CHAPTER III

.

=Theory and Praxis of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament=, ...... 156-246

Task and method—Internal criticism—Conjecture—Eclectic method—Genealogical method—External testimony—Lucian: his relation to the Peshitto—Hesychius: Codex B—Eusebius: Pamphilus: Origen: Euthalius: Evagrius: Athos manuscript—Later revisers—Pre-Origenic texts—Heretics: Artemonites, Marcosians, Basilides, Noetus, Valentinians, Gnostics, Marcionites, Arians—Marcion: his relation to the Western text—Tatian: question as to a Greek Harmony: his relation to the Western text—The Western text: theory of Blass: the Lucan writings in Codex Bezae: conclusion of Luke’s Gospel: the Apostolic Decree—Rules of Textual criticism: sources of error: illegibility: homoioteleuton: transposition of letters and words: itacism: substitution of synonymous terms: additions: conscious alterations: stylistic, liturgic, and dogmatic changes: critical canons: proper names: textus brevior—Conclusion.

=Critical Notes on Various Passages of the New Testament=, ...... 247-335

=Appendix I. List of Greek and Latin Writers=, ...... 336

=Appendix II. List of Passages referring to= ἀντιγραφα, ...... 340

=Index of Subjects=, ...... 343

=Index of New Testament Passages referred to=, ...... 350

ABBREVIATIONS.

The symbols used to indicate the various manuscripts and versions will be found in the chapter on Materials. The student will compare the Notes in Tischendorf’s _Edito octava minor_ and the Index in the _Octava maior_, vol. iii. The following contractions are employed in the course of this work:—

_GGA._ = Göttinger gelehrte Anzeigen. _GK._ = Zahn’s _Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_. See p. 196 n. 2. _LCbl._ = Literarisches Centralblatt. PRE. = Protestantische Real-Encyklopädie. See p. 7. _ThLbl._ = Theologisches Literaturblatt. _ThLz._ = Theologische Literaturzeitung. _ThStKr._ = Theologische Studien und Kritiken. _TiGr._ = Tischendorf’s _N.T. Graece_, _editio octava maior_, vol. iii. See p. 6. _TU._ = Texte und Untersuchungen. _Urt._ = Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel. See p. 6. W-H. = Westcott and Hort. See p. 21. W-W. = Wordsworth and White. See pp. 123, 131. _ZdmG._ = Zeitschrift der morgenländischen Gesellschaft. _ZfdPhil._ = Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie. _ZfwTh._ = Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie.

ADDENDA.

_Page 6._ To the Literature add: Rüegg, _Die neutestamentliche Textkritik seit Lachmann_, Zurich, 1892.

_Page 74._ Two fragments of N.T. text have been published by Grenfell and Hunt in _The Amherst Papyri, Part I.: The Ascension of Isaiah and other theological fragments_ (London, 1900). The first consists of Hebrews i. 1, written, along with Genesis i. 1, in a small uncial hand of the late third, or more probably early fourth, century at the top of a _papyrus_ leaf containing a letter from Rome. The verse from the N.T. exhibits the reading τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν, which is not found in any of the manuscripts. The other fragment consists of Acts ii. 11-22 with lacunae, written on vellum and dating apparently from about the fifth or sixth century. It contains a few singular readings such as: (verse 12) πρὸς τὸν ἄλλον; (13) ἐχλεύαζον λέγοντες, which is practically the reading of D, the only difference being that D has the compound verb διεχλεύαζον; (14) γνωστὸν ὑμῖν, apparently; (17) μετὰ ταῦτα with B instead of ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις, and also, apparently, ἐνύπνια with the _textus receptus_; (20) πρὶν ἢ with the _textus receptus_; (21) ὃς ἂν with the _textus receptus_.

_Page 91._ Add: J. R. Harris, _Further Researches into the History of the Ferrar Group_, 1900.

_Page 106 (5)._ Add: Hilgenfeld, _Thomas von Heraklea und die Apostelgeschichte_, in the _ZfwTh._, 1900, 3.

_Page 137._ Add: Forbes Robinson, _Coptic Apocryphal Gospels_, in _Texts and Studies_, iv. 2, 1896.

_Page 139._ To Kauffmann’s _Beiträge_ must now be added: v. _Der codex Brixianus_ (_ZfdPhil._ xxxii. pp. 305-335). In this important contribution Kauffmann corroborates the view expressed by Burkitt in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, i. pp. 129-134, that Wordsworth and White were mistaken in regarding the text of codex Brixianus (f) as a recension of the Old Latin closely allied to Jerome’s revision. Burkitt holds that the text of Brixianus was corrected from the Vulgate, and afterwards altered in conformity with the Gothic. The only difference between Burkitt and Kauffmann is that the latter believes that the text of Brixianus was derived from an earlier Latin manuscript which had been altered in conformity with the Gothic, and that it was _afterwards_ assimilated to the Vulgate. This view must also be noted in connection with the Old Latin codex gue (see p. 118). For an example of the connection between Brixianus and the Gothic see the note to p. 289, below.

_Page 162._ Add: (9) John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, in cod. min. 90. _Page 289._ John vii. 15. For Ἰουδαῖοι f here reads _turbae_, which is interesting as agreeing with the Gothic, which has _manageius_. Compare the view of Burkitt and Kauffmann in the note to p. 139 above. The variant is not mentioned in Tischendorf.

##