^ >^S '^- I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, % Princeton, N. J. BS" A13 .B58 V. A Ernesti, Johann August, 1707 -1781. Principles of Biblical interpretation zi^. 6 f THE BIBLICAL CABINET OR HERMENEUTICAL, EXEGETICAL, AND PHILOLOGICAL LIBRARY. VOL. IV. ERNESTrS INSTITUTES. EDINBURGH : THOMAS CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET; J. G. & F. RIVINGTON, LONDON ; AND W. CURRY, JUN. & CO., DUBLIN. xMDCCCXXXIII. PRINCIPLES OP BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION TRANSLATED FROM THE INSTITUTIO INTERPRETIS J. A. ERNESTI, CHARLES H. TERROT, A.M. LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. VOL. n. EDINBURGH: THOMAS CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET. MDCCCXXXIII. J niOMSON, IRl.NTEH, MILNE SgLARt. pElKGEw^^ ^, CONTENTS. PART THIRD. OF THE HERMENEUTICAL APPARATUS, AND ITS PROPER USE. CHAPTER I. Page CONCERNING THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT, THEIR AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, DISTINCTIONS, &C 1 § 1. Of the Authenticity oi the Books of the New Testament. 2. Of Doubts respecting the Authenticity enter- tained by the Early Church. 3. Of the Controverted Books. 4. Of the Authenticity of the Greek Text. 5. Of the Substantial Genuineness of the Greek Text. 6. Of the reported Corruption by Anastasius. 7- Of the means whereby the Genuineness of the Text has been preserved. VI CONTENTS. 5 8. Of exaggerated expressions respecdng the Cor- ruption of the Text. 9. Varieties in the Text of little importance to the sense of Scripture. 10. The Integrity of Scripture confirmed by varie- ties in the Text. 11. Of the Xature of this Integrity. 12. Cases where Conjectural Emendation is allow- able. 13. Substantial, not Verbal Integrity, to he main- tained. 14. There were no di\-isions in the Autographs of the Sacred Books. 15. Divisions were introduced at an early age. 16. Of the Ammonian and Eusebian divisions of the Gospels. 17- Of the Euthalian Division of the Acts and Epistles. 18. Origin of the Modem Chapters. 19. Verses. 20. Of the Marks of Punctuation. 21. Of Breathings and Accents. 22. All these divisions and marks being compara- tively recent, are of little authority. CHAPTER II. Page OF MANUSCRIPTS AND THEIR USE .... 25 5 1. The Autographs of the Inspired ^^'^iter3 have perished. 2. Of the supposed duration of the Autograph of St. John's Gospel CONTEXTS. TV. 3. Of the evidence of TertuUian in this matter. 4. Causes of the early disappearance of the Auto- graphs, 5. Of 3Ianuscripts Collated and Uncollated. 6. Of the Vatican and Alexandrine Manuscripts. 7. Of the Codex Parisien^is, Sec. 8. Of the Vienna and Basle Manuscripts, 9. Few of these contain the whole of the New Testament. Note (z) on the Classification of Manuscripts. 10. The same Manuscript has often several names. 11. Of 31anuscripts, which are copies of other ex- isting Manuscripts. 12. Of Manuscripts, some are merely Greek, others Graeco-Latin, and some merely Lectionaries. 13. Of the Alteration of Greek M5S., according to the Latin Version. 14. Of the Causes and Instruments of this alteration. 15. Of the Subservience of the Alexandrine to the Roman Church. 16. The alterations had not taken place in the time of Oriffen, nor in that of Euthalius. 17- Of the Cause of Discrepancies between the Greek Text and the Latin Version, 18. In cases of Discrepancy the Greek is to be pre- ferred. 19. Manuscripts are to be judged of by their Age and Goodness. 20. How to determine the Goodness of a Mantiscript. 21. Unjust Partialities to be guarded against. Vm CONTENTS. CHAPTER III. Page OF EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . . 47 § 1. Of the Origin of the Printed Editions. 2. Of the Aids employed by the Editors. 3. and 4. The same subject continued. 5. Of the Primary Editions. 6. The Compiutensian, A. D. 1514. 7. The Compiutensian Text repeated by R. Stephen, A. D. 1546, and by others. 8. Of Erasmus^ First Edition in 1516, and the succeeding ones. 9. The Erasmian Text followed by Aldus and others. 10. Of Beza's Editions, A. D. 1565. 11. Of Elzevir'' s Edition, A. D. 1624, and the nume- rous editions formed upon it. 12 Of BengeVs Edition, A. D. 1734, and note b. of the principal critical editions during the last century. 13. Of the Projected Edition of Bentley. 14. Of the Teoctus Receptus and its value. 15. Of the value of editions in general. 16. Of the Exaggerated Accounts which the early editors gave of their authorities. CHAPTER IV. OF VERSIONS 60 § 1. pearly necessity for Versions. 2. Proofs that Versions were made at a very early date. CONTENTS. IX 3. Of the Peshito Syriac Version. 4. Of the Source from which the Peshito was made, and of the Persian Version made from it. 5. Of the Philoocenian Syriac Version. 6. Of the Coptic Version. 7. Of the Mthiopic Version. 8. Of the Armenian Version. 9. Of the Arabic Versions. 10. Of the Gothic Version of Ulphilas. 11. Of the Ancient Latin Versions. 12. Of the old Vulgate or Vetus Itala. 13. Of its Origin and Name. 14. Of Attempts to restore this Version. 15. Failure of these Attempts. 16. Causes of the Failure. 17' Enquiry into the Authorship of this Version. 18. Of Jerome''s Version. 19. Of the Principal Editions of Jerome's Version, or that which is now called the Vulgate. 20. Of later Latin Versions. 21. Of the Use of Versions in general. 22. and 23. Of the Hermeneutical Use of Versions. 24. Necessity of a thorough knowledge of the lan- guage in which the Version is. 25. Method of ascertaining the goodness of a Version. 26. Exaggerated Use of the Eastern Versions. 27. Versions are to be resorted to only when other aids fail. 28. Of the Critical Use of Versions made directly from the Greek. 29. This Use denied by Whitby and others. 30. Caution to be used in the Critical Use of Ver- sions. X CONTENTS. CHAPTER V. Page OF THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, AND THEIR APPLICATION 90 § 1. The Writings of the Fathers have both a Critu cal and a Hermeneutical use. 2. Previous Enquiry into the Text used by the Fathers. 3. Few collected copies of the several books of the New Testament, existed in the first cen- turies. 4. The early copies were generally written by un- learned men. 5. Of the Copyists and other Christian Writers of the second century. 6. Of Origeii's Recension. 7. Of the high esteem in which it was held by the Greek Church. 8. Of the Recension of Lucian and Hesychius. 9. Various Readings are mentioned by all the Fa- thers after Origen. 10. Of Interpolations made to reconcile the Greek Text with the Latin Version. 11. Of the superior authority of the Greek Text above the Latin. 12. Of the Critical authority of the Quotations by the Fathers. 13. Authors valuable in proportion to their An- tiquity. 