Various Readings of the New Testament
Various Readings of the New Testament
By various readings (commonly abbreviated v.r. for the singular, and for the plural vv. rr.) are meant the differences observed in different manuscript copies of the Holy Scriptures. Those found in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Test. will be considered below.
The writings of the New Test. were copied by hand, from the age of the apostles to the date of the first printing of the New Test., a period of about thirteen centuries. During that time copies were greatly multiplied. With the utmost care, there would of necessity be occasional mistakes in copying. The errors of one manuscript might be repeated in the copy made from it, and others added, and thus the number be continually increasing.
The liability to mistake was greatly increased by the mode of writing in the oldest manuscripts. What is called current hand, in which a long word may be written without taking the pen from the paper, was not used. Each letter, of the size and general shape of our capitals, was made separately by itself, many with more than one separate stroke of the pen. There was no division of words. All were written continuously in an unbroken line, as may be seen in the specimens given in vol. 1, p. 155, and vol. 2, p. 389 of this Cyclopaedia. As the eye could not readily distinguish words and clauses so run together, the scribe would naturally copy each letter by itself from its place in the line, often confounding letters similar in form. In these characters, termed uncial, all extant manuscripts dating prior to about the 10th century were written, and hence they are called uncial manuscripts. SEE MANUSCRIPTS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT; also SEE UNCIALS.
Far more numerous are the cursive manuscripts, so called, written in current hand from about the 10th century and onward (see vol. v; p. 727, and specimens 2, 3, and 4 on p. 728). Their value depends on the evidence that they are trustworthy copies of ancient manuscripts now lost, and contain readings of the true text of which these are now the only manuscript witnesses. On such evidence some of them are held in high estimation by all the leading authorities in textual criticism. That these are of great value in deciding where ancient manuscripts disagree, and also where their united testimony may for just reasons be discredited, is held by a highly influential class of critics, of whom Frederick H. Scrivener is the leading representative (see his Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Test. [2nd ed. 1874]).
For the history of the text, and its variations in manuscripts prior to the oldest now extant, SEE NEW TESTAMENT; for the theoretic classification of various readings in extant MSS., SEE RECENSIONS. It is proper to add here that the earliest of those variations, however minute, are preserved in the primary documents that still remain, showing that the sacred text has suffered no important change that cannot now be detected (Westcott).
I. Origin and Nature. Various readings have arisen from many different causes. These have been ascertained by careful comparison of manuscripts. They are mostly such as might be inferred from the nature of the case; and observation has shown that all variations in manuscripts may be referred to one or other of these causes, the knowledge of which often aids’ in determining what is the true reading. (The materials for the following summary are derived in part from Westcott’s articles New Testament, 30-40, and Language of the New Testament, p. 2141, 1-4, in Smith, Dict. of the Bible [Amer. ed.]; Scrivener, Introd. to Text. Crit. of New Test.; Tregelles, Introd. toi Text. Crit. of New Test. in vol. 4 of Horne’s- Introduction.)
1. Accidental variations, or errata, from various causes.
(1.) Merely clerical errors, or slips of the pen;: words omitted or repeated, misspelled or partially written. This is a numerous class, rarely of any importance, to which copyists of long documents are always liable. The peculiar reading how strait (Mat 7:14) may have arisen, as Scrivener suggests, from the omission of the large initial O, reserved for subsequent revision.
(2.) Errors of sound, arising from different ways of representing the same sound. Such are the changes in the oldest MSS. between and , and ; and in the later between and , and , and , and . The interchange of and (pronounced alike) is continual; and , and , and the like, being used indiscriminately. The vowels and are thus interchanged Rom 5:1, , we have, and , let us have. The latter has the weight of MS. authority, and, with some constraint, yields a pertinent sense. (see Tischendorf, Nov. Test. [8th ed.]), though the former seems required by the connection. More doubtful is Rom 6:15, where , shall we sin? is feebly supported; and , may we sin? has abundant support. At and a are interchanged in Mat 11:16, where is but slightly, and (omitting ) strongly, supported by ancient authorities. So constant is this interchange that the difference in spelling has no weight in determining the true form of the word. The pronouns , , and their cases are perpetually interchanged: 1Jn 1:4, for . Even the readings , Luk 16:12, and , Act 17:28, are found in the Codex Vaticanus.
