A prevailing fallacy with some critical writers on the subject to which the present volume is devoted, may be thus described. In the case of a disputed reading, they seem to think that they do enough if they simply marshal the authorities for and against, and deliver an oracular verdict. In critical editions of the Greek text, such a summary method is perhaps unavoidable. But I take leave to point out that in Sacred Textual Criticism there are several other considerations which absolutely require attention besides, and that those considerations ought to find expression where the space permits. It is to some of these that I proceed now to invite the reader's attention.

A word,—a phrase,—a clause,—or even a sentence or a paragraph,—must have some relation to the rest of the entire passage which precedes or comes after it. Therefore it will often be necessary, in order to reach all the evidence that bears upon a disputed question, to examine both the meaning and the language lying on both sides of the point in dispute. We do not at present lay so much stress upon the contextual meaning, because people are generally not unready to observe it, and it is often open to much difference of opinion:—we refrain especially, because we find from experience that there is in [pg 062] the case of the New Testament always enough external evidence of whose existence no doubt can be entertained to settle any textual question that can arise.

Nevertheless, it may be as well to give a single instance. In 1 Cor. xiii. 5, Codex B and Clement of Alexandria read t? ? ?a?t?? instead of t? ?a?t??, i.e. “charity seeketh not what does not belong to her,” instead of “seeketh not her own.” That is to say, we are invited, in the midst of that magnificent passage which is full of lofty principles, to suppose that a gross violation of the eighth commandment is forbidden, and to insert a commonplace repudiation of gross dishonesty. We are to sink suddenly from a grand atmosphere down to a vulgar level. In fact, the light shed on the words in question from the context on either side of course utterly excludes such a supposition; consequently, the only result is that we are led to distrust the witnesses that have given evidence which is so palpably absurd.

But as regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute. If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes even self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve.

Take as an illustration of what I have been saying the exceedingly precious verse, “Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting” (St. Matt. xvii. 21), which has met with rejection by the recent school of critics. Here the evidence against the verse is confined to B and the first reading of ? amongst the Uncials, Evan. 33 alone of the Cursives, e and ff1 of the Old Latin Versions, as well as the Curetonian and the Lewis, Jerusalem, Sahidic, a few Bohairic copies, a few Ethiopic, and the Greek of Eusebius' [pg 063] Canons:—evidence of a slight and shifty character, when contrasted with the witness of all the other Uncials and Cursives, the rest of the Versions, and more than thirteen of the Fathers beginning with Tertullian and Origen62. It is plain that the stress of the case for rejection, since ? being afterwards corrected speaks uncertainly, rests such as it is upon B; and that if the evidence of that MS. is found to be unworthy of credit in the whole passage, weak indeed must be the contention which consists mainly of such support.

Now if we inspect vv. 19, 20, 22, and 23, to go no farther, we shall discover that the entire passage in B is wrapped in a fog of error. It differs from the main body of the witnesses in ten places; in four of which its evidence is rejected by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, and the Revisers63; in two more by the Revisers64; and of the remaining four, it is supported in two by only ? and severally by one or six Cursives, and in the other two by only ? and D with severally four or five Cursive copies65.

Inspection of the Context therefore adds here strong confirmation:—though indeed in this instance to have recourse to such a weapon is to slay the already slain.

St. Matthew (xi. 2, 3) relates that John Baptist “having heard in the prison the works of Christ, sent two of his Disciples” (d?? t?? a??t?? a?t??) with the inquiry, “Art Thou He that should come66, or are we to look for another (?te???)?” So all the known copies but nine. So the Vulgate, Bohairic, Ethiopic. So Origen. So Chrysostom. It is interesting to note with what differences [pg 064] of expression St. Luke reproduces this statement. Having explained in ver. 18 that it was the Forerunner's disciples who brought him tidings concerning Christ, St. Luke (vii. 19) adds that John “called for certain two” (d?? t????) of them, and “sent them to Jesus”: thus emphasizing, while he repeats, the record of the earlier Evangelist. Inasmuch however as ?te??? means, in strictness, “the other of two,” in order not to repeat himself, he substitutes ????? for it. Now all this is hopelessly obscured by the oldest amongst our manuscript authorities. It in no wise surprises us to find that t???? has disappeared from D, the Peshitto, Latin, Bohairic, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The word has disappeared from our English version also. But it offends us greatly to discover that (1) ?BLRX? (with Cyril) obliterate ????? from St. Luke vii. 19, and thrust ?te??? into its place,—as clear an instance of vicious assimilation as could anywhere be found: while (2) for d?? (in St. Matt. xi. 3) ?BCDPZ? write d??: which is acquiesced in by the Peshitto, Harkleian, Gothic and Armenian Versions. The Old Latin Versions prevaricate as usual: two read, mittens duos ex discipulis suis: all the rest,—mittens discipulos suos,—which is the reading of Cureton's Syriac and the Dialogus (p. 819), but of no known Greek MS.67 Lastly (3) for ??s??? in St. Luke, BLR? substitute ??????. What would be thought of us if we were freely imposed upon by readings so plainly corrupt as these three?

But light is thrown upon them by the context in St. Luke. In the thirteen verses which immediately follow, Tischendorf himself being the judge, the text has experienced depravation in at least fourteen particulars68. [pg 065] With what reason can the same critic straightway insist on other readings which rest exclusively upon the same authorities which the fourteen readings just mentioned claim for their support?

This Note of Truth has for its foundation the well-known law that mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or in other shapes. The carelessness, or the vitiated atmosphere, that leads a copyist to misrepresent one word is sure to lead him into error about another. The ill-ordered assiduity which prompted one bad correction most probably did not rest there. And the errors committed by a witness just before or just after the testimony which is being sifted was given cannot but be held to be closely germane to the inquiry.

So too on the other side. Clearness, correctness, self-collectedness, near to the moment in question, add to the authority of the evidence. Consequently, the witness of the Context cannot but be held to be positively or negatively, though perhaps more often negatively than positively, a very apposite Note of Truth.