Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

even the sound..... Dr. Kennicott has been blamed for bringing forward such a mass of trivial and unimportant readings as the notes to his Bible exhibit; and the censure applies with at least equal force to his successor, M. de Rossi: but these critics could only exhibit such readings as their materials afforded; and if their researches have shewn that few deviations from the received text, of any consequence, are to be derived from MSS., this result, as all will admit, is neither trivial nor unimportant."-Pp. 63, 64.

This establishment of the general correctness of the common text is, in fact, the one great result of the critical painstaking of Kennicott and others. It is a result worth the efforts made in attaining it; but it is one also which seems to us to render unnecessary the further labour of preparing a new critical text; unless, indeed, we are to abandon the Masoretic manuscripts, and to adopt the versions as our chief or sole correcting authorities; and, in that case, who or what shall vouch for the correctness of the versions, or decide between their conflicting claims? In some books, the most important of the versions, it is well known, would only mislead, and, as a general rule, the greatest circumspection must be exercised before altering the Hebrew text, to bring it into agreement with any version.

On the whole, we have reason to be well satisfied with, and grateful for, the care taken by the Jewish critics and copyists in preserving their Scriptures. It is but due to them to say, that the Masoretic text, as it stands, with but few exceptions, is in all probability as near to what was originally written by the several authors, as would be any text that could now be formed by any expenditure of critical labour and sagacity. But Mr. Porter himself, as we perceive, fully admits the high character of the Masoretic text, as compared with the versions (Book ii. Cap. vi.). The remainder of the 2nd Book is occupied mainly with a full and lucid account of the different materials available for the criticism of the Old-Testament text,-viz., the manuscripts, Samaritan and Jewish, the versions, and citations found in certain quarters. This portion of the work is highly interesting, regarded simply as a literary history, and shews us well the immense amount of intellectual labour that has been called forth by the Hebrew Scriptures, in different countries and at different periods. We cannot dwell at any length on this portion of the work. The following, however, from the Chapter on the Manuscripts, is curious :

"The Jews of Toledo, in the middle ages, had in their synagogue a Sephertorah, which some of the Rabbies call the Codex Ezræ; others, the Codex Azaræ, and which some believed to have been a MS. transcribed by Ezra himself; others, to have been the copy of the Law which had been deposited for reference in the Azarah, or Hall of the Temple of Jesusalem, and had been preserved from destruction at the siege and capture of the city. The copy was so famous, that it was usual for the synagogues in other places to send their roll MSS. of the Pentateuch to Toledo to be compared with it. At the capture of Toledo by the Black Prince, in 1367, this Codex came into his possession as part of the booty, but was ransomed by the Jews for a large sum. At a subsequent siege it was destroyed by fire, together with the synagogue in which it was deposited. It is believed that none of the MSS. which had been compared with the Codex Azaræ are now extant: but some copies are still to be found which, from the inscriptions and certificates appended to them, appear to have been compared with these transcripts."-Pp. 73, 74. Mr. Porter states that he owes these facts to the Rev. M. Raphall,

[blocks in formation]

of the Jewish synagogue at Birmingham. The MS. referred to would appear to be the same as the Codex of Hillel, of which an account, similar, but yet in some points different, is given by Bauer (Crit. Sac., pp. 228, 229, 397).

The following may illustrate the laborious carefulness of Jewish copyists:

"Although a copy of the Pentateuch, in a character not perceptibly larger than that of an ordinary printed Hebrew Bible, and upon common parchment, forms, when rolled upon a wooden cylinder of an inch thick, a roll of about six or seven inches in diameter, and from sixteen to twenty inches long, yet some copies of the Law are found which are not larger than a pencil-case, and there are MSS. of the Book of Esther which can be carried in the barrel of an ordinary quill. Of course these MSS. can only be read with the assistance of a microscope, and for the purpose of study are nearly useless; but the pains which must have been employed in preparing the parchment and writing the text, shews the deep interest taken by the Jews in all that relates to their

sacred books."-P. 75.

The last Chapter of the 2nd Book consists of a critical examination of several interesting passages in the Old Testament, in which the principles and materials mentioned in the previous part of the work are applied to the rectification of the text. It is not necessary or practicable for us to follow the author in this examination. We can only again commend the care and clearness with which the subject is treated. The 3rd Book, on the Criticism of the New Testament, is the most interesting part of the volume. The author observes in it the same order as before. He gives us, in Chapter I., a history of the text, sufficiently full for the ordinary reader, but yet not so complete as it might have been. It contains no notice of the recent edition of Tischendorf, an editor who has bestowed considerable labour on the criticism of the New Testament, and whose exhibition of critical evidence, and remarks on the subject of the recensions, particularly Scholz's system, are well worthy of the attention of the student. This omission is the more singular, as Mr. Porter does notice Tischendorf's publication of the Codex Ephrem, a part of his important work, now in progress, entitled, Monumenta Sacra inedita, sive Reliquiæ Antiquissimæ Textus N. Ti Græci, ex Codd. per Europam dispersis, &c.,—a work which alone may justify the expression of hopefulness for the future progress of the criticism of the Greek text, with which Mr. Porter concludes his history of what has already been done (p. 268).

