Page images
PDF
EPUB

Sós. Instead of this, Griesbach, with very considerable authorities, substitutes, τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ; εἷς ἐστιν ò dyadós. He is here literally copied by these new translators: "Was fragst du mich über das Gute! Einer ist der Gute!"

Matt. xx. 22. καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα, ὁ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι, βαπτισθῆναι; 23, καὶ τὸ βάπτισ. ὁ ἐγὼ βαπτίζ. βαπτισθήσεσθε. Both these sentences are omitted by Griesbach, and also by Van Ess.

Matt. xxvii. 35. ἵνα πληρωθῆ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου· διεμε ρίσαντο τὰ ἱμάτιά μου ἑαυτοῖς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἱματισμόν μου ἔβαλον

pov. Following very many authorities, Griesbach discards this; MM. Van Ess have not gone so far as to throw it out of the text; but retaining it, have placed it between brackets, thus []

Having thus, at some length, mentioned the principal deviations from the received text in the gospel of St. Matthew, we shall merely refer the reader to the following places for more examples: Mark, iv. 24. vi. 11, 33. xiii. 14. Luke, iv. 18. ix. 56. x. 22. xi. 2, 4, 44. xvii. 35, 36. John, i. 27. v. 16. vi. 22.

The

John, vii. 53-viii. 11. This is the passage relating to the woman taken in adultery, respecting which critics have been much divided. Griesbach has retained the passage in his text, prefixing the mark of probable spuriousness; MM. Van Ess do the same, including it between brackets; the learned Michaelis is the advocate of its authenticity (Introduction to the N. T. vol. i. p. 315, ed. Marsh, 1802,) thinking that the transcribers were very likely to omit it in consequence of scruples respecting its tendency. celebrated Adler has espoused the same side of the question; (Versiones Syriacæ examinatæ, 4to. Harniæ, 1789, p. 189, compare Nolan's integrity of the Greek Vulg. p. 57,) and Dr. Middleton in his "Doctrine of the Greek Article, applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the N. T." p. 358, Lond. 1808, 8vo., has set up a defence for it, on the ground of internal evidence. He has remarked, that, according to the manner of stoning among the Jews, one of the witnesses was to throw the first stone, the punishment being completed by the bystanders. We read in verse 7, ἀναμάρτητος ὑμῶν—ΤΟΝ λίθον βαλέτω. He thinks, therefore, that the copyists, had they interpolated the passage, would not have thus accurately employed the article; especially since the phrase βάλλει» ΤΟΝ λίθον is no where else used in the

N. T. This is certainly an ingenious supposition, though it may be founded on too great a refinement, since several MSS. omit the article; namely, D. 1, 69, 124, Ev. 36, al. 24, Mt. V. al. 9. On the whole, however, we are inclined to think the passage genuine; it is certainly more likely to have been omitted than interpolated by the transcribers.

John, viii. 44. ὅτι ψεύστης ἐστὶ, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ. There is a considerable obscurity in this sentence according to the usual mode of translating it: English version; "he is a liar, and the father of it:" "er ist ein lügner, und ein vater des lügners," is the translation of MM. Van Ess; Luther has, "er ist ein lügner, und ein vater derselbigen." Those who would wish to see some very acute remarks on the subject, may consult Middleton on the Greek Article, p. 360.

John, xvii. 3. ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστ τειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. There are several ways of arranging this passage, which, for that reason, we have left unpointed: one is; ἵνα σε καὶ ὅν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν χριστὸν, τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν γινώσκωσι : another is; ἵνα σε γινώσκωσι (εἶναι) μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεον, καὶ ὃν ἀπεστείλας Ἰησοῦν (εἶναι) χριστόν. The third is; ἵνα γινώσκωσί σε (εἶναι) τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν, καὶ ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν (εἶναι ἐκεῖνον) ὃν ἀπέστ τείλας. The best, however, appears to be that adopted by Van Ess: "dass sie erkennen dich, den einig wahren Gott, und welchen du gesundt hast, Jesum Christum."

Acts, xx. 28. τὴν ἐκκλησίαν [τοῦ θεοῦ] [τοῦ κυρίου] [τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ] [τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ κυρίου] [κυρίου Θεοῦ] [του χριστοῦ.] All these readings are found in this passage in various MSS. and other authorities: 9 is the reading of the received text: upio is adopted by Griesbach and MM. Van Ess: and τοῦ κυρίου καὶ Θεοῦ, is considered as the reading next in value to it. It is not our intention to decide on the merits of the question but we may be permitted to remark, that it would have been better to have retained the reading 9, in some way in Van Ess's translation; since this question cannot be considered as decided, as in the case of 1 John, v. 7. It needs not to have been retained in the text, but might have been placed in the margin, accompanied by a short note; or might even have been left there by itself, as in the case of the doxology, Matt. vi. 13. They who would examine the subject critically, should consult the notes on the passage in Wetstein's Greek Testament, 2 vols. fol. Amstelodami, 1758, and the second edition of Griesbach's Testament, 2 vols. 8vo. Halæ Saxonum, 1796-1806. This remark ap plies also to 1 Tim. iii. 16. and 1 John, v. 7.

1 Tim. iii. 16. Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον. [98òs] [0s] [ö] ¿pævspwŷn iv σapxí. Our readers are probably acquainted with the dispute respecting the reading of this verse. The first is that of the received text: the second, that adopted by Griesbach, and many critics of the present day the third is considered only as laying claim to a considerable share of probability. It is very difficult to determine which is the true reading, os or s: either might have given rise to the other; the first being written in uncial MSS., C, and the second OC, one might easily have been mistaken for the other: this is exemplified in the Alexandrian MS. With regard to the argument in general, we excuse ourselves by saying, non nostrum tantas componere lites. MM. Van Ess have adopted the reading ; but have erred, we think, in translating ivceßlas by Christenthums; which is not so good a version, to say the least of it, as Heiligkeit.

