« AnteriorContinuar »
those enormous claims to a high antiquity, are proved to have been forgeries.
In Egypt, the monuments on which infidels were most relying for arguments to set aside the history of the Bible, are shown to have had comparatively a modern origin. The testimony from the most ancient ruins of the lands, which were the scene of many of the important events of Bible history, is more direct and valuable. The monumental ruins of ancient Nineveh and Babylon, after lying buried three thousand years, are brought to light and found to have on them the very names of the Jewish kings, and fragments of Jewish history, recorded in the Bible.
Geological science, less than half a century ago, was reckoned as one of the strongholds of infidelity. It is now no longer so. The testimony of this science is unequivocally pointing the other way. The records of creation, as found in the solid rocks, without absolutely conflicting in any, harmonize in some important points with, and even directly corroborate, that given by Moses. In times of ignorance, or in the infancy of science, the haters of divine truth can falsify the records which God has left of him. self, both in his word and works. Without saying that those times of ignorance and the infancy of science are past, one thing is certain : as the sphere of human koowledge widens, and that knowledge itself becomes more accurate, whether in relation to the heavens above, the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth, the increase of light is only placing the authenticity and truth of the Bible on a more solid and immovable basis.
NOTICES OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.
1.-BUTTMANN'S GREEK TESTAMENT. This edition of the Greek Testament forms a part of the popular collection of ancient Greek and Latin authors published by Teubner of Leipsic. Like the other volumes in the series, it is neatly printed, and sold at a moderate price. Its editor, Philip Buttmann, the son of the distinguished philologist of the same name, was associated with Lachmann in the preparation of his larger edition of the Greek Testament: he arranged the authorities for the various readings of the Greek text. The edition which he now presents to the public purports to be based on the celebrated Codex Vaticanus No. 1209, except in the latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the Apocalypse, in which portions of the New Testament that manuscript is unfortunately mutilated. Here its place is supplied by the Alexandrine. Buttmann professes to give, in the margin, all the variations from his own text which are found in the Vatican manuscript, the Elzevir edition of 1624, or the “Received Text,” Griesbach's larger edition (Vol. I. ed. Schulz, 1827; Vol. II, 1806), Lachmann's larger edition (1842—50), and Tischendorf's edition of 1854, included in his “Novum Testamentum Triglottum,” but also issued separately.
One serious defect in the present work, considered as a manual for common use, is the absence of all references to the quotations from the Old Testament, or to parallel passages in the New. Some may also regret that it has no analysis of the contents of the different books, in the form of running titles or headings of chapters. But if the promises of the title-page and preface were fulfilled, it would still be a convenient and useful book, supplying an important desideratum. No other edition gives a complete view of the critical results arrived at in respect to the text by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, the three editors whose judgment is now most highly respected by scholars.
The editions of Hahn (1840) and Theile (stereotyped in 1844), and the edition of the New Testament in Stier and Theile's “Polyglotten-Bibel” (stereotyped in 1846), profess, indeed, to exbibit the various readings of the principal recent editors of the Greek Testament; but they do this very imperfectly. In giving the readings of Griesbach, they take no notice of
1 Novvm Testamentvm Graece. Ad fidem potissimvm Codicis Vaticani B recensvit, varias lectiones Codicis B, Textvs Recepti, Editionvm Griesbachii Lachmanni Tischendorfii integras adiecit PhilippVS BVTTMANN. Lipsiae symptibus et typis B. J. Tevbneri. 1856. Small 8vo. pp. viii., 543.
those which he marks as probably spurious, or of those which he designates as equal in authority to the reading of the text. Hahn preceded Tischendorf; and he professedly exhibits a selection only from the readings of Lachmann, taken of course from his first edition of 1831. He is, moreover, inaccurate, incorrectly representing the critical judgment of Knapp alone in more than one hundred and thirty instances. — Theile intentionally passes over the minuter variations; and both his Greek Testament and the PolyglottenBibel were published too soon to enable him to use the second volume of Lachmann's larger edition, or the second Leipsic edition of Tischendorf (1849), the most important, so far as the criticism of the text is concerned, since the time of Griesbach. (The first edition of Tischendorf, published in 1841, is comparatively of little value.) The Greek portion of Theile's “Novum Testamentum Tetraglotton " (1855), is merely taken from the stereotype plates of the Polyglotten-Bibel. — Tischendorf's edition of 1819 gives the various readings of Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, with those of the Elzevir edition of 1624 and Stephens's of 1550; but he neglects the readings which Lachmann places in the margin as equal in value to those of the text; and Griesbach's are taken from his larger edition, instead of the manual edition of 1805, which generally represents his later conclusions. — Bagster's “ Large-print Greek Testament" (London, 1851), contains only “ selected various readings from Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf,” though the selection is copious, and made with care and judgment.
