We have now described, in some detail, the several species of external
testimony available for the textual criticism of the New Testament,
whether comprising manuscripts of the original Greek, or ancient
translations from it, or citations from Scripture made by ecclesiastical
writers. We have, moreover, indicated the chief editions wherein all these
materials are recorded for our use, and the principles that have guided
their several editors in applying them to the revision of the text. One
source of information, formerly deemed quite legitimate, has been
designedly passed by. It is now agreed among competent judges that
_Conjectural Emendation_ must never be resorted to, even in passages of
acknowledged difficulty(243); the absence of proof that a reading proposed
to be substituted for the common one is actually supported by some
trustworthy document being of itself a fatal objection to our receiving
it(244). Those that have been hazarded aforetime by celebrated scholars,
when but few codices were known or actually collated, have seldom, very
seldom, been confirmed by subsequent researches: and the time has now
fully come when, in the possession of abundant stores of variations
collected from memorials of almost every age and country, we are fully
authorized in believing that the reading to which no manuscript, or old
version, or primitive Father has borne witness, however plausible and (for
some purposes) convenient, cannot safely be accepted as genuine or even as
probable; even though there may still remain a few passages respecting
which we cannot help framing a shrewd suspicion that the original reading
differed from any form in which they are now presented to us(245).
In no wise less dangerous than bare conjecture destitute of external
evidence, is the device of Lachmann for unsettling by means of emendation
(_emendando_), without reference to the balance of conflicting testimony,
the very text he had previously fixed by revision (_recensendo_) through
the means of critical authorities: in fact the earlier process is but so
much trouble misemployed, if its results are liable to be put aside by
abstract judgement or individual prejudices. Not that the most sober and
cautious critic would disparage the fair use of internal evidence, or
withhold their proper influence from those reasonable considerations which
in practice cannot, and in speculation should not, be shut out from every
subject on which the mind seeks to form an intelligent opinion. Whether we
will or not, we unconsciously and almost instinctively adopt that one of
two opposite statements, _in themselves pretty equally attested to_, which
we judge the better suited to recognized phenomena, and to the common
course of things. I know of no person who has affected to construct a text
of the N. T. on diplomatic grounds exclusively, without paying some regard
to the character of the sense produced; nor, were the experiment tried,
would any one find it easy to dispense with discretion and the dictates of
good sense: nature would prove too strong for the dogmas of a wayward
theory. “It is difficult not to indulge in _subjectiveness_, at least in
some measure,” writes Dr. Tregelles (Account of Printed Text, p. 109):
and, thus qualified, we may add that it is one of those difficulties a
sane man would not wish to overcome.
The foregoing remarks may tend to explain the broad distinction between
mere conjectural emendation, which must be utterly discarded, and that
just use of internal testimony which he is the best critic who most
judiciously employs. They so far resemble each other, as they are both
products of the reasoning faculty exercising itself on the sacred words of
Scripture: they differ in this essential feature, that the one proceeds in
ignorance or disregard of evidence from without, while the office of the
other has no place unless where external evidence is evenly, or at any
rate not very unevenly, balanced. What degree of preponderance in favour
of one out of several readings, all of them affording some tolerable
sense, shall entitle it to reception as a matter of right; to what extent
canons of subjective criticism may be allowed to eke out the scantiness of
documentary authority; are points that cannot well be defined with strict
accuracy. Men’s decisions respecting them will always vary according to
their temperament and intellectual habits; the judgement of the same
person (the rather if he be by constitution a little unstable) will
fluctuate from time to time as to the same evidence brought to bear on the
self-same passage. Though the _canons_ or rules of internal testimony be
themselves grounded either on principles of common sense, or on certain
peculiarities which all may mark in the documents from which our direct
proofs are derived; yet has it been found by experience (what indeed we
might have looked for beforehand), that in spite, perhaps in consequence,
of their extreme simplicity, the application of these canons has proved a
searching test of the tact, the sagacity, and the judicial acumen of all
that handle them. For the other functions of an editor accuracy and
learning, diligence and zeal are sufficient: but the delicate adjustment
of conflicting probabilities calls for no mean exercise of a critical
genius. This innate faculty we lack in Wetstein, and notably in Scholz; it
was highly developed in Mill and Bengel, and still more in Griesbach. His
well-known power in this respect is the main cause of our deep regret for
the failure of Bentley’s projected work, with all its faults whether of
plan or execution.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Nearly all the following rules of internal evidence, being founded in the
nature of things, are alike applicable to all subjects of literary
investigation, though their general principles may need some modification
in the particular instance of the Greek Testament.
