I (Lulli'itti
ra^
THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK
INTRODUCTION APPENDIX
THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE
ORIGINAL GREEK
ΤΠΕ TEXT REVISED BY
BROOKE FOSS AVESTCOTT, D.D.
CAXON OF PETERBOROUGn, AXD REGIUS PROFESSOR OF ΟΠΊΧΙΤΥ, CAMBRIDGE AND
FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D.
UULSEAK PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE
ΙΝΤΕΟΒϋΟΤΙΟΝ AND APPENDIX
BY THE EDITORS
ΝΕλν YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE
1882
IPSA SUMMA IN LIBRIS OM.VIS SALVA RES EST EX DEI PROVIDENTIA: SED ΤΛΜΕΝ ILLAM IFSAM PROVIDENTIAM NON DEBEMUS EO ALLEGARE UT A LIMA QUAM ACCURA- TISSIMA DETERREAMUR. EORUM QUI PRAEDECESSERE NEQUE DEFECTUM EXAGITABIMUS NEQUE AD EUM NOS ADSTRINGEMUS ; EORUM QUI SEQUENTUR PROFECTUM NEQUE POSTULABIMUS IN PRAESENTI NEQUE PRAECLU- DEMUS IN POSTERUM : QUAELIBET AETAS PRO SUA FACULTATE VERITATEM INVESTIGARE ET AMPLECTI FIDELITATEMQUE IN MINIMIS ET MAXIMIS PRAESTARE DEBET.
BENGEL MDCCXXXIV
ύ^
1%"^
Contents of Introduction vii
INTRODUCTION i
I. The need of criticism for the text of
THE New Testament 4
II. The methods of Textual Criticism . . 19
III. Application of principles of criticism to
THE TEXT OF THE NeW TESTAMENT . . 73
IV. Nature and details of this edition . . 288
APPENDIX
I. Notes on Select Readings .... ι
II. Notes on Orthography, with orthogra-
phical alternative readings . . .141
III. Quotations from the Old Testament . 174
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PREFATORY REMARKS ^^^^3
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; . . i
3. and always negative in nature, consisting only in detection and re-
moval 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 text of the N.T. explained by the circum-
stances of its transmission, first by writing, and then by printing . 4
6 — 14. Τ rajtsmission by writing 4 — 11
6. Loss of autographs 4
7. Cumulative corruption through transcription 5
8. Variabihty of corruption under different conditions : relation of
date to purity 5
9. Special modifications of average results of transcription ; as . . 6
10, {μ) by transition from ' clerical' errors into mental changes (intended
improvements of langunge) 6
11, as in the earlier, and only the earlier, centuries of the N, T, ; . 7
12, (]}) by 'mixture ' of independent texts, which prevailed in the N. T.
in Cent, (rii) iv, 8
13, such mixture having only fortuitous results ; 8
14, and (c) by destruction and neglect of the older MSS ... 9
Vlll CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
VKR. PAGES
B. 15 — 18. Transmission ly printed editions 11— 16
15. Disadvantages of Erasmus, the first editor: his text substantially
perpetuated irt 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 Tischen-
dorf 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 i6
21. Nature of its double authorship 17
22. Notice of the provisional private issue i8
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 Read-
ings, 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 con-
clusions, 21
27. and as liable to be vitiated by imperfect perception of sense . . 21
E. 28 — 37. Transcrijitional 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 rela-
tive 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 /r/;;z<3:yJi«V antagonism to Intrinsic Probability ... 26
33. Apparent superiority and latent inferiority the normal m.arks of
scribes' corrections s6
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION IX
PAR. PAGES
34. Fallacious antagonisms due to difference of mental conditions be-
tween 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
c!6. Ulterior value of readings that are attested by Intrinsic and Trans- criptional 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) .... 3o-39
38. Transition from immediate decisions upon readings to examination
of the antecedent credibility of the witnesses for them. {Know- ledge ofdoctiinents 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 read-
ings in which Internal Evidence is decisive, a guide to their character in other readings 32
41. A threefold process here involved; (i) provisional decision or sus-
pense 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. (rt) concurrence of excellence of one kind and corruptness of another
kind in the same document; 36
46. (h) 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. Simj>le or divergent genealogy 39—42
49. Transition from character of individual documents to genealogical
affinities between documents. {All trustworthy restoration 0/ corrtipted texts is founded on the sttidy of their history") . . 39
50. Variable relation of each of ten MSS to the rest according as {a) the
genealogy is unknown ; . . , 4c
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGBS
51. (iJ) 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• (<^) or descent of some of the nine from one lost MS and of the
rest from another is ascertained 42
B. 54 — 57. Getiealogy and mauler 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 44
57. Variability of multiplication and preservation renders rival proba-
bilities derived solely from relative number incommensurable . 45
C. 58, 59. Maimer of discovering genealogy 4^, 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. CompUcations 0/ genealogy by inixtiire .... 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 varia-
tions containing no conflate reading 51
64. Inherent imperfections of this process ; 52
65. and its frequent inapplicability for want of sufficient evidence ante-
cedent to mixture 52
E. 66—72. Ajbplicaiions 0/ 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 a 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 ulti-
mate independent divergences from a common original . . 56
F. 73—76. Variable Jtse of genealogy according to nneqiinl preservation
of docmnents 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
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION xi
PAR. PAGES
75. Presumption in favour of composite as asjainst homogeneous attesta-
tion increased by proximity to the time of the autograph ; . . 58
76. but needing cautious appHcation 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 baeis 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 (yj,
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 Evi- dence (rt) ; 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 (<5) . . . . . . . . . . . 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
independentof each other, and the best attested variant condemned by Intrinsic Evidence, and id) with no variation, and the one ex- tant 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
Xll CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
92. (rt)(3) and {d) identical in principle, the best attested reading of [a)
and {β) corresponding to the one reading of (</); while in (<:) de- cision rests on both Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence . . 70
2. 93 — 95. Removal of ;pri)nitive errors by coiijecUire .... 71, 72
93. Necessity of distinguishing recognition of primitive error from cor-
rection 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— 12%) 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 . . ^υ
Ϊ02. 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 — S6
107. The chief groups, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian 78
108. The Old Latin, (i) African, 78
109. (2) European, 78
110. (3) Italian 79
111. The Vulgate Latin 80
112. Corruption of the Latin Vulgate by mixture, and successive a'.tempts
to purify it 81
113. The extant Old Latin documeuti for the Gospels .... 81
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XIU
ΙΆΚ. PAGES
114. Mixed Vulgate Gospels 82
115. The factitious Latin texts of bilingual Μ SS 8a
116. The extant Old Latin documents for the Acts, Epistles, and Apoca-
lypse 83
117. Latin Fathers 83
118. The Old Syriac and the Vulgate Syriac : Sjriac Fathers ... 84 Ϊ19. 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
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
128. Documentary j>reparatio)t for this editioti 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 Π. RESULTS OF GENEALOGICAL EVI-
DENCE PROPER (129—255) 90-1S6
Section 1, 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 0/ all great variations to Cent, ν . . , 91 — 93
130. The text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of Cent, iv sub-
stantially 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— 15 T. Posteriority of ' Syrian' (δ) to ' IFestern' (β) and other {neu- tral, a) readings shown
(i) by analysis of conflate readings p3_jo7
132. Enquiry how far whole groups of documents have been afiected 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, o, /3, δ : 95
t35. attestation of a, /3, δ in this place : 96
XIV CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
136. Transcriptional Probability marks out δ as a combination of α and /3 ; 96
137. and, less clearly, α as the parent of j3 : 97
138. Intrinsic Probability condemns /3, 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. ,, ,, ix 38 100
142. ,, ,, 1x49 . lOI
143. ,, ,, Luke ix lo 102
144• )> » J^i S 102
145. „ ,, xii 18 103
146• j> Μ xxiv 53 104
147. Table of distribution of the chief MSS and versions in a, (3, 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 a, /3, and δ readings respect-
ively 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 . , . ιοό
C. 152—162. Posteriority of ' Syriaft' to ' IVestcrn ' and other (fieittral 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 no
156. Preliminary cautions as to uncertainties of patristic quotations;
(i) as liable to incorrect transmission ; no
157. (2) as originally lax, and so liable to misinterpretation . . . iii
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
l6e. Importance of this external and independent evidence of the relative
lateness of Syrian readings 114
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XV
PAR. PAGES
D. 163 — 168. Posteriority of Syrian ίο IVestern, Alexandrian, and other itieutral) readings shown ii) l^y Internal Evidence 0/ Syrian readitigs 115— iig
163. General inferiority of distinctive Syrian readings as tested by In-
ternal 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 read- ings 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
i6g. Concurrence of the Pre- Syrian texts having been accepted as de- cisive authority, the several differences of reading between them can be dealt with only by ascertaining the characteristics of each text 119
A. 170 — 176. Westerji 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 Ϊ72. 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 \vork 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 incon- siderate regard for immediate use and edification .... 125
XVI CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
B. 177 — 180. T7ie netitral 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 con- fined 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
i8r. 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 cir- cumstances 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— 19S) . . 135—145
A. 188 — 190. The two stages of the Syrian text 135 — 139
188. Probable connexion between the Greek Syrian revision or ' recen- sion ' and the Syriac revision to which the Syriac Vulgate is due 135
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XVU
PAR. PAGES
iSg. Two stages in the Greek SjTian 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, iil 137
P.. 191 — 193, Mixture in the fozirth century 139—1^1
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 0/ the Syrian text 141 — 143
194. Notwithstanding the long persistence of mixed texts, eventual tri-
umph 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 centralisa- tion of Greek Christendom round Constantinople, the heir of the Syrian text of Antioch 142
D. 196, 197. Relics of Ρ re-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. Recapitidation 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 deter-
mination 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
2
XVIU CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
ΡΛΠ. PAGES
13. 20I— 212. Texts found hi 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. Β Pre-Syrian, not Alexandrian, nor (except within narrcw limits)
Western 150
205. Ν Pre-Syrian, with large Western and Alexandrian elements . . 151 2c6. 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
20S. 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
2ir. 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 Sj'riac 157
217. The Egyptian Versions Pre-Syrian, predominantly neutral and also
Alexandrian, with Western elements of uncertain date: the .iEthiopic 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, re- sembling 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 Irenaeus, 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 pos- sible through knowledge of the constituent elements of the attesting documents . 162
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XIX
PAR. PAGES
B. 225, 226. Identification and rejection 0/ 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 Alexan-
drian 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
233 — 235. Idcjitification of nentral 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 in-
spection of ternary readings, partly by comparison of the two chief types of binary readings 170
235. Details of neutral attestation 170
E. 236 — 239. Sus/>iciousness of li^'estern 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 in-
ternal character to be original, /. i. non-interpolations . . .175
241. The probable origin of the corresponding Non- Western interpolations 376
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 proposi-
tions 178
XX CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAiJiiS
Section VI. Review of previous criticism with reference to ancient
TEXTS (244—255) .... . 179-186
A. 244—246. FouJidation of historical criticism by Mill, Bent ley, aftd
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' ...•.... t8o
B. 247 — 249. Development of historical criticism by Griesbach, in contrast
with Hug s theory of recensiotis , . . . 181- -183
247. Bengel followed by Semler and others, but especially Griesbach :
misunderstandings arising from the ambiguity of the term 'recension' ι8ι
248. Hug's comparatively true view of the Western text, and his fanciful
theory of recensions founded on words of Jerome . . . . i8r
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 ι8•>
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 1S4
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. Permajtent value of Griesbach's criticism . . . . 183, i85
854. 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
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXI
PAGES
CHAPTER IIT. RESULTS OF INTERNAL Ε VI.
DENCE 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. Gcfteral considerations on Doczimentary Groups . . 187 — igi
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, 1S8
25S. on the assumption that the text of the group is homogeneous . . 1O9
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 . , iSg
260. Virtual identity of groups found to be compatible with a certain
amount of variation in their composition 190
B. 261— 264. Progressive iijnitaiion of Grmps 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
260. The chief means of determination («) Internal Evidence of the Groups thus formed by Primary Greek MSS, to be discussed hereafter, and (fi) 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 Pri-
mary Greek MSS 196» ^ 97
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
XXll CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
E. 269 — 273. Absefice 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 Λ•ersions 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, . . . 19S
272. or to love of paraphrase, found in translators even more than in
scribes icr)
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
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 inevi- table ; 201
275. even when it is supported by positive Post-Nicene patristic evi-
dence, 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 (i) 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
280. Absence of Versions afid Fathers from Groups containing Pri- mary Greek MSS . . . . . 205, 206
280. Versions and Fathers, as representative of lost MSS, are not generi- cally 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
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXlll
PAGES
Section IT. 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 ajicient 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
P.. 284 — 286. General relations of 'Q and Ν to other documetits . . 210-
-212
284. Preeminence of KB 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 21 r
327
287—304. Origin and character of readings of KB coinhined .
287. Enquiry into the preeminence of KB 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
ofK 213
289 Community of readings in any two MSS insufficient for deter- mining the proximity or distance of the common source, which may even be the autograph 214
290. The hypothesis of a proximate common origin of Κ and B, obviously
incredible in its literal sense, has now to be examined as limited
to a common element in Κ 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 proximate-
ness of common source : but only one such is found in nB com- bined, 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 χ and Β under two heads. 219
296. (λ) The identity of internal character between the least attested and
the better attested readings of KB combined is a reason for re- ferring both to the same common source, which in the latter case cannot be proximate 219
XXIV CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
297. The primitiveness of text thus established for the common source
of nB is compatible with either (i) the primitiveness and con- sequent extreme remoteness of the actual common source, or (2) transcription from a primitive MS, or (3) inheritance from a singularly incorrupt ancestry ... .... 2:0
298. But (φ) 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 NB as a third independent
text rather than as representing the coincidences cf the independ- ent texts of Κ and of Β . 222
301. Hence Κ and Β are descended through separate and divergent
ancestries from a common original not far from the autographs . 222
302. Readings of KB 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 Ν 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 nB should be accepted when not contravened by strong internal evidence, and then only treated as doubtful 224
304. Illustrative examples of good \iVX prima facie difficult readings of
KB 226
D. 305 — 307. Binary uncial covthinations cuiiiaining Β and Κ respec- tively 227 — 230
305. Peculiar excellence of the binary combinations BL, BC, BT &c. . 227
306. Exceptional and variable character of BDg in the Pauline Epistles . 228
307. Questionable character of most binary combinations contain-
ing Κ 229
Ε. 3oS— 325. Singular and siibsingnlar readings ofQ .... 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
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXV
PAR. PAGES
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 assimila-
tions), such as would proceed from a dull and patient but some- times 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 attesta- tion 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 siibsbigjilarreadbrgs of Vy. and other MSS 246 — 250
326.. Individualisms of Κ bold and careless : subsingular readings of Κ
mostly suspicious, but a few possibly or probably right . . 246
327. Probability that the reading of the archetype of κΒ is usually pre-
served in either Κ or Β where they differ 247
328. Hence subsingular readings of either MS may be either virtually
equivalent to subsingular readings of NB or early corruptions of limited range : subsingular readings of Β frequently the former, subsingular readings of Ν 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 wJtere '2> and "R 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 X 251
XXVI CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
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 Sj'rian readings 253
335. Illustration of the composite texts of mixed documents from E3, a
transcript of the Western Dj made after Dg had been partially assimilated to the Syrian text by correctors, 254
336. as exemplif.ed 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 Do 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. Deiertttiuation o/iexi where Έ is abseiit .... 256—263
340. Three portions of text in which Β (or its fundamental text) is
wanting 256
341. (1) Variations inclndmg Western readi7igs suJ>j>oried by Έ 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 KBD2G3 258
343. (2) Parts of Ρ aidijie Epistles for which V> is defective ι difficulty
noticed under the last head repeated ; also of detecting readings answering to subslngular readings of Β : absolute authority of Κ
not increased by its relative preeminence 259
344• (3) Apocalypse: obscurity of documentary relations: Κ full of in- dividualisms, 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 Κ were
written in the West, A and C at Alexandria ; 265
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXVll
fAR. PAGES
349. supported as regards Β and Ν 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 . . 26ο
351. Surmise that Β and Κ were both written in the West, probably at
Rome, but that the ancestry of Κ contained an element trans- mitted 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 Ν probably due to sameness of average external con- ditions, 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 : worth-
less character of the changes by the third hand .... 270
355. The three chief sets of corrections of K. 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 wiih the purest transmitted text . , .271
A. 357—360. Approximate non-existence of genui7ie readUigs 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 diver- gence of the ancestries of Β and Ν 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 mix- ture, 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. Approxiinate sufficiency of existing documents for the recovery of the genuine text, notwitJtstanding the existence of ^ome primitive corrup>tions ... 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
XXVm CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
362. Presumption in favour of the integrity of the purest transmitted text
derived from the small number of genuine extant readings not attested by Ν 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 errjrs, withvariety 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 antece-
dently existing : baselessness of early accusations of wilful corrup- tion, 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 imj>f0veme7it cf 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 ediiiou . ... 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; 2S9
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXIX
PAR. PAGES
377. and thus modified by alternative readings, and by the relegation
of probable but unattested or insufficiently attested readings to
the Appendix 290
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 accom-
panying marks in margin, or indicated by simple brackets in text . 291
380. Second class. Places where a primitive corruption of text is sus-
pected, marked by ^/.f in margin (or tt in text) .... 292
381. Third class. Rejected readings of sufficient special interest to de-
serve notice ; 293
382. (i) 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
3S7. 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 with-
out 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 in-
troduced in or before Cent, iv, but transmitted from the auto- graphs ; and at all events the most authentic that we possess . 305
XXX CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
398. Orthographical Λ'ariatϊons 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 3°^
400. Western and Alexandrian spellings: habitual neutrality of Β . . 307
401. Tabulation of recurring spellings indispensable for approximate
determination, notwithstanding tlie 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 liible to be interchanged ; . . 30S
404. with illustrations of the permutation of ο and ω, e and at, e and η,
et and Tj, and ήμεΐε and v/xeis . . . . . . . • 3^9
I). 405—416. Breaih'uigs, Accents, and other accessories of j>ri7iting . 310 — 318
405. No transmission of Breathings (except indirectly) or Accents in early
uncials 310
406. Evidence respecting them extraneous, that is, derived from gram-
marians 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 Ιοιίδας 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
i)i2. 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 formulae in capitals . 315
414. Distinctive use of Kw'pio? and [c)] κύριος; 3i6
415. of Χρίστος and [o] χριστός ; 317
4i6. and of Ύψιστος and ό ύψιστος 3i8
Ε. 4^7 — 423. Pimctuation, Divisions of text, and Titles of books , . 318—3:2
417. No true transmission of punctuation in early uncials or other docu-
ments; necessity of punctuating according to presumed inter- pretation 318
418. Simplicity of punctuation preferred. Alternative punctuations . 319
419. Graduated division and subdivision by primary sections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, and capitals 319
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XXXI
PAR. PAGES
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 tra-
dition 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 Colassne in the title, Colossae in the text . 321
F. 424, 425. CoHclicsion 322 — 324
424. Acknowledgements 322
42?. Last words .... ... . 323
INTRODUCTION
1. This edition is an attempt to present exactly the original words of the New Testament, so far as they can now be determined from surviving documents. Since the testimony delivered by the several documents or wit- nesses is full of complex variation, the original text can- not be elicited from it without the use of criticism, that is, of a process of distinguishing and setting aside those readings which have originated at some link in the chain of transmission. This Introduction is intended to be a succinct account (i) of the reasons why criticism is still necessary for the text of the New Testament; (ii) of what we hold to be the true grounds and methods of criticism generally; (iii) of the leading facts in the docu- mentary history of the New Testament which appear to us to supply the textual critic with secure guidance ; and (iv) of the manner in which we have ourselves endea- voured to embody the results of criticism in the present text.
