Karl Georg Wieseler (1813-1883)
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wieseler
The Academy
"K" = Karl Georg Wieseler - (not Friedrich)
https://books.google.com/books?id=1B4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA88
https://archive.org/details/academy07unkngoog/page/88/mode/2up
Page 88
We now turn to the eighth edition of the New Testament by Tischendorf; the seventh has been already noticed elsewhere.
* Very large additions have again been made to the critical apparatus, chief among which is the Cod. Sinaiticus. Without prejudice even to a Tregelles, we may venture to say that the material supplied by Tischendorf
is marked by equal exactness and is much more copious. Among other points of superiority is this, that Tischendorf has employed a greater number of cursives than Tregelles, who has contented himself with adducing a few important specimens, and that he has also mentioned how many of these support any particular reading. But, as we said before, this copiousness of material does but increase the difficulty of constituting the text, and this explains the charge, brought by
*See the present writer's review in
Studien u. Kritiken, 1861, where Tischendorf's principles are compared with those of Lachmann, and his dissertation on "The Sinaitic MS. of the Bible with Reference to its Publication by Dr. Tischendorf" (
Stud. u. Krit. 1864), where too an attempt is made to estimate the value of its text with especial reference to manuscripts A, B, C.
Tregelles (Introduction, p. 137 sqq.) against Tischendorf, of
instability in his critical principles. Tregelles, too, has investigated the quality and value of his authorities more than Tischendorf has found opportunity to do, and on the basis of this investigation (ibid. p. 106) has undertaken, at any rate for the Gospels, to group the uncial MSS. according to their quality and affinity. The duty of also determining the quality of our critical authorities in the main from an exegetical point of view has been, to the best of his ability, fulfilled by the present writer, not only in the places referred to in the note, but in his
Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (see the Excursus on Textual Criticism, p. 601 sqq.).
We may hope that Tischendorf may find space in his forthcoming Prolegomena for a more complete examination of the subject than he has yet published. Perhaps the result will be that the corruption of the text, supposed by this critic to have taken place before the middle of the second century, exists rather in the Gospels than in the Epistles, and that it has but seldom affected the meaning to any considerable extent.
The peculiarity of this eighth edition is that it professes to be based on the earliest authorities, purely internal evidence being thrown into the background.
"Quo in negotio, postquam Bentlejus, quem rursus Lachmannus sequutus est, ea ratione acquiescendum censuit, quæ tempore concilii Nicæni per ecclesiam legi solebat, felicissime providente deo evenit, ut nobis ad Irenæi certe tempora redire liceat" (Preface, p. xiii).
To this objective criticism, produced in the case of Tischendorf mainly by the discovery of the Cod. Sin. (see his
Synopsis evangelica, 3rd edit. p. liii), we have already expressed our adhesion, though it still seems to us desirable to keep in view the other object as well, that, namely, of restoring the original text. But is the editor justified in his assertion that he can generally recover the readings which prevailed most widely in the second century? We think not. Supposing that we could argue from the Latin translation which arose in the second century to the Greek text employed, we should not therefore have arrived at the most prevalent form of the text, and still less so if, with Tischendorf, we regard the original text as having undergone no slight modification before the date of this Latin translation.
And it has scarcely been made out by the editor that the Cod. Sin., on account of its agreement with Origen or the Itala in isolated passages, deserves to be treated, even in a partial degree, as a witness of the second century. As the case stands at present, it will often be easier to restore the original text than that of the second century.
Besides, the Cod. Sin. seems to be over-estimated in various places, even according to the editor's own principles, e.g. when
John xxi. 25 is excised contrary to the express testimony of Origen.
In conclusion we will mention a few passages in which the sense is affected by the variety of readings, and from which it will appear how much depends on the correct application of a critical method, and that even such eminent critics as those before us, starting from essentially similar principles, not unfrequently arrive at a different result. For instance, Matt. vii. 13, Treg. reads múλŋ, Tisch. brackets it; vii. 14, Treg. reads Tí σTen múλn, Tisch. ὅτι στενὴ [ἡ πύλη]. The former seems to me to be right in both cases: rí is more probable than or, as less common in this sense, and therefore liable to be replaced by the or of the preceding verse. Matt. xxvi. 28, Treg. has τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, Tisch. τῆς διαθήκης. We prefer the former reading in this passage, the latter in Mark xiv. 24, and explain the omission of Kaus in B from a harmonizing tendency, while A, for the same reason, has κaws in Mark xiv. 24. From the point of view of objective criticism, Tischendorf might have omitted κawns with the two earliest MSS. Luke vi. 1, Tisch. has v oаßßáτy devтEроpór, Treg. omits it. No doubt it is wanting in & B, but this is because the difficult chronological datum was not understood. John i. 18, Treg. povoyevns beós, Tisch. & povoyerns viós. The former reading is a dogmatic correction, as is shown by the patristic quotations. Explanations and alterations of the text by eminent Fathers have occasioned corrupt readings, more than many critics are inclined to allow. The works of the Fathers should therefore be examined in this as well as other aspects. Both our critics omit the addition to Matt. xxvii. 49, aλos de daßiov ... aiua (comp. John xix. 35), in spite of a remarkable weight of testimony, and this with reason, at least if we aim at the original reading. Luke xxiii. 45, Treg. kai ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος, Tisch. ἐκλιπόντος τοῦ ἡλίου. The former is certainly correct, for a true solar eclipse does not take place at the time of the full moon (see the writer's Chronologische Synopse, &c. p. 387), but earthquakes are accompanied by obscurations of the sun. The Fathers, particularly Eusebius in his Chronicon, were accustomed to connect the year of the Crucifixion with a real solar eclipse reported by Phlegon (his words are os egéλrev), and this was the origin of the reading. Luke xxii. 43, 44, and xxiii. 34, are rightly retained by both critics, in spite of several old MSS., especially B (and we may now add ), which omit them with an evident eye to Christology. Luke ii. 1, both critics omit the article before anоyрapń; they have the historical fact, too, on their side. John v. 1, Treg. rightly omits the article before oprý; Tisch., who omitted it in the seventh edition, now inserts it, apparently induced by . Of course "a festival" is intended, namely Purim; comp. John iv. 35, vi. 4. So, too, he now reads, John v. 2, ẞη0¿áła, while Treg., with whom we rather agree, has ẞnéoda. These examples may suffice to show that the purely diplomatic method of criticism does not always lead (though it does often lead) to the discovery of the true reading, even in the hands of the most skilful and learned critics.
K. WIESELER.
