Page images
PDF
EPUB

value of this authority, should say: "Here I pause; it is enough that I claim for Codex A and its numerous companions peculiar attention, by reason of their striking conformity with the PeschitoSyriac." We are most glad that this venerable version has thus been so commended; and we are sure that it would be difficult to speak of it too highly. Yet even this precious document has to be suspected and charged with defects in order to uphold a theory; for we are not to suppose that Dr. Tregelles has refrained from accounting for the agreement spoken of in a way favourable to his own theory. We will quote the passage in which Mr. Scrivener details this attempt, for it is important and valuable.c

"How is this divergency of the Peschito version from the text of Codex B explained by Tregelles? He feels of course the pressure of the argument against him, and meets it, if not successfully, with even more than

Mr. Scrivener had not seen Dr. Cureton's Syriac Gospels when he wrote his Introduction, but he has the following note on the subject:

"As this sheet is going to press (July, 1858), Dr. Cureton's Remains of a very ancient recension of the four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Europe,' has at length appeared. The Syriac text had been printed in 1848, but was doubtless withheld by the learned editor, in the hope of finding leisure to write Prolegomena more full, and possibly containing more definite conclusions than those with which he has favoured us. It would ill become me to express a hasty judgment respecting theories, on which so eminent a scholar has bestowed thought and time, and much labour. He will naturally expect Biblical critics to hesitate before they implicitly admit, for instance, the persuasion, which he hardly likes to embody in words, that we have in these precious Syriac fragments, at least to a great extent, the very Hebrew original of St. Matthew's Gospel, so long supposed to have been lost, that even its existence has been questioned. But topics like this are sure to be warmly debated by abler pens than mine. I will confine myself to those points that concern my argument, the relation these fragments bear to the Peschito. And here I would say, in all humble deference, (for my knowledge of Syriac, though of long standing, is not extensive), that my own hurried comparison of the Curetonian and Peschito texts would have led me to take them so far for quite separate versions. Even Dr. Tregelles, who, through the editor's kindness, has been enabled to use the text for years, and whose bias is very strong, can only venture to say: 'The differences are great; and yet it happens, not unfrequently, that such coincidences of words and renderings are found, (and that, too, at times, through a great part of a passage), as to shew that they can hardly be wholly independent.' (Tregelles. Horne's Introd., p. 268). To the same effect, also, Dr. Cureton speaks: It seems to be scarcely possible that the Syriac text, published by Widmanstad, which throughout these pages I have called the Peschito, could be altogether a different version from this. It would take up too much space to institute here a comparison of passages to establish this fact, which, indeed, any one may easily do for himself." I heartily wish that Dr. Cureton had fully investigated the subject: he might have removed the difficulties, at least, of those who love truth, and are ready to embrace it wherever they shall find it. As it is, we can but say with Tregelles: Such a point as this can only be properly investigated after the publication of this version shall have given sufficient time to scholars to pursue a thorough investigation.' In the meanwhile neither he nor I are at liberty to assume the truth of that hypothesis which may happen to harmonize best with our preconceived opinions."

his wonted boldness. The translation degenerates in his hands into 'the version commonly printed as the Peschito.' Now let us mark the precise nature of the demand here made on our faith by Dr. Tregelles. He would persuade us that the whole Eastern Church, distracted as it has been, and split into hostile sections for the space of 1400 years, Orthodox and Jacobite, Nestorian and Maronite alike, those that could agree about nothing else have laid aside their bitter jealousies in order to substitute in their monastic libraries and liturgical services another and a spurious version in the room of the Peschito, that sole surviving monument of the first ages of the Gospel in Syria! Nay, more, that this wretched forgery has deceived Orientalists, profound as Michalis and Lowth [?], has passed without suspicion through the ordeal of searching criticism, to which every branch of sacred literature has been subjected during the last half century! We will require solid reasons indeed before we surrender ourselves to an hypothesis as novel as it appears violently improbable-and what is the foundation on which our opponent rests his startling conjecture? The reader is aware that besides the Peschito, several other Syriac versions, some grounded upon it, and therefore implying its previous existence and popularity, others seemingly independent of it, have been more or less applied to the criticism of the New Testament."

