Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

and it appears that he has committed more than five hundred errors in that Gospel alone. These mistakes may be divided as follows: Errors respecting the readings of the received text (the Elzevir edition of 1624), 136; errors respecting those of Griesbach's edition, 250; respecting those of Lachmann's edition, 47; respecting those of Tischendorf's edition, 60; errors respecting the readings of the Vatican manuscript, not less than 47, and probably many more; in all, 540. It did not seem worth while to pursue the inquiry further; but at this rate, the number of mistakes in the whole volume would be not less than four thousand.

It is true that many of the errors which we have noted relate to minute differences in the text, of little intrinsic importance; but Buttmann, it will be remembered, professes to give all the various readings of the authorities mentioned. It may be of no consequence whether Boog, or Boós, or Boés be the original reading in Matt. 1: 5; but it is of some importance as a test of Buttmann's care as an editor, to know that he ascribes to Griesbach, Tischendorf, and the Received Text one of these forms, when they actually have another.

A complete list of the errors referred to (in the Gospel of Matthew alone) would occupy a number of pages. The following examples may suffice.

1. The Elzevir edition of 1624 reads, Matt. 1: 5, Boó, not Boós; 3: 15, εἶπε πρὸς αὐτόν, not εἶπεν αὐτῷ ; 16, καὶ βαπτισθείς, not βαπτισθεὶς δέ; 4: 11, προσῆλθον, not προσῆλθαν (so 9: 28. 13: 36. 14: 15); 5: 27, ἐῤῥέθη, not ἐρρήIn (so vv. 33, 38, 43); same verse, adds Toîs apxalois after éppén; 5: 30, βληθῇ εἰς γέενναν, not εἰς γ. βλ. ; 7: 22, προεφητεύσαμεν, not ἐπροφητεύσαμεν (similarly 11: 13. 15: 7); 8: 29, 'Iŋooû vié, not vié simply; 9: 5, àpéwrtai, not ἀφίενται ; 10: 41, λήψεται, not λήμψεται (so elsewhere); 11: 23, ἔμειναν, not ἔμεινεν ; 12: 44, σεσαρωμένον, not καὶ σεσ. ; 13: 6, ἐκαυματίσθη, not ἐκαυματώθη ; 14, ἐπ' αὐτοῖς, not αὐτοῖς simply ; 52, εἶπεν, not λέγει; 14: 6, ἀγομένων, not γενομένων ; 27, εὐθέως, not εὐθύς (so 21: 3); 18: 4, ταπεινώσῃ, not - σει ; 23: 14, ὑποκριταί after Φαρισαῖοι ; 26: 70 reads πάντων, not αὐτῶν πάντων; 27: 47, éσTwτwv, not σтηKÓτwy. In all but four of the places (Matt. 5: 27. 8: 29. 13: 14. 26: 70), the mistakes above specified apply equally to the account of Griesbach's readings. We will therefore give only a few additional examples from him.

2. Griesbach reads, Matt. 1: 6, Zoλouwva, not -ŵvra; 2: 11, eîdov, not eiρον; 6: 32, ἐπιζητεῖ, not ἐπιζήτουσιν ; 8: 31, ἀπόστειλον ἡμᾶς, not ἐπίτρεψον ἡμῖν ἀπελθεῖν; 9: 8 he marks ἐφοβήθησαν as equal in authority to ἐθαύμασαν; 13: 16 reads aкovel, not aкovovσiv; marks 18: 11 and 23: 14 as probably to be omitted.

3. Lachmann reads, Matt. 4: 11, προσῆλθον, not -θαν ; 7: 25, προσέπαισαν, not προσέπεσαν ; 27, προσέρρηξαν, in the margin, as equal in authority to προσέκοψαν in the text; 13: 6, ἐκαυματίσθη, not ἐκαυματώδη; 14: 19, ηὐλόγη σεν, not εὐλόγησεν; 18: 16, μετὰ σοῦ after δύο, not after παράλαβε; 21: 3, εὐ θέως, not εὐθύς; 23: 19, brackets μωροί καί.

4. Tischendorf reads, Matt. 2: 22, ἐπὶ τῆς Ἰουδαίας, not τῆς Ἰουδ. ; 4: 28

περιήγεν, not π. ὁ Ἰησοῦς; 11: 16, ἑτέροις, not ἑταίροις ; 13: 48, ἄγγη, not ἄγ γεία ; 52, εἶπεν, not λέγει ; 16: 8, ἐλάβετε, not ἔχετε; 28, εἰσίν, not ὅτι εἰσίν ; 17: 4, ποιήσω, not -σωμεν ; 18: 1, ὥρᾳ, not ἡμέρᾳ; 21: 18, ἐπαναγαγών, not ἐπανάγων ; 23: 4, omits καὶ δυσβάστακτα.

