3. Manifest contradictions, or differences between the editions. I proved that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and other versions are, the more closely do they agree with the Vulgate; and in consequence of the arguments adduced by Ex. xxiii. 18. Sixtine Tua, Clementine mea. Num. xxxiv. 4. S. Inter lepram et non lepram, C. Inter lepram et Simon, the Vulgate has been more justly appreciated by lepram. S. Signum non fuerit, C. Signum fuerit. S. Ad meridiem, C. A meridie. Deut. xvii. 8. S. Que se non traderet, C. Quæ se traderet S. Tuo, C. Meo. S. Nobis, C. Vobis. xx. 9. S. Deo nostro, Č. Vestro. 1 Sam. iv. 9. 1 Kings vii. 9. Hab. i. 13. Heb. v. 11. 2 Pet. i. 16. S. A me, C. A te. S. Intrinsecus, C. Extrinsecus. S. Quare non respices, C. Respices. 4. Differences in numbers. Ezek. xiv. 22. Sirach xxxviii. 25. xlii. 9. S. S. put over it, C. Latitudinem. Latitudinem, 30 cu. C. Altitudinem, 30 cubitus. et oculos meus cor meum. vivum. Ad Deum fontem vivum, C. Ad Deum fortem, Qui affligit patrem et fugit matrem, C. Qui affligat, &c. et fugat, &c. Devorare sanctos, C. Devotare sanctos. S. Sapientiam scribe, C. Sapientia scribæ. S. Justum, C. Avem. S. Cor hominis, C. Hominum.1 Isaiah xlvi. 12. Jer. xvii. 9. Besides the preceding revisions by papał authority, there have been several others executed by private individuals; in which the Latin Vulgate has been so much corrected from the original Hebrew and Greek, that they have in some degree been considered (though erroneously) as new translations. Of this number are the Latia Bibles published by Clarius, Eber, and the Osianders. [i] Isidore CLARIUS's edition of the Vulgate first appeared at Venice in 1542, and is of extreme rarity: it was reprinted at the same place in 1557 and 1564. He has not only restored the ancient Latin text, but has also corrected it in a great number of places which he conceived to be erroneously translated, so as to make them conformable to the Hebrew original. Although he corrected more than eight thousand places, as he states in his preface, yet he omitted some, lest he should offend the Roman Catholics by making too many alterations in the Vulgate version. [ii.] The method of Clarius was followed by Paul Eber, who corrected the Vulgate from Luther's German version. His edition was published at Wittemberg, in 1565, with the addition of Luther's translation under the authority of Augustus, Elector of Saxony; and was reprinted in 1574, in ten volumes, quarto. [iii.] The edition of Luke OSIANDER appeared in 1578, and has since been very often reprinted; as also has a German translation of it, which was first published at Stutgard in 1600. Andrew Osiander's edition was also printed in 1600, and frequently since. They have both corrected the Vulgate, according to the Hebrew originals; and have occasioned some confusion to their readers, by inserting their emendations in a character different from that in which the Vulgate text is printed. 4. The Vulgate is regarded by Papists and Protestants in very different points of view: by the former it has been extolled beyond measure, while by most of the latter it has been depreciated as much below its intrinsic merit. Our learned countryman, John Bois (canon of Ely), was the first who pointed out the real value of this version, in his Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza aliisque recentioribus. (8vo. 1655.) Bois was followed by Father Simon, in his Histoire Critique du Texte et des Versions du Nouveau Testament, who has 1 Hamilton's Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, pp. 163-166. biblical critics of later times. Although the Latin Vulgate is neither inspired nor infallible, as Morinus, Suarez, and other advocates of the Romish church have attempted to maintain, yet it is allowed to be in general a faithful translation, and sometimes exhibits the sense of Scripture with greater accuracy than the more modern versions: for all those which have been made in modern times, by divines in communion with the church of Rome, are derived from the Latin Vulgate, which, in consequence of the decree of the Council of Trent above noticed, has been substituted for the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Latin Vulgate, therefore, is by no means to be neglected by the biblical critic: and since the Ante-Hieronymian Latin translations are unquestionably of great antiquity, both lead us to a discovery of the readings in very ancient Greek manuscripts, which existed prior to the date of any now extant. Even in its present state, notwithstanding the variations between the Sixtine and Clementine editions, and that several dogmas of the church of Rome, the Latin Vulgate preserves passages are mistranslated, in order to support the peculiar