We think Mr. Scrivener disposes of this attempted argument most completely; but we must refer to his volume for the reasoning by which he defends his point. He next proceeds to the Fathers, and makes some valuable observations on their authority in criticism. He observes, that it is not to be wondered at, that the Latin ecclesiastical writers should accord with the Latin versions, for some of them could not read, and none of them familiarly used, the Greek original. As regards the Greek Fathers, he states that no branch of Biblical criticism has been so utterly neglected, as the application of their citations to the discussion of various readings. "The ancient Fathers were better theologians than critics; they often quoted loosely, often from memory; what they actually wrote has been found peculiarly liable to change on the part of copyists; their testimony can, therefore, be implicitly trusted, even as to the MSS. which lay before them, only in the comparatively few places where the course of their argument, or the current of their exposition, renders it manifest what readings they support."

We must now give Mr. Scrivener's summing up, and hasten to close this paper.

"Those who have followed me through this prolonged investigation (which I knew not how to abridge without sacrificing perspicuity to conciseness) will readily anticipate my reply to Dr. Tregelles' statement of his case,' comprehended in the following emphatic words: It is claimed that the united testimony of versions, fathers, and the oldest MSS. should be preferred to that of the mass of modern copies; and farther, that the

character of the few ancient MSS., which agree with versions and fathers, must be such (from that very circumstance) as to make their general evidence the more trustworthy.' Unquestionably, I rejoin, your claim is reasonable it is irresistible. If you shew us all, or nearly all, the Uncials you prize so deservedly, maintaining a variation from the common text, which is recommended by all the best versions and most ancient Fathers, depend upon it we will not urge against such overwhelming testimony the mere number of the cursive copies, be they ever so unanimous on the other side. But are we not discussing a purely abstract proposition? Do we ever find the 'united' testimony of the ancients drawing us one way, that of the juniors another? I will not assert that such instances may not occur, though at this moment I can hardly remember one: it is enough to say that principles broad as those laid down by Tregelles must be designed to meet the rule, not the exception. In the seven texts we have been reviewing, in the sixty-five that remain on his list, in the yet more numerous cases he tells us he has passed over, the uncial MSS. are not unequally divided; or when there is a preponderance, it is not often in our adversary's favour. The elder authorities being thus at variance, common sense seems to dictate an appeal to those later authorities respecting which one thing is clear, that they were not copied immediately from the Uncials still extant. Such later codices thus become the representatives of others that have perished, as old, and (to borrow Davidson's suggestion) not improbably more old than any now remaining. These views appear so reasonable and sober, that they have approved themselves to the judgment even of Dr. Tregelles; for he does not, by any means, disdain the aid of the few cursive copies (e.g., 1, 33, 69, etc.,) which 'preserve an ancient text,' whereby of course is implied one coinciding with his preconceived opinion of what an ancient text ought to be. . . . . . I have a good hope that the foregoing investigation of the laws of comparative criticism will have convinced an impartial reader, that the cursive or junior copies of the Greek New Testament have, in their proper place and due subordination, a real and appreciable influence in questions relating to doubtful readings. If I have succeeded thus far, it results that the time and pains I have bestowed on studying them have not been wasted: the collations I have accumulated cannot fail to be of some service to the Biblical critic, even though he may think I have a little exaggerated their value and importance."

From what has now been said by us on the subject of the criticism of the Greek Testament, it is plain that much has yet to be accomplished before anything like a settlement can be arrived at, or the harmonious consent of all scholars obtained. We shall be curious to see how Dr. Tregelles will meet the skilful and learned opponent he has found in Mr. Scrivener; but we are sure that, as his only object is to promote the integrity of the Divine Oracles, he will not shut out new light, or refuse to weigh fresh arguments. But it is the nature of all studies zealously and conscientiously pursued, to gain the affections of their