(3.) Errors of Sight. Of such errata a prolific source is furnished by the ancient mode of writing in an unbroken line, without division of words. In the confused sequence of letters thus strung together, the eye would not readily distinguish single words, or letters similar in form. Hence arose false division of words; similar letters interchanged, repeated, or omitted; repetition or omission of the same combination of letters; omission of the second repetition of the same letter or word, etc. In some of the following examples the MSS. are cited, by the usual notation (vol. 5, p. 724, 3 of this Cyclopaedia), showing to some extent how they stand related to each other. The rough breathing is added in some cases to make the form more readily understood: Mar 15:6, (A, B, ) (B3, , C, N, X); Rom 13:9, (A, B, , D, E), (F, G, L, P); Mat 21:18, ,(B, , L), (B2, , C, E, F, G, H etc.); Mar 8:17, (B, C, D, L, N), (A, X); Luk 7:21, (a, F, L, U); without (GREEK) repeated, A, B, , D, E, G, H, etc.). From such accidental repetition arose the false reading in Rev 6:1; Rev 6:3; Rev 6:5; Rev 6:7. The true reading is simply, Come! (), summoning forth each rider to the service assigned him. The uncial text would stand thus: . B of the Apoc. reads it in Rev 6:1; Rev 6:5; Rev 6:7, (). There can be no doubt that arose from accidental repetition; for in Rev 6:3, where does not follow, is not followed by . In the same way arose the of , which even its partial discoverer makes no account of here.
(4.) Homeoteleuton is so common a cause of error in the uncial text as to procure for it a specific name. When two successive clauses or sentences begin or end similarly, the eye of the copyist may be misled by the similarity, and omit or repeat one of them: Luk 6:1, (A, C, D, E, H, K, M, R, S, U, V, X); omitted in B, , L, probably from having the same termination as the preceding word. In 1Jn 2:23, two successive sentences both end with . The copyist, after transcribing the first, and seeing at the end of the second what he had just written, proceeded with the next following words. Hence the loss of that genuine utterance of the apostle, in all the copies known when our current Greek text was formed; and hence its insertion in bracketed italics, as of doubtful authenticity, in the English New Test. The recovery of the old MSS. (A, B, , C, etc.) has fully vindicated its title to its place there.
2. Incidental variations, peculiar to the age and country or mental habits of the copyist. These are due to several causes, chiefly the intermingling of dialects in the , the influence of the Alexandrian version of the Sept., and the pedantry of the Atticists.
(1.) Differences in orthography and forms of words; dialectic usages of the copyist, or possibly of the original writer: Act 10:30, (A, B, , C, D), (later form in the cursives); Act 7:28, (B, , C, D), (A, E, H, P); Mar 1:10, (B , L, A), (A, P, , ); Acts 11:51, (A, B, ), B3, E, H,’, P); Rom 15:15, (, C, D, E, F, G, L, P), (A, B); Jam 2:1, (A, B , C), (K, L, P); Mar 1:27, (A, B, , C, , G, XL, ), (E, F,H,: K, M, S, U, V); 2Co 3:2, (A, B, , DF, G), (K, L, P); Joh 10:22, (B, , D, L), (A, B3,’X); Act 24:4, (A, , B, E, H), (B3, H, P); Heb 9:18, (A, , D, E), (C, K, L, P). These examples betray the tendency to euphonic change in the usage of the later MSS. The doubling of p, usually neglected in the older MSS., is a grammatical correction in the later ones; as in Mat 9:36, (B, , C, D, L), (E F, G, K, L, U, X).
