora, Pumpeditha, and Nahardea, near the Euphrates, at a later period, the text of the Old Testament was defined with great care, first by the Talmudists, who seem to have adhered very closely to the ancient text, and after the completion of the Talmud at the close of the 5th c. by the Masorites. See MASORA. This care was at first bestowed only on the consonants of the Hebrew text. The Masoretic vowel system, which sprang from that already existing among the Syrians and Arabians, was developed from the 7th to the 10th centuries at Tiberias. By the 11th c. it appears to have been completed, while the Spanish rabbis of the next century seem ignorant of its then recent origin (Davidson's Text of the Old Testament Considered, Lond. 1856). After the 11th c., the Masoretic text, with its perfected system of vowels and accents, became the standard authority among Jewish scholars. The comparative values of the different readings in the various MSS., had by that time been carefully determined, and the chief business of copyists, henceforth, was to make faithful transcripts.

greatly corrupted, and contrasted it unfavourably with that of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The chief advocates of this view were Vossius, Whiston, Morin, and Capellus. On the other hand, Buxtorf, Arnold Bootius, Wasmuth, and others, defended the absolute purity of the Masoretic text, even to the inspiration of the vowel-points, which Buxtorf, in the preface to his grandfather's Tiberias, gravely asserts to have been first invented by Ezra. This controversy had at least one good result. It led to an extensive examination of Hebrew MSS. in the next century. Kennicott collated 630, 258 throughout, the rest in part; De Rossi, 751, of which all but 17 were collated for the first time. Many still remain uncollated. The result of this elaborate investigation has been to convince scholars that the Masoretic text is substantially correct. All known codices confirm it; the oldest of the professedly literal versions, as well as the Targums of the time of Christ, furnish similar satisfactory evidence; and when we consider the bibliolatrous tendencies of the Jews after their return from exile, whatever may have been the case before, we may safely conclude that we now possess the text of the Old Testament much in the same condition as it was at the close of the canon.

At first, there were no intervening spaces between Hebrew words; afterwards, small intervals appear to have been occasionally allowed. With the introduction of the square character, the use of small inerstices to separate words became general. The Talmud prescribes how much space should be between words in sacred MSS. designed for the synagogue. Various divisions according to the sense were also introduced at an early period. In the Pentateuch there were two, termed respectively open and closed. The former were intended to mark a change in the matter of the text; the latter, slight changes in the sense. Of these, the Pentateuch contained 669, named perashioth (sections). This division is probably as old, or nearly so, as the practice of reading the Law. It is found in the Talmud, while the division into 54 great perashioth is first found in the Masora, and is not observed in the rolls of the synagogues. The poetical books The earliest printed editions of the Hebrew B. were also subjected, from a very early period, to a bear a close resemblance to the MSS. "They are stichometrical division, according to the peculiarities without titles at the commencement, have appen- of Hebrew versification. In order to facilitate the dices, are printed on parchment with broad margin, reading and understanding of the prose books, a diviand large ill-shaped type, the initial letters being sion into logical periods was also made, which is commonly ornamented either with wood-cut engrav- mentioned in the Mishna, while in the Gemara its ings or by the pen. These letters, however, are authorship is ascribed to Moses. From it sprang often absent. With vowels, the editions in question our present division of the Scriptures into verses. are very imperfectly supplied. Separate parts of It is highly probable that these divisions were long the B. were first printed.' The Psalms appeared handed down orally. Our present division of the in 1477, probably at Bologna; the Pentateuch at Old Testament into chapters is a later invention, Bologna in 1482; the Prophets in 1486; the Hagio- and, though accepted by the Jews, is of Christian grapha in 1487. To most of these were subjoined origin: it may be dated as far back as the 13th the rabbinical commentary of Kimchi. The whole c., some assigning it to Cardinal Hugo, others to of the Old Testament appeared in small folio at Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. It Soncino, 1488, and appears to have been followed was first employed in a concordance to the Vulgate, by the edition of Brescia (1494), which was used whence it was borrowed by Rabbin Nathan in the by Luther in his translation of the Old Testament. 15th c., who made a similar concordance to the The Biblia Polyglotta Complutensia (1514-1517), Hebrew Bible. Nathan's divisions are found in the Biblia Rabbinica of Bomberg, edited by Rabbi Bomberg's Hebrew B. of 1518. Verses were first Jacob-Ben-Chayim (Venice, 1525–1526), which has introduced into editions of the Hebrew B. by been adopted in most of the subsequent editions- Athias of Amsterdam, 1661, but were employed the Antwerp Biblia Polyglotta (8 vols., 1569-1572), in the Vulgate as early as 1558. The first English also the editions by Hutterus (Hamburg, 1587, and B. divided into verses was published at Geneva in frequently reprinted), Buxtorf (Basel, 1711), and espe- | 1560. cially that by Jos. Athias (Amsterdam, 1661-1667) all these are celebrated, and have supplied the basis of later editions by Simon, Hahn, Theile, and others. In the 17th c., a vehement controversy arose regarding the integrity of the Hebrew text; one party maintained that the Masoretic text was

