مقدمه
في النقد النصي الجزء الثامن قواعد التحليل
الداخلي
Holy_bible_1
قواعد
التحليل الداخلي او ما تسمي بالادله
الداخليه
Internal
evidence ( Internal Critical Rules )
والبعض
يقسمه نوعين الدليل النسخي الذي يعتمد
علي صفات الناسخ والدليل الجوهري الذي
يعتمد علي النص نفسه وسياقه
والبعض
قدم سبعة تقسيمات مثل جيلسون والبعض قدم
11قاعده
مثل فليب كامفورت والبعض قدم 12
قاعده
ودائرة المعارف النقديه قدمت تقسيمه
تفصيليه من 27
قاعده
وهي
The
shorter reading is best
القراءه
الاقصر هي الافضل او هي
Lectio
brevior praeferenda
وهي
قاعده تقريبا قالها معظم باحثي النقد
النصي ولكن ليس الكل لان البعض يري ان
القراءات الطويله هي الافضل وايضا لا
تطبق في كل الاحوال وهي يجب ان كما قال
الكثيرين مثل جريسباخ
ان
تطبق بحذر شديد جدا لانه قد تقود لاخطاء
كثيره
وهي
باختصار تعتمد علي ان بعض النساخ يميل
الي اضافات تفسيريه ولهذا القراءه الاقصر
اصح ولهذا هذه القاعده صحيحه لو طبقت علي
مخطوطه مشهوره بالاضافات التفسيريه ولكن
لا تصلح ان تطبق علي اخطاء النساخ الذين
يميلون في الاخطاء الي الحذف مثل قاعدة
haplography
لان
اخطاء النساخ الصغيره تميل دائما الي
الحزف بالخطأ وليس الاضافه فهم بدون قصد
يحزفون الكلمات القصيره التي لا تؤثر في
الظاهر علي المعني (
وهي
صفه مميزه لبعض نساخ السينائية )
ولكن
هناك نوع مختلف يسمي الاختصار الحر مميزه
جدا لناسخ بعض المخطوطات (
ويظهر
بقوه في البرديه 45
)
وهذه
القاعده لايجب ان تستخدم لوحدها لان
استخدامها لوحدها سيقود الي الخطأ (
وهذا
هو الخطأ الذي وقع فيه كثيرا بويسمارد
كما قالت الموسوعه )
, وتطبق
ايضا علي القراءات عندما لا ويجد اي دليل
علي وجود خطأ نسخي مثل بيزا او في الاعداد
التي يوجد بها صلوات
The
hardest reading is best
القراءه
الاصعب هي الافضل
Difficilior
lectio potior
or Proclivi
scriptioni praestat ardua
ومن
تكلم عليها هو بنجيل (
وبالنسبه
له هي كانت القاعده الاساسيه )
وهي
تعتمد ان النساخ يميلوا الي جعل النص ابسط
وليس اصعب ولكن يجب ان تطبق ايضا بحرص
شديد لان في كثير من الاحيان ينتج عن خطأ
النساخ قراءه اصعب ولو طبقة هذه القاعده
سنثبت القراءه الخطأ الاصعب ونترك القراءه
الصحيحه البسيطه (
ومثال
الي اخطاء النساخ التي ينتج عنها قراءات
اصعب هي بردية 66
) ولهذا
يجب ان تؤخذ القراءه الاصعب لو تم التاكد
تماما من ان لا يوجد هناك خطأ نسخي
The
reading most in accord with the author's style ( and vocabulary ) is
best.
القراءه
التي تتماشي مع اسلوب الكاتب هي الافضل
وهي
قاعده مهمة ولكن تحتاج خبره لانه يحتاج
دقه في تمييز اسلوب كاتب السفر فعلي سبيل
المثال اسلوب يوحنا دائما يقول الحق الحق
اقول لكم فعندما نجد اختلاف في قراءه عدد
احدهم به الحق اقول لكم والاخر الحق الحق
اقول لكم يكون الذي يتماشي مع اسلوب الكاتب
هو الصحيح وهو الحق الحق اقول لكم
ولكن
يجب ان تطبق بحزر وتقارن بالتقليد
وهي
مهمة ومفيده جدا ايضا في اختيار الافعال
الصحيحه لان الكتاب لهم اسلوب مميز في
تصريفات الافعال ولكن يجب ان يكون اسلوب
الكاتب مدروس جيدا
The
middle reading is best.
القراءه
الوسطي هي الافضل
وهي
قاعده قلما يتكلم عنها باحثي النقد النصي
وهو تستخدم فقط في وجود ثلاث قراءات او
اكثر لان لو وجد ثلاث قراءات قصيره ومتوسطه
وطويله ودائما التغيير سيميل من المتوسطه
الي القصيره ومن المتوسطه الي الطويله
ولكن صعب ان يكون من الطويله الي القصيره
او العكس مباشره .
