Excerpt from: C. W. Hodge, NT Criticism,
unpublished lectures, (Princeton, 1880)
I. Textual Critics: - 1600-1880
Walton 1657
Bishop John Fell, 1675 Oxford
John Mill 1707 Oxford
Bentley 1699 Cambridge
Bengel 1734 Tubingen
Wetstein 1693 - 1754
Griesbach. 1745 - 1812 Halle
Matthai - 1782 Moscow
Scholz Bonn
Lachmann 1831-1850
Tischendorf 1849 - 1874 Leipsic
Tregelles. - 1854
Wescott and Hort. - 1870s
Scrivener. - 1860s - 1870s
Summary
Recap - with Scrivener and Tregelles
Background
In a lot of ways, Hodge's 1880 lectures on TC read like a "WHO's WHO" on Textual Criticism up until the critical period which began with the notorious Revised Version of 1882.
His incredibly fair and balanced view was partly a result of the very real crisis of uncertainty as to a clear and unambiguous scientific method or appropriate procedure to follow in reconstructing or improving the text of the NT.
The honesty and detail of Hodge allows us in hindsight to evaluate the efforts and thinking, sometimes muddled and unorganized, which led to the disastrous period of individual and subjective 'eclecticism' that quickly followed.
As Harnack quipped regarding this era,
"That time is over. It was an episode during which science learned much, and after which it must forget much."
- (quoted by Sir Frederic Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship, (London, 1948)
Excerpt from: C. W. Hodge, NT Criticism,
unpublished lectures, (Princeton, 1880)
Headings have been added for clarity and navigation purposes.
CRITICAL EDITIONS AND PRINCIPLES
(Textual Critics in Chronological Order)
Walton's Polyglott, London 1657.
Walton was afterwards Bishop Chester 6 vols., folio. 5th N. T. with five oriental versions. Text Regia—Alexandrian MS. collated with 16 others under Archbishop Usher. Reading of Velez.
John Fell, Bishop, Oxford 1675
800 (pgs?) with 18 new MSS.
John Mill 1707 Oxford
- after 30 years labor. With full critical apparatus 30,000 different readings. Led to alarm and discussion. Charged that violated inspiration. Whitby's review of Mill insists on the common text.
Bentley. Master Trinity College, Cambridge, 1699.
Allayed this fear. Proposals and materials for an edition which was never published. Labors in restoring text of Vulgate, and establishment of Greek text by comparison.
Bengel. Contemporary with Bentley 1687- 1752.
Published 4 vol. (Gnomon - commentary) Tubingen 1734. Two advances—formation of the rule tliat the more difficult reading is to be preferred to the easier, and the recognition of similarity in the variations of MSS. proving a common origin. Two fomilies, African and Asiatic, and proposed MSS. should count not numerically but by families. His text is the first which professedly departed from the Textus Receptus (of Stephen). First to quote both sides. Great advance scientifically.
Wetstein 1693 - 1754
- opponent of Bengel theologically as well as in criticism. Charged ancient MSS. with alterations after the Latin. Most numerous authorities appealed to, give Elzevir text. His edition valuable depositor}^ of classical, Patristic, and Rabbinical illustrations. Augmented materials of criticism.
Griesbach. 1745 - 1812.
The founder of modern criticism. [!?] Professor in Halle, pupil of Lemler and Ernesti. Carried out Bengel's idea of classifications, subdividing the Africans, making them families, Western, Alexandrian, Constantinopolitan. These contain recensions of the text. The Occidental was the oldest, used in Italy and North Africa, greatly corrupted, contained in D.,old Latin and Vulgate versions and Latin Fathers. The Alexandrian, made beginning 3d century, being an attempted revision of the former, found in Origen, ABC L of gospels and Egyptian version. Constantinopolitan about 4th century, from a combination of the two former, comprising i^ of old MSS. Union of two recensions decisive. If two older decisive the modern became umpire. Application of the principle favored oldest text. Principles:
(1) No readings to be adopted without support of some ancient testimony.
(2) In themselves, the shorter reading is to be preferred to the longer.
(3) The most difiicult, harsh and unusual is to be preferred to the simple one.