We notice, merely for its singularity, a conjecture by a Mr. Brown, published in the Classical Journal, vol. xii. p. 247, that we should read ὁμοῦ Λόγου μὲν, ὃς μέγα ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον, ὃς ἐφανερώθη κ.τ.λ. and translate the whole verse: " these things I write unto thee, hoping to come unto thee speedily; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know what, in the house of God, ought to be the conduct of one, who is of the church of the living God, a pillar and support of the truth, and also of the word (or Logos) which is the great mystery of godliness which was manifested," &c. It would be difficult to find an instance in St. Paul's writings, where the word Ayos is used in St. John's sense of it: and, upon the whole, it would seem that with this writer" et ferrum et ignis sæpe loco medicinæ est ;" and that, to use the words of a poet of antiquity,

"Ulcera possessis late suffusa medullis, Haud leviore manu, ferro sanantur et igni."

1 John, v. 7, 8. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅ πατὴρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεύμα· καί οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἐν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ] τὸ πνεύμα, καὶ τό ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. It would far exceed our limnits to give even a meagre sketch of the controversy which has raged in the theological world, respecting this celebrated passage. It may be sufficient to state, that, by the best critics, that part of it which we have placed within hooks, is allowed to be spurious: that Griesbach has rejected it from his text: and,

that MM. Van Ess, although Roman Catholic divines, and though they thereby contradict the authority of the Vulgate, print it between brackets as spurious, or, at best, of doubtful authenticity. It may be useful to mention the principal treatises which have been published on the subject; so that readers who have not yet studied the matter, may easily have the means of judging for themselves. The works in defence of the passage are marked with an asterisk [*].

* S. Semler, Vindiciae plurium præcipuarum lectionum cod. Græci Nov. Test. adversus Whistonum et ab eo latas leges criticas. Hala, 1751.

*J. E. Wagner, Integritas 1 Joh. v. 7. ab impugnationibus novatoris cujusdam denuo vindicata. 1752. This publication was directed against Professor Michaelis.

* Kettneri historia dicti Joannei de Trinitate. Francof. 1713.

Schmid, Historia Canonis, V. et N. T. p. 346.

Knittel, Neue Kritiken über den Spruch, drey sind die da zeugen. Braunschweig, 1786.

* Stresow, Open avowal of the doctrine of the Trinity, as delivered in 1 John, v. 7. Hamburg, 1786. We have not been able to learn the German title of this work; but Michaelis (Introduct. to the N. T. vol. iv. p. 414) speaks of it with great contempt.

G. Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, in defence of 1 John, v. 7. 4to. London, 1784: several times reprinted in 8vo. and enlarged; all the editions most contemptible performances.

* Bengel's note on the passage in his edit. of the Greek Testament. Tübingæ, 1734.

* Mill's note in his Greek Testament. Oxford, 1707. * Goetzen's Vertheidigung d. Complutensischen Bibel insonderheit d. N. Testaments, gegen die Wetsteinischen und Semlerschen Beschuldigungen. Hamburg. 1765.

* Goetzen's ausführlichere vertheidigung d. Complutensischen N. T. Ibid. 1766.

Goetzen's Fortsetzung der ausführlicheren vertheidigung d. Complutensischen Griechischen N. T. nebst einer Sammlung d. vornehmsten Verschiedenheiten des Grundtextes und d. Vulgata derselben. Ibid. 1769.

Wetstein's note on the passage in his Greek Testament. J. J. Griesbach, Diatribe in loc. 1 John, v. 7. printed in the second vol. of his Greek Testament, p. 685. Halæ, 1806.

Porson's Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in answer to his defence of the three heavenly witnesses, 1 John, v. 7.. London, 1790.

H. Marsh's Letters to Archdeacon Travis. Leipzig. 1795. A Review of Mr. Travis's Letters, in Henke' and Brun's Annales Literarii, Helmstädt, May, 1786, p. 85-94.

Michaelis, Neue Orientalische und Exegetische Bibliothek. Göttingen, 1786, p. 144.

Michaelis, Introduct. to N. T. vol. iv. p. 412-441. ed. Marsh. 1802.

Eichhorn Repertorium für Biblischen und Morgenländischen Literatur, vol. iii. 258.

Pappelbaum, Untersuchung ins Ravischen Griechischen. Handschrift d. N. T. Berlin, 1785.-Reprinted 1796.

Semler, Historische und critische Sammlungen über die sogennanten Beweistellen in d. Dogmatik, vol. i. Halle, 1764vol. ii. Ibid. 1768.

Semler, Genauere Untersuchung d. schlechten Beschaffenheit des zu Alcala gedruckten N. Ï. Ibid. 1766.

Mori, Prælectiones Exegetica in tres Joannes epistolas, p. 68-77. Lipsia, 1796.-Reprinted 1810.

Nolan's Inquiry into the Greek Vulgate. London, 1815. The above list is far from complete; but it contains the titles of the chief works on the subject.

We now take leave of MM. Van Ess; and do not hesitate to recommend their publication to the learned theological student. After toiling through the heavy mire of verbal criticism, we are glad to be able to announce with the poet,

"Longæ finem chartæque viaque."

ART. IV. - De Versione Pentateuchi Persica Commentatio : scripsit E. F. C. ROSENMULLER. Lipsiæ, 1814. 4to. pp. 54. Imported by Black and Son, York Street, Covent Garden.

THE subject of the Persic versions of Scripture has, as our author remarks, very seldom been treated of even by those who have written critical Introductions to the Bible. Eichhorn, on the whole, the most learned Orientalist of the day, being ignorant of

« PreviousContinue »