صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of the Churches, or represent the latter in one way or other. It is an unsatisfactory procedure to select now one reading, now another; to follow one critical edition on one occasion and another on a different one, according to the views or tastes which may chance to prevail. A mixed text originating in this way will colour any translation, and lessen its distinctiveness; for if the basis be fluctuating, how can the superstructure be different? The great matter to be kept in view in any revision of the English version claiming to be thorough or national is to entrust it to scholars of national repute and tried fairness, whatever be their theological opinions; not to the selected of a clerical body or committee whose bias can hardly fail to appear throughout the work they undertake, though the individual members may be most honourable.

The latest critical text of Von Tischendorf is confessedly the best.* It is the only one that has respect throughout to the Sinaitic MS.; the only one that has benefited by the true readings of the Vatican MS. which are presented in the "Novum Testamentum Vaticanum, etc., 1867," and the fac-simile edition of Vercellone, published at Rome in 1868; instead of following the imperfect collations of Mico, Rulotta, Bartolocci, and Birch. Not to speak of its critical apparatus, which is decidedly superior to that of any other, being fuller, more accurate, more impartial, the text founded upon the copious materials is nearer the original. Von Tischendorf's principle is substantially that of Bentley and Lachmann, viz., to seek the most ancient text in the oldest MSS., versions, and Fathers, and to reproduce it as accurately as possible. For this purpose he has relied on Alexandrine and Latin rather than Asiatic and Byzantine materials; first of all on the two oldest MSS. and B, with the Curetonian Syriac and the MSS. of the old Latin having an unrevised text;

*The title is "Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem isagogicam praetexuit Constantinus Tischendorf. Editio octava." It appeared in Lieferungen or parts, the first being issued in 1864, the eleventh and last in 1872.

besides Origen and Tertullian; next on A, C, D, the Vulgate, Peshito, and others. The main stress is laid upon antiquity. But this is subject to limitations. Where the oldest authorities are discordant, various considerations must be attended to, such as, whether a reading be peculiar to a MS., whether it seems to have proceeded from a learned man, or whether it is the mistake of a copyist. In these cases. suspicion is strong against it; while the reading which may have most easily given rise to the others, which is consonant with the Greek usage proper to the N. T. writers, and in the manner of an individual author, claims the preference. Within this department of probability and beyond it there are many things which bear upon critical decisions. Antiquity may therefore be modified to a considerable extent, for the true reading may be in younger MSS. or versions. He that follows antiquity absolutely or incautiously may miss the best readings at certain times. It is possible that a reading may be best attested, without being original. Von Tischendorf, however, has not allowed himself to be carried away by mere antiquity, though he sees the paramount value of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS., as well as that of the old Latin in a, b, c, d2, i, m, n, etc. He has allowed other considerations their due influence. Long experience had made him cautious in textual criticism. That he does not necessarily follow readings best attested may be seen from the Epistle to the Hebrews iv. 2, where σvуKEKEρаoμéνους is in A, B, C, D, and the singular συνκεκερασμένος in N. The plural is therefore sanctioned by a preponderance of authority. Yet he has the singular in the text; and the sense seems to demand it. In like manner the reading ó μovoyevǹ's Dεòs, the only-begotten God, in John i. 18, has the weight of ancient authority in its favour, &, B, C, etc., but internal considerations overrule this and speak for the received, the only-begotten son, which Von Tischendorf upholds. Perhaps he might have carried the limitation of ancient testimony farther in some cases, as in Luke xxii. 19, 20, "This is my body [which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper,

saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you"]; where the words bracketed are hardly original.

We shall now adduce a few readings which Von Tischendorf has adopted, though none of the recent critical editors has done so. He omits the last verse of John's Gospel, on the authority of the Sinaitic MS., a prima manu,* aided by internal reasons; the hyperbole being foreign to the character of the appendix or twenty-first chapter. It is even out of harmony with the gospel itself, whose language is often symbolical, but not exaggerated except in one instance (chap. x. 8); where the language is so sweepingly universal, that Tholuck himself is dissatisfied with the many attempts to explain it in harmony with Christ's character. The omission or insertion of a reading on the sole authority of the Siniatic MS. is a rare thing, however, with Von Tischendorf; for when he edits a reading belonging to N alone of the uncials, it has commonly the support of one early Father at least, or of the codex of a version. Thus in John vi. 51, where the new text reads "if one eat of my bread," it is supported by Cyprian and Hilary, as also by a, e, of the old Latin; and in the same verse, "the bread which I will give for the life of the world," etc., has Tertullian in its favour as well as m. So, too, in John xiii. 10 the Sinaitic reading is supported by Origen and several Latin codices. In Mark i. 1, where the MS. omits "Son of God," it has the countenance of Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, etc., not to speak of two cursive Greek MSS.