وهي
تطبق فقط لو كانت الادله متساويه في
التاريخ والقدم ولكن لو كانت احدهم حديثه
جدا فلا تدخل في المقارنة
The
reading which could most easily have given rise to the other readings
is best.
القراءه
التي هي بوضوح السبب في بقية القراءات هي
الافضل
وهذه
القاعده هي من انتاج تشندورف وهي القراءه
الافضل هي التي تفسر بقية القراءات
وكثيرين
يعتبرون هذه القاعده هي الاساسيه في
التحليل الداخلي وتسمي ايضا
Corollary
وهي
قد اتي اليها في قواعد الحسابات في النقد
النصي
Mathematics
ويجب
ملاحظة ان هذه القاعده لا يجب ان تطبق لو
كان الخطأ واضح ولكن لو تاكدنا ان لايوجد
خطأ نسخي اذا القراءه الصحيحه هي التي
تفسر بقية القراءات
The
reading which could not have arisen from lectionary use is best.
القراءه
التي لم تبرز بسبب استخدام الفصول الكتابيه
هي الافضل
وتعني
ان القراءه التي لم تنتج بسبب تقسيم الفصول
هي الاصح لان النساخ عاده يفضلوا اضافة
مقدمات وهذه المقدمات قد يزحف بعضها الي
النص
(
يخطئ
البعض في تطبيقها بصوره عامه ويقول قراءه
كانت في هامش النص واضيفت ولكن هذه القاعده
عن المقدمات وليس التعليقات )
The
reading which is counter to ecclesiastical usage is best.
القراءه
التي تخالف الاستخدام الكنسي هي الافضل
وهي
قاعده وضعها ابرهارد نستل وتطبق علي ايضا
الفصول .
وهناك
خلاف علي تطبيقها علي كلمة امين التي في
نهاية الرسائل باستثناء يعقوب
The
disharmonious reading is best.
القراءه
التي اقل في توفيق الكلام هي الافضل
وهذه
القاعده تطبق غالبا علي الاناجيل الاربعه
فقط لانه كثير من النساخ يميلوا لجعل
الاربع اناجيل متوافقه معا .
ولهذا
لو وجد قراءتين الاولي تتوافق مع قراءة
انجيل اخر والثانيه تختلف يكون التي تختلف
او مميزه هي الاقرب الي الصحة .
وقال
سودين ان غالبا النساخ يميلوا لجعل
الاناجيل تشبه انجيل متي ولهذا القراءه
التي لا توافق انجيل متي هي الافضل .
وهي
ايضا قاعده جيده ولكن يجب ان تطبق بحرص
كما قال كولويل لانه قد يخطي الناسخ ويقرب
النص الي شيئ مشهور مثل ترنيمه او شيئ
نسخه الناسخ قريبا ولهذا فهو قال ان
القاعده يجب ان تعدل الي
The less familiar reading is best.
اي
القراءه الاقل اعتياد هي الافضل .
اي
القراءه التي تتوقع ان يكتبها الناسخ هي
الخطأ والتي لا تتوقع ان يكتبها الناسخ
هي الصحيحه .
وقد
سماها هورت
Transcriptional
Probability
وهي
احتماليات النسخ .
والمشكله
مع هذه القاعده هي تخمين ماذا يدور بذهن
الناسخ اثناء النسخ
The
reading which best fits the context or the author's theology( and
ideology ) is best.
القراءه
التي تناسب الفكر اللاهوتي للكاتب هي
الافضل
وهذه
القاعده ممتازه لو نعرف بطريقه قطعيه فكر
كاتب الوحي اللاهوتي فهي يجيدها من يدرس
انواع علوم اللاهوت وبخاصه الذين يتخصصون
في لاهوت الكتبه مثل اللاهوت البولسي
واللاهوت اليوحنوي (
وهي
تتماشي مع قاعدة اسلوب كاتب الوحي )
The
reading which has the truest sense is best.
القراءه
التي لها الحس المصدق هي الافضل .
وقال
هورت كلام مختلف قليلا فيها "
القراءه
التي من الظاهر لا تعطي معني هي الافضل
ولكن التي تبدوا انها اكثر معقوليه هي
الابعد عن الصحه
The
reading which avoids Atticism is best.
القراءه
التي تتحاشي الاساليب الاغريقيه هي الافضل
لان
اليوناني الاغريقي او اليوناني الاتيكي
وهي لغة اثينية وهي اهملت ثم استخدمت فيما
بعد ولكن المهم في هذه القاعده هو معرفة
الباحث القويه بالفرق بين اليوناني
الاثيني واليوناني الكويني (
زمن
التلاميذ )
The
reading which is characteristic of Hellenistic usage is best.