2. The office of textual criticism, it cannot be too clearly understood at the outset, is always secondary and always negative. It is always secondary, since it comes into
3
2 TEXTUAL CRITICISM
play only where the text transmitted by the existing docu- ments appears to be in error, either because they difFei from each other in what they read, or for some other suffi- cient reason. With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and there- fore no room for textual criticism; and here therefore an editor is merely a transcriber. The same may be said with substantial truth respecting those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. The pro portion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computa- tion, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the Avhole area of criticism. If the principles followed in the present edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgement in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testa- ment, which might seem to be confirmed by language
SECONDARY AND NEGATIVE 3
used here and there in the following pages, we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic's labours.
3. Again, textual criticism is always negative, because its final aim is virtually nothing more than the detection and rejection of error. Its progress consists not in the growing perfection of an ideal in the future, but in ap- proximation towards complete ascertainment of definite facts of the past, that is, towards recovering an exact copy of what was actually written on parchment or papyrus by the author of the book or his i^manuensis. Had all in- tervening transcriptions been perfectly accurate, there could be no error and no variation in existing docu- ments. Where there is variation, there must be error in at least all variants but one ; and the primary Avork of textual criticism is merely to discriminate the erroneous variants from the true.
4. In the case indeed of many ill preserved ancient writings textual criticism has a further and a much more difficult task, that of detecting and removing corruptions affecting the whole of the existing documentary evidence. But in the New Testament the abundance, variety, and comparative excellence of the documents confines this task of pure ' emendation ' within so narrow limits that we may leave it out of sight for the present, and confine our attention to that principal operation of textual criti- cism which is required whenever we have to decide be- tween the conflicting evidence of various documents.
PART I
THE NEED OF CRITICISM FOR THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
5. The answer to the question why criticism is still necessary for the text of the New Testament is contained in the history of its transmission, first by writing and then by printing, to the present time. For our purpose it will be enough to recapitulate first in general terms the elementary phenomena of transmission by writing generally, with some of the special conditions affecting the New Testament, and then the chief incidents in the history of the New Testament as a printed book w^hich have determined the form in which it appears in existing editions. For fuller particulars, on this and other sub- jects not needing to be treated at any length here, we must refer the reader once for all to books that are pro- fessedly storehouses of information.
A. 6 — 14. Transmissio7i by writing
6. No autograph of any book of the New Testa- ment is known or believed to be still in existence. The originals must have been early lost, for they are men- tioned by no ecclesiastical writer, although there were many motives for appealing to them, had they been forthcoming, in the second and third centuries : one or two passages have sometimes been supposed to refer to them, but certainly by a misinterpretation. The books of the New Testament have had to share the fate of other ancient writings in being copied again and again
CORRUPTION PROGRESSIVE 5
during more than fourteen centuries down to the inven- tion of printing and its application to Greek literature.
7. Every transcription of any kind of writing involves the chance of the introduction of some errors : and even if the transcript is revised by comparison with its ex- emplar or immediate original, there is no absolute secu- rity that all the errors will be corrected. When the transcript becomes itself the parent of other copies, one or more, its errors are for the most part reproduced. Those only are likely to be removed which at once strike the eye of a transcriber as mere blunders destructive of sense, and even in these cases he will often go astray in making what seems to him the obvious correction. In addition to inherited deviations from the original, each fresh transcript is liable to contain fresh errors, to be transmitted in like manner to its own descendants.
8. The nature and amount of the corruption of text thus generated and propagated depends to a great extent on the pecuHarities of the book itself, the estimation in which it is held, and the uses to which it is applied. The rate cannot always be uniform : the professional training of scribes can rarely obliterate individual differences of accuracy and conscientiousness, and moreover the current standard of exactness Λνϋΐ vary at different times and places and in different grades of cultivation. The number of tran- scriptions, and consequent opportunities of corruption, can- not be accurately measured by difference of date, for at any date a transcript might be made either from a con- temporary manuscript or from one written any number of centuries before. But these inequalities do not render it less true that repeated transcription involves multiplica- tion of error; and the consequent presumption that a relatively late text is likely to be a relatively corrupt text
ο ERRORS OF TRANSCRIPTION
is found true on the application of all available tests in an overwhelming proportion of the extant MSS in which ancient literature has been preserved.
9. This general proposition respecting the average results of transcription requires to be at once qualified and extended by the statement of certain more limited conditions of transmission with which the New Testament is specially though by no means exclusively concerned. Their full bearing will not be apparent till they have been explained in some detail further on, but for the sake of clearness they must be mentioned here.
10. The act of transcription may under different cir- cumstances involve different processes. In strictness it is the exact reproduction of a given series of words in a given order. Where this purpose is distinctly recognised or assumed, there can be no errors but those of work- manship, ' clerical errors', as they are called ; and by sedulous cultivation, under the pressure of religious, literary, or professional motives, a high standard of im- munity from even clerical errors has at times been at- tained. On the other hand, pure clerical errors, that is, mechanical confusions of ear or eye alone, pass imper- ceptibly into errors due to unconscious mental action, as any one may ascertain by registering and analysing his own mistakes in transcription ; so that it is quite possible to intend nothing but faithful transcription, and yet to introduce changes due to interpretation of sense. Now, as these hidden intrusions of mental action are specially capable of being restrained by conscious vigilance, so on the other hand they are liable to multiply sponta- neously where there is no distinct perception that a transcriber's duty is to transcribe and nothing more; and this perception is rarer and more dependent on
MECHANICAL AND MENTAL J
training than might be supposed. In its absence uncon- scious passes further into conscious mental action; and thus transcription may come to include tolerably free modi- fication of language and even rearrangement of material. Transcription of this kind need involve no deliberate preference of sense to language ; the intention is still to transcribe language : but, as there is no special con- centration of regard upon the language as having an intrinsic sacredness of whatever kind, the instinctive feel- ing for sense cooperates largely in the result.
II. It was predominantly though not exclusively under such conditions as these last that the transcription of the New Testament Avas carried on during the earliest centuries, as a comparison of the texts of that period proves beyond doubt. The conception of new Scrip- tures standing on the same footing as the Scriptures of the Old Testament was slow and unequal in its gro\vth, more especially while the traditions of the apostohc and immediately succeeding generations still lived ; and the reverence paid to the apostolic writings, even to the most highly and most widely venerated am.ong them, was not of a kind that exacted a scrupulous jealousy as to their text as distinguished from their substance. As was to be expected, the language of the historical books was treated with more freedom than the rest: but even the Epistles, and still more the Apocalypse, bear abundant traces of a similar type of transcription. After a while changed feelings and changed circumstances put an end to the early textual laxity, and thenceforward its occurrence is altogether exceptional; so that the later corruptions are almost wholly those incident to transcription in the proper sense, errors arising from careless performance of a scribe's work, not from an imperfect conception of it.
5 MIXTURE OF TEXTS
While therefore the greater Hteralness of later transcrip- tion arrested for the most part the progress of the bolder forms of alteration, on the other hand it could per- petuate only what it received. As witnesses to the apo- stolic text the later texts can be valuable or otherwise only according as their parent texts had or had not passed comparatively unscathed through the earlier times.
12. Again, in books widely read transmission ceases after a while to retain exclusively the form of diverging ramification. Manuscripts are Avritten in which there is an eclectic fusion of the texts of different exemplars, either by the simultaneous use of more than one at the time of transcription, or by the incorporation of various readings noted in the margin of a single exemplar from other copies, or by a scribe's conscious or unconscious recollections of a text differing from that which lies before him. This mixture, as it may be conveniently called, of texts previously independent has taken place on a large scale in the New Testament. Within narrow geographical areas it was doubtless at work from a very early time, and it would naturally extend itself with the increase of communication between distant churches. There is reason to suspect that its greatest activity on a large scale began in the second half of the third century, the interval of peace between Gallienus's edict of toleration and the outbreak of the last perse- cution. At all events it was in full operation in the fourth century, the time which from various causes exer- cised the chief influence over the many centuries of com- paratively simple transmission that followed.
13. The gain or loss to the intrinsic purity of texts from mixture with other texts is from the nature of the
EARLY DESTRUCTION OF MSS 9
case indeterminable. In most instances there would be both gain and loss ; but both would be fortuitous, and they might bear to each other every conceivable pro- portion. Textual purity, as far as can be judged from the extant literature, attracted hardly any interest. There is no evidence to shew that care was generally taken to choose out for transcription the exemplars having the highest claims to be regarded as authentic, if indeed the requisite knowledge and skill were forthcoming. Humanly speaking, the only influence which can have interfered to an appreciable extent with mere chance and con- venience in the selection between existing readings, or in the combination of them, was supplied by the preferences of untrained popular taste, always an unsafe guide in the discrimination of relative originality of text. The complexity introduced into the transmission of ancient texts by mixture needs no comment. Where the mixture has been accompanied or preceded by such licence in transcription as we find in the New Testa- ment, the complexity can evidently only increase the precariousness of printed texts formed without taking account of the variations of text which preceded mix- ture.
14. Various causes have interfered both with the preservation of ancient MSS and with their use as exem- plars to any considerable extent. Multitudes of the MSS of the New Testament written in the first three centuries were destroyed at the beginning of the fourth, and there can be no doubt that multitudes of those written in the fourth and two following centuries met a similar fate in the various invasions of East and West. But violence was not the only agent of destruction. We know little about the external features of the MSS of the ages of
ΙΟ PREVALENCE OF LATE MSS
persecution : but Avhat little we do know suggests that they were usually small, containing only single books or groups of books, and not seldom, there is reason to suspect, of comparatively coarse material ; altogether shewing little similarity to the stately tomes of the early Christian empire, of which we possess specimens, and likely enough to be despised in comparison in an age which exulted in outward signs of the new order of things. Another cause of neglect at a later period was doubtless obsoleteness of form. When once the separation of words had become habitual, the old con- tinuous mode of writing would be found troublesome to the eye, and even the old ' uncial ' or rounded capital letters would at length prove an obstacle to use. Had biblical manuscripts of the uncial ages been habitually treated with ordinary respect, much more in- vested with high authority, they could not have been so often turned into 'palimpsests', that is, had their ancient writing obliterated that the vellum might be employed for fresh writing, not always biblical. It must also be remembered that in the ordinary course of things the most recent manuscripts would at all times be the most numerous, and therefore the most generally accessible. Even if multiplication of transcripts were not always advancing, there would be a slow but con- tinual substitution of new copies for old, partly to fill up gaps made by waste and casualties, partly by a natural impulse Avhich could be reversed only by veneration or an archaic taste or a critical purpose. It is therefore no wonder that only a small fraction of the Greek manu- scripts of the New Testament preserved to modern times were \vritten in the uncial period, and but few of this number belong to the first five or six centuries, none
DISADVANTAGES OF FIRST EDITORS II
being earlier than the age of Constantine. Most uncial manuscripts are more or less fragmentary ; and till lately not one was known which contained the whole New Testament unmutilated. A considerable proportion, in numbers and still more in value, have been brought to light only by the assiduous research of the last century and a half
B. 15 — 18. Transmission by pi'inted editions
15. These various conditions affecting the manu- script text of the New Testament must be borne in mind if we would understand what was possible to be accomplished in the early printed editions, the text of which exercises directly or indirectly a scarcely credible power to the present day. At the beginning of the sixteenth century, far more than now, the few ancient documents of the sacred text were lost in the crowd of later copies; and few even of the late MSS were em- ployed, and that only as convenience dictated, without selection or deliberate criticism. The fundamental editions were those of Erasmus (Basel, 15 16), and of Stunica in Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian (Alcala) Polyglott, printed in 15 14 but apparently not pubHshed till 1522. In his haste to be the first editor, Erasmus allowed himself to be guilty of strange carelessness: but neither he nor any other scholar then living could have produced a materially better text without enor- mous labour, the need of which was not as yet apparent. The numerous editions which followed during the next three or four generations varied much from one another in petty details, and occasionally adopted fresh readings from MSS, chiefly of a common
12 CHIEF STAGES IN HISTORY
late type : but the foundation and an overwhelming proportion of the text remained always Erasmian, some- times slightly modified on Complutensian authority; except in a few editions which had a Complutensian base. After a while this arbitrary and uncritical varia- tion gave way to a comparative fixity equally fortuitous, having no more trustworthy basis than the external beauty of two edition-s brought out by famous printers, a Paris folio of 1550 edited and printed by R. Estienne, and an Elzevir (Leyden) 24mo of 1624, 1633, &c., repeating an unsatisfactory revision of Estienne's mainly Erasmian text made by the reformer Beza. The reader of the second Elzevir edition is informed that he has before him "the text now received by all"; and thus the name ' Received Text ' arose. Reprints more or less accurate of one or other of these two typographical standards constitute the traditional printed text of the New Testament even now.
