Beza’s decision reveals a critical tension in early textual criticism: he prioritized conformity to the established Erasmian text over the manuscript evidence itself.
Although Beza possessed two ancient and valuable manuscripts (Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus), he refused to rely on them because they differed so much from Erasmus’ text.[1] More specifically, the Codex Bezae departed so widely from the other manuscripts[2] that Beza deemed it unreliable for establishing the text.
The irony is profound: Beza had access to sixth-century manuscripts—among the earliest Greek witnesses available—yet rejected them not on textual grounds but because their readings diverged from what had already become the accepted standard. Instead, he printed Erasmus’ text with a few alternative readings from these older manuscripts in the margin.[1] This approach subordinated the older manuscript evidence to the newer consensus, effectively freezing the Erasmian text in place.
What’s particularly significant is that the Codex Bezae’s departures are often supported by the ancient Latin and Syriac versions[2]—meaning Beza was dismissing readings that had strong external support from different textual traditions. His caution wasn’t methodologically sound; it was conservative to the point of stagnation.
This decision had enormous consequences. The work of this respected biblical scholar and linguist did much to establish the international reputation of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament as the text of choice for Protestant biblical scholarship.[1] By canonizing Erasmus rather than critically evaluating the manuscript evidence, Beza inadvertently locked Protestant scholarship into a textual tradition based on late medieval manuscripts—precisely what VPP claims was providentially preserved, when in fact it was simply the path of least resistance.
[2] Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), 8:872.
No comments:
Post a Comment