K.R. Gregory. Textual criticism of the New Testament

Textkritik des Neuen Testaments von Caspar René Gregory. I-er Bd. Strn. IV+478. Price 12 marks = about 6 rubles. Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs'sche Buchhandlung European science owes a lot to the venerable scientist Prof. K.R. Gregory, which serves as a living center of unity between the old and new worlds, and successfully combines their advantages. An American by birth (see Prof. Eberhard Nestle, Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament, Guttinger 1897, S. 8; 2-te Aufl. ibid. 1899, S. 9), he brought to Europe a purely American enterprise, which was combined here with the German solidity of erudition, inexhaustible industry and iron perseverance. Having thus enriched himself, Mr. Gregory does not forget his homeland and often visits it for the sake of direct participation in scientific and pedagogical affairs. Now he occupies a department at the University of Leipzig, which is, as it were, international in the composition of the members of the professorial board, but in the fall he temporarily gives a course of lectures in Chicago. The noted merits of Mr. Gregory's talent were especially fruitful for textual New Testament criticism. As is known, the late K. Tischendorf was involved in the eighth edition (octava critica major) of the Greek New Testament and worked on the processing of the critical apparatus together with the American prof. Ezra Abbott. But the latter died († March 20, 1884) ten years after the death of the editor himself († December 7, 1874), when the printing of the third volume had barely begun - and only to the rare energy of Mr. Gregory we owe the fact that in 1884 (Lipsiae, Hinrichs) the scientific world received huge Prolegomena (in VI + 1426 pages, in 8-o). This was the best guide for N. Z. on all textual critical issues and it retains all its significance to this day. This judgment remains true, despite the fact that in 1894 (London, George Bell & Sons) Edward Miller published (in the fourth edition) a two-volume A plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament Fr. Scrivener (see “Christ. Reading”, 1897, No. 9, pp. 391–397). Here, of course, the entire content of the Prolegomena is taken into account, but, firstly, the factual data on new manuscripts is noted only with references to the book of Mr. Gregory and 2, the textual-critical views of the latter are far from corresponding to Scrivener’s and are not replaced by them. However, labor has aged somewhat with necessity. First of all, the Latin language has already ceased to be a generally accepted means of scientific communication, and for Mr. Gregory it was not distinguished by its classical correctness, judging by the reviews of Catholic authors competent in this subject (see, for example, Dr. Alois Theimer, Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Sprachgebrauches im Neuen Testamente in Programm zum XXIV. Jahresberichte des... Gymnasiums Horn, 1896, S. 3: “es ist schwer, sich durch diese Prolegomena durchzuarbeiten; What is much more important is that the work concerned most of all an area where the factual material does not depend on the will and diligence of the scientist, since it is not complete and increases with gradual discoveries, often accidental and unexpected. But in this area, the most fundamental views are largely and significantly conditioned by factual information, in parallel with which they must be updated. It is now clear why the appearance of the German “Textual Criticism of the New Testament” under the name of an experienced specialist who was tirelessly engaged in the selection of all possible additions was so desirable. The first volume contains the largest number of such additions, because factual detail of a descriptive and bibliographic nature predominates in it. After a brief introduction, the author proceeds to the main monuments and, having made the necessary paleographic explanations and preliminary remarks, describes the uncial Greek codices - a) the four Gospels, b) the book of Acts and conciliar epistles, c) Paul's epistles and d) the Apocalypse, listing - for the uncial manuscripts - other designations found in various scholars and publications. In the same order, the author reviews cursive manuscripts, and at the end examines the “Greek liturgical books,” preceded by introductory instructions and lists of New Testament church readings (ordinary, holiday, and for various occasions) and a month book. As we see, the bulk of the content falls on purely factual details and in them we have important enrichments. Already for the majuscules, a lot of completely new things are reported (p. 75, f. 93, f. 123) in comparison with the previous Latin catalog, and - consequently - in comparison with Scrivener’s English, although here discoveries are rare almost to the point of exclusivity. As for the minuscules, for the Gospels alone, to the previously registered 1287 no.