have apprehended), that they afford us, on the contrary, an additional and most convincing proof that they exist at present, in all essential points, precisely the same as they were when they left the hands of their authors." [vol. I. pp. 128-130.] At the commencement of the second volume, to the multifarious contents of which we cannot even allude by distinct specification, there is a brief account of the long controverted subject of the antiquity of the Hebrew vowel points, with which we cannot feel altogether satisfied. The author decides against their alleged antiquity; but so far as his statement goes, it appears to be from ex parte evidence. The reasons of the anti-punctualists (we presume it should be anti-punctists) are given with sufficient copiousness; but those of their antagonists do not seem to be produced with equal fairness; and some, perhaps, of their strongest reasons, at least such as they have adduced with considerable zeal, are wholly omitted. Eleven arguments are produced in proof of the modern date of the Hebrew points, and four on the opposite side; of which latter, two are essentially but one. Now, although the potency of arguments does not depend so much on their numbers, as on their efficiency; so that four, or three, or even one substantial reason, may outweigh, in any case, eleven, or eleven thousand, that are inconclusive;-still if any controverted point have eleven or more arguments commonly brought forward in its support, and not three or four only, it becomes the impartial inquirer, and even the candid opponent, to state them all, or all of them upon which any considerable stress has been laid; in which case, if he triumph, he will obtain a more honourable and a more decisive victory. We are not at present sufficiently under the influence of the cacoëthes scribendi, to be induced to enter upon the controversy, but beg to refer the inquirer to the very luminous statements of Robertson, prefixed to his Clavis Pentateuchi, entitled "Dissertatio de genuina Punctorum Vocalium Hebraicorum Antiquitate." On whatever side of the question we determine, the piety of his concluding paragraph is worthy of imitation by all parties-" Candide nune Lector, ut argumenta hinc et inde æquo animo et serio expendas, sedulò oramus. Nos autem non victoriam, sed veritatem quærimus, et ut oracula divina, ex summâ misericordiâ Dei O. M. nobis concessa, sive dolo malo, sive errore et falsis opinionibus impugnata, pro viribus nostris defendamus. Si vero quis, in hisce rebus magis expertus, nosVOL. IV. No. 8, 2 c tram sententiam, non auctorum testimonio, sed documentis ex ratione et indole linguarum orientalium petitis, impugnaverit, nos, argumentis ejus candidè perpensis, vel sententiam nostram placidè strenuèque defensuros, vel veritatis lumine victos, ei palmam lubentissimè concessuros, ingenuè profitemur." A full and accurate account is given of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, deduced from various authentic sources of information. Of the Greek manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, the Alexandrian preserved in the British Museum and the Vatican, are particularly noticed_on account both of their antiquity and intrinsic value. The Codex Alexandrinus was deposited in the British Museum in the year 1753, having been sent as a present to King Charles I. from Cyrillus Lucaris, a native of Crete, and patriarch of Constantinople, by Sir Thomas Rowe, ambassador to the Grand Signior in the year 1628. Cyrillus brought it with him from Alexandria, where it was probably written. The proprietor, before it came into the hands of Cyrillus, wrote an Arabic subscription, expressing that it was written by Thecla the martyr; and this is the tradition, in the annexed schedule, in which it is ascribed to Thecla," a noble Egyptian lady," who is said to have written it" about thirteen hundred years ago, a little after the council of Nice." Its value has been differently estimated. Wetstein and Michaelis depreciate it, but Woide and Griesbach ably defend it from the charge of being corrupted from the Latin. Between this manuscript, and both the Coptic and Syriac versions, there is a remarkable coincidence. It is written in uncial or capital letters, without any accents or marks of aspiration, but with a few abbreviations. A fac-simile was published in folio by Dr. Woide, with types cast for the purpose, and our author has given a specimen, to which is subjoined, for the gratification of the English reader, an extract comprising the first seven verses of the gospel of John, "rendered rather more literally than the idiom of our language will admit, in order to convey an exact idea of the original Greek." As a curiosity, it is worth transcription. INTHEBEGINNINGWASTHEWORDANDTHEWORDWAS WITHGD ANDGDWASTHEWORD. HEWASINTHEBEGINNINGWITHGD OUTHIMWASMADENOTONETHING THATWASMADEINHIMLIFEWAS ANDTHELIFEWASTHELIGHTOFMN ETHANDTHEDARKNESSDIDNOTITCOMPRE HEND NTFROMGODWHOSENAME WAS JOHN THISPERSONCAME ASAWITNESSTHATHEMIGHTTESTI [vol. II. p. 79.] A similar specimen is given of the Codex Vaticanus, of which no fac-simile has ever been published. It is difficult to determine the comparative value of these two ancient manuscripts. "With regard," says our author, "to the Old Testament, if any Greek manuscript were now extant, containing an exact copy of the several books as they were originally translated, such manuscript would be perfect, and consequently the most valuable. The nearer any one copy comes to this perfection, the more valuable it must be, and vice versú. In its present state the Hebrew Text cannot determine fully the value of these MSS. in their relation to one another; and yet as that text receives great assistance from both, it proves that both deserve our highest regard. It is worthy of remark, that neither of them has the asterisks of Origen, though both of them were transcribed in the fifth century; which, Dr. Kennicott observes, is one proof that they were not taken either mediately or immediately from the Hexapla. The Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts differ from each other in the Old Testament chiefly in this;-that, as they contain books, which have been corrected by different