16. About the middle of the seventeenth century the preparation for eff"ectual criticism began. The im- pulse proceeded from English scholars, such as Fell, Walton, and Mill ; and seems to have originated in the gift of the Alexandrine MS to Charles I by Cyril Lucar, the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1628. France con- tributed a powerful auxiliary in Simon, whose writings (1689 — 1695) had a large share in discrediting acquies- cence in the accepted texts. The history of criticism from this time could hardly be made intelligible here : it will be briefly sketched further on, when explanations have been given of the task that had to be performed, and the problems that had to be solved. In the course of the eighteenth century several imperfect and halting attempts were made, chiefly in Germany, to apply evidence
OF PRINTED TEXT 1 3
to use by substantial correction of the text. Of these the greatest and most influential proceeded from J. A. Bengel at Tubingen in 1734. In the closing years of the century, and a little later, the process was carried many steps forward by Griesbach, on a double founda- tion of enriched resources and deeper study, not Λvithout important help from suggestions of Semler and finally of Hug. Yet even Griesbach was content to start from the traditional or revised Erasmian basis, rather than from the MSS in which he himself reposed most confidence.
17. A new period began in 1831, when for the first time a text was constructed directly from the ancient documents without the intervention of any printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt was made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary choice in the discrimination of various readings. In both respects the editor, Lachmann, rejoiced to declare that he was carrying out the principles and unfulfilled intentions of Bentley, as set forth in 17 16 and 1720. This great advance was however marred by too narrow a selection of documents to be taken into account and too artificially rigid an employment of them, and also by too little care in obtaining precise knowledge of some of their texts : and though these defects, partly due in the first instance to the unambitious purpose of the edition, have been in different ways avoided by Lachmann's two distinguished successors, Tischendorf and Tregelles, both of whom have produced texts sub- stantially free from the later corruptions, neither of them can be said to have dealt consistently or on the whole successfully with the difficulties presented by the variations between the most ancient texts. On the other hand, their indefatigable labours in the discovery and exhibition
14 SLOIV ACQUISITION
of fresh evidence, aided by similar researches on the part of others, provide all who come after them Avith invaluable resources not available half a century ago.
1 8. A just appreciation of the wealth of documentary evidence now accessible as compared with that enjoyed by any previous generation, and of the comparatively late times at which much even of what is not now new became available for criticism, is indeed indispensable for any one who would understand the present position of the textual criticism of the New Testament. The gain by the knowledge of the contents of important new documents is not to be measured by the direct evidence which they themselves contribute. Evidence is valuable only so far as it can be securely interpreted ; and not the least advantage conferred by new documents is the new help which they give towards the better interpreta- tion of old documents, and of documentary relations generally. By Avay of supplement to the preceding brief sketch of the history of criticism, we insert the following table, Avhich shews the dates at which the extant Greek uncials of the sixth and earlier centuries, with five others of later age but comparatively ancient text, have become available as evidence by various forms of publication. The second column marks the very imperfect publication by selections of readings ; the third, tolerably full collations; the fourth, continuous texts. The manuscript known as Δ in the Gospels and as G (G3) in St Paul's Epistles requires two separate datings, as its two parts have found their way to different libraries. In other cases a plurality of dates is given where each publication has had some distinctive im- portance.
OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
15
|
(fragg. = fragments) |
Select Readings |
Collations |
Continuous Texts |
|
Ν all books complete |
i860 |
1862 |
|
|
Β all books exc. part of |
|||
|
Heb., Epp. Past., and Apoc. |
(1580) |
1788, 1799 |
j (1857,) 1859, ί i867, 1868 |
|
A all books |
1657 |
1786 |
|
|
C fragg. of nearly all |
|||
|
books |
1710 |
1751, 2 |
184.3 |
|
Q fragg. Lc. Jo. |
(?i75^) |
1762, i860 |
|
|
Τ fragg. Jo. [Lc] |
1789 |
||
|
D Ενν. Act. |
1550 |
^^ii |
1793, 1864 |
|
D^Paul |
. (\582) |
1657 |
1852 |
|
Ν fragg. Ενν. | |
(175O + 1773 + (1830) |
1846, 1876 |
|
|
Ρ fragg. Ενν. |
(?i75^) |
1762, 1869 |
|
|
R fragg. Lc. |
I 57 |
||
|
Ζ fragg. Mt. |
1801, 1880 |
||
|
[Σ Mt. Mc] |
(1880) |
||
|
LEvv. |
1550 |
1751. 1785 |
1846 |
|
S fragg. Lc. |
1861 |
||
|
jAEvv. JG3 Paul exc. Heb. |
1836) + 179M |
||
|
1710 |
|||
|
EoAct. |
1715, 1870 |
||
|
P^ all books exc. Ενν. |
1865 + 1869 |
19. The foregoing outline may suffice to shew the manner in which repeated transcription tends to multiply corruption of texts, and the subsequent mixture of in- dependent texts to confuse alike their sound and their corrupt readings ; the reasons why ancient MSS in various ages have been for the most part little preserved and Httle copied ; the disadvantages under which the Greek text of the New Testament \vas first printed, from late and inferior MSS; the long neglect to take serious measures for amending it; the slow process of the accumulation and study of evidence ; the late date at which anv considerable number of corrections on
1 6 ORIGIN OF THIS EDITION
ancient authority were admitted into the shghtly modi- fied Erasmian texts that reigned by an accidental pre- scription, and the very late date at which ancient authority was allowed to furnish not scattered retouch- ings but the whole body of text from beginning to end; and lastly the advantage enjoyed by the present gene- ration in the possession of a store of evidence largely augmented in amount and still more in value, as well as in the ample instruction afforded by previous criticism and previous texts.
C. 2 0 — 2 2. History of this edition
2o. These facts justify, we think, another attempt to determine the original words of the Apostles and writers of the New Testament. In the spring of 1853 we were led by the perplexities of reading encountered in our own study of Scripture to project the construction of a text such as is now published. At that time a student aware of the untrustworthiness of the 'Received' texts had no other guides than Lachmann's text and the second of the four widely different texts of Tischendorf Finding it impossible to assure ourselves that either editor placed before us such an approximation to the apostolic words as we could accept with reasonable satisfaction, we agreed to commence at once the formation of a manual text for our own use, hoping at the same time that it might be of service to others. The task proved harder than we anticipated ; and eventually many years have been required for its fulfilment. Engrossing occu- pations of other kinds have brought repeated delays and interruptions : but the work has never been laid more than partially aside, and the intervals during which it
MODES OF PROCEDURE ADOPTED IJ
has been intermitted have been short. We cannot on the Avhole regret the lapse of time before publication. Though we have not found reason to change any of the leading views with which we began to prepare for the task, they have gained much in clearness and compre- hensiveness through the long interval, especially as re- gards the importance which we have been led to attach to the history of transmission. It would indeed be to our shame if we had failed to learn continually.
21. The mode of procedure adopted from the first was to work out our results independently of each other, and to hold no counsel together except upon results already provisionally obtained. Such differences as then appeared, usually bearing a very small proportion to the points of immediate agreement, were discussed on paper, and where necessary repeatedly discussed, till either agreement or final difference was reached. These ulti- mate differences have found expression among the alter- native readings. No rule of precedence has been adopted; but documentary attestation has been in most cases allowed to confer the place of honour as against internal evidence, range of attestation being further taken into account as between one well attested reading and another. This combination of completely independent operations permits us to place far more confidence in the results than either of us could have presumed to cherish had they rested on his own sole responsibiHty. No individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself completely from its own idiosyncrasies: the danger of unconscious caprice is inseparable from personal judge- ment. We venture to hope that the present text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the produc- tion of two editors of different habits of mind, working 4
1 8 PROVISIONAL ISSUE
independently and to a great extent on different plans, and then giving and receiving free and fall criticism wherever their first conclusions had not agreed together. For the principles, arguments, and conclusions set forth in the Introduction and Appendix both editors are alike responsible. It was however for various reasons expe- dient that their exposition and illustration should pro- ceed throughout from a single hand ; and the writing of this volume and the other accompaniments of the text has devolved on I)r Hort.
2 2. It may be well to state that the kindness of our publishers has already allowed us to place successive instalments of the Greek text privately in the hands of the members of the Company of Revisers of the English New Testament, and of a few other scholars. The Gospels, with a temporary preface of 28 pages, were thus issued in July 1871, the Acts in February 1873, the Catholic Epistles in December 1873, the Pauline Epistles in February 1875, and the Apocalypse in December 1876. The work to which this provisional issue Λvas due has afforded opportunity for renewed consideration of many details, especially on the side of interpretation; and we have been thankful to include any fresh results thus or otherwise obtained, before printing off for publication. Accordingly many corrections dealing with punctuation or otherwise of a minute kind, together with occasional modifications of reading, have been introduced into the stereotype plates Avithin the last few months.
19
PART II
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
23. Every method of textual criticism corresponds to some one class of textual facts : the best criticism is that which takes account of every class of textual facts, and assigns to each method its proper use and rank. The leading principles of textual criticism are identical for all writings whatever. Differences in application arise only from differences in the amount, variety, and quahty of evidence : no method is ever inapplicable except through defectiveness of evidence. The more obvious facts naturally attract attention first; and it is only at a further stage of study that any one is likely spontaneously to grasp those more fundamental facts from which textual criticism must start if it is to reach comparative certainty. We propose to follow here this natural order, according to which the higher methods will come last into view.
SECTION I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF READINGS 24—37
24. Criticism arises out of the question what is to be received where a text is extant in two or more varying documents. The most rudimentary form of criticism consists in dealing with each variation independently, and adopting at once in each case out of two or more variants that which looks most probable. The evidence here taken into account is commonly called ' Internal Evidence': as other kinds of Internal Evidence will have
20 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF READINGS
to be mentioned, we prefer to call it more precisely ' Internal Evidence of Readings'. Internal Evidence of Readings is of two kinds, which cannot be too sharply distinguished from each other; appealing respectively to Intrinsic Probability, having reference to the author, and what may be called Transcriptional Probability, having reference to the copyists. In appealing to the first, we ask what an author is likely to have written : in appealing to the second, we ask what copyists are likely to have made him seem to write. Both these kinds of evidence are alike in the strictest sense internal, since they are alike derived exclusively from comparison of the testimony delivered, no account being taken of any relative antecedent credibiHty of the actual witnesses.
A. 25 — 27. Litrmsic Probability
25. The first impulse in dealing with a variation is usually to lean on Intrinsic Probability, that is, to consider which of two readings makes the best sense, and to decide between them accordingly. The decision may be made either by an immediate and as it were intuitive judgement, or by weighing cautiously various elements which go to make up what is called sense, such as conformity to grammar and congruity to the purport of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context ; to which may rightly be added congruity to the usual style of the author and to his matter in other passages. The process may take the form either of simply comparing two or more rival readings under these heads, and giving the preference to that which appears to have the ad- vantage, or of rejecting a reading absolutely, for viola- tion of one or more of the congruities, or of adopting a reading absolutely, for perfection of congruity.
INTRINSIC PROBABIIITY 21
26. These considerations evidently afford reasonable presumptions; presumptions which in some cases may attain such force on the negative side as to demand the rejection or qualify the acceptance of readings most highly commended by other kinds of evidence. But the uncertainty of the decision in ordinary cases is shown by the great diversity of judgement which is actually found to exist. The value of the Intrinsic Evidence of Readings should of course be estimated by its best and most cultivated form, for the extemporaneous surmises of an ordinary untrained reader Avill differ widely from the range of probabilities present to the mind of a scholar prepared both by general training in the analysis of texts and by special study of the facts bearing on the particular case. But in dealing with this kind of evi- dence equally competent critics often arrive at contra- dictory conclusions as to the same variations.
27. Nor indeed are the assumptions involved in Intrinsic Evidence of Readings to be implicitly trusted. There is much Hterature, ancient no less than modern, in which it is needful to remember that authors are not always grammatical, or clear, or consistent, or feli- citous; so that not .seldom an ordinary reader finds it easy to replace a feeble or half-appropriate word or phrase by an effective substitute ; and thus the best words to express an author's meaning need not in all cases be those which he actually employed. But, without attempt- ing to determine the limits within which such causes have given occasion to any variants in the New Testament, it concerns our own purpose more to urge that in the highest literature, and notably in the Bible, all readers are peculiarly liable to the fallacy of supposing that they understand the author's meaning and purpose because they under-
22 NATURE AND FOUNDATION OF
Stand some part or some aspect of it, which they take for the whole ; and hence, in judging variations of text, they are led unawares to disparage any word or phrase which owes its selection by the author to those elements of the thought present to his mind which they have failed to perceive or to feel.
B. 28 — 37. Transcriptional Probability
28. The next step in criticism is the discovery of Transcriptional Probability, and is suggested by the re- flexion that what attracts ourselves is not on the average unlikely to have attracted transcribers. If one various reading appears to ourselves to give much better sense or in some other way to excel another, the same ap- parent superiority may have led to the introduction of the reading in the first instance. Mere blunders apart, no motive can be thought of which could lead a scribe to introduce consciously a worse reading in place of a better. We might thus seem to be landed in the paradoxical result that intrinsic inferiority is evidence of originality.
29. In reality however, although this is the form in which the considerations that make up Transcriptional Probability are likely in the first instance to present themselves to a student feeling his way onwards be- yond Intrinsic Probability, the true nature of Tran- scriptional Probability can hardly be understood till it is approached from another side. Transcriptional Pro- bability is not direcdy or properly concerned with the relative excellence of rival readings, but merely with the relative fitness of each for explaining the existence of the others. Every rival reading contributes an element to
TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY 23
the problem which has to be solved; for every rival reading is a fact which has to be accounted for, and no acceptance of any one reading as original can be satis- factory which leaves any other variant incapable of being traced to some known cause or causes of variation. If a variation is binary, as it may be called, consisting of two variants, a and b^ the problem for Transcriptional Pro- bability to decide is whether it is easier to derive h from, ίτ, through causes of corruption known to exist elsewhere, on the hypothesis that a is original, or to derive a from by through similar agencies, on the hypothesis that b is original. If the variants are more numerous, making a ternary or yet more composite variation, each in its turn must be assumed as a hypothetical original, and an endeavour made to deduce from it all the others, either independently or consecutively ; after which the relative facilities of the several experimental deductions must be compared together.
30. Hence the basis on which Transcriptional Proba- bility rests consists of generalisations as to the causes of corruption incident to the process of transcription. A few of the broadest generalisations of this kind, singling out observed proclivities of average copyists, make up the bulk of what are not very happily called ' canons of criticism'. Many causes of corruption are independ- ent of age and language, and their prevalence may be easily verified by a careful observer every day; while others are largely modified, or even brought into existence, by peculiar circumstances of the writings themselves, or of the conditions of their transmission. There is always an abundance of variations in which no practised scholar can possibly doubt which is the original reading, and which must therefore be derivative;
24 INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF
and these clear instances supply ample materials for discovering and classifying the causes of corruption which must have been operative in all variations. The most obvious causes of corruption are clerical or me- chanical, arising from mere carelessness of the tran- scriber, chiefly through deceptions of eye or ear. But, as we have seen (§ lo), the presence of a mental factor can often be traced in corruptions partly mechanical; and under the influence of a lax conception of the proper office of a transcriber distinctly mental causes of change may assume, and often have assumed, very large proportions. Even where the definite responsibilities of transcription were strongly felt, changes not purely clerical Avould arise from a more or less conscious feeling on a scribe's part that he was correcting what he deemed an obvious error due to some one of his predecessors; while, at times or places in which the offices of transcribing and editing came to be confused, other copyists would not shrink from altering the form of what lay before them for the sake of substituting what they supposed to be a clearer or better representation of the matter.
31. The value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable. Without its aid textual criticism could rarely attain any high degree of security. Moreover, to be rightly estimated, it must be brought under consideration in the higher form to which it can be raised by care and study, when elementary guesses as to which reading scribes are likely in any particular case to have introduced have been replaced by judgements founded on previous in- vestigation of the various general characteristics of those readings which can with moral certainty be assumed to have been introduced by scribes. But even at its
TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY 2$
best this class of Internal Evidence, like the other, carries us but a little way towards the recovery of an ancient text, when it is employed alone. The number of variations in which it can be trusted to supply by itself a direct and immediate decision is relatively very small, when unquestionable blunders, that is, clerical errors, have been set aside. If we look behind the canons laid down by critics to the observed facts from which their authority proceeds, we find, first, that scribes were moved by a much greater variety of impulse than is usually supposed; next, that different scribes were to a certain limited extent moved by different impulses ; and thirdly, that in many variations each of two or more conflicting readings might be reasonably accounted for by some impulse known to have operated elsewhere. In these last cases decision is evidently precarious, even though the evidence may seem to be stronger on the one side than the other. Not only are mental impulses unsatisfactory subjects for estimates of comparative force; but a plurality of impulses recognised by ourselves as possible in any given case by no means implies a plurality of impulses as having been actually in operation. Nor have we a right to assume that Avhat in any particular case we judge after comparison to be the intrinsically strongest of the two or more pos- sible impulses must as a matter of course be the one impulse which acted on a scribe if he was acted on by one only : accidental circumstances beyond our know- ledge would determine which impulse would be the first to reach his mind or hand, and there would seldom be room for any element of deliberate choice. But even where there is no conflict of possible impulses, the evidence on the one side is often too slight and ques-
26 CONFLICTS OF INTRINSIC AND
tionable to be implicitly trusted by any one who wishes to ascertain his author's true text, and not merely to follow a generally sound rule. Hence it is only in well niarked and unambiguous cases that the unsupported verdict of Transcriptional Probability for detached read- ings can be safely followed.
