CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 43 The next critical edition of the New Testament, of sufficient importance to require notice is that of the 'very learned' Christian Frederick Matthei, who was at first professor at Moscow, and afterwards at Wittenberg. Matthei's edition was published in twelve vols. 8vo, at Riga, between the years 1782 and 1788. His text,' says Davidson, approaches the common one, being chiefly derived from manuscripts in the libraries of Moscow, which he collated for the first time. The edition contains many critical remarks, excursus, Greek scholia before unpublished, and copper-plates representing the characters of the Greek MSS. The collection of various readings is taken from nearly a hundred Moscow manuscripts, which he generally collated throughout. It is true that some contain a small part of the New Testament, some mere fragments, very few the whole; but several of them are ancient and valuable, such as V., which belongs to the eighth century. The editor avowed himself an opponent of the recension-theory, a despiser of the ancient manuscripts, especially the Codex Cambridge (D), and of quotations in the fathers.** As the edition of Matthei is little known, and still less valued in this country, it will be useless to say much about its merits or demerits. We ourselves believe, for reasons to be mentioned hereafter, that its text, from its resemblance to the Textus Receptus, is far more entitled to attention than that of either of the critical editions so much extolled in the present day. The principles on which the edition of Dr. J. Martin Augustus Scholz was founded, were as opposed to those of Griesbach as those of Matthei. More than twelve years of incessant activity were spent by Scholz in visiting libraries, and preparing materials for his work. At length the first volume-containing the Gospels-was published in 1830, 4to., Leipzic, and the other volume, containing the remaining books of the New Testament, in 1836. According to the system of Scholz, all manuscripts belong to two classes-Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan. To the former he assigns most of the Uncial Manuscripts, some few cursive ones, the Latin, Ethiopic, and Memphitic, and other versions, and the fathers who dwelt in Africa and the west of Europe. To the latter class belong almost all the manuscripts written since the ninth century, the later Syriac, the Gothic, and some other versions, and nearly all the fathers and ecclesiastical writers inhabiting Asia and the east of Europe. The Constantinopolitan recension contains the primitive text spread through Asia Minor, Syria, and Greece. The Alexandrine is the result of gross negligence or wilful corruption.† The principles of both the last-named critics, it will be observed, were favourable *Treatise on Biblical Criticism, p. 129. + Prolegom. in Nov. Test. vol. i. cap. i. and ix. to the Textus Receptus. But Scholz has been deservedly blamed for want of consistency in carrying out his theory. Since this period, the critical editions of the New Testament which have appeared-those, namely, of Lachmann and Tischendorf-have been founded on ancient authority, to the neglect of the modern or cursive manuscripts. It is to the consideration of the soundness of this principle that our attention will chiefly be directed. Charles Lachmann had already published a small Greek Testament, with a critical text, when, in 1842, the first volume of a much larger edition in 8vo appeared at Berlin. The second volume, which completed the New Testament, was published in 1850. The text of Lachmann differs considerably from that presented in any other edition, in consequence of his peculiar theory, which is, that the most ancient MSS. should be implicitly followed. His object was to give the text which was most general in the third and fourth centuries. Hence he quotes no MS. later than the sixth century, and no father later than the fourth. The later versions, too, are of course excluded from his list; and so rigidly has he adhered to his plan of forming a text from ancient authorities exclusively, that he frequently gives what he acknowledges to be erroneous readings, rather than admit a lection derived only from modern manuscripts.* During the interval between Lachmann's first and second editions, that of Tischendorf appeared at Leipzic in 1841. It was a small 12mo edition, with a critical text, and a selection of various readings, &c. The text was chiefly that of Griesbach and Lachmann. In 1849, he published his second Leipzic edition, a larger and every way superior work, with two prefaces and ninety-six pages of Prolegomena. Tischendorf agrees with Lachmann in following the ancient manuscripts, but he comprehends under that denomination all the Uncial ones. The text,' he says, 'is to be sought exclusively from ancient witnesses, and especially from the Greek manuscripts; but the testimony of 'the versions and the fathers is by no means to be neglected.' Hence he has produced a text which differs greatly from that of Lachmann. Davidson pronounces it superior to that of his predecessor, which it no doubt is; but he adds,- There are indi'cations here and there of rash and hasty judgment. Perhaps the learned editor was not controlled throughout by very ⚫ definite or fixed principles on which to form his text; for though he has always had regard to external authority, he has not been Studien and Kritiken, p. 839, ff. apud Davidson. † Frolegomena in Novum Testamentum, p. xii. CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 45 "able in all instances to suppress an arbitrary and subjective tendency unfavourable to calm impartiality." Besides the above editions, a portion of the New Testamentthe Apocalypse-has been recently edited, with a critical text, &c., by Dr. Tregelles, London, 1844. The same learned scholar has also issued a prospectus of the whole Greek Testament, on which he has been long engaged. Dr. Tregelles avows the same principles as Lachmann. In his introduction to the Apocalypse he says, "The authority of the ancient MSS. (A, C), 'written, as is believed, about the fourth century, is superior to 'that of the whole mass of modern copies.'