(2.) Tense-forms of Verbs. (a.) Of the same verb: Luk 1:31, (A,B, , C, D); Jam 3:1, (A, B. , C), (K, L, P); Joh 9:10, (B, , C, D, E, F, G, H, L, M, X), : (A, K, U, II); Act 12:10, (A, B, , D), (E, H, L, P); Mat 5:21, (B, D, E, K), (, L, M, S, U, , ); Rev 14:13, (A, , C, B), (P); Act 10:45, (B ), (A, D, E, H, L, P).;: Act 10:39, (A, B, , C, D, E), (H, L, P); 1Jn 2:19, (A, B, C), (K, L, P).; Luk 3:22, (A, E, G, H, L, S, U, X, , ), (B , F, K, M, U, , ). (b.) Interchange of tenses or modes where either might seem. apposite: Joh 6:37, (B, L, T, X), (, I)); Luk 20:19, (A, B, , L, R), (C, D); Joh 7:29, (B, L, T), (, D); Joh 7:19, (, L, T T , , ), (B),D, H, n H); Mat 9:19, (, C, D), (B, F, G, K, L, S, U, X , ); Joh 4:17, (B, ), (A, C, D, L); Joh 8:39, (B, C, D), (L, T, X, , , ); 2:28, (A, B, C, C, P), (, K, L); Joh 8:39, (B, , D, L, T), (C, X , , , ); (c.) Interchange of the same tense from different verbs of like signification: Act 9:26, (A,B, , C), (E, H, L, P); Mar 1:26 (part.), (B, , L), (A, C, D. , , ).
(3.) Of case-forms there are some variations; as Mat 26:52, (A, B, , C), (B, D, , , , N); Luk 24:1; Luk 24:1, (A,. B, , C, D, G, H, L), (E, P, S, U,V).
(4.) Exchange of terms so nearly equivalent as to be used indifferently in certain connections: Mat 12:48; Mat 15:12; Mat 17:20; Mat 19:21, (earlier), (later); Mat 22:37, (earlier), (later); Mar 14:31, (earlier), (later); Joh 14:10, (earlier), (later). So interchanged are and , Mat 1:24; and , Mat 17:9; and , Luk 9:22;,: (v attached) and , Mat 14:25; and , Luk 23:33; and , Act 16:39; and. , Mat 13:28. These words, so nearly equivalent in the connection, might readily be confounded in copying.
(5.) The same is true of forms nearly equivalent in sense; as and , and , Act 10:47; and , Joh 19:14; Luk 1:56; and , 2Co 1:7; and , Luk 16:16; and , 12:50, the former only in the later uncials, the latter in the older and some of the later. It is true, also, of other equivalents in sense; as Joh 14:31, (A, , D), and (B, L): having the same meaning, they might easily be confounded in copying.
(6.) Familiar contractions (crasis) abounding in oral speech, and often passing into written language; common in the earlier MSS., and often resolved in the later: Joh 8:55, (B, , D), (A, C, L); 1Co 2:3, (A, B, , C, P), (D, E, F, G, L); Joh 14:16, (B, , D, Q), (A, L, X); Joh 14:21, (B, , D, G, L), (A, E, H,.K).
(7.) Interchange of the minor connectives: Act 4:14, (A, B, , Di), (P); Act 10:48, (B, , E), (A, H, L, P); Mar 1:28, (B, , C, D), (A, , ). (8.) Pronominal forms inserted without affecting the sense: Mat 20:23, (after ); Mat 19:28,. (after ); Rev 14:13, (after ). Specially frequent is the insertion of in an oblique case: Act 11:13, (after ), and Act 12:9 (after ); Mat 25:4, (after ), and 5, 6 (after ) Mat 26:17, (after ), and Mat 27:22 (after ). An instructive case of presumed addition, but more probably of unauthorized omission, occurs in the last clause but one of Luk 12:53. The omission of the pronoun in the four preceding clauses, where the nearer relation of the parties makes it unnecessary, may have occasioned its omission here, where it is required by the more remote relation. Its accidental or misjudged omission being more probable than its unauthorized insertion, the testimony of A, B, , D in its favor should outweigh that of , which yet determined Tischendorf to omit it. Tregelles properly retains it here, and as properly omits it in the next clause (with B, D, L against A, T, X), the relation being already expressed. It is noteworthy that the whole passage, as thus read, is strikingly marked by Luke’s characteristic conciseness and precision of expression.