32. But the insufficiency of Transcriptional Proba- bihty as an independent guide is most signally shown by its liability to stand in apparent antagonism to In- trinsic Probability; since the legitimate force of Intrinsic Probability, where its drift is clear and unambiguous, is not touched by the fact that in many other places it bears a divided or ambiguous testimony. The area of final antagonism, it is already evident, is very much smaller than might seem to be impHed in the first crude impression that scribes are not likely to desert a better reading for a worse; but it is sufficiently large to create serious difficulty. The true nature of the difficulty will be best explained by a few words on the mutual relations of the two classes of Internal Evidence, by which it will likewise be seen what a valuable ancillary office they dis- charge in combination.
33. All conflicts between Intrinsic and Transcrip- tional Probability arise from the imperfection of our knowledge: in both fields criticism consists of inferences from more or less incomplete data. Every change not purely mechanical made by a transcriber is, in some sense, of the nature of a correction. Corrections in such external matters as orthography and the like may be passed over, since they arise merely out of the com- parative familiarity of different forms, and here Intrinsic Probability has nothing to do with what can properly be called excellence or easiness. All other corrections,
TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY 2/
that is, those which bear any relation to sense, would never be made unless in the eyes of the scribe \vho makes them they were improvements in sense or in the expression of sense: even when made unconsciously, it is the relative satisfaction which they give to his mental state at the time that creates or shapes them. Yet in literature of high quality it is as a rule impro- bable that a change made by transcribers should improve an author's sense, or express his full and exact sense better than he has done himself. It follows that, with the exception of pure blunders, readings originating with scribes must always at the time have combined the appearance of improvement with the absence of its reality. If they had not been plausible, they would not have existed: yet their excellence must have been either superficial or partial, and the balance of inward and essential excellence must lie against them. In itself therefore Transcriptional Probability not only stands in no antagonism to Intrinsic Probability, but is its sustaining complement. It is seen in its proper and normal shape when both characteristics of a scribe's cor- rection can alike be recognised, the semblance of supe- riority and the latent inferiority.
34. It is only in reference to mental or semi-mental causes of corruption that the apparent conflict between Transcriptional and Intrinsic Probability has any place : and neither the extent nor the nature of the apparent conflict can be rightly understood if we forget that, in making use of this class of evidence, we have to do with readings only as they are likely to have appeared to transcribers, not as they appear to us, except in so far as our mental conditions can be accepted as truly reflecting theirs. It is especially necessary to bear
28 HARMONY OF INTRINSIC AND
this limitation in mind with reference to one of the most comprehensive and also most Avidely prevalent mental impulses of transcribers, the disposition to smooth away difficulties; which is the foundation of the paradoxical precept to 'choose the harder reading', the most famous of all ' canons of criticism'. Readings having no especial attractiveness to ourselves may justly be pronounced suspicious on grounds of Transcriptional Probability, if they were likely to be attractive, or their rivals unac- ceptable, to ancient transcribers; and conversely, if this condition is absent, we can draw no unfavourable inferences from any intrinsic excellence which they may possess in our own eyes.
35. The rational use of Transcriptional Probability as textual evidence depends on the power of distinguish- ing the grounds of preference implied in an ancient scribe's substitution of one reading for another from those felt as cogent now after close and deliberate criticism. Alterations made by transcribers, so far as they are due to any movement of thought, are with rare exceptions the product of first thoughts, not second; nor again of those first thoughts, springing from a rapid and penetrating glance over a whole field of evidence, which sometimes are justified by third thoughts. This is indeed a necessary result of the extemporaneous, cursory, and one-sided form which criticism cannot but assume when it exists only as a subordinate accident of tran- scription. But even the best prepared textual critic has to be on his guard against hasty impressions as to the intrinsic character of readings, for experience teaches him how often the relative attractiveness of conflicting readings becomes inverted by careful study. What we should naturally expect, in accordance with what has
TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITY 29
been said above ^Z'i)•» is that each reading should shew some excellence of its own, apparent or real, provided that we on our part are quaUfied to recognise it. If any reading fails to do so, clerical errors being of course excepted, the fault must lie in our knowledge or our perception; for if it be a scribe's correction, it must have some at least apparent excellence, and if it be original, it must have the highest real excellence. Con- trast of real and apparent excellence is in any given variation an indispensable criterion as to the adequacy of the evidence for justifying reliance on Transcriptional Probability;
36. Fortunately variations conforming to this normal type are of frequent occurrence; variations, that is, in which a critic is able to arrive at a strong and clear conviction that one reading is intrinsically much the most probable, and yet to see with equal clearness how the rival reading or readings could not but be attractive to average transcribers. In these cases Internal Evidence of Readings attains the highest degree of certainty which its nature admits, this relative trustworthiness being due to the coincidence of the two independent Probabilities, Intrinsic and Transcriptional. Readings thus certified are of the utmost value in the application of other methods of criticism, as we shall see hereafter.
37. But a vast proportion of variations do not fulfil these conditions. Where one reading {a) appears intrinsically preferable, and its excellence is of a kind that we might expect to be recognised by scribes, while its rival ip) shews no characteristic likely to be attractive to them. Intrinsic and Transcriptional Proba- bility are practically in conflict. In such a case either b must be wnrong, and therefore must, as compared with
30 READINGS INDETERMINABLE
a, have had some attractiveness not perceived by us, if the case be one in which the supposition of a mere blunder is improbable ; or b must be right, and there- fore must have expressed the author's meaning with some special fitness which escapes our notice. The antagonism would disappear if we could discover on which side we have failed to perceive or duly appreciate all the facts; but in the mean time it stands. Occasio- nally the Intrinsic evidence is so strong that the Tran- scriptional evidence may without rashness be disregarded : but such cases are too exceptional to count for much when we are estimating the general trustworthiness of a method; and the apparent contradiction which the imper- fection of our knowledge often leaves us unable to reconcile remains a valid objection against habitual reliance on the sufficiency of Internal Evidence of Readings.
SECTION II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENTS 38-48
38. Thus far we have been considering the method which follows Internal Evidence of Readings alone, as im- proved to the utmost by the distinction and separate appre- ciation of Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability, and as applied with every aid of scholarship and special study. The limitation to Internal Evidence of Readings follows naturally from the impulse to deal conclusively at once with each variation as it comes in its turn before a reader or coaimentator or editor : yet a moment's consideration of the process of transmission shews how precarious it is to attempt to judge which of two or more readings is the most likely to be right, Avithout considering which of the attesting: documents or combinations of documents
WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENTS 3 1
are the most likely to convey an unadulterated transcript of the original text; in other words, in dealing with matter purely traditional, to ignore the relative antece- dent credibility of witnesses, and trust exclusively to our own inward power of singling out the true readings from among their counterfeits, wherever we see them. Nor is it of much avail to allow supposed or ascertained excel- lence of particular documents a deciding voice in cases of difficulty, or to mix evidence of this kind at random or at pleasure with Internal Evidence of Readings as- sumed in practice if not in theory as the primary guide. The comparative trustworthiness of documentary authori- ties constitutes a fresh class of facts at least as pertinent as any with which we have hitherto been dealing, and much less likely to be misinterpreted by personal surmises. The first step towards obtaining a sure foundation is a consistent application of the principle that knowledge
OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGEMENT UPON READINGS.
39. The most prominent fact known about a manu- script is its date, sometimes fixed to a year by a note from the scribe's hand, oftener determined within certain limits by palaeographical or other indirect indications, sometimes learned from external facts or records. Rela- tive date, as has been explained above (§ 8), affords a valu- able presumption as to relative freedom from corruption, when appealed to on a large scale ; and this and other external facts, insufficient by themselves to solve a question of reading, may often supply essential materials to the process by which it can be solved. But the occasional preservation of comparatively ancient texts in compara- tively modern MSS forbids confident reliance on priority of date unsustained by other marks of excellence.
ο-
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENTS
4D. The first effectual security against the uncer- tainties of Internal Evidence of Readings is found in what may be termed Internal Evidence of Documents, that is, the general characteristics of the texts contained in them as learned directly from themselves by continuous study of the whole or considerable parts. This and this alone supplies entirely trustworthy knowledge as to the relative value of different documents. If we compare successively the readings of two documents in all their variations, we have ample materials for ascertaining the leading merits and defects of each. Readings authenti- cated by the coincidence of strong Intrinsic and strong Transcriptional Probability, or it may be by one alone of these Probabilities in exceptional strength and clearness and uncontradicted by the other, are almost always to be found sufficiently numerous to supply a solid basis for inference. Moreover they can safely be supplemented by provisional judgements on similar evidence in the more numerous variations where a critic cannot but form a strong impression as to the probabilities of reading, though he dare not trust it absolutely. Where then one of the documents is found habitually to contain these morally certain or at least strongly preferred readings, and the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals, we can have no doubt, first, that the text of the first has been transmitted in comparative purity, and that the text of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption ; and next, that the superiority of the first must be as great in the variations in which Internal Evidence of Readings has furnished no decisive criterion as in those which have enabled us to form a comparative appreciation of the two texts. By this cautious advance from the known to the unknown we are enabled to deal confidently with a
ITS THREE STEPS 33
great mass of those remaining variations, open variations, so to speak, the confidence being materially increased when, as usually happens, the document thus found to have the better text is also the older. Inference from the ascertained character of other readings within the identical text, transmitted, it is to be assumed, through- out under identical conditions, must have a higher order of certainty than the inferences dependent on general probabilities which in most cases make up Internal Evi- dence of Readings.
41. The method here followed differs, it will be ob- served, from that described above in involving not a single but a threefold process. In the one case we en- deavour to deal with each variation separately, and to decide between its variants immediately, on the evidence presented by the variation itself in its context, aided only by general considerations. In the other case we begin with virtually performing the same operation, but only tentatively, with a view to collect materials, not final results : on some variations we can without rashness pre- dict at this stage our ultimate conclusions ; on many more we can estimate various degrees of probability ; on many more again, if we are prudent, we shall be content to remain for the present in entire suspense. Next, we pass from investigating the readings to investigating the documents by means of what we have learned respecting the readings. Thirdly, Ave return to the readings, and go once more over the same ground as at first, but this time making a tentative choice of readings simply in accordance with documentary authority. Where the results coincide with those obtained at the first stage, a very high degree of probability is reached, resting on the coincidence of two and often three independent kinds of evidence.
34 VALUE AND LIMITATIONS OF
Where they differ at first sight, a fresh study of the whole evidence affecting the variation in question is secured. Often the fresh facts which it brings to Hght will shew the discordance between the new and the old evidence to have been too hastily assumed. Sometimes on the other hand they will confirm it, and then the doubt must remain.
42. To what extent documentary authority alone may be trusted, where the Internal Evidence of Readings is altogether uncertain, must vary in different instances. The predominantly purer text of one document may un- doubtedly contain some wrong readings from which the predominantly less pure text of another is free. But the instances of this kind which are ultimately found to stand scrutiny are always much fewer than a critic's first im- pression leads him to suppose ; and in a text of any length we believe that only a plurality of strong instances con- firming each other after close examination ought to disturb the presumption in favour of the document found to be habitually the better. Sometimes of course the superiority may be so slight or obscure that the documentary autho- rity loses its normal weight. In such cases Internal Evi- dence of Readings becomes of greater relative importance : but as its inherent precariousness remains undiminished, the total result is comparative uncertainty of text.
43. Both the single and the triple processes which we have described depend ultimately on judgements upon Internal Evidence of Readings ; but the difference be- tween isolated judgements and combined judgements is vital. In the one case any misapprehension of the imme- diate evidence, that is, of a single group of individual phenomena, tells in full force upon the solitary process by which one reading is selected from the rest for adop-
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENTS 35
tion, and there is no room for rectification. In the other case the selection is suggested by the result of a large generalisation about the documents, verified and checked by the immediate evidence belonging to the variation ; and the generalisation itself rests on too broad a foundation of provisional judgements, at once con- firming and correcting each other, to be materially weak- ened by the chance or probability that some few of them are individually unsound.
44. Nevertheless the use of Internal Evidence of Documents has uncertainties of its own, some of which can be removed or materially diminished by special care and patience in the second and third stages of the pro- cess, while others are inherent and cannot be touched without the aid of a fresh kind of evidence. They all arise from the fact that texts are, in one sense or another, not absolutely homogeneous. Internal knowledge of documents that are compared with each other should in- clude all their chief characteristics, and these can only imperfectly be summed up under a broad statement of comparative excellence. At first sight the sole problem that presents itself is whether this document is 'better' or 'worse' than that; and this knowledge may sometimes suffice to produce a fair text, where the evidence itself is very simple. Yet it can never be satisfactory either to follow implicitly a document pronounced to be 'best', or to forsake it on the strength of internal evidence for this or that rival reading. Every document, it may be safely said, contains errors; and second only to the need of dis- tinguishing good documents from bad is the need of leaving as little room as possible for caprice in dis- tinguishing the occasional errors of 'good' documents from the sound parts of their text.
3^ HETEROGENEOUS EXCELLENCE AND
45. General estimates of comparative excellence are at once shown to be insufficient by the fact that excel- lence itself is of various kinds : a document may be * good ' in one respect and ' bad ' in another. The dis- tinction betv>'een soundness and correctness, for instance, lies on the surface. One MS will transmit a substantially pure text disfigured by the blunders of a careless scribe, another will reproduce a deeply adulterated text with smooth faultlessness. It therefore becomes necessary in the case of important MSS to observe and discriminate the classes of clerical errors by which their proper texts are severally disguised; for an authority representing a sound tradition can be used with increased confidence when its own obvious slips have been classed under defi- nite heads, so that those of its readings which cannot be referred to any of these heads must be reasonably sup- posed to have belonged to the text of its exemplar. The complexity of excellence is further increased by the un- equal distribution of the mental or semi-mental causes of corruption; while they too can be observed, classified, and taken into account, though with less precision than defects of mechanical accuracy. Where the documentary witnesses are not exclusively MSS having continuous texts in the original language, but also, for instance, translations into other languages or quotations by later authors, similar deductions are required in order to avoid being misled as to the substantive text of their exemplars. Thus allowance has to be made for the changes of phrase- ology, real or apparent, which translators generally are prone to introduce, and again for those which may be due to the defects or other peculiarities of a given language, or the purpose of a given translation. In quotations account must in like manner be taken of the modifications, in•
COMPOSITENESS OF DOCUMENTS 2>7
tentional or unconscious, which writers are apt to make in passages which they rapidly quote, and again of the individual habits of quotation found in this or that par- ticular writer. In all these cases on the one hand com- parative excellence is various and divided ; and on the other an exact study of documents will go a great way towards changing vague guesses about possible errors intc positive knowledge of the limits within which undoubted errors have been actually found to exist. The corrective process is strictly analogous to that by which evidence from Transcriptional Probability is acquired and reduced to order : but in the present case there is less liability to error in application, because we are drawing inferences not so much from the average ways of scribes as a class as from the definite characteristics of this or that docu- mentary witness.
46. The true range of individuality of text cannot moreover be exactly measured by the range of contents of an existing document. We have no right to assume without verification the use of the same exemplar or exem- plars from the first page to the last. A document con- taining more books than one may have been transcribed either from an exemplar having identical contents, or from two or more exemplars each of which contained a smaller number of books; and these successive exemplars may have been of very various or unequal excellence. As regards alterations made by the transcriber himself, a generalisation obtained from one book would be fairly valid for all the rest. But as regards what is usually much more important, the antecedent text or texts received by him, the prima facie presumption that a generalisation obtained in one book will be applicable in another cannot safely be trusted until the recurrence of
3 δ TEXTUAL MIXTURE IN DOCUMENTS
the same textual characteristics has been empirically as- certained.
