Constantine was a heathen who was educated in the Christian religion. He accepted the Christian religion and professed it. He overthrew the heathen empire and exterminated all idolatrous religions. He implemented Christian governments all over, gave the order to build many temples, and did everything that a caretaker of the church would do. There are many stories about his virtues, and many of his excellent words and statements have been related. We use them to contradict those previously mentioned stories. It is enough for us that he was a son of the church and professed Christ. He also did much for the Name of Christ.

à Brakel, Wilhelmus. Not to be Ignored: Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel’s Commentary on Revelation, Loc. 3581.

It is impossible to separate the history of the text from the general history of the Church. The local history of a district, the monasteries of the country, local heresies, and certainly local pronunciations and dialects with their variations at different times, all act on the text, and are influenced by it in turn. The perfect textual critic will have to be an expert palaeographer and and the possessor of a complete knowledge of all the bypaths of Church history.

KIRSOPP LAKE, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 4TH ED., REV., (NEW YORK: EDWIN S. GORHAM, 1908), 10.

The difference between Biblical and classical textual criticism. In classical textual criticism, the archetype of all the extant MSS. is often obtainable with comparatively little work, but often is very corrupt. There is therefore scope for much conjectural emendation. In Biblical textual criticism, on the other hand, it is still doubtful what is the archetype of the existing manuscripts. But at least we may be sure that it is an exceedingly early one, with very few corruptions, and therefore the work of the conjectural emendations is very light, and scarcely ever necessary.

KIRSOPP LAKE, THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 4TH ED., REV., (NEW YORK: EDWIN S. GORHAM, 1908), 9.

The object of all textual criticism is to recover so far as possible the actual words written by the writer. But in order to do this properly the critic has to explain how each successive deviation from the original came to be currently adopted, and frequently he finds the clue enabling him to do this in the history of some later period, which gives some reason for a textual variation.

Kirsopp Lake, The Text of the New Testament, 4th ed., rev., (New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1908), 1.

“The state of the holy books is really deplorable, if their authority depends on unlearned copyists (as they mostly are) or intoxicated typesetters” —Erasmus

Quoted in Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza As Conjectural Critics of the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 7.

Erasmus’ editions were clearly intended as a counterpoint to the then current text of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate. According to him, the Vulgate needed to be revised. Besides believing that any translation, the Vulgate included, could always be reassessed by collating it with its source, he considered the post-twelfth century form of the Vulgate to be in a deplorable condition compared to its earlier state. Prior to the publication of the first edition, his working method was to make a careful comparison (‘collation’) of the Vulgate text with the Greek text he found in manuscripts. His editions thus cannot be properly understood without the Vulgate as the third element besides the Greek text and his own Latin translation. Though his editions, except the fourth (1527), did not contain a Vulgate text, no contemporary reader could fail to notice that Erasmus’ enterprise is centred around the correction or ‘emendation’ of the Vulgate; it is a kind of shadowboxing with it.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written, 13.

The fact that the Vulgate was the point of departure for Erasmus’ project implies a basic text-critical problem, which in general Erasmus failed to notice. His comparison was based mostly on Byzantine (or ‘majority’) readings, but in numerous examples the Vulgate reflects a different Greek text, which often coincides with the modern critical text. According to de Jonge, Erasmus was in fact ‘comparing incompatible witnesses’. Indeed, the Vulgate and the Byzantine text represent two different text forms, but this did not dawn on Erasmus for several reasons. First, much in Lorenzo Valla’s style, Erasmus compared the Greek and Latin ‘witnesses’ variant by variant. This remained his method during the rest of his life. Therefore, while he saw many trees, the forest remained hidden from his eyes. Second, in the comparison, the roles were unevenly assigned from the start: the Vulgate was seen as part of the polluted stream, while the exclusively Greek manuscripts to which Erasmus had access represented the pristine source. Third, Erasmus never showed any interest in recensio, the evaluation and classification of manuscripts and families of manuscripts. In his time, the beginnings of such an approach existed, as the work of Angelo Poliziano or Beatus Rhenanus indicates, but Erasmus steered clear of it. Finally, the idea that the Vulgate might go back to a Greek original which in many respects represents a text superior to the common Byzantine Greek manuscripts would have been simply too mind-boggling in this period. The entire project would have been endangered, and there would have been no possibility left for Erasmus to answer his critics who were in many cases fierce defenders of the Vulgate.