القراءه
المميزه باستخدام الهلنستية هي الافضل
لان
اليوناني الكويني يستخدم عاده اشكال غير
تقليديه وغير مالوفه في وقت لاحق من
الكتابه التعليميه الكلاسيكيه وقد يميل
البعض من النساخ الي محاولة تصحيح هذا
وغالبا
النقاد يميلوا الي تاكيد النص الكويني
The
reading which resembles Semitic usage is best.
القراءه
التي تشابه الاستخدامات الساميه (
للغات
)
هي
الافضل
لان
كتاب العهد الجديد هم ناطقين بالاراميه
ويكتبوا اليونانية فالقراءه التي تميل
الي استخدام كلمات ساميه (
عبريه
وارامية )
مخالفه
لليوناني هذا هو تعبيرهم ولكن النساخ هم
يونانيين فقط في معظم الاحوال فقد يميلوا
الي تصحيح ذلك
بمعني
لو وجد قراءه تكتب كلمه قريب نطقها الي
الارامي او العبري وقراءه اخري بيونانيه
سليمه فغالبا الاولي هي الاقرب الي الصحه
ولكن
هناك خلاف بين باحثي النقد النصي في هذه
النقطه بسبب السبعينية لان بعض النساخ
يميلوا الي اسلوب السبعينيه وساتي الي
ذلك في القاعده التاليه
The
reading which is less like the Septuagint is best.
القراءه
الاقل تشابه مع السبعينيه هي الافضل
وهي
قاعده قد تخدع احيانا رغم انها مهمه لان
بالفعل بعض النساخ يميلون الي كتابت النص
المماثل للسبعينية او بلغة السبعينية.
ولكن
يجب ان يلاحظ ايضا ان نساخ السبعينيه بعد
الميلاد هم مسيحيين وليسوا يهود وقد يكون
يفعل النساخ بدون قصد العكس اي ينسخوا
السبعينيه بما يشبه العهد الجديد فيكون
الخطأ في السبعينية وليس في نص العهد
الجديد
That
reading which seems to preserve an ungrammatical form is best.
القراءه
التي تحفظ نص غير نحوي هي الافضل
ولكن
معظم تطبيقات هذه القاعده هي غير مهمة
ولكنها تستخدم اكثر في الكشف عن طبيعة
الناسخ الذي انتج المخطوطه (
بمعني
يمكن تمييز ناسخ من خطأ نحوي متكرر )
وايضا
يجب ان يلاحظ في تطبيق هذه القاعده انه
قد يحدث العكس بمعني قد يخطئ الناسخ بحزف
كلمه او اضافه بدون قصد فينتج خطأ نحوي
بسبب الحزف او الاضافه فيجب ان يتاكد من
ان الخطأ لغوي نحوي وليس خطأ حذف او اضافه
If
one reading appears to be an intentional correction, the reading
which invited such a correction is best.
لو
قراءه تبدو مصححه ,
تكون
القراءه التي دعت الي ذلك التصحيح هي
الافضل
ولها
تسميه اخري
That
reading which is most likely to have suffered change by copyists is
best.
اي
القراءه التي عانت من تصحيح النساخ هي
الافضل (
قبل
التصحيح )
وهي
اقترحها تشندورف مثل تفضيله للقراءه
الحاده .
وهي
تعني لو كان هناك قراءه تدعوا الي التصحيح
بالطبع قد يندفع ناسخ ويصححها
The
reading which could have given rise to the others accidentally is
best.
القراءه
التي تكون السبب في اخطاء اخري هي الافضل
وهي
قالها كيلي مكارتر بطريقه
Look
first for the unconscious error
تبحث
اولا عن الخطأ اللاارادي .
وهي
قاعده مهمة جدا في العهد القديم حيث الشهود
قلائل (
والاخطاء
ايضا شبه معدومه الا من هذا النوع )
ولكن
تطبيقاتها في العهد الجديد قليله حيث
اخطاء الاخطاء الاملائيه الي حد ما متكرره
ولا تعطي اختلاف في المعني .
ولكن
تستخدم مع قاعدة القراءه السبب في الاخري
ولكن بطريقة الخطأ (
مثل
حزف حرفين من كلمه بطريقه غير مقصوده او
كلمه قصيره او مقطع نطقي (
اي
ثلاث حروف ))
هي
الافضل
The
reading which is susceptible to a heterodox interpretation is best.
القراءه
التي عرضه لتاويل الهراطقه هي الافضل
وهذه
القاعده لا تطبق كثيرا ولكن عندما يتم
ذلك فمن المهم ان نفهم ان القراءه التي
تقلل من كرامة المسيح هي الافضل .
ولكن
يجب ان تطبق هذه القاعده بحذر ومع دراسة
خلفية المدرسه المسؤله عن هذه القراءه
وبخاصه في زمن اوريجانوس او في زمن يوسابيوس
او الناتجه عن منطقه سيطر عليها هراطقه
وكما
قالت الوسوعه هذه شبهة الي حد ما صاحبت
اوريجانوس لبعض الاشياء التي لم يستريح
اليها
The
reading which contains unfamiliar words is best.
