CHARACTER OF THE VARIOUS READINGS.

1. A bare statement of the number of various readings in the sacred text is calculated to excite surprise and alarm; but when the character of these variations is considered these feelings quickly subside. Dr. Hurt, one of the most competent of living authorities on the subject, declares, that in regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament, there is no variation, and no other ground of doubt. He estimates the number of words admitted on all hands to be above doubt, at not less than .-even-eighths of the whole. When, of the remaining one-eighth, we leave out mere differences of spelling, the number still left in doubt is about one-sixtieth of the whole; and when we select from this one-sixtieth of those which in any sense can be called substantial variations, their number he says, can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text. That is, only about one thousandth part of the New Testament is so variously expressed in the various copies, as to make any substantial difference of meaning.1

2. The various readings consist mainly in differences of Greek orthography; in the form of words not affecting the essential meaning; in the insertion or omission of words not essential to the sense; in the use of one synonym for another; and in the transposition of words whose order in the sentence is immaterial. It is obvious that such variations, however numerous, leave the text uncorrupted as regards its thoughts. An essay might be written in English with almost every word misspelt and every sentence ungrammatical, which would still express its meaning as clearly as the most accurate and elegant composition. The writings of "Josh Billings" are as clear as those of Addison. It is only then, in the one-thousandth part of the New Testament, or the part ill which the variations affect the meaning, that the text has undergone corruption worthy of any serious inquiry.

3. To illustrate still further the nature of these variations, we open the Critical New Testament published by Tregelles, at the second chapter of Matthew. He has collected the various readings, not from all the ancient authorities, but only from those of the more ancient class; yet in the first seven verses of this chapter his notes exhibit twenty-five various readings. So insignificant are they, however, that only four of the twenty-five can be represented at all in an English translation. One of the four is a case of transposition, and the other three of the omission or insertion of words not essential to the meaning.

They are as follows:

Should we submit to like examination the entire work of Tregelles, or any similar work, we would find the changes throughout of the same character, with the exception of about the one-thousandth part mentioned by Dr. Hort.

4. Some of the changes which affect the meaning of particular passages by introducing ideas not originally expressed in them, are nevertheless immaterial as regards the general teachings of the scriptures, because the ideas introduced are found in other passages. For example, in Luke's account of the conversion of Paul, the words, "It is hard for thee to kick against the goads," and the words, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" are interpolated in many copies, and they give expression to ideas not penned by Luke in this place; but still these words were spoken on the occasion, as we learn from Paul's accounts of the same incident in his speeches reported in other chapters of Acts.2 Again, the entire thirty-seventh verse of the eighth chapter of Acts, as found in some MSS., is an interpolation, adding to the original the statement, that Philip said to the eunuch "If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest," and the eunuch's response, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;" .yet the fact that such a confession of faith was required of converts as a prerequisite to baptism is taught in other passages,3 and this interpolation is not misleading. Another example of the same class is the well-known passage in I. John v. 7, 8, where the statement about the three witnesses in heaven is interpolated, yet it states what is known by many other passages to be true.

5. Put besides the changes which are not material to the general teaching of scripture, then are a few that are so, and there are two passages of considerable length, the genuineness of which has been brought into doubt by the investigations of critics. Of the former class we mention the statement of John v. 4, that an angel went down into the pool and troubled the water, and that the first person who stepped in afterward was healed of whatever disease he had.4 The two long pass ages brought into doubt are the last twelve verses of Mark, and the account in John's Gospel of the woman taken in adultery. The genuineness of these is doubted by some critics, though confidently defended, especially the former, by others.5 Further investigation will doubtless bring all to the same judgment concerning them.

6. While it is evident from the preceding statements that some interpolations are found in the MSS. and printed editions of the New Testament, it has yet been ascertained by a careful examination of all these, that they contain nothing contradictory of the parts which are genuine, and nothing subversive of faith or duty. In the language of Dr. Davidson, "No new doctrines have been elicited by the aid of Biblical criticism, nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected:"6 and in the still more specific language of Dr. Hort, "The books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written."7 If these statements are true, as they undoubtedly are, then all the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still. The case is like that of a certain will. A gentleman left a large estate entailed to his descendants of the third generation, and it was not to be divided until a majority of them should be of age. During the interval many copies of the will were circulated among parties interested, many of these being copies of copies. In the meantime the office of record in which the original was tiled was burned with all its contents. When the time for division drew near, a prying attorney gave out among the heirs the report that no two existing copies of the will were alike. This alarmed them all and set them busily at work to ascertain the truth of the report. On comparing copy with copy they found the report true, but on close inspection it was discovered that the differences consisted in errors of spelling or grammatical construction; some mistakes in figures corrected by the written numbers; and some other differences not easily accounted for; but that in none of the copies did these mistakes affect the rights of the heirs. In the essential matters fir which the will was written the representations of all the copies were precisely the same. The result was that they divided the estate with perfect satisfaction to all, and they were more certain that they had executed the will of their grandfather than if the original copy had been alone preserved; for it might have been tampered with in the interest of a single heir, but the copies, defective though they were, could not have been. So with the New Testament. The discovery of errors in the copies excited alarm leading to inquiry, which developed the fact that he who has the most imperfect copy has in it all that the original contained of doctrine, duty and privilege.

1 "With regard to the bulk of the words of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings, there is no variation, or other ground of doubt, and therefore no room for textual criticism; and here, therefore, an editor is only a transcriber. The same may be said in truth with respect to those various readings which have never been received, and in all probability never will be received, into any printed text. The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism. . . . Setting aside differences in orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one-sixtieth of the New Testament. In this second estimate, the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former, so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth putt of the entire text." (Introduction to Greek New Testament, Westcott and Hort. 2.)

2 Acts ix. 5, 6; comp. Acts xxii. 7-10; xxvi. 14, 15.

3 Rom. x. 9. 10; Mark xvi. 16.

4 The evidence for and against the genuineness of this passage is fully given in Scrivener's Intro., 607.

5 The genuineness of Mark xvi. 9-20) is most ably discussed by Westcott and Hort on one side, and Scrivener on the other. The conclusion reached by the former, after an elaborate dissertation, is stated in these words: "There is no difficulty in supposing (1) that the true intended continuation of verses 1-8 either was very early lost by the detachment of a leaf, or was never written down; and (2) that a scribe or editor, unwilling to change the words of the text before him, or to add words of his own, was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's appearances after the resurrection, which he found in some secondary record then surviving from the preceding generation. If these suppositions are made, the whole tenor of the evidence becomes clear and harmonious. Every other view is, we believe, untenable. . . . It [the passage] manifestly can not claim any apostolic authority; but it is doubtless founded on some tradition of the apostolic age." (Introduction to New Testament, Appendix I., p. 51.)

In opposition to these conclusions, Scrivener speaks with equal confidence. He says in regard to both of the passages mentioned above: "We shall hereafter defend these passages, the first without the slightest misgiving, the second with certain reservations, as entitled to be regarded as authentic portions of the Gospels in which they stand." He redeems this pledge by furnishing an elaborate answer to all the arguments made by Dr. Hort. (Scrirener's Introduction, 5S3-590). The positions taken by other able critics are given in the same note.

In regard to John vii. 53-viii. 11. opinions of critics are not so conflicting. All agree that it can not have been a part of John's original MS., but it is held by some of the ablest that it is nevertheless an authentic piece of history, and that it was probably inserted by John in a second edition of his Gospel. (Scrivener, 610.)

6 Biblical Criticism, ii. 147.

7 Introduction to Greek New Testament. 284.