570 NEW TESTAMENT 



only detracted from the value of a manuscript. Why wish to know 

 the views of writers not inspired, perhaps even heretical? If a dis- 

 tinguished classical philologian now enters our field to reconstruct 

 the neglected Western form of the text and give us a new apprecia- 

 tion of its value, advancing the curious theory of two inspired texts, 

 one for the longitude of Antioch, the other for Rome, we shall, 

 indeed, do better to return to Westcott and Hort for an explanation 

 of the origin of the variants, but we should not lose our new sense 

 of their historical value. Thanks to Professor Budde we know that 

 the doctrine of "survivals" applies in textual and higher criticism 

 as well as in biology. The source an historian has employed does not 

 at once cease to circulate. It is only gradually superseded by the 

 writing ultimately preferred. In the mean time transcribers will 

 persistently tend to complete, expand, or assimilate the extracts by 

 comparison of the original. The process is abundantly illustrated 

 in the scribal treatment of New Testament loans from the Septuagint. 

 The variants in this case display the characteristics of atavism, or 

 reversion to type; they may give the pre-canonical form. We know, 

 in fact, that the most extensive and important of the Western vari- 

 ants, the pericope adulterae, is an actual extract from the Gospel 

 according to the Hebrews. Other cases also can be identified, which 

 represent "survivals" from the extra-canonical, if not pre-canonical 

 literature. This explains why the important variants are confined 

 to the historical books, and are most frequent in Luke-Acts, a nar- 

 rative confessedly based on earlier documents. Historical value may 

 even attach to corruptions reflecting only later ideas. 



But pass to the higher criticism, which asks, Whence has the author 

 himself his ideas and materials? Here the field is full of "survivals" 

 to be traced in their origin as well as in their later adaptation. In 

 relation to Old Testament literature and history this discipline once 

 bore the name "Connections." Earlier, and for a wider range, it 

 was called "Introduction." 



Let it not be counted disrespect to the great names of Baur and 

 Holtzmann if we demur to their definition of " introduction" as "Crit- 

 icism of the Canon." That issues in treatment of the subject as a 

 branch of polemics. But the canon is no more a subject for scientific 

 criticism than the particular selection of books which my religious 

 taste and personal experience may lead me to place on my shelf of 

 private devotions. These twenty-seven are the books which the 

 fathers found to embody their religious faith and to nourish their 

 religious life. Vox ecclesiae, vox dei. Of what use to question their 

 taste? Popes and councils are the only judges of canonicity. 



Nor can we agree with Jiilicher, who defines "introduction," as 

 "that branch of the history of literature which deals with the New 

 Testament writings." The New Testament books do not form a 



