FOR about the first ten centuries the copies were written all in capital letters, called UNCIALS, and afterward in the small letters called CURSIVES. The word ‘uncial' is supposed to be from uncia, an inch, not that the letters were really an inch in size (though in some copies the initial letters are over half an inch); ‘cursive' is from cursus, running, because the letters run together as in common writing. These two styles of writing divide the Greek manuscripts into two great classes; but of course it was desirable to fix the date of each copy as nearly as could be in its class. Though we have no cursive Greek manuscript earlier than the tenth century, yet that style was used for common purposes long before. It is even found in the Herculanean rolls in places where apparently rapidity was sought rather than elegance.
Greater attention has been given to the uncial copies with the view of fixing the date of each. “By studying the style and shape of the letters on Greek inscriptions, Montfaucon was led to conclude that the more simple, upright, and regular the form of uncial letters; the less flourish or ornament they exhibit; the nearer their breadth is equal to their height; so much the more ancient they ought to be considered. These results have been signally confirmed by the subsequent discovery of Greek papyri in Egyptian tombs, which vary in age from the third century before the christian era to the third century after that epoch, and yet further from the numerous fragments of Philodemus, of Epicurus, and other philosophers, which were burned in the ruins of Herculaneum in A. D. 79. The evidence of these papyri indeed is even more weighty than that of inscriptions, inasmuch as workers in stone were often compelled to prefer straight lines as better adapted to the hardness of their material, where writings on papyrus or vellum would naturally flow with curves."
The Rosetta stone, now in the British Museum, and supposed to have been executed in the second century before the christian era, contains, besides the hieroglyphics, the record in Greek uncials, which gives a good specimen of the style of writing at that period, as it was done on stone. Its letters differ little from the specimen we are about to give from a Greek manuscript, except in the formation of three or four of the alphabet. The Rosetta stone does not divide the words, and has no breathings, accents, or marks of punctuation.
Further, the upright letters are more ancient, than those written leaning, and the absence of any larger initial letters shows high antiquity. In nearly all the copies letters are huddled up together at the end of the lines in smaller characters, or the words contracted, in order apparently to get in each line as much as was in the copy used. This can also be seen in the specimen we give.
Being written all in capitals would not have created any difficulty, but the practice of running the words on together without any spaces between them certainly did. And besides this, the words were often divided at the end of the line without any regard to syllables, and without any mark to show that the word was divided.
We give the passage in modern Greek cursive characters divided into words, showing also where the words have been divided at the ends of the lines:
ησεν σημεῖον ἔλε-
γον οὗτός ἐστιν
ἀληθῶς ὁ προφή
της ὁ εἰς τὀν κόσμυ
ἐρχόμενος
οὖν γνοὺς ὄτι
μέλλουσιν ἔρχε
σθαι καὶ /ρπάζειν
αὐτόν καὶ ἀναδι
κνύναι βασοιλέα
φεύγει πάλιν εἰς τὸ
ὄρος μόνος αὐτός
As nearly as it can be put into English, it would stand thus (disregarding for the present the corrections by a later hand). The reader will see how difficult it would be to read a book printed in this style.
HEDIDASIGNTHEY
SAIDTHISIS
TRULYTHEPRO
PHETWHOINTOTHEWORL
ISCOMING
THEREFOREEKNOWINGTHAT
THEYWEREABOUTTo
CLAMKING
ESCAPESAGAININTOTHE
MOUNTAINALONEHIMSELF
Now it is easy to see that, when copies were made, mistakes might occur by dividing some part wrongly into words. This may be well illustrated by an anecdote, which though well known will bear repeating. An infidel, lying on a bed of sickness, to sustain himself in his infidelity, wrote on a piece of paper—
GOD IS NOWHERE
His child coming into the room, her father asked her if she could read what he had written on the paper. She began to spell the words: G, O, D, GOD—I, S, IS-N, O, W, NOW—H, E, R, E, HERE—God is now here. It was used to her father's conversion, through the grace of God. It well illustrates the fact how that by dividing a word in a different place the sense may be entirely altered.
And where the meaning is not entirely changed it may be altered by the division of the letters differently. To take an instance that has occurred we may quote Acts 17:2525Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; (Acts 17:25). Along with the different division of letters, a letter was sometimes added or omitted to endeavor to make good sense.
The letters stand thus ΚΑΙΤΑΠΑΝΤΑ, which have been divided thus:
KAI TA HANTA and all things
KATA HANTA in respect of all things.
There can be no doubt the first is the correct reading.
ΑΠ’ ΑΡΧΗΣ from [the] beginning
ΑΠΑΡΧΗΣ [the] first-fruits.
There can be no doubt that the first is the correct reading.