א When

agrees with B or the Vatican, the reading is strongly attested; as the latter is a most weighty witness, superior perhaps to any other; but both may be wrong, or one of them may be right. Internal considerations sometimes outweigh a majority of external witnesses. Hence it is somewhat hazardous to expunge the words "in Ephesus

[ocr errors]

* The idea that the copyist himself, not a corrector or second person, wrote the usual final verse, was effectually disposed of by Von Tischendorf in his prolegomena to the "Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, etc., etc., 1865," pp. xxxviii., xxxix.

[ocr errors]

from the beginning of the Epistle to the Ephesians, on the testimony of the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., supported as they are by Origen and Basil. The omission may have been caused by internal difficulties attending the opinion that St. Paul addressed the church at Ephesus in this manner; difficulties which are still felt, and supposed to be removed by the hypothesis of a "circular epistle," identical with "the epistle from Laodicea," mentioned in Colossians iv. 16; though the fact of a circular epistle having the contents and phraseology of the present one, militates against its Pauline authorship. Our critic omits "Son of God" after Jesus Christ in Mark i. 1; the last part of Mark viii. 26, "nor tell it to any in the town; the conclusion of Mark ix. 49, "and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt;" the words "and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him," in Luke xxiv. 51, 52. He reads, "I stood," not "he stood" in Revelations xii. 18. In Matthew xiii. 35 he reads, "Isaiah the prophet;" in John vi. 51, "the bread which I will give for the life of the world, is my flesh;" and in John xiii. 10, "he that has bathed has no need to wash himself," etc. In these he appears to be right. But it is not our purpose to characterise the text of this scholar in every feature. An impartial estimate of its value will place it above all others. His motto was the right one, "dies diem docet;" though hasty writers have sometimes adduced it to his disparagement, as if one who edited the text eight times, and was instrumental above all others in bringing forth new evidence, should not modify or change his view of readings according to the increase of that evidence and a riper judgment. Had he not altered his opinions in different editions as to the right reading of many texts, he must have shut his eyes against. light, and stereotyped conclusions contrary to the weight of collective authority. To his credit, be it said, he advanced. Those who think that he did not weigh evidence are unacquainted with his method of working. In the interest of assumed rivals, it may gratify some to nibble at his judgment; the learned have decided against such prepos

sessions. And such as accuse him of undue reliance on the Sinaitic MS. ignore the fact that their favourite Church scholar, Dean Alford, scruples not to adopt a reading on its authority alone, as in Revelation xxii. 21, where "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints" is a reading scarcely authentic. Here Lachmann and Von Tischendorf rightly have, "The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all."

Were we disposed to search out defects, or to differ in judgment from so distinguished a critic, we might say that he should have omitted the last clause of Mark ix. 38, "because he followeth not us;" and have retained ɛuλoγοῦντες in the text of Luke xxiv. 53, rather than αἰνοῦντες. In Colossians ii. 2 the word Xplorоũ after Toυ ОɛOυ seems to be a gloss not properly belonging to the text. "The mystery of God, even Christ" does not commend itself as a Pauline expression. Luke xxii. 43, 44, might also have been rejected, or at least bracketed as doubtful; for the verses are not in A and B, though and D have

them.

With respect to punctuation, we have seldom departed from that of Von Tischendorf. In this particular he is usually exact and accurate. Thus in Romans ix. 5 he puts a full stop after σápka, beginning a sentence with, “God who is over all be blessed," etc. This is required by Pauline usage, which does not apply Oɛòç to Christ, as the fourth gospel with its Alexandrian theology does at the commencement, much less ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς, “God who is over all." In like manner, he puts a comma rightly after Karaλáßw in Philippians iii. 12, as Lachmann does in his smaller edition, not in the larger. He does not follow Lachmann in placing Romans ix. 3-5 in a parenthesis; nor does he put ηὐχόμην . . . τοῦ χριστοῦ only in a parenthesis, as if the apostle alluded to a past wish, which is evidently wrong. Nor is Hebrews xii. 20, 21, enclosed in a parenthesis after the example of Lachmann. But Hebrews vii. 20, 21, οἱ μὲν γὰρ . . . εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is so marked. Lachmann has put in a parenthesis Luke vii. 29, 30, as if the words of Christ were interrupted. This is not recommended by the context.

« السابقةمتابعة »