Present State of the Controversy.

f

329

tion of the ancient and the more recent. Accordingly, the only controversy which now exists between textual critics has respect to what is termed recurrence to ancient authority. A The point in dispute between the advocates of ancient authority and their opponents, it should be distinctly understood, is not whether any deference should be paid to the most ancient MSS, as such, or not. Both parties are agreed that these documents ཎ are deserving of high regard in consequence of their extreme antiquity. The question on which a diversity of opinion prevails is simply this: In revising the text of the Greek Testament, ought we to adhere exclusively to the most ancient copies, or should we also take into account the more recent codices? Ins other words, In those passages where the ancient Uncial MSS. are divided in their testimony, ought the modern Cursive MSS. to be allowed a determining voice? To this question the two most eminent collators of MSS. in this country give different. responses. The Rev. F. H. Scrivener, whose labours have been given to modern codices, answers-YES. Dr. Tregelles, who has devoted years to the laborious toil of deciphering ancient MSS., answers, emphatically-No. རོ༄་』 དྷ szed do}

1

There is one thing of which the general reader requires to be reminded, when considering the question before us, and that is, the amazing disproportion between the number of most ancient codices and that of the more recent copies. If only one-fourth as many ancient books of the Greek Testament were in existence as there are modern MSS., we apprehend there could be no question which we should follow. But, in point of fact, whilst there are about five hundred copies of the Gospels, for example, written since the seventh century, the number of copies written before that date is only four and a few fragments! In the other parts: of the New Testament the most ancient copies are not more numerous. Is it right, then, to adopt these few MSS, as exclusive· witnesses of the text, when some hundreds belonging to various later ages are waiting to give us their testimony? Such conduct might be justified if we were certain the codices antiquissimi were faithful copies of the inspired autographs. But since we have no kind of evidence that they represent the text more correctly than more recent copies; since their continual diversities of reading, and, in some cases, their numerous and admitted corrup-.. tions and interpolations prove they are anything but perfect copies of the original text, there is much to be said in favour of the collateral use of copies of later date. It is admitted that modern codices were copied, for the most part, from those of greater antiquity than themselves. In many instances they may have been exact transcripts of MSS. reaching far beyond any of

which we can boast. The practice of rejecting the testimony of the whole mass of later MSS. appears, then, to be unwarranted by the actual state of the case.

To this argument against the exclusive authority of the very early MSS. it has been objected that, if there were any force in the remark, it would apply quite as much to a vast number of the modern codices.' But, in the case of these modern copies of the Greek Testament, it is by no means so necessary that we should know the transcribers by whom they were executed as in that of ancient MSS. The reason why this knowledge is so essential in regard to the copies of the fourth or fifth centuries, is in order that we may possess some security that they represent the text of the age in which they were transcribed. As only four or five MSS. of the first six centuries have descended to our time, out of many thousands, thinking men, uninfluenced by the mere love of antiquity, naturally require some proof of the integrity of these copies of the Word of God, before they surrender themselves so implicitly to their guidance; some guarantee, in short, that none of these favourite uncials, A, B, C, and D are either faulty copies, which had been laid aside on the ground of their numerous errata, or, on the other hand, falsified copies written for the use of some heretical sect. But all such apprehensions are quite out of the question with regard to the great mass of modern codices. No one can for one moment doubt that they represent, as a whole, the genuine text of the Greek Testament. For, in the first place, they exist in too great numbers to admit of the suspicion that they are imperfect or corrupted copies. Secondly, they possess, in a vast number of cases, marks of various kinds, serving to show, in some instances, who wrote them; in others, the purposes for which they were written. It thus appears that, whilst it is by no means important that we should know anything respecting the origin, history, or character of the more modern copies, we do really know a great deal about them.

We must add one further remark, on the probable influence of the publication before us, on the subject of textual criticism. The numerous omissions of the Vatican Codex-now for the first time published to the world-can hardly fail to make critics more cautious how they expunge clauses from the text of the Greek Testament on the ground that they are wanting in that ancient copy. It is worthy of notice, that by far the largest number of variations introduced of late years into the text of the New Testament consists of omissions; and, in most cases, it will be found that the chief authority for such omissions is the celebrated Codex Vaticanus. Now, when the peculiar character of this MS. is taken into account-that of continually omitting portions

Mutilation of the Text by Tischendorf and Tregelles. 331

of the real text of Scripture-it must be acknowledged that critics are here at fault. It is true the codex B is an ancient MS., probably the most ancient MS. of the Greek Testament in existence. But then there is the fact, the incontestible fact, that the copyist, whoever he was, has repeatedly left out words, clauses, even whole verses occasionally, by sheer carelessness, which is proved from two things-first, that the omissions are found in all other MSS. and versions that have been examined; and, secondly, that the passages from which these portions have dropped cannot be translated or understood without them. All omissions, therefore, in the Vatican MS. should be regarded with the greatest suspicion. The absence of any portion of the received text from this ancient codex should never be made the ground of rejecting such passage, because it was the known tendency of the copyist to overlook what was really before him.

If our remarks are founded in truth, it is evident that the critical texts which have lately been published will have to undergo a severe revision; they will have to be brought in all probability much nearer to the common text than is the case at present. For not only do we find whole clauses continually omitted by Tischendorf and Tregelles, chiefly on account of their absence from the Vatican copy, but in many cases this is done almost entirely on that ground.

