Textual criticism

i. §§ 1, 2. The Object of Textual Criticism. ii. §§ 3,4. Materials for Textual Criticism, and Oritical Editions. iii §§ oe Methods and Principles. 5. Two rival schools, ‘ Traditional’ and ‘ Critical.’ 6-8. The hoe School as represented by Mr. Miller. 9. Their claim to take account of the whole evidence. [Note on the difference between ‘the date of a aefee and ‘the date of the text contained it’). 10. Suggested causes for the corruptions of the text.

tote on the attitude of Westcott and Hort to the ‘Synoptic Problem’). 11. The rise of the ‘ Oritical’ School. 12-15. Mr. Miller’s account of the triumph of the ‘ Tradi- tional’ Text tested by reference to the period 881-450 a.D. 16f. Dr. Hort’s challenge with regard to the ante-Nicene evidence for ‘ distinctively Syrian’ readings.: 18. Prima facie evidence for the existence of the read- ings in 1 Timothy. 19-22.

Examination of these readings in the light of ‘Intrinsic’ evidence and of the evidence of Ver- sions and ante-Nicene Fathers, 23. The Traditional Text of Mk 11-28 printed so as to indicate its relation to other es of text examina current in early times, .with a detailed : TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 209 tion of all the variants in the light of the §§ ‘Internal Evidence of Readings.’ 24. The groups of Authorities brought to light by this examination.

25-28, Are the names ‘Syrian,’ ‘ Western,’ ‘ Alexandrian,’ ‘Neutral,’ applied by Dr. Hort to these groups, * question-begging’? 29. The fundamental importance of the ‘subjective’ element in Textual Criticism illustrated by the examination of Mk 11-28, leading to a description of the checks on personal idiosyncrasy ayo iaed by ‘Intrinsic’ and ‘ Transcriptional’ Probability, and by the ‘Internal Evidence of Documents.’ 80. The principle of Genealogy. 81-34. The consequences of this principle.

85-659. Grounds for the ‘Critical’ rejection of the Tradi- tional Text illustrated by reference to ‘dis- tinctively Syrian’ readings in Mk 11-28, 86f. The argument from ‘ Conflation.’ 88-41. Ante-Nicene evidence. 42-48. Detailed examination of the evidence for rose spo- gnrous in Mk 12, 49, And for gumpoobév cov, 60-51. Conclusion with regard to ante-Nicene evidence. 52, Summary of the evidence against ‘Syrian’ read- ings. 68-55.

Bvidencs of editorial activity in the production of the Traditional Text. 66-58. The argument a priori. 69. The argument from ecclesiastical use. 60-62. The characteristics of the ‘ Western’ readings in Mk 11-28, 63. The acceptance of these readings not precluded by * Genealogy.’ 64-66. ‘ Alexandrian’ readings in Mk 11-23, 67f. ‘ Neutral’ readings in Mk 11-28, 69. The value of B as determined by the ‘Internal Evidence of Readings.’ 3 70. The relation of B to other primary authorities. 71-76.

The relation of & to B. 77-81. ® and B in relation to the oldest forms of the Latin and Syriac Versions, especially k and Syr-sin. 82. The value of 8B in opposition to Syriac and Latin evidence combined. 83 f. Conclusion. i. OpsECT.—1. The object of Textual Criticism is to recover the ipsissima verba of the docu- ments of which the NT is composed, and to pre- sent them to modern readers as nearly as possible in the form in which they left their authors’ hands.

This definition is based on the assump- tion that all the copies of the different books we possess, whether in Greek or in a transla- tion, are capable of being traced back in the last resort to one and the same original. The assump- tion is,a natural one, and not to be surrendered without very cogent reason. Still we cannot ex- clude the possibility that any particular book may have been current from Apostolic times in two closely related but distinct forms. St.

Paul may, as Lightfoot suggested,* have issued a second edition of his Epistle to the Romans. St. Luke may, as Blass maintains, have issued two editions, both of his Gospel and of the Acts. The pheno- mena presented by the text of St. Mark, not only in regard to the last twelve verses but throughout the Gospel, may need the same hypothesis for their adequate solution.t In such cases the task of the critic becomes still more delicate.

He has to dis- entangle and present distinctly not one original but two, which were once current side by side, but which have in the course of time been blended together, in almost inextricable confusion, in all our extant authorities. 2. From this definition of the object which all textual critics alike have before them two conse- quences follow, to which it will not be superfluous, judging from the past history of the science, to call attention before we pass on. The first is this.

There is at present, and there must remain, room for legitimate difference of opinion. We must be careful not to arrogate to the form of text which we ourselves prefer an exclusive right to represent the true ‘ word of God.’ *See the papers by him and by Hort, reprinted from the Journal of Philology in Biblical Essays, pp. 287-374. t See Blass, Textkritische Bemerkungen zu Markus.