(9.) Change in the order of words; a numerous class, as may be seen on almost any page of Scrivener’s Novum Testamentum (in the Cambridge classics). Many of these variations differ from each other no more than the English phrases AEneas by name and by name AEneas (Act 9:33); went up straightway and straightway went up (Mat 3:16). Most of them, however, are not easily accounted for. Such cases as and (Act 12:11), and similar colloquial phrases, may have been due to local habit and usage. In the greater number, perhaps, the copyist himself, after reading a clause, may not have recalled, in writing it, the exact order of the words; or he may have been unconsciously misled by one occurring to him more correct or pointed in expression, or more pleasing to the .ear. In many there is ground for such preference; as in Act 9:13, and .
(10.) The article, in the use of which the MSS. are very fluctuating, is sometimes neglected or inserted without apparent ground. Significant is the reading of some MSS. (among them D) in Luk 12:54, When ye see the cloud (the rain-betokening cloud, 1Ki 18:44) rising from the west. But the omission of the article here is strongly attested by A, B, , L, X, .
(11.) In the use and disuse of the elision the MSS. fluctuate: 1Jn 2:16, (A, , K, L), (B, C); 1Co 7:4, (A, B, , C), (D, Ej G, K, L, P). It is probable that the shorter eli.ded form was that of oral speech, and passed into, the earlier written language. More doubtful is the neglected aspiration of mutes before the rough breathing: Luk 12:53, (B, T, 10 , , , ); (A, D, K, L, II).
(12.) Error from the similar construction of two successive clauses: Jam 2:18, the first (K, L) for (A, B, , C, P), the copyist confounding the of the two clauses. His blunder is perpetuated in our current Greek text through the misjudgment of Mill, whose long and. involved exposition of the meaning is its own refutation. The: H’KAINH of Colinaeus (1534) has the true reading. The English version here follows the true reading. In 1Pe 3:20, once– waited. it follows a false reading ( ) without MS. authority, and received on conjecture by Erasmus. The true reading is (A, B, , C, D, P).
(13.) Synonyms, and also words that in certain connections may serve as such,. are readily interchanged: Mat 20:34, o (B, D,’L, G), (, C, N). In Mat 25:16 the reading made [five talents] is equivalent in meaning to gained [five talents]. For the former () are A, , X, , , ; for the latter () are A2, e, B, C, D, L. So likewise, Mat 9:29, (D), (all others); Mat 6:1, (B, , D), (E, K, L, M, S, U, Z). But it may well be doubted whether by the former the Savior meant almsgiving, as implied in the alternative reading. He first states the general principle that good deeds are not to be done to be seen of men, and then illustrates it by the case of ostentatious almsgiving. The phrase was already a familiar one: Psa 106:3, he that doeth righteousness; Isa 58:2, a nation that did righteousness; 1Jn 2:29, every one that doeth righteousness; 3, 7, 10. So likewise Mat 27:4, (A, B, , C, X), (B marg. L).
(14.) Of proper names the variations in spelling are very frequent: 1Co 16:19, (B, , M, P.), (A, C, D, E,F, G); Joh 7:19, (B, , D, , L, S, T, X, , ), (, )., Most significant is the variation in Act 11:20, (A, , D), (B, D2, E,’ H L, P) (comp. Act 6:1). Of places: Mat 4:13, (B, , D,G), (C, E, K;IL, M, P, S, U, V); Mat 15:39, (B, ,D), (E, F, G, H, K, L, S, U, V); Luk 10:30, (B, L, X), (A, B, , C, D, X).
