...

[2] Generally speaking, a more difficult reading, cæteris paribus as to evidence, is to be preferred to one which is altogether easy.. Transcribers would naturally change that which is obscure for that which is simple, and not vice versâ. - DR. S. P. TREGELLES: The Book of Revelation, Introduction, p. xxxi.

Referring to his own rule, which is similar to that just given, THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE (Introduction, p. 292) remarks: "This canon is the touchstone which distinguishes the true critics from the false. BENGEL, WETSTEIN, and GRIESBACH, critics of the first rank, have admitted its authority; but those of inferior order generally prefer the easy reading, for no other reason than because its meaning is most obvious."

[3] That reading should be regarded as genuine from which all the others may be naturally and easily derived. DR. SAMUEL DAVIDSON: Treatise on Biblical Criticism, p. 376.

To illustrate this principle, Dr. DAVIDSON says: "In 1 Tim. iii. 16, if ôs were the true reading, the alteration of it into vɛòs would readily suggest itself to those who knew that the 'mystery of godliness' related to the Divine Word. And ôç naturally gave rise to ô, the neuter, for the sake of grammatical accuracy. But, if còs were the original reading, it is difficult to understand why or how ôç could come into the mind of critics and transcribers. Still more difficult is it to imagine ô giving rise to vɛòç or öç. Hence, by this canon, ôç should be preferred."

[4] A reading contradictory to a doctrine which the same apostle has delivered in another passage is to be regarded as spurious, because contradictions are improbable in an accurate writer, and impossible in one who is divinely inspired.-J. D. MICHAELIS: Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 328.

Or, as more simply expressed by G. F. SEILER (Biblical Hermeneutics, § 235, 13): "A reading which harmonizes with the style and manner of thinking of any of the writers of the New Testament is to be preferred to another which is less agreeable thereto."

[5] The reading of a passage which contains a disputed doctrine in religion is strongly to be suspected in the event of doubts arising respecting its genuineness, when there are only some testimonies against it; for it is fair to conjecture that it may have been altered through a zeal for orthodoxy.-G. F. SEILER: Biblical Hermeneutics, § 235, 14.

In accordance with this remark, Dr. DAVIDSON (Treatise on Biblical Criticism, vol. ii. p. 378) says that "readings which strongly favor orthodox

opinions are suspicious. Hence ɛòs, in 1 Tim. iii. 16, was made out of öç. 1 John v. 7 may also be referred to this head. So, too, eòv inserted in the fourth verse of Jude's Epistle. Perhaps the reading instead of viòs, belongs here."

eòç in John i. 18,

"It is a fact

T. HARTWELL HORNE (Introduction, vol. i. p. 285) says, that some corruptions have been designedly made by those who are termed orthodox, and have subsequently been preferred when so made, in order to favor some received opinion, or to preclude an objection against it." Among other texts which have been thus corrupted, he instances Mark xiii. 32. Luke xxii. 43.

J. D. MICHAELIS (Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 323-6) speaks to the same purpose.

[6] Conjectural readings, strongly supported by the sense, the connection, the nature of the language, or similar texts, may sometimes have probability, especially when it can be shown that they would easily have given occasion to the present reading. GILBERT GERARD: Institutes of Biblical Criticism, § 794.

DR.

So also T. HARTWELL HORNE, in his Introduction, vol. i. p. 289. In his Principles of Biblical Interpretation, vol. i. pp. 199, 200, J. A. ERNESTI says: "Nor is conjectural criticism to be entirely neglected, which the most learned and right-thinking theologians have not scrupled occasionally to use; but rashness must be avoided, and a modest diligence must be exerted."

J. D. MICHAELIS (Introduction to New Testament, vol. ii. p. 392) observes: "There are certain passages in the Greek Testament, in which I can hardly refrain from the use of critical conjecture, in opposition to the authority of all our written documents; some of which passages the reader will find in my Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews. If it is asked why I would admit in those cases the right of critical conjecture in opposition to written authority, I answer, Because the text itself, after all the pains which have been bestowed upon it, still seems to be sometimes faulty, or at least to be capable of an alteration that would be more suitable to the context, and better adapted to the design of the writer." But, in p. 387, this learned and generally candid theologian censures the conduct of those "Socinians" who, endeavoring to act on his own principles, have suggested an alteration in the text of John i. 1, and Rom. ix. 5.

On the other hand, Dr. DAVIDSON (Treatise on Bib. Crit. vol. ii. pp. 371-2) says, that, in the New Testament, "critical conjecture is rendered wholly superfluous by the very copious array of proper resources; so copious that it will never desert the critic, or leave him at a loss in determining the reading of a particular passage." But he concedes, that, "although it is unnecessary, and therefore improper, to change the Greek words without authority, we may freely put forth our judgment in regard to accents, marks of aspiration, and punctuation, since these formed no part of the primitive text."

[7] A reading certainly expressed in an ancient version is of the same authority as if it had been found in a manuscript of the age when that version was made, and, consequently, of greater authority than if found in any single manuscript now extant; and that in proportion to the superior antiquity of the version. - DR. GILBERT GERARD: Institutes, § 336.

In his Introduction to Sacred Philology, p. 53, Dr. PLANCK makes the following important remarks: "Some of the versions which we have of it [of the New Testament] are considerably older than all our manuscripts.... In all cases, it may be presumed that these translations were made from manuscripts which at the time were not entirely new; and therefore the age of some may have almost reached that of the autographs. Consequently, whenever it can be determined, from one of these versions, what was the reading of the manuscript from which the version was made, its antiquity gives it an authority vastly superior to that which any manuscript now existing can claim."

