documents: besides, the corrections so made were of little importance, and had only a limited influence. Although different manuscripts may be of the same country, it does not necessarily result that their text exhibits an absolute identity, but only a general conformity in the greatest number of cases. What then, it may be asked, was the origin of the Constantinopolitan text? Dr. Scholz is of opinion that it was the original text, nearly in all its purity, and derived directly from autographs. This he regards as certain as any critical fact can be: history leads us to admit it; external evidence confirms it; and it is completely demonstrated by internal proofs. The greater part of the writings of the New Testament were destined for the churches in Greece and in Asia Minor, where the idea of forming a collection of them would originate, as is evident from Saint John's approbation of the collection of the three first Gospels. These writings were, from the beginning, read in the religious assemblies of the Christians; and when the originals were worn out or lost by use, or by the calamities which befell many of the churches, apographs or correct transcripts from them were preserved in private libraries as well as in the libraries attached to the churches. These holy writings were further multiplied by numerous copyists for the use of private individuals. In transcribing the text, the Constantinopolitan scribes certainly did not imitate the audacity of the grammarians of Alexandria. This would be in the highest degree improbable, if the question related to profane authors; but it becomes utterly incredible as it regards the New Testament. On the contrary, these writings were cherished with increasing religious veneration. The long series of venerable bishops, who presided over the numerous churches in Asia, the Archipelago, and in Greece, transmitted to the faithful the instructions which they had received from the Apostles. Far from altering in any degree that sacred deposit, they labored with pious vigilance to preserve it pure and unmutilated. In this state they left it to their successors and to new churches; and, with the exception of a few errors of the copyists, the text remained without alterations until the reigns of Constantine and of Constans. At that time, however, some Alexandrine MSS. were dispersed at Constantinople, whence alterations were introduced into many Byzantine manuscripts. This circumstance accounts for a tendency in the Constantinopolitan family to approximate nearer to the Alexandrine text than we should otherwise expect. Among the critics of the present century, a place must be given to Charles Lachmann (†1851). His critical edition of the New Testament, in Greek and Latin, appeared between the years 1842 and 1850. "Lachmann had published as early as 1831 a small edition containing only the text of the N. T., with a list of the readings, wherein he differs from that of Elzevir, preceded by a notice of his plan not exceeding a few lines in length, itself so obscurely worded that even to those who happened to understand his meaning it must have read like a riddle whose solution they had been told beforehand; and referring us for fuller information to what he strangely considers 'a more convenient place,' a German periodical of the preceding year's date. Authors who take so little pains to explain their fundamental principles of criticism, especially if (as in this case) these are novel and unexpected, can hardly wonder when their drift and purpose are imperfectly apprehended; so that a little volume, which we now learn had cost Lachmann five years of thought and labor, was confounded, even by the learned, with the common, hasty and superficial reprints. Nor was the difficulty much removed on the publication of the first volume of his larger book. It was then seen, indeed, how clean a sweep he had made of the great mass of Greek manuscripts usually cited in critical editions;-in fact he rejected all in a heap excepting Codd. A, B, C, the fragments P, Q, T, Z, (and for some purposes D) of the Gospels; D, E, of the Acts only; D, G, H, of St. Paul;-he treated the scheme of his work as if it were already familiarly known, and spent his time in discursive controversy with his opponents and reviewers, whom he chastised with a heartiness, which, in England, men imputed to downright malice, till Dr. Tregelles was so good as to instruct them, that in Lachmann, it was but a tone of pleasantry,' the horseplay of coarse German wit (Account of Printed Text, p. 112). The supplementary Prolegomena which preface his second volume of 1850 are certainly more explicit; both from what they teach and from the practical examples they contain, they have helped to gain a nearer insight into his whole design." "It seems, then, to have been Lachmann's purpose, discarding the slightest regard for the textus receptus as such, to endeavor to bring the sacred text back to the condition in which it existed during the fourth century, and this in the first instance by documentary aid alone, careless for the moment whether the sense produced be probable or improb able, good or bad; but solely looking to his authorities, and following them implicitly wheresoever the numerical majority might carry him. For accomplishing this purpose he possessed but one Greek copy written as early as the fourth century, Cod. B; and of that he not only knew less than has since come to light, but he did not avail himself of Bartolocci's papers, to which Scholz had already drawn attention. His other codices were not of the fourth century at all, but varying in date from the fifth (A, C, T,) to the ninth (G); and even of these few (of C more especially) his assistant or colleague Buttmann's representation was loose, careless, and unsatisfactory. Of the Greek Fathers, the scanty Greek remains of Irenaeus, and the works of Origen are all that are employed; but considerable weight is given to the readings of the Latin version. The Vulgate is printed at length as revised, after a fashion, by Lachmann himself, from the codices Fuldensis and Amiatinus; the Old Latin manuscripts a, b, c, together with the Latin versions accompanying the Greek copies which he receives, are regarded as