47. A third and specially important loss of homo- geneousness occurs wherever the transmission of a writing has been much affected by what (§§ 5, 6) we have called mixture, the irregular combination into a single text of two or more texts belonging to different lines of trans- mission. Where books scattered in two or more copies are transcribed continuously into a single document (§ 46), the use of different exemplars is successive : here it is simultaneous. In this case the individuality, so to speak, of each mixed document is divided, and each element has its own characteristics ; so that we need to know to which element of the document any given reading belongs, before we can tell what authority the reading derives from its attestation by the document. Such knowledge evidently cannot be furnished by the document itself; but, as we shall see presently, it may often be obtained through combinations of documents.
48. Lastly^ the practical value of the simple applica- tion of Internal Evidence of Documents diminishes as they increase in number. It is of course in some sort available wherever a text is preserved in more than a single document, provided only that it is known in each variation which readings are supported by the several documents. Wherever it can be used at all, its use is indispensable at every turn; and where the documents are very few and not perceptibly connected,at is the best resource that criticism possesses. On the other hand, its direct utility varies with the simplicity of the documentary evidence; and it is only through the disturbing medium of arbitrary and untrustworthy rules that it can be made systematically available for writings preserved in a plurality
COMPLEXITY OF ATTESTATION 39
of documents. For such writings in fact it can be em- pLoyed as the primary guide only where the better documents are in tolerably complete agreement against the worse ; and the insufficiency must increase with their number and diversity. Wherever the better documents are ranged on different sides, the decision becomes vir- tually dependent on the uncertainties of isolated personal judgements. There is evidently no way through the chaos of complex attestation which thus confronts us except by going back to its causes, that is, by enquiring what ante- cedent circumstances of transmission will account for such combinations of agreements and differences between the several documents as we find actually existing. In other words, we are led to the necessity of investigating not only individual documents and their characteristics, but yet more the mutual relations of documents.
SECTION III. GENEALOGICAL EVIDENCE 49—76
A. 49 — 53. Simple or divergent genealogy 49. The first great step in rising above the uncer- tainties of Internal Evidence of Readings was taken by ceasing to treat Readings independently of each other, and examining them connectedly in series, each series being furnished by one of the several Documents in which they are found. The second great step, at which we have now arrived, consists in ceasing to treat Docu- ments independently of each other, and examining them connectedly as parts of a single whole in virtue of their historical relationships. In their prijjia facie character documents present themselves as so many independent and rival texts of greater or less purity. But as a matter of fact they are not independent: by the nature of the
40 USE OF PLURALITY OF DOCUMENTS
case they are all fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree of transmission, some- times of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactly we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree, and to determine the places of the several documents among the branches, the more secure will be the founda- tions laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the original text from its successive corruptions. It may be laid down then emphatically, as a second principle, that
ALL TRUSTWORTHY RESTORATION OF CORRUPTED TEXTS IS FOUNDED ON THE STUDY OF THEIR HISTORY, that IS,
of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the several documents. The principle here laid down has long been acted upon in all the more important restora- tions of classical texts : but it is still too imperfectly un- derstood to need no explanation. A simple instance will show at once its practical bearing.
50. Let it be supposed that a treatise exists in ten MSS. If they are used without reference to genealogy by an editor having a general preference for documentary evidence, a reading found in nine of them will in most cases be taken before a rival reading found only in the tenth, which will naturally be regarded as a casual aberration. If the editor decides otherwise, he does so in reliance on his own judgement either as to the high probability of the reading or as to the high excellence of the MS. He may be right in either case, and in the latter case he is more likely to be right than not : but where an overwhelming preponderance of the only kind of documentary evidence recognised is so boldly dis- regarded, a wide door is opened for dangerous uncertainty.
51. Another editor begins by studying the relations of the MSS, and finds sufficient evidence, external or
DEMANDS KNOWLEDGE OF GENEALOGY 4 1
internal, for believing that the first nine MSS were all copied directly or indirectly from the tenth MS, and de- rived nothing from any document independent of the tenth. He will then know that all their variations from the tenth can be only corruptions (successful cursory emendations of scribes being left out of account), and that for documentary evidence he has only to follow the tenth. Apart therefore from corruptions in the tenth, for the detection of which he can obviously have no documen- tary evidence, his text will at once be safe and true.
52. If however the result of the second supposed editor's study is to find that all the nine MSS were de- rived not from the tenth but from another lost MS, his ten documents resolve themselves virtually into two wit- nesses ; the tenth MS, which he can know directly and completely, and the lost MS, which he must restore through the readings of its nine descendants, exactly and by simple transcription where they agree, approximately and by critical processes where they disagree. After these processes some few variations among the nine may doubt- less be left in uncertainty, but the greater part will have been cleared away, leaving the text of the lost MS (with these definite exceptions) as certain as if it were accessible to the eyes, AVhere the two ultimate witnesses agree, the text will be as certain as the extant documents can make it ; more certain than if the nine MSS had been derived from the tenth, because going back to an earlier link of transmission, the common source of the two witnesses. This common source may indeed be of any date not later than the earliest of the MSS, and accordingly separated from the autograph by any number of transcriptions, so that its text may vary from absolute purity to any amount of corruption : but as conjecture is the sole possible
42 ILLUSTRATIONS OF GENEALOGY
instrument for detecting or correcting whatever errors it may contain, this common source is the only original with which any of the methods of criticism now under discussion have any concern. Where the two uUimate witnesses differ, the genealogical method ceases to be applicable, and a comparison of the intrinsic general character of the two texts becomes the only resource.
53. The relations of descent between existing docu- ments are rarely so simple as in the case supposed. To carry the supposition only one step further, the nine MSS might have been found to fall into two sets, five descended from one lost ancestor and four from another : and then the question would have arisen whether any two of the three authorities had a common origin not shared by the third. If it were ascertained that they had, the readings in which they agreed against the third would have no greater probability than the rival readings of the third, except so far as their common ancestor was found to have higher claims to authority as a single document than the third as a single docu- ment. If on the other hand the nine could not be traced to less than two originals, a certain much diminished numerical authority would still remain to them. Since however all presumptions from numerical superiority, even among documents known to be all absolutely independent, that is, derived from the auto- graph each by a separate line of descent, are liable to be falsified by different lengths and difterent conditions of transmission, the practical value of the numerical au- thority of the two supposed witnesses against the third could not be estimated till it had been brought into comparison with the results yielded by the Internal Evidence of all three witnesses.
43
Β. 54 — 57• Genealogy and Number
54. It is hardly necessary to point out the total change in the bearing of the evidence here made by the introduction of the factor of genealogy. Apart from genealogy, the one MS becomes easily overborne by the nine; and it would be trusted against their united testimony only when upheld by strong internal evidence, and then manifestly at great risk. But if it is found that the nine had a common original, they sink jointly to a numerical authority not greater than that of the one; nay rather less, for that one is known absolutely, while the lost copy is known only approximately. Where for want of sufficiently clear evidence, or for any other reason, the simplification of pedigree cannot be carried thus far, still every approximation to an exhibition of their actual historical relations presents them in a truer light for the purposes of textual criticism than their enumera- tion in their existing form as so many separate units. It enables us on the one hand to detect the late origin and therefore irrelevance of some part of the prima fade documentary evidence, and on the other to find the rest of it already classified for us by the discovered relations of the attesting documents themselves, and thus fitted to supply trustworthy presumptions, and under favourable circumstances much more than presumptions, as a basis for the consideration of other classes of evidence.
55. It would be difficult to insist too strongly on the transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical autho- rity thus effected by recognition of Genealogy. In the crude shape in which numerical authority is often presented, it rests on no better foundation than a vague transference of associations connected with majorities of voices, this
44 IRRELEVANCE OF NUMBER
natural confusion being aided perhaps by the appUca- tion of the convenient and in itself harmless term * authorities ' to documents. No one doubts that some documents are better than others, and that therefore a numerical preponderance may have rightly to yield to a qualitative preponderance. But it is often assumed that numerical superiority, as such, among existing docu- ments ought always to carry a certain considerable though perhaps subordinate weight, and that this weight ought always to be to a certain extent proportionate to the excess of numbers. This assumption is completely negatived by the facts adduced in the preceding pages, which shew that, since the same numerical relations among existing documents are compatible with the utmost dissimilarity in the numerical relations among their ancestors, no available presumptions whatever as to text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from number not as yet interpreted by descent.
56. The single exception to the truth of this statement leaves the principle itself untouched. Where a minority consists of one document or hardly more, there is a valid presumption against the reading thus attested, because any one scribe is liable to err, whereas the fortuitous concurrence of a plurality of scribes in the same error is in most cases improbable; and thus in these cases the reading attested by the majority is exempt from the suspicion of one mode of error which has to be taken into account with respect to the other reading. But this limited prima facie presumption, itself liable to be eventually set aside on evidence of various classes, is distinct in kind, not in degree only, from the imaginary presumption against a mere minority; and the essential difference is not
APART FROM GENEALOGY 45
altered by the proportion of the majority to the mi- nority.
57. Except where some one particular corruption was so obvious and tempting that an unusual number of scribes might fall into it independently, a few docu- ments are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appre- ciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to them. As soon as the numbers of a minority exceed what can be explained by accidental coincidence, so that their agreement in error, if it be error, can only be explained on genealogical grounds, we have thereby passed beyond purely numerical relations, and the necessity of examining the genealogy of both minority and majority has become apparent. A theoretical pre- sumption indeed remains that a majority of extant docu- ments is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa. But the presumption is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds. Experience verifies what might have been anticipated from the incalculable and fortuitous complexity of the causes here at work. At each stage of transmission the number of copies made from each MS depends on extraneous conditions, and varies irregularly from zero upwards: and Λvhen further the infinite variability of chances of preservation to a future age is taken into account, every ground for expecting a priori any sort of correspondence of numerical proportion between existing documents and their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the ground. This is true even in the absence of mixture ; and mixture, as will be shown presently (§§ 61, 76), does but multiply the uncertainty. For all practical pur- poses the rival probabilities represented by relative
φ GENEALOGY TRACED BY
number of attesting documents must be treated as in- commensurable.
C. 58, 59. Majuier of discovering genealogy
58. Knowledge of the Genealogy of Documents, as of other facts respecting them, can sometimes be ob- tained to a certain extent from external sources, under which may be included various external indications furnished by themselves ; but it is chiefly gained by study of their texts in comparison with each other. The process depends on the principle that identity of reading implies identity of origin. Strictly speaking it implies either identity of origin or accidental coincidence, no third alternative being possible. Accidental coincidences do occur, and have to be reckoned for : but except where an alteration is very plausible and tempting, the chance that two transcribers have made the same alteration independently is relatively small, in the case of three it is much smaller, and so on with rapidly in- creasing improbability. Hence, while a certain number of identities of reading have to be neglected as capable of either interpretation, the great bulk may at once be taken as certain evidence of a common origin. Such community of origin for a reading may of course as regards the two or more attesting documents be either complete, that is, due to a common ancestry for their whole texts, or partial, that is, due to 'mixture', which is virtually the engrafting of occasional or partial com- munity of ancestry upon predominantly independent descent.
59. Here, as in the investigation of the comparative excellences of continuous texts, we are able to arrive at general conclusions about texts by putting together
IDENTITIES OF READINGS 47
the data furnished by a succession of variations of read- ing. What we have to do is to note what combinations of documents, large or small, are of frequent recurrence. Wherever we find a considerable number of variations, in which the two or more arrays of documents attesting the two or more variants are identical, we know that at least a considerable amount of the texts of the docu- ments constituting each array must be descended from a common ancestor subsequent to the single universal original, the limitation of ancestry being fixed by the dissent of the other array or arrays. Each larger array may often in like manner be broken up into subordinate arrays, each of which separately is found repeatedly sup- porting a number of readings rejected by the other docu- ments; and each such separate smaller array must have its own special ancestry. If the text is free from mixture, the larger arrays disclose the earUer divergences of transmission, the smaller arrays the later divergences : in other words, wherever transmission has been independent, the immediate relations of existing documents are ex- hibited by those variations which isolate the most subordinate combinations of documents, the relationships of the ultimate ancestors of existing documents by those variations in which the combinations of documents are the most comprehensive; not necessarily the most numerous individually, but the most composite.
D. 60 — 65. Complicatiojis of genealogy by mixture
60. In the texts just mentioned, in which transmis- sion has followed exclusively the simple type of divergent ramification, cross divisions among documents are impos- sible, except to the limited extent within which accidental coincidence can operate. If L Μ are two transcripts of the original, L^L^ of L, and M^M^ of M, the five distributions
48 RESULTS OF MIXTURE
(i) L1L2 against Vi^W, (ii) L^ against V-WW, (iii) L^ against ^Μ^Μ^, (iv) M^ against UUW•, and (v) M2 against L^L^M^ are all possible and all likely to occur : but the two distributions (vi) L^M^ against L^M^ and (vii) L^M^ against L^M^ are impossible as results of divergent genealogy. In the second distribution \? appears to desert its own primary array and join the array of Μ ; but the truth is that in a text transmitted under these con- ditions L^ must have introduced a corruption, while L^ has merely remained faithful to a reading of the original which had been faithfully preserved by L and Μ alike. On the other hand in the sixth distribution either L^M^ must have the wrong reading and L^M^ the right, or vice versa: if L^M^ are Avrong, either L and Μ must have both concurred in the error, which would have rendered it impossible for either L^ or M'^ to be right, or L^ and M^, transcribed from different exemplars, must have each made the same change from the true reading of L and Μ preserved by L''^ and AP, which is impossible except by accidental coincidence ; and mutatis nmtandis the case is the same if L^M^ be right and L-M- wrong, and again for the two corresponding alternatives of the seventh dis- tribution. In this fact that the sixth and seventh combina- tions, that is, cross combinations, cannot exist without mix- ture we have at once a sufficient criterion for the presence of mixture. Where we find cross combinations associ- ated with variations so numerous and of such a character that accidental coincidence is manifestly incompetent to explain them, we know that they must be due to mix- ture, and it then becomes necessary to observe withm what limits the effects of mixture are discernible.
6i. In so far as mixture operates, it exactly inverts the results of the simpler form of transmission, its effect being to produce convergence instead of divergence. Cor- ruptions originating in a MS belonging to one primary array may be adopted and incorporated in transcripts from other MSS of the same or of other primary arrays. An error introduced by the scribe of L^ in one century, and unknown to Ώ• M^ M-, may in a later century be attested by all the then extant representatives of L^L^M^ those of M'^ alone being free from it, the reason being that, perhaps through the instrumentality of some popular text which has adopted it, it has found its way into in- termediate descendants of \J• and of M^ It follows that, whenever mixture has intervened, wc have no security
AS CONFUSING GENEALOGY 49
that the more complex arrays of existing documents point to the more ancient ramifications : they may just as easily be results of a wide extension given comparatively late by favourable circumstances to readings which previously had only a narrow distribution. Conversely a present narrow- ness of distribution need not be a mark of relatively recent divergence : it may as easily (see § 76) be the only surviving relic of an ancient supremacy of distribution now almost obliterated by the invasion of mixture. This is of course a somewhat extreme case, but it is common enough : as a matter of fact, mixture is found to operate on every scale, from the smallest to the largest.
62. Mixture being thus liable to confuse and even invert the inferences which would indubitably follow from the conditions of transmission were transmission exclusively divergent, Λνε have next to enquire Avhat expedients can be employed when mixture has been ascertained to exist. Evidently no resource can be so helpful, w^iere it can be attained, as the extrication of earlier unmixed texts or portions of texts from the general mass of texts now extant. The clearest evidence for tracing the antecedent factors of mixture in texts is afforded by readings which are themselves mixed or, as they are sometimes called, 'conflate', that is, not simple substitutions of the reading of one docupent for that of another, but combinations of the readings of both documents into a composite whole, sometimes by mere addition with or without a conjunction, some- times with more or less of fusion. Where we find a variation with three variants, two of them simple alter- natives to each other, and the third a combination of the other two, there is usually a strong presumption that the third is the latest and due to mixture, not the third the earliest and the other two due to two independent impulses of simplification. Peculiar contexts may no doubt sometimes give rise to this paradoxical double
5 ο ANALYSIS OF MIXED TEXTS
simplification : but as a rule internal evidence is decisive to the contrary. If now we note the groups of docu- ments which support each of the three variants; and then, repeating the process with other conflate read- ings, find substantially the same groups of documents occupying analogous places in all cases, we gain first a verification of the presumption of mixture by the mutual corroboration of instances, and next a deter- mination of one set of documents in which mixture certainly exists, and of two other sets of documents which still preserve some portion at least of two more ancient texts which were eventually mixed together. Sometimes the three groups are found nearly constant throughout, sometimes they have only a nucleus, so to speak, approximately constant, with a somewhat variable margin of other documents. This relative variability however, due to irregularity of mixture, does not Aveaken the force of the inferences to be drawn from each single instance. If a reading is conflate, every document supporting it is thereby shown to have a more or less mixed text among its ancestry; so that, in considering any other doubtful variation, we have empirical evidence that the contingency of mixture in each such document is not a priori unlikely. About those documents which habitually support the conflate readings we learn more, namely that mixture must have had a large share in producing their text. Similarly we learn to set an especial value on those documents which rarely or never support the conflate readings; not necessarily as witnesses to a true text, for in all these cases each true reading is paired with a simple wrong reading, but as witnesses to texts antecedent to mixture.
