will discover might be seriously worth their while to study. The young man who wished to take Orders would know that even the alphabet in which the New Testament was written would have to be mastered, at an age when such drudgery would be particularly distasteful, and would wonder what could be the benefit of the smattering of French which he had acquired to one who was too poor to travel and had no taste for commercial pursuits, or of the elementary science which a couple of handbooks would teach him in a few hours. Those who regret the time spent on the study of Greek when they were young forget that they do not know what they would have been like without it. Take away the great basis of educated thought, the slight but widespread acquaintance with the greatest of languages and literature, and the whole basis of modern life is transformed.

But there is always a school who are clamouring that the University ought to be more widely useful, who appeal to the Rhodes Scholarships and the colonial Premiers, and ask that it should take its place as a great influence in the Empire. No one could be more anxious than we are that both the Universities should exercise a wide influence in the Empire and in the world, but it must be by raising the world to their standard, not by lowering themselves. Let them say clearly and definitely that, whatever the claims of physical science (no one will neglect it, while there is so much money in it) and the commercial advantages of modern languages may be, the mental culture of the future as of the last four hundred years must be based upon the two great classical languages and their literatures, and they will create an ideal to which education all over the world may look. There is great danger in the spread of a universal education that the lower may swamp the higher. There is more need of the high priests of learning when learning is so widely extended. The wisdom of the New World is built upon the emancipation of the human mind which the spread of Greek initiated. Are we quite sure that when Greek goes we shall keep what it has brought?

We have placed at the head of this article a reference to Sir Richard Jebb's admirable chapter on the Renaissance in

the Cambridge Modern History. It tells us of the rise of Humanism and the power that Humanism exercised. The influence of intellectual studies is so subtle that the world is inclined to pass them over; yet we often wonder how far either the Reformation or the creation of the modern world would have been possible without the silent influence of the revived classical studies. There is the possibility now of a tyranny of science as powerful and even more barbarous than that of scholasticism. It is not the more humane and liberal aspects of religion which will flourish most when mental culture declines, and we can only express our earnest hope that the Universities will ponder well before they make the great revolution which is implied in general culture by the abolition of compulsory Greek.

ART. IX. THE ST. MARGARET'S LECTURES.

Criticism of the New Testament. St. Margaret's Lectures, 1902. By W. SANDAY, D.D., F. G. KENYON, D.Litt., Ph.D., F. C. BURKITT, M.A., F. H. CHASE, D.D., A. C. HEADLAM, B.D., J. H. BERNARD, D.D. (London: John Murray, 1902.)

THE Rector of St. Margaret's, Westminster, has been quick to see and meet a real need. Attention is being gradually drawn off from the problems presented by the Old Testament literature, and is being fixed once again on the criticism of the New Testament. In this direction there has been a long respite. Twenty-five years ago the attacks of the Tübingen school were occupying the energies of our great theological scholars. A furious assault was driven back, mainly by the learning of Lightfoot, Westcott, and Sanday; and the land had rest' in that quarter for some twenty years. The Old Testament then had its turn of controversial interest. But the New Testament scholars were incessantly at work, probing more deeply than ever the authenticity of the canonical books, collecting fresh mate

rials for the criticism of the text, storing up new results, and modifying accepted theories. The time had arrived for a plain statement by leading scholars in various departments, such as might enlist the intelligent sympathy of a thoughtful public which has neither the time nor the training for special inquiry, but which can appreciate a careful description of the methods and results of modern biblical studies. Such a statement is offered us in these lectures. Mr. Henson has succeeded in inducing some of the foremost of our New Testament scholars to speak out in clear language and say what they have been doing and where they stand. Each topic in this course is treated by an acknowledged authority; and while any educated man can easily follow all that is said, there are but few professed students who will not read these lectures with interest and profit.