primary authorities; of the Western Fathers he quotes Cyprian, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, and in the Apocalypse Primasius also (h). The Syriac and Egyptian translations he considers himself excused from attending to, by reason of his ignorance of their respective languages." (Scrivener op. cit.) After this brief notice of the great labors of these eminent scholars, we judge ourselves incompetent to properly estimate the value of their labors. We shall, therefore, adduce the judgment of a man who, by his genius and by his labors, merited to be called the greatest biblical critic of his age, Aenotheus Fridericus Constantinus Tischendorf (†1874). Passing over his early studies, we find him, in 1841, setting out to travel in the cause of science, so poor "that he could not pay for the cloak that he wore." He thrice visited England, and thrice visited the East, and during one of these latter journeys, his great discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus was made. Besides his critical editions of both Old and New Testaments, Tischendorf stands alone in having given to the world the texts of the great Uncial Codices. His critical edition of Codex is the greatest work of this kind ever seen in the history of the text. Such a man could pass judgment on the labors of his predecessors, and his judgment is that, "instead of deriving a history of the text from documents, they had created a history of the text in their own minds." (Tischendorf N. T. Graece, ed. 7.) in good plain German, his He reduces all the codices to four great families. 1.-The Alexandrine, used by the Jewish Christians. 2.-The Latin family, used by the Latin race, who, in those days, used Greek in liturgy. 3.-The Asiatic family, used by the Greeks, both in Asia and their own country. 4.-The Byzantine family, used by the Churches of the Byzantine realm. He stated that there is great affinity between the Alexandrian and Latin on one side, and between the Asiatic and Byzantine on the other. He cautions all not to put too much trust in the systems of recensions. SAMUEL PRIDEAUX TREGELLES (†1875) also merits a place among biblical critics for his critical edition of the New Testament. In our own days, Westcott and Hort have devoted over thirty years of labor to the collating of Manuscripts, and have merited a place of honor among biblical critics. They also have a theory of four families of codices differing from those noticed, but enough has been said to convince the reader that whatever is to be done to restore the text to its pristine purity, must be done without the aid of theories of recension. According to Scholz's enumeration, the whole number of codices of the New Testament, which had been wholly or partially collated up to his time, amounted to six hundred and seventy-four. The whole number known up to the present day would exceed two thousand. Many have not yet been examined. Only a small number of these contain all the books. Some exist only in scattered fragments; others contain some particular book, or class of books. About one hundred are written in uncial characters, and are older than the tenth century. Of these, only the Codex of Sinai contains the complete New Testament. The others are written in small letters, and are of date more recent than the tenth century. About three hundred of these contain all the books. The uncial codices receive their name either from the place where they are preserved, or from the person to whom they have belonged. In the Apparatus Criticus they are designated by capital letters of the Latin and Greek alphabets, while the codices minusculi are designated by the Arabic numerals. One uncial codex is designated by the Hebrew, that of Mt. Sinai. In applying these conventional signs, the New Testament is divided into four parts, viz: the Gospels, the Acts and Catholic Epistles, the Epistles of Paul, and the Apocalypse, so that the same conventional note of designation may signify different codices, as it is applied to different parts of the Testament. For example, Codex D of Paul's Epistles, is the codex of Clermont, while Codex D of the Gospels, is Beza's codex at Cambridge. "In using manuscripts of the Greek Testament, we must carefully note whether a reading is prima manu or by some subsequent corrector. It will often happen that these last are utterly valueless, having been inserted even from printed copies by a modern owner (like some marginal variations of the Cod. Leicestrensis), and such as these really ought not to have been extracted by collators at all; while others by the second hand are almost as weighty, for age and goodness, as the text itself. All these points are explained by critical editors for each document separately." (Scrivener op. cit.) To indicate these additions a small character, like the exponent of a power in algebra, is placed at the right upper corner of the main sign of the codex, thus Cod. Bc would indicate an addition to the Vatican Codex by a third hand. To determine the age of the old codices, we must have recourse to the criteria palæographica, principal of which are the material of the manuscript, the form of the letters, the signs of punctuation, the accents, and the abbreviations employed. These means do not lead to mathematical certitude, but they furnish a high degree of probability of the century to which the manuscript should be referred. We have no codices older than the fourth century. The destruction wrought by the decree of Diocletian and other causes have deprived us of these. Of the uncial codices, two are referred to the fourth century, ten to the fifth century, twenty-two to the sixth century, nine to the seventh century, eight to the eighth century, thirty-one to the ninth century, and six to the tenth century. In the judgment of Westcott and Hort, many of the codices here placed in the preceding centuries must be brought down to the ninth and tenth centuries. CHAPTER XIX. SOME ACCOUNT OF THE UNCIAL CODICES. By uncial codices we mean those manuscripts written in large characters of nearly uniform size, resembling modern capitals, but with greater roundness. The plate of the Codex Claromontanus opposite page 460, furnishes a good example of this mode of writing. |