doctrine of the Trinity, he will never wish to believe it on the word of man-on mutilated and corrupted texts; he thinks of truth too honourably to wish to see her kept in countenance by error. A pure text of the Bible is the common interest of Christendom; the interest even of Papists, though not of Popery. What Professor Scholz has done for the purity of the New Testament text we regret our inability to say, as we have not seen his new critical edition, for which he has collated 600 MSS. never seen by Griesbach; but the text of the latter author we will take leave to say, is not deserving the high repute it enjoys. We speak not of his edition; than which a more valuable work could only be constructed by a more enlarged collation. He wrought with insurpassable industry, and we have no doubt of his minute accuracy. He collated a vast number of copies, versions, and fathers, and the result of his collation is, we question not, recorded no less faithfully than clearly. But his reconstruction of the text is a different matter. With every respect for Griesbach's edition, we have none whatever for his text. His alterations of the Textus Receptus may, in all cases, be judged by evidence afforded by himself-and whether we take consent and respectability of MSS., or whether we act upon the canons laid down by himself, we cannot always agree in what he calls his emendations. It is, we fear, impossible to deny that he had a leaning to antitrinitarian views. Independently of the text which we come immediately to consider, there are some others by which he has acted in a manner that betrays more of the polemic than the critic. Our limits will not permit us, on the present occasion, to notice more than two; but they are quite enough to show that Griesbach's text, apart from Griesbach's authorities, is not universally deserving of confidence, and is, in truth, often inferior to that of "the Protestant Pope, Stephens."*

The first of these is, Col. ii. 2. εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ· ΚΑΙ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ, ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ. Our translation gives, " to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;" this translation is certainly objectionable, as it expresses, (whatever it may intend) a distinction between God and the Father. Perhaps the Apostle meant to say "the mystery of God: both of the Father, and of Christ;"+ where both the Father and Christ would be termed God. Griesbach has rejected from his text the words quoted in capitals. Now let us see what authority he alleges for this step. FOUR MSS. only omit the words! And the oldest of these only reaches

* Bentley's Prospectus to his intended critical edition of the Greek Testament. The words may also be rendered,—"God, even the Father;" or, "God [who is] also the Father," or (nuv being understood)" our God and Father;" the God and Father [of us.]

to the eleventh century! The Alexandrine MS., confessedly the highest single authority, only omits the first kai! The Codex Ephremi does the like! The Vatican retains the common reading! The Codex Bezæ has even TOY OEOY XPIZTOY!! There is no one of these MSS. which ought not to outweigh the other four; but when these come to be backed by all the other MSS. examined by Griesbach, not one of which wholly omits the clause, and only a very few present it otherwise than it stands in the Textus Receptus; when not one version, not one Father, omits it, though several state it with trifling variation; what must we think of the value of a critical text which rejects it? It would, we think, have puzzled Griesbach to justify his act by his own canons. Had he chosen, on the mere authority of the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephremi, to omit the first kaì, in the face of such a multitude of opposite authority, the deed would have been bold, but the acknowledged weight of those MSS. would have gone far to redeem it. But, on the testimony of four MSS. of very inferior note, to expunge a passage supported, in some way or other, by every other copy of the document collated, is a procedure which can only be accounted for on the supposition that the critic was displeased with the words, and resolved to exterminate them at all hazards.

If further proof could be needful in a case so clear, it could be furnished by the fact, that, in the very verse following, Griesbach retains Tns before yvwσews, although four MSS. (the number on whose authority he acted just above) are here against him, one of these being of that very collection, and two of the others being the VATICAN and BEZA'S!

The other instance we shall produce is from Rev. i. 11. Here Griesbach strikes out the important passage, Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω, ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ἔσχατος. It is not necessary here to dwell on the authorities he has adduced; as, in the very same verse, he introduces into the text the word iлrà, to which he prefixes the sign*, implying that the addition is only probable:† while this addition is vouched by the same MSS. which sanction the exclusion of the former sentence, together with several others. It is quite obvious, therefore, that the addition is much better authorized than the obliteration; yet does Griesbach make the former a matter of probability, while he does not hesitate to adopt the latter as unquestionable.

These two instances are quite sufficient to prove the magnitude of the interval between the merits of Griesbach's edition, and those of

This is not the MS. commonly called "Codex Bezæ," containing the Gospels and Acts only, though both are noted with the same symbol (D) in Griesbach's edition.