I. PROCLIVI SCRIPTIONI PRAESTAT ARDUA: the more difficult the reading the
more likely it is to be genuine. It would seem more probable that the
copyist tried to explain an obscure passage, or to relieve a hard
construction, than to make that perplexed which before was easy: thus in
John vii. 39, Lachmann’s addition of δεδομένον to οὔπω ἦν πνεῦμα ἅγιον is
very improbable, though countenanced by Cod. B and (of course) by several
of the chief versions. We have here Bengel’s prime canon, and although
Wetstein questioned it (N. T., vol. i. Proleg. p. 157), he was himself
ultimately obliged to lay down something nearly to the same effect(246).
Yet this excellent rule may easily be applied on a wrong occasion, and is
only true _ceteris paribus_, where manuscripts or versions lend strong
support to the harder form. “To force readings into the text merely
because they are difficult, is to adulterate the divine text with human
alloy; it is to obtrude upon the reader of Scripture the solecisms of
faltering copyists, in the place of the word of God” (Bp. Chr. Wordsworth,
N. T., vol. i. Preface, p. xii)(247). See Chap. XII on Matt. xxi. 28-31.
Compare also above, Vol. I. i. § 11.
II. That reading out of several is preferable, from which all the rest may
have been derived, although it could not be derived from any of them.
Tischendorf (N. T., Proleg. p. xlii. 7th edition) might well say that this
would be “omnium regularum principium,” if its application were less
precarious. Of his own two examples the former is too weakly vouched for
to be listened to, save by way of illustration. In Matt. xxiv. 38 he(248)
and Alford would simply read ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ on the very
feeble evidence of Cod. L, one uncial Evst. (13), _a_ _e_ _ff_, the
Sahidic version, and Origen (in two places); because the copyists, knowing
that the eating and drinking and marrying took place not in the days of
the flood, but before them (καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἕως ἦλθεν ὁ κατακλυσμός ver.
39), would strive to evade the difficulty, such as it was, by adopting one
of the several forms found in our copies: ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or
ἡμέραις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or ἡμέραις ἐκείναις πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or
ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ταῖς πρὸ τοῦ κατακλ., or even ἡμέραις τοῦ νῶε. In his
second example Tischendorf is more fortunate, unless indeed we choose to
refer it rather to Bengel’s canon. James iii. 12 certainly ought to run μὴ
δύναται, ἀδελφοί μου, συκῆ ἐλαίας ποιῆσαι, ἢ ἄμπελος σῦκα; οὔτε (_vel_
οὐδὲ) ἁλυκὸν γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ, as in Codd. אABC, in not less than six
good cursives, the Vulgate and other versions. To soften the ruggedness of
this construction, some copies prefixed οὅτως to οὔτε or οὔδε, while
others inserted the whole clause οὕτως οὐδεμία πηγὴ ἁλυκὸν καί before
γλυκὺ ποιῆσαι ὕδωρ. Other fair instances may be seen in Chap. XII, notes
on Luke x. 41, 42; Col. ii. 2(249). In the Septuagint also the reading of
א συνεισελθόντας 1 Macc. xii. 48 appears to be the origin both of
συνελθόντας with A, the uncial 23, and four cursives at least, and of
εἰσελθόντας of the Roman edition and the mass of cursives.
