The problem which faces the textual critic of the New Testament is to
reconstruct the original text from the materials supplied by the MSS.,
versions, and quotations in early writers, which have been described in
the preceding section on the _apparatus criticus_. His object,
therefore, is to discover and remove the various corruptions which have
crept into the text, by the usual methods of the textual critic--the
collection of material, the grouping of MSS. and other authorities, the
reconstruction of archetypes, and the consideration of transcriptional
and intrinsic probability. No book, however, presents such a complicated
problem or such a wealth of material for the textual critic.
In a certain wide sense the textual criticism of the New Testament began
as soon as men consciously made recensions and versions, and in this
sense Origen, Jerome, Augustine and many other ecclesiastical writers
might be regarded as textual critics. But in practice it is general, and
certainly convenient, to regard their work rather as material for
criticism, and to begin the history of textual criticism with the
earliest printed editions which sought to establish a standard Greek
Text. It is, of course, impossible here to give an account of all these,
but the following may fairly be regarded as the epoch-making books from
the beginning to the present time.
The _Complutensian._--The first printed text of the Greek Testament is
known as the Complutensian, because it was made under the direction of
Cardinal Ximenes of Alcala (Lat. _Complutum_). It was printed in 1514,
and is thus the first printed text, but is not the first published, as
it was not issued until 1522. It is not known what MSS. Ximenes used,
but it is plain from the character of the text that they were not of
great value. His text was reprinted in 1569 by Chr. Plantin at
Antwerp.
_Erasmus._--The first _published_ text was that of Erasmus. It was
undertaken at the request of Joannes Froben (Frobenius), the printer
of Basel, who had heard of Cardinal Ximenes' project and wished to
forestall it. In this he was successful, as it was issued in 1516. It
was based chiefly on MSS. at Basel, of which the only really good one
(_cod. Evan. 1_) was seldom followed. Erasmus issued new editions in
1519, 1522, 1527 and 1535, and the Aldine Greek Testament, printed at
Venice in 1518, is a reproduction of the first edition.
_Stephanus._--Perhaps the most important of all early editions were
those of Robert Etienne, or Stephanus, of Paris and afterwards of
Geneva. His two first editions (1546, 1549) were based on Erasmus, the
Complutensian, and collations of fifteen Greek MSS. These are 16mo
volumes, but the third and most important edition (1550) was a folio
with a revised text. It is this edition which is usually referred to
as _the_ text of Stephanus. A fourth edition (in 16mo) published at
Geneva in 1551 is remarkable for giving the division of the text into
verses which has since been generally adopted.
_Beza._--Stephanus' work was continued by Theodore Beza, who published
ten editions between 1565 and 1611. They did not greatly differ from
the 1550 edition of Stephanus, but historically are important for the
great part they played in spreading a knowledge of the Greek text, and
as supplying the text which the Elzevirs made the standard on the
continent.
_Elzevir._--The two brothers, Bonaventura and Abraham Elzevir,
published two editions at Leiden in 1624 and 1633, based chiefly on
Beza's text. In the preface to the second edition the first is
referred to as "textum... nunc ab omnibus receptum," and this is the
origin of the name "Textus Receptus" (or T.R.) often given to the
ordinary Greek Text. The Elzevir text has formed the basis of all
non-critical editions on the continent, but in England the 1550
edition of Stephanus has been more generally followed. The importance
of both the Stephanus and Elzevir editions is that they formed a
definite text for the purposes of comparison, and so prepared the way
for the next stage, in which scholars busied themselves with the
investigation and collation of other MSS.
_Walton's Polyglot._--The first to begin this work was Brian Walton,
bishop of Chester, who published in 1657 in the 5th and 6th volumes of
his "polyglot" Bible the text of Stephanus (1550) with the readings of
fifteen new MSS. besides those employed by Stephanus himself. The
collations were made for him by Archbishop Ussher.
_John Fell._--In 1675 John Fell, dean of Christ Church, published the
Elzevir text with an enlarged apparatus, but even more important was
the help and advice which he gave to the next important editor--Mill.
_John Mill_, of Queen's College, Oxford, influenced by the advice, and
supported by the purse of John Fell until the latter's death,
published in 1707 a critical edition of the New Testament which has
still a considerable value for the scholar. It gives the text of
Stephanus (1550) with collations of 78 MSS., besides those of
Stephanus, the readings of the Old Latin, so far as was then known,
the Vulgate and Peshito, together with full and valuable prolegomena.