-rams, 133 more are now added, so that in total there will be 1420 no.-rams; for Acts and conciliar messages - instead of 420 - we find 514 (+10) Nos. for the Pavlovs, the figure increased from 480 to 515 (+12) no. for Apocalypse the amount also increased significantly. In the lectionaries the proportion is no less impressive, for from 936+265 numbers they rose to 1072+287 (+16). These arithmetic certificates alone speak of the significant originality and high dignity of the new edition. But. the matter does not stop there, since in everything else it is not just a German copy of the Latin original. On the contrary, everything was processed again from beginning to end and acquired valuable increments. Even the most important manuscripts are now seen in a new light, since their advantages aroused especially intense scientific rigor and were comprehended more clearly. An example of this is the Cambridge Codex Beza, which, thanks to the Gallic philologist professor Friedrich Blasow, began to successfully claim an honorable place in the textual apparatus of the Acts (and the Gospel of Luke). For such a writer as Mr. Gregory, there is no need to specifically say that he took advantage of all the information in the relevant literature and took everything useful from it, and his bibliography is complete (with rare omissions - on page 6 Greek and Latin Palaeography by Edw. M. Thompson, London ²1894 and on page 108, 1 to Scrivener Intr. ³165 om. I⁴, p. 175 and cf. 126), although since then she has enriched herself with something (to pp. 46 for the 1899 edition of D, see F. G. Kenyon in The Journal of Theological Studies I, 2 (January, 1900), p. 293–299; strn. 89 ibid. II, 6 (January, 1901), p. 176, y F. C. Burkitt'a that θ ĥ belongs to another ms., described by J. Rendel Haggis; to page 94 ibid. I, 2, p. 290–292 in Rev. K. Lake, which is in Ψ in Luke. Dosir text, Alexandrian type, with Western readings; to page 192 for No. 461 (481 Scrivener’a) see Cerеteli in “Byzantinische Zeitschrift” IX (1900), 4). But it is necessary to mention that the venerable Leipzig professor himself checked and revised a lot personally, or through competent intermediaries, and through this he achieved tangible certainty, which is certainly ensured for readers by his scientific impeccability as an excellent expert and punctual referent regarding the materials of the Greek New Testament text. All this acquires two qualities that are so precious in such works. This is, first of all, precision in everything down to the last detail. Without it, such works lose greatly and are often deprived of their importance, or introduce errors that science cannot unravel for centuries. This gives rise to insoluble questions on essential points, while everything would be explained by itself with clear references regarding the textual tradition. Thus, the matter of comma Johanneum, i.e., the authenticity of 1 John 5:7b-8a (about the three heavenly witnesses) would be greatly simplified if the textual material that was available to the publishers of the Complutensian Polyglot was fully known. The same is true in general for ancient New Testament editions, where the firmness of certain lectionary features remains problematic due to the unclear textual foundations. Of course, for European science, all these requirements are unnecessary, because for it these are elementary truths, but with us we still only need to introduce them into consciousness, without the happy hope of steady application at least by authoritative bodies. In Bible publishing, we have been unsuccessful, sometimes comically and inextricably from the deplorable. For the Greek text, we distinguished ourselves with the Greek Bible of the Moscow fabrication of 1821; for the Old Testament, it was supposed to include readings of the Alexandrian Codex, but the publishers did not even realize that in their source these readings were on the margin, and not in the text that they reprinted, and - as a result - they called the non-existent as the existing... With the New Testament it was hardly better. For him, hitherto among us, the so-called “Norovsky” Greek-Slavic edition (St. Petersburg 1861: 1866), edited by the late P.I., dominated. Savvaitov. It strikes everyone by the amazing agreement between the Greek and Slavic texts, which is known to science mss. it doesn’t turn out... What we owe to these mysterious phenomena is not directly visible due to the lack of the slightest explanation from the symphonist. We came across only an extraneous note - in the dissertation of prof. G. A. Voskresensky (Characteristic