Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

of the rest, though the same with that of the printed edition most in use, is not; will the cause of truth be better served by dissimulation, in adhering to a maxim of policy, merely human, or by conveying, in simplicity, to the best of our power, the genuine sense of the Spirit? The former method savours too much of those pious frauds which, though excellent props to superstition, in ignorant and barbarous ages, ought never to be employed in the service of true religion. Their assistance she never needs, and dis dains to use. Let us then conclude that, as the sacred writings have been immensely multiplied, by the copies which have been taken from the original manuscripts, and by the transcripts successively made from the copies; the intrusion of mistakes into the manuscripts, and thence into printed editions, was, without a chain of miracles, absolutely unavoidable.

§ 3. Ir may be thought that the transmission, through so many ages, merely by transcribing, in order to supply the place of those copies which, from time to time, have been destroyed or lost, must have, long before now, greatly corrupted the text, and involved the whole in uncertainty. Yet, in fact, the danger here is not near so great as, at first, it would appear. The multiplication of the copies, the very circumstance which occasions the increase of the evil, has, in a great measure, as it began very early, brought its own remedy along with it, namely, the opportunity it affords, of collating those which have

[ocr errors]

been made from different ancient exemplars. For, let it be observed, that different transcribers from a correct standard, rarely fall into the same errors. If, therefore, which is highly probable, as almost all those writings were originally intended for the use of multitudes, several copies were made directly from the writings of the sacred penmen, those transcripts, when the common archytype was lost, would serve, when collated, to correct one another: and, in like manner, the copies taken from one would serve to correct the copies taken from another. There are several considerations, arising from external circumstances, from which, among the different readings of different manuscripts, the preference may, with probability, be determined; such are the comparative antiquity, number, and apparent accuracy of the copies themselves. There are considerations, also, arising from internal qualities in the readings compared; such as, conformity to the grammatical construction, to the common idiom of the language, to the special idiom of the Hellenists, to the manner of the writer, and to the scope of the context. Need I subjoin the judgments that may be formed, by a small change in the pointing, or even in dividing the words? for, in these things, the critic is entitled to some latitude, as, in the most ancient manuscripts, there were neither points nor accents, and hardly a division of the words.

Next to the aid of manuscripts, is that of the Greek commentators, who give us, in their com

mentaries, the text, as they found it at the time; and, next to this, we have that of ancient translations. I do not mean the aid they give for discovering the import of the original terms; for, in this respect, modern versions may be equally profitable; but, their leading to the discovery of a different reading in the manuscripts from which they were made. In this way, modern versions are of no use. to the critic, the world being still in possession of their originals. Next to ancient translations, though very far from being of equal weight, are the quotations made by the Fathers, and early ecclesiastical writers. Of the degrees of regard due, respectively, to the several assistances above named, it would be superfluous here to discourse, after what has been written by Walton, Mill, Wetstein, Simon, Michaelis, Kennicott, and many others. As we can ascribe to no manuscript, edition, or translation, absolute perfection; we ought to follow none of them implicitly, As little ought we to reject the aid of any. these principles I have proceeded in this version, Even the English translators have not scrupled, in a few instances, to prefer a manuscript reading to that of the printed editions, and the reading of the Vulgate to that of the Greek, Of the former, I remember two examples " in the Gospels, wherein our translators have adopted a reading different from the reading of the common Greek, and also different

99 Matth. x. 10. John, xviii. 20.

VOL. II.

50

On

from that of the Vulgate; and not a few 100, wherein they have preferred the latter to the former, sometimes, in my opinion, rashly. The passages are mentioned in the margin; the reader may compare them at his leisure, and consult the notes relating to them, subjoined to this translation.

[ocr errors]

4. BENGELIUS, though he consulted manuscripts, declares, that he has followed none in the edition he has given of the New Testament, unless where they supported the reading of some one, at least, of the printed editions. "This," says Bowyer 101, is the greatest deference that was ever paid to the press." But, with all due respect to the judgment of that worthy and learned printer, I do not think it evidence of a deference to the press, but of an extravagant deference to the first editors of the sacred books in print. The Scriptures of the New Testament had been conveyed, by manuscript, for about fourteen hundred years before the art of printing existed. As it has never been pretended that the first printers, or the first publishers, were inspired, or ought to be put on the footing of Prophets, we conclude, that if their editions contain things not warranted by the manuscripts or ancient versions then extant, such things must be erroneous, or, at least, apocryphal. And, if every thing they

100 Matth. xii. 14. xxv. 39. xxvi. 15. Mark, vi. 56. Luke, i. 35. ii. 22. xi. 13. John, xvi. 2. xviii. 1. 15. 101 Pref. to his Critical Conjectures.

contain may be found in some manuscripts or versions of an older date, though not in all, our giving such a preference to the readings copied into the printed editions, can proceed from nothing but a blind deference to the judgment of those editors, as always selecting the best. Whether they merited this dis

tinction, the judicious and impartial will judge. But no reasonable person can hesitate a moment to pronounce, that if, of all the readings they had met with, they had selected the worst, the press would have conveyed them down to us with equal fidelity. We may then have a prejudice in favour of the printed editions, because we are accustomed to them, but have no valid reason for preferring them to manuscripts, unless it arise from a well-founded preference of the first editors of the New Testament to all other scriptural critics, as men who had the best means of knowing what was preferable in the manuscripts, and who were the most capable of making a proper choice. But hardly will either be admitted by those who are acquainted with the state of this species of literature, at that time, and since.

5. THOUGH not the first published, the first prepared for publication, was the Complutensian Polyglot, by Cardinal Ximenes, a Spaniard. The sentence, formerly quoted from him, relating to the place he had assigned the Vulgate in his edition, between the Hebrew and the Greek, and his indecent comparison of its appearance there, to our Lord crucified between the two malefactors, do not serve

« AnteriorContinuar »