« AnteriorContinuar »
and Ephremi, which unquestionably are copies of very ancient exemplars, and exhibit Egyptian interpolations. Witness, also, the Egyptian and Latin translations made in the second and third centuries after exemplars of the same description; and, finally, the quotations of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers of the same country. Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Dionysius Alexandrinus, all made use of this text. The complaints of the ancient doctors of the church, and of Origen in particular, relate to these manuscripts, and to the conduct of the Alexandrian copyists. The ecclesiastical writers who indicate or discuss various readings made use of manuscripts of the same description, of which only they consequently spoke. Jerome, who certainly employed manuscripts of both families, seems to have had but a very obscure apprehension of the difference subsisting between them.' His notice of them, therefore, is sufficiently vague. To this obscure apprehension it should seem that we must refer the passage of his letter to Damasus, bishop of Rome, in which he condemns upon hearsay the exemplars of Lucian and Hesychius. He speaks of their labours in an uncertain and unsatisfactory manner : he mentions neither the city nor the country where their text was adopted;
and the expressions “ asserit perversa contentio, Novo"[Testamento] profuit emendasse," shew in what horror Jerome and his contemporaries held such corrections ; and consequently, what little chance they had of being adopted, even if they had been preferable to the Egyptian text.
Enough has been said concerning the origin of this text. Alexandria, where it is well known that great numbers of manuscripts were transcribed, the grammarians were accustomed to correct in the margins whatever displeased them in the authors whose productions they copied, which alterations were subsequently introduced into the
Most of the Egyptian alterations were made in the first two centuries, and consequently they are found in all the manuscripts of that family. A sufficiently large number of new interpolations, some of them very considerable ones, had a later origin. Such is the source of the principal differences observable in the Alexandrine family. This corrupt text was diffused more or less in the West, either in Greek manuscripts or in the Latin versions; and this circumstance accounts for its being constantly used by the Italian and African doctors, as well as by Irenæus in the south of France. When, however, Jerome does cite the writings of any of his Asiatic fellow-countrymen, he gives the purest text which they used, that is, the Constantinopolitan
• Although Professor Scholz's system of classing manuscripts seems, at first view, to contradict those of his predecessors in this department of sacred criticism, (except Bengel,) yet this contradiction is only apparent_not real; for he actually recognizes the same facts as other critics, he only denies the importance of some, and explains others in a different way. With respect to the results, however, there is no difference. The grand--the final—result of the principle of families, viz. the certainty, and (in any thing material) the inviolability of the sacred text, is expressed more distinctly by Scholz than by any of his predecessors. His system, moreover, appears generally to offer - more
than any other theory or system of recensions—a remarkable character of simplicity and universality. It is less complicated, and it also pos-, sesses a greater degree of probability (probability approximating to certainty) than either of the theories noticed in the present section; and it is supported by profoundly learned and laborious researches, the result of which it must be candidly admitted) shews the great pre-eminence of the Asiatic or Constantinopolitan text over the African or Alexandrine text, and, consequently, the real VALUE, GENUINENESS, AND INTEGRITY OF THE PRESENT RECEIVED TÉXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.'
58–64. This abstract of Scholz's theory is itself so condensed an abridgement, that we could not have comprised the extract in fewer words, and have therefore given the entire passage. Mr. Horne has earned the cordial thanks of Biblical students, for the laborious pains which he must have expended upon these few pages, in order to present to the English reader the results of the German Professor's extended researches.