many true readings, where the modern Hebrew copies are corrupted.3 II. The GOTHIC VERSION of the Bible was made from the Greek, both in the Old and in the New Testament, by Ulphilas, a celebrated bishop of the Mæso-Goths, who assisted at the council of Constantinople in 359, and was sent on an embassy to the Emperor Valens about the year 378. He is Arian tenents among his countrymen. said to have embraced Arianism, and to have propagated Besides translating the entire Bible into the Gothic language, Ulphilas is said to have conferred on the Mæso-Goths the invention of the Gothic characters. The character, however, in which this version of the New Testament is written, is, in fact, the Latin character of that age; and the degree of perfection, which the Gothic language had obtained during the time of Ulphilas, is a proof that it had then been written for some time. The translation of Ulphilas (who had been educated among the Greeks) was executed from the Greek; but, from its coincidence in many instances with the Latin, there is reason to suspect that it has been interpolated, though at a remote however, and its general fidelity, have concurred to give this period, from the Vulgate. Its unquestionable antiquity, version a high place in the estimation of biblical eritics: but, unfortunately, it has not come down to us entire. The only parts extant in print are, a fragment of the book of Nehemiah, a considerable portion of the four Gospels, and some portions of the apostolic epistles.5 of Ulphilas is the justly celebrated CODEX ARGENTEUS, now The most distinguished manuscript of the Gothic version preserved in the library of the university of Upsal, in Sweperfect state; the following are the principal lacunæ :— den. It contains the four Gospels, but by no means in a This manuscript is written on vellum, and has received the name of Argenteus from its silver letters: it is of a quarto size, and the vellum leaves are stained with a violet colour: and on this ground the letters, which are all uncial or capitals, were afterwards painted in silver, except the initial 2 Cappell has given numerous examples in his Critica Sacra, lib. ii. 2. cc. vii. ix. tom. ii. pp. 858-893. (edit. Scharfenberg.) The preceding account of the Latin versions has been compiled from Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 107-129. Semler, Apparatus ad Liberalem Vet. Test. Interpretationem, pp. 308-314. Carpzov. Critica Sacra, pp. 671-706. Leusden, Philologus Hebræomixtus, pp. 1-10. Bishop Walton, Prol. c. xi. pp. 470-507.; and Viser, Hermeneutica Sacra Novi Testamenti, vol. ii. part iii. pp. 73-96. See also Munting he's Expositio Critices Veteris Fœderis, pp. 149-156.; and Hug's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 464-483. For the principal editions of the Latin versions of the Scriptures, see the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 4. [i.] "This," says Bishop Marsh, "is an original German name, and is a diminutive of the word Wolf: it is written in correct German, Wölfelein, land, Bavaria, and Austria, to which that of the Maso-Goths, who likewise but corruptly pronounced Wölfila or Wulfila, in the dialects of Switzerinhabited the banks of the Danube, is nearly allied." Michaelis, vol. ii. part ii. p. 631. Michaelis, vol. ii. part i. pp. 130-133.-149-152. Hug, vol. i. pp. 498513. A notice of the principal editions of the Gothic versions will be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to Vol. II. PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 4. [ii.] characters and a few other passages, which are in gold. | throne of Sweden, it suddenly and unaccountably disap- AMEN UIWA IZVIS. SAGI NI Concerning the age of this venerable manuscript critics are by no means agreed. Some of the zealous advocates for its antiquity have maintained that it is the very copy which Ulphilas wrote with his own hand. The librarian by whom it was exhibited to Dr. Clarke stated it to have been completed about the end of the fourth century, by a bishop of Thrace, in the Gothic language used at that time in Mesia. This brings its age very nearly, if not quite, to the time when Ulphilas lived: but it is not likely-indeed it is utterly improbable that the only copy of the Gothic translation of the Gospels, which is now extant, should be precisely the original. What proves that this cannot be the identical manuscript of Ulphilas, is the fact, that several various readings have been discovered in the margin, a circumstance which clearly shows that it must have been written at a time when several transcripts had been already made. Some fragments of the Gothic version of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans were discovered by M. Knittel, in the year 1756, in a Codex Rescriptus belonging to the library of the duke of Brunswick at Wolfenbattel: they were published by him in 1762, and reprinted in 1763, in 4to., at Upsal, with notes by Ihre. The Brunswick manuscript, which is on vellum, and is supposed to be of the sixth century, contains only the following passages, viz. Rom. xi. 33-36. xii. 1-5. 