(4) The orthodox reading is suspicious.
This theory of recensions was applied with different conclusions by other critics, e. g., Hug, Eichhorn, and is believed not to be historically proved, and has given place to a different conception of the grouping of MSS.
Matthai, 1782,
Classical Professor, Moscow, published an edition at Riga, based on 70 MSS. brought from Mt. Athos, with 30 others, all of them of Latin family.
Scholz. R. C. Dean of Theology at Bonn.
Much copied in England, because advocating the authority ot later MSS. gave him a conservative position towards the common text. Travelled and collected. List of MSS. double Griesbach's.
Adopted complicated recension theory. Afterward fell back on simple division into Alexandrian and Constantinopolitan. But gave chief weight to Constantinopolitan on the ground that they agreed among themselves.
Edition quarto 2 vols 1830 - 36 Unreliable and full of errors. In answer to his principle it is said, 1st, that modern MSS. differ among themselves as much as they do from the older.
Scrivener, who upholds the later text, puts it on different ground, claiming individual authority for later MSS. as independent witnesses of older which are lost. Claims that later proof has swept away forever the idea of a standard Constantinopolitan text. 2nd, Admitting the fact, it may be otherwise accounted for, by intentional assimilation of copies. 3rd, The testimony of comparitive criticism.
At close of his life Scholz declared himself ready to adopt marginal readings of his first edition into the text, which he has noted as Alexandrian.
Lachmann—Small 12 mo. 1831.
Edited in 2 vols. 1842-1850. First to regard the text as question of evidence alone, and ancient evidence. Admitted for the gospels only ABC and fragments P Q T L ; Acts D E, and Paul D E H, Latin V and Fathers. He restored text of Ante-Jerome Latin and compared. Proposed to give text of 4th century, on principle that attempt to go beyond it would cause more errors than it would remove. He distinguished between the duty of the editor and the exegete. Great value of Lachmann's services. Difficulties are the too narrow range of authorities, and the wrong problem is presented.
TISCHENDORF - 1st edition in 1841
2nd in Leipsic, 1849, with Prolegomena. 7th edition most complete Prolegomena. 8th complete except Prolegomena. Died December, 1874.
Endeavors to form a text upon ancient evidence alone, and appeals to all sources. Principles:
(1) Reading peculiar to one ancient document is suspicious, and one which seems to have originated in the revision of a learned man.
(2) Readings however supported, are to be rejected when they appear to have originated in errors of copyists.
(3) In parallel passages readings are preferred which are not in precise accordance.
(4) In various readings, that is to be adopted which appears to have given occasion to the rest and best accounted for their origin.
True statement of Bengel's principles. Difficulty with his statements is, it regards only intentional errors - and leads to extremes.
(5) Regard is to be had to style of NT Greek and of the individual author.
Tischendorf is criticized for ignorance of oriental languages, quoting from inaccurate Latin translations; for changing his opinions, e. g., Edition 8th differs from 7th in 3369 places; for giving undue weight to Aleph and making Aleph / B together stronger than all the other testimony.
Tregelles. - 1854.
History of the printed text. 1856, rewrote Introduction to Textual Criticism in Home's Introduction. History NT issued in parts from 1857-1872. Paralyzed in 1861, died 1875, while the Apocalypse was incomplete and no Prolegomena. Proposed to give evidence only which he had personally inspected. Result like Lachmarin, to confine to very oldest witnesses. Attention to Various Versions and Fathers. Give selection of evidence.
1. He proposes (in his Printed Text) to give a text on the oldest authorities, so as to present as far as possible that commonly received in the 4th century
2. In cases in which we have certain proofs which carry us still nearer the Apostolic age to use the data so afforded.
3. In cases where the oldest documents agree in certain error, to state the reading so supported, but not to follow it, and to give the ground on which another readingis preferred.
4. In matters altogether doubtful, to state distinctly the conflicting evidence, and then approximate a true text.
Tregelles calls both exegetical judgment, and modern MSS. conjecture. The principle seems to differ more than the results. It is a matter of evidence. In majority of cases all agree. And there is growing agreement in the majority of doubtful cases.