features of four editions of the Slavic translation of the Gospel of Mark, Moscow 1896), which is in the RKP. XIV century Moscow, synod. books 274–CCLXI (Mattei r, Fr. Archim. Vladimir No. 19, in Gregory and Scrivener’a No. 246 Evv.) “quite a few words are written in the margins in cinnabar, serving to replace the words in the text or to supplement the text” and that “these words and expressions, placed in callouts in the margins, are adopted in the new printed Greek text of the Gospel, ed. in 1861 in St. Petersburg. in the Synodal Printing House,” although “the same text had been printed earlier (sic!.) since the end of the 17th century” (p. 87). It goes without saying that the consonance that interests us is not yet revealed or justified by this, and then Mr. Gregory says (Texkritik, S. 172) that the “RKP” itself. has good readings,” but the lateral additions were made by a later (even for the 14th century?) hand. By all accounts, we are forced to think that the editor loved (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:3) too much a bad peace over a good quarrel and composed it himself, either adjusting the Greek text to the Slavic, or adjusting the latter to the first. Even such a cautious writer as P.A. Hiltebrandt, even in such an inappropriate place as the Dictionary of the (Slavic) New Testament, could not help but state that in Apoc. 16:13 “in the edition of P.I. Savvaitova, Greek text restored according to Slavic" (vol. I, pp. 645b con.). There is no need to judge the scientific value of these publications, but it is regrettable and annoying that you inevitably end up in this web, because no means are given to untangle it... Now - since 1886 - an edition of the New Testament has been printed in St. Petersburg in four languages ​​(Greek, Slavic, Russian and Latin). It is not over yet and history has not yet begun for him, and therefore how long will silence be more convenient... There are a lot of originalities in it and one must regret that there is no full report about them, and wish that at least later it would follow. In view of all these phenomena, it is especially pleasant to witness the high punctuality in Mr. Gregory’s book. People who know well the true value of scientific accuracy and are competent in this kind of matter, promptly emphasized this advantage, and Pref. Eb. Nestle (in the Literarisches Centralblatt, November 10, 1900, st. 1849-1851) fairly and authoritatively certified this, needlessly exaggerating the shortcomings of Scrivener-Miller. For our part, we note a little. Prof. Gregory is careful to the point of scrupulousness and does not allow anything dubious in factual information. We will not find in him, for example, many of Scrivener’s italic Gospels (I, pp. 282–283), but he would willingly include numbers 1288–1281 from here, if they were not rather Evangelicals (p. 251). This thoroughness also results in the fact that even some external inaccuracies are far from accidental. Thus, our attention was drawn to the reciprocity of the phrase that Mr. Gregory saw 987 Evst. May 4th, 1889, but now does not know where he is (page 456). It would have been more helpful to name the location of this vision, but the author (in a private letter) has given us convincing reasons why he deliberately kept silent about it. Another important property of such work is the completeness of the reporting of all data. Our previous remarks about the superiority of Mr. Gregory’s work over others that are similar in this regard speak sufficiently about it. Let us add for illustration that all Russian materials that were available to a foreign writer were also involved. Of course, there are the most gaps in this part, but - fortunately for the author and not to our glory - they are not very significant. It would be desirable that the manuscripts themselves, which entered textual-critical circulation according to Mattei, Muralt, etc., were revised and examined personally, but it is not a big problem that they remained unknown to the Evangelists of the libraries of theological academies in St. Petersburg. and Kyiv. However, Mr. Gregory wants to fill these gaps in the second volume, where all the reported information from Russian literature will find a place. Moreover, he has a firm intention to visit Russia, for which he even took up the Russian language, in which he understands something and can even write 1 . One can expect, in any case, more from this visit than from the young candidates of theology who studied with us on behalf of the Berlin prof. f.