_Bentley._--A little later Richard Bentley conceived the idea that it
would be possible to reconstruct the original text of the New
Testament by a comparison of the earliest Greek and Latin sources; he
began to collect material for this purpose, and issued a scheme
entitled "Proposals for Printing" in 1720, but though he amassed many
notes nothing was ever printed.
_W. Mace._--Fairness forbids us to omit the name of William (or
Daniel?) Mace, a Presbyterian minister who published _The New
Testament in Greek and English_, in 2 vols. in 1729, and really
anticipated many of the verdicts of later critics. He was, however,
not in a position to obtain recognition, and his work has been
generally overlooked.
_J.J. Wetstein_, one of Bentley's assistants, when living in Basel in
1730, published "Prolegomena" to the Text, and in 1751-1752 (at
Amsterdam) the text of Stephanus with enlarged Prolegomena and
apparatus criticus. His textual views were peculiar; he preferred to
follow late MSS. on the ground that all the earlier copies had been
contaminated by the Latin--almost reversing the teaching of Bentley.
His edition is historically very important as it introduced the system
of notation which, in the amplified form given to it by Gregory, is
still in general use.
_J.A. Bengel_, abbot of Alpirspach (a Lutheran community), published
in 1734, at Tuebingen, an edition of the New Testament which marks the
beginning of a new era. For the first time an attempt was made to
group the MSS., which were divided into African and Asiatic. The
former group contained the few old MSS., the latter the many late
MSS., and preference was given to the African. This innovation has
been followed by almost all critics since Bengel's time, and it was
developed by Griesbach.
_J.J. Griesbach_, a pupil at Halle of J.S. Semler (who in 1764
reprinted Wetstein's Prolegomena, and in comments of his own took over
and expounded Bengel's views), collated many MSS., and distinguished
three main groups:--the Alexandrian or Origenian (which roughly
corresponded to Bengel's African), found in ABCL, the Egyptian version
and Origen; the Western, found in D and Latin authorities; and the
Constantinopolitan (Bengel's Asiatic), found in the later MSS. and in
Byzantine writers. His view was that the last group was the least
valuable; but, except when internal evidence forbade (and he thought
that it frequently did so), he followed the text found in any two
groups against the third. His first edition was published in
1774-1775, his second and improved edition in 1796 (vol. i.) and 1806.
For the second edition he had the advantage not merely of his own
collection of material (published chiefly in his _Symbolae Criticae_,
1785-1793), but also of many collations by Birch, Matthaei and Adler,
and an edition with new collations by F.K. Alter.
_J.L. Hug_, Roman Catholic professor of theology at Freiburg,
published (Stuttgart and Tuebingen) his _Einleitung in die Schriften
des N. T._ (1808); he is chiefly remarkable for the curious way in
which he introduced many critical ideas which were not appreciated at
the time but have since been revived. He accepted Griesbach's views as
a whole, but starting from the known recensions of the LXX. he
identified Griesbach's Alexandrian text with the work of Hesychius,
and the Constantinopolitan with that of Lucian, while he described
Griesbach's Western text as the [Greek: koinae ekdosis].
_J.M.A. Scholz_, a pupil of Hug, inspected and partially collated
nearly a thousand MSS. and assigned numbers to them which have since
been generally adopted. His work is for this reason important, but is
unfortunately inaccurate.
_K. Lachmann_, the famous classical scholar, opened a new era in
textual criticism in 1842-1850, in his _N.T. Graece et Latine_. In
this great book a break was made for the first time with the
traditional text and the evidence of the late MSS., and an attempt was
made to reconstruct the text according to the oldest authorities. This
was a great step forward, but unfortunately it was accompanied by a
retrogression to the pre-Griesbachian (or rather pre-Bengelian) days;
for Lachmann rejected the idea of grouping MSS., and having selected a
small number of the oldest authorities undertook always to follow the
reading of the majority.