Wescott and Hort. - 1870s
- Gospels, Acts and Catholic Epistles, in hand for 20 years, not published. Intended to furnish most careful weighing of evidence.
[Note: At this point in time, Westcott and Hort had not published their critical edition of the Greek NT, and Hort had not yet released his promised large Introduction (Vol. II) of their Critical text.
Hort was at this time in the very process of convincing the Revision Committee for the new Bible to adopt his textual changes, and in those closed sessions he probably honed his arguments against Scrivener and others who opposed him. The only knowledge of Hort came from the sales-pitchs by Bishop Lightfoot and Ellicott:
Lightfoot on Revised Version <- - Click here for more info
]
Scrivener. - 1870s
Introduction to criticism. Small and practically valuable edition, showing by heavy type the various readings adopted by several authorities - but without the evidence and without his own judgment. Stands alone in advocating independent value of later MSS. and in allowing greater force to internal evidence.
1. The text cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, but must be the result of an estimate and comparison of them all.
2. Where there is a real agreement of MSS. up to the 6th century in the Gospels and the 9th in Acts, the testimony of later MSS. and Versions must be regarded with suspicion, unless upheld by strong internal evidence.
3. Where the oldest MSS disagree, the testimony ot later uncials and cursives is of importance as witnesses for older MSS. than those now extant.
4. The highest value belongs to readings from remote and independent sources, and those least alike in character.
Summary
No text finally settled by agreement of critics. Others may be discovered. Text of versions not settled. Much to be done in editing text of various Fathers. Results negative, but all the more valuable for that.
Recapitulation of Principles and Present State of The Controversy.
Of the three depositions of the text Various Versions and quotations are a secondary evidence to MSS. Among MSS. the oldest are probably the purest - but in every question their testirnony must be supported by external evidence of Various Versions and quotations. A few cursives bear the same test.
What is to decide where these ancient authorities differ? Here the two schools divide. The school of Lachmann, so called, appeal alone to the comparative criticism. Scrivener appeals to modern MSS. and internal evidence.
Much weight is given by all to the principle of grouping. Not Griesbach's idea of recensioiss. But recognizing similarities in certain groups, on the principle of variety of evidence, the wider the range of testimony, the more different in internal character and the more separated in geographical position the stronger the inference.
Scrivener says B the best ; B C the strongest combination. ABC very strong. Scrivener opposed statement of canons of external evidence:
Scrivener.
1. The text cannot safely be derived from any one set of authorities, but must be the result of an estimate and comparison of them all.
2. Where there is a real agreement of MSS. up to the 6th century in the Gospels and the 9th in Acts, the testimony of later MSS. and Versions must be regarded with suspicion, unless upheld by strong internal evidence.
3. Where the oldest MSS disagree, the testimony ot later uncials and cursives is of importance as witnesses for older MSS. than those now extant.
4. The highest value belongs to readings from remote and independent sources, and those least alike in character.
Contrast with Tregelles's statement:
Tregelles
1. He proposes (in his Printed Text) to give a text on the oldest authorities, so as to present as far as possible that commonly received in the 4th century
2. In cases in which we have certain proofs which carry us still nearer the Apostolic age to use the data so afforded.
3. In cases where the oldest documents agree in certain error, to state the reading so supported, but not to follow it, and to give the ground on which another readingis preferred.
4. In matters altogether doubtful, to state distinctly the conflicting evidence, and then approximate a true text.
Tregelles calls both exegetical judgment, and modern MSS. conjecture. The principle seems to differ more than the results. It is a matter of evidence. In majority of cases all agree. And there is growing agreement in the majority of doubtful cases.
The following are examples of some of the more important changes proposed. .... Matt, xvi. 9-20 ; Lk. xxiv. 57 ; Matt. vi. 12, 13 ; John v. 3, 4 ; John vii. 53 - viii. 11 ; John i, 18: John iii. 13 ; Acts viii. 23 ; Acts ix. 28; 1. John v. 7, 8 ; I. Tim. iii, 16 ; I. Pet. iii. 15 : I. John iv. 2, 3.