3. Intentional Variations. Of these the greater number affect only the form of the text.
(1.) Grammatical Changes.
(a.) In the oblique case after a preposition, to express what was understood to be the required relation: Act 2:30, (A, B, , 1 C, D), (E, P): Rev 4:2, (A, B, ), (P); Rev 4:9, (A, ), (B, P); Rev 19:5, (A, B. C), (, P); Mar 7:30, (A, N , X, , ), (B, , D, L, ).
(b.) Rectifying a supposed solecism: Matthew 5, 28, (B, D, E,’K, L, S, U,.V), (3,3 M); S’, 32, (B, C, D, F, G, H, K, L, M, P, S, U, V), (, E ); Rev 4:1, (A, B, ), (c, P); Rev 4:8, (A,’B, , P), (in the cursives); Rev 11:4, (A, B, , C), (, P).
(2.). Changes Affecting the Substance of the Text. A careful examination and comparison of such changes will probably lead to the conclusion that the greater part of them at least have passed from the margin into the body of the text through the want of proper discrimination in the copyist. In the old MSS. frequent omissions in the text are found supplied in the margin, to be incorporated in the text of the next copy made from it. This being a standing rule, whatever was written in the margin might be thus incorporated by an incompetent or not sufficient attentive copyist. If a sentence seemed incomplete or irregular in construction, or otherwise obscure, inelegant, or apparently inaccurate, a remedy was suggested in the margin. A conspicuous example occurs in Joh 7:39. The whole verse in the true text reads thus; And this he said concerning the Spirit which they that believe on him should receive; for the Spirit was not yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified. The brevity and partial obscurity of the form was not yet doubtless occasioned the marginal gloss given, found in one uncial, B ( ), and the cursive 254 (). This marginal gloss becoming incorporated with the text, we have the Spirit Was not yet given. The English version properly italicizes given as not authentic Scripture. It is not in the of Colinaeus (1534).
A similar case occurs in Joh 7:8, where (B, L,.T, X, , , , not in , D, K, M, ) probably passed from the margin into the text. This reading, on which the testimony of MSS. is pretty evenly balanced, is proved by historical evidence to be a corruption of the text (see Tischendorf [8th ed.]; Scrivener, Introd. to Text. Crit. [2d ed.], p. 529). It should be observed, moreover, that there was no occasion for this qualification, for Jesus did not go up to the feast at all. Joh 7:10 should read; according to the MSS., But when his brethren were gone up to the feast, then went he up also, not openly, a etc. He went to Jerusalem privately, taking no part there in the public festival (for he could not be found, Joh 7:11), and when it was half over, first made his appearance in the Temple as a teacher (Joh 7:14). In Mar 1:2, (B, , D, L, , (A, E, F, G, H, K, M, P, S, U, V), the writer specially names Isaiah, because his language identifies the promised messenger in the person of John, the voice of one crying in the wilderness. The whole prophecy was fulfilled in him, and the failure to see this, its central point, may have occasioned the marginal comment that passed into the text. In Gal 3:1 the explanatory gloss that ye should not obey the truth is found in C, DC, E, K, L, P, but not in the older uncials A, B, , D, F, G. In Rom 8:1, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, is a gloss taken from Rom 8:4 as characterizing those who are in Christ Jesus. In Act 15:34, but it pleased Silas to abide there still (not in A, B, , E, H, L, P), is a marginal gloss accounting for his presence there, referred to in Act 15:40. The doubtful passage in Joh 5:3-4 is supposed by many to have been a marginal comment (see a full statement of the case, with the reasons for and against its genuineness, in Schaff’s edition of Lange’s Commentary). To a misunderstanding of the apostle’s language in 2Co 8:4, we owe the perversion of his meaning in the current Greek text and in the English version. The words inserted from the margin, , are not in the uncial text (B. , C, D, E, F, G, K, L, P, etc.), and are found only in the cursives. In Mar 7:2 the construction (interrupted by Mar 7:3-4, and resumed at Mar 7:5) seemed incomplete, and hence the marginal supplement, they found fault. Only late uncials (F, K, M, N, S, U, ) have , not found in A, B, , E, GH, L, V. In Mat 25:6 the original form, Behold, the bridegroom! go ye out to meet him, has the air of an excited, midnight cry. The supplemental first appears in the later uncials C, X, r, II, and is not found in B, , C, D, L, Z.