_C. Tischendorf_, the most famous follower of Lachmann, besides
editions of many MSS. and the collation of many more, published
between 1841 and 1869-1872 eight editions of the New Testament with
full critical notes. The eighth edition, which for the first time
contained the readings of [Hebrew: alef], has not yet been equalled,
and together with the Prolegomena, supplied by C.R. Gregory after
Tischendorf's death, is the standard critical edition which is used by
scholars all over the world. At the same time it must be admitted that
it gradually became antiquated. Fresh collations of MSS., and
especially fresh discoveries and investigations into the text of the
versions and Fathers, have given much new information which entirely
changed the character of the evidence for many readings, and rendered
a new edition necessary (see SODEN, H. VON). As a collector and
publisher of evidence Tischendorf was marvellous, but as an editor of
the text he added little to the principles of Lachmann, and like
Lachmann does not seem to have appreciated the value of the
Griesbachian system of grouping MSS.
_S.P. Tregelles_, an English scholar, like Tischendorf, spent almost
his whole life in the collection of material, and published a critical
edition, based on the earliest authorities, at intervals between 1857
and 1872. His work was eclipsed by Tischendorf's, and his critical
principles were almost the same as the German scholar's, so that his
work has obtained less recognition than would otherwise have been the
case. Tischendorf and Tregelles finished the work which Lachmann
began. They finally exploded the pretensions of the _Textus Receptus_
to be the original text; but neither of them gave any explanation of
the relations of the later text to the earlier, nor developed
Griesbach's system of dealing with groups of MSS. rather than with
single copies.
_B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort_ (commonly quoted as WH), the Cambridge
scholars, supplied the deficiencies of Lachmann, and without giving up
the advantages of his system, and its development by Tischendorf,
brought back the study of the text of the New Testament to the methods
of Griesbach. Their great work was published in 1881 under the title
of _The New Testament in the Original Greek_. Their view of the
history of the text is that a comparison of the evidence shows that,
while we can distinguish more than one type of text, the most clearly
discernible of all the varieties is first recognizable in the
quotations of Chrysostom, and is preserved in almost all the later
MSS. Though found in so great a number of witnesses, this type of text
is shown not to be the earliest or best by the evidence of all the
oldest MS. versions and Fathers, as well as by internal evidence.
Moreover, a comparison with the earlier sources of evidence shows that
it was built up out of previously existing texts. This is proved by
the "conflations" which are found in it. For instance in Mark ix. 38
the later MSS. read [Greek: os ouk akolouthei haemin, kai ekolusamen
auton oti ouk akolouthei haemin], a clumsy sentence which is clearly
made up out of two earlier readings, [Greek: kai ekoluomen auton oti
ouk aekolouthei haemin], found in [Hebrew: alef] BCL boh., and [Greek:
os ouk akolouthei meth' haemon, kai ekoluomen auton], found in DX
_fam._^1, _fam._^13 28 latt. It is impossible, in face of the fact
that the evidence of the oldest witnesses of all sorts is constantly
opposed to the longer readings, to doubt that WH were right in arguing
that these phenomena prove that the later text was made up by a
process of revision and conflation of the earlier forms. Influenced by
the use of the later text by Chrysostom, WH called it the Syrian or
Antiochene text, and refer to the revision which produced it as the
Syrian revision. They suggested that it might perhaps be attributed to
Lucian, who is known to have made a revision of the text of the LXX.
The earlier texts which were used for the Syrian revision may,
according to WH, be divided into three:--(1) the Western text, used
especially by Latin writers, and found also in _cod. Bezae_ and in Syr
C; (2) the Alexandrine text used by Cyril of Alexandria and found
especially in CL [Xi] 33; and (3) a text which differs from both the
above mentioned and is therefore called by WH the Neutral text, found
especially in [Hebrew: alef] B and the quotations of Origen. Of these
three types WH thought that the Neutral was decidedly the best. The
Alexandrian was clearly a literary recension of it, and WH strove to
show that the Western was merely due to the non-literary efforts of
scribes in other parts to improve the narrative. The only exception
which they allowed to this general rule was in the case of certain
passages, especially in the last chapters of Luke, where the "Western"
authorities omit words which are found in the Neutral and Alexandrian
texts. Their reason was that omission seems to be contrary to the
genius of the Western text, and that it is therefore probable that
these passages represent interpolations made in the text on the
Neutral side after the division between it and the Western. They might
be called Neutral interpolations, but WH preferred the rather clumsy
expression "Western non-interpolations." Having thus decided that the
Neutral text was almost always right, it only remained for WH to
choose between the various authorities which preserved this type. They
decided that the two best authorities were [Hebrew: alef] and B, and
that when these differed the reading of B, except when obviously an
accidental blunder, was probably right. The great importance of this
work of WH lies in the facts that it not merely condemns but explains
the late Antiochene text, and that it attempts to consider in an
objective manner all the existing evidence and to explain it
historically and genealogically. Opinions differ as to the correctness
of the results reached by WH, but there is scarcely room for doubt
that as an example of method their work is quite unrivalled at present
and is the necessary starting-point for all modern investigations.