III. “Brevior lectio, nisi testium vetustorum et gravium auctoritate
penitus destituatur, praeferenda est verbosiori. Librarii enim multò
proniores ad addendum fuerunt, quam ad omittendum” (Griesbach, N. T.,
Proleg. p. lxiv. vol. i). This canon bears an influential part in the
system of Griesbach and his successors, and by the aid of Cod. B and a few
others, has brought great changes into the text as approved by some
critics. Dr. Green too (Course of Developed Criticism on Text of N. T.)
sometimes carries it to excess in his desire to remove what he considers
_accretions_. It is so far true, that scribes were no doubt prone to
receive marginal notes into the text which they were originally designed
only to explain or enforce (e.g. 1 John v. 7, 8)(250); or sought to
amplify a brief account from a fuller narrative of the same event found
elsewhere, whether in the same book (e.g. Act. ix. 5 compared with ch.
xxvi. 14), or in the parallel passage of one of the other synoptical
Gospels. In quotations, also, from the Old Testament the shorter form is
always the more probably correct (_ibid._). Circumstances too will be
supplied which were deemed essential for the preservation of historical
truth (e.g. Act. viii. 37), or names of persons and places may be inserted
from the Lectionaries: and to this head we must refer the graver and more
deliberate interpolations so frequently met with in Cod. D and a few other
documents. Yet it is just as true that words and clauses are sometimes
wilfully omitted for the sake of removing apparent difficulties (e.g. υἱοῦ
βαραχίου, Matt, xxiii. 35 in Cod. א and a few others), and that the
negligent loss of whole passages through ὁμοιοτέλευτον is common to
manuscripts of every age and character. On the whole, therefore, the
indiscriminate rejection of portions of the text regarded as
supplementary, on the evidence of but a few authorities, must be viewed
with considerable distrust and suspicion.
IV. That reading of a passage is preferable which best suits the peculiar
style, manner, and habits of thought of an author; it being the tendency
of copyists to overlook the idiosyncrasies of the writer. For example, the
abrupt energy of St. James’ _asyndeta_ (e.g. ch. i. 27), of which we have
just seen a marked instance, is much concealed by the particles inserted
by the common text (e.g. ch. ii. 4, 13; iii. 17; iv. 2; v. 6): St. Luke in
the Acts is fond of omitting “said” or “saith” after the word indicating
the speaker, though they are duly supplied by recent scribes (e.g. ch. ii.
38; ix. 5; xix. 2; xxv. 22; xxv. 28, 29). Thus again, in editing
Herodotus, an Ionic form is more eligible than an Attic one equally well
attested, while in the Greek Testament an Alexandrian termination should
be chosen under similar circumstances. Yet even this canon has a double
edge: habit or the love of critical correction will sometimes lead the
scribe to change the text to his author’s more usual style, as well as to
depart from it through inadvertence (_see_ Acts iv. 17; 1 Pet. ii. 24): so
that we may securely apply the rule only where the external evidence is
not unequally balanced.
V. Attention must be paid to the genius and usage of each several
authority, in assigning the weight due to it in a particular instance.
Thus the testimony of Cod. B is of the less influence in omissions, that
of Cod. D (Bezae) in additions, inasmuch as the tendency of the former is
to abridge, that of the latter to amplify the sacred text. The value of
versions and ecclesiastical writers also much depends on the degree of
care and critical skill which they display.
Every one of the foregoing rules might be applied _mutatis mutandis_ to
the emendation of the text of any author whose works have suffered
alteration since they left his hands: the next (so far as it is true) is
peculiar to the case of Holy Scripture.
VI. “Inter plures unius loci lectiones ea pro suspectâ merito habetur,
quae orthodoxorum dogmatibus manifestè prae ceteris favet” (Griesbach, N.