Our author's criticism on Scholz's edition of the New Testament is justly severe. He observes,

"Dr. Scholz has been a most enterprizing collater, having expended a large amount of time, and no doubt of money, in ransacking the libraries of Italy, Greece, the Greek Islands, and Palestine, in quest of manuscript treasure. Besides availing himself of some publications (as Dr. Barrett's Codex Rescriptus, of Dublin College) which had appeared since the publication of Griesbach, he has himself examined and collated, in whole or in part, about three hundred and fifty MSS. never referred to before in any critical edition; but his accuracy in exhibiting their various readings is matter of question, upon which serious doubts are felt.

"What has occasioned and strengthened these doubts is the almost incredible negligence of Scholz in representing the information afforded by his predecessors, especially by Griesbach. No one can compare his notes with those of Griesbach, without perceiving that nine-tenths of the whole are simply

copied from the edition of the latter; and no one can compare the two editions together attentively without perceiving that Scholz has displayed a degree of carelessness, as to the accuracy of his transcript, that could scarcely have been believed to be possible.”—P. 262.

This statement is supported by examples, taken ad aperturam libri from six verses of Matthew (iv. 4-10). Many more might be brought forward; in fact, they may be found on almost any page of Scholz's edition. An additional instance is given as follows, from Scholz's note on 1 John v. 7:

"In a passage so celebrated and so well known, we should have expected particular care and corresponding accuracy; but it [the note] begins with a gross blunder. Scholz thus commences the enumeration of authorities for omitting the disputed words in that verse:-Codices Græci qui Epistolas Catholicas habent fere omnes; videlicet, A, B (hiat. iv. 3–2 Jo. 3), G, H,’ &c.; which asserts that in the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. (or in the latter, at least) there is a hiatus here which prevents us from knowing how they read the verse. This is totally untrue; for both these MSS. contain this Epistle, and both want the contested clause. The fact is, Scholz has copied Griesbach, but copied him so negligently, that he has left out the letter Ĉ, which occurs in the beginning of the parenthesis. In Griesbach the list reads correctly‘A, B (C_hiat iv. 3—2 Jo. 3),' &c.; that is, 'the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. omit the clause. The Ephrem MS. is mutilated from 1 John iv. 3 to 2 John, verse 3,' so that its reading cannot be ascertained; which is perfectly correct."-P. 264.

We must add, in correction of both Dr. Scholz's and Mr. Porter's citation of Griesbach, that that editor's note stands thus: "A, B (C hiat. a cap. 4, 3, ad 3 Johann. 3)," &c.—that is to say, the hiatus in C extends to the third Epistle, v. 3.

Mr. Porter further states that he has collated some passages in the Syriac Peschito with the notes given in several of the critical editions, and finds that, with very few exceptions, so far as his collation extended, "wherever Mill, Wetstein and Griesbach were correct in their citations, Scholz is also right, unless where he happens to misplace his note-marks; wherever they are wrong, he faithfully copies their mistakes." Several instances are given in proof of this statement; so that it is not without good reason that Mr. Porter puts forth so unfavourable an opinion of Scholz's work.

"Whether Dr. Scholz has been more careful in noting down, and more exact in copying, the readings of those MSS. which he has for the first time collated, it is quite impossible to affirm as matter of fact. But seeing that such is his negligence in making use of the materials existing in print, I do not think it would be safe to rely implicitly on his sole authority.-P. 267.

The 2nd Chapter of the 3rd Book is a highly interesting one, on the Manuscripts of the New Testament. In connection with this part of the work must be mentioned the Plates, to the number of thirteen, containing fac-similes both of Hebrew and of Greek MSS. These appear to be carefully, as they are beautifully, executed. They add greatly to the interest and value of the work.

Chapters III. and IV. continue the account of the materials available for the textual criticism of the New Testament, in the ancient versions and the citations of early Christian writers.

Chapter V. enters upon the subject of the Recensions at considerable length. This part of the volume appears to us to be the least satisfactory of the whole. Mr. Porter adopts substantially the system of