New, Testament.-The original MSS. of the New Testament were probably all written on papyrus, the cheapest, but least durable material that could be obtained for the purpose. It was therefore impossible, considering the constant handling to which the documents must have been subjected by the

eager converts, that they could have lasted for any
length of time. Indeed no authentic notices of them
have come down to us, but we know that a very
large number of copies were in existence from an
early period. Norton states the number at about
40,000. The text of these, however, did not al-
ways agree. Variations originated, to a consider-
able extent, from the same causes as operated in the
case of the Old Testament, viz., imperfect vision or
hearing, misunderstanding, carelessness, or an un-
critical judgment on the part of transcribers; but
it is natural to suppose that, on account of the
greater freedom of spirit and thought which charac-
terized primitive Christianity, compared with Juda-
ism, a latitude of conviction in regard to the value
of the letter of Scripture, also influenced the churches.
The idea of inspiration (q. v.) it is now admitted
by the most enlightened theologians, was progres-
sively developed. In the earliest ages it did not
exist in any dogmatic form whatever. Christians
were content to believe that the evangelists and
apostles spoke truth, by the help of the Holy Spirit,
without perplexing themselves with the question,
whether the words were purely divine or purely
human in their origin. They had a gospel to preach,
and a world to convert, and were therefore not
in a mood to discuss mechanical notions. This
also must have operated in producing the textual
variations referred to, many of which are of such a
nature as to clearly prove that the commentators
or transcribers thought themselves at liberty to
alter or improve the expression. Nor must we
overlook the fact, that the different culture and ten-
dencies of the Eastern and Western Churches also
caused very considerable changes. Modern criti-
cism reckons no less than 80,000 variations in the
existing MSS. Nevertheless, one fact stands out,
solid and imperishable, amid all the tiny fluctuations
of verbal criticism, viz., that, with one or two ex-
ceptions, no material difference exists, or in all
probability ever did exist, in New Testament MSS.
The general Christian consciousness, which was the
real guardian of their integrity, had been grounded
too deeply in the facts, doctrines, and ethics of
a historic Christianity to follow in the wake of
sectarian or heretical modifications of the truth.
It instinctively turned, as it were, from a sense
of affinity to those apostolic records, the tone of
which most closely corresponded to its own spiritual
character and development, and thus unconsciously
prevented any incongruous changes from being
effected in the mass of MSS. Of these MSS., up-
wards of 1400 are known to scholars, and have
been collated, and no essential discrepancy has
been detected. Of course, it can be urged that
all the MSS. belong to a period when the Church
had gathered itself up into two great wholes--the
Latin and Greek, and when, therefore, a general
conformity in MSS., as in other things, is only to
be expected; but the fragments which are found in
the earliest Church Fathers exhibit substantially,
though not verbally, the same text, and we may
therefore fairly infer that this unintentional har-
mony in part argues the general harmony of the
earlier and later MSS.