Marked diversities in Hebraistic and Greek phraseology are noted: Mat 21:23, , , and , etc. Here the Hebraism is found in later uncials (E, F, G, H, K, M: S, U, V), and the other in B, , C, D, L. More marked is the Hebraistic Vav convers. represented by (Mat 15:5; Mar 7:12) in the same later uncials, and not in the earlier. The omission of makes the construction easy where its presence has caused much perplexity (see Meyer; also Lange [Amer. ed.]; p. 275).
Assimilation, so called, of the gospels occurs, especially of the synoptic gospels. This arose from the habit of noting in the margin of one gospel the words’ of another for comparison, illustration, or a more full and satisfactory statement. In Mat 25:13, at the close of the parable of the ten virgins, the Savior adds, Watch therefore, for ye know not the day nor the hour. A copyist added, most probably from the margin, the words of Luk 12:40, wherein the Son of man cometh. The words added are not in A, B, , C, D, L, X, , and are found only in C3, r, I3. In Mat 9:13 the Savior’s assertion is, I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. To this the copyist added the marginal gloss from Luk 5:32, , found in later uncials, but not in B, , D, etc. In Luk 20:23, (A, C, D, P), omitted B, , L, was probably added from Mat 22:18; Mar 12:15. In Mar 13:14, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, is transferred from Mat 24:15. Luk 17:36, omitted in all the uncials except D, U, was inserted from Mat 24:40. In Mat 20:22, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with, in later uncials, but not in B, , D, L, Z, is taken from Mar 10:38. In Mat 5:44, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and the words them that despitefully use you, are transferred from Luk 6:27-28. In Luk 5:38, and both are preserved, is from Mat 9:17. In Mat 27:35 the whole verse, after the words casting lots, is from Joh 19:24. The same tendency to supplement one account by another, or to harmonize two accounts of the same occurrence, is seen in Act 9:5-6, where all from ( in Act 9:5 to in Act 9:6 is from Act 26:14-15.
Supplementing of quotations from the Old Test. only partially cited by the sacred writer Mat 15:8, where This people honoreth me with their lips (omitting draweth nigh unto me with their mouth) is the true reading; and Mar 1:2, shall prepare thy way (omitting before thee). Scrivener of (Manual of Text. Crit. p. 12) notes the following. supplements: Luk 4:18, to heal the broken-hearted; Act 7:37, him shall ye hear; Rom 13:9, thou shalt not bear false witness, Heb 2:7, and didst set him over the works of thy hands; 12:20, or thrust through with a dart.