Griesbach, with some modification, however, of the term Recension in the case of what Griesbach calls the Western recension. Griesbach himself almost abandons the term, in connection with the class of documents belonging to this so-called Western recension. And, in regard to the Alexandrine and Constantinopolitan recensions, we must hold it to be extremely doubtful, at the best, whether any such recensions of the New-Testament text, properly so to be called, were ever made. There is no historical evidence of such a fact. Mr. Porter himself, although he speaks in some places with confidence of ancient recensions (critical editions, prepared on a due examination of manuscripts and other authorities by competent persons), yet appears to us to give up the whole theory in one portion of his remarks. He says that if any one objects to the term recension, "he is at perfect liberty to substitute the term family or class, which involves no theory and sufficiently expresses the matter of fact." This is true. Either of the two terms suggested sufficiently "express the matter of fact"—all that there is to express-all that, in the present state of our knowledge, we have a right to express. No one can doubt that certain MSS. agree remarkably with each other in certain readings, differing from other manuscripts, which, again, agree pretty regularly among themselves. The question is, whether this running in classes or families is to be ascribed to the critical care of some learned person or persons, who in the second or third century employed themselves, by comparing manuscripts and by other means, in preparing the most correct text they could form,— or whether it is to be ascribed to accident, or to some cause or causes unknown to us. Suppose, for illustration, that a thousand copies of the page we are writing, themselves also written by hand, were in the course of two or three hundred years to get abroad in the world—a species and degree of fame which we by no means anticipate !—but suppose this; would not various readings creep into the text? would not some copies exhibit a predominating agreement in these various readings, and a predominating disagreement with other copies, which might again agree very much with each other? And thus would it not be possible to divide the whole number into several sets of copies, each set presenting very much the same text, and agreeing to differ more or less from all the other sets? And would it be warrantable, on the ground of this diversity and harmony, thus easily and inevitably, but yet undesignedly arising, to suppose that different editors had, some time or other, prepared critical editions, from which the different forms of the text ultimately existing had all sprung? The case appears to us to be much the same with the manuscripts of the New Testament. Different variations of reading would arise by simple transcription in different regions, and would be perpetuated and diffused among the copies made in each region. Thus classes or families of various readings would arise, just as we now have them in the New-Testament manuscripts, and it is wholly unnecessary to adopt any theory of recensions to account for them. This explanation is sufficient, we think, to meet all the facts of the case. After Dr. Laurence and Mr. Norton's examination of the recension-theory of Griesbach, and considering the entire absence of positive historical testimony as to any critical labour being ever bestowed at an early period in preparing a revised text; considering, also, that none of the supposed recensions is presented entire, or unmixed, in any one manuscript or authority whatever, we must be

content for the present with the simple acknowledgment of the fact that there is a certain amount of agreement or of diversity between certain sets of MSS. This is the conclusion arrived at by some of the most recent and able of the German writers on this subject.

The last Chapter of the work consists of a "Critical Examination of particular Passages," in which the author considers some important parts of the New Testament in which various readings occur, or of which the genuineness has been called in question. This is done with care and skill, and at some length. We cannot, for several reasons, dwell on this portion of the work.

We may conclude by observing that a good Introduction to the Scriptures, of both Testaments, is at present, as we think, a desideratum in English theological literature. The present volume is no doubt a contribution of some value to such a work; but it treats of only a part, and that not the most interesting or important, of the whole subject. We do not suppose that the want can be supplied by any mere translation from the German, rich as that language is in works of the kind, and indispensable as its resources are, to one who would present his readers with the most recent results of investigation. We in England exist in an atmosphere, religious and moral, of our own; one very different from that which supplies the breath of life to the German student. Hearty English common-sense and devout faith would expire amidst the rarefied speculations and subtleties in which he will delight. Even in the more orthodox and scriptural of the continental divines there is much that is abhorrent to the plain, straightforward, fact and realityloving reader of this country. Hence, to transfer any German Introduction into our language, while it would, doubtless, present us with much that would be highly valuable, would yet not sufficiently provide for the want of which we have spoken. We should still need a work that had been thought out by an English mind, in adaptation to English wants,-treating not harshly even what may be our English prejudices or ignorances, and, above all, doing and saying nothing to shock the devouter religious sensibilities. A work free and yet pious in spirit, full of matter drawn from various sources, and indicating duly where more may be obtained, not repeating merely what has been said before by others, without fresh and conscientious investigation;—a work, in short, which it would take many years of a man's life to produce, and which would, perchance, live after him, when he himself was gone,something such as this is what we want: but from what quarter is such a work to come, or who can feel himself able, or encouraged, amidst present comparative indifference on subjects of this kind, to attempt to produce such a work ?*

We have observed a few mistakes, or misprints, not mentioned in the foregoing notice as "Textus Rescriptus" (for Receptus), Contents, Book iii. Chap. iv. Sect. 1-" K'thib" (for Keri), in the last line of the third period on p. 54. The points and accents of the K'thib are to be annexed to the Keri, and the latter to be read for the former. There are a few occasional misprints not included in the Corrigenda. We are strongly disposed to class the repeated use of the word "cotemporary," for contemporary, in the number-in support of which inclination of ours we would beg to refer to an article in C. R., April, 1847, p. 202. Matthäi, the contemporary of Griesbach, is spoken of as having preceded Semler in the order of time (pp. 391, 392); Justin Martyr is said to have been a Jew (p. 86).

« VorigeDoorgaan »