Since Westcott and Hort no work of the same importance appeared up
till 1909. Various useful texts have been issued, among which those of
Nestle (_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Stuttgart, 1904), based on a
comparison of the texts of Tischendorf, WH and Weiss, and of Baljon
(_Novum Testamentum Graece_, Groningen, 1898), are the best. The only
serious attempt as yet published to print a complete text
independently of other editors is that of B. Weiss (_Das Neue
Testament_, Leipzig, 1894-1900), but the method followed in this is so
subjective and pays so little attention to the evidence of the
versions that it is not likely to be permanently important. The text
reached is not widely different from that of WH. The new work in
course of preparation by von Soden at Berlin, which promises to take
the place of Tischendorf's edition, must certainly do this so far as
Greek MSS. are concerned, for the whole field has been reinvestigated
by a band of assistants who have grouped and collated specimens of all
known MSS.
Besides these works the chief efforts of textual critics since WH have
been directed towards the elucidation of minor problems, and the
promulgation of certain hypotheses to explain the characteristics
either of individual MSS. or of groups of MSS. Among these the works
of Sanday, Corssen, Wordsworth, White, Burkitt and Harris on the
history of the Old Latin and Vulgate, and especially the work of
Burkitt on the Old Syriac, have given most light on the subject. These
lines of research have been described in the preceding section on the
_apparatus criticus_. Other noteworthy and interesting, though in the
end probably less important, work has been done by Blass, Bousset,
Schmidtke, Rendel Harris and Chase. The outline of the chief works is
as follows:--
_F. Blass._--In his various books on the Acts and third gospel Blass
has propounded a new theory as to the "Western" text. He was struck
by the fact that neither the Western can be shown to be derived from
the Neutral, nor the Neutral from the Western. He therefore conceived
the idea that perhaps both texts were Lucan, and represented two
recensions by the original writer, and he reconstructed the history as
follows. Luke wrote the first edition of the Gospel for Theophilus
from Caesarea; this is the Neutral text of the Gospel. Afterwards he
went to Rome and there revised the text of the Gospel and reissued it
for the Church in that city; this is the Western (or, as Blass calls
it, Roman) text of the Gospel. At the same time he continued his
narrative for the benefit of the Roman Church, and published the
Western text of the Acts. Finally he revised the Acts and sent a copy
to Theophilus; this is the Neutral text of the Acts. This ingenious
theory met with considerable approval when it was first advanced, but
it has gradually been seen that "Western" text does not possess the
unity which Blass's theory requires it to have. Still, Blass's textual
notes are very important, and there is a mass of material in his
books.
_Bousset and Schmidtke._--These two scholars have done much work in
trying to identify smaller groups of MSS. with local texts. Bousset
has argued that the readings in the Pauline epistles found in [Hebrew:
alef]^c H and a few minuscules represent the text used by Pamphilus,
and on the whole this view seems to be highly probable. Another group
which Bousset has tried to identify is that headed by B, which he
connects with the recension of Hesychius, but this theory, though
widely accepted in Germany, does not seem to rest on a very solid
basis. To some extent influenced by and using Bousset's results,
Schmidtke has tried to show that certain small lines in the margin of
B point to a connexion between that MS. and a Gospel harmony, which,
by assuming that the text of B is Hesychian, he identifies with that
of Ammonius. If true, this is exceedingly important. Nestle, however,
and other scholars think that the lines in B are merely indications of
a division of the text into sense-paragraphs and have nothing to do
with any harmony.
_Rendel Harris_ and _Chase._--Two investigations, which attracted much
notice when they were published, tried to explain the phenomena of the
Western text as due to retranslation from early versions into Greek.
Rendel Harris argued for the influence of Latin, and Chase for that of
Syriac. While both threw valuable light on obscure points, it seems
probable that they exaggerated the extent to which retranslation can
be traced; that they ranked _Codex Bezae_ somewhat too highly as the
best witness to the "Western" text; and that some of their work was
rendered defective by their failure to recognize quite clearly that
the "Western" text is not a unity. At the same time, however little of
Rendel Harris's results may ultimately be accepted by the textual
critics of the future, his work will always remain historically of the
first importance as having done more than anything else to stimulate
thought and open new lines of research in textual criticism in the
last decade of the 19th century.
