The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-07-27

script when he sees 1T. 1t must not be
forgotten, too, that the resources of the
earlier textual scholars in the way Of
documentary evidence were very narrow
in comparison with ] em6mras deS rich
esses, that now perplexes the inquirer.
Wetstein, Sholtz, and some others of sim
liar pretension, unlike Erasmus and Beza
undervalued the ancient documents with
a clear perception of their antiquity, de-
liberately and as it were with malice pre-
pense. This was because the compare
lively few old Greek manuscripts that
have come down to us were supposed to
have undergone corruption at the hands
of revisers Of the fourth century; whereas
the great mass of more recent copies were
regarded as based upon text of equal,
or greater antiquity, and one that had
been in considerable degree preserved
from error by the pious efforts of learned
scribes at Byzantium and elsewhere in
the East, or even Gas was urged by some)
by force of ecclesiastical authority in the
Greek Church. This entire view has now
been almost universally abandoned by
the cognoscenti; and on two grounds
viz: FIRST, the variations in the modern
copies are too great to accord with the
hypothesis, and second, the general con-
sent of versions and patristic testimonies
anterior to the fourth century precludes
altogether the notion of wholesale cor
ruption in the readings that are found
inscribed at first hand on the oldest
parchments. Here and there, indeed
the Macedonians and Arians, and per-
haps other heretics, may possibly have
tempered with few particular passages
of dogmatic character and Importance !;
though such an idea is not, as common
thing, seriously entertained by those best
acquainted with this subject. Even the
one eminent critic (Scrivener) who still
attaches much weight to the mass of
Ourselves, distinctly prefers uncial evidence
when attainable and harmonious. 1t is
admitted on all hands that these state
ments are only true in general way,
and must be received with measure of
qualification.
For instance, as is we'll known, cursive
writing came into vogue and continued
to prevail after the style of writing in
unclals, as they are called, or capital let
ters had declined and yet certain cur
sive manuscripts are allowed to rank
higher than certain uncial manuscripts
on the ground that the Ourselves in ques-
ton differ from the body of the Ourselves
in general in presenting what has been
determined ahnade to be the character
istic readings of antiquity, and this diver
gence from the ordinary style of readings
that is found to distinguish the mass of
the more recent copies is satisfactorily
accounted for by the assumption that the
readings followed in these particular CO.
dices were taken from very early sources
In the same way, and for the same rea-
son, certain of the later uncials rank
higher than some that are of earlier date.
The real difference of main Importance
that now divides the critics, and the crit
zeal schools, is difference as to the rela-
tive value of critical rules otherwise ad-
mitted to be sound and proper, in COM
parison with the authority of absolute
evidence as derived from the positive tes-
timony of the ancient witnesses and as
expressed in the form of the accredited
documents. This is precisely the point
of difference that separates Cor has sepa-
rated) such stern adherents to external
authority as Bentley, Lachmann, Ire
gelles, and in the main Westcott, and r.
S. Lightfoot, from the advocates Of more
liberal but a more dangerous view such
as Tischendorf, and a swarm of textual
commentators such as Meyer, LANCE,
Oosterzee, Ellicott, and to some extent
Afford. The difference is, however, Of
even more Importance in practice than
it is in theory. We should have been
pleased if the committee had uttered a
less uncertain sound as to this point, but
SO far as they have gone, and have left
us the data for judgment, there is not
very much your essayist opines, to con-
/ II IL