14. Authors valuable in proportion to their Learn- ing. CONTENTS. XI § 15. Of the different Classes of Patristic Works, and their Comparative Critical Value. 16. Caution to be used in the Critical Use of the Patristic Writings. 17. No conclusion to be drawn from the silence of the Fathers. 18. Error of those who deny all Critical Authority to the Writings of the Fathers. 19. Of the Hermeneutical use of the Patristic Writ- ings. 20. Of Origen's Interpretations of Scripture. 21. Of the Obligations of the Church to the earliest Commentators. 22. The Dogmatic as well as the Exegetical Com- mentaries of the Fathers are to be studied. 23. Scriptural Expressions adopted by the Fathers ought to be Noticed 24. Cautions to be used in consulting the Fathers. CHAPTER VI. Page OF THE CAUSE, ORIGIN AND CHOICE OF VARIOUS READINGS 114 § I. A knowledge of IManuscripts, Editions, and Ver- sions requisite, before the subject of Various Readings can be entered on. 2. Absurd Objections to the Science of Biblical Criticism. 3. General Account of the Origin of Various Read- Xll CONTENTS. § 4. Of the objections of Whitby. 5. Four sources of Variety. 6. Of Various Readings proceeding from Varieties in the Manuscripts. 7- Of the rashness of Emendators. 8. Of adulteration of Manuscripts by Heretics. 9. Of the goodness of Readings. 10. Criterions of goodness. 11. Of Manuscripts the Old Greek are most valu- able. 12. Of Readings collected from the Writings of the Fathers, and their comparative value. 13. Of Various Readings in the Printed Editions. 14. Of the comparative value of the different Classes of testimony to Readings. 15. Reasonableness of attributing high Critical Au- thority to the Writings of the Fathers. 16. Of the use of collections of Various Readings. 17. Of their Critical Use. 18. Folly of those who deny this Use. 19. Difficulty of forming Critical Canons. 20. Difference between Canons applicable to Scrip- ture, and to other Books. 21. Necessity for laying down some Rules on the subject. 22. The Antiquity, Goodness, and Truth of Readings to be attended to. 23. Comparison of these qualities with each other. 24. How to decide when the Antiquity and goodness of two Readings are equal. 25. Readings apparently harsh, are more probably Genuine. 26. Analogical Readings are to be preferred. 27. Readings supported by the Fathers are to be preferred. CONTENTS. XIU 28. No exclusive authority to be given to any class of Testimony. 29. The authority of the Fathers sometimes to be preferred to that of Manuscripts. 30. Necessity for Caution and Modesty in forming a Critical Judgment. 31. Of the balancing of Testimonies. 32. Of the Hermeneutical Use of Various Readings. 33. Of Critical Editions of the New Testament. 34. Of MilVs Edition, A. D. 1707- 35. Of Kiister's reprint of Mill. 36. Of BengePs Apparatus Criticus. 37. Of Wetsteiri's Edition. 38. Of the Various Readings collected by Velesius and Caryophilus. 39. Of the influence of prejudice in the Selection of Readings. 40. How to avoid such Errors. 41. Much still remains to be effected in the Criti- cism of the New Testament. CHAPTER VII. Page OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE FRAG- MENTS OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. . . 146 § 1. Of the Septuagint or Alexandrine Version. 2. Cause of Hebraisms in the Septuagint. 3. Importance of studying the Style of the Septua- gint. 4. The Septuagint has been applied to the Illus. tration of the New Testament by the best JModern Interpreters. XIV CONTENTS. § 5. Of the several Methods in which this has been done. 6. Necessity of laying down Rules for this appli- cation. 7. Of the Extension, in the Septuagint, of the sense of Greek Words, in conformity with the use of the corresponding Hebrew Word. 8. The same subject continued. 9. The same subject continued. 10. Of Peculiarities in the Septuagint which cannot be accounted for by anything in the Hebrew. 11. Sometimes the Septuagint Version gives not the exact Words, but the substantial sense of the Hebrew in pure Greek idioms. 12. Application of the foregoing Observations, to the Elucidation of the New Testament. 13. The Hebraisms of the New Testament are to be compared with the Hebrew, through the Me- dium of the Septuagint. 14. Method of Applying the pure Greek idioms in the Septuagint to the Elucidation of the literal Hebraisms of the New Testament. 15. Of Instances of Logical Metathesis in the Sep- tuagint Version. 16. Of pure Greek Idioms in the New Testament, which must be interpreted Hebraistically. 17* Of the Concordances of Kircher and Trommius. 18. The Hermeneutical use of the Septuagint Ver- sion by no means exhausted. 19. Of other Uses of the Septuagint Version. 20. Of the Different I\Iethods of Quotation used by the Writers of the New Testament. 21. Of their frequent Quotation from the Sep- tuagint. CONTENTS. XV § 22. Of the Critical Use of the Septuagint. 23. in cases where the Authority of Manu- scripts is balanced. 24. Importance of using a good copy of the Septua- gint. 25. Of the Version of Aquila, 26. Aquila's Version generally Literal. 27. Its Hermeneutical Use. 28. Of the Version of Symmachus ; and Note (n) of the Venetian Version. 29. Of the Use of the Greek Versions generally: and Note (f) of Origen's Hexapla. CHAPTER VIII. Page OF THE USE OF WORKS WRITTEN BY JEWS . 174 § 1. Of Forms in the New Testament which cannot be explained, either by the Hebrew Old Tes- tament, nor by the Septuagint. 2. Of the most Ancient Jewish writings, as the Targums, Mischna, &c. 3. Of the Writings of those who have made col- lections from the Jewish Books, as Lightfoot, Schoetgeti, &c. 4. These Writings sometimes illustrate not merely Words but Things. 6. Cautions to be used in the application of the Jew- ish Writings to the Interpretation of the New Testament. 6. Necessity of Specific Rules for their Application. 7. The Jewish Writers not to be applied to, ex- cept where other aids fail. XVI CONTENTS. § 8. Of the Use to be made of the Writings of Philo and Josephus. 9. Of the peculiar Use of Philo's Writings, in il. lustrating the arguments of St. Paul. 10. Of the Peculiar Use of Josephus. CHAPTER IX. Page OF THE INTERPRETERS OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT, AND OF THEIR USE 187 § 1 . Of the Different Methods of Interpretation in the Early Church. 2. Of Allegorical Interpretation. 3. Of Mystical Interpretation. 4. Of the Corruption of this Style of Interpretation. 5. Of Allegorical Interpretation in the Early Chris- tian Church. 6. Of Grammatical Interpretation. 7. Of the Earliest Grammatical Interpreters ; and Note (z) of the Catenoe. 8. Of Allegorical Interpreters in the Latin Church. 9. Of Dogmatical Interpretation. 10. Of the Mixed Method of Interpretation. 11. Oi Commentaries. 12. Oi Homilies. 13. Of Scholia. 