The time has not yet come when any final attempt can be made to bring
all these separate studies together and estimate exactly how far they
necessitate serious modification of the views of Westcott and Hort;
but a tentative and provisional judgment would probably have to be on
somewhat the following lines. The work of WH may be summed up into two
theorems:--(1) The text preserved in the later MSS. is not primitive,
but built up out of earlier texts;. (2) these earlier texts may be
classified as Western, Alexandrian and Neutral, of which the Neutral
is the primitive form. The former of these theorems has been generally
accepted and may be taken as proved, but the second has been closely
criticized and probably must be modified. It has been approached from
two sides, according as critics have considered the Western or the
Neutral and Alexandrian texts.
_The Western Text._--This was regarded by WH as a definite text, found
in D, the Old Latin and the Old Syriac; and it is an essential part of
their theory that in the main these three witnesses represent one
text. On the evidence which they had WH were undoubtedly justified,
but discoveries and investigation have gone far to make it impossible
to hold this view any longer. We now know more about the Old Latin,
and, thanks to Mrs Lewis' discovery, much more about the Old Syriac.
The result is that the authorities on which WH relied for their
Western text are seen to bear witness to two texts, not to one. The
Old Latin, if we take the African form as the oldest, as compared with
the Neutral text has a series of interpolations and a series of
omissions. The Old Syriac, if we take the Sinaitic MS. as the purest
form, compared in the same way, has a similar double series of
interpolations and omissions, but neither the omissions nor the
interpolations are the same in the Old Latin as in the Old Syriac.
Such a line of research suggests that instead of being able, as WH
thought, to set the Western against the Neutral text (the Alexandrian
being merely a development of the latter), we must consider the
problem as the comparison of at least three texts, a Western
(geographically), an Eastern and the Neutral. This makes the matter
much more difficult; and an answer is demanded to the problem afforded
by the agreement of two of these texts against the third. The obvious
solution would be to say that where two agree their reading is
probably correct, but the followers of WH maintain that the agreement
of the Western and Eastern is often an agreement in error. It is
difficult to see how texts, geographically so wide apart as the Old
Latin and Old Syriac would seem to be, are likely to agree in error,
but it is certainly true that some readings found in both texts seem
to have little probability. Sanday, followed by Chase and a few other
English scholars, has suggested that the Old Latin may have been made
originally in Antioch, but this paradoxical view has met with little
support. A more probable suggestion is Burkitt's, who thinks that many
readings in our present Old Syriac MSS. are due to the Diatessaron,
which was a geographically Western text. It may be that this
suggestion will solve the difficulty, but at present it is impossible
to say.
_The Neutral and Alexandrian Texts._--WH made it plain that the
Alexandrian text was a literary development of the Neutral, but they
always maintained that the latter text was not confined to, though
chiefly used in Alexandria. More recent investigations have confirmed
their view as to the relation of the Alexandrian to the Neutral text,
but have thrown doubt on the age and wide-spread use of the latter.
Whatever view be taken of the provenance of _Codex Vaticanus_ it is
plain that its archetype had the Pauline epistles in a peculiar order
which is only found in Egypt, and so far no one has been able to
discover any non-Alexandrian writer who used the Neutral text.
Moreover, Barnard's researches into the Biblical text of Clement of
Alexandria show that there is reason to doubt whether even in
Alexandria the Neutral text was used in the earliest times. We have no
evidence earlier than Clement, and the text of the New Testament which
he quotes has more in common with the Old Latin or "geographically
Western" text than with the Neutral, though it definitely agrees with
no known type preserved in MSS. or versions. This discovery has put
the Neutral text in a different light. It would seem as though we
could roughly divide the history of the text in Alexandria into three
periods. The earliest is that which is represented by the quotations
in Clement, and must have been in use in Alexandria at the end of the
2nd and beginning of the 3rd century. It is unfortunately not found in
any extant MS. The second stage is that found in the quotations of
Origen which is fairly well represented in [Hebrew: alef] B, though
Origen seems at times to have used MSS. of the earlier type. The third
stage is WH's Alexandrian, found in the quotations of Cyril of
Alexandria and a few MSS. (esp. CL [Xi] [Delta] [Psi]). It is clearly
a revision of the second stage, as WH saw, but we can now add that it
was not merely a literary revision but was influenced by the tendency
to revive readings which are found in the first stage but rejected in
the second.