THROUGH CONFLATE READINGS 51
dl' The results thus obtained supply the foundation for a further process. It is incredible that mixed texts should be mixed only where there are conflate readings. In an overwhelming proportion of cases the composition of two earlier readings would either be impossible or produce an intolerable result; and in all such cases, supposing the causes leading to mixture to be at work, the change due to mixture would consist in a simple replacement of one reading by another, such change being indifferently a substitution or an addition or an omission. Here then we should find not three variants, but two only: that is, the reading of the mixed text would be identical with one of the prior readings; and as a matter of course the documents attesting it would comprise both those that were descended from the mixed text and those that were descended from that earHer text which the mixed text has here followed. When accordingly Λve find variations exhibiting these pheno- mena, that is, having one variant supported by that set of documents which habitually attests one recurring factor of mixture in conflate readings, and another sup- ported by all the remaining documents, there is a strong presumption that a large portion of the ad- verse array of documents is descended from no line of transmission independent of the remaining portion, (that is, independent of the set of documents which habitually attests the other factor of mixture in con- flate readings,) but merely echoes at second hand the attestation of that remaining portion of the array: the lines of descent of the two groups which together make up the array are in short not parallel but succes- sive. It follows that the documentary authority for the two variants respectively is virtually reduced to that of
52 LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS
the two groups habitually preserving the separate factors of mixture.
64. It is true that variability in the margin of attesta- tion, if we may for brevity repeat a phrase employed above (§ 62), may render it uncertain with which portion of the composite array certain documents should be classed, thus weakening but not destroying the force, whatever it may be, of their opposition to the reading of the single array. It is true also that the authority of the portion of documents which belongs to the mixed text does not become actually nothing : it is strictly the authority of a single lost document, one of the sources of the mixture, belonging to the same Hne of transmission as the earlier group of documents supporting the same reading independently of mixture, and thus adding another approximately similar member to their company. These qualifications do not however affect the sub- stantial certainty and efficacy of the process here described, as enabling us in a large number of varia- tions to disentangle the confusion wrought by mixture. It is independent of any external evidence as to dates, being founded solely on the analysis and comparison of the extant texts : but of course its value for purposes of criticism is much enhanced by any chronological evidence which may exist.
65. On the other hand there is much mixture of texts for which the extant documentary evidence ante- cedent to mixture is too small or uncertain to be de- tached from the rest, and therefore to yield materials for the application of this process. In such cases we have to fall back on the principle of Internal Evidence of Groups, to be explained presently, which is ajoplicable to mixed and unmixed texts ahke.
53
Ε, 66 — η 2. Applications of genealogy
66. After this brief sketch of the modes of discovering genealogical facts by means of the extant texts, which will, we hope, be made clearer by the concrete examples to be given further on, we come to the uses of the facts so obtained for the discrimination of true from false readings. One case of the examples given in § 51 shews at once that any number of documents ascertained to be all exclusively descended from another extant docu- ment may be safely put out of sight, and with them of course all readings which have no other authority. The evidence for the fact of descent may be of various kinds. Sometimes, though rarely, it is external. Sometimes it consists in the repetition of physical defects manifestly not antecedent to the supposed original, as when the loss of one or more of its leaves has caused the absence of the corresponding portions of text in all the other docu- ments. Sometimes the evidence is strictly internal, being furnished by analysis of the texts themselves, when it is found that a fair number of mere blunders or other evidently individual peculiarities of the supposed original have been either reproduced or patched up in all the supposed derivative documents, and secondly that these documents contain few or no variations from the text of the supposed original which cannot be accounted for by natural and known causes of corruption.
67. This summary reduction of documentary evidence by the discovery of extant ancestors of other existing docu- ments is however of rare occurrence. On the other hand, wherever a text is found in a plurality of documents, there is a strong probability that some of them are de- scended from a single lost original. The proof of com•
54 SIFTING OF READINGS
mon descent is always essentially the same, consisting in numerous readings in which they agree among them- selves and differ from all other documents, together with the easy deducibility, direct or indirect, of all their read- ings from a single text. In the absence of the second condition the result would differ only in being less simple : we should have to infer the mixture of two or more lost originals, independent of each other as well as of the remaining extant documents.
68. The manner of recovering the text of a single lost original, assuming the fact of exclusive descent from it to have been sufficiently established, will be best explained by a free use of symbols. Let us suppose that the extant descendants are fourteen, denoted as ab c defghi klmiio \ that, when their mutual relationships are examined, they are found to fall into two sets, abcdefghi and klmno, each having a single lost ancestor (X and Υ respectively) descended from the common original; and again that each of these sets falls similarly into smaller sets, the first into three, ab^ cdef^ and^//z, the second into two, kl and inno^ each of the five lesser sets having a single lost an- cestor (αβγδ€ respectively) descended from the common subordinate original, α/3γ from X, δβ from Y. Let us suppose also that no cross distributions implying mutual or internal mixture can be detected. We have then this pedigree :
Ο
X Υ
α /3 7 δ e
Γ-^-π Γ Γ-^π— , 1 π Γ-^-π Γ 1 -,
α ο cue/ g h i k I m η ο
69. Readings in which all fourteen documents agree be- longed indubitably to the common original O. On the other hand the genealogical evidence now before us furnishes no indication as to the readings of Ο in variations in Λvhich all the descendants of X are opposed to all the descendants of Y: for reasons already given (§ 57) the proportion nine to five tells us nothing ; and the greater composite- • ness of abcdefghi, as made up of three sets against two,
BY MEANS OF GENEALOGY ^^
is equally irrelevant, since we know that each larger set has but a single ancestor, and we have no reason for preferring X singly to Υ singly. These variations there- fore we reserve for the present. Where however the descendants of either X or Υ are divided, so that the re- presentatives of (say) γ join those of δ and t against those of α and /3, and the question arises whether the reading of X is truly represented by a/3 or by γ, the decision must be given for that of γ, because, mixture and accidental coincidence apart, in no other way can γ have become at once separated from a/3 and joined to Se; in other words, the change must have been not on the part of γ but of a^, or rather an intermediate common ancestor of theirs. The reading thus ascertained to have been that of both X and Υ must also, as in the first case, have been the reading of O. Accordingly, so far as the whole evidence now before us is concerned, that is, assuming absence of mixture with documents independent of O, all readings of a/? against γδε may be at once discarded, first as de- partures from the text of O, and next as departures from the text of the autograph, since the direct transmission of all the documents passes through O, and thus it is not possible, on the present conditions, for a β to agree with the autograph against Ο except by conjecture or acci- dental coincidence. The same results follow in all the analogous cases, namely for readings of y against α/3δί, α against βγδ^, δ against α /3 ye, and e against α/3γδ. The combinations ay against /3Se and βy against αδε are possible only by mutual mixture among descendants of X antecedent to afiy, since they form cross distributions with the assumed combination a/3 against γδ^ : but this particular mixture would not interfere with the present operation of fixing the reading of X by coincidence with the reading of Y, because there would be no more mix- ture with Υ than in the other cases, and the force of the consent of Υ with part of the descendants of X remains the same whatever that part may be.
70. It will be seen at once what a wide and helpful suppression of readings that cannot be right is thus brought about by the mere application of Genealogical method, without need of appeal to the Internal Evidence of either Texts or Readings except so far as they contribute in the first instance to the establishment of the genealogical facts. Precisely analogous processes are required where any of the five lesser sets are divided, say by opposition
5 6 LIMITATIONS OF USE OF GENEALOGY
of cd to ef^ so that we have to decide whether the true reading of β is found in cd or in ef. The final clear result is that, when Ave have gone as far as the discoverable relations among our documents admit, we have on the one hand banished a considerable number of the extant variants as absolutely excluded, and on the other ascer- tained a considerable number of readings of O, in addition to those parts of the text of Ο in which all its descendants agree.
71. Two elements of uncertainty as to the text of Ο alone remain. First, the condition presupposed above, absence of mixture from without, does not always hold good. Where mixture from without exists, the inference given above from the concurrence of γ with fie against a/3 becomes but one of three alternatives. It is possible that mixture with a text independent of Ο has aftected y and Υ alike, but not αβ ; and if so, a/3 will be the true representatives of X and of O. This possibility is how- ever too slight to be weighed seriously, unless the reading of y and Υ is found actually among existing documents independent of O, provided that they are fairly numerous and various in their texts, or unless the hypothesis of mixture is confirmed by a sufBciency of similarly attested readings which cannot be naturally derived from readings found among the descendants of O. Again, it is possible that the reading of a/3 is itself due to mixture with a text independent of Ο : and if so, though rightly rejected from the determination of the reading of O, it may possibly be of use in determining the reading of an ancestor of O, or even of the autograph itself. But both these contingencies need be taken into account only when there is .already ground for supposing mixture from without to exist.
72. The second element of uncertainty is that which always accompanies the earliest known divergence from a single original. Given only the readings ot X and Y, Genealogy is by its very nature powerless to shew which were the readings of O. It regains its power only when we go on to take into account fresh documentary evidence independent of O, and work towards an older common original from which both it and Ο are descended. Ο then comes to occupy the place of X or Y, and the same process is repeated; and so on as often as the evidence will allow. It must however be reiterated (see § 52) that, when Ο has come to mean the autograph, we have, in reaching the earliest known divergence, arrived
VARIABLE USE OF GENEALOGY S7
at the point where Genealogical method finally ceases to be applicable, since no independent documentary evidence remains to be taken up. Whatever variations survive at this ultimate divergence must still stand as undecided variations. Here therefore we are finally restricted to the Internal Evidence of single or grouped Documents and Readings, aided by any available external knowledge not dependent on Genealogy.
F. 73 — 76. Variable use of genealogy according to un- equal preservation of docunients
73. The proper method of Genealogy consists, it will be seen, in the more or less complete recovery of the texts of successive ancestors by analysis and comparison of the varying texts of their respective descendants, each ancestral text so recovered being in its turn used, in con- junction with other similar texts, for the recovery of the text of a yet earlier common ancestor. The preservation of a comparatively small number of documents would probably suffice for the complete restoration of an auto- graph text (the determination of the earliest variations of course excepted) by genealogy alone, without the need of other kinds of evidence, provided that the documents preserved were adequately representative of different ages and different lines of transmission. This condition how- ever is never fulfilled. Texts are not uncommonly pre- served in a considerable assemblage of documents the genealogy of which can be fully worked out, but is found to conduct to one or two originals which, for all that ap- pears to the contrary, may be separated from the autograph by many ages of transmission, involving proportionate possibilities of corruption. Here Genealogical method retains its relative value, for it reduces within narrow limits the amount of variation which need occupy an editor when he comes to the construction of his text :
58 COMPOSITE ATTESTATION
but it leaves him in the dark, as all criticism dealing only with transmitted variations must do, as to the amount of correspondence between the best transmitted text and the text of his author. These cases correspond to such limited parts of the documentary evidence of more adequately attested texts as represent single stages of textual history.
74. In those rare cases, on the other hand, in which extant documentary evidence reaches up into quite ancient times the process may be carried back to a stage comparatively near the autograph : but here the evidence is as a matter of fact never abundant enough for more than rough and partial approximations to the typical pro- cess described above. Here too, as always, we have to ascertain whether the confusing influence of mixture exists, and if so, within what limits. Under such cir- cumstances any chronological and geographical informa- tion to be obtained from without has great value in in- terpreting obscure genealogical phenomena, especially as marking the relative date and relative independence of the several early documents or early lost ancestors of late documents or sets of documents.
75. In proportion as we approach the time of the autograph, the weight of composite attestation as against homogeneous attestation increases ; partly because the plurality of proximate originals usually implied in com- posite attestation carries with it the favourable presump- tion afforded by the improbability of a plurality of scribes arriving independently at the same alteration ; partly because the more truly composite the attestation, that is, the more independent its component elements, the more divergences and stages of transmission must have pre- ceded, and thus the earlier is likely to have been the
TRUE AND SPURIOUS 59
date for the common original of these various genera- tions of descendants, the later of which are themselves early. Nothing of course can exclude the possibility that one line of transmission may have ramified more rapidly and widely than another in the same time : yet still the shorter the interval between the time of the autograph and the end of the period of transmission in question, the stronger will be the presumption that earlier date implies greater purity of text. But the surest ground of trusting composite attestation is at- tained when it combines the best documentary repre- sentatives of those lines of transmission which, as far as our knowledge goes, were the earliest to diverge. Such are essentially instances of ascertained concordance of X and Υ (§ 69), in spite of the dissent of some de- scendants of one or both.
76. The limitation to " the best documentary repre- sentatives" is necessary, because the intrusion of mix- ture in documents, or in lost originals of documents or of documentary groups, may disguise the actual histo- rical relations (see § 61), and give the appearance of greater compositeness of attestation to readings which have merely invaded lines of transmission that for a while were free from them. It thus becomes specially neces- sary to observe which documents, or lost originals of documents or documentary groups, are found to shew frequent or occasional mixture with texts alien from their own primary ancestry, and to allow for the contingency accordingly. Many cases however of ambiguous inter- pretation of evidence are sure to remain, which the existing knowledge of the history of mixture is incom- petent to clear up ; and for these recourse must be had to evidence of other kinds.
6ο
SECTION IV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPS :
77, 7δ 77- We have reserved for this place the notice of another critical resource which is in some sense inter- mediate between Internal Evidence of Documents and Genealogical Evidence, but which in order of discovery would naturally come last, and the value of which Λνϋΐ have been made more apparent through the inherent and the incidental defects of Genealogical Evidence described in the preceding paragraphs. This supplementary re- source is Internal Evidence of Groups. In discussing Internal Evidence of Documents, we spoke only of single documents : but the method itself is equally applicable to groups of documents. Just as we can generalise the characteristics of any given MS by noting successively what readings it supports and rejects, (each reading having previously been the subject of a tentative estimate of Internal Evidence of Readings, Intrinsic and Transcrip- tional,) and by classifying the results, so we can generalise the characteristics of any given group of documents by similar observations on the readings which it supports and rejects, giving special attention to those readings in which it stands absolutely or virtually alone. In texts where mixture has been various, the number of variations affording trustworthy materials for generalisations as to any one group can be only a part of the sum total of variations ; but that part will often be amply sufficient. The evidence obtained in this manner is Internal Evi- dence, not Genealogical. But the validity of the inferences depends on the genealogical principle that community of reading implies community of origin. If we find, for in- stance, in any group of documents a succession of readings
INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPS 6 1
exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is, readings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pro- nounces to be right in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary Evidence, the cause must be that, as far at least as these readings are concerned, some one excep- tionally pure MS was the common ancestor of all the members of the group ; and that accordingly a recurrence of this consent marks a recurrence of joint derivation from that particular origin, and accordingly a strong presump- tion that exceptional purity is to be looked for here again. The inference holds equally good whether the transmission has been wholly divergent, or pardy divergent and partly mixed ; and any characteristic, favourable or unfavour- able,, may be the subject of it.