14. Of the Question whether Origen were the First Writer of Commentaries. 15. Of the Exegetical Works of Origen. Hi. Of the Character and V^alue of his Interpreta- tions. CONTENTS. XVU § 17. Of the Homilies of Chrysostoin,. 18. Oi Isidore of Pelusium. 19. Of Theodoret, 20. Of Theophylact. 21. Of the Scholia of (Ecumenius. 22. Of Johannes Damascenus. 23. Of the CatencB. 24. Of Euthymius Zigabenus, 25. Of Cyrill of Alexandria. 26. Oi Jerome. 27. Of Hilary of Poitou, and Hilary the Deacon commonly called Ambrosiaster. 28. OiPelagius. 29. Of the Commentaries of Augustine. 30. Jf the Glosses called Ordinaria and Inter linearis, 31. Of the Various Systems of Interpretation pur- sued at the Revival of Letters. 32. Of the Grammatical School of Interpretation. 33. Of the Dogmatic SchooL 34 Of the Mixed School. 35. Of Beza and Grotius. 36. Of the Followers of Grotius. 37. Of Writers of Observations from Selected sources of Illustration. 38. Of M^'riters of Observations on Selected Passages. 39. Of Collections from preceding Annotators. 40. Of Collections of Entire Commentaries. 41. Of the Use to be made of Commentaries. 42. The Stiident ought first to Study some orm good Grammatical Interpreter. 43. Of Simon''s Histoire Critique du N. T. 44. Of the Importance of Keeping a Record of Difficulties. 45. Utility of perusing Entire Commentaries. 46. Propriety of preferring the Greek Commentators. ^ b XVlll CONTENTS. § 47. Utility of Tracing the Steps by which Inter- preters arrive at their Conchisions. 48. Little attention to be paid to Interpreters who have no Qualification but Chissical Learning. 49. Dogmatic Interpreters not to be Neglected. 50. Dogmatic Interpretation useful to the Lecturer and Preacher. CHAPTER X. Page ON THE USE OF GENERAL INFORMATION. . . 234 § L Of t)»e Necessity of a Knowledge of Grammar. 2. Subject continued. 3. Same subject continued. 4. Study of Grammar recommended by Luther. 5. Of Luther''s supposed depreciation of Gram- matical Knowledge. 6. Of the Great Divisions of Grammar, Etymo- logy and Syntax. 7. Necessity of a Competent Knowledge of each. 8. Of Etymology. 9. Oi Syntax. 10. Of Figures of Speech. 11. Of Barbarisms in the Phraseology of the New Testament. 12. Of Criticism. 13. Necessity of Critical Knowledge to the inter- preter. 14. Dangerous consequences of ignorance in this matter. 15. Of the Principal Critics in the Early Church. 16. Of Conjectural criticism. CONTENTS. XIX 17* Of the best Critics in Profane Literature. 18. Of the Critical Apparatus. 19- Of the best Critics of the New Testament. 2(h Caution to be used in the Emendation of the Text. 21. Of Superstitious Attachment to the Common Text. 22. Error of hasty and rash Conjecture 23. Sinfulness of altering the Text on Dogmatic grounds. 24. Of Popish Objections to Sacred Criticism. 25. Difficulty of Practical Criticism. 26. Of Rhetoric. 27. Of Philosophy. 28. Oi Logic. 29. Of the uses of Logic. 30. Same subject continued. 3L Of the Abuse of liOgical Sublety. 32. Cases where accuracy is needless, and cases where it ought to be looked for. 33. Of Logical Analysis of Scrij)ture. 34. Of the Use of Logic in reconciling apparent contradictions. 35. Of the use of Logic in detecting the course of Argument. 3G. Oi History. 37. Of Errors arising from ignorance of History. 38. Of Geography. 39. Of the divisions of Palestine. 40. Subsequent alterations in the Division. 41. Of the Kingdom of Herod the Great. 42. Of the Roman Procurators. 43. Of the Kingdom of Jgrippa. 44. Of the Physical Geography of Palestine. 45. Of the Geography of Asia. XX CONTENTS. § 46. Of the Various kinds of Roman Provinces. 47. Of Consular and Prcetorian Provinces : and of the Procurators. 48. Of Allied Cities, and Roman Colonies. 49. Of the different ranks of Cities. 50. Of the necessity of making Geography a se- perate Study. 51. Of Chronology, especially that of the Old Tes- tament. 52. Of Chronological difficulties in the New Tes- tament. 53. Of the date of St. Paul's Conversion. 54. Of the connexion of Sacred and Profane Chro- nology. 55. Of the Chronology of the Herod ian Dynasty. 56. Of the Succession of High Priests. 57. Of certain peculiarities in the Jewish Me- thod of calculating Periods. 58. Caution to be observed in the Assumption of Elementary Dates. 59. Necessity of Historical and Antiquarian know- ledge. 60. Of useful Chronological Works. 61. Of Jewish Antiquities. 62. Of the Captivity of Israel and of the Samari- tans. 63. Of the Captivity of the Jews. 64. Of the mixture of Israelites among the Sama- ritans. 65. Of Jewish Emigrations to Egypt and Cyprus. 66. Of Emigrations to Antioch and other Asiatic Cities. 67. Of the patronage afforded to Jewish Emigrants by the Caesars. 68. Of the Herodian Family. CONTENTS. XXI 70. Of the Roman Procurators. 71. Of the light thrown on this, and subjects connect- ed with it, by the Orations of Cicero in Ver- rem. 72. Of the power of the High-Priesty and Sanhe- drim. 73. Of other Jewish Magistrates at Jernsalem. 74. Of the Captain of the Temple. 75. Of the Jewish Archons out of Judea. 76. Of Jewish Archons in Judea. 77. Of the Priests and Levites. 78. Of the Temple. 79- Of the veco;, hoov, oiyiov, and oL^vrov. 80. Of Synagogues and Proseuchse. 81. Of Jewish Schools of Theology. 82. Of the Pharisees and Sadducees. 83. Of the divisions of Time among the Jews. 84. Of Liquid and Solid Measures ; and of the Coins mentioned in the New Testament. 85. Of Provincial Taxation. 86. Of the Coins used in the payment of Taxes. 87. Of the Tax paid by Jews into the Temple Trea- sury. 88. Of the Dress of the Jews. 89. Of the 3feals of the Jews. 90. Of the Style of Building among the Jews. 91. Of Ceremonies used at Bia^ials. 92. Of Jewish Punishments. 93. The same subject continued. 94. Of the History of the Ccesars from Augustus to Nero. 95. Of the Government of the Empire as arranged by A ugustus. OQ. Of the Judicial power of the Provincial Magis- trates. XXll CONTENTS. § 97. Of the Prcetorian Cohorts and their Prefect. 98. Of the Roman Troops in the Provinces. 99. Of the Collection of Taxes. 100. Of Roman citizenship. 101. Necessity of a knowledge of Greek Antiquities. 102. Of the Sacrificial Rites of the Greeks. 103. Of the Greek Coins mentioned in the New Tes- tament. 104. Of the Armour, and Athletic Games of the Greeks. 105. Of their Naval AflFairs. 106. Importance of a knowledge of all these Subjects to the Interpreter of Scripture. 107. Same subject continued. 108. Of the Errors produced by ignorance of them. 109. Same subject continued. 110. Caution to be used in the application of Anti- quarian and Grammatical Knowledge to the Interpretation of the New Testament. 