-Soden, but a trip to America (Chicago) postponed this visit. The decisive conviction on this issue of Prof. himself is worthy of attention. Gregory, who formulated it for us like this: “It’s a shame that I can’t read Russian; It's shameful that so many other people can't read Russian. I will force myself and others to do this, because I will give titles in Russian.” Therefore, in the German book, we find a good Russian print - for the works of the bishop. Porfiria (pages 28.1. 28.2. 59.1), Viktorova (pages 253), ep. Amphilochia (page 192:455) and others - with minor defects. Most often the quotations are German and not fully consistent in transcription, for example, Noroft (pages 29.3), Nelidow (pages 58), Viktorow (pages 253) and Viktorov (pages 455), Usow (pages 93.1), Vuskov (pages 455). For the Orthodox monthly book, the Latin compilation of the Jesuit Martynov is taken (page 339) and the grandiose work of the archbishop is not mentioned. Sergius, published in the second, revised and expanded edition. In general, Russian works have received attention beyond the norm that has been established in Europe due to their inaccessibility. In matters of principle, the author adheres to critical views; there has not yet been room to express them, although we already read (on page 1) about the false ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9–20) and the equal story about a wife taken in adultery (John 7:53; John 8:1–11). But even this is not an extreme hobby, for Mr. Gregory values ​​the Greek liturgical Gospels and Apostles above others, and recommends everything connected with this liturgical practice (page 331.1) even for a new special study as a rewarding task. The high usefulness of the publication prompts us to express some wishes. The first and closest of them is that a most detailed index of contents should be added later. In a reference book, this is a necessary aid, in the absence or imperfection of which its usefulness suffers no little, as Scrivener-Miller convinces. We were interested in the scribe with his calligraphy, which served as a model for the printed font of the New Testament Greek editions, but we were never able to find him, because this place was not marked during reading, and the short index does not make it easier to wander through the two-volume folios. Second. The discovery of manuscripts is more a matter of chance and is complicated by the fact that the latter, often and for a long time, do not meet worthy connoisseurs, which is why they become even more random... After all, it is known that the Rev. Porfiry (Uspensky), formerly Tischendorf and Metropolitan. Philotheus Bryennius, knew both the Sinai manuscript and the copy of the “Teachings of the XII Apostles,” but still lost his glory... It is clear that there is nothing to exact from mere mortals, especially from Russians. Even about our own wealth, we judge by a foreign voice and, for example, according to the former Gregory, we report as if S or Vatic. 354 dated March 1, 949 is the oldest dated example (see G.A. Voskresensky op. cit., p. 77), meanwhile, we have in St. Petersburg. Public library Porfirievskaya RKP. dated May 7, 835 (No. 481 Scrivener I, p. 41.2. 245; No. 461 Gregory I, S. 192). To facilitate the search and to attract the widest possible circle of people, it would be extremely useful to provide a detailed ordinal table of those textual sections that have not been preserved in hitherto known important lists - with the exact designation of the latter. Then, by simple comparison, it would be easy to associate the fragment that comes across with one or another codex, and understand its merits. Prof. Gregory energetically invites each reader to participate in the work of this great but little cultivated field (page 5) - and we think that our project would contribute to the practical application of this invitation, which without this for many will be a voice crying in the wilderness. The third and no less significant concerns the designation of manuscripts. In this regard, instability still reigns, often confusing and always shy. The sigilation of uncials in Latin letters turned out to be unsatisfactory, because there were not enough of them for a long time (and thank God!); I had to disturb the Greek and Hebrew alphabets, but this is not good because it violates uniformity, and introduces its own complexity and confusion (cf. on page 146). Dual Tw and so on. they explain absolutely nothing, but try to note with it the reading of the scribe and the second or third hand at once, and you will have such a balcony of icons erected at the top that it will overturn the building itself... On the other hand, for example, ר 6, because it can be taken as an indication of a later reading. As for minuscules, the numbers are, of course, simpler, but not to mention the fact that with them it is necessary to note the textual content and distinguish Ev. from Evst. (cf. on page 147) - they are placed differently, which is why the nos-pa in Gregory