Added to this was another difficulty, namely, the habit of contracting the words. For instance, instead of writing JESUS in full, they would at times write the first and last letters, with a line over the top to show it was a contraction: thus; or in Greek (as it is in the fifth line of our specimen). But it might be in some cases that the line drawn over the letters was not so thick as were the letters, so that with the age of the manuscripts the line would become invisible, though the letters remained visible. In that case, these letters would naturally be taken to be a part of either the word that went before or the word that came after, or a word in itself, the copyist making the best sense he could.
In other cases they judged differently as to what the word was which was contracted. Thus in Rom. 12:1111Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; (Romans 12:11), there stands in the Codex Sinaiticus, which some have judged to be ΚΑΙΡΩ, season, "serving in season;" and others have judged it to be intended for ΚΥΡΙΩ, Lord, "serving the Lord." Without doubt the latter is right.
Another difficulty was occasioned by single letters being omitted and a line drawn over the top to show the omission (as at the end of the fourth line of our specimen); but the letters might be visible yet not the line, and the omission be thus overlooked.
In some cases, the letter Θ, because of the line in the center becoming invisible, was taken for Ο.
Perhaps the most important and trying question brought about by this means is in 1 Tim. 3:1616And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16): "God was manifest in the flesh." Here the word for ‘God,' contracted, is, but in two of the principal manuscripts (A and C) it cannot be told with certainty whether they were originally as above, or ΟΣ, ‘who' — ‘who was manifest in flesh.’ It will be at once seen that the variation may have been brought about by the two short lines becoming invisible. א reads ΟΣ, but has been altered by a later hand to; Ρ has.
In other cases the similarity of letters caused variations when age made them indistinct. Thus Α, Λ,; Δ; C (the ancient form of Σ) Ο; ε, Θ, &c.
Another point that added to the difficulty was that there were in the oldest copies few if any points. There are three in our specimen, but in other places they are entirely omitted. This also was a cause of passages being read differently, especially when the letters were not divided into words.
Another difficulty, and which has caused great labor, is that most, if not all, the older manuscripts have been altered from time to time by various correctors, and as age gives value to the writing, it is of importance to ascertain when these corrections were made. The style of the letters has to be carefully studied, and the color of the ink, and which one is over another. By these means these correctors are classified into first hand, second hand, &c., often called by ‘primâ manu,’ ‘secundâ manu,' &c., or, in short, p.m., s.m. Thus A would stand for the original of a manuscript. A¹, or Ap.m. would be the first corrector; A², or As.m. would be the second corrector, and so on. The corrections of the first hand may be sometimes as ancient as the original, and by the same hand.
To give an idea of the labor caused by these correctors, we may state that Tischendorf, after careful study, considers that in the Codex Sinaiticus there are not fewer than ten different hands. All these had to be studied, and a relative value set on each, and, above all, to endeavor to find out the original readings.
By referring again to our specimen the reader will see two of these corrections. In the ninth and tenth lines the words καὶ ἀναδικνύναι (and to proclaim) have dots over them, and in the margin the words ἱνα ποιήσωσιν (that they may make) written to replace them. Again in line 11 the word ἀνεχώρησεν (withdrew) is intended to take the place of φεύγει (escapes). Both these corrections are judged by Tischendorf to have been made by the corrector whom he calls Cª (about the seventh century), who may be said to be the seventh who went through the manuscript to correct it after it was written. This corrector often altered the manuscript in a way that made it agree with the common text we now have. Both the above corrections did so.
There is one thing peculiar in the first of the above corrections, namely, that the writer in adding the word INA in the margin only wrote the last two letters, and used the last letter of the line as it stood for his I, drawing a line through the Δ that preceded it. Such a thing as this had, of course, to be carefully noted, for if the word originally written had made sense without the I it might be thought to have been added by the corrector: in this instance the dots over the I prevented any mistake.
It is supposed that each manuscript had a comparer, sometimes the original scribe, who compared the manuscript with the copy after it had been written, and a corrector who revised the manuscript, perhaps by a second copy. This was useful and necessary labor to ensure accuracy. Some copies have a note at the end saying by whom and where it was revised. After this of course the manuscript might fall into other persons' hands who might have the opportunity of comparing it with a third copy, and so on, until a copy had passed through perhaps a dozen correctors, which, as we have seen, gives great labor to distinguish the various hands, and assign a date to each as near as may be.
Now though all these difficulties may appear to be disadvantages, on the other hand they are, as we have already seen, an unanswerable proof of the antiquity of the New Testament. Suppose, for an instant, that the oldest copy we have at present had no such marks of antiquity, the skeptic would say that it was a modern invention, there was not a single proof of its early existence, such as they had for the writings of Homer and others. But this he cannot say. The oldest copies show undoubted proofs of antiquity. In the old papyrus Greek manuscripts the letters are all capitals, not divided into words, with no points, no accents, no breathings. Well, we have copies of the New Testament with all these and many other marks of antiquity, written too on a material only used of such quality and texture in very early ages. God has caused that such copies should be preserved down to this our day, which no one has or could call in question as being the genuine monuments of antiquity.