New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-10-03
DIR. RAMSAY LECTURES.
HIS SECOND AND THIRD ADDRESS ON THE
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE EASTERN AND
WESTERN TEXTs-oUEsTION OF COMMON
CONGRATULATIONS THAT POINT

WESTERN TExTs-oUEsTIoN OF COMMON
CONGRATULATIONS THAT POINT
TO THE SAME AUTHOR.
Auburn ~ Y, Oct. 2 (SpeciaL)-The growing in
terest in DR.. Ramsay's lectures on the travels CT
ST. Paul given in the Morgan Course Of Auburn
Theological Seminary, was shown by the Increased
attendance the second lecture on Friday and the
third this afternoon. The seating capacity OF
Willard Memorial Chapel has proved insufficient for
the occasions. and the ushers were compelled to
carry In chairs to accommodate the guests. Al last
Fridays meeting DR.. Ramsay said In part
Before | begin this second lecture proper wish
to revert to the history Of the text which hoped
number of cases in which details given In one manu-
script are omitted in the Others This occasions TS
many details given In one class Of manuscript:
as, for INSTANCE, the Western text. are not found
variety Of manuscripts and has been restored to
the form which it had in the fourth century TINS
library and one which was found on Noun, Sinai
snail speak OF the Eastern as the approved text
sF 4 hs as Sui on sne is
original an excellent copy; While the Eastern
text mas been @ dssrs mas n
The Western vary largely. The oldest of these
by Beza 1t has had a wider influence than the
name Western would indicate. SO much can be as
The mistakes cannot be eliminated from the West
ern text without great labor. is besides.
that the mistakes in that manuscript wh.ca may be
called the iteza Coiex may be attributed TO changes
made by translators; but when We look at the de-
tail OF his proof find that he does not fulfil his
promise to prove all OF this This critic. Mr. Chase,
has not given any theory OF the character OF me
man who made this manuscript; ne has to suppose
desire. to change the original without giving any
another professor Of Cambridge who advanced an
other and different theory he ,b. rfs s4s ssr
not due to the changes by the translator He
ae a d6 ana a no as made on hs case
that this Latin text Is the cause Of some OF these
errors.
Lei us examine some Of these variations In Acts
xii. TO- the approved text says and they went out:
Again in cha Chapter 5" H. l. the Beza text adds and
he omitted Thessaly" This seems TO be given as an
XIX chapter the 9th verge where the approved text
says. reasoning dali, in the schools" the Beza
especially TO this class OF errors because We can
most readily discuss these. The question is. are
been added by later writers; It seems incredible
that should have concocted these changes unless
ne had some reason believe that he Tad the truth
and that 1t came TO him from some authoritative
T @ IN H e S shafa s OF early
tradition sSnn45 m ma, that th TsI little d
| bered only the important matters There are other
changes In The Rs 1 text socn ~ as attribute the
| which the other manuscripts do not mention.
DATE OF TEXTUAL CHANGES.
second century The only other supposon is that
they we're genuine parts OF the original text For
my own part am always driven back TO my earlier
decision tina, the valuable parts OF the Beza text
were made by who thought that he had good
| authority for the changes. He seems to have two
| reasons for making tn additions. The first was
probably that he might give greater information
and the second that Re might add greater clear
Let US suppose fer the moment that the Be=a
text Is a part of the original. How can we account
for the differences in the Eastern text? Some claim
that these little details may have dropped out; for
some details are given and others omitted though
| would be that both the Eastern and the Western
| hand; from the same author. and that this author
| made n second copy He sent one copy TO Theoph-
| illus and II he gave the task OF making a second
copy to an amanuensis the errors might have been
made the copying: II re hims II made the second
copy then he would doubt introduce new
| thoughts and slight changes. This is only human
nature. and any nun In making copy OF letter
would do now. This explanation is recognized
theory first advanced by Or Glass. Of Germany.
deserves the most careful study 1t is yet too early
| 1: is too much the habit OF scholars to demand
single city for the origin OF single text The con-
slant communication ot different nations must be
Christians which determines the form Of the text
The variations in each chapter must be taken into
account There are much greater variations IN one
| those chapters which relate to travel
Acts and look at the characteristics OF style The
author hardly alludes to himself except In the the
|
! actors This fact is remarkable The narrative
takes the form OF diary OF facts as they occurred
before the reader. The eyewitness puts down what
attracts his attention and the reader can collect
| tive and complete the picture The accounts In
Acts are more the account OF the eyewitness than
simply mentions ship Of Alexandria and omits
al a" of % etc Was Ms get sps s1e
GERS from other sections But the Sc thoughts
| tra,in thn snip and Iel y
az the historian would have done The style or
hs' that much is for the
agination. For example. In chapter XVII. H. he mem
| ton OF the kind of violence to which he refers
LUKE WAS NOT MUCH OF A SAILOR.
| the reason that they escape the attention Of the
writer. In this diary in the twenty seventh chap
ter have such omissions. The trip mentioned
was made In three ships. but the name OF only one
| Is given. Each equally important. but the
! name OF the third only remains In the authors
| mind Another characteristic Is the variety
| OF terms OF navigation. Either the author
must have had great knowledge OF the sea
and sea voyages. or he must have seen, seen tn the
| or is he a landsman? The fact that he omitted
Of two Is Soa na a me- Tai
| notice the name: but the seaman learns hrst the
1 %s he s sa and Of
we get this from the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth chapters we Sndil ko vi W hquHc
| il the same method is used In the rest OF
| the book These two chapters most critics
recognize as clear case OF hrst-century
| literature: but others say that they
| are merely fragment and that the second century
writer is not accountable for them Hence for the
| rccessity for us to follow our plan. We observe
| tbat verse 4 Is the only in which the
author seems to think II necessary IT., to explain
The only reason why he thought this necessary
was that in chapter XXI verses ana :. ne had
told Thai in making the journey before he had
come on the other side and that the winds prevent
Cd his coming that way on this occasion This IL
saf would show that the author OF chapters
Txviii and xxi is the same person. In this de-
cr,ntIon there Is an addition In the Western text
v, p"nrnrtmnately not in the Codex, Beza Even
@escot and Hort put this addition In their S,n s mar
5t1n,. saws i'm the voyage In all respects this
nnddition suits the circumstances perfectly we
shall now so on In the other lectures 10 conpa'e