78. The value of Internal Evidence of Groups in cases of mixture depends, it will be seen, on the fact that by its very nature it enables us to deal separately with the different elements of a document of mixed ancestry. In drawing general conclusions from the characteristics of the text of a document for the appreciation of its in- dividual readings successively, we assume the general homogeneousness of its text ; but this assumption is legi- timate only if unity of line of ancestry is presupposed. The addition of a second line of ancestry by mixture introduces a second homogeneousness, which is as likely as not to conflict with that of the first, and thus to falsify inferences drawn from the first, unless there be means of discriminating from the rest of the text the portions taken from the second original. But each well marked group of which the mixed document is a member implies at least the contingency of a distinct origin ; and thus, in readings in which the document is associated with the rest of the group, its authority need not be that which
62 RECAPITULATION OF METHODS
it derives in the bulk of its text from its fundamental or primary original, but is strictly that belonging to the common ancestor of its secondary original and of the other members of the group. Such readings might be truly described as forming a series of minute fragments of a copy of the lost document which was the secondary original^ leaving corresponding gaps in the more or less faithfully preserved text of the primary original, except where conflate readings have wholly or partly preserved both texts. In the next Part we shall have ample op- portunity of illustrating wliat has here been said.
SECTION V. RECAPITULATION OF METHODS IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER
79—84
79. To recapitulate. The method of Genealogy is an application of one part of the knowledge of Docu- ments; and like the method founded on the Internal Evi- dence of Documents it involves three processes; first the analysis and comparison of the documentary evidence for a succession of individual variations ; next the investiga- tion of the genealogical relations between the documents, and therefore between their ancestors, by means of the materials first obtained; and thirdly the application of these genealogical relations to the interpretation of the documentary evidence for each individual variation. The results of the interpretation of documentary evidence thus and thus alone made possible are various. In the first place it winnows away a multitude of readings which ge- nealogical relations prove to be of late origin, and which therefore cannot have been derived by transmission from the autograph. Where the extant evidence suggests but
RECAPITULATION OF METHODS 63
is insufficient to prove thus much, and in the case of all other variants, this method so presents and limits the possible genealogical antecedents of the existing combi- nations of documentary evidence as to supply presump- tions in favour of one variant against another varying from what amounts under favourable circumstances to practically absolute certainty down to complete equipoise.
80. So far as genealogical relations are discovered with perfect certainty, the textual results which follow from them are perfectly certain too, being directly in- volved in historical facts ; and any apparent presumptions against them suggested by other methods are mere guesses against knowledge. But the inequalities and occasional ambiguities in the evidence for the genealogical relations frequently admit of more than one interpretation, and this greater or less substitution of probabiHty for certainty re- specting the documentary history reduces the textual ver- dict to a presumption, stronger or weaker as the case may be. Genealogical presumptions ought however to take precedence of other presumptions, partly because their immediate basis is in itself historical not speculative, and the subject-matter of all textual criticism is historical, partly because the generalisations by which that historical basis is ascertained involve less chance of error than the analogous generalisations required for any kind of In- ternal Evidence,
81. The only safe order of procedure therefore is to start with the reading suggested by a strong ge- nealogical presumption, if such there be ; and then enquire whether the considerations suggested by other kinds of evidence agree with it, and if not, whether they are clear and strong enough to affect the prwta fade claim of higher attestation. If they appear so to be, a
64 RECAPITULATION OF METHODS
full re-examination becomes necessary; and the result, especially if similar instances recur, may be the discovery of some genealogical complication overlooked before. No definite rule can be given as to what should be done where the apparent conflict remains, more especially where the documentary evidence is scanty or obscure. For our own part, in any writing having fairly good and various documentary attestation we should think it dangerous to reject any reading clearly supported by genealogical rela- tions, though we might sometimes feel it equally neces- sary to abstain from rejecting its rival.
Z2. Next in value to Genealogical Evidence is In- ternal Evidence of Documents, single or in groups. But where the documents exceed a very small number, the Internal Evidence of single Documents, as has already been explained (§ 48), is rendered for the most part practically inapplicable by the unresolved complexity. The Internal Evidence however of Groups of Docu- ments is always applicable if there are documents enough to form groups. It is the best substitute for Genealogical Evidence proper in texts, or in any parts of texts, in which genealogical relations are too obscure for use; and it affords the most trustworthy presump- tions for comparison with purely genealogical presump- tions, having similar merits derived from the form of the processes by which it is obtained, while relating to a different class of phenomena. The highest certainty is that which arises from concordance of the presumptions suggested by all methods, and it is always prudent to try every variation by both kinds of Internal Evidence of Readings. The uncertainty however inherent in both, as dependent on isolated acts of individual judgement, renders them on the whole untrustworthy against a con-
METHOD AND PERSONAL JUDGEMENT 65
currence of Genealogy and Internal Evidence of Docu- ments ; though a concurrence of clear Intrinsic with clear Transcriptional Probability ought certainly to raise at least a provisional doubt.
Zt^. Textual criticism fulfils its task best, that is, is most likely to succeed ultimately in distinguishing true readings from false, when it is guided by a full and clear perception of all the classes of phenomena which directly or indirectly supply any kind of evidence, and when it regulates itself by such definite methods as the several classes of phenomena suggest when patiently and cir- cumspectly studied. This conformity to rationally framed or rather discovered rules implies no disparage- ment of scholarship and insight, for the employment of which there is indeed full scope in various parts of the necessary processes. It does but impose salutary re- straints on the arbitrary and impulsive caprice which has marred the criticism of some of those whose scholarship and insight have deservedly been held in the highest honour.
84. Nevertheless in almost all texts variations occur where personal judgement inevitably takes a large part in the final decision. In these cases there is no failure of method, which strictly speaking is an impossibiHty, but an imperfection or confusion of the evidence needed for the application of method. Here different minds will be impressed by different parts of the evidence as clearer than the rest, and so virtually ruling the rest : here there- fore personal discernment Avould seem the surest ground for confidence. Yet here too, once more, the true su- premacy of method is vindicated ; for it is from the past exercise of method that personal discernment receives the education which tends to extinguish its illusions and 7
66 OCCASIONAL CORRUPTNESS OF
mature its power. All instinctive processes of criticism which deserve confidence are rooted in experience, and that an experience which has undergone perpetual cor- rection and recorrection.
SECTION VI. CRITICISM AS DEALING WITH ERR3RS
ANTECEDENT TO EXISTING TEXTS
S5-95
A. 85 — 92. Primitive errors
85. The preceding pages have dealt exclusively with the task of discriminating between existing various read- ings, one variant in each case being adopted and the rest discarded. The utmost result that can be obtained under this condition is the discovery of what is relatively ori- ginal : whether the readings thus relatively original were also the readings of the autograph is another question, Avhich can never be ans\^ered in the affirmative with absolute decision except where the autograph itself is extant, but which admits of approximative answers vary- ing enormously in certainty according to the nature of the documentary evidence for the text generally. Even in a case in which it were possible to shew that the extant docu- ments can be traced back to two originals which diverged from the autograph itself without any intermediate com- mon ancestor, wc could never be quite sure that where they differed one or other must have the true reading, since ihey might independently introduce difterent changes in the same place, say owing to some obscurity in the writing of a particular word. In almost all actual cases an interval, short or long, must have divided the auto- graph from the earliest point or points to which genealogy conducts us back; and any interval implies the possibility of corruption, while every addition to the length of the interval increases the probability of corruption. On the other hand documentary evidence including a fair variety of very ancient attestation may bring the meeting-point of the extant lines of transmission so near the autograph that freedom from antecedent corruption ceases to be improbable, without however thereby becoming a priori probable. In such cases therefore any investigation of
RELATIVELY ORIGINAL READINGS 6y
the ultimate integrity of the text is governed by no theoretical presumptions : its final conclusions must rest on the intrinsic verisimilitude or suspiciousness of the text itself.
86. These considerations have an important bearing on certain paradoxical conflicts of evidence respecting transmitted variations, which present themselves occa- sionally in most texts and frequently in many; and which are peculiarly apt to mislead editors to whom textual criticism is only a subordinate province of inter- pretation. The reading clearly indicated by Genealogical or other evidence obtained from whole texts, or by Tran- scriptional Evidence of Readings, or by both together, may be as clearly condemned by Intrinsic Evidence. We are not speaking of the numerous cases in which readings that have seemed to a critic in the first instance too strange to be true approve themselves on better knowledge, perhaps as no more than tolerable, but oftener still as having a peculiar impress of truth which once apprehended can- not easily be questioned ; or in which competent critics receive opposite impressions from the same reading, one holding it to be impossible, the other to have the stamp of originality. These differences of judgement throw no light upon readings which all competent critics feel on consideration to be impossible, and yet which are strongly attested by, it may be, every kind of evidence except Intrinsic Evidence.
87. The true solution lies in the fact that the subject matter of the different kinds of evidence is not identical. Intrinsic Evidence is concerned only with absolute ori- ginality ; it pronounces which of two or more words or phrases a given author in a given place was more likely to use, or, in extreme cases in either direction, whether either of them was what he must have used or could not possibly have used. All other kinds of evidence are con- cerned only or predominantly with relative originality : they pronounce, speaking roughly, which of two or more readings is more likely to have given rise to the others, or is found in the best company, or has the best pedigree. The apparent conflict therefore is dependent on the as- sumption, usually well founded, that the two originalities coincide. Where they do not, that is, where corruption has preceded the earliest extant documentary evidence, the most nearly original extant reading may nevertheless be wrong, simply because the reading of the autograph
68 PRIMITIVE ERRORS WITH OR
has perished. What an editor ought to print in such a case, supposing he has satisfied himself that the best attested reading is really impossible, may vary according to circumstances. But it is clearly his duty in some way to notify the presumed fact of corruption, whether he can offer any suggestion for its removal or not.
88. In the cases just mentioned, while the best attested reading is found to be impossible, the other reading or readings shown by evidence not Intrinsic to be corruptions of it are or may be found quite possible, but not more : they derive their prima facie probability only from an assumed necessity of rejecting their better attested rival. In other cases the reading (or one of the readings) shown to be of later origin has very strong Intrinsic Evidence in its own favour; that is, we have a combination of positive clear Intrinsic Evidence for the Avorse attested reading with negative clear Intrinsic Evi- dence against the better attested reading. So complete an inversion of the ordinary and natural distributions of evidence always demands, it need hardly be said, a thorough verification before it can be accepted as certain. It does however without doubt occasionally occur, and it arises from a state of things fundamentally the same as in the former cases, with the difference that here a transcriber has happened to make that alteration which was needed to bring back the reading of the autograph, that is, has in the course of transcription made a successful Conjectural Emendation. No sharp line can in fact be drawn between the deliberate conjectural emendations of a modern scholar and many of the half or wholly unconscious changes more or less due to mental action which have arisen in the ordinary course of transcription, more es- pecially at times when minute textual accuracy has not been specially cultivated. An overwhelming proportion of the cursory emendations thus made and silently embodied in transcribed texts are of course wrong : but it is no wonder that under favourable circumstances they should some- times be right. It may, once more, be a matter of doubt what form of printed text it will here be most expedient under given circumstances to adopt. The essential fact remains under all circumstances, that the conjectural origin of these readings is not altered by the necessity of formally including them in the sum of attested read- ings ; and that an editor is bound to indicate in some manner the conjectural character of any attested reading
WITHOUT VARIATION OF READING 69
which he accepts as the reading intended by the author, and yet which he does not believe to have been received by continuous transmission from the autograph.
89. We have dwelt at some length on these two classes of variations because at first sight they appear to furnish grounds for distrusting the supremacy of what we have ventured to call the higher kinds of evidence. They not unnaturally suggest the thought that, whatever may be said in theory respecting the trustworthiness of evi- dence not Intrinsic, it breaks down in extreme cases, and must therefore contain some latent flaw which weakens its force in all. But the suspicion loses all plausibility when it is seen that it springs from a confusion as to the sub- ject matter of attestation (see § 87), and that the attestation itself remains as secure in extreme cases as in all others. The actual uncertainties arise not from any want of cogency of method, but from inadequate quantity or quality of the concrete evidence available in this or that particular text or variation.
90. Both the classes of variations just considered imply corruption in the earliest transmitted text. The same fact of corruption antecedent to extant documentary evidence has to be recognised in other cases, some of which form a third class of variations. Besides the variations al- ready noticed in which the evidence shews one variant to have been the parent of the rest, while yet on Intrinsic grounds it cannot be right, there are others in which the variants have every appearance of being independent of each other, while yet on Intrinsic grounds none having sufficiently good documentary attestation, or even none at all, can be regarded as right : that is to say, a convergence of phenomena points to some lost reading as the common origin of the existing readings. Fourthly, there may be sufficient grounds for inability to accept the transmitted text even in places where the documents agree,
91. In all four cases the ground of belief that the transmitted text is wrong is Internal Evidence of Read- ings. In the third it is or may be a combination of Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence: in the first, second, and fourth it is exclusively Intrinsic Evidence, except where recognition of corruption is partly founded on perception of the lost original reading, which,• as we shall see shortly, involves the use of Transcriptional Evi- dence. The use of Internal Evidence of Readings in detecting corruption is precisely identical with its use, or
D EVIDENCE OF PRIMITIVE ERRORS
rather one of its uses, in the discrimination of attested readings. In coming to a decision on the strength of In- trinsic Evidence, a critic makes one of three affirmations respecting two variants α and β; (i) α is more probable than /3 ; (2) α is not only more probable than /3, and is not only suitable to the place, but is so exactly and perfectly suitable that it must be right ; and (3) /3 is not only less probable than a, but so improbable absolutely that it cannot be right, so that α as the only remaining variant must be right : (2) and (3) of course include (i), and also are compatible with each other. Now in pronouncing a text corrupt, he affirms neither more nor less than in the fundamental proposition of the third instance, in which he equally finds his whole evidence exclusively in the reading condemned, and in its own relations to the context, without reference to any other variant. In both procedures the affirmation has against it all the uncertainties which we have pointed out as inherent in the exclusive use of Intrinsic Evidence : nevertheless there are places in nearly all texts where its force is so convincing that the most cautious critic cannot refuse to make the affirmation, and in every ill preserved text they abound.
92. The first, second, and fourth cases are essentially the same. The presence of more than one variant in the first and second case does not place them on a different footing from the fourth, because all but the one are by supposition subsequent to the one, and are therefore virtually out of sight when the question of accepting the most original of attested readings as the true reading arises. A critic may doubtless feel less reluctant to pro- nounce a reading corrupt when he sees that it gave trouble to ancient scribes ; but the encouragement is due to corroboration of personal judgement, not to any kind of evidence ; it comes from the ancient scribes in the character of critics, not as witnesses to a transmitted text. On the other hand the third case has an advantage over the others by combining a certain measure of Transcrip- tional with Intrinsic Probability. The supposition of corruption has the strength of a double foundation when it not only accounts for our finding an impossible text but supplies a common cause for two readings, the apparent independence of which wOuld otherwise be perplexing; and this it does even in the absence of any perception as to what conjectural reading would fulfil the various con- ditions of the case.
71
Β. 93 — 95• Removal of primitive errors by conjecture
93. In discussing the corruption of texts antecedent to extant documents, the forms in which it presents itself, and the nature of the critical process by which it is affirmed, we have reserved till last a brief notice of the critical process which endeavours to remedy it, that is, Conjectural Emendation. Although in practice the two processes are often united, and a felicitous conjecture sometimes contributes strong accessory evidence of cor- ruption, it is not the less desirable that they should be considered separately. The evidence for corruption is often irresistible, imposing on an editor the duty of in- dicating the presumed unsoundness of the text, although he may be wholly unable to propose any endurable Avay of correcting it, or have to offer only suggestions in which he cannot place full confidence.
94. The art of Conjectural Emendation depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appre- ciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method. Like the process of detecting corruption, it can make no use of any evidence except Internal Evi- dence of Readings, but it depends on Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence alike. Where either there is no variation or one variant is the original of the rest, that is, in the fourth, first, and second of the cases mentioned above, two conditions have to be fulfilled by a successful emendation. As regards Intrinsic Evidence, it must, to attain complete certainty, be worthy of the second form of affirmation noticed above, that is, be so exactly and per- fectly suitable to the place that it cannot but be right; or, to attain reasonable probability, it must be quite suit- able to the place positively, and free from all incongruity negatively. As regards Transcriptional Evidence, it must be capable of explaining how the transmitted text could naturally arise out of it in accordance with the ordinary probabilities of transcription. Where there are more inde- pendent variants than one, that is, in the third case, the only difference is that the suggested correction must in like manner be capable of giving rise naturally to every such transmitted Reading. Thus in all cases the problem
τ 2 CONJECTURAL EMENDATION
involved in forming a judgement on a suggested Conjec- tural Emendation differs in one respect only from the ordi- nary problems involved in deciding between transmitted readings en the strength of Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence combined, and of these alone; it consists in asking whether a given reading out of two or three fulfils certain conditions well absolutely, whereas in other cases we ask which of two or three readings fulfils the same conditions best.
