Woe Tesstaracilf.—The original MSS. of the New Testament were probably all written on papyrus, the cheapest, but least durable material that be obtained for the pur pose. It was therefore impossible, considering the constant handling to which the docu ments must have been subjected by the eager converts, that they could have lasted for any length of time. Indeed no authentic notices of them have come down to us, and it is a curious fact that, in the controversies of the 2d e., no appeal is made to the apostolic originals. But the number of copies was very great. The text of these, however, did not always agree. Variations originated, to a considerable extent, from the same canses as operated in the ease of the Old Testament, viz., imperfect vision or hearing, misun derstanding, carelessness, or an uncritical judgment on the part of transcribers; but it is natural to suppose that, on account of the greater freedom of spirit and thought which characterized primitive Christianity, compared with Judaism, a latitude.of conviction in regard to the value of the letter of Scripture, also influenced the duches. The idea of inspiration (q.v.), it is now admitted by the most enlightened theologians, was progres sively developed. In the earliest ages it did not exist In any dogmatic form whatever.' Christians were content to believe that the evangelists and apostles spoke truth, by the help of the Holy Spirit, without perplexing themselves with the question, whether the words were purely divine or purely human in their origin. They had a gospel to preach, and a world to convert, and were therefore not in a mood to discuss mechani cal notions. This also must have operated in producing the textual variations referred to, many of which arc of such a nature as to clearly prove that the commentators or transcribers thought themselves at liberty to alter or improve the expression. Nor must we overlook the fact, that the different culture and tendencies of the eastern and western, churches also caused very considerable changes. Modern criticism reckons no less than 80,000 variations in the existing 3ISS. Nevertheless, one fact stands out, solid and imperishable, amid all the tiny fluctuations of verbal criticism, viz., that, with one or two exceptions, no material difference exists, or in all probability ever did exist, in New Testament MSS. The general Christian consciousness, which was the real guardian of their integrity, had been grounded too deeply in the facts, doctrines, and ethics of a historic Christianity to follow In the wake of sectarian or heretical modifications of the truth. It instinctively turned, as it were, from a sense of affinity to those apostolic records, the tone of which most closely corresponded to its own spiritual character and development, and thus unconsciously prevented any incongruous changes from being effected in the mass of MSS. Of theSe MSS., upwards of 1400 arc known to scholars, and have been collated, and no essential discrepancy has been detected. Of course, it can be urged that all the MSS. belong to a period when the church had gathered itself up into two great wholes—the Latin and Greek, and when, therefore, a general conform ity in MSS., as in other things; is only to be expected: but the fragments which are found in the earliest church fathers exhibit substantially, though not verbally, the same text, and we may therefore fairly infer that this unintentional harmony in part argues the general harmony of the earlier and later MSS.
Some slight attempts seem to have been made, during the early history of the church, to obtain a correct text. One Lucian, a presbyter of Antioch, and Hesychins, an Esup tian bishop, are said by Jerome to have undertaken a recension of the New Testament, and both Origen and .Jerome himself were of considerable service in this respect. It is
to modern criticism, however, that we owe almost everything in regard to the regulation of the text. Bengel and Semler first started the idea of arranging the MSS. of the New Testament into families or dames. After these came Griesbach, who, following out the idea, propounded hislauthus threefeld division of the MSS. into Western, Alexandrian, and Byzantine. The first two he considers the oldest; the third, a corrupt mixture of both. Griesbach himself preferred the Alexandrian: he believed that the Byzantine transcribers had tiiken great liberties with the text, and held that a few Alexandrian MSS. outweighed, in critical value, a large number of the other. The accuracy of Griesbach':: division has subsequently been questioned by many eminent German scholars, each of whom has in turn favored the world with a theory of his own in regard to the probable value of the various families of MSS. Recently, Lachteaun has applied, with excessive strictness, a principle first hinted by Bentley, viz., that no weight ought to be attached 'to any MSS. except those written in the old or uncial (q.v.) character. The exact value of each manuscript is still a matter of dispute; but a great deal has been done to place the knowledge of the various lines of evidence within the reach of all scholars. Tischendorf carefully examined the most important of the uncial MSS., and published them separately somewhat after the fashion of a fac-simile. He also published a fac simile of the Codex Sinaiticus, which he found in a monastery in 311. Sinai. Scrivener las collated a considerable number of cursives, and collated again the Codex Berm. And great attention is being paid to quotations from the fathers. ROuseli. for instance, has given all the quotations from the New Testament in Tertullian, and Tischendorf made lar•e use of them in his last or eighth edition.
%e whole of the New Testament was first printed in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514. From 1516 to 1535, rive editions appeared at Basel, under the care of Erasinus, but without any great pretension: to critical accuracy. • The subsequent numerous edi tions were, for the most part, either founded on the editions of Eras nus or on the Com plutensian, or on a collation of both. Among• these editions we may mention those of Simon de Colines or Colinreus (Paris, 15.13), of, the elder Stephen 1549, and 1550), of the younger.Stephen (1569). Beza was the first who, by several collations founded on the third edition by Stephens, made any considerable progress in the critical treatment of the text, and thus supplied a basis for the present received text (textus •eeeptu), which was first printed by Stephens with the Vulgate and critical annotations at Geneva, 1565; afterwards was frequently reprinted by Elzevir (Leyden, 1624) and others. fhe labors of the English scholar, Walton, in the London Polyglott (1657), of Fell (Oxford, 1675), and especially Mill (Oxford. 1707), were of great importance for the criticism of the New Testament. Bengal exhibited great tact and acumen in his edition of 1734, Wetstein much industry and care in the editions of 1751-52, as alSo Semler, 1764. But all these recensions were surpassed in value by the labors of, Griesbach (1st ed. 1774; 2d and best ed. 1796-1806). The more recent contributions to the criticism of the New Testament by Scholz, the Iyucubratto Critica (Basel, 1830), and the critical edition by Phick (2 vols., Leip. 1830-33), the edition by Lachmann (Berl. 1831), with especial use of oriental MSS., and, subsequently, the labors of Buttmasm (1842-50), Tregelles, (1854-63), Tischendorf, (1841-73), and Scrivener (1861), are also worthy of high praise.