persons, upon different principles; and as they differ greatly in some places in their interpolations,-so they contain many words which were either derived from different Greek versions, or else were translated by one or both of the transcribers themselves from the Hebrew text, which was consulted by them at the time of transcribing. On the ground of its internal excellence, Michaelis preferred the Vatican manuscript (for the New Testament) to the Codex Alexandrinus. If however that manuscript be most respectable which comes the nearest to Origen's Hexaplar copy of the Septuagint, the Alexandrian manuscript seems to claim that merit in preference to its rival: but if it be thought a matter of superior honour, to approach nearer the old Greek version, uncorrected by Origen, that merit seems to be due to the Vatican.” [vol. II p. 80.] On the subject of the divisions, and marks of distinction, occurring in the Scriptures, it is very properly remarked, that these divisions are of comparatively modern invention. They were unknown to the ancient Christians, whose Greek bibles, indeed, had Terλoe and Kepaλaia, (titles and heads), but their design was to point out the sum or contents of the text, not to divide the various books. Many of them contain only a few verses, and some not more than one. Chapters were invented by Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, about the middle of the thirteenth century. The chapters he subdivided into smaller portions, which he distinguished by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, placed in the margin. The introduction of verses may be ascribed to Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam, in 1661. He marked every verse of the Hebrew bible with the figures in common use. "As, however, these modern divisions and sub-divisions are not always made with the strictest regard to the connection of parts, it is greatly to be wished that all future editions of the Scriptures might be printed after the judicious manner adopted by Mr. Reeves in his equally beautiful and correct editions of the entire bible; in which the numbers of the verses and chapters are thrown into the margin; and the metrical parts of Scripture are distinguished from the rest by being printed in verses in the usual manner." With this expression of a desire for the superior arrangement of the text of Scripture, we most fully concur; at the same time we are apprehensive, that the popular prejudice is so strong against its adoption, that it would at present be rather a hazardous experiment. It is an undoubted fact, that Mr. Reeves's plan has not (to use a technical term) taken with the public; and an immense proportion of the copies in each size, (we believe he issued three editions at once) have failed of obtaining any circulation. If commentators and biblical critics would gradually adopt this arrangement, which is evidently advantageous to the English reader, it may be hoped that public opinion and influence would ultimately enlist authority upon its side, and procure a better distribution of the common translation. In speaking of versions into the modern languages of Europe, Mr. Horne observes, that "the first complete and revised edition of the whole (German) bible was printed at Wittemberg in 1533-35, in folio: and in the revision of it, Luther is SAID to have had the assistance of Philip Melancthon." This statement is not only unjust to the memory of more than one eminent reformer, but betrays a want of information. The evidence is clear and definite, that Melancthon rendered his friend most important assistance, and that he was at a very early period of the work deeply engaged in revising every part of it, and in corresponding with learned men, on various distinct topics of biblical criticism, in order to render the translation as correct as possible. Nay, more, to ensure the accuracy of the translation, a select party of learned men assembled with Luther every day at Wittemberg, to revise every sentence. Melancthon collated the Greek original, Cruciger the Chaldee, and other professors the Rabbinical writings. Justus, Jonas, Pomeranus, and Aurogallus, also contributed their aid. Mr. Horne is also wrong in his dates. The whole task was completed in 1530, and republished in a new edition in 1534, which was followed by others in 1541 and 1545. Nor is it, as our author intimates, correct, that "not one of his numerous enemies ever durst charge him with ignorance of the originals," but allowed his translation to be "uncommonly clear and accurate." Maimbourg indeed confesses it was elegant, but Emser, one of the counsellors of Duke George of Saxony, and Cochlæus, attacked it in terms of bitter reproach. The former even published, what he called, a correct translation of the New Testament, in opposition to it, which was, however, substantially Luther's. Seckendorf completely vindicates the translation from these cavilling criticisms; but that they existed can admit of no question. Happily, they did not prevent the wide circulation, and beneficial influence, of this important work.* With Mr. Horne's explanation of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we can by no means concur; and must confess, that we feel not a little surprised at his injudicious departure, in this instance, from all the just principles of biblical criticism and interpretation. The words, The Lord rained brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, are words susceptible, he says, of a very different interpretation from the common one, which supposes a miraculous shower of fire and brimstone. (Vol. iii. p. 1. c. 2.) It is well known, that in Scripture every operation of nature is directly ascribed to God. All her diversified instruments (this is our author's statement) are his servants, and what is performed by them is said to be done by himself. Earthquakes, storms, inundations, &c. are represented as coming from the Ruler of the universe. When, therefore, the combustible matter in question is declared to proceed from Jehovah, we are to understand the sacred historian as For further information on this subject, we refer our readers to Cox's Life of Philip Melancthon, pp. 206--213- 2d edition. |