111. Of Philosophy. PBISGE'^0^ PAR^^HIRD. OF THE HEIIMENEUTICAL APPARATUS, AND ITS PROPER USE. CHAPTER I. CONCERNING THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT, THEIR AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, DISTINCTIONS, &C. I. That the greater portion of the books of the New Testament were really written by those whose names are attached to them, is proved by such unanimous evidence of anti- quity, that their authenticity is as certain as that of any other ancient book whatever. And of those whose authenticity is less distinctly proved, there is no just reason for suspecting, that any were written at another time, or by other men than is generally believed ; or at 2 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. least, that they were written by other than irispired men.^ ■ It is to be regretted that Ernesti has not, in this place, briefly explained his sentiments res^^ecting inspiration. For a good interpreter cannot proceed without clear notions on this subject. The opinions respecting it, which he has ad- vanced in his Nov. Bibl. Theol. T. iii. p. 468, have been supported by Hegelmaier in his Comment, de ^toTyzva-Tta, Tubingen 1784. But, at the present day, it will be proper to consult, Grieshach's Comment, de Theopneustia Librorum Sacrorum, Jense 1784 — 1788. Semler's Beitrag zur Revi- sion der kirklichen Hermeneutik und Dogmatic, (Helps to the Revision of Ecclesiastical Hermeneutics and Dogmatics,) p. 24, and Doederlein's Instit. Theol. Christ. § 30. As to the gemdneness of the several books, it is proved, 1. By the historical evidence of the most ancient fathers, as Barnabas, Clement of Rome. Ignatius, Polycarp. 2. By the Tise of the church in the earliest age. See Spanheim, De Script. Hist. Evan. Opp. ii. p. 266. 3. By internal argu- ments drawn from the language and tenor of the books themselves. See Michaelis, Introd. in Nov. Test. § 2 — 12. Lessius, Wahrheit der Christl. Rel. (Truth of the Chris- tian Religion,) p. 1 — 125. Geschichte der Rel. (History of Religion,) § 28 — 34. And Doederlein's Instit. Theol. Christ. P. ii. p. 29. sqq. [As far as relates to the gentiineness and authenticity of the Canonical Books of the New Testament, our own theological literature is abundantly sufficient. The British student may be satisfied with Lardncr's Credi- bility, Paleifs Evidences, Jones on the Canon, and the 1st vol. of Mr. TIorne''s Introduction. "With respect to the nature and extent of inspiration, OTir Theology is very poor, and the result is, that a great diversity of opinion on this head prevails even among the orthodox ; not indeed as to OF NEW TESTAMENT. 3 ■whether the Scripture is inspired, but as to the extent of the inspiration. Some, for example, hold a verbal, others only a real inspiration : some claim inspiration for every portion of Scripture equally, others only for those points which the Apostles could not otherwise have known. The limits of a note are manifestly insufficient for entering upon a full examination of this question, but if the general truth of Scripture be proved, as it is abundantly, in the works above referred to, the Translator conceives that the simple principle of the necessity of the case will go far to establish a mmimum, below which we cannot rationally reduce the degree of Scriptural Inspiration. Allowing then the truth of Scripture, it was manifestly the will of God to enlighten and evangelize the world, 1st, by the preaching, and 2dly, by the writings of the Apostles. Now, since the substance of what they were to teach was comjiosed of truths which they had not fully learned from our Saviour's personal mi- nistry, it was necessary that they should be inspired with this knowledge. Such inspiration was promised, and the promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost. But was this primary inspiration sufficient; and might they have been safely left to communicate the knowledge thus supernatu- ralhj acquired, in a mere natural manner ? Certainly not. For being in themselves fallible, they might have represent- ed the true doctrine in such a light, or illustrated it by such figures and examples, as must necessarily have led their hearers and readers into error: in short, they might have fallen into any or into all the absurdities into which be- lievers in the truth of Scripture have fallen, from their time to the present. To guard against this, there must have ex- isted a permanent influence of the Spirit guarding them from all erroneous colouring, and defective illustration, as well as from absolute falsehood. The necessity of the case then leads us to conchide, that the Holy Spirit having at first imparted to the Apostles a clear knowledge of all requisite truths, did habitually exercise such an influence over their minds, as to 4 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. preserve them from all misapprehension and misrepreserita- tion, there heing no other conceivable way in which thc'r knowledge could with certainty have been rendered avail- able for its intended purpose.] II. For though doubts did exist at an early period respecting some books, those doubts did not extend to the fact of inspiration, as in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; or were entertained by a few only, who judged with- out a sufficient knowledofe of the facts.'' ** It is notorious that the case is otherwise ; for if the Apocalypse be taken from St. John, if the Epistle to the Hebrews be given to some Alexandrine Jew, see Zeigler^s Einleitung, p. 256, and the Second and Third Kpistles of John attributed to John the Presbyter, then the inspiration of these books is invalidated, whose authenticity, together with the genuineness of the Epistles of James and Jude, and of the Second Epistle of Peter, ought in the first place to be proved. III. Nor are the arguments of ancient here- tics, denying the apostolic origin of these books, of any force, since it is clear that their only object was to obtain a shelter for their impiety; nor those of later deists, who bring for- ward the frequency of pious frauds in the early church, and similar topics ; in all of which they do not attempt to establish by historical proofs what really was done, but rashly conjecture what may have been done; a method more OF NEW TESTAMENT. 5 suited Tor those who eagei'ly desire some par- ticular result, thau for those who wish truly and accurately to instruct.