The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1881-03-12

OF the intellectual and scholarly Quallties
which are Indispensable for success in
| this important work. He should not be
| misleti, however, into the rash inference
that the questions which arise are uni
formly difficult to he decided. In a null
| titude of instances. the prepon'ierance oil
evidence is undeniabiy in favor of one
particular reading, and against every
| other. The discovery of the Sinatic
manuscript was Il most welcome addition
to the means of solving doubtful prob
lens, where the evidence was equally
balanced. Here was 4 new witness,
brought out of concealment. and of ven
cradle authority, and thus capable, in
various litigated points of speaking the
decisive word.
Beyond the sorts of testimony which
have been described. there is evidence to
be obtained from the known style and
habit of expression of the author whose
text is subjected to criticism. Thus in
Shakspere, between two different read
ings with regard to which the proofs are
equally balanced, we unhesitatingly
choose that which has the Shaksperian
tone. In New Testament criticism, 4
considerable amount of external evidence
may be sometimes neutraliZed by the in
trinsic probability. or improbability. that
the author would have used the particular
expression in dispute. Does it sound like
him? Does it accord with his usual
manner? Does it larmonize with his
teaching elsewhere OF course, in this
department of the inquiry. there is room
for the operation Of merely subjective
bias. There is no absolute criterion.
Much has to be determined by the criti-
cal feeling. And this leads to the remark
that no amount of learning. and. it might
be added, no amount of candOr. will
supercede the need of tact. BY nature
and by training there is developed in some
minds tact. like the sense of smell in
greyhohnd; and those who possess it are
geniuses in criticism. They are not in
fallible; yet even their conjectures are
always deserving of consideration
Bentley, i'll classical criticism, was man
of this stamp.
This is not the place to attempt to
enumerate the variety of considerations
by which sound critic is influenced, and
which contribute to make up his judy
ment. One thing may he mentioned by
way of Illustration. 4 certain reading.
compared with its rival, may be supported
by great number of respectable authori-
ties. Yet we may discern just how it
originated, just what slip or misappre-
hension may have naturally given occa-
sion to it, while, on the contrary. we dis
Germ with clearness that its rival cannot
be accounted for in any such way. Hence
we adopt with confidence the reading
that has much less external support.
This is the verdict from large view of
the probabilities in the case. Questions in
teXtual criticism are not to be settled. as
the Dutch magistrate in = knickcrbock-
err decided his cases, by weighing the
papers in 4 pair of scales. The consid
erations are numerous. and many of them
delicate. They require correSpondingly
delicate organ to appreciate them.
1t was not until long after the inven-
ton of printing that Greek New Testa-
mcnt was issued from the press. The
Old Testament was printed in Hebrew,
and the entire Bible in Latin, before
there was any considerable call for the
New Testament Scriptures in the original
tongue. This was owing to the low state
of Greek scholarship in Europe. At
length, the famous Cardinal Ximenes
caused the Comprehension Polyglot to be
prepared, SO called from the place lin
Latin, Complutum.) where his university
was placed The New Testament was
printed. the Greek and Latin in parallel
columns, in 1914. But it was not pub
lished until Sin years after tie appear
ancc of the edition of Erasmus, the first
Greek Testament to circulate in print,
which was sent forth by the celebrated
publisher Froben, of Basic. in 1516.-
Erasmus was in hurry to get the book
out in advance Of the Comprehension
edition. He used but very few manu-.
scripts, and the best one of these he used
but little. For the Apocalypse, he had
but 4 single manuscript, and as the last
five verses were missing from it, he sup
piled them by translation made with
his own hand from the Latin. He made
considerable improvement. in subsequent
editions, upon this first publication which,
with the accompanying Latin translation,
was all prepared in the space OF ten
months. After the Comprehension Bible
appeared, Erasmus awaited himself of it
in revising his text. One of the most
celebrated of the early editors Of the
Greek Testament is Robert Ste,hcns.
who enjoyed the patronage Of Francis l.
of France, but afterward became Pro-
III :
fourth edition was issued. 1t was while
on journey or horseback from Paris to
Lyons that he divided the New Tesla
| ment by that arrangement of verses
which has since been in vogue. The
third edition of Stephens. published in
| 1850, became iii England the standard or
IA nj I'll, EI.,,,,, oil; I,
lished at Leyden, and founded purity on
| Stephens text. is the receiced t. rtusuallv
on the Continent. Between 1853 and
1898, Theodore Beza, the pupil o. Calvin,
published five editions of the Creek les
lament. His variations from tie text of
Stephens are not very material. 1t is the
fourth edition Of Stephens and ourth of
Beza which are the basis of tie author
| lied English revision. Both these texts
are so closely allied to the ioulth edition
| of Erasmus that this last, rs Elicott has
remarked. may be considered tie mother
text of our English version.
What is the character of this text !?
| Stephens used but sixteen manuscripts,
and these were not very accurately col
lated. One of his authorities was an old
uncial, the CodeN of Beza. he text of
which. however, is remarkably CORFU ,ot.
Beza's critical work was Likewise of no
great account. Since that day, several
hundreds Of manuscripts haze been dill
gently examined. \ crowd of witnesses
have been Intercepted, andhave thrown
flood of light on the questions which