القراءه
التي تحتوي علي كلمات غير معتاده هي الافضل
وهي
قدمها بروس متزجر وجريسباخ وهي مشهوره
في النسخ الاملائي ولكن ايضا عليها تحفظات
بمعني ان الناسخ قد يبدل كلمه يعرفها لكن
لو كلمه لا يعرف معناها جيدا فكيف لها ان
يبدلها بكلمه اخري .
فافضل
تطبيق للقاعده هذه هي علي المخطوطات
المعروف عنها عادات معينه
If,
in a variant reading, one reading is subject to different meanings
depending on word division, that reading is best.
لو
كان هناك قراءات مختلفه تكون القراءه
التي لها اكثر من معني اعتمادا علي تاويل
الكلمه هي القراءه الافضل
هي
قاعده نادرة الاستخدام وتستخدم في القراءات
التي قد تكون كلمه واحده تصلح ان تكون
كلمتين تكون هي الاصح (
لان
اليوناني كان يكتب بدون فواصل بين الحروف
والكلمات )
If
a reading is a conflation of two shorter readings, the shorter
readings are best (though the correct reading must be decided on
other grounds).
لو
كان هناك عدة قراءات واحدهم طويله مكونه
من عدة قراءات قصيره مجمعه معا ومنهم بعض
القراءات القصيره يكون القراءات القصيره
غالبا احدها هو الصحيح وتستخدم بقية
القواعد في تحديد اي القراءات القصيره
هي الافضل
واستخدمت
هذه القاعده بواسطة هورت لكي يضاد بها
النص المسلم الذي يكون دائما القراءه
السليمه الطويله والفاتيكانيه قراءه
قصيره وبها اختلاف فوضع هذه القاعده واشهر
مثال علي استخدامه لها لان قراءه لوقا
24:
53 ( يسبحون
ويباركون الله )
فالسينائية
والفاتيكانيه كتبوا يباكون الله وبيزا
كتبت يسبحون الله ولكن تقريبا كل الادله
من بقية المخطوطات وهي بالالاف قديمه
وحديثه تؤكد النص المسلم بطريقه قاطعه
فاستخدم هورت هذه القاعده لينحي النص
المسلم عن النقاش ويبقي الخلاف فقط بين
النص الاسكندري والغربي
فهي
قاعده لها استخداماتها النادره لو لم يكن
هناك ادله اخري
The
true reading is best.
القراءه
الحقيقيه هي الافضل
وهذه
القاعده قدمها وردورث ووايت الذي قال ان
القراءه الصحيحه هي التي ستفوز في الاخر
وستنتشر رغم كل الظروف وهو قدم ادله كثيره
علي ذلك ولكن يرفض هذه القاعده النقديين
لانها تؤكد ان النص التقليدي المسلم هو
الصحيح
والان
تتطبع عن طريق تقديم كل القراءات وترك
القارئ يختار
The
reading which is contrary to the habits of the scribe is best.
القراءه
التي تتعارض مع عادات الناسخ هي الافضل
وتطبق
هذه القاعده علي المخطوطات المفرده وفي
هذه الحاله هي ليست بقاعده نقديه ولكن
اسلوب مناسب لدراسة اسلوب نساخ فرديين
فمثلا
اتهمت المخطوطه دي بانها معادية لليهود
ومعاديه للنساء فلو وجد بها قراءه جيده
لليهود او النساء في دي تكون قراءه صحيحه
لانها ضد عادة الناسخ
That
reading which violates the prejudice of scribes is best.
القراءه
التي تخالف توقعات النساخ هي الافضل
وهي
تبدو مشابهة للماضيه ولكن هي لا تنطبق
تماما ولكنها ايضا تنطبق علي مخطوطات
بطريقه فرديه .
وهي
مقدمه بايرمان فمثلا يوحنا 4:
22 التي
تقول الخلاص هو من اليهود ولكن البعض
كتبها اليهودية وهي تعتبر ضد اليهود
فمتوقع من الناسخ الذي ضد اليهود ان يفضل
اليهوديه فلو كتب اليهود تكون صحيحه
Where
the same variant occurs in parallel passages, each variant is
original somewhere.
لو
كان هناك اختلاف في اعداد متوازيه فكل
اختلاف يكون هو الاصلي الي حد ما
بمعني
عددين في انجيلين وكل منهما مختلف في
قراءته بين قراءتين فغالبا القراءتين
الاثنين صحيحتين واحده منهم لانجيل
والاخري المختلفه للانجيل الثاني مثل
الجدريين والجرجسيين فيكون الجرجسيين
في متي صحيحه والجدريين في لوقا صحيحه
If
a similar variants occur in several places, the reading more strongly
attested in the later points of variation is best.