↑ "Adpingitur iis verbis quæ probabiliter textui adjicienda sunt.”—Griesbach's explanation of his critical symbols.

Griesbach's text. The edition is of consummate value; a clear exhibition of a most noble collation. The value of the text may be learned from what has been advanced. And, therefore, when the London University publisher advertises the New Testament according to Griesbach's text, he is, in our view, offering a warning instead of a recommendation.

Were our readers unaware, which we apprehend can in no instance be the case, that Griesbach substituted og for 9ɛòç in 1 Tim. iii. 6, they would have been prepared for something of the kind by our introductory observations. The MS. authority which he pleads for so doing is as follows. The reading is that of the Alexandrine, the Codex Ephremi, the Codex Augiensis, the electoral MS., the Colbertine and Covellian MSS. The Codex Bezæ has ö. ALL OTHERS have 9ɛóc. The Vatican, the St. Germans, the Coislinian, are defective in this part of the New Testament. Such is Griesbach's testimony in favour of his usurper s. But some of this, as we shall soon have occasion to observe, will require to be qualified.

Of the three readings (9ɛòs, ô, ô) the critic observes," si trium istarum lectionum bonitatem in se spectare velimus, ex unaquaque sensum elici posse bonum, imò eundem, deprehendemus." It is much to be regretted that the learned reasoner did not take some pains to prove his position, and to show what possible sense os could make. What can it agree with? not with μυστήριον, not with εὐσέβεια. And if it is to agree with eòs, implied from cou in verse 15, Griesbach ought to have altered his punctuation entirely.

Dr. Henderson has very ably sifted the question; and if there be any part of his pamphlet open to just exception, it is the title, in which "Sir Isaac Newton and the Socinians" are associated in a manner not calculated to abate the self-complacency of the latter gentlemen. Newton was certainly no Socinian ; but he believed the text in question to be corrupted; and the Socinians, with their characteristic dis

"That he [Newton] was no Socinian, in the modern acceptation of the term, is beyond all dispute; for he distinctly avows his belief in the miraculous birth of our Lord, which is a doctrine repudiated by the enemies of his divinity: and he asserts, in the most unqualified terms, that he was the object of primitive worship. Nor does he hesitate to affirm, that the words Xpioros and cos are more plainly equipollent than XpioTos and μvoτηpiov:' (Hist. Account, p. 74)—a declaration he never could have made had he believed him to be possessed of nothing more than simple humanity." To which Dr. Henderson appends the following quotations: - "being the Son of God as well by his resurrection from the dead (Acts xiii. 33), as by his SUPERNATURAL BIRTH of the VIRGIN." (Hist. Account, p. 59.) Explaining the fifth chapter of the Apocalypse, he says: The beasts and elders, therefore, represent the primitive Christians of all nations; and the worship of these Christians in their churches is here represented under the form of worshipping God and the Lamb in the temple: God for his benefaction in creating all things, and the Lamb for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood: God as sitting upon the throne and living for ever, and the Lamb as exalted above all by the merits of his death.' And, after quoting verses 11-14, he subjoins: 'This was the worship of the primitive Christians.'


honesty, have published his observations on this and one other text, under the title of, "Sir Isaac Newton on Trinitarian corruptions of Scripture;" the object being, of course, to propagate the opinion that Newton had found many corruptions of Scripture which had been perpetrated by Trinitarians, and had, in consequence, embraced the Socinian heresy. This circumstance has induced Dr. Henderson to honour the Socinians by associating them with Newton, as we think, most injudiciously, on his title page. With this single reservation, we would speak of his pamphlet in terms of unqualified approval.

We proceed to give some account of Dr. Henderson's statement of the question, and the position in which he has left it.

Newton's objection to the genuineness of the text before us was chiefly founded on evidence extrinsic to that derivable from MSS. Liberatus informs us that Macedonius, Bishop of Constantinople, was banished on the charge of corrupting the text of Scripture, and especially of 1 Tim. iii. 16; and Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, repeats the story. But the text of Liberatus is preserved in a very imperfect state; and in the edition of Surius, and subsequent editions, it is positively stated that Macedonius corrupted ôs into &s, not into eòs, and it is clearly implied that both Jeos and os were in the text. Liberatus also states that Macedonius was expelled as a Nestorian. Now it is very certain that no Nestorian would ever have corrupted os into Jɛòs in the passage under consideration. Hincmar, indeed, positively asserts that this was the particular corruption; but Hincmar wrote 300 years after the alleged date of the deed.

