THE GOSPEL MANUSCRIPTS.
The Gospel Manuicripts. -13y J. P. Ilolah. - (R. Brimley John- son. ls. net.)—Mr. Holah's little book may be read with profit; but a certain caution must be used "in accepting its conclusions. It is true that there is "no existing ISIS. of the New Testament older than the fourth century " ; but considerable fragments of the New Testament have been found in Egypt of an earlier date, and these are in substantial agreement with our text. Then Mr. Holah takes a somewhat extreme view of copyists' errors and corrections. The Westcott and Hort text is, after all, not very different from the Text= Receptus. What he writes about the Codes Baas is surely exaggerated. "Many scholars believe it to be the nearest to the original text of the Gospel." What is meant by " many." ? Not a majority ; not even a considerable minority. Can Mr. Holah mention one scholar of the first rank who holds it P Then we are told that three things become clear from Papias, the second being that Matthew's Gospel " was written in Hebrew (Aramaic)." Mr. Holah must know that some scholars make much of the hypothesis that it was written in Hebrew, and mis- interpreted by translators who were familiar with Aramaic only.
Previous page