T., Proleg., p. lxvi. vol. i). I cite this canon from Griesbach for the
sake of annexing Archbishop Magee’s very pertinent corollary: “from which,
at least, it is reasonable to infer, that whatever readings, in favour of
the Orthodox opinion, may have had _his_ sanction, have not been preferred
by him from any bias in behalf of Orthodoxy” (Discourses on Atonement and
Sacrifice, vol. iii. p. 212). Alford says that the rule, “sound in the
main,” does not hold good, when, “_whichever reading is adopted, the
orthodox meaning is legitimate_, but _the adoption of the stronger
orthodox reading is absolutely incompatible with the heretical
meaning_,—then it is probable that _such stronger orthodox reading was the
original_” (N. T., Proleg., vol. i. p. 83, note 6, 4th edition):
instancing Act. xx. 28, where the weaker reading τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ κυρίου
would quite satisfy the orthodox, while the alternative reading τοῦ θεοῦ
“would have been certain to be altered by the heretics.” But in truth
there seems no good ground for believing that the rule is “sound in the
main,” though two or three such instances as 1 Tim. iii. 16(251) and the
insertion of θεόν in Jude, ver. 4, might seem to countenance it. We
dissent altogether from Griesbach’s statement, “Scimus enim, lectiones
quascunque, etiam manifestò falsas, dummodo orthodoxorum placitis
patrocinarentur, inde a tertii seculi initiis mordicus defensas seduloque
propagatas, ceteras autem ejusdem loci lectiones, quae dogmati
ecclesiastico nil praesidii afferrent, haereticorum perfidiae attributas
temere fuisse” (Griesb. _ubi supra_), if he means that the orthodox forged
those great texts, which, _believing them to be authentic_, it was surely
innocent and even incumbent on them to employ(252). The Church of Christ
“inde a tertii seculi initiis” has had her faults, many and grievous, but
she never did nor shall fail in her duty as a faithful “witness and keeper
of Holy Writ.” But while vindicating the copyists of Scripture from all
wilful tampering with the text, we need not deny that they, like others of
their craft, preferred that one out of several extant readings that seemed
to give the fullest and most emphatic sense: hence Davidson would fain
account for the addition ἐκ τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων αὐτοῦ
(which, however, is not unlikely to be genuine(253)) in Eph. v. 30. Since
the mediaeval scribes belonged almost universally to the monastic orders,
we will not dispute the truth of Griesbach’s rule, “Lectio prae aliis
sensum pietati (praesertim monasticae) alendae aptum fundens, suspecta
est,” though its scope is doubtless very limited(254). Their habit of
composing and transcribing Homilies has also been supposed to have led
them to give a hortatory form to positive commands or dogmatic statements
(_see_ Vol. I. p. 17), but there is much weight in Wordsworth’s remark,
that “such suppositions as these have a tendency to destroy the credit of
the ancient MSS.; and if such surmises were true, those MSS. would hardly
be worth the pains of collating them” (_note on_ 1 Cor. xv. 49).
VII. “Apparent probabilities of erroneous transcription, permutation of
letters, itacism and so forth,” have been designated by Bp. Ellicott
“_paradiplomatic_ evidence” (Preface to the Galatians; p. xvii, first
edition), as distinguished from the “_diplomatic_” testimony of codices,
versions, &c. This species of evidence, which can hardly be deemed
internal, must have considerable influence in numerous cases, and will be
used the most skilfully by such as have considerable practical
acquaintance with the rough materials of criticism. We have anticipated
what can be laid before inexperienced readers on this topic in the first
chapter of our first volume, when discussing the sources of various
readings(255): in fact, so far as canons of internal or of paradiplomatic
evidence are at all trustworthy, they instruct us in the reverse process
to that aimed at in Vol. I. Chap. I; the latter showing by what means the
pure text of the inspired writings was brought into its present state of
_partial_ corruption, the former promising us some guidance while we seek
to retrace its once downward course back to the fountain-head of primeval
truth(256). To what has been previously stated in regard to paradiplomatic
testimony it may possibly be worth while to add Griesbach’s caution
“lectiones RHYTHMI fallaciâ facillimè explicandae nullius sunt pretii” (N.
T., Proleg. p. lxvi), a fact whereof 2 Cor. iii. 3 affords a memorable
example. Here what once seemed the wholly unnatural reading ἐν πλαξὶ
_καρδίαις_ σαρκίναις, being disparaged by dint of the rhyming termination,
is received by Lachmann in the place of καρδίας, on the authority of Codd.
