NEW TESTAMENT. 



37 



Vol. I., pp. 732-736, fourteen of these confirmatory 

 facts are discussed. ) 



Objections have been raised to the reports of the 

 discourses recorded in this book. But a careful com- 

 parison of the speeches of Peter and Paul respectively 

 with the writing of these apostles confirms the ac- 

 curacy of the author of the Acts. Indeed the investi- 

 gations have gone further : it has been shown that the 

 different discourses attributed to Paul give evidence in 

 style of the presence and absence of Luke, of the cir- 

 cumstances connected with their delivery as stated in 

 the Acts. Objection has been made to the substance 

 of these discourses, as indicating a " purpose" in the 

 author vho records them. This is an echo of the Tu- 

 bingen theory. The entire narrative has such marks of 

 euiuor that it seems psychologically impossible for the 

 author to have distorted the language of the apostles 

 to serve his own theological or literary purpose. '' Ex- 

 amine and compare the secular historians from Herod- 

 otus to Maraiilay, and the church historians from Eu- 

 si-binsto NcainliT, and Luke need not fear a com parison. 

 No history of thirty years has ever been written so 

 truthful and impartial, so important and interestinir, 

 sn healthy in time and hopeful in spirit, so aggressive 

 and yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring, so replete 

 with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work 

 in spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet 

 withal so simple and modest, as the Acts of the Apos- 

 tles. It is the best as well as the first manual of 

 church history " (Sehaff, ibid., p. 739). 



8. C<niip<iri*nn icilli the Literature of the sub-Aptig- 

 tulic Age. Accepting as proven the genuineness of 

 the twenty-seven books constituting the New Testa- 

 ment, we may call attention to the facts respecting the 

 Christian literature of the succeeding age. The addi- 

 tions to this literature recently discovered have already 

 been referred to. One and all of the Christian writings 

 of the generation succeeding the apostles fall immeas- 

 urably oelow the New Testament literature. That 

 some of the former were highly esteemed for a timo 

 in the Christian Church is well known, but they were 

 never exalted to a level with the New Testament by 

 any formal act or by general consent. So soon as 

 controversy arose and the question of authoritative 

 writings was considered, the canon of the New Testa- 

 ment was formed, and with little difficulty (see article 

 C\V>N). But the fact on which emphasis must be 

 put is this : that there is an obvious descent from the 

 New Testament to the apostolic fathers, that no one 

 in the first half of the second century appears as an 

 author capable of writing any of the books of the New 

 nent. While each age of the church rightly 

 reviews the whole question of the origin ami authority 

 of the New Testament books, added to the historical 

 evidence there is this obvious difference in the litera- 

 ture to give internal attestation. The proof of the ex- 

 istence of the sun is its shining ; the New Testament 

 shines by its own light. 



II. T/tf. I'rw, -i-nti'on of the Neio Testament Text. 

 This study is called "textual criticism," in distinction 

 fffim the "higher criticism." Both are necessary, but 

 tliry differ in theiraiui. The higher criticism discusses 

 the origin of the books, the lower (or textual) criticism 

 seeks only to discover a pure and entire text. Hence 

 it deals only with positive evidence, allows no conject- 

 ural emendation, and never impugns the authority of 

 a book, questioning only whether the very words have 

 Keen preserved uncorrupted. As is well known the 

 sources for determining the exact words of the New 



'IVita nt arc vastly better than in the case of any 



other book. The very extent of our authorities has 

 multiplied minor variations ; yet despite all this, the 

 number of various readings is not proportionately so 

 great, as in the works of some classical authors of 

 which few manuscripts exist. 



The subject of New Testament textual criticism 

 has twen treated by Prof. \\'. Robertson Smith in 

 the BiUT.v.N.NicA (article Bmi.F.) ; but during the years 



'since that volume was published tV^e has been a 

 | remarkable advance in this science. A few old manu- 

 scripts have been discovered (notably Codex Rossan- 

 ensis), but the main progress has been in the recogni- 

 tion of correct principles. The discovery of Aleph 

 by Tischendorf and the publication of B (Vaticmmt) 

 at Home virtually revolutionized the entire estimate of 

 manuscript authority. When Prof. \V. Robertson 

 Smith wrote, the effect of the use of these two manu- 

 scripts had not yet been fully manifest. The publica- 

 tion of the Greek Testament of West cot t and Hort 

 and of the Revised English version of the New Testa- 

 ment (in 1881) mark the great advance. We may add 

 that the 1'rolegomena to Tischendorf s Greek Testament 

 have been edited by Prof. C. R. Gregory (now of 

 Leipsic), the first part appearing in 1884. The Re- 

 vised version conveys to the general reader the results 

 obtained by the textual critics who have published the 

 learned works just named. The principles and results 

 may be briefly stated. 



The Principles of Textual Criticism. It has long 

 been seen that the ancient authorities represent 

 three groups of evidence : one from Alexandria, 

 the second from the Western Church, and the third 

 coming to us from Constantinople. The first seems 

 to be the purest, the second is full of minor varia- 

 tions (in both Greek and Latin), but very valuable 

 as indicating the origin of various readings. The 

 third (called Byzantine, Constantinopolitan, and, in 

 its older forms, Antiochian and Syrian) seems to have 

 undergone more changes, owing to the attempts at 

 harmonizing, smoothing, and polishing the text. The 

 modern school of textual critics agree in giving more 

 weight to the oldest manuscripts, and also in attempt- 

 ing a classification (or genealogy) of the various forms 

 of the text. On this theory of evidence the immense 

 number of later cursive manuscripts loses its weight. 

 It is further agreed that each variation must be sepa- 

 rately discussed, and that only when the authorities are 

 nearly of the same weight should internal grounds be 

 considered. 



But Westcott and Hort have developed a fuller 

 theory. They accept four groups, one named by them 

 "neutral," representing the earliest form of tran- 

 scribed text accessible to us. The chief authority in 

 this group they claim is the Codex Vaticanvs (B). 

 They also accept the view that the Syrian text is later 

 than the others, having undergone a revision in the 

 third century. Hence that it is of little value when 

 not agreeing with any of the others, but very useful 

 in enabling us to choose between variations in the pre- 

 Syrian texts. Practically their theory makes B out- 

 weigh all other authorities, and their Greek Testa- 

 ment rarely omits to notice the readings of B, even 

 when they are not placed in the text. The views of 

 WeMeott and Hort have been strongly opposed, and 

 the two weak points (a neutral group, and a Syrian 

 revision) have been objected to by those who accept in 

 the main the practical results of their labors. On the 

 other hand Tischendorf, while presenting a text nearly 

 agreeing with Westcott and Hort, is too apt to follow 

 Aleph (his own discovery)* and in the Gospels to adopt 

 readings that differ from the parallel passages. Yet 

 Tregelles. Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, with most 

 modern scholars, are in substantial agreement as to the 

 defects of the received text and the weight of the 

 older authorities. 



The Revised Version does not follow any one of these 

 editors. The questions of text were discussed in both 

 the English and American companies, only so far as 

 they could affect the English rendering. No attempt 

 was made to revise the Greek text as such ; but the 

 Revised New Testament, as may readily be seen, 

 accepts in the main the judgment of the textual 

 critics named above. It is probably nearer to Tregelles 

 than to Tischendorf, and nearer to Westeott and Hort, 

 though often dissenting from the latter. More 

 remains to be done ; yet there can be no question 