and Scrivener are often unequal and the choice between them is made arbitrarily (at least in Eb. Nestle, who is inclined to number Gregory only because this one “is still working in Germany, and Scrivener has already died”: Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament, S. ²69). The sigils themselves are given randomly and are held unreasonably and in vain; Thus, it can hardly be justified that נ Gregory is preserved for sheets that belong to the N or purple codex (E. Nestle, Einführung, S. ²62), mostly located in St. Petersburg. Public library; This is also true for examples where one ms. It is noted by scientists differently - ק and T (ibid., S. ²62), although sometimes the opposite is again found (ibid., S. ²66). It is necessary to develop a certain system so that, for example, there is no need to skip your numbers, so that for the English RKP. keep Scrivener's No. intact (page 315). We believe that no one is as capable as Prof. Gregory, to draw up the necessary plan that would have every chance of authoritative acceptance in the scientific world. Mr. Gregory's book is the result of ascetic diligence, the extent and extent of which is not even easy to imagine. But she is rich in expensive material regarding the New Testament word of God, which may be a blessing for her true benefit! E. Nestle. Introduction to the Greek New Testament. 2nd edition, Göttingen, 1899 2 This book has neither the enormous size nor the broad objectives of Scrivener or Gregory (see above). She simply wants to provide concise, scholarly guidance on all matters relating to the text of the New Testament writings. Such compact scientists require much more work than their own research or lengthy reviews. It is necessary to know everything important so as not to miss the essential aspects, but you need to say little and so that the result correctly expresses the state of affairs in its entirety. Extensive erudition must be combined with the principled insight of sober and impartial judgment, and a special talent for generalization and abstraction. The success of the work in question indicates that it sufficiently satisfies these conditions: in 1897, a short manual of 112 (text) + 113–129 (additions) pages with 11 photographs was published, and after 1½ years a new edition was needed, which was released enlarged to 228 pages and was soon translated into English (translated by Rev. William. Edie and edited by Prof. Allan Μenzies). For everyone, the venerable name of Prof. was a sure guarantee. Nestlé, known for his long and detailed study of the sacred biblical documents. His tirelessness and scrupulousness are simply amazing if you see that not a week goes by, then a month, without Mr. Nestlé’s note appearing in this area, in one journal or another in different countries of the scientific world. In this experience, such rare sophistication was acquired that, for example, without seeing the Code N itself, prof. Nestle made (in “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Théologie” XL1I (N. F. VII), 4 for 1900 on pp. 621–623) quite a few amendments to Mr. Cronin’s edition (see about him “Christian Reading”, 1899, No. 9, pp. 331–346 and in v. Dobschütz in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1900, 6, Sp. 171–173). In particular, Mr. Nestle worked hard both on the New Testament text and from it, we have the collection Philologica sacra with “remarks on the original form of the Gospels and the book of Acts” (Berlin, 1896), and in 1898 (Stuttgart) a (small) edition of the Greek New Testament was published “cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto” (cf. about him y v. Dobschütz in Theologische Literaturzeitung, 1899, 10, Sp. 291–293). Naturally, such an author could write a good manual. And the book itself fully lives up to these expectations. Its first advantage is its completeness with a relatively small size. The review opens with a consideration of “the history of printed text since 1514.” to this day, and all information is distinguished by strict punctuality. The result is not very comforting, that the textual New Testament type is far from established, and therefore the “materials of New Testament textual criticism” are analyzed with comments about autographs, literature, manuscripts in general, about uncials, the most important minuscules and lectionaries. Translations are studied in no less detail, but special credit goes to prof. Nestle must be credited with paying great attention to paternal quotations and vigorously defending their critical value, while they were usually not given due respect and only the late Dean Burgon brought forward this subject, although his enormous materials remain unpublished 3 . The fundamental issues of “the theory and practice of New Testament