Jan Krans, Beyond What Is Written, 15-17.

These [New Testament papyrus] fragments are also of interest in showing us the form in which the Scriptures circulated in those early centuries of the Church, before the advent of the great official vellum codices of the fourth century. Many of them represent the ‘poor men’s Bibles’, Bible intended for private, rather than for church use. They show us also that not all of the later Bibles were of the handsome type of the Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but that the Scriptures were within the reach of the more modest purses of the great mass of Christians. Most of the modest Bibles have perished, the more sumptuous alone surviving, yet they have not disappeared without leaving at least these meagre traces of their one time widespread existence. The Word could be known and cherished by the poor man as well as by the rich, for to such the Lord came with a message of good news.

Ellwood M. Schofield, The Papyrus Fragments of the Greek New Testament (diss., SBTS, Louisville, 1936), 336-337.

It is commonly asserted (e.g. Kenyon’s Palaeography of Greek Papyri, p. 24) that the book form is characteristic of the close of the papyrus period, and that the use of papyrus in codices was an experiment which was soon given up in favor of the more durable vellum. But the evidence now available does not justify either of these generalizations. When the papyrus book first made its appearance in Egypt it is impossible to say; but at any rate it was in common use for theological literature in the third century. Indeed the theological fragments which can be placed in that century are almost without exception derived from papyrus codices [= book form], not from rolls [= scroll form]. This fact can scarcely be due to accident; and it points to a prevalence of the book form at that early date much greater than is frequently supposed. Moreover, papyrus in the book form did not run so insignificant source. It may fairly claim to have made a good fight, if not to have held its own, in Egypt against vellum so long as Greek MSS. continued to be written there.

Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Arthur Surridge Hunt, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri II (London: 1899), 2-3.

New Testament textual criticism has traditionally neglected the findings of early Church history, but only to its own injury, because the transmission of the New Testament text is certainly an integral part of that history.

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 49.

[T]he sheer joyous enthusiasm of the early evangelists enhanced their absolute claims for Jesus Christ. If he really was the only way to God, if there was salvation in no other, then it is not surprising that they should commend him with such enthusiasm to others. Jesus had promised his joy as a permanent possession of his Church, a joy which no man could take from them. And they demonstrated that this was so. They might be thrown into prison for their views: but they were still singing hymns to God at midnight! It was from prison that Paul wrote Philippians, that epistle of joy and confidence. Conversion and joy are closely related in the Acts of the Apostles, and it remained a characteristic thing about the early Christians which attracted others into their company. Their new faith did not make them miserable. Often outward circumstances were unpleasant enough, but that could not rob them of the joy which was their Christian birthright. The Thessalonians received the word in much affliction . . . but equally, in joy inspired by the Holy Spirit. The disciples had an infectious joy that they were allowed to suffer for their Master’s sake. They rejoiced in the hope of sharing a future with God; they rejoiced in the sufferings which came to them along the Christian path; they rejoiced in God himself, and the companionship with him that nothing could deprive them of.

Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church, 185-186.

[A] peculiar kind of responsibility is involved in preparing an edition of the Greek New Testament. It is not just any random text, but the very foundation for New Testament exegesis by theologians of all confessions and denominations throughout the world. Further, this Greek text serves as the base for new translations as well as for revisions of earlier translations in modern languages, i.e., it is in effect the foundation to which the whole contemporary Church looks in formulating expressions of faith. The full awesome weight of this responsibility is better shared by a committee: a single scholar simply could not bear it.

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 35.

Perhaps the modern method of New Testament textual criticism may be more aptly described as a local-genealogical method (i.e., applying to each passage individually the approach used by classical philology for a whole tradition).

Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes, 34.