The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1889-02-13


we call the autograph. When the Bible
was written, and for centuries afterwards
copies Of the Bible could be obtained only
by copying it by hand from other manu-.
scripts; because printing had not yet
been invented. Thus the number of
written copies of the Bible constantly in.
creased, until printing was invented. At
this time copying the Bible by hand in
writing was stopped, because it was far
easier to print copies of the Bible than to
write them. In this process of copying,
however, which went on before the In
vention OF printing, some mistakes were
made. The original autograph, it may
be, was not copied exactly. Some word
was lett out; or some word, not in the
original, was inserted. Consequently,
each copy made from this copy perpetu.
ated, and it may be added to, this error
of the first copyist Thus errors in the
different manuscripts of the Bible In
creased When printing was invented
manuscript copy of the Bible was taken
up as copy from which to print the
Bible. Further examination showed,
however, that these various manuscripts
often differed from each other as to the
wording Of certain sentences, or even the
omission or insertion OF certain whole par
agraphs The work for these men to do
then, was to find out which of these man
uscripts was or were most nearly iden-
teal with the original autograph. To
determine this, is the work OF Textual
Criticism.
During the past century some of the
ablest and most learned men In the world
have devoted themselves earnestly and
conscientiously to this study and work.
Their results are chiefly summed up in
what we now call the New Version" of
the Bible. After this earnest and con-
scientious study, and as the result of it,
these men regard certain manuscripts as
the best authority on the New Testament
text, 4. e, they think certain manuscripts
most accurately represent the language
of the original inspired writer's. Cor any
further knowledge desired on the study
of Textual Criticism, the reader is referr-
ed to Philip Schaf's Companion to the
Greek Testament and English Version,
PIP. III and f.
In the article already referred to, Mr..
Howlson takes issue with these critics.
All the writer wishes to do here is to
place the Issue where it belongs, not be.
tween Mr.. Howison and himself, but be-
tween Mr.. Howison and these textual
critics, who represent, let us bear in mind,
In their results the fruit OF the past cen.
tury's hard work. These scholars, repre-.
sented by such men as Carl Lachmann,
Professor of Classical Phiology in Berlin;
Constantin Won Tisohendorf, Professor OF
Theology at Leipsic, and called by DR..
Philip Schaff by far the most industri
ous enterprisins, and successful textual
critic OF the nineteenth century, Samuel
Prideaux Tregelles, who devoted his
whole life to this work; Mr.. Henry Afford,
renowned as one of the greatest among
the English comm ntstors of the Bible;
Drs. Westcott and Hort, whose recent
critical edition of the New Testament is
used as the best text by all the leading
Theological seminaries of the United
States, England, Scotland, and Germany;
tie board of reVisers of the New Tesla.
ment, which included the representatives
OF the ablest and most advanced scholar.
ship Of the age, in this department; all
these agree in saying that the word
"broken" should not be found in l Cor.
Il : "A, because it was not in the original
autograph OF Paul.
The writer goes to this length in the
matter, and that too at the risk of weary
ing the reader with this dry study, be.
cause Mr.. Howison's article would ind.
cate that this reading, which rejects the
word broken is supported by very
scanty and insignificant school of textual
critics. The writer does not profess
ability in Textual Criticism, but he does
profess to be able to decide for the
weightiest testimony presented. Such
has been his effort here. When such an
array as this is presented, when the text
which 10 accepted as the best by all the
leading semlnaries OF Theology in the
world, rejects certain reading, the writer
must confess that his love for tradition is
not sufficiently strong to gainsay the
testimony.
Mr.. Howisou is rightin saying Here
our = = brother commits himself, " but
not, as the writer hopes, " disastrously.
to the very worst form of the principles
announced by Westcott and Hort Wei
presume he herein simply follows the lead
of the able and honored professor Of
whom he has spoken" The professor.
herein referred to, did not instruct the
writer in the department of Textual
Criticism-another professor in the same
seminary did that and it is but Just to
say that if the writer shows ignorance
OF TeXtual Criticism, and the "ribbon"