*^ •^ Respecting the controverted (avr/Xeyo^sva) books first mentioned, we may further observe, Ist, That neither moral nor dogmatic theology would receive any injury though they were all to be declared spurious, since no truth of Christianity rests upon their evidence alone ; 2d, That doubts respecting them are not of a very early date. Origen admits them all as authentic : but Eusebius in his Hist. Ecc. iii. 25, expresses doubts respecting some, whence arose the distribution into ofAaXoyovfji.iyoi, uvri^iyofisva. and vo^a, that is, into admitted, controverted, and spurious : 3d, That no ad- versary can shew that any one of these books is false ; on the contrary, all sedulously distinguish them from the Apocry- phal books ; maintaining only that their authenticity rests on weaker evidence than that of the other books. See Weber's Symh. ad Can. Nov. Test. Tubingen 1791, p. 158, sq. Those who wish to examine the subject more accurate- ly, may consult Semler's Freie Untersuchung des Canons, Halae 1771 — 75. Free Enquiry into the Canon. Roesler's Bibl. der Kirckenv'dter, Library of the Fathers of the Church, t. iv.p. 394, sq., Haenlein' s Handbuchder Einleitung in die Schriften des N. T. Manual of Introduction to the writings of the New Testament, Ed. 2, Erlangen 1801, P. i. p. 39, sq., and the work of Hug, who has struck out a new lijie of enquiry, Einleitung in die Schriften des N. T. Tu- bingen 1808, P. i. p. 1, sq. [It does not give a true repre- sentation of the case to say, as Ammon does, that Eusebius de quibusdam jam sententiam fert ancipitem ; for Eusebius, in the chapter quoted, declares that he is giving not his own pi-ivate opinion, but the ecclesiastical tradition, vrx^alioffn IV. That the Greek text is authentic, is not 6 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. less indisputably true. For tliouoh there ex- ists an ancient tradition that St. Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, yet the same tradition asserts, that it was translated into Greek, either by Matthew himself, or by some other inspired writer ; but the tradition altogether rests on no solid foundation.** Re- specting a Latin original of St. Mark's Gos- pel,® and a Syriac of that of St. John, there ex- ists a more recent and unfounded tradition or conjecture/ That the Epistle to the Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew, was the opinion of Clement^ as we learn from Eusebim^ Hist. Ecc. vi. 14., and also of Eusebius himself. But neither does this opinion rest upon any satisfactory arguments.^ ^ See the Hebrew origin of St. Matthew's Gospel asserted in Michaelis' Ini. in N. T. Tom 11. p. 950, Ed. 4. Masch has taken the opposite side in his work, von der grundsprache des Evang. Matt. On the original language of St. Matthevx-'* Gospel. See also IFa/i7'5 Magazine, T. II. p. 57* There is now little doubt respecting the Hebrew origin of this Gospel; nor do we see how there can be any, after the express testi- monies of Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, who was almost an eye witness. [uvTOTryis is the word ; but in what sense Jerome could be almost avroTT'/js of what language St. Mat- thew wrote in, the translator cannot imagine.] *■' liaronius in his Annal. Christ. An. 45, has attempted to support the Latin origin of St. Mark's Gospel. He has. been refuted by Baumgarten in his Vindiciie Textus (Jra-ci and by Dobrowski in his Fragm. Prag. Evang. Marci. OF NEW TESTAMENT. / Pragae, 1778. Equally unsupported is the conjecture of Wahl in his Magazine for ancient and especially for Biblical and Oriental Literature, No. Ill, p. 8, sq. that St. Mark wrote in Coptic. ^ See Sahnasius de Hellen. p. 251, sq. equally weak is the opinion of Harenberg concerning the Syriac original of the Apocalypse. There is another question respecting the true Redacteur of the Gospel of St. John, first stated by Grotius and Wetstein, pursued by Vogel, Bertholdt and Weyscheiden, and not yet brought to a satisfactory conclusion. s See Semler''s Diss, on the Greek origin of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hal. 1761. Zeigler''s Introduction, and Hein- ricK's Pi-olegomena to the Epistle, [published as part of the Nov. Test. Koppianum.] V. Nor is it to be admitted that the Greek text, which we now possess, is substantially- different from that which the primitive church received from the Apostles ; or that it is so cor- rupted and interpolated, as not to be a copy of the genuine Greek text, and to be inferior in authority to the Latin version. For the system of J. Blanchinus^ in his Vindicice Canon. Script., preferring the copies of the earliest Latin version to the Greek manuscripts, to- gether with other arguments, is refuted by the common consent of the most ancient Greek fathers, as well as of many Latin ones, in quoting and interpreting the Greek text. And if, in some cases, they depart from our Greek text and agree with the Latin version ; this is done very rarely, and not by all. Interpola- 8 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. tions also into the Greek text from the Latin, of which we shall speak hereafter, are to be found in some ancient copies, not in all; and are discovered and rejected, both by many manu- scripts, and by the authority of ancient writers. ■ For example Acts iii. 12, ivA^uec for i^ov OF NEW TESTAMENT. 1 1 scarcely coincide in the views of our author. [It appears to the translator that Ernesti takes a practical view of the matter, and means only to say that the copies in common use were never so corrupt as in any degree to aiFect either the facts or doctrines of the Gospel. That such complaints as those mentioned above, are not to be too literally inter, preted, appears from the case of Griesbach. He s^ays in his Prolegomena, p. 43. Textus viilgo recejjti prorsus nulla est auctoritas. And yet a reader of the Vulgate text would find the same facts and doctrines as a reader of Griesbach's edition. ] IX. For if such errors, and the variety of readings thence arising, invalidated the in- tegrity of Scripture, there woukl remain no- thing sure and incorrupt in the whole com- pass of antiquity. Nor ought w^e so much to wonder at the existence of such errors in the copies of the New Testament, as we ought to have wondered had they not existed. For absolute accuracy could have been effected only by the intervention of God, preventing the mistakes of the copyists. That such in- tervention w^as not used, appears from the state of the case ; that it was unnecessary to the integrity of the sacred books, is allowed by the judgment of all intelligent men.