[8] When a place is interpolated by the introduction of a supposititious clause, the works of the ancient fathers will sometimes enable us to infer with tolerable correctness, not only the spuriousness of the clause, but also the time when it may have been casually introduced into the text. If the place is quoted by many and various writers uniformly without the addition, this is a certain proof that it was added by some later hand. The first quotation, therefore, in which it occurs, affords grounds for conjecturing when and where the interpolation was first casually made. G. J. PLANCK: Introduction to Sacred Philology, p. 56.

"Thus, for example," continues Dr. PLANCK, "it may be considered as one of the most important collateral proofs of the spuriousness of 1 John v. 7, that no Greek father, even to the fourth century, seems to have been acquainted with it, as it is cited by none for a considerable time after the breaking out of the Arian controversies; while, on the other hand, the earlier use which was made of it by Latin fathers places it almost beyond doubt, that the interpolation was first made in Latin copies, and from these introduced into Greek."

These few rules will probably be sufficient to give the mere English reader a general idea of the principles by which Biblical critics are guided in respect to the text chiefly of the New Testament. The subject is, unquestionably, interesting; for on the purity of the text depends, in a great measure, the correctness of the versions taken from it. But, as its study demands a great amount of erudition and labor, the unlearned reader of the Scriptures will, of course, have, in most cases of difficulty, to confide in

the results arrived at by men who have devoted their talents and their lives to sacred criticism; his confidence in their decisions being the stronger in proportion to the unanimity and acknowledged skill with which they have been made by critics of various and opposite denominations. It is consolatory to reflect, that, however desirable it may be to possess the records of divine revelation in a state approximating to that in which they were left by their respective writers, the essential truths of religion and of Christianity are not seriously affected by the corruptions of the original text, or by the different and numerous translations of the Bible which have been published.

§ 2. INTERPRETATION.

[1] When different reasons for the meaning of a word oppose each other, greater weight ought to be given to grammatical than to dogmatical reasons; because a proposition may be strictly true which is not contained in the words of the text.-J. A. ERNESTI: Principles of Biblical Interpretation, vol. i. p. 37.

[2] The more an interpreter changes places altogether with his author, in respect to his mode of thinking and his sentiments, the happier will he be in discovering and expressing the sense of his words. Hence it follows,- - 1. That every good interpreter should lay aside for the time his own system, in order to study without prejudice the system of his author. 2. That he endeavor to guard, with all possible precaution, against transferring into ancient writings any modern opinions or dogmas, whether theological or philosophical. G. F. SEILER: Biblical Hermeneutics, § 40.

These rules will receive illustration from the judicious remarks of BADEN POWELL (Connection of Natural and Divine Truth, p. 248): "When a commentator of the present day sets about to put a particular interpretation on a passage in an ancient author, he may, upon an examination of the critical sense of the words, and the construction of the sentence, make out a meaning which to him is plausible, and in itself consistent. But there is another question entirely distinct from this, too often quite overlooked, but essentially important to a true interpretation; viz., whether it is probable, from concurrent circumstances, that this was the sense, in point of fact, actually intended by the author. It is one thing to make out such a sense as, to our apprehension, the words may bear; quite another, to infer that this was the sense really in the mind of the writer."

[3] Ascertain the usus loquendi, or notion affixed to a word by the persons in general by whom the language either is now or formerly was spoken, and especially in the particular connection in which such notion is affixed. The meaning of a word used by any writer is the

meaning affixed to it by those for whom he immediately wrote; for there is a kind of natural compact between those who write and those who speak a language, by which they are mutually bound to use words in a certain sense. -T. HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction, vol. i. page 325.

In the application of this rule, the following remark by Dr. SEILER (Biblical Hermeneutics, § 261, 5) should be carefully attended to: "That is not always the true sense of the sayings of Jesus and of the writings of the apostles, which the Jews, by reason of their prejudices, attached to them; but that which they should have attached to them, from a consideration of the scope of the speakers and writers, John iii. 5-16; vi. 60, et seq.; viii. 51-57."

[4] As every (correct) writer is accustomed to use his words in one and the same sense in treating of the same subject, so, in interpreting the books of the New Testament, a difficult passage of an evangelist or apostle is best explained by a comparison of parallel passages in his own writings. The meaning of Paul's phraseology, for instance, is to be determined by a comparison with his own Epistles, and that of John by a comparison with his.-G. F. SEILER: Biblical Hermeneutics, § 252, 1.

The qualifying word "correct" is inserted probably by Seiler's editor, Dr. WRIGHT.

In applying this rule, the reader may be assisted by the following remarks of Archbishop WHATELY (Sermons on Various Subjects, p. 296): "It is an unsafe practice so to dwell on the interpretation of any particular word occurring in Scripture, as to imply that each term must have, like one of the technical terms of any science, exactly the same meaning in every passage where it is employed. It is not an uncommon plan, and it is a very dangerous one, to lay down precise definitions of the meaning of each of the principal words used in Scripture, and then to interpret every sentence in which they occur according to those definitions. The works of the sacred writers are popular, not scientific. They did not intend to confine themselves, like the author of any philosophical system, to some strict technical sense of each word, but expressed their meaning, in each passage, in such language as seemed, on each occasion, best fitted to convey it."

[5] Where a word has several significations in common use, that must be selected which best suits the passage in question, and which is consistent with an author's known character, sentiments, and situation, and the known circumstances under which he wrote. THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE: Introduction, vol. i. p. 325.