Elzevir or “Textus Receptus” (1624

18 to 1624, they would have given us a Version having a comparatively small number of changed readings. In fact it is within bounds to say that, if the Revisers had given us simply a corrected translation of the Textus Receptus, instead of a translation of an entirely “New Greek Text,” we should not have more than a small fraction, say less than ten percent, of the changes found in the E. V. And what is more, not one of those changes which are regarded as serious, and against which such a storm of protest has been raised (and that from men of the highest scholarship and deepest piety) would have been made. In that case it is likely also that the changes would have commended themselves to the majority of discriminating Bible users.

Therefore we should take careful note of the principles that were adopted, and of the mate rials that were used in the compilation of later Greek Texts of the New Testament. Of the most important of these we shall proceed now to speak briefly.

Geiesbaoh’s Edition (1805)

This Text appeared about 150 years after the Elzevir edition. In the meantime an enormous amount of new materials had been gathered and was available for whatever help it might afford in the effort to arrive at the true original reading. But the added mass of evidence made the task of examination the more laborious; and moreover, it raised again and again the difficult question of the relative credibility of conflicting witnesses. Griesbach, in the compilation of his text, proceeded upon a plan and principles of his own, which need not be here described. In cases of doubt and difficulty he seemed to follow the Textus Receptus. Hence his departures were not serious; and in any case his Text is not regarded today as having any special authority.

Lachmann (1842-1850)

This editor appears to have been the first to act upon the theory or principle that the more ancient the manuscript the more worthy of credence. The extent to which this idea has been allowed to control in the settling of disputed readings, without regard to other weighty considerations whereby the credibility of the contradictory witnesses should properly have been determined, is very extraordinary. This matter calls for special attention, not only because of the important part it played in settling the Text of the R. V., but because it seems to be quite generally taken for granted that the older the manuscript the more worthy to be believed where there is a conflict of testimony. We propose, therefore, to examine this rule of evidence with some care later on ; and in that connection we will endeavor to show why we