17-21. xiv. 9-20. xv. 3-13. The version of Ulphilas is in one column, and a Latin translation in the other it is on vellum, and is supposed to be of the sixth century. In the eighth or ninth century, the Origines Isidori Hispalensis were written over the translation of Ulphilas; but the ink had become so exceedingly pale as not to admit of deciphering the original manuscript without great difficulty. In the year 1817, a most important discovery was made among the Codices Rescripti, in the Ambrosian library at Milan, by signor Angelo Mai. While this indefatigable 1 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 130-153. 631-635. Semler, pp. 70-72. Viser, Hermeneut. Nov. Test. vol. ii. part iii. pp. 56-58. Schoell, Histoire Abrégé de la Littérature Grecque, tom. ii. p. 131. Hug, vol. i. pp. 488-498. Coxe's Travels in Russia, &c. vol. iv. pp. 173–180. edit. 1802. Dr. E, D. Clarke's Travels, vol. vi. pp. 183, 184. 4to. explorer of ancient literature was examining two Codices Rescripti in the Ambrosian library, he was surprised with the discovery of some Gothic writing in one of them; which on further investigation proved to be fragments of the books of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. The discovery thus auspiciously made stimulated him to further inquiries, which were rewarded with the discovery of four other Codices Rescripti containing portions of the Gothic version. He now associated in his researches signor Carolo Ottavio Castillionei ; and to their joint labours we are indebted for a specimen and account of these manuscripts, from which the following particulars are abridged. The first of these five Gothic MSS. (which is noted S. 36.) consists of 204 quarto pages on vellum; the later writing contains the homilies of Gregory the Great on the Prophecies of before the eighth century. Beneath this, in a more ancient Ezekiel, which from their characters must have been executed Gothic hand, are contained the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans, 1st and 2d Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st and 2d of Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, together with a fragment of the Gothic Calendar. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, and to Timothy, are very nearly entire, and form the chief part of this manuscript: of the other Epistles considerable fragments only remain. The titles of the Epistles may be traced at the heads of the pages where they commence. This MS. appears to have been written by two different copyists, one of whom wrote more beautifully and correctly than the other; and various readings may be traced in some of the margins written in a smaller hand. Entire leaves have been turned upside down by the rescriber of this manuscript. The annexed fac-simile of it represents the commencement of Paul's Epistles to the Ephesians, and may be thus rendered: The Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians beginneth. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the will of God, to the saints who are at Ephesus. 2 Ulphile Partium Ineditarum, in Ambrosianis Palimpsestis ab Angelo Maio repertarum, Specimen, conjunctis curis ejusdem Maii et Caroli Octavi Castillionæi editum, Mediolani, Regiis Typis, M. DCCC. XIX. 4to. الله ¡Cubas cenderas CIN TÈM ĪTISTĀÑAETA) JO AIFAIS INMA NASTOJŲ GUANGCHOFISIN & ་་་་་་་་་་་་་་ The second MS. also, in quarto, and noted S. 45., contains 156 pages of thinner vellum, the Latin writings on which is of the eighth or ninth century, and comprises Jerome's exposition of Isaiah. Under this has been discovered (though with some difficulty, on account of the thickness of the Latin characters and the blackness of the ink) the Gothic version of Saint Paul's two Epistles to the Corinthians, the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, and to Titus. What is deficient in the preceding manuscript is found in this, which has some various readings peculiar to itself, and therefore is an independent codex. The tate the fierce and sanguinary spirit of his countrymen. date of the Latin writing of this manuscript, which Mai deciphered with great difficulty, is not specified; but, on comparing his specimen of it with other engraved specimens, we are inclined to refer it to the eighth or ninth century. The fourth specimen (noted I. 61.) consists of a single sheet in small quarto, containing four pages of part of Saint John's Gospel in