It thus seems probable that WH's theory must be modified, both as
regards the "Western" text, which is seen not to be a single text at
all, and as regards the "Neutral" text, which seems to be nothing more
than the second stage of the development of the text in Alexandria.
But the importance of these modifications is something more than the
doubt which they have thrown on WH's theories: they have really
shifted the centre of gravity of the textual problem.
Formerly the Greek uncials, which go back to the 4th century, were
regarded as the most important source of evidence, and were supposed
to have the decisive vote; but now it is becoming plain that still
more important, though unfortunately much less complete, is the
evidence of the versions and of quotations by early writers. Both of
these point to the existence in the 3rd and even 2nd century of types
of text which differ in very many points from anything preserved in
Greek MSS. Yet there is no doubt that both of them ultimately
represent Greek MSS. which are no longer extant. The question,
therefore, is whether we ought not to base our text on the versions
and ecclesiastical quotations rather than on the extant Greek MSS. Two
positions are possible: (1) We may defend a text based on the best
existing Greek MSS. by the argument that these represent the text
which was approved by competent judges in the 4th century, and would
be found to exist in earlier MSS. if we possessed them. The weak point
of this argument is the lack of evidence in support of the second
part. The only possible sources of evidence, apart from the discovery
of fresh MSS., are the versions, and they do not point to existence in
the 2nd or 3rd century of texts agreeing with the great uncials. It is
also possible to argue, as WH did, on the same side, that the purest
form of text was preserved in Alexandria, from which the oldest
uncials are directly or indirectly derived, but this argument has been
weakened if not finally disposed of by the evidence of Clement of
Alexandria. It is, of course, conceivable that Clement merely used bad
MSS., and that there were other MSS. which he might have used,
agreeing with the great uncials, but there is no evidence for this
view. (2) If we reject this position we must accept the evidence as
giving the great uncials much the same secondary importance as
Westcott and Hort gave to the later MSS., and make an attempt to
reconstruct a text on the basis of versions and Fathers. The adoption
of this view sets textual critics a peculiarly difficult task. The
first stage in their work must be the establishment of the earliest
form of each version, and the collection and examination of the
quotations in all the early writers. This has not yet been done, but
enough has been accomplished to point to the probability that the
result will be the establishment of at least three main types of
texts, represented by the Old Syriac, the Old Latin and Clement's
quotations, while it is doubtful how far Tatian's Diatessaron, the
quotations in Justin and a few other sources may be used to
reconstruct the type of Greek text used in Rome in the 2nd century
when Rome was still primarily a Greek church. The second stage must
be the comparison of these results and the attempt to reconstruct from
them a Greek text from which they all arose.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The literature of textual criticism of the New
Testament is so great that only a few of the more important modern
books can be mentioned here: H. von Soden, _Die Schriften des Neuen
Testaments_ (i. 1902-1907); E. Nestle, _Einfuehrung in das griechische
Neue Testament_ (Goettingen, 1909); F.G. Kenyon, _Handbook to the
Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1901); C.R. Gregory,
_Textkritik des Neuen Testament_ (Leipzig, 1900-1902), and _Die
griech. Handschr. des N.T._ (Leipzig, 1908); Westcott and Hort,
_Introduction_ (vol. ii. of their _New Testament in Greek_, Cambridge,
1882). The history of criticism is dealt with in all the
above-mentioned books, and also in F.H. Scrivener, _Introduction to
the Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1894). For other points
especially important (besides books mentioned in the preceding
section) see F. Blass, _Acta Apostolorum_ (Goettingen, 1895; and an
editio minor, with a valuable preface, Leipzig, 1896); Rendel Harris,
_Four Lectures on the Western Text_ (Cambridge, 1894); F. Chase, _The
Syro-Latin Text_ (London, 1895); W. Bousset, _Textkritische Studien_
(Leipzig, 1894); B. Weiss, _Der Codex D in der Apostelgeschichte_
(Leipzig, 1897); A. Pott, _Der abendlaendische Text d.
Apostelgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1900); G. Salmon, _Some Thoughts on
Textual Criticism of the New Testament_ (London, 1897); Schmidtke,
_Die Evangelien eines alien Unzialcodex_ (Leipzig, 1903). (K. L.)