In the former impressions, Mr. H. had described the principal Hebrew and Greek MSS. In the present edition will be found a complete catalogue of all the MSS. of the entire New Testament, of the Four Gospels, and of the evangelisteria hitherto known to have been collated. This has been drawn
from a careful examination of the Prolegomena of Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and Scholz, from Griesbach's Symbole Criticæ, from Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, and from Michaelis's chapter on the Manuscripts that have been used in editions of the Greek Testament, with Bishop Marsh's supplementary Annotations. This Catalogue occupies eighty pages. It was the Editor's wish, to give a list of all the MSS. known to have been collated, containing the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse ; but this he has been compelled to defer till the appearance of the long expected completion of Dr. Scholz's critical edition of the New Testament, when Mr. Horne proposes to complete his catalogue, and to have the additional list printed and paged so as to bind up with this edition of his work. Among the Codices which yet remain to be collated, a brief account is now for the first time given, of the Codices Burneiani in the British Museum, which are of the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, and of a choice collection in the possession of Archdeacon Butler, of about the same date.
The Second Part of Vol. II. consists of a Bibliographical Appendix, which was newly arranged for the sixth edition, and has received in the present, very numerous additions. Among these is the account of the apocryphal Book of Jasher, of which, some copies having been printed separately, we inserted a notice in our No. for January last. Mr. Horne has also furnished a list (occupying nearly five pages.!) of the treatises that have been written on the genuineness of the disputed clauses in 1 John v. The account of the Modern Versions of the Scriptures is necessarily brief, but might in some instances have been more particular. Mr. Horne ought not to have forborne to expose the highly exceptionable character of the Hebrew New Testament, published by the London Society for Promoting Christianity among the Jews, the history of which would, we suspect, not bear the light. Mr. Greenfield's Translation is noticed without a single word of commendation, although a production displaying a profound scholarship; nor are his extraordinary philological labours specifically referred to, as they claimed to be. We must believe that Mr. Horne is very imperfectly acquainted with their magnitude and importance. His early death has deprived Biblical literature of one who united the most surprising aptitude for the acquisition of languages with critical acumen, minute accuracy, sound judgement, and the most laborious diligence, crowned with fervent piety and unaffected modesty. At the time of his death, he was employed in critically defending against the invidious attacks of opponents, the Serampore Mahratta version of the New Testament, the Arabic version, and the Romaic; while he was also revising or examining, as superintendant of the Bible Society's publications, the Persian, Cingalese, Berber, Chippeway, Hungarian, German, Welsh, and Catalonian versions*. Among his latest labours, was the transcription for the press of a considerable portion of St. Matthew's Gospel in Berber, upon the study of which he was entering with his characteristic enthusiasm. We have in our possession the Lord's Prayer in that difficult language, transcribed by his own hand, in Arabic characters and English letters, with an interlinear translation, together with some remarks on the ascertained affinity of what he calls the Libyan to the Coptic, Ethiopic, and Amharic; a fact of the highest interest both in a philological and in a physiological point of view.
Mr. Horne's third volume, comprising Biblical Geography and Antiquities, has received numerous minute additions ; but the principal alteration is the combining in one alphabet, the Geographical Index, with an index of historical names and of the miscellaneous matter comprised in the volume. Were we reviewing the work for the first time, we should offer some observations upon this portion of it, which, upon the whole, is the least accurate and satisfactory. Mr. Horne has not been choice in his authorities, and his statements are sometimes copied from works exhibiting a very defective state of information. We will only specify as instances, the articles Arabia, (Armenia is altogether
* See a Memoir of this extraordinary and amiable man in the Imperial Magazine, Jan. and Feb. 1834.
omitted in the Index,) Calvary, (that spot which now groans ' beneath monastic piles', could never have been 'open ground without the city,) Euphrates, Greece, Parthia, Persia, Rome: these are not such as we should have expected to find in the seventh edition of Mr. Horne's work; more especially after what had been done ready to his hand in the way of geographical illustration by a writer he cautiously abstains from citing.
The most important addition which the fourth volume has received, is an abstract of Professor Hengstenberg's elaborate vindication of the Book of Daniel against the objections of recent German neological writers (pp. 214–219). One of these objections is founded upon its being placed, in the Hebrew Bibles, in the Hagiographa, and not among the Prophets. This circumstance, Bertholdt explains on the supposition, that this third division of the Old Testament was not formed until after the other two were closed. Against this explanation, Dr. Hengstenberg justly objects, that it rests on mere assumption, and is flatly contradicted by all Jewish authorities. His own solution is thus briefly stated.