Latin, under which are found the very fragments of the twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, and twenty-seventh chapters of Matthew's Gospel, which are wanting in the celebrated manuscript of the Gothic Gospels preserved at Upsal, and usually known by the appellation of the Codex Argenteus. The fifth and last manuscript (noted G. 147.), which has preserved some remains of Gothic literature, is a volume of the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon; under the later writing have been discovered some fragments of ancient authors, whose names signor Mai has not specified; and also a fragment of a Gothic Homily, rich in biblical quotations, and the style of which he thinks shows that it was translated from some one of the fathers of the Greek church. The characters of this manuscript bear a close resemblance to those of the Codex Argenteus, at Upsal, which was executed in the sixth century. The manuscripts above described are written in broad and thick characters, without any division of words or of chapters, but with contractions of proper names, similar to those found in ancient Greek MSS. Some sections, however, have been discovered, which are indicated by numeral marks or larger spaces, and sometimes by large letters. The Gothic writing is referred to the sixth century. The portions of the Gothic version of the Old and New Testament, printed by signors Mai and Castillionei, are, I. Nehemiah, chap. v. verses 13-18. chap. vi. 14-19. and vii. 1-3. II. A Fragment of Saint Matthew's Gospel, containing chap. xxv. 38-46. xxvi. 1—3. 65–75. and xxvii. 1. III. Part of St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians, chap. ii. 22-30. and iii. 1-16. IV. Saint Paul's Epistle to Titus, chap. i. 1-16. ii. 1.; and V. verses 11-23. of his Epistle to Philemon. The Gothic text is exhibited on the left-hand page, and on the right-hand page the editors have given a literal Latin translation of it, together with the Greek original. These are succeeded by fragments of a Gothic Homily and Calendar, with Latin translations, Gothic alphabet, and a glossary of new Gothic words which they have discovered in the passages which they have printed. In 1829 signor Castillionei published the fragments of Ulphilas's version of the second Epistle to the Corinthians. III. The SCLAVONIC, or Old Russian Version, was also made from the Greek, both in the Old and New Testaments. It is ascribed to the two brothers, Cyril2 (or Constantine, surnamed the Philosopher on account of his learning) and Methodius, sons of Leo, a Greek nobleman of Thessalonica, who, in the latter part of the ninth century, first preached the Gospel among the Moravo-Sclavonians: but it is questionable, whether these missionaries translated the whole of the sacred code, or whether their labours comprised only the books of the New Testament and the Psalms of David. Dr. Dobrowsky (who has bestowed more pains on the critical study of the Sclavonic Scriptures than any person now living) is of opinion "that, with the exception of the Psalms, no part of the Old Testament was translated at so early a period. So much, however, is certain, that the book of Proverbs must have been translated before, or in the twelfth century, as the frequent quotations made from it by Nestor (author of the Russian Chronicle, who died in 1156) agree, the other hand, the Prophets, and the apocryphal books of on the whole, with the common text. The books of Job, on Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, appear to have been done in Servia, in the thirteenth or fourteenth century; and the Pentateuch and remaining books in the fifteenth, either in Russia volume, and arranged according to the order of the books in or Poland, at which time the whole were collected into one the Bohemian Bible, printed in 1488 or 1489." The extreme 1 Decline and Fall, vol. vi. p. 269. To this Cyril is ascribed the invention of the Sclavonic letters:-" But In the third manuscript, noted G. 82., a quarto Latin volume, containing the plays of Plautus, and part of Seneca's Tragedies it is manifest, this invention consisted in nothing more than the adaptation of Medea and Edipus, signor Mai discovered fragments of the of the uncial characters of the Greek alphabet, so far as they went, to exBooks of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. This discovery is pecu- press the sounds of the new language, with the addition of certain other liarly valuable, as not the smallest portion of the Gothic version letters, borrowed or changed from other alphabets, to make up the defi of the Old Testament was known to be in existence; and, fur- ters; on which account the alphabet has been called the Cyrillic, after his ciency. He also substituted Sclavonic