Other supplementary additions came into the text from the margins of MSS. fitted for reading the church lessons, and from lectionaries, church rituals, and liturgies. It was necessary to prefix to each lesson its proper title, or an introductory clause, or the name of the person or class addressed or speaking. In Act 3:11 the title of the lesson, , has come in place of the original . The latter is the reading of A, B, , C, D, E; the former is found in the later uncial P and in cursives. In. Luk 7:31 it was necessary to prefix to the lesson the introductory clause ; found in cursives and the later uncial M, wanting in A, B, D, L, X, . The name of the one addressed, or speaking, or acting, must often be inserted. Hence , in place of , Mat 8:5; added, Mat 4:18; Mat 14:22; transferred from the last clause to the first in Joh 1:44. In Act 8:37, without doubt a marginal note came in from the baptismal formula of a church ritual; wanting in the early MSS. A, B, , C, H, L, P, and feebly accredited otherwise. In 1Jn 5:7-8, from to is now regarded as spurious by all textual critics. They were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on 1Jn 5:8 (Scrivener, Manual of Text. Criticism, 2nd ed. p. 556, who reviews the controversy respecting the passage, with a full statement of the evidence on both sides). In Mat 6:13, from to the end, the doxology is wanting in the oldest uncials, B, , D, Z (A, C, P are defective here), and on other diplomatic grounds is discredited by most textual critics. It probably originated in the early liturgies of the Church. The passage in Joh 7:53; Joh 8:11, bracketed as doubtful in some critical editions and omitted in others, is regarded as authentic history, the record of an actual occurrence in the life of Jesus. The question of its genuineness is fully discussed by Lange (Commentary, Amer. ed. p. 268-271, and the chief authorities on both sides are stated by Dr. Schaff, p. 267). The passage in Mar 16:9-20, omitted in B (though a column is significantly left vacant) and in , is found in A, C, D, E, F, GI H, M, S, U, V, X, , , (see the fill statement of the question of its genuineness in Scrivener, Introd. to Text. Crit. p. 507-513).
Of variations on doctrinal grounds, or in favor of current opinions, no decisive case has been adduced; yet subjective considerations might influence the choice among different extant readings. In Act 20:28 is the reading (B, ) for of A, C, D, E. The former being, as Meyer suggests, Paul’s invariable usage (once , never ), it was written parallel with the latter in the margin, and thence passed into the text. For the substitution of in place of , Joh 1:18, other causes may be assigned more probable than a purposed change of the text from doctrinal preference (see Schaff’s exhaustive note on the passage in his edition of Lange’s Commentary, and Tischendorf’s 8th ed.). Tregelles edits the reading ; Tischendorf, with a truer critical sense and appreciation of evidence, retains the correct reading . To a reverent feeling are probably due such variations as and , Luk 2:33; and , Luk 2:44.
A case of special historical interest, not falling under any of the above classifications, occurs in Rev 15:3 (Engl. version), just and true are thy ways, thou King of-saints. But the MS. from which the book was first printed (professedly) reads, thou King of the nations ( ); appropriately here (comp. the next verse). This is also the reading of A, B of the Apoc. and P (Porphyrian palimpsest). But and C read King eternal (, as in 1Ti 1:17), Lat. Vulg. sceculosrumn (Cod. Am. caeloruni). It is probable, as suggested by Tregelles (The Revelation in Greek, Edited from Ancient Authorities, p. 95), that the true reading, , was in some MSS. written (see above, 1Ti 1:2), then =. Instead of the true reading in his MS., Erasmus followed a corruption of the Vulg. reading sceculoum, its MS. abbreviation sclorum being easily mistaken for satorum, the abbreviation of sanctorum. Thus the reading of the current Greek text, and of the English version of it, rests solely on a mistaken abbreviation in the Latin Vulg.
To an error of sight and ofitacism we owe that wonderful beast of the Apocalypse (Rev 18:8) that was, and is: not, and yet is. The above-named MS. reads ( slightly removed from the preceding syllable, as often in MS.), with a distinctly written a in that syllable, and the accentuation of . The reading is undoubtedly that of the ancient MSS. ( = ), A (C is defective here), B of the Apoc., and P, which have . Erasmus’s copyist, mistaking at for in , and making a false division of syllables, wrote ; hence that beast, so long the crux infenprefum.
II. Value. Only readings attested by uncial MSS. are now recognised by most critics; while others, well attested by tie best cursives, are not taken into account, these later MSS., dating from about the 10th century and onward, being appealed to only as corroborative of earlier authorities, or in cases where these disagree. But as the character of a MS., tested by comparative criticism, is often entitled to as much consideration as its age, it is not improbable that the most approved will yet be allowed their due weight claimed for them by Scrivener, their strenuous and able advocate (see his Manual of Text. Crit. [2nd ed.], p. 465, and ch. 9).