AB (_sic_) CDEGLP, perhaps a majority of cursive copies (seven out of
Scrivener’s twelve, and Wake 12 or Paul. 277); to which add Cod. א unknown
to Lachmann, and that abject slave of manuscripts, the Harkleian Syriac.
Codd. FK have καρδίας, with all the other versions. If we attempt to
interpret καρδίαις, we must either render with Alford, in spite of the
order of the Greek, “on fleshy tables, [your] hearts:” or with the
Revisers of 1881 “in tables _that are_ hearts of flesh;” yet surely
σαρκίναις as well as λιθίναις must agree with πλαξί. Dr. Hort in mere
despair would almost reject the second πλαξί (Introd., Notes, p. 119).
It has been said that “when the cause of a various reading is known, the
variation usually disappears(257).” This language may seem extravagant,
yet it hardly exaggerates what may be effected by internal evidence, when
it is clear, simple, and unambiguous. It is, therefore, much to be
lamented that this is seldom the case in practice. Readings that we should
uphold in virtue of one canon, are very frequently (perhaps in a majority
of really doubtful passages) brought into suspicion by means of another;
yet they shall each of them be perfectly sound and reasonable in their
proper sphere. An instance in point is Matt. v. 22, where the external
evidence is divided. Codd. אΒ (in Δ _secundâ manu_), 48, 198, 583, 587,
Origen _twice_, the Ethiopic and Vulgate, omit εἰκῆ after πᾶς ὁ
ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ ἀυτοῦ, Jerome fairly stating that it is “in
quibusdam codicibus,” not “in veris,” which may be supposed to be Origen’s
MSS., and therefore removing it from his revised Latin version. It is
found, however, in all other extant copies (including ΣDEKLMSUVΔ (_primâ
manu_) Π, most cursives, all the Syriac (the Peshitto inserting, not a
Syriac equivalent, but the Greek word εἰκῆ) and Old Latin copies, the
Bohairic, Armenian, and Gothic versions), in Eusebius, in many Greek
Fathers, in the Latin Fathers from Irenaeus downwards(258), and even in
the Old Latin Version of Origen himself; the later authorities uniting
with Codd. ΣD and their associates against the two oldest manuscripts
extant. Under such circumstances the suggestions of internal evidence
would be precious indeed, were not that just as equivocal as diplomatic
proof. “Griesbach and Meyer,” says Dean Alford, “hold it to have been
expunged from motives of moral rigorism:—De Wette to have been inserted to
soften the apparent rigour of the precept(259).” Our sixth Canon is here
opposed to our first(260). The important yet precarious and strictly
auxiliary nature of rules of internal evidence will not now escape the
attentive student; he may find them exemplified very slightly and
imperfectly in the twelfth Chapter of this volume, but more fully by
recent critical editors of the Greek Testament; except perhaps by
Tregelles, who usually passes them by in silence, though to some extent
they influence his decisions; by Lachmann, in the formation of whose
provisional text they have had no share; and by Dean Burgon, who held that
“we must resolutely maintain, that External Evidence must after all be our
best, our only safe guide” (The Revision Revised, p. 19)(261). We will
close this investigation by citing a few of those crisp little periods
(conceived in the same spirit as our own remarks) wherewith Davidson is
wont to inform and sometimes perhaps to amuse his admirers:
“Readings must be judged on internal grounds. One can hardly avoid
doing so. It is natural and almost unavoidable. It must be
admitted indeed that the choice of readings on internal evidence
is liable to abuse. Arbitrary caprice may characterize it. It may
degenerate into simple _subjectivity_. But though the temptation
to misapply it be great, it must not be laid aside.... While
allowing superior weight to the external sources of evidence, we
feel the pressing necessity of the subjective. Here, as in other
instances, the objective and subjective should accompany and
modify one another. They cannot be rightly separated.” (Biblical
Criticism, vol. ii. p. 374, 1852.)