Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 4.djvu/563

 CRITICISM

503

CRITICISM

( 1 Bricj history of tfie critical editions and principles / •:i,iircd hi/ cditurs. — The first New Testament pub- li-li(-(l in Greek is that which forms the fifth volume I't the Polyglot of Alcala, the printing of which was tiiii.shcd 10 January, 1514, but which was not delivered 1 i the public until 1520. Meanwhile, early in 1516, J I ismus had published his rapidly completed edition III Hasle. The edition that issued from the press of Alhis at Venice in 151S is simply a reproduction of lliit of Erasmus, but Robert Estienne's editions pub- li-hrd in 1546, 1549, 1550, and 1551, the first three at I'lris and the fourth at Geneva, although founded on ill.' text of the Polyglot of Alcala, presented variants fi ' mi about fifteen manuscripts, and into the last, that of 1551, was introduced the division of verees now in nM>. Theodore Beza's ten editions which appeared 1" uvcen 1565 and 1611 differ but little from the last of Hobert Estienne's. The Elzevir brothers, Bona- \ I mure and Abraham, printers at Le}-den, followed l.stii'nne and Beza verj- closely; their small editions (if 1624 and 163.3, so convenient and so highly appre- ciated by booklovers, furnish what has been agreed ii|ioii as the textus rcccptus. — "Te.xtum ergo habes iiutic ab omnibus receptum, in quo nihil immutatmn Mit corruptum damns" (Edition of 1633). It must siiiiice to mention here the editions of Courcelles (Amsterdam, 1658) and of Fell (Oxford, 1675), both of which adhere pretty closely to the textus receptus of Elzevir, and those of Walton (London, 1657) and of Mill (O.xford, 1707), which reproduce in substance the text of Estienne, but enrich it by the addition of variants resulting from the collation of numerous manuscripts. The principal editors who followed — Wetstein (Amsterdam, 1751-1752), Mattha-i (Moscow, 1782-1788), Birch (Copenlia^en, 1788), and the two Catholics, Alter (Vienna, 1786-1787), and Scholz (Leipzig, 1830-1836) are noted chiefly for the abun- dance of new manuscripts which they discovered and collated. But we must here limit ourselves to an appreciation of the latest and best-known editors, Griesbach, Lachniann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, West- cott and Hort.

In his second edition (1796-1806) Griesbach, ap- plying the theory that had previously been suggested by Bengel and subsequently developed by Semler, distinguished three great families of texts: the .Alex- andrian family represented by the codices X, B, C, by the Coptic versions and the quotations of Origen ; the Western family, represented by D of the Gospels and the Acts, by the bilingual codices, the Latin versions, and the Latin Fathers; and lastly the Byzantine fam- ily, represented by the ma.ss of other manuscripts and by the Greek Fathers from the fourth century onward. Agreement between two of these families would have been decisive; but, unfortunately, Gries- bach's classification is questioned by many, and it has been proved that the agreement between Origen and the so-called .\lexandrian family is largely imaginary. Lachmann (Berlin, 1842-18.50) endeavoured to recon- struct his text on too narrow a basis. He took ac- count of only the great uncials, many of which were then either entirely unknown or imperfectly known, and of the ancient Latin ver.sions. In his choice of readings the editor adopted the majority opinion, but reserved to him.self the conjectural amendment of the text thus established — a defective method which his successor Tregelles has not sufficiently avoided. The lattcr's edition (18.57-1872). the work of a lifetime, was completed by his friends. Tischendorf contrib- uted no less than eight editions of theXewTestatment in Greek, but the differences among them are deriil- edly marked. According to Scrivener (Introduc- tion, n, 283) the seventh edition differs from the third in 1296 places, and in .Wo it goes b.aok to the received text. After the discoverv'of the "Sinaiti- cus", which he had the honour of finding and pub- lishing, his eighth edition disagreed with the preceding