The introductory lecture is given by Dr. Sanday. It is, as his writing always is, of a reassuring character. His wide knowledge and cautious survey teach us how many are the problems, how various the solutions offered, how much good work is being steadily carried on by our own English scholars. If a criticism is to be offered on his lecture, it must be that he is almost too kindly in his judgments of the work of others-so kindly, in fact, that he leaves us completely in the dark as to what his own opinion is. This may be illustrated from his curious silence as to the date and authenticity of the Second Epistle of St. Peter. Whether he agrees with Dr. Bigg, whose work he appears to estimate so highly, we cannot require him to tell us; but ought he not to have said plainly that Dr. Chase does not accept the Petrine authorship or an early date, and that there is a serious divergence among equally 'orthodox' critics at this point? The student who knows the ground well is not likely to be led astray; for he notes the very careful language in which doubtful questions of this kind are dealt with; but the plain man will find perhaps too much comfort in these balanced sentences.

The very valuable lecture on Manuscripts by Dr. Kenyon of the British Museum is the work of a student of the textual criticism of the New Testament who brings to his task an

unrivalled knowledge of palæography and of the materials of which ancient manuscripts consist. He speaks with an authority of his own on the passage of books from the roll to the codex, and from papyrus to vellum. The historian as well as the textual critic will gain from the masterly summary which he offers of the chief points in this transition. There are but few scholars either at home or abroad who could offer an authoritative criticism of this portion of his lecture.

When he comes to discuss the existing varieties of text, he prefers to abandon the customary appellations, Syrian, Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral, and to entitle these groups by the letters a, 8, y, ẞ respectively. It may be questioned whether he fully appreciates the position of Westcott and Hort, to whom the designations above mentioned are due in their present acceptation. It may be only ambiguity that is to be charged against the following sentence:

'The marked appearance of Latin authorities in this group led Westcott and Hort to call it the Western group; but the name is misleading, and consequently here, even more than elsewhere, a noncommittal name is preferable, and it may be called the Deltagroup (8).'

An intelligent person, not acquainted with the history of textual criticism, would probably understand from this that Westcott and Hort were originally responsible for this 'misleading' name. It may be well therefore to refer to their Introduction, § 153, where they speak of it as 'an appellation which has for more than a century been applied' to the leading members of the group in question. After challenging its accuracy in certain respects, they determine for convenience to retain it, saying:

'Whatever may have been the original home of the "Western" text, change of designation would now cause more confusion than it would remove, and it remains true that the only continuous and approximately pure monuments of the "Western" texts now surviving have every right to the name.'

The fact is that these local names, if carefully guarded, have the advantage over purely colourless designations. They can be easily remembered, for they convey some meaning;

whereas non-committal' letters give the mind nothing to fasten on, and so require a perpetual effort of memory. The particular assignment of letters which is now before us has the further disadvantage that it cuts across that which Westcott and Hort use in their preliminary discussion before they consider the local naming of the groups, for with them the Syrian' text is 8, the Western' is B, and the 'Neutral' is a.

In regard to the term 'Neutral,' Dr. Kenyon's misconception deserves to be challenged. Speaking of the group which is mainly represented by N and B, he says: This group Westcott and Hort call the Neutral group, indicating thereby their belief in its superiority to its rivals.' Such a statement does not correspond with the reason which these critics themselves assign for their choice of the word. After speaking of Western and Alexandrian readings, they say (Introd. § 231) On the other hand, the rival readings cannot be exactly described except in negative terms. Against a Western stands a non-Western pre-Syrian reading; against an Alexandrian stands a non-Alexandrian pre-Syrian reading.' It is these readings and the text to which they belong that are described as 'Neutral,' as in the following sentence (§ 234): If, then, a pre-Syrian text exists, which is Neutral, that is, neither Western nor Alexandrian,' &c. It is true that they were led to regard the 'Neutral' text as 'comparatively pure'; but by 'Neutral' they mean 'Neutral'; and they ought not to be taken, as they are too commonly taken, to beg the question of 'superiority to its rivals.' It is probably the topsy-turvy method of calling the latest text the a-group that is responsible for the confusion and unintentional misrepresentation into which Dr. Kenyon has fallen; for it is impossible to understand the designation 'Neutral' until the two powerful rivals have first been brought under consideration.

Apart from these points Dr. Kenyon is admirable, both in his exposition of the work of Westcott and Hort and in his statement of the attitude of the younger critics towards it. New material has come to hand, and the Western' text has now a better chance of vindicating itself at particular points than it had twenty years ago. We are coming to recognise