for the Phenician names of the letther, as it furnishes a complete refutation of the idle tale repeated name." Dr. Henderson's Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, p. by Gibbon after preceding writers, viz. that Ulphilas prudently 67. (London, 1826.) In pp. 60-102. the learned traveller has given an exsuppressed the four Books of Kings, as they might tend to irri-literature, from which the present notice of the Sclavonic version is abridged. tended and very interesting account of the Sclavonic language and sacred rarity and recent date of MSS. of the entire Sclavonic Bible | examples. Dr. Mill selected various lections from this vergreatly corroborated this hypothesis of Dr. Dobrowsky, re- sion: which, from the difference of style and inequalities specting the late execution of this version of the Old Testa- observable in its execution, he ascribes to several authors: ment.1 Dr. Henderson has shown, by actual collation, that it is supposed, to have been executed in the eighth century.? the Sclavonic text of the Old Testament, in the editio princeps of the Bible printed at Ostrog in 1581, was made with the assistance of the Vulgate or some ancient Latin MSS. found in the Bulgarian monasteries, or that it was at least revised and altered according to them; and he is of opinion that, if this edition were carefully collated, it would yield a rich harvest of various readings, some of which might prove of essential service to a future editor of the Septuagint.2 According to Professor Hug, the Sclavonic version exhibits the text of the Constantinopolitan recension. Dr. Do On the application of ancient versions to the ascertaining of various readings, see pp. 286, 287. infra.; and on the benefit which may be derived from them in the interpretration of the Scriptures, see Part II. Book I. Chap. II. Sect. I. § 2. of this volume. SECTION IV. CONSIDERED AS A SOURCE OF THE TEXT OF THE OLD AND NEW THE first and fundamental editions, whether of the Old or of the New Testament, are of equal authority with the manuscript from which they were derived. Referring the reader to the Bibliographical Appendix to Vol. II. for a detailed account of the various editions of the Old and New Testament, we may here remark that almost all other editions of the OLD TESTAMENT owe their origin either to that of Soncino, printed in 1488, to that of Brescia in 1494, which was followed by the Complutensian Polyglott in 1517; or lastly, to the second Bomberg edition printed at Venice in 1525-26. Almost all editions of the Hebrew Bible are masoretical, that is, have the masoretic notes and vowel points, a few only excepted, in which corrections have been introduced from manuscripts. Among the latter, De Rossi reckons all those which preceded the second Bomberg edition, that of 1525-26. All the later editions he terms masoretic; the non-masoretic editions are the more valuable. browsky pronounces it to be a very literal translation from ON THE AUTHORITY OF ANCIENT EDITIONS OF THE SCRipture, the Greek, the Greek construction being very frequently retained, even where it is contrary to the genius of the Sclavonian language; and in general it resembles the most ancient manuscripts, with which it agrees, even where their united evidence is against the common printed reading. "It contains at least three fourths of the readings which Griesbach has adopted into his text" [in his critical edition of the New Testament]. "Where he has few authorities, the Sclavonic mostly corroborates the authority of the textus receptus; and, where a great agreement obtains among the ancient MSS. in favour of a reading, it joins them against the common editions. It varies from Theophylact as often as it agrees with him, and has neither been altered from him nor the Vulgate ;" and it possesses few or no lectiones singulares, or readings peculiar to itself. From an edition of this version, printed at Moscow in 1614, M. Alter selected the readings of the four Gospels, and from a manuscript in the imperial library, the readings of the Acts and Epistles, which are printed in his edition of the Greek New Testament. (Vienna, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo.) Dr. Dobrowsky states that these various lections are given with great accuracy, but that those which Matthaî has selected from the Revelation are erroneous and useless. Griesbach has given a catalogue of the Sclavonic manuscripts collated for his edition of the New Testament, communicated to him by Dobrowsky." IV. ANGLO-SAXON VERSION.