5. The Vatican manuscript reads, Matt. 1: 12, yevva, not ¿yévvnoev (twice); 2: 13, adds εἰς τὴν χώραν αὐτῶν after αὐτῶν ; 3: 16, πνεῦμα Θεοῦ, not τὸ πνεῦ μα τοῦ Θεοῦ ; 4: 23, omits ὁ Ἰησοῦς after περιήγεν ; 7: 19, reads πᾶν, not πάν ouv (Lachmann is wrong); 12: 47, omits the whole verse; συμφωνήσουσιν, not -σωσιν; 31, αὐτοῦ οἱ σύνδουλοι, not οἱ σ. αὐ.; αὐτὸν καλεῖ, not καλεῖ αὐτὸν αὐτόν; 25: 6, ἐγένετο, not γέγονεν ; αὐτοῦ after μαθηταί.

18: 19, reads 22: 45, κύριον

26: 56, adds

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 how 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 mentions (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.

Discreditable as this negligence is, it is more excusable than the misrepresentations of Griesbach's critical judgment, which constitute so large a part of the errors which we have noticed. Buttmann does not seem to have even made himself acquainted with the meaning of the signs which Griesbach uses to denote the comparative value of different readings. In the first place, Griesbach is represented as receiving, without question, the readings which he marks as probably spurious, prefixing the sign There are not far from five hundred cases of this kind in the New Testament, some of them of much importance. The passage concerning the woman taken in adultery (John 7: 53-8: 11) is a striking instance. In the Gospel of Matthew, there are forty-five examples of this error on the part of Buttmann. There is another class of readings, to which Griesbach prefixes a peculiar mark (~), denoting that they are worthy of consideration, but inferior to those received into the text. Buttmann habitually confounds this with another mark (→), which signifies that the reading to which it is prefixed is equal or perhaps preferable to the received lection. Compare, for example, his edition with that of Griesbach in Matt. 1: 18, 19. 2: 8, 9, 17, etc. He has fallen into this mistake, in the Gospel of Matthew, thirty-nine times. There is another smaller class of readings which Griesbach introduces into the text with the sign + prefixed. These are given by Buttmann as readings which Griesbach adopts as genuine; whereas this sign, as explained by him, denotes an addition for which there is some evidence deserving attention, but which is probably not genuine. See his Prolegomena (Schulz's edit.), p. lxxxvii. There are ten examples of this error in the Gospel of Matthew; see, e. g. Matt. 26: 9, 33, 35, 38.

One other remark may be made in this connection. Griesbach's readings should have been taken from his manual edition, printed at Leipsic in 1805. Where this differs from his larger edition, it generally represents his maturer judgment. The first volume of the larger edition was published in 1796; and though the second volume bears the date 1806, it appears by the preface that far the greater part of it had been printed several years before. The differences between the two editions in respect to the text are not very numerous, but some of them are important. For example, the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark, to which Griesbach affixes no mark of doubt in his larger edition of 1796, are designated as probably spurious in the manual edition of 1805, and he argues at length against their genuineness in Part II. of his Commentarius Criticus, published in 1811. It is obviously not doing him justice, to quote his authority, in such a case, in support of the reading of the Received Text.

It is hardly worth while to point out misprints in a work of the character of the present. One or two of the grosser instances which we have observed may be mentioned, as μeta for μeσtov, p. 246, line 3 from the bottom; and Tnpηuévovs for τnpovμévous, p. 342, line 8; and also in line 2 of the margin.

It is unpleasant to be compelled thus to expose the faults of a work the editor of which bears so honored a name, and which forms part of a series

that has been received with general favor. These very circumstances, however, being likely to give it a circulation to which it is not entitled, make it a more imperative duty to warn the unwary student against its false pretensions.

2.- GILLESPIE ON THE NECESSARY EXISTENce of God.1

A.

FOR two or three years we have desired to insert in the Bibliotheca Sacra a notice of Mr. Gillespie's Treatise on God's Necessary Existence. The intent and the statement of his theory have been highly commended by Lord Brougham, Sir William Hamilton, Bishop Russel, Dr. John Brown, Dr. D. Dewar, and other eminent scholars. The contents of the present volume are fragmentary, consisting of a General Preface; an Inquiry into the Defects of mere a posteriori Arguments for a God; Reviews of the Demonstrations, by Mr. Locke, Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev. Moses Lowman, and Bishop Hamilton, of the Existence and Attributes of Deity; an Essay entitled Necessary Existence implies Infinite Extension; a Statement of the Argument a priori for the Being and Attributes of a Great First Cause; an Examination of Antitheos's Refutation of the Argument a priori for the Being and Attributes of God.