-(p. xxx.) He does not hesitate, however, in cases of evident error, to have recourse to more recent authorities. It thus appears, that the principles which have guided the most recent editors in the attempt to restore the text of the New Testament to its pristine purity, are substantially the same in all. They regard the authority of the ancient manuscripts as superior to the whole mass of modern copies.' The only difference of opinion seems to be, that whilst Tischendorf includes in his list of ancient MSS. all the Uncial ones, down even to the eleventh century, Lachmann and Tregelles restrict that appellation to those written before the seventh. It must be clear to all who are conversant with modern biblical criticism, that, in future, this subject of ancient and modern authorities will occupy the chief attention of the critical world. The question will no longer be, whether the manuscripts of the New Testament consist of three recensions, or only two; nor whether there is any foundation for the hypothesis of a revision of the manuscripts by Lucian, and another by Hesychius. The great question with all future critics will be, are the few Uncial MSS. of the New Testament of such weight, that the text should be conformed to their testimony? Or are the hundreds of cursive MSS. which remain also entitled to a voice? This is, therefore, the question which we propose to handle in this essay, and in order adequately to deal with it, we shall find it needful, first, to consider the system of those critics who confine the range of evidence to the first six centuries, such as Lachmann and Tregelles; and secondly, that which embraces the whole of the Uncial manuscripts in its list of authorities, which is adopted by Tischendorf, Alford, and most other scholars in the present day. The principle on which editors have proceeded in forming a text founded on the most ancient authorities, is undoubtedly a * Treatise on Bib. Crit. vol. ii. p. 144. sound one. Few persons would deny that a manuscript written in the fourth century is vastly more trustworthy than one written in the twelfth. The text exhibited in codices of modern date has probably been written again and again, we know not how many times, and each successive transcription has exposed it to fresh mistakes-it may be corruptions-whilst ancient manuscripts have possibly had but five or six copies intervene between themselves and the original autograph. We admit, therefore, in the fullest degree, that an ancient codex, cæteris paribus, is many times superior to one of modern date. But whilst frankly acknowledging the soundness of the abstract principle, it must not be concealed, that it is only where other things are equal, that an ancient manuscript possesses such overwhelming value. An eminent biblical critic has truly observed,— Antiquity is doubtless valuable as affording a presumption in favour of the text's purity, but there are many modifying cir'cumstances which must be observed."* Hence it by no means follows that, because, as a general principle, an ancient MS. is intitled to more weight than a great many modern MSS., therefore the authority of the ancient codices of the New Testament is superior to the whole mass of modern copies.' The inference is clearly illogical. There are-to use the language of Davidson-so many modifying circumstances to be observed,' that a fair and thorough examination of these is absolutely essential before the principle just admitted can be applied to the particular case of the manuscripts of the New Testament. The utter ignorance which prevails relative to the MSS. written previous to the seventh century, in connexion with their extreme paucity, has long appeared to us a circumstance fatal to the exclusive claims set up on behalf of those highly-lauded codices. We need scarcely say, that-with the solitary exception of the Codex Alexandrinus (A), of which tradition reports that it was written in Egypt by a martyr named Thecla-we are altogether ignorant of the origin, history, and character of the manuscripts termed most ancient. Now it is abundantly manifest, that even in the earliest ages, corrupt copies of the Gospels, and other parts of the New Testament, were in circulation. The following extracts from Dr. Davidson will place this fact beyond all doubt: These observations are justified by the complaints which several writers make with regard to corruptions in the text. And such complaints reach up to an early period, for they occur in Dionysius of Corinth, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria. It would appear that * Treatise on Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 297. CRITICAL EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT. 47 even in their time, false readings had got into the text of current MSS. Nor can the testimony of these and other fathers be reasonably questioned, especially as it is confirmed by quotations from Scripture in their own and other ancient writings. Dionysius writes, As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote them, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not, therefore, matter of wonder if they have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings. Clement of Alexandria speaks of persons who turned the gospels into metaphrases (τῶν μετατιθέντων τὰ εὐαγγέλια) quoting a text (Matt. v. 9, 10) to show in what manner they proceeded. Irenæus speaks of persons who affected to be more knowing than the apostles (peritiores apostolis), quoting a passage and showing how they read and explained it. Tertullian, too, speaks of adulterators of the Scriptures (adulteratores.)'-(Davidson, vol. ii., pp. 46, 47.) A little onward we meet with a long investigation of the charges brought against a heretic named Marcion, who lived in the second century. Davidson is disposed to think that the accusations to which he was exposed were not altogether true, but still thinks there was some foundation for them. 'The fathers,' says he, accuse him of corrupting and mutilating Luke's Gospel, and there is good ground for that charge.'-'We do not deny,' he adds, 'that the charges against him were true in part, even in respect to the Epistles of Paul. Origen blames him for jumbling together the last two chapters of the Epistle to the Romans; and we have no reason to doubt the statement. We have also seen that Tertullian speaks of extensive mutilations in the Epistle to the Romans, for which statement there was reason. And, in the case of various passages, the omission of important words must have proceeded from a bad motive.'-(p. 51). In the work of mutilating and corrupting the Scriptures of the New Testament, Marcion was not alone. Similar accusations. are brought against other heretics. Irenæus charges the Valentinians with altering Matt. xi. 7. Tatian falsified the Epistles of Paul so as to meet his own views. These and other cases are matter of history. But we cannot suppose that every attempt made by heterodox teachers to corrupt the word of God has been handed down to us. It is only in particular instances, which have happened to come under the notice of Christian writers, that any mention of the crime occurs. In the vast majority of cases, probably, the corruptions have been known only to the authors themselves. It being then an admitted fact, that, from the second century Οὐ θαυμαστὸν ἄρα εἰ καὶ τῶν κυριακῶν ῥαδιουργῆσαί τινες ἐπιβέβληνται Ypapar. Ap. Euseb. H. E. iv. 23. |