Some slight attempts seem to have been made, during the early history of the Church, to obtain a correct text. Óne Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, are said by Jerome to have undertaken a recension of the New Testament, and both Origen and Jerome himself were of considerable service in this respect. It is to modern criticism, however, that we cwe almost everything in regard to the regulation of the text. Bengel and Semler first started the idea of arranging the MSS. of the New Testament into families or

classes.
classes. After these came Griesbach, who, following
out the idea, propounded his famous threefold divi-
sion of the MSS. into Western, Alexandrian, and
Byzantine. The first two he considers the oldest;
the third, a corrupt mixture of both. Griesbach
himself preferred the Alexandrian: he believed that
the Byzantine transcribers had taken great liberties
with the text, and held that a few Alexandrian
MSS. outweighed, in critical value, a large number
of the other. The accuracy of Griesbach's division
has subsequently been questioned by many eminent
German scholars, among whom may be mentioned
Hug, Matthiä, Scholz, and Eichhorn, each of whom
has in turn favoured the world with a theory of
his own in regard to the probable value of the
various families of MSS. Recently Lachmann has
applied, with excessive strictness, a principle first
hinted by Bentley, viz., that no weight ought to
be attached to any MSS. except those written in the
old or uncial (q. v.) character. The chief advocate
for the application of this principle in England is
Tregelles; but it is rejected by the vast majority
of biblical scholars, for the simple reason, that a
MS. of the 10th or 11th c., if faithful to that
from which it is copied (a thing not impossible) may
exhibit a really older and purer text than one of the
4th or 5th c. Impressed with this fact, Tisch-
endorf, the latest, and, in the opinion of many, the
most judicious editor of the Greek Testament, has
attempted to combine whatever is sound in Lach-
mann's plan with a discriminative use of later
MSS.

The whole of the New Testament was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514. From 1516 to 1535, five editions appeared at Basel, under the care of Erasmus, but without any great pretensions to critical accuracy. The subsequent numerous editions were, for the most part, either founded on the editions of Erasmus or on the Complutensian, or on a collation of both. Among these editions we may mention that by Colonäi (Paris, 1534), by Bogard (Paris, 1543), the third by the elder Stephens (1550), and that by the younger Stephens (Geneva, 1569). Beza was the first who, by several collations founded on the third edition by Stephens, made any considerable progress in the critical treatment of the text, and thus supplied a basis for the present received text (textus receptus), which was first printed by Stephens with the Vulgate and critical annotations at Geneva, 1565; afterwards was frequently reprinted by Elzevir (Leyden, 1624) and others. The labours of the English scholar, Walton, in the London Polyglott (1657), of Fell (Oxford, 1675), and especially Mill (Oxford, 1707), were of great importance for the criticism of the New Testament. Bengel exhibited great tact and acumen in his edition of 1734, Wetstein much industry and care in the editions of 1751-1752, as also Semler, 1764. But all these recensions were surpassed in value by the labours of Griesbach (1774). The more recent contributions to the criticism of the New Testament by Scholz, the Lucubratio Critica (Basel, 1830), and the critical edition by Rink (2 vols., Leip. 1830-1836), the edition by Lachmann, with especial use of oriental MSS., and, subsequently, the labours of Buttmann (1842-1850) and Tischendorf (1841 and 1850), are also worthy of high praise.

Among the MSS. of the New Testament, the oldest are not traced back further than the 4th c., and are written in the so-called uncial characters. The modern MSS., dating from the 10th c. downwards, are distinguished by the cursive characters in which they are written. The most im portant MSS. are the Codex Alexandrinus (in the British Museum), C. Vaticanus (in the Vatican at Rome), C. Ephræmi (in the Imperial Library

« PrécédentContinuer »