° ° In books of human authority the mistakes of copyists are of little moment. But the matter is very different with respect to those writings, on the most minute points of which, doctrines inspired, and therefore affecting salva- tion, are said to depend. Thus, for example, it makes a V2 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. great difference, whether in Acts xx. 28, we read B-iov or Kv^lou : in Rom. ix. 5, whether we place the comma after ffa^x.a or after •ffu.vruv : In 1 Tim. iii. 16, whether Ave sup- pose that OC or 0C was originally written. Therefore the Jewish supei'stition which attaches divinity either to letters in general, or to particular books, is to be rejected as utter- ly foreign to the nature of Christianity : John vi. 03= 2 Cor. iii- 6, 17. [Ammon's Latin here is, " quae ro ^lioM sive litteris in universum, sive singulis libris adligat." The Translator hopes he will not appeal* captious for objecting to almost all the sentiments of Amnion in this part of the work ; indeed it is no more than he has done to Ernesti. In the first place, then, though we allow that variations in the sacred books are infinitely more important than in pro- fane authors, yet who ever asserted or granted that any doctrines affecting salvation (salutaris) depends upon mi- nute points (punctis et apicibus) of the text ? What Tri- nitarian ever rested his belief on the superior probability of S-Eow to Kv^'tov in Acts XX. 28, or upon the position of the comma in Rom. ix. 5, or upon the preference of 0C to OC, in 1 Tim. iii. 16 ? On these texts the reader will do well to consult Middleton on the Greek article, 418 — 428. And Magee on Atonement, vol. ii. p. 564, sq. Varieties of read- ing are not Avanting in the ancient classical historians, and yet no important fact of Greek or Roman history remains doul)tful from this cause.] X. The integrity of books is so far from being invalidated by such errors, and the va- rious readings to which they have given rise, that in these books especially it is thereby con- firmed ; as has been abundantly proved by Era>;mus'^ in his answers to Stwiica and his other opponents, and in the preface to his . OF NEW TESTAMENT. 13 third edition of the New Testament ; and also professedly by Bentley and others. P In the preface to \m New Testament, Ed. 2, 1522. Consult also Glasfie de Puritate N. T. Upon the whole, the number of variations, while it increases the labour, in- creases also the certainty with which the text of the New Testament can be established. XI. For this integrity is not to be under- stood, as it has been by men ignorant of the nature and laws of criticism; nor are we to imagine that any one copy, either manuscript or printed, is in every point correct and fault- less ; for no ancient book does or can possess such an integrity as this. What we maintain is, that from all the copies, written and printed, and from the ancient versions and commen- taries, a complete and uncorrupt text may be formed ; and that in these the genuine read- ings are preserved, to be elicited by the labour of learned and skilful critics, as has been well shown by Glas.se in his Phil. Sac. L. I. Tr. ii. by CaloviuH Crit. S. p. 492, and by others.** ^ [If, in the time of Ernesti, the genuine text was eru- endum, it may be supposed that now, after the able exer- tions of Griesbach, Matthai and others, it has been erutum. But we must remember that corrections of the text admit only of prohable evidence in their favour : and though, in any particular edition, the probability may be highly ia 14 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. favour of each particular reading, still the probability is mixch against its peifect and universal correctness. Be- sides, we are not sure that the genuine reading of every text does exist among all the manuscripts, versions, and commentaries. It may have been lost at a very early pe- riod ; and hence arises the admissibility, as far as it is ad- missible, of conjectural emendation. But does this admis- sion of the necessary uncertainty of the text throw any doubt upon the certainty of the Gospel narrative, or on the scheme of doctrine and morals propounded in the Epistles ? In no degree whatever : for exactly the same facts and doc- trines are taught by the Vulgate edition as by that of Gries- bach. Amidst all varieties there is a substantial agree- ment ; and upon this we rest, as satisfactory evidence, that we possess the facts narrated, and the doctrines taught by the Apostles.] XII. Though we must confess, that, with respect to a few single words, the true read- ing may not exist in any known copies ; which confession has been virtually made by the best theologians and critics of every age, in the suggestion of conjectural emendations, as will be shown hereafter : Yet this does not detract from the integrity of the sacred books ; for such cases are few, and relate not to funda- mental doctrines, but to points of history; or if they relate to doctrine at all, it is so slightly, tliat an error in the text can produce no error in belief. ^ "■ Consider, for example, 1 Cor iii. 4, in which text for the ffe/.oy.i>io)o(t]\e received text, tbenianuscri])ts ACDEFGhave OF NEW TESTAMENT. 15 Kvhu^rot, with which the Vulgate, Origen, and the jEthiopic. version, also agree. Gabler, in the Diar. lit. Theol. Sel. iii. 183, sq., justly complains that this reading has been ne- glected by the greatest critics ; and conjectures that the whole passage ought to stand, ou^l civS^ea-Trot iiffl, namely, Paul and Apollos. To the reception of ccy^^wrot few will object, since it is supported by the best ancient manuscripts, is the more difficult reading, and also because the frequent repetition of the word b-u^kixo) in the preceding verses, is qnite grating to the ear. "Av&^utoi is to be explained by the preceding koctu ccv^^utov in the 3d Averse, as meaning, are ye not men, and betray your human weakness ? So far I agree with the excellent and learned Gabler : but, on the other hand, I think that lo-rs ought to be retained, on account of the oZv which marks a change of subject. It is clear, how- ever, that the purity of the faith in no degree depends upon this discussion ; for it relates to an historical matter, which Ernesti denies to have any connexion with faith. [Ammon probably strains Ernesti's meaning, in supposing him to assert absolutely, that historical facts can have no bearing upon points of doctrine. This position is so obviously false, that the Translator is forced to limit Ernesti's assertion to those hist(;rical facts which are dubious through varieties of the text. As to the disputed reading in the note, it must be settled entirely by the authority of manuscripts ; for none, it is presumed, will admit the delicacy of Dr. Am- mon's ear, as a test of the genuine reading.] XIII. In defending the integrity of the sa- cred records, we must be understood to refer to the integrity and certainty of the doctrines which they contain. And in this matter, per- haps, we are generally too timid. For even the Apostles, in quoting the Old Testament, 16 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. do not adhere to the exactness of the Hebrew text, but sometimes take the Septuagint ver- sion, even where it differs from the Hebrew ; nor do they always use the same words in re- quoting the same text. In short, they con- sidered it sufficient to have retained the true sense ; and yet they certainly quoted the pure and uncorrupted word of God.