The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1881-03-12
THE NEW REVISION.
HOW THE NEW TESTAMENT CAME
DOWN TO US.
u
CONCLUDED. !

DOWN TO US.
From Scribner for February.
CONCLUDED
To determine now, as far as may be,
what the original text was in the cases
where discrepancies exist. is the business
Of teXtual criticism. Besides technical
training and extensive knowledge, there
are required, also, judicial fairness, and
skill in weighing evidence of this nature.
The manuscripts are not the only wit
ncsses whose testimony is to be examined,
siited, and rated at its proper value. But
they are the witnesses first in order. The
particular character Of each Of these
from which light is sought, must be as
certained. There may be in Il manuscript
Il tendency to error in one direction, and
a signal merit il another. Its popularity
must be taken into account, just as in a
court room the qualities of Il witness are
considered in deciding on the weight to
oldest and most trustworthy manuscripts
are generally agreed. it requires strong
array of proofs on the opposite side to
turn the scale against them.
Besides the manuscripts. the most an
cient versions throw light on the text.
These were made from older manuscripts
than any now extant. But in estimating
the worth of their testimony, great eau
ton is requisite. One preliminary ques-
ton to be settled is how accurate in gen
eral the version was. How does it cor
respond in it's general character to the
original Scriptures' Does it keep close
to the text where the text is known, or
is it loose and free? Then the text of the
versions themselves may have undergone
changes, and may require to be settled
by just such process of investigation as
that which we are pursuing in the larger
field. Obviously, an ancient version is of
no authority in settling the text of the
Greek Scriptures in places where that
version has itself in later ages undergone
modification.
There are two Of the old versions which
are of pre-eminent value in these in
quiries. The first is the Rshito, or the
ancient Syriac translation. 1t was made
in the latter part of the second century.
What adds to its value is that it was the
authoritative version Of the entire church
of Syria. 1t was made, also, at one time
This is certainly true of the New Tesla
ment. Associated on the same level with
the Syriac version are the early Latin
translati0ns. Jerome. in the fourth cen
fury, translated the Hebrew Scriptures
into Latin, and revised earlier Latin YER
sions of the. New Testament. In this
way he produced the Vulgate. From the
Fathers Of the second century, we can
gain considerable know ledge relative to
the earlier Latin versions which formed
the basis of Jerome's revision. Not 4
few passages are cited from them. JIG.
rome himself was scholar, and had III
his hands manuscripts which are now
lost. 1t is drawback, however, from
the Nulgate as a witness that its own text
requires criticism. This work of emend
alton was undertaken as long ago as A. D.
500 by Alcuin, under the auspices Of
Charlemagne. 1t was undertaken anew
by the direction of the Council of Trent
under the superintendent of the popes
The first revised edition. under Sixtus v.
was so carelessly prepared that though il
was declared by papal authority to bt
correct, and the last umpire in contro
versies,-as the Tridentine Fathers hat
decreed that the Eulgate should be-
had to be recalled, the reason being as
that it's blemshes were errors of til,
| press. 1t was false reason, but it savet
the papal dignity, and more correc
edition was prepared and issued. Thu
I authorized Vulsa is not. however, 81
{ pure a text as some editions issued b,
scholars not having this ecclesiastical
u sanction for their labors.
W There is third class of witnesses t.
whom the scholar can resort to aid hin
in determining the correct reading of
disputed passage. The ancient ecclesas
'tical writer's, including those Of Il dat
ebrior to our Oldest manuscripts, frequent
'''y quote from the New Testament. w
IAN examine their citations, and compar
chem with the rest of our authorities
q IN some instances their silence is a pow
~ erlul negative argument. The circun
o1tance that the defenders of the doctrin
Ill Y the Trinity, like Athanasius, in tn
tt .h continue, n.rer op,te L,bn y
demonstrates that this verse did no
rice and in their Bibles. Had they know
NC it, no one can doubt that they woul
i've appealed to it. and laid great stres
Is. BON it. Unhappily, the testimony {
mere Fathers OH the text is lessened i
welue by two circumstances. The frs
~ 'i'Lne lneAlct HdilucI VI iootdoioh Ii'
d cohvailed. Verbal precision was NJ
nveszed. The earliest Fathers quote les
opersctly from the New Testament writing
, labou from the Old. The second difficult
muc the imperfection of the text of tn
asonshers themselves. AS in the case
nakeiler ancient authors. their writings II
havs,e emendation, having been expose
usual sources of corruption. Whe
'red inssasc was made the subject of pa
Jr., alar comment, as, for example, in tt
lature, setical writings of Origen. write
ries in nc first half of the third century, I
. been u scrirtura passage is a theme