لو
كان هناك متغيرات متشابه في عدة اماكن
تكون القراءه التي لها شواهد اكثر في نقط
لاحقه هي القراءه الافضل
وصاغها
روبرتسون باسلوب اخر وهي
لو
نوع من الجمل تكرر عدة مرات في نفس الاصحاح
بطريقه اكثر من الطبيعي المستخدمه بواسطة
الكاتب يلجأ الناسخ الي ان يصحح القراءه
بطريقه واحده في الاعداد الاولي وليس في
الاخيره ويترك الاخيره بدون تصحيح
مثل
موضوع دودهم لا يموت والنار لا تطفئ مرقس
9:
44 و
46
وجائت
بدون خلاف في 48
فتكون
قراءة دودهم لا يموت والنار لا تطفي هي
الصحيحه والتي حزفت العددين الاوليين
خطأ بناء علي هذه القاعدة
ونري
هذا احيانا في اسلوب القديس جيروم في
ترجمته وليس في اسلوب نسخه
If
you can imagine an error, a scribe has probably made it.
لو
تخيلت هناك خطأ غالبا الناسخ فعل ذلك
وهذا
قانون مورفي
ويقال
بطريقه اخري
Never
underestimate the sleepiness of scribes.
لا
تقلل من قيمة اجهاد النساخ
لان
النساخ عملوا وقت طويل جدا واعيوا من
التعب فغالبا في نهاية كل يوم تكون اخطاؤهم
اكثر من بداية اليوم ونري بعض هذه في
البرديه 46
فيبدا
بدقه ثم في نهاية اليوم يكثر الاخطاء ثم
يعود الي الدقه مره ثانيه وهذا غالبا
بداية يوم جديد ثم يكثر الاخطاء في النهاية
وهكذا
internal
evidence
The
principal causes which have given rise to various readings have been
enumerated in the preceding chapter. The observations made upon that
subject will lend us aid in estimating the comparative probability of
the genuineness of various readings, from internal evidence. In this
inquiry we proceed upon a general principle, which is both obvious
and just:—viz.
that when there are various modes of exhibiting the same passage, all
those readings which can be accounted for by the operation of known
causes of error are to be suspected; and, if there be any one which
cannot be so accounted for, there is primâ
facie,
a probability in its favour. It is not meant that a reading is to be
regarded, in all cases, as genuine, on the ground of internal
probability alone, in opposition to any mass of authority, however
weighty; but merely that, in such instances as those now alluded to,
there is often such an inherent likelihood in favour of a reading, as
adds greatly to the force of those authorities by which it is
supported; and, in some particular cases, this internal testimony may
be conceived as so strong, that it would outweigh any assignable
amount of external authority. The general principle is so reasonable,
that it is unnecessary to advance any argument in its support.
Assuming its justice, and applying it to the cases considered in the
preceding chapter, it will lead us to the following Rules
of Internal Evidence:—
1. A
reading is to be suspected which can readily be supposed to have
arisen from the mistake of a letter, syllable, or word, from one of
similar form.
This
rule is not of much practical use, since, if one reading resembles
another in appearance, the other must equally resemble it;
and the rule affords no test for determining which is genuine. It is
obvious, that in employing this principle we must have respect, not
merely to the present manner of printing and writing, but to those
modes which prevailed at all periods, since the composition of the
books, the text of which we are investigating. There are indeed many
textual variations which can only be explained by reference to the
most ancient kind of writing.*
2. A
reading is to be suspected which appears to have arisen from the
mistake of a letter, syllable, or word, for one of similar sound.
There
is reason to believe that many existing MSS. were either written from
dictation, or copied from others which were written in that manner:
hence similarity of sound between different words might be a frequent
cause of error. This rule, however, like the former, is ambiguous in
itself; and it farther resembles its predecessor in requiring an
acquaintance with the usages of times long since passed away. Of the
primitive mode of pronouncing the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, in
which the Old Testament is composed, we can scarcely be said to know
anything, and of the Greek very little. It is probable that the Greek
pronunciation varied considerably at different periods, perhaps in
different countries at the same period; and it is certain that it
never bore any resemblance to the mode which now prevails in England
and Ireland. The whole subject is one of difficulty, and can be best
studied by comparing together those errata
of different MSS. which seem to have arisen from this cause.†
3. A
various reading is to be suspected, which apparently owes its origin
to the omission of some syllable, word, phrase, or sentence, in
consequence of a ὁμοιοτελευτόν.
This
cause is the most frequent occasion of omissions: indeed it requires
care to avoid mistakes of this kind, even in copying our own
composition, especially if it be of considerable length. The student
who will take the trouble of examining the notes to any critical
edition of the Scriptures, or of any other ancient work, will
discover innumerable examples of this species of mistake: it is
probably the most frequent cause of errors of omission, and affords
the most obvious and decisive evidence of the fact.