* * It is to be hoped that none will raise a clamour against the boldness with which our immortal author here speaks out. For the word of God is eternal (Ps. cxix. 89,) and therefore cannot be confined within human language. For there is no difficulty in imagining a remote posterity, who shall be as ignorant of Greek and Hebrew, as we are of the language spoken by our first parents. [It is natural to suspect, from the triumphant approbation of Ammon, that Ernesti has here said something imprudent. And yet his bold language amounts only to this, that though we are not sure of possessing every word of the Apostolic autographs, we are sure of possessing all their substance. We may ima- gine a future age totally ignorant of Greek, but we cannot disjoin such an idea from that of gross barbarism, and a woeful corruption of religious opinions. What Ammon me^ns by saying that verbum dei humanis vocibiis non in- cluf/endum, is not clear. He can scarcely mean that tbe doctrines of Scripture are totally independent of the words in which they were first communicated. Ernesti seems to err in putting the varieties of our copies, on a footing with the varieties of the Apostolic quotations. The oversights of a copyist, and the verbal alterations of an inspired writer are very different things.] XIV. Both the custom of that age, and the OF NEW TESTAMENT. 17 frequent occurrence of particles and copula- tives, and in the Epistles the nature of the composition itself, unite to prove, that the sacred books were written each in one con- tinuous strain, and not divided into distinct portions/ * See Perizonius Prsef. ad .^lian. Lugd. Bat, l/Ol. XV. It is clear, however, that divisions were introduced at a very early period, either for private use, or to regulate the lessons read in the public assemblies," and they were intro- duced either for the convenience of such divi- sions, or in imitation of the Jewish practice, of which some traces are supposed to exist in Just. Mart, in Apol. II. § 87. But the silence of the ancients intimates, and the discrepancy of manuscripts in the numbering of the chapters proves, that these divisions were not origin- ally fixed, nor universally received. For the differences between the Vatican and Alexan- drine Codices in the numbering of the chap- ters, see Walton's App. Bibl. ix. 34, and Zaccac/ni's Preface to the Monum. Vet. Ecc. Grffic?e, § 46. " This was done, not in the manuscript copies of the books themselves, but in the Lectionaries and Bitviaries See Michaelis' Introduction, Ed. 4. p. 303; and esjiecially C 18 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. Hug's Introduction, T. I. p. 207, sq. [252 of Wait's Trans- lation. The ava.yvufffjt.a'ra or lessons of the early church, and the y.'.(pu.'Ka.ia. or chapters of Euthalius and Ammonius must not he confi»unded with our modern chapters and ver- ses, as will he seen in the folio tving sections. — See also Home's Int. Ed. 4. vol ii. p. 149. sq.] XVI. The most ancient and celebrated di- vision of the Gospels, is that which, for the purpose of establishing their harmony, was first thought of by Ammonius, and afterwards by Eusebius : this was gradually admitted into the manuscripts, the Eusebian division being, however, preferred as more exact and con- venient.* Of the manuscripts now extant, the Vatican and Cambridge alone, have any other than the Eusebian division. Therefore it was retained in the earlier printed editions, namely, the first editions of Erasmus, those of Robert Stephen, and that of Mill, under the title of the juisebian Canons. Respecting these canons, the reader may consult Simon, Hist Crit. II. :32, III. 9, not to mention Mill, Marcianmis, Proleg, Biblioth, Jerome, and others. ^ See Fahricius Biblioth. Gr. L. iv. c. b. sec. 20. ; and 31icliaelis p. 898. [and Hug. Waite's Trans, p. 255. The reference to IVlichaelis is vol. ii. p. 525, JMarsh's Tanslatlon.] XVII. Afterwards, about A. D, 496, the Epistles of St. Paul were divided into chap- OF NEW TESTAMENT. 19 ters, with titles and a table of contents, by some unknown author, whom Mill suspects to have been Theodore of Mopsuetia. This di- vision was afterwards introduced into his copies by EuthaliuSi who afterwards became Bishop of Sulci, and at tlie suggestion of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria, collated the Acts of the Apostles, and the other Epistles, with the Caisarean Manuscripts, and divided them into lections^ chapters, and crr/jji or verses. This division, together with Eusebius' division of the Gospels, was soon generally received, as we see in the old manuscripts. See Eutha- lii, Epistola ad Athanas. and his Prefatio ad Epp. Paull., also Zaccagni, 1. c. § 55. But if the division of the Acts, edited by Monf- faucon in Bibl. Cois. p. 76, under the name of Pamphilus the Martyr, from an ancient manu- script, though it was published anonymously by Oecumeiiius and others, had Pamphilus for its real author; it is probable that Euthalius found it while he was inspecting the manu- scripts of the Cfpsarean library, and represent- ed it as his own.^ y Consult RumpcBus, Diss. Crit. ad, N. T. Librns. Lips. 1757, }>. 131. sq. We may remark here, that there are two ancient methods of dividing the New Testament. The first divided each book into rlrXoi or longer sections, and Ki(pa,>.aia or shorter sections. The second divided them into *20 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. ^jj/ttara periods, and ffri^ot lines or verses. The latter is similar to the Masoretic division of the Old Testament. [For an explanation of ^rtfx.ctra and ffri^ot see M'^aites Hug. I. 240, sq. for xi(pd.Xaia, 252 ; and for nrXoi, 255. Hug is of opinion that Euthalius did not claim the division even of the Acts, but only the summary of the contents of the chapters, as he renders 'inSiffi; x.i(^a.Xa.iuv, more correctly than Ernesti, who renders it divisio. XVIII. After this followed the modern di- vision into chapters. The originator of this division is uncertain, as the arguments, which claim it for Hu^o Carensis are not satisfactory.* This, however, is certain, that it is neither con- venient nor accurate, and was merely formed for the purposes of verbal reference. ^- The reason for ascribing it to him [Hugo Carensis, or de St. Cher, in the I2th century] is, that he was the first who composed a concordance, or index of declinable words, for the formation of which such a division was necessary. But this proves nothing, as the division might have been made before See Marsh's Michaelis, Ed. 4. II. 525, sq. XIX. The division into verses, or lesser portions, was formed by Robert Stephens, in the course of his reading, while travelling on horse- back, as we are informed by his son Henry in the preface to his Greek Concordance ; and it was first introduced into the Geneva edition, 8vo. 1351 ; whence, though very carelessly performed, as might be expected from the time OF NEW TESTAMENT. 