We will give a few examples of this, taken exclusively from the first gospel. At Matt. i. 25 the received text has 'till she had brought forth her first-born son.' But the critical texts of Tischendorf and Tregelles read a son,' omitting the words 'aurns' and TрwтотокOv.' If we inquire on what authority these words are left out, we shall find that it is because the Vatican omits them; for only one Codex Rescriptus (Z) supports the new reading; whilst about a dozen Uncials contain the omitted words (C, D*, L, A, E, K, &c.) and Cursives without number. The testimony of the versions on the same side is also overwhelming.

In Matt. v. Tischendorf and Tregelles omit more than half of the 44th verse-viz., the two clauses, 'Bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you;' and them which despitefully use you.' On what ground are these clauses expunged? So far as MS. authority goes, the Vatican MS. is the only Uncial that omits them. The versions, too, are decidedly in favour of the common reading. Here the critical texts are altogether incorrect.

A similar instance occurs in Matt. xviii. where a whole verse (v. 11) is omitted by Tischendorf and Tregelles, almost exclusively on the ground of its being absent from the Vatican Codex. The words are, For the Son of man is come to save that which

was lost. The only MSS. cited in support of this omission are the Uncial L and two Cursives which commonly agree with it 1, 33. Whilst the MSS. containing it comprise all others that are known: D, II, X, A, E, F, G, H, &c. The Latin versions, too, both the ancient and the Vulgate, contain the verse; as do also the Peshito, the Ethiopic, the Armenian, &c.

Once more, at Matt. xx. 16, the clause 'For many are called but few are chosen,' is omitted in some editions by Tischendorf, and placed within brackets by Tregelles. Now, the clause is wanting, it is true, in the Vatican, and in two Uncials Z and L; but, with these exceptions, it is found in all the more ancient MSS.: C, D, N, L, X, D, E, F, G, H, K, M, S, U, V. It is also in the ancient Peshito and Latin versions, the Vulgate, Armenian, and Ethiopic, &c. Our space will not allow of our entering into other passages, but we would refer the critical reader especially to Matt. xxii. 18, xxii. 30, and xxviii. 9, as presenting instances precisely of the same nature as those just quoted.

In our earlier days we paid great deference to the maxim, Cuique professori suá in arte credendum; but we have lived long enough to learn that, like all other general propositions, it has its limitations. Professors, like individuals, are apt to come under the dominion of some fixed idea. By concentrating the mind on one object, you impair its capacity of judging of the importance of that object in relation to others. It is thus with certain of our textual critics. They have spent so much of their time in searching for old MSS., and deciphering illegible codices, that they almost worship those relics of the past. Heedless of the innumerable blunders which disfigure the most valued of these ancient copies, the fact that more than one of their favourite MSS. agree in a reading often suffices to establish that as the genuine text. There may be a dozen other Uncials against the reading; there may be twice the number of ancient versions against the reading that are found with it, and hundreds of Cursive MSS. also, many of which, in all probability, were copied from codices as old or older than any in existence. It matters not. Causa finita est.

ART. III.-(1.) Histoire des Livres Populaires, et de la Littérature du Colportage, depuis le XV. Siècle jusqu'à 1852. Par M. CHARLES NISARD. 2 tomes. Paris. 1854.

(2.) A Prognostication of Right Goode Effect. By LEONARD DIGGES. London. 1555.

(3.) The Almanacs from 1607 to 1616.

(4.) Almanacs for the Year 1630.

(5.) Merlinus Anglicus. By WILLIAM LILLY. 1644 to 1660.

TRULY has a late French writer remarked, that the most ancient books, excepting the Bible, are perhaps almanacs. And a lengthened existence seems still to be promised to these little interpreters of the future, for amid all the changes of society, all the marvels of later years, the almanac still courts our notice as the new year draws nigh. Much has been changed since the times of our forefathers. Our streets are lighted with gas, the steamboat and rail whirl us along, the sun paints our pictures for us, the electric spark carries our messages, and that latest, and most wonderful achievement, the Atlantic Telegraph, gives promise of fulfilling tricksy Puck's boast, to

'Put a girdle round about the earth In forty minutes.'

But still each year the almanac is sought after, even as in the days of our great-grandfathers; and, ere the close of this month, some half dozen weather almanacs'-each the only correct one-will make their appearance, pointing out every variation of our most variable climate; and Zadkiel' will foretell the fate of our eastern empire, and decipher by aid of the stars that new riddle of the Sphinx, Cherbourg; and old Vox Stellarum-how 'fallen from his high estate,' as the 'leading almanac,' to the mere penny puffer of Parr's Life Pills-will still be sought for, and read by thousands, who will seek to make out its unintelligible hieroglyphic with a faith little less implicit than that of their fathers in those palmy days of almanacs and almanac-makers, when the statesman pored over the horoscope, and astrologers waited in the ante-chambers of sovereigns.

Very amusing, as well as suggestive, is the history of kalendars and almanacs. Among the earliest illuminated manuscripts we find the kalendar; and coeval with the earliest printed books, the almanac claims a place. Throughout all Christian Europe the same hands that brought the missal, or the book of the Gospels, brought the kalendar also, and thus we find it prefixed to our most ancient church books. The very earliest Saxon manuscripts