-Although Christianity was planted in Britain in the first century, it does not appear that the Britons had any translation of the Scriptures in their language earlier than the eighth century. About the year 706, Adhelm, the first bishop of Sherborn, translated the Psalter into Saxon; and at his earnest persuasion, Egbert or Eadfrid, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, soon after executed a Saxon version of the Four Gospels. Not many years after this, the learned and venerable Bede (who died A. D. 735) translated the entire Bible into that language. There were other Saxon versions, either of the whole or of detached portions of the Scriptures, of a later date. A translation of the book of Psalms was undertaken by the illustrious King Alfred, who died A. D. 900, when it was about half finished; and Elfric, who was archbishop of Canterbury in 995, translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, Job, Judith, part of the book of Kings, Esther, and Maccabees. The entire Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible has never been printed: King Alfred's translation of the Psalms, with the interlineary Latin text, was edited by John Spelman, 4to. London, 1640; and there is another Saxon interlineary translation of the Psalter, deposited in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. Of the Four Gospels, there have been three editions printed; an account of which will be found in the BIBLIOGRAPHICAL APPENDIX to VOL. II., PART I. CHAP. I. SECT. V. § 4. [iv.] The Anglo-Saxon version being evidently translated from the Old Latin, Michaelis is of opinion that it may be of use in determining the readings of that version; and Semler has remarked, that it contains many readings which vary both from the Greek and Latin texts, of which he has given some With respect to the NEW TESTAMENT, after a few detached portions had been separately printed, two Editiones Principes of the entire New Testament (both derived from manuscripts alone) were published in the sixteenth century, viz. that of Erasmus, and that in the Complutensian Polyglott, the editors of which availed themselves of only a few critical aids in arranging the Greek text. According to one or other of these fundamental editions, many other editions were printed in the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Among the editions printed about the middle of the sixteenth century those of Robert Stephens10 claim a special notice, from his having collated many manuscripts which had not before been consulted. The text of Stephens's editions was reprinted several times. Theodore Beza, however, was the first who undertook a new revision of the text of the New Testament, with the aid of a more copious critical apparatus than his predecessors had enjoyed. Beza's text, which was first published in 1582, became the basis of numerous minor editions, until the publication of the editions printed by the Elzevirs at Leyden, in 1624 and 1633, the text of which is formed partly after that of Beza and of Stephens; and which, from its general adoption in the majority of subsequent edi|tions, has received the appellation of the textus receptus. SECTION V. ON THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE WORKS A FOURTH Source of the text of Scripture is the Quotations made from the Old and New Testaments in the writings of the FATHERS and other ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS. Watson's Collections of Theological Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 61-63. Bp. Marsh's See Bibliogr. App. to Vol. II. Part I. Chap. I. Sect. I. for an account of the editions of the Old Testament; and Sect. III. for an account of the editions of the New Testament. 1 Dr. Henderson's Biblical Researches and Travels in Russia, pp. 73, 74. 2 Ibid. p. 88. a Ibid. pp. 89, 90. The earliest portion of the New Testament, printed in Greek, is the Dr. Henderson corroborates this account of Dr. Dobrowsky, and states hymns of Mary and of Zacharias in Luke i. 46-55. 68-80. They are found that this version "may be considered as one of the most verbal ever exe. in the appendix to an edition of the Book of Psalms in Greek. Venice, cuted. Not only is every word and particle scrupulously expressed, and 1486, in quarto. These portions were followed by the first six chapters of made, in general, to occupy the same place in the translation that it does Saint John's Gospel in the appendix to the Aldine edition of Gregory Naziin the original, but the derivation and compounds, as well as the gram-anzen's poems, translated into Latin. Venice, 1504. 4to. Verses 1-14. of matical forms, are all successfully imitated." (Ibid. pp. 91, 92.) the first chapter of Saint John's Gospel appeared at Tubingen in 1514; and Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 153–158. 