Buttmann speaks in his preface of the difficulty of making a selection of this kind, and thinks it better to let the student decide for bimself as to the comparative importance of particular differences in the text. He accordingly professes to give all the various readings of the authorities named in his title-page, “ even the most trivial” (et levissimas). Where Griesbach and Lachmann regard two readings of the same passage as possessing equal claims to reception, he indicates the fact by citing their authority for both. Such are his promises ; and the value of his work must chiefly depend on the fidelity with which they are performed. Few critics will doubt that he over-estimates the authority of the Vatican manuscript, regarding it as equal if not superior to that of all the rest of our manuscripts of the New Testament united. He even ventures, in one instance (2 Pet. 3: 10), to alter the text by conjecture, changing tá into a, because, otherwise, the reading of this manuscript would be without meaning. Still the Vatican manuscript is undoubtedly the oldest and best which has come down to us; and if Buttmann has relied upon it too exclusively, the error is not of much consequence, if he sets before us the text of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf in connection with his own.
Such being the case, we regret to say that all which would give value to this edition is wanting. No reliance can be placed on Buttmann's account of the various readings of any one of the authorities cited. His carelessness is extraordinary. We have gone over the Gospel of Matthew, comparing the representations of Buttmann with the authorities to which he refers;
Trepiñyev, not 7. d’Inooüs; 11: 16, étépois, not étaipois ; 13: 48, arm, not by yeia; 52, elitev, not néyev; 16: 8, eadbete, not čxete ; 28, ciolv, not oti eitis ; 17: 4, Toshow, not owuev; 18: 1, ápą, not ñuépą; 21: 18, èravayayúv, not enaváywv; 23: 4, omits kal duo Báotakta.
5. The Vatican manuscript reads, Matt. 1: 12, geyvą, not & évioer (twice); 2: 13, adds eis Tiny xúpav aùtwv after aŭtwv ; 3: 16, aveŪua eoû, not TÒ TreIua toll Ocoû; 4: 23, omits d 'Incoûs after tepunyev; 7: 19, reads ray, not to oův (Lachmann is wrong); 12: 47, omits the whole verse; 18:19, reads ovuowvho ovou, not owow; 31, aŭtoû oi o úvôovou, not oi o. aủ.; 22: 45, kúpier aŭtov xanei, not karei aútdy aŭtóv; 25: 6, égéveto, not yeyovey ; 26: 56, ades autoù after maintai.
These specimens may be sufficient to determine the character of the work; but one or two points require further elucidation. We refer to the use which the editor professes to make of the Vatican manuscript, and to the extraordinary number of errors which he has committed in regard to the readings of Griesbach.
It is on the Vatican manuscript that Buttmann professedly founds his text; but he nowhere informs his readers bow imperfect our knowledge of that manuscript is. We have, indeed, three collations of it: one by Bartolocci, in 1669; another by an Italian named Mico, made for the use of Bentley, about 1720 ; and a third by Birch, toward the end of the last century. The two last have been published; a transcript of the first is preserved in the Imperial Library at Paris. These collations give us the reading of the manuscript in a great many passages; but it would be the height of rashness to attempt from them to publish its text. Sometimes they all disagree ; sometimes two of them differ, while the third is silent; and a comparison of them demonstrates that much has been overlooked by the author of each. Important readings, which they have all neglected to notice, have been observed by Tischendorf and Tregelles, who have both had the privilege of inspecting (not of collating) the manuscript for a short time. The text which Buttmann gives as that of the Codex Vaticanus rests, in many places, only on the unsafe foundation of the silence of the collators.
But this is not all. Buttmann has not even taken pains to examine any one of the collations personally; but derives the readings of the manuscript merely from Lachmann's edition, except that he has made considerable use of an article by Tischendorf, in the “ Theol. Studien und Kritiken" for 1847, p. 129 ff. Tischendorf, in his edition of 1849, p. xlvi, points out a number of errors committed by Lachmann in respect to the readings of this manuscript; but these errors are repeated by Buttmann. He also mene tions (p. lviii) two noticeable readings communicated by Dr. Tregelles ; but this information is also lost upon our editor. Other mistakes of Buttmann might have been corrected by examining the collation made for Bentley, printed by Ford in 1799, in his Appendix to Woide's edition of the Codex Alexandrinus; others still, from the article by Tischendorf, to which he refers.