disciples, and thus, by a power almost inevitable, to warp the judgment. But those who stand by, those who have not committed themselves to the Uncials, like Dr. Tregelles, nor to the Cursives, like Mr. Scrivener, may be permitted still to suspend their judgment, and to believe that the time has not yet arrived for the publication of a text of the Greek Testament which shall universally be regarded as a Textus Receptus. There are, indeed, a few readings different from those of the Greek Vulgate, which all competent scholars have agreed to admit as the correct ones; but this is as much as can be granted. The fact that all the available witnesses have not yet been examined, and the ignorance which yet exists as to whether fresh ones may not be discovered, are alone sufficient to prevent a final judgment being given in. And even if everything now existing in the world, bearing on the subject, were put on the record, collated and examined, it is doubtful whether more than a moral probability would be attainable in most disputed cases, The Church of God, for wise reasons no doubt, has hitherto had to be satisfied with this probability, and it may be that nothing farther will ever be vouchsafed to us. Let us be thankful that nothing of essential importance to faith and practice is affected by the doubts existing; while, at the same time, with love and reverence, we continue our labour to make the Holy Scriptures as perfect as we That this desirable end will be best accomplished by giving due weight to all the witnesses, would seem to admit of no doubt, and the subject is so important that we shall make no excuse for quoting a passage from a former work of Mr. Scrivener, bearing upon it.

can.

d

"Whence then, it may well be asked, this deliberate rejection of the great mass of authorities? Whence this voluntary choice of poverty, when we might freely take possession of a rich harvest which others have toiled to gather in? 'Ante omnia,' Lachmann replies, 'antiquissimorum rationem habebimus: fine certo constituto recentiores, item leves et corruptos recusabimus.' Let us endeavour, therefore, to discover the causes why the oldest MSS. should necessarily be the best, while the more recent are to be despised as 'corrupt and of little consequence.' Now Lachmann would, perhaps, be slow to assert that the more recent Byzantine documents are but bad copies of the Alexandrine, Vatican, or Paris MSS.; yet no supposition short of this will answer the purpose of his argument. The remark is so trite that one is tired of repeating it, that many codices of the ninth or tenth century were probably transcribed from others of a more early date than any which now exist; and the incessant wear of the uncial Constantinopolitan manuscripts in the public services of the church

d A Supplement to the Authorized English Version of the New Testament, etc. London: 1845.

will abundantly account for their general disappearance at present. We all know the reverential and almost superstitious care with which their synagogue rolls are preserved by the Jews; yet scarcely one of them has been written so long as a thousand years. The Alexandrine copies, on the contrary, having fallen into disuse at the era of the Mohammedan conquests in Egypt and Northern Africa, have been buried since that time in the recesses of monastic libraries, until they were disinterred on the revival of learning, only to be prized as valuable relics, and jealously guarded by their fortunate possessors. Again, it may be observed, that Lachmann claims for his best MSS. no higher antiquity than the fourth century. But we have the strongest proof the nature of the case will admit that no important change has taken place in the received text since the rise of the Arian heresy, and the final recognition of Christianity by the Roman emperors. The deep anxiety to procure correct copies of Holy Scripture, (see Euseb. de Vit. Constat., iv. 36, 37), and the perpetual watchfulness of rival parties, seem to preclude the possibility of extensive alteration from the fourth century downwards. It was far otherwise in the earlier history of the church; when its scattered branches were harassed by persecution, and maintained no regular intercourse with each other. During the cruel reign of Diocletian more especially, when fresh copies of the New Testament must often have been produced in haste to supply the places of those destroyed by the enemies of our faith; when such MSS. were secretly circulating among persons whose lives stood in jeopardy every hour; it is easy to see that many errors may have imperceptibly crept into the sacred text, which the well-meant criticism of subsequent correctors would tend only to aggravate and confirm."

But the publication of the Codex Augiensis is not the only contribution to the criticism of the New Testament furnished by Mr. Scrivener in this volume. There is, besides, a full and exact collation of eight manuscripts of the Gospels (three being Evangelistaria in uncial letters); of fifteen containing the Acts and Catholic Epistles; of fifteen of St. Paul's Epistles; and thirteen of the Apocalypse, few of which have been previously used for critical purposes. The variations of these fifty-one documents from the standard text (Elzevir, 1624) have been marked by Mr. Scrivener with a minuteness not before thought necessary by others, or even by himself in his former work, "A Collation of Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels." Not only has he noted the various readings, strictly so called, but every peculiarity of grammatical inflexion or breathing, every erasure or error of the pen, every remarkable change, whether of accent or punctuation. The editor has done this, he says, not so much in accordance with his own judgment as at the earnest desire of several scholars, who have wished his labours to present them with as true an image as possible of the original codices. "Undoubtedly," he says, "the real value of our materials, the degree of care exer

« PreviousContinue »