Of these Parts, the most interesting and scientific is the Statement of the Argument a priori for the Being and Attributes of God. The argument is presented in a logical form, and in a style far superior to that of the author's other writings. The following may be considered a fair, though meagre, compend of the argument, which Mr. Gillespie has exhibited in thirtyfive pages of his volume.

[ocr errors]

Infinity of expansion is necessarily existing; the parts of it cannot be separated from each other; they cannot be moved; therefore infinity of expansion is one and simple. This infinity of expansion is a substance, or else an attribute. If it be a substance, then the substance is one and simple; if it be an attribute, then it must have a substance or substratum which is one and simple; in either case, then, there is an infinite substance, necessarily existing and possessing unity and simplicity.

"Infinity of duration is necessarily existing; the parts of it cannot be separated from each other; they cannot be moved; therefore infinity of duration is one and simple. This infinity of duration is a substance, or an attribute. If it be a substance, then the substance is one and simple; if it be an attribute, then it must have a substance or substratum which is one and simple; in either case, then, there is an infinite substance necessarily existing, and possessing unity and simplicity.

"The substance of infinite expansion, and the substance of infinite duration are one and the same substance. This substance or being is necessa

1 The Necessary Existence of God. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black. mans, London. pp. 317. 12mo.

By William Gillespie. New edition.
Longman, Brown, Green and Long-

1858.] Gillespie on the Truth of the Evangelical History. 883

rily intelligent and all-knowing; is therefore an infinite mind. As all material objects were created by this mind, it is all-powerful. It is entirely free, because it is the origin of all motion. This mind is also entirely happy; for, 'every position which we cannot but believe, is a necessary truth. But we cannot but believe that the simple, sole Being of Infinity of Expansion and of Duration, who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and entirely free, is completely happy. Therefore, that this Being is completely happy, is a necessary truth. Being completely happy, he cannot be the free cause of anything but happiness to his creatures; therefore he is entirely good."

Thus, according to Mr. Gillespie, are the existence and attributes of God demonstrated a priori. It will be seen, at a glance, that he is indebted to Dr. Samuel Clarke for the general structure of his argument, although he presents it in a form peculiar to himself. He complains that the natural theology of modern times is superficial, and he desires to revive the ancient taste for more recondite, and, in his opinion, more conclusive processes of ratiocination on this most fundamental of all themes. He would be more successful in his aim, if he would write in a more calm and dignified style. His volume deserves a careful study, though by no means an implicit trust.

3.- GILLESPIE ON THE TRUTH OF THE EVANGELICAL HISTORY.1

[ocr errors]

THE frequent inappositeness of this author's style is indicated on the title page of this volume: "by William Gillespie, Author of the Necessary Existence of God.'" The phrase is understood, but is not an example of the curiosa felicitas in language.

The "Dogmatical Statement" of the volume is, in brief, the following: "Matthew's special object in his Gospel is to prove the Messiahship of Jesus, and his Gospel is written expressly for Jews; Mark's special interest is, to prove that Jesus is a teacher, having a Divine commission, and his Gospel is written primarily for the Gentiles, and is pre-eminently devoted to a proof of the miracles, attesting our Lord's supreme authority; Luke's main object is to develop the human character and relations of the seed of the woman;' and John's peculiar design is to exhibit the nature of the personal character of Christ as the Logos, the Son of God." These four propositions are sustained by reasonings which are ingenious, acute, and plausible. We think that Mr. Gillespie is too strenuous in support of some theories, which are now generally abandoned by critics, and which cannot be satisfactorily proved. For example, he insists at length, pp. 133-141 that our Saviour did endure a sweat of actual blood. This theory is not established by Luke, who does not affirm that the sweat was blood, but only that it was ὡσεὶ θρόμβοι . . . . αἵματος.

The Truth of the Evangelical History of our Lord Jesus Christ, Proved in opposition to Dr. D. F. Strauss, the chief of modern disbelievers in Revelation. By William Gillespie, author of "The Necessary existence of God," etc., etc. Edinburgh: Adam and Charles Black, 1856. pp. 191. 8vo.

« AnteriorContinuar »