textual criticism” are illuminated not only from the historical side - through a thorough analysis of the relevant historical facts. For this report, Prof. Nestle adds his “textual-critical comments on certain passages of N. 3.” in the Gospels, the book of Acts, Pauline and conciliar epistles, and in the Apocalypse. After the appendices and additions there is an index of items (unfortunately, not very complete) and the biblical quotations considered; at the end there are previous photographs of various characteristic examples of Greek, Latin, Syriac, Said (Egyptian) and Armenian manuscripts. But if the question is exhausted sufficiently comprehensively, then, at the same time, it is covered with meaningful punctuality. The author strives for the most scrupulous accuracy in everything and even checks the calculations made about the number of letters in Greek N. 3, pointing out that in the letter to the Philippians there are not 1538, but 1550 (page 268). All references are carefully revised, which is why Mr. Nestlé corrects not only his first edition (see, for example, pp. 69, 122, 142), but also makes changes to the second (cf. pp. 41 and 264). The bibliographic correctness deserves mention and approval, so that even planned and only undertaken literary novelties are reported (see pp. 57 and 271–272, 58, 78, 82, 83, 120–121, 122 and 221, but for pp. 222 for Matthew 15:28, see also J. Rendel Harris in the magazine “The Expositor" for 1900) with references to books not personally viewed (S. 138.1), sometimes even unimportant (S. 271 to 54); it is also entered if the author cannot remember the source of his information (S. 269 to 36). Of course, it goes without saying that there is no Russian literature, which is why it is not surprising that Bishop. Porfiry (Uspensky) appears to be alive (S. 59. 61) and his manuscripts are listed in Kiev. This is already a fault where there is no one to blame... But it must be emphasized that Mr. Nestle worked far from book centers and could not always get what he needed (S. 149. 162, 2), because the library of the Maulbronn seminary, apparently, was not far from our seminaries. The higher the subjective value of bibliographic correctness. The distribution of material is consistent and strictly proportional. The first is clear from the content itself, and the second is expressed in the fact that the author everywhere takes into account the relative importance of the subject and assigns it an appropriate place. In general, this requirement is met sufficiently, although with the required book sizes it is in vain, for personal accounts with prof. Schürer, assigned 3⅓ pages (273–276) of petit. However, there are some disadvantages in this regard. We are not talking about the fact that the essay is complicated by too lengthy additions and amendments, since this undoubted inconvenience is excused by many conditions. And, in addition to this, one notices the scattered nature of the presentation, at least about the Syriac translations (pp. 72, 80, 177 ff. 280 ff.) with inevitable repetitions: for example, Hesychia is treated on pp. 150, but it was mentioned before (pp. 54–55). At the same time, other facts are reported on random occasions, both about Eusebius’ “canons” and about revisions of manuscripts, we read in the speech about א (page 50 ff.), and about indiction is conveyed under G (page 60). The author successfully summarizes his material and depicts the state of affairs clearly. However, in places, greater clarity would be desirable, and a paragraph (page 66 ff.) about writing books and book writing in ancient times (for this, see Prof. Ad. P. Lebedev, The profession of a church writer and book writing in ancient Christian times in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” XXXVII (1888), book 1, pp. 153–252; cf. and A. Edersheim in the translation of Fr. M. P. of Thebes, Life and Time of Jesus the Messiah I, Moscow, 1900, pp. There are also ambiguities in the discussions about Latin translations (pp. 89, 94, 98, 143). In everything that concerns the essence of textual-critical constructions, Prof. Nestlé reveals thoroughness and careful balance. Only occasionally would one have expected more criticism, for example, in the abstract of Mr. Ralphs's article on the time and homeland of the Giant Codex B (S. 54–55 and cf. 271); there are excessively decisive verdicts - about the connection of the Cambridge D with the text of St. Irenaeus of Lyons (S. 56 and cf. 264, 279) - and expansiveness in revealing his sympathies, at least in favor of Blass’s hypothesis about the writings of the Evangelist Luke (S. 188; cf. above on page 147). But in the fundamental issues of textual criticism, the author avoids extremes. He does not hide within himself an admirer of Bengel (to whom he dedicated a special work of 143 pages: Bengel als Gelehrter. Ein Bild für unsere Tage) and considers Lachman “the first great textual critic of our days” (S. 19), and the end of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20; cf. above p. 150) is ready to be learned by the presbyter Arist(i)on (S. 113) according to the dark news of the Armenian Etchmiadzin manuscript of 986, extracted from there by F. S. Conybeage, but he sometimes directly states that in some controversial points the textus receptus is better (S. 123), although for comma Johanneun (1 John 5:7b-8a) it should be deliberately emphasized that not all manuscripts of Stunica (S. 72), the main participant in the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot (cf. above on page 148), have been found. Professor Nestle stands entirely on the side of the critical school and even accepts its very problematic principles, admitting the existence of the Antiochene revision invented by Westcott-Hort, which arbitrarily corrected the New Testament text (S. 146), and categorically naming (in a not entirely intelligible connection) the Antiochian surname (S. 258 to 2 Pet. 1:21); critical principles bind him so much that in his edition of N. 3. (p. 400), solely in their name, he gives for Rom. 5:1 the έχωμεν preferred by Tischendorf, Westcott-Horch and Weymouth for the sake of uncial respect, although he himself considers the έχομεν of Scrivener and Weiss to be the only correct one (S. 245). With all this, it is openly demonstrated to us that “pre-existing publications” often acted “almost unprincipled,” and it is sarcastically noted about conjectural criticism that it has gained such predominance that it is permissible to ask why its champions do not compose their own text instead of fruitlessly practicing on the existing one (S. 138). And if scientific school discipline restrains authorial freedom, then at least Mr. Nestle’s feeling tells him that the history of the textual New Testament tradition should be studied differently than it has been so far (S. 138). The same limitations are observed in the debate between uncials and italics. We read that the German commentators give the minuscules little more than “zero attention” (S. 258 to 2 Pet. 1:2). Contrary to this, the author energetically rebels against such exaggerations, noting that the newest or later manuscripts, through certain means, can go back to the most ancient source or in their entirety, and through comparisons outline their original source (S. 68). Prof. Nestle thinks that “just as the correct (reading) may not be in any manuscript, but can be found only by guesswork, so the truth can have only one representative among a whole world of opponents (Heb. 12:3), whether it be the book, translation or quotation” (S. 159–160). Therefore, for Mark 6:20 it is hypothetically allowed from אBL ήπόρει(ε'ΐτο), although it is puzzling that these three RKP. remain without any offspring among 1300 others (S. 221). All these observations convince us that Mr. Nestle observes prudent moderation, and some lack of restraint and gloominess are still better than tendentious straightforwardness and critical apodicticism. Book by Prof. E. Nestlé is engaged in a lofty, one might say, sacred subject. If the Egyptians and Romans mastered the art of writing to divine invention, then the rabbis ranked “human writing” among those things that were still created by the Lord in addition to the twilight of the last day of creation (S. 43–44). This is only because Israel had the written word of God, which deserves to be protected even in all the little details of appearance. It is no less sacred for us in both parts of the covenants, old and new. But we do not have such a solid and complete textual type as the Jews have in the Masoretic processing. We are not saying that this is their objective advantage - and not from the point of view of convenience, but in the sense of truth; perhaps the opposite should be said. However, this places special responsibilities on us. Westcott-Hort found in Greek N. 3. about ⅛ of the part was not quite strong, and now the number of variants has increased four or five times, from 30,000 after Mill and these variations are, perhaps, more than the words themselves (S. 18). Of course, not all of these important lectures are equally important, but this changes the matter a little. We are cold and indifferent because we do not know or understand this subject, and ignorance is always inert. Still, it’s hard to listen, and from people with academic degrees and titles, as if textual-critical questions, in most details, are academically idle and everything is quite clear in the Bible. An amazing reasoning, which only testifies to our exegetical primitiveness, reaching the