• The distinction between the Prophets and the Hagiographa is not of a chronological kind at all, but is founded on the peculiar character and office of the writers. The prophetic gift must be discriminated from the prophetic office. The one was common to all who were inspired; the latter, to the regular, official prophets, who communicated the Divine will to the Jewish nation. The books written by these prophets, as such, formed the second great division. The third, Dr. H. thinks, contains the inofficial prophecies. Why else should Jeremiah's Lamentations be disjoined from his prophecies? As to the relative position of the book among the Hagiographa, (near the end,) it evidently proves neither one thing nor another : as the Book of Ezra is placed after it, and a slight inspection shews that no regard was had to date in the arrangement of the parts.'
Although other explanations might be assigned, this is, we think, the most satisfactory we have seen, and solves every difficulty. Like Daniel, the patriarch Joseph was distinguished by his eminent possession of the prophetic gift; and yet, he is not ranked among the prophets. Both were laymen. As to the other objections combated by the learned Professor, they are mere cavils easily refuted.
We regret that Mr. Horne has not deemed it advisable to avail himself, in his analysis of the Four Gospels, of the learned and ingenious illustration thrown upon the critical questions relating to them, in Mr. Greswell's Dissertations. Much that is contained in this part of his work (Vol. IV. Part II. Chap. II.) in the shape of positive assertion, would have received modification at least, had he done justice to those volumes; and it is a serious omission, not to have given a more distinct account, in this place, of Mr. Greswell's hypothesis, and of the arguments by which it is sustained. He has relied too much on the dangerous authority of Michaelis. We recommend him carefully to revise this whole section, previously to committing the work again to the press.
The Section on the Epistles to the Hebrews is carefully drawn up, chiefly after Stuart, but is open to the objections pointed out in our notice of his work. * In his second edition, Mr. Horne had stated, that, of all the MSS. hitherto collated, which contain the First Epistle of John, amounting to 151, three only have the disputed text, of which two are of no authority. To these three is to be added, the Codex Ottobonianus, in the Vatican, which is of the fifteenth century, has been altered in many places to suit the Vulgate, and is, therefore, of no value. That this is the only other MS. which contains the clause, may be presumed with reason, since Professor Scholz states, that he has examined the MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris, in the libraries of Milan, Florence, and Rome, and in Greece and Palestine; and he has not communicated to the public any notice of his having discovered the disputed clause in any other. Mr. Horne had, however, mistaken the number of MSS. in the Lambeth library, which are to be included in the enumeration; and the state of the fact is thus correctly given in the present edition.
Of all the MSS. hitherto discovered and collated which contain this Epistle, amounting to one hundred and forty-nine, (comprising one of the MSS. collated by Dr. Scholz, and three MSS. in the archiepiscopal library at Lambeth, which were brought from the Greek Islands by Professor Carlyle,) if we deduct several that are either mutilated or imperfect in this place, it will be found, that four only have the text, and two of these are absolutely of no authority.'
Vol. IV. p. 449. In fact, this remark might be extended to all four. The Codex Guelpherbytanus is a MS. of the seventeenth century. The Codex Ravianus is obviously a forgery. The Codex Montfortii or Dublinensis is a Latinising MS., and has, in the clause in question, followed the Vulgate. The fourth is the Codex Ottobonianus already mentioned. After a very careful and impartial summary of the evidence on both sides, Mr. Horne very properly intimates his opinion, that the clause must be abandoned as spurious.
Upon the whole, the additions and improvements in this edition do great credit to the Author, as exhibiting his anxiety to
* Eclect. Review, Third Series, Vol. III. pp. 399-414. See also Vol. IX. pp. 163-167.