But we come to the critical evidence; the only evidence, after all, which can determine a question of this kind, except, indeed, historical of a very different quality from what is here to be found; or the plain meaning of words, which is altogether against ös, whatever it may be allowed to plead for o.

The reading is, according to Griesbach, that of the Codex Bezæ, a Claromontane MS. This MS., however, at present reads OC, the abbreviated form of OEOC. Greisbach, in making it read O, follows the authority of Wetstein, who affirms that O was the original reading. Woide, however, from inspection of the MS., affirms, that OC, although freshened by a later hand, is evidently à primâ manu. In this opinion Michaelis and Matthæi concur. It is evident that Beza himself read Seds in his MS., since, noticing the reading " quod" of the Latin Vulgate, he observes, "Vetus Interpres pro Oɛòs legit . . . . . . Verum regugnent perpetuo consensu omnes Græci codices." No one of the Greek Fathers countenance ő.

For the reading ô, then, there is not one particle of Greek testimony. On strict principles of criticism, therefore, it cannot be admitted into the Greek text. The Latin Vulgate, indeed, favours this lection, by reading

[blocks in formation]

"quod;" and the Latin Fathers, for the most part, follow their own version. Theodore, of Mopsuest has " qui manifestatus est;" and Epiphanius the deacon, "DEUS manifestatus est." The oriental versions are all equivocal.

The most important authority alleged by Griesbach for os is the Alexandrine MS. It would be always, taken singly, a very high authority; but it is rather too much to say, that it ought to outweigh the combined testimony of nearly all other MSS. extant. But Dr. Henderson has completely neutralized, to say no more, Griesbach's argument from this MS. :—

With respect to the Alexandrian Coder, it has been proved, as far as the nature of the case will allow, that OC was its original reading. This proof is furnished by the unimpeachable testimony of Junius, Huish, Mill, Wotton, Croyk, Berriman, Ridley, Gibson, Hewitt, and Pilkington, who carefully and minutely inspected the passage before it became illegible, and found the genuine transverse line in the Theta. To these names may be added those of Walton, Fell, Bentley, and Grabe, all of whom had access to the MS. at an earlier period, and who concur in its exhibiting OC and not OC. The report of Owen and Nichols, as given in Bowyer's Conjectures, is of too recent date to be of any weight. When Dr. Mill first collated it, he was inclined to believe OC the true reading; but after exainining it more closely, he discovered evident traces of the ancient horizontal line within the letter. The evidence thus elicited was attempted to be set aside by Wetstein, who, on first examining the MS. was able to discover no stroke, and conjectured that what Mill had taken for it was merely the line of an Epsilon in the word EYCEBEIAN on the opposite side of the leaf, which made its appearance through the vellum; but, on inspecting the more minutely afterwards, he found that the fine stroke, which was originally in the body of the letter, was discoverable at each end of the fuller stroke with which some corrector had retouched it. That the straight line of the Epsilon falls in with the exact position of the central stroke in OC has been disproved by Woide, the learned editor of the Codex, who determined the line to be not precisely at the back, but somewhat below the Theta.Pp. 52, 53.

Even Griesbach himself, in his Symbolæ Criticæ, does not confidently allege this MS. "Nisi a nostris partibus stare judicetur," he observes, "saltem neutrarum partium esse consendus est."

On Griesbach's next evidence for os, the Codex Ephremi, Dr. Henderson observes:

The Codex C, or Ephremi (Regius. 1905), according to Griesbach, reads 'OC; but, according to Woide and Velthusen, the reading is OC, with a horizontal line above the letters, marking an abbreviation. It is true the O wants the internal transverse stroke, by which Theta is usually distinguished from Omicron; but the same occurs in other parts of this MS.; and even in the very next word, EPANEPOOH, Woide was not able, with the assistance of a magnifying-glass, to discover the smallest trace of such a stroke.* If the supernal line had, as some critics have supposed, been added by a later hand, for the

• Such instances of the entire absence of the transverse line are not uncommon in the Uncial MSS. Among others in the Codex Sangermanensis, Less found the

« VorigeDoorgaan »