Comparative criticism is that delicate and important process whereby we seek to determine the cooperative value and trace the mutual relation of authorities of every kind upon which the original text of the New Test. is based (Scrivener, ut sup. p. 462). It has already been employed to a certain extent with highly satisfactory results; but its laws, and their proper application, are yet to be fully developed. SEE CRITICISM, BIBLICAL.
III. Number. The number of various readings is not easily ascertained. Since the time of Mill, when they are estimated to have been about thirty thousand, it has been greatly increased by the numerous MSS. since discovered and the more thorough collation of those then known. As it often happens that of several readings one gives the clue to the origin of them all, reducing all to one (Canons of Criticism, 2, 2), so a new reading may be welcomed as supplying that which is sought. For a long time the utmost diligence has been used in searching through MSS. and recording every deviation from a common printed text, even to the slightest peculiarity in spelling, till the number is increased fourfold. Of these at least a fifth part respect only clerical errors, differences in spelling, in the form of a tense or a case, in the order of words, and the like; while of doubtful readings that affect the sense the number is far less, and those that affect a doctrine or a duty are few, if any.
Attention was directed to discrepancies in the MSS. of the New Test. by the controversies between Erasmus and Stunica on the respective merits of the Complutensian and Erasmian texts. (For the earliest allusions to them in patristic writings, SEE NEW TESTAMENT, II, 3, 4, r 3). A formal comparison of different readings and their value was first made, though unsatisfactorily, in Stephens’s third or royal edition (1550). His text, very negligently and often capriciously formed, became the current Greek text in England and America. The Elzevir editions (1624, fol.), formed chiefly from Beza’s and the third of Stephens, adding nothing of critical value. became the current Greek text on the continent of Europe. Various readings of the Codex Alexandrinus, and a digest of numerous others in Walton’s Polyglot Bible (1654-57), are the first collection of any value. Of subsequent contributions to textual criticism the following may be named as having made epochs in the progress of the science [for a full account of the printed editions of the New Test., SEE CRITICISM B]: Mill’s Greek Test. (1707; 2nd ed. by Kuster; 1710), with various readings from all sources then accessible, was the first attempt for a complete critical apparatus. Bengel (1725-34) led the way in the classification, of MSS. and versions, relying on the oldest authorities. Wettstein’s New Test. (1751-52) added much to the materials for textual criticism, in creasing the collection of various readings from MSS. not before or imperfectly collated. With the labors of Griesbach (Symbolae Criticae [1785-93]; New Test. [2d ed. 1796-1806]) began the strictly critical treatment of the text itself, then for the first time corrected throughout from MSS. and other ancient authorities. The labors of Tischendorf (1841-73) have made a new era in the science. By his numerous collations and printed texts of MSS., with elaborate prolegomena, notes, and facsimiles-his discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus and imperial edition of it, with specimens in facsimile, prolegomena, and full notes, in 1862, preceded by its best representative in lithographed facsimile, the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, with prolegomena and illustrative comments, in 1846; his eight critical editions of the New Test. he has far exceeded all who have labored in this field before him, and won for himself the first place among Biblical critics.
On the subject of various, readings, see Griesbach, Symbolae Criticae (1785-93) and Prolegomena ad Nov. Test. (2nd ed. 1786); Lachmann, Prolegomena ad Nov. Test. (1842); Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text of the New Test. (1854) and Introd. to the Text. Crit. of the New Test. (1856); Tischendorf, Prolegomena ad Nov. Test. (7th ed. 1859); Scrivener, Plain Introd. to the Criticism of the New Test. (2nd ed. 1874); Delitzsch, Handschriftliche Funde (1861-62); Conant, Greek Text of the Apocalypse, in the Baptist Quarterly, 1871; Smith, Bible Dictionary (Eng. ed. 1860; Amer. ed. 1870), p. 21252128. (T. J. C.)