4. A
passage is suspicious which is omitted by some good authorities, and
which has the appearance of having been introduced into those copies
in which it is found, from a parallel place or from a marginal note.
Additions
of this kind are, in general, easily detected, and, of course,
deserve but little weight. Such a reading becomes still more
suspicious if it be found actually written as a gloss or scholium on
the margin of some MSS.; especially if those in which it is so
written be more ancient than those which contain it in the text; in
this case, we may have the means of tracing the history of the
introduction of a gloss, in chronological order.
5. A
less elegant phrase is more likely to be genuine than another reading
of the same passage in which there is nothing that might offend the
eye or the ear.
This
rule is founded on the fondness of the transcribers for such readings
as conformed to their own standard of taste. They were, in almost all
instances, studious of grammatical correctness, as well as of force
and purity of language; and when they met with anything that violated
their canons of elegance, they were apt to change it for another
phrase taken from a parallel passage, from the margin, from the
comment of some standard writer, or from their own invention, in
which the impropriety was avoided or removed. Hence the harsh,
obscure, ambiguous, elliptical, ungrammatical, unusual, foreign, or
unemphatical reading, is preferable to one in which no harshness or
difficulty occurs; because, had the latter been found in the
original, no transcriber would have sought to alter it: but, if the
incorrect or inelegant reading were the more ancient, successive
transcribers would readily catch at any means of curing what they
would naturally consider a defect in their exemplar. The rule given
above is of especial use in those passages in which the lectio
difficilior et obscurior
conveys a good and apt sense, but one which, without a minute
acquaintance with languages, antiquities, &c. would either appear
to be unintelligible, or would seem to be heretical, profane, or
immoral. It is this rule which chiefly distinguishes the criticism of
the present age from that of the earlier school, and which has given
to the moderns a great part of whatever superiority they possess
above their predecessors, in the science.
6. A
reading is to be suspected which seems well calculated to favour the
observances of ascetic devotion, or which may have been introduced
from a desire to avoid something that would have sounded offensive in
pious ears.
There
can be little doubt that the men who devoted themselves to the
laborious task of preparing copies of the Sacred Scriptures were
devout, according to their own idea of devotion; many of them were
Jewish Rabbis or Christian monks; some of the latter were anachorets
or hermits; almost all of them were addicted to asceticism. Such men
might very naturally introduce, on slight authority, a reading which
accorded well with their own devotional feelings and habits; but it
is not probable that they would have rejected such a reading on
insufficient grounds. It is this consideration which lends the
strongest support to the passage respecting the Woman taken in
Adultery, John 5:1–11. Copyists who regarded chastity as the first
of human virtues, and voluntary celibacy as highly meritorious, might
readily omit what they would consider calculated to lead men to
regard adultery as a venial offence. This circumstance throws a shade
of suspicion upon those authorities which omit the narrative: but, if
the story were of a different nature, it would probably have been
condemned as spurious, on the mere comparison of authorities.*
7.
Readings which favour the opinions of the transcriber, or of the sect
to which he belonged, or which seem calculated to advance the honour
of his party and to confound its adversaries, are suspicious.
Copyists
would not readily depart from their exemplar for the purpose of
introducing what was hostile to their own views of truth, or to the
credit or interest of their order or their sect; but they might, and
probably would, have been easily persuaded to look with partiality on
such readings as promised to favour objects so dear to their hearts.
Hence, in the MSS. of the Old Testament, which have come down to us
through the hands of Jewish copyists, readings which seem to
countenance Jewish predilections, or which might appear unfavourable
to Christianity, are to be regarded with suspicion; and, in those of
the New Testament, which have descended through an orthodox channel,
readings which seem made, as it were, on purpose to put down heresy,
are to be suspected. Of course, in the application of this, as of all
the other rules for internal evidence, it is assumed that there is
conflicting testimony, and that some respectable authorities are to
be found on each side.
It
may be useful to illustrate this rule at somewhat greater length than
has been necessary in the case of those which precede, and the
simplest mode of doing so will be by a few examples. Thus, in Judges
18:30, the Jews have, from a very early period, altered, in most of
their copies, the word משׁה,
Moses,
into מנשׁה,
Manasseh,
which, however, is usually found written with the נ
suspended
(מנשח),
or enlarged (מנשח).