95. The place of Conjectural Emendation in the textual criticism of the New Testament is however so in- considerable that we should have hesitated to say even thus much about it, did it not throw considerable light on the true nature of all textual criticism, and illustrate the vast increase of certainty which is gained Avhen we are able to make full use of Documentary Evidence, and thus confine Internal Evidence to the subordinate functions which alone it is normally fitted to discharge.
71
PART ΠΙ
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM TO THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
96. The principles of criticism explained in the fore- going section hold good for all ancient texts preserved in a plurality of documents. In dealing with the text of the New Testament no new principle whatever is needed or legitimate : but no other ancient text admits of so full and extensive application of all the various means of discriminating original from erroneous readings which have been suggested to scholars by study of the con- ditions of textual transmission. On the one hand the New Testament, as compared with the rest of ancient literature, needs peculiarly vigilant and patient handHng on account of the intricacy of evidence due to the un- exampled amount and antiquity of mixture of different texts, from which few even of the better documents are free. On the other it has unique advantages in the abundance, the antiquity, and above all in the variety of its documentary evidence, a characteristic specially favour- able to the tracing of genealogical order.
CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY CHRONOLOGICAL SURVEY OF DOCUMENTS
97 — 128
97. Before entering on the historical phenomena of the text itself, and the relations between its principal docu- ments, we think it best to interpose a short general survey
74 GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
of the Avritten evidence with which all criticism has to deal, presenting it in a form somewhat different from that of the detailed catalogues which it is the office of other books to supply. The entire body of documentary evi- dence, with inconsiderable exceptions, consists of three parts ; extant Greek MSS, ancient translations or 'Ver- sions' in different languages, and quotations from the New Testament made by ancient Christian writers or 'Fathers'.
A. 98—106. Greek MSS
98. The Greek MSS of the New Testament are divided into two classes, conventionally though somewhat incorrectly termed 'Uncials' and 'Cursives', according as they are written in capital or in minuscule characters. Since Wetstein's time (175 1, 1752) it has been customary to distinguish Uncials by capital letters, and Cursives for the most part by arabic numerals. At the head of the list of Uncials stand four great MSS belonging to the fourth and fifth centuries. When complete, they all evidently contained the whole Greek Bible. At least three, and not improbably all four, had all the books of the New Testament that have been subsequently recognised as canonical, at least two containing other books in addition : as two are mutilated at the end, it is impossible to speak with greater precision. These four MSS are products of the earlier part of that second great period of Chiirch history which begins with the reign of Constantine ; the time when the various partial Canons of Scripture were brought together and as it were codified in various ways, the first step in the process being probably the catalogue of Eusebius m his Church History (of about 325), and the most decisive step, at least for the Greek churches, the catalogue of Athanasius in his 39th Paschal Epistle, of 367. About 332 Constantine directed Eusebius to have fifty easily legible copies of the complete Scriptures executed by skilful calligraphers for the use of the churches in his newly founded capital. We learn nothing of the texts or the contents of these "sump- tuously prepared volumes" (Eus. Vii. Const. IV 37) : but if the contained books corresponded with Eusebius's own list of a few years earlier {H. E. ill 25), none of our present MSS can well have been of the number. The incident illustrates however a need which would arise on a smaller scale in many places, as new and splendid churches came to be built under the Christian Empire after the great per- secution : and the four extant copies are doubtless casual
UNCIAL GREEK MANUSCRIPTS 75
examples of a numerous class of MSS, derived from va- rious origins though brought into existence in the first instance by similar circumstances. These four are the Codex Vaticanus (B), containing the whole New Testa- ment except the later chapters of Hebrews, the Pas- toral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse ; the Codex Sinaiticus (ti), containing all the books entire; the Co- dex Alexandrinus (A), containing all, except about the first 24 chapters of St Matthew's and two leaves of St John's Gospel and three of 2 Corinthians ; and the Codex Eph7'aeini (C), containing nearly three fifths of the Avhole (145 out of 238 leaves), dispersed over almost every book, one or more sheets having perished out of almost every quire of four sheets. The two former appear to belong to the middle part of the fourth century : the two latter are certainly of somewhat later date, and are assigned by the best judges to the fifth century.
99. The remaining uncial MSS are all of smaller though variable size. None of them shew signs of having formed part of a complete Bible, and it is even doubtful whether any of them belonged to a complete New Testa- ment. Six alone (including one consisting of mere frag- ments) are known to have contained more than one of the groups of books, if we count the Acts and the Apocalypse as though they were each a group. The Gospels are contained in fair completeness in nineteen uncial MSS (including t<ABC), the Acts in nine, the Catholic Epistles in seven, the Pauline Epistles in nine (besides the tran- scripts E3 and Fg), and the Apocalypse in five. The num- bers given for the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles do not include some more or less considerable fragments : but the line is hard to draw, and much is lost of C and Γ, which are included in the list.
100. After the four great Bibles the chronological distribution becomes remarkable. The fifth century sup- plies (besides AC) only Ο and T, both consisting of frag- ments of Luke and John: the sixth century supplies for the Gospels D (all four, but incomplete), Ν and Ρ (frag- ments of all four), Σ (Matthew and Mark, almost com- plete), R (fragments of Luke), and Ζ (fragments of Mat- thew) ; for the Acts D and Eg (both incomplete) ; and for the Pauline Epistles Dg (not quite complete): under each head some lesser fragments are not reckoned. The seventh century furnishes merely a few fragments ; the eighth, besides lesser fragments, EL (Gospels), S (large
je UNCIAL AND CURSIVE
fragments of Luke), and Bo (Apocalypse). But the MSS of the ninth and tenth centuries are about as numerous as those of all preceding centuries together. The preceding assignation of uncials to this or that century is founded in most cases on no independent judgement, but on the published estimates of the best qualified palaeographers. It is quite possible that some of the intermediate uncials may be placed a century too high or too low, for the absence of dated MSS before the ninth century renders palaeographical determination of the absolute chronology as yet insecure. The approximate outlines of the rela- tive or sequential chronology appear however to have been laid down with reasonable certainty ; so that the total impression left by a chronological analysis of the list of uncials can hardly be affected by possible errors of detail.
loi. The bilingual uncial MSS have a special interest. They are, in Greek and Latin, DA of the Gospels, DE2 of the Acts, and D2[E3F2]G3 of the Pauline Epistles; in Greek and Thebaic (the language of Upper Egypt), the fragmentary Τ of Luke and John, with some still smaller fragments of the same kind.
102. The Cursive MSS range from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries. Many of them contain two or more groups of books, and about 30 the whole New Testament. If each MS is counted as one, irrespectively of the books contained, the total number is between 900 and 1000.
103. An accessory class of Greek MSS is formed by Lectionaries or books of ecclesiastical lessons taken from the New Testament, of which above 400 have been cata- logued. Above four fifths contain only Gospel lessons, most of the rest lessons from the Acts and Epistles, some few being mixed. About 70 are uncials, and the rest cursives. None however are believed to be older than the eighth or possibly the seventh century, and uncial writing continued in use for Lectionaries some time after it had become obsolete for complete copies of the New Testament or complete divisions of it.
104. Such is the nominal roll of Greek MSS. If how- ever we confine our attention to those sufficiently known to be used regularly as direct evidence, a numerically large deduction has to be made, the amount of which, as dis- tinguished from its value, cannot be estimated even in a rough manner. Comparatively few Lectionaries have as yet been collated. Some of these have been found to con-
GREEK MANUSCRIPTS yj
tain readings of sufficient value and interest to encourage further enquiry in what is as yet an almost unexplored region of textual history, but not to promise considerable assistance in the recovery of the apostolic text. Of the numerous cursive MSS of the New Testament and its parts hardly any have been printed in extenso. We have however complete and trustworthy collations of a select few from Tregelles, and of a large miscellaneous (English) array from Dr Scrivener, both most careful collators; and tolerably complete collations of other miscellaneous assemblages from Alter (Vienna) and Matthasi (chiefly Moscow and Dresden); with which other collations might probably be classed. On the customary mode of reckoning, by which the four traditional divisions of the New Testa- ment (Acts and Catholic Epistles being counted as one) are taken separately, the full contents of about 150 cur- sives, besides Lectionaries, may be set down as practi- cally known from these sources. A much larger number are known in various degrees of imperfection, some per- haps almost as well as those included in this first class, from the labours of a series of collators, of whom Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Birch, Scholz, and Muralt deserve special mention. Many others have been examined only in selected passages, by which rough presumptions, but hardly more, can be formed as to the general character of the text ; and many others again are entirely unknown.
105. This large amount of present ignorance respecting the contents of cursives is much to be lamented. Valuable texts may lie hidden among them ; many of them are doubtless sprinkled with relics of valuable texts now de- stroyed; and fresh collations always throw more or less light on the later history of the text generally, and some- times on its earlier history. But enough is already known to enable us to judge with reasonable certainty as to the proportional amount of valuable evidence likely to be buried in the copies as yet uncollated. If we are to trust the analogy thus provided, which agrees with what might have been anticipated from the average results of con- tinued transcription generally, nothing can well be less probable than the discovery of cursive evidence sufficiently important to affect present conclusions in more than a handful of passages, much less to alter present interpreta- tions of the relations between the existing documents.
106. The nominal list of uncials needs hardly any appreciable deductions to make it a true representation
7^ LATIN VERSIONS
of the uncial evidence completely available. With the exception of the lately discovered Σ, all the older and more important uncials, some fragments excepted, have now been published in continuous texts, and the various readings of the rest are included in the apparatus critici of Tischendorfand (with unimportant exceptions) of Tregelles.
B. 107 — 122. Versions
107. The second class of documents consists of Ver- sions, that is, ancient translations of the whole or parts of the New Testament, made chiefly for the service of churches in which Greek was at least not habitually spoken. Be- sides some outlying Versions, there are three principal classes, the Latin, the Syriac, and the Egyptian. The history of all is still more or less obscure.
108. The Latin MSS are usually classified under two heads, 'Old Latin' (sometimes miscalled 'Italic') and 'Vul- gate'. For some purposes the distinction is convenient and almost necessary : but it disguises the fact that there is a wider difference between the earlier and the later stages of the ' Old Latin' (in this comprehensive sense of the term) than between the later stages and the Vulgate. The statements of Tertullian leave no doubt that when he wrote, near the beginning of the third century, a Latin translation of the New Testament was already current in North Africa. How much earlier it came into existence, and in what manner, cannot be ascertained ; but it may be reasonably assumed to have originated in Africa. An exact and authentic transcript of portions of the African text is conveyed to us by the early Latin patristic quota- tions. The rich evidence supplied by Tertullian's works is indeed difficult to disentangle, because he was fond of using his knowledge of Greek by quoting Scripture in im- mediate and original renderings, the proportion of which to his quotations from the existing version is indeter- minate but certainly large. This disturbing element is absent however from Cyprian's quotations, which are fortunately copious and carefully made, and thus afford trustworthy standards of African Old Latin in a very early though still not the earliest stage.
109. In the fourth century we find current in Western Europe, and especially in North Italy, a second type of text, the precise relation of which to the African text of the second and third centuries has not yet been clearly ascertained. These two Latin texts have very much in
AFRICAN EUROPEAN ITALIAN 79
common, both in the underlying Greek text and in lan- guage ; and many of the differences are fully compatible with the supposition that the African was the parent of the European text, having undergone revision when it travelled northwards, and been in some measure adapted to the needs of a more highly cultivated population. On the other hand, other differences, not so easily accounted for by this process, afford some justification for the alternative view that Italy had an indigenous version of her own, not less original than the African. The dis- tinctively African renderings which occur not unfre- quently in some of the best European documents may be explained in conformity with either view; as survivors from an earlier state, or as aliens introduced by mixture. Recent investigations have failed to solve this difficult problem, and it must be left for further examination : fortunately the value of the two early forms of the Latin text is not appreciably affected by the uncertainty. The name 'Old Latin', in its narrower and truer sense, may properly be retained for both, where there is no need of distinguishing them, and for the European text, where the African is not extant or never existed; the special designations 'African Latin' and 'European Latin' being employed where they bear a divided testimony.
no. After the middle of the fourth century Ave meet with Latin texts which must be referred to a third type. They are evidently due to various revisions of the European text, made partly to bring it into accord with such Greek MSS as chanced to be available, partly to give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect. In itself the process was analogous to that by which the European text must have been formed, on the supposition that it was of African parentage : but, as we shall see presently, the fundamental text now underwent more serious changes, owing to the character of the Greek MSS chiefly employed. The fact that the Latin text found in many of Augustine's writings is of this type has long been used with good reason to shew what he meant by the Itala which he names in a single laudatory notice {De doct. C/ir, ii 15). Without doubt this name was intended to distinguish the version or text which he had in viev/ from the 'African' version or text with which he was likewise familiar (' codices Afros ' Retr. 1213). The only open question is whether he had definitely before his mind a special text due to a recent North Italian re-
8ο VULGATE LATIN VERSION
vision, as has been usually assumed by those who have interpreted rightly the general bearing of his words, or was merely thinking of the text of Italy in such a com- prehensive sense as would include what we have called the European text. The former view was a necessary inference from the assumption that the best known Old Latin MSS of the Gospels had a strictly African text : but much of its probability is lost when it is seen how far removed they are from a Cyprianic standard. But whatever may be the precise force of the term as used by Augustine, such revised texts as those which he himself employed constitute an important stage in the history of the Latin New Testament : and it can hardly lead to misunderstanding if we continue to denote them by the convenient name ' Italian'.
III. The endless multiphcity of text in the Latin copies at length induced Jerome, about 383, to undertake a more thorough revision of the same kind. We learn from his own account nothing about his Greek MSS except that they were "old"; or about his mode of proceeding except that he made no alterations but such as were required by the sense, and that he kept specially in view the removal of the numerous interpolated clauses by which the Gospels were often brought into factitious similarity to each other in parallel passages. Internal evidence shews that the Latin MSS which he took as a basis for his corrections contained an already revised text, chiefly if not wholly 'Italian' in character. In the Gospels his changes seem to have been comparatively numerous ; in the other books of the New Testament, which he left without any expla- natory preface, but which he must have taken in hand as soon as the Gospels were finished, his changes were evi- dently much scantier and more perfunctory. It is worthy of notice that readings distinctly adopted in his own writings are not seldom at variance with the revised text which bears his name. These discrepancies may possibly be due to a change of view subsequent to the revision : but in any case it would be rash to assume that Jerome deli- berately considered and approved every reading found in his text, even of the Gospels, and much more of the other books which passed through his hands. The name 'Vul- gate' has long denoted exclusively ths Latin Bible as revised by Jerome; and indeed in modern times no con- tinuous text of any other form of the Latin version or versions was known before 1695.
OLD LATIN GOSPELS 8 1
112. Generations not a few had passed before the Hieronymic revision had even approximately displaced the chaos of unrevised and imperfectly revised Latin texts ; and during the period of simultaneous use the Latin Vulgate, as Λve may now call it, suffered much in purity by the casual resumption of many readings expelled or refused by Jerome. Scribes accustomed to older forms of text cor- rupted by unwitting reminiscence the Vulgate which they were copying; so that an appreciable part of Jerome's work had been imperceptibly undone when the Vulgate attained its final triumph. Partly from this cause, partly from the ordinary results of transcription, the Vulgate text underwent progressive deterioration till long after the close of the Middle Ages, notwithstanding various partial at- tempts at correction. At length the authoritative 'Cle- mentine' revision or recension of 1592 removed many cor- ruptions. Many others however were left untouched, and no critically revised text of the Latin Vulgate New Testa- ment founded systematically on more than one or two of the best MSS has yet been edited. The text of at least two of the best as yet known, and a very few others com- paratively good, has however been printed at full length.
113. The existing MSS of the Old Latin Gospels, dis- tinguished by small letters, belong for the most part to the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries : one however (t•), strange to say, was written as late as the eleventh cen- tury. Hardly any are quite complete, and those which contain more than inconsiderable fragments amount to about fourteen, of which on an average scarcely more than half are extant in any one passage : in this compu- tation Ante-Hieronymic texts of all types are included. Among the few fragments not counted are two leaves which agree closely with one of the comparatively com- plete MSS : but with this exception all known MSS shew more or less textual individuality, and there are many traces of sporadic and casual mixture. Two of the MSS {e k) are substantially African, a large proportion of their texts being absolutely