ページの画像
PDF
ePub

Hort as chief authorities when preparing their edition of the Greek New Testament; and much importance was attached to them by the scholars who gave us the Revised Version.

These, then, are the four groups. Their characteristics are briefly indicated by the names Gregory has suggested for them, viz., the Official Text, the Polished Text, the Rewrought Text, and the Original Text. The task of determining in which group a particular manuscript should be placed is not always an easy one, for no manuscript has a text belonging altogether to one group. A manuscript is like a man whose blood may be comparatively pure, or may be mingled with that of one or more alien races up to a point where his nationality is not readily discerned. When, however, a manuscript has been assigned to its proper group, we have thereby gained a most valuable aid in determining its general worth and the importance of its special variations. Its text will display the characteristics of the group, and must be valued accordingly. For example, a characteristic of the Western group is additions: if, therefore, we find in Western manuscripts an addition found nowhere else, we set this down as probably not belonging to the original text of the evangelists.

The work of the textual critic is by no means finished when he has classified and valued his manuscripts, and has done his best to correct errors evidently caused by

careless copying or deliberate change. There still remain passages in which manuscripts of equally good authority do not agree; and he must decide what reading to accept. In doing this the rule he follows is one adopted by all textual critics, no matter in what field of literature they work, viz., "That reading is probably genuine from which the origin and diffusion of the others may be most readily explained." In accordance with this rule a difficult reading is usually preferred to an easy one, since a copyist would be more likely to simplify an obscure passage than to do the reverse. For example, in Matt. 6: 1, "righteousness" is probably the correct reading, though "alms" is simpler. Also a shorter reading is preferred to a longer one, since the tendency is to enlarge rather than to condense. For this reason, in Matt. 6 : 4, 6, 18, the word

66

openly" is to be omitted: we can understand why it should be added but not why it should be omitted by a copyist. A second rule is: "The text should never be constructed by pure conjecture; some respectable manuscript must contain the reading that is to be adopted." This rule is peculiar to New Testament criticism, and arises from the fact that the New Testament differs from all other ancient books in the vast number of its manuscripts still extant. Of most Greek and Latin classics there are only a few manuscripts, sometimes only one. Of the Old Testament there are many Hebrew manuscripts, but none of them is early,

and they all reproduce but one form of the text-a form fixed by the rabbis after the destruction of Jerusalem. In both cases, therefore, the critic is obliged to depend largely upon conjecture, if he would push back from the text before him to the original. Though this makes his task more simple, the results are not satisfactory: concerning many passages he has to confess that the text is undoubtedly wrong, but that there is no possibility of correcting it. The New Testament critic is in a much more advantageous position. It is true that he is confronted with a multiplicity of readings which might at first sight make him despair of ever determining the correct text; but the very cause of despair is also the assurance of success. While every manuscript adds to the number of variations, it is also a fresh witness to the original text. And from the testimony of such a multitude of witnesses the facts he is seeking can nearly always be ascertained. Somewhere among the manuscripts the original reading is almost certainly retained.

CHAPTER VI

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS

(CONTINUED)

If the importance of ascertaining the original text of the gospels were less great, the testimony of the manuscripts would be sufficient. Indeed, in the case of other ancient books, no one would think of seeking further evidence. But because the gospels are far more important than other books, we seek and welcome testimony from every possible witness.

II. The Versions

The second source of knowledge is the versions. These are translations of the gospels made as Christianity spread among peoples who knew little or no Greek, and wished to read the gospels in their own language. They are of various dates; but for textual criticism only those are valuable that were made before our earlier Greek manuscripts. A later version might simply follow a text we already have in the manuscripts; but an earlier version must have been made from a manuscript earlier than any we now possess, and may throw light upon the text of that earlier

manuscript. For example, when we are trying to determine what was the original text of Luke 2 : 14, if we find in a version made in the third century the reading, "And on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased," we infer that the translator found this reading in the manuscript he used, and are correspondingly disposed to believe that it was the original reading.

Of course, a version is in manuscript form, and the existing copies are much later than the time when the version was made. There may be errors of copyists, and there may be deliberate changes to make the text agree with that of some Greek manuscript which a copyist knew. We have also to reckon with the problem of how correct the translation was. In our English Old Testament the changes in the Revised Version arise mainly from the fact that the King James translators were not as familiar with Hebrew as are modern scholars, and so made mistakes in their work. The versions of the gospels may in like manner be faulty. Moreover, when we are seeking to secure the exact words of the Greek text, a version is but an imperfect help because evidently the only way to get back to the Greek from the version is by retranslation of it into Greek; and there are many possibilities of change in words and order when so doing. If the best of Greek scholars should translate a chapter of our English New Testament back into Greek, the result would

« 前へ次へ »