We are at no difficulty to divine the motive of this alteration; it
was considered as discreditable to the Hebrew nation and to their
religion to have it recorded that the grandson of their great
lawgiver exercised, together with his sons, the priesthood of an idol
in the city of Dan; and, therefore, the name of Moses was changed
into that of Manasseh, to avoid the scandal. This corruption is very
ancient, for Μανάσση
is found in the most ancient copies of the Septuagint; but it is
easily detected by the diversity which prevails in writing the word;
by the confession of the Talmudists, who affirm that the name was
that of Moses, but that it was written with the נ,
on account of the disgraceful conduct of his descendant; and from the
marginal note found in almost all the Hebrew MSS. which directs that
the נ
shall
not be inserted in the text, but suspended over it. Had the Jewish
copyists found מנשׁה
simply,
they would not have hesitated to retain it without adding any
extraordinary marks to excite suspicion. This error appears in the
English version, but not in the Vulgate nor in any of the
translations derived from it.
It
was, at one time, a very common opinion, that the Jews had wilfully
corrupted the text of their sacred books in many places, in order to
deprive Christians of the advantage which they might derive from the
arguments drawn from ancient prophecy; but recent authors have almost
entirely abandoned this charge. It is, indeed, not to be denied that
many of the passages formerly relied on as proofs of the accusation
are found, when minutely examined, to lend it no support, the
readings objected to as spurious being, in some cases, manifestly and
undoubtedly authentic; in others, well supported; and in many not
less favourable to the Christian doctrine than those for which they
were supposed to have been fraudulently substituted. The charge of
general
corruption, therefore, must fall to the ground: but there are yet
manifest proofs that particular passages have, in some MSS. been
tampered with; or at least that, in them, readings have been
systematically preferred which seemed unfavourable to Christianity.
Of this, Psalm 22:17 (Heb.) affords an example. There is no doubt,
from the testimony of the ancient versions, as well as from the sense
of the passage, that the true reading of the last clause of this
verse is כּרו
ידי ורגלי׃;
which is rendered in our English version, “they
pierced
(i. e. tore or wounded,) my
hands and my feet;”
this reading is found in some MSS. as above given, and in several
others with a slight change in the first word, which is written
כּארו,
by the insertion of one of the matres
lectionis.
The vast majority, however, of the Jewish MSS. and editions read,
instead of כּרו
or
כּארו
“they
pierced,”
כּארי
or
כּאריה
“as
a lion,”
which makes nonsense of the clause, and even contradicts the Masorah,
the rule by which they profess to be guided; for that document
directs, that in this place כּארו
shall
be inserted in the text; כּארי
in
the margin. It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that party zeal
may have influenced these copyists. They must have known that the
Christians—whether correctly or not is nothing to the present
question—regarded this clause as prophetically descriptive of the
suffering Messiah; and, no doubt, they were prone to adopt any
various reading by which the force of their opponents’ argument
could be effectually turned aside. In this instance, therefore, we
prefer the reading כּרו
or
כּארו,
“they
pierced,”
because it is supported by some respectable authorities, and because
it is least favourable to the party to which the transcribers of the
Hebrew MSS. belonged.
Nor
need we hesitate to apply the same rule to some readings which are
found in particular copies of the New Testament Scriptures. Thus, in
John 8:44, where the true reading undoubtedly is, ὑμεῖς
ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦ διαβόλου ἐστέ,
“ye
are of your
[lit. the]
father,
the devil:”
a few MSS. read, ὑμεῖς
ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου ἑστέ,
ye
are of the devil;”
leaving out τοῦ
πατρὸς,
“the
father,”
a mistake which may have arisen from the ὀμοιοτελευτόν,
occasioned by the repetition of the article τοῦ,
but which, more probably, was owing to the desire of the copyists to
deprive certain Gnostics of the argument which they might build upon
this text in support of their fundamental position, that the God of
the Jews, the Creator of the world and of the human race, was an Evil
Being. Had the external evidence in favour of this reading been much
more weighty than it is, we should have rejected it without scruple,
because it apparently owes its origin to the sectarian zeal of the
copyists.
For
another example we may refer to Matt. 1:25; ἑως
οὗ ἔτεκε τὸν υἱόν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον
“until
she brought forth her first-born son;”
but here four MSS. with two ancient versions and a few copies of the
old Latin version, read simply τὸν
υἱὸν αὐτῆς,
“her
son,”
leaving out τὸν
πρωτότοκον,
“the
first-born.”
These words were, doubtless, omitted because they seemed to call in
question the perpetual virginity of the mother of Christ, which it
was considered both heresy and blasphemy to impugn. We therefore
prefer the common reading; and we should have preferred it though not
merely four but forty MSS. had opposed it; because we can account for
their opposition from the doctrinal views of the transcribers.
We
may here refer to John 3:6, which ends with the words, “that
which is born of the spirit is spirit:”
to this some Latin MSS. and Fathers add, “quia
Deus Spiritus est:”
and three Latin MSS. still further improve the cogency of the passage
by reading: “quia
Deus Spiritus est, et de
(vel ex)
Deo
natus est:”
i.e. “because
the Spirit is God and is born of God.”