point that as soon as we publish our dissertation in English, we are almost laughed at by a simple pastor (see Reverend Henry Haumann in The Critical Review XI, 3 (May, 1901), pp. 196-201, contrary to Christ. Read., 1901, II, pp. 303–307), and when we decide to appeal with our opinion to the voice of European science, we are pointed out, not without disdain, the dubiousness of the statements themselves (see The Journal of Theological Studies I, 4 (July, 1900), p. (507-) 525 (-528) and cf. Principal S. D. F. Salmonоd in The Critical Review " X, 5 (September, 1900), p. 472: “And the paper on “Death of St. John the Baptist”... has some doubtful things, e. g. his statement on the reading ήπόρει in Mark VI, 20 (Mk. 6:20)"; To be convinced, one would have to turn to a scientific primer corresponding to such horizons, and this is a long road... The clarity of the Scriptures is relative if their reinterpretations extend to the present day and it must be expressed with caution, since even self-evident truths are not so self-evident that they still cannot understand the debate on this issue. We believe that it is not indifferent to everyone when John 7:53; John 8:11 is considered clearly doubtful (cf. pp. 150-151) in Anglicanism, with which we recently had so many vain hopes, which were resolved - alas! - only doctoral togas from two universities, and even then to a theologian, but not in theology... And it is impossible to comprehend or justify that we fight to the point of fanaticism over lists (only!) of our ancient writers, and are ready to pay in chervonets for versions of Pushkin, meanwhile, the Slavic text of the Bible lies as an indelible shame on our scientific conscience 4 . It’s as if everyone is indifferent to it and the Academy of Sciences has not yet thought of raising this issue to a systematic solution, for which we are forced with deep gratitude to use only the private attempts of the late Bishop of Uglich Amphilochius and prof. G.A. Voskresensky. This debt will live up to its thunder when we cross ourselves and cry... It is time for us to take part in the search for genuine readings, so that under the authority of the word of God we do not read the sayings of men. In this regard, the field is vast and Mr. Nestle assures (S. 27) that there is still a lot of work until the building material itself is collected. This requires good schooling and experience, at least through competent aids. In this regard, we have large gaps bordering on emptiness. “Introduction to the New Testament books of the Holy Scriptures” by prof. Garike, translated by students of the Moscow Theological Academy under the editorship of † Bishop. Mikhail (Luzin), completely outdated (I-II: Moscow, 1869) and generally not rich in textual-critical data, with some abundance in the side. The somewhat newer venerable “Historical Review of the Holy Books of the New Testament” (Issue 1, St. Petersburg, 1878) by Fr. prof. V.G. Rozhdestvensky, but in almost 25 years so much water has flowed under the bridge in this area that in some places the river of old legends has completely dried up... Dilapidation here is inevitable 5, and the author pursued too general and broad goals, and did not directly set textual-critical tasks. The latter are more closely related to Prof. M.I. Theologian (in “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” for 1877 and 1878; cf. Prof. S.A. Ternovsky, Historical note on the state of the Kazan Theological Academy after its transformation, Kazan, 1892, p. 357), but also a long time ago, according to old methods and on a limited scale... Under such conditions, we will not move forward if we do not update ourselves with the convenient guides and enlighten ourselves through them. Book by Prof. Nestlé can serve as a good guide in our helplessness and is worthy of serious attention from all who value not the abstract Bible, but the word of God in its original expression. In this regard, the sensitivity of Prof. Gregory: Moskwa instead of the usual Moskau, he finds it not only correct, but also more beautiful, euphonious, and does not allow the name “Synodal Office” at all, as it is only decent for institutions of purchase and sale and similar operations... Einführung in das Griechische Neue Testament von Eberhard Nestle, Göttingen y Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht. Price about 2 rubles. 10–30 kop. Wed. “Christ. Thu.”, 1900, V, pp. 863–864. An excellent account of the “Bible in Russia” is given in the 11th volume of the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” by A.P. Lopukhina (St. Petersburg, 1901, column 490–544) prof. F.G. Eleonsky, whose venerable and useful work would well deserve a separate publication - of course, with additions, mainly of a bibliographic nature.