one in 3369 places. Such an amount of variation can only inspire distrust. Nor did the edition contributed by Westcott and Hort (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Cambridge and London, 1881) win universal approval, because, after eliminating in turn each of the great families of documents which they designate respectively as Syrian, Western, and Alex- andrian, the editors rely almost exclusively on the "Neutral" text, which is only represented by the "V.aticanus" and the "Sinaiticus", and, in case of disagreement between the two great codices, by the " Vaticanus" alone. The excessive preponderance thus given to a single manuscript was criticized in a special manner by Scrivener (Introduction, II, 284-297). Finally, the edition announced by Von Soden (Die Schriften des N. T. in ihrer altcsten erreichbaren Textgestalt) gave rise to lively controversies even before it appeared. (See "Zeitschrift fur neutest. Wissenschaft;', 1907, VIII, .34-47, 110-124, 234- 237.) All this would seem to indicate that, for some time to come, we shall not have a definite edition of the Greek New Testament.

The enryciopedias and dictionaries of the Bible hax'e no special article on textual criticism which deals in a particular manner with Biblical texts, but most of the Introductions to Scripture dedicate one or several chapters to this subject: e. g., Ub.\ldi, Inlroduclio (5th ed.. Rnmc, 1901), II. 484-615 (De criticn verbali sacrorum iryli^ ^'; ; rMi;\i i,y. Inlroduclio (Paris, 1885), I, 496-509 {De vsu . vrimigmiorum rl ver-

sionum anliqitarum); Grv.'.'^ ; "■ na to 8th ed. of Tis-

chendorf (Leipzig. 1S84 In'M ; --^ i;i\ i \KR, Inttrtdiiction (4th ed., Lond..!,. 1^0^, II, l7:)-:i(ll; Nkstlk, Einfiihrung in das gricch. N. T Jihlrl, ! Mi'.) ) and Holtzmann, jFm/ctfunff in das N. T. (Freiliuo: vu l;r.i--:m, 1.S92).

The follnwiTi'.: ni:i\ ho mentioned as monographs: Porter, Principles of Textual Cnhcism (Belfast, 1848); Davidson, A Treali.^e of Biblical Crilicism (1853); Hammond, Outlines of Textual Criticism (2nd ed., 1878); Miller, Textual Guide (Lon- don, 1885); Hort, The N. T. in the Original Greek: Introduction (2nd ed.. London, 1896). .Xlthmigh. like several of the preced- ing, this last workaims chiefly at the triricism of the New Testa- ment, the entire second part (pp. 19-72, Tfie Methods of Textual CnVtcrsm) discusses general questions. On (b) IVr,ston.s and (c) Quotations, under B. General Frinciples, cf. Bebb. The Evidence of Early VersioTis and Patristic Quotations on the Text of the Books of the New Testament in II of the Oxford Studia Biblica el Ecclesiastica,

F. Prat.

Criticism, Historical, is the art of distinguishing the true from the false concerning facts of the past. It has for its ooject both the documents which have been handed down to us and the facts themselves. We may distinguish three kinds of historical sources: written documents, imwritten evidence, and tradition. As further means of re;iching a knowledge of the facts there are three processes of indirect research, viz.: neg- ati^-e argument, conjecture, and a priori argument.

It may be said at once that the study of sources and the u.se of indirect processes will avail little for proper criticism if one is not guided chiefly by an ardent love of truth such as will prevent him from turning aside from the object in view through any prejudice, relig- ious, national, or domestic, that might trouble his judgment. The role of the critic differs much from that of an advocate. He must, moreover, consider that he has to fulfil at once the duties of an examining magistrate and an expert jurj-man, for whom elemen- tary probity, to say nothing of their oath, makes it a conscientious dutyto decide only on the fullest possi- ble knowledge of 'the details of the matter submitted to their examination, and in keeping with the conclu- sion which they have drawn from these details ; guard- ing themselves at the .same time against all personal feeling either of affection or of hatred respecting the litigants. But inexorable impartiality is not enough; thc'^critic should also possess a fimd of that natural logic known as common sense, which enables us to es- timate correctly, neither more nor less, the value of a conclusion in strict keeping with given premi.scs. If, moreover, the investigator be actite and .shrewd, so that he discerns at a glance the elements of evidence offered by the various kinds of information before him,