Who can doubt that these readings are interpolations, probably
originating in a marginal scholium, but which found a ready reception
with the copyists of these documents, from their appearing well
calculated to refute the doctrines of the Arians and Macedonians,
respecting the Spirit of God? Readings which can be traced to such
feelings are of no authority whatever.
This
rule has been applied by Wetstein, Griesbach, and other critics, to a
number of passages in which the Received Text as commonly printed is
favourable to the orthodox doctrine: but in which several of the most
valuable authorities exhibit a reading that has no direct bearing
upon controversy: such as Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 10:9; 1 Tim. 3:16; 1
John 5:7; Jude, ver. 4; Rev. 1:8; Rev. 1:11, &c.; but as these
texts will receive a separate examination hereafter, it is
unnecessary and would be out of place to go into them minutely at
present. The examples already given are such as will probably
occasion no dispute: and they are amply sufficient to explain and
justify the rule.
8.
In general a shorter reading is to be preferred to a more copious
one.
Transcribers
were desirous of making their copies as complete as possible: it is
probable that they never left out, on purpose, anything which they
found in their exemplar, except in cases where their peculiar
prejudices were concerned: and several MSS. exhibit blank spaces in
particular parts; showing that when the copyists had heard of the
existence of passages, though not in their own exemplar, nor in any
to which they had access, they nevertheless wished to insert them,
whenever an opportunity might occur for doing so, and left room for
the purpose. This rule, of course, does not apply to places in which
either the ὀμοιοτελευτόν
or some other known cause, might occasion an omission.
9.
Cæteris
paribus
a reading is to be preferred which best accords with the usage of the
writer in whose works it is found.
Every
author has his own peculiarities of style and phrase, from which he
does not frequently deviate: we ought not therefore, without strong
evidence, to attribute to him a reading which is opposed to his usual
mode of expression. This rule shews that no one can be a sound critic
who is not also a good scholar, and especially versed in the writings
upon which he proposes to exercise his critical sagacity.
10.
There is a strong probability in favour of any reading, which, if
assumed to have been the original one, will readily enable us to
account for all the other readings by the operation of some of the
known causes of error.
This
rule, though occasionally referred to by preceding writers, has been
brought prominently into notice by Griesbach, who has very happily
applied it to the elucidation of several difficult passages. Its
justice will not be disputed; for we are in no case to suppose more,
or more important changes, than are necessary to account for observed
facts.
Griesbach,
after enumerating the principles of internal evidence, very nearly to
the same effect with the rules which are given above, adds, that “it
is unnecessary to repeat again and again that those readings which,
viewed in themselves, we judge to be preferable, are not to be
actually adopted as the true text, unless they are recommended by the
testimony of some ancient authorities. Those which are supported by
no adequate testimony, but rely exclusively on trivial and modern
authorities, are not to be taken into account. But the more
conspicuous any reading is for its internal marks of excellence, the
fewer authorities are necessary to support it. And thus it may
occasionally happen, that a reading may display so many and so clear
indications of authenticity, as to be sufficiently supported by two
authorities, provided they belong to different classes or families,
or even by one.”—Proleg.
in N. T. Sec.
iii. p.
59, n.
To
decide upon trivial and modern authorities, exclusively, is nearly
the same as to decide without any authority whatever, or upon mere
conjecture; and although this is a practice which is freely admitted
in the case of the ancient classics, and must occasionally be
tolerated, from necessity, in the Old Testament, and although some
specious arguments might be advanced for permitting it to be employed
in the New,—still it seems safest and best to adhere in the
criticism of the sacred text,—always in the New Testament,—and in
the Old, whenever it is possible,—to the maxim laid down by
Griesbach, and according to which he has constructed his valuable
edition,—“Nil
mutetur e conjecturâ.”
The reasons for tolerating Critical Conjecture as a source of
emendation in a few passages of the Old Testament, will come before
us in the sequel. It must, however, be allowed that it is a dangerous
remedy in any hands but the most judicious and experienced: and its
arbitrary use ought certainly to be discouraged.
والمجد
لله دائما
**
Some observations on the most ancient forms of writing the languages
of Scripture will be introduced hereafter, in the sketches of the
History of the Text of the Old and New Testament.
††
The English pronunciation of Greek
being completely out of the question, two others remain to be
considered, the Erasmian
and the Reuchlinian.
The former, which is followed in Scotland, France, and parts of
Germany, agrees very well with some classical allusions; but the
Reuchlinian,
which was the mode adopted by the Greeks, who taught their native
language in the West at the period of the revival of letters, and
which still prevails in modern Greece, seems to be of great
antiquity. The itacism,
or confusion of the sounds of η,
ι,
υ,
and ει;
and of ε,
αι,
and οι,
which is a peculiarity of Reuchlin’s system, has given rise to
mistakes in some of the oldest Greek MSS. extant.
**
The authorities for the omission and insertion of this passage will
be stated in the Third Book of this work.