636, 637. Griesbach, Prolegomena, vol. in 1520 Melancthon edited Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans at Wittemi. pp. cxxvii. cxxxii. Beck, Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testa-berg, in 8vo. The little demand for the original text of the New Testament, menti, pp. 108, 109. Hug, vol. i. pp. 513-517. at that period, has been attributed to the universal acquiescence in the use The manuscript of this translation is now deposited in the Cottonian of the Latin Vulgate version, of which there were numerous editions printed Library in the British Museum (Nero, D. iv.): Mr. Astle has given a speci- at the close of the fifteenth and at the commencement of the sixteenth cenmen of it in plate xiv. of his "Origin and Progress of Writing," and has de-tury. Schott, Isagoge ad Libros Novi Fœderis, p. 632. scribed it in pp. 100, 101. 10 Paris, 1546, 1549, 1550, 1568. Geneva, 1551. Among the ancient Fathers of the church, those are particularly worthy of attention and collation who wrote in the Greek language; because they spoke, and read, and wrote that very language in which the sacred writings of the New Testament were originally composed. The phrase and diction of those writings were, therefore, familiar to them; they naturally expressed themselves in the Scripture style and language. When they referred to any texts of Scripture, or discoursed more at large upon them, they would of course be guided by the original Greek of the New Testament,' and not by any version which had been made, and which might possibly vary from it: whereas the Latin fathers being accustomed only to the Latin version, it is as much to be expected that they should conform their language, quotations, and comments to it; though, perhaps, upon some occasions, and according to their ability, taking notice also of the Greek original. A Latin father will be an evidence for the Latin version, where he takes no express notice of the Greek; and according to the clearness and fulness of that evidence, we may argue, that the Latin version, or some copy or copies of it, had that reading in his time, which is cited by him. And this may deserve to be attended to with regard to any omissions in the Greek MSS. which the Latin may be thought to have supplied; but still the testimony of the Latin father in this case will prove nothing more than the reading of a Latin version by what authority that version is supported is a matter of further inquiry. Indeed where it can be shown that a Latin father followed no particular version, but translated directly for himself (as Tertullian and Cyprian have frequently done); this brings us somewhat nearer to some manuscript in the original language, and may be considered, according as it shall happen to be circumstantiated, as a distinct testimony for the reading of some Greek manuscript in particular. The Greek fathers generally quote the Old Testament from the Septuagint version. Origen and Jerome are the only fathers who certainly made use of Hebrew manuscripts; and their evidence is equivalent to that of manuscripts of their age. Upwards of one hundred and eighty fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, besides Catena (or expositions of portions of Scripture compiled from collections out of several authors), are enumerated by Professor Scholz, as having cited the New Testament, either from the original Greek, or from the ancient Ante-Hieronymian Latin, and from the Syriac versions. (Those fathers who confined themselves exclusively to the use of the Latin Vulgate are designedly omitted.) Among the ancient writers, the critical testimonies of the following are justly valued, viz. :-in the second century, Irenæus and Clemens Alexandrinus; in the third century, Origen; in the fourth century, Gregory bishop of Nyssa, Gregory bishop of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom bishop of Constantinople; in the fifth century, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and Isidore of Pelusium; in the eleventh century, Theophylact; and in the twelfth century, Euthymius Zigabenus. As the criteria laid down by Michaelis and other eminent critics, for determining the text of Scripture from quotations of it in the writings of the FATHERS, more properly belong to the subject of Various Readings (see pp. 288, 289. infra), the following remarks on the relative value of the testimonies contained in the works of the writers just enumerated, may be found worthy of attention : I. IRENEUS. It is to be regretted that so few fragments of this father's writings are now extant in the original Greek. What has been transmitted to us has been found only in an ancient Latin version, the author of which appears to have inserted the quotations made by Irenæus from some ancient Latin translation of the Scriptures, or has rendered them inaccurately. It is evident, however, from those passages which are cited in the original Greek, that this father made use of different manuscripts; and though he sometimes coincides with the Alexandrine recension, yet he most frequently agrees with the Constantinopolitan recension. 2. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS mostly cites the New Testament from memory; but those passages which he has given accurately agree with the manuscripts of the Alexandrine family. Griesbach has given a collection of the passages quoted by Clemens and Origen, collated with the common or vulgate Greek text, in the second volume of his Symbolæ Critica, pp. 227-620. 3. ORIGEN used the Alexandrine text, of which he had many manuscripts. His readings are known from the references made by subsequent ecclesiastical writers to his copies of the Scriptures, as well as from his own quotations, and also from fragments inserted in the Greek Catenæ, and ascribed to him. 4, 5. The quotations which are to be found in the writings of GREGORY bishop of Nyssa, and GREGORY bishop of Nazianzum, chiefly agree with the Constantinopolitan recension. Scholz states that these authors have so interwoven passages of Scripture in their works, that they cannot be easily detached; consequently but few various readings, and those not very important, are to be gleaned from them. 6. Great caution is requisite in making use of the quota tions of CHRYSOSTOM, bishop of Constantinople; for though in his admirable commentaries on the New Testament, he very frequently adduces the very words of the sacred writers, yet, distracted by the multiplicity of business in which he was engaged, or borne away by his ardour in writing, he has cited a great number of passages from memory. Consequently, he has confounded together similar passages of the same author or of different writers: in some instances he has changed a text which he had just before quoted correctly, and very often he follows Origen. The text, therefore, which is found in Chrysostom's works, sometimes agrees with the Constantinopolitan, and sometimes with the Alexandrine recension. The entire writings of this father were collated by Matthæi; and select passages by Scholz. 7. CYRIL of Alexandria faithfully follows the Alexandrine text. 8. THEODORET, bishop of Cyra in Syria, in his commentaries for the most part agrees with the received text, though he has sometimes rashly followed either Origen or Chrysostom. 9. ISIDORE of Pelusium agrees with the manuscripts of the Alexandrine family. 10. THEOPHYLACT, archbishop of Bulgaria, in his commentaries on the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, mostly agrees with the received text, but he also has many Alexandrine readings. 11. Lastly, EUTHYMIUS Zigabenus for the most part agrees with the Constantinopolitan text in his commentaries on the Gospels, which are chiefly collected from the writings of Basil, Gregory of Nazianzum, and Chrysostom.2 I. SECTION VI. ON THE VARIOUS READINGS OCCURRING IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS. § 1. ON THE CAUSES OF VARIOUS READINGS. The Christian faith not affected by what are called vari ous readings.—II. Nature of various readings.-Difference between them and mere errata.—III. Notice of the principal collations and collections of various readings.—IV. Causes of various readings:-1. The negligence or mistakes of transcribers ;-2. Errors or imperfections in the manuscript copied ;-3. Critical conjecture;-4. Wilful corrup tions of a manuscript from party-motives. I. THE Old and New Testaments, in common with all other ancient writings, being preserved and diffused by transcription, the admission of mistakes was unavoidable; which increasing with the multitude of copies, necessarily produced a great variety of different readings. Hence the labours of learned men have been directed to the collation of manuscripts, with a view to ascertain the genuine reading; and the result of their researches has shown, that these variations are not such as to affect our faith or practice in any thing material: they are mostly of a minute, and sometimes of a trifling, nature. "The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them." It is therefore a very ungrounded 2 Schott, Isagoge in Nov. Test. pp. 630, 631. Scholz, Nov. Test. Prolegom. Pp. cxlv. exlii. exlvii. cl. exlvi.cli. Enchiridion Theologicum, vol. v. p. 163.) The various readings that affect Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Free-thinking, rem. xxxii. (Bp. Randolph's doctrines, and require caution, are extremely few, and easily distinguished by critical rules; and where they do affect a doctrine, other passages con firm and establish it. See examples of this observation in Michaelis, vol. i. p. 266., and Dr. Nares's Strict es on the Unitarian Version of the New Tes tament, pp. 219-221. |