21 and place, it was gradually received into all the editions. No one then ought to consider himself as bound by it in interpreting; and Bengel^ judged well in removing the numbers of the verses to the margin, so as to leave them for the purpose of reference, for which purpose it is probable they were introduced by Stephens, who was then, perhaps, meditating the composition of a Greek concordance ; but to show, at the same time, that no stress should be laid upon them in reading and interpret- ing. ^ The same arrangement is made in the editions of Gries- bach, Birch, Alter, and Knappe. [The divisions of the Text in Knappe's edition are peculiarly judicious ; it is accurately printed, in a cheap form, and altogether suitable for the ordi- nary use of students. There is a remarkable instance of erro- neous division in theordinary arrangement of verses, at Rom. viii. 20, where W |A.^<^; ought to be closely connectedwith the i ^ Se^« succeeding otu The erroneous division and punctuation of '^^ V? , these two verses, (20, 21.) has given rise to very erroneous / ^^f, * versions. See the translator's Paraphrase and Notes on Romans, ad loc. As to the inaccuracy in the division of chapters, we may point out Acts v. 1. where the paragraph ought clearly to begin at iv. 32; and 1 Cor. iv. 1, where the five first verses of the chapter ought to be attached to the preceding chapter ] XX. At whatever period the marks oi punc- tuation were invented; for on that head we profess no certain knowledge ; it was late be- 2'2 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. fore they were admitted into books, and tliey were never used by original writers. We are also ignorant by whom, and at what period, the punctuation of the New Testament was first arranged. That the copies of the Septua- gint, in the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, were without points, appears clearly from his Catech. xiii. p. m. 301, from whence we may conclude that they did not exist either in the Greek copies of the New Testament. That in the time of Augustine, there were no points in the Latin copies, appears clearly from his own testimony. Civ. Dei. iii. 3. The mention of these circumstances may be useful not only to the younger students, but even to the learned, for they refute the opinion of Lipsius, Le Cleic, and others. When, therefore, we meet in an- cient books with any thing respecting rh diac- TiZ^iiv or punctuation, as in Aristotle's Rhetoric, or in the Commentaries of the Fathers, espe- cially Theodoret, who often directs how a passage ought to be hacriKTkv, we are not to suppose they mean what we call punctuation^ but only those pauses in reading which boys were taught at school by masters of gram- '' Consult, on this point, the celebrated Villoisoii, in the prolegomena to his edition of Homer, Venice, i78f>- I" OF NEW TESTAMENT. 23 the most ancient manuscripts, there are found either no points, or merely full stops and spaces. The comma was in- vented in the eighth century, and the semicolon in the ninth ; and the other points, or rather the marks for them, in the following centuries. Quintilian shews that the stops themselves were used by the ancients. After the invention of printing, Stephens placed the marks of punctuation at his own discretion. See Rogalfs Diss, de Antiquitate inter- punctionis Nov. Test. Regiom. 1734. XXI. Very similar to this is the history of the breathings and accents ; which though al- ways used in the pronunciation of the Greek language, {and indeed no language can exist without them), began to be written, as I find to be the current opinion, in the seventh cen- tury, when the proper ancient pronunciation had been lost, and could not be learned by practice. The more ancient copies of the Nevv^ Testament, like other manuscripts, are with- out either : nor are those well meanino: but inaccurate men, such as Leusden and J. H. Mains, to be attended to, who endeavour to fix the authorship of these marks upon the Apostles, as being necessary to the integrity of the text and the determination of the sense. In tliis point they certainly judaized, and en- deavoured by such arguments to strengthen the authority of the Hebrew accents and marks of punctuation. But to philosophize in oppo- 24 AUTHENTICITY, GENUINENESS, &C. sitioii to clear facts, is unworthy of a wise and learned man.*' •^ See Montfaucon's Palseographia Gr. iii. 5. While a language is in full and perfect use, written accents are not needed. — See Henninii Hellenismus, Traj. 1684. Gesner de Genuina Accentuum Pronuntiatione : and Reiiz de Pro- sod. Gr. Accentus Inclinatione, Lip. 1791. [See also MicliaeUs, vol. ii. 521. and Marsh's Note, 899.] XXII. From the foregoing chapters we may conclude, that when copies, whether manu- script or printed, vary in the divisions, punc- tuations, accents, or breathings, these ought to be considered as varieties, not of reading but of interpretation ; nor ought we to make any scruple of interpreting in opposition to them. OF MANUSCRIPTS. 25 CHAPTER II. OF MANUSCRIPTS, AND THEIR USE. I. It is universally allowed that the original copies of the sacred books have perished.^ Far as to the boast of the Venetians, that they possessed the autograph of St. Mark, this upon examination was found to be totally false ; and it appeared that in the same book were portions of another Latin manuscript, as is clearly shewn by a Turre^ in a letter to Jos. Blanchinus, (Evang. Blanchin. T. ii.) This is to be especially consulted by all, who wish for full information on this head.* ^ For the Apostles themselves did not write, but only subscribed. 2 Thess. iii. 17' It is clear that even Paw/, ^ who was more highly educated than the other Apostles, ) could not with facility write Greek. See Semler^s App. p. 32. i7aen/em5 Einleitung, ii. p. 8, seq. ed. 2. [The ques- tion here introduced by Ammon has little or nothing to do with that discussed by Ernesti in the text. That St. Paul frequently used the aid of an Amanuensis is clear ; and the same is done by almost every man of weighty occupations and extensive correspondence, without bringing upon him the suspicion of inability to write. The internal evidence, 26 OF MANUSCRIPTS, and there is no other, would lead us to conclude, that «s St. Paul declares, the salutation and signature, with his own hand to be the mark of auchenticity in all the EpisLies which were not autograph, therefore, when no such signa- ture occurs, we ought to conclude the whole Epistle to have been autograph. Thus the Ep. to the Colossians, and the 2d to the Thessalonians, would appear to have been the only ones written by an amanuensis.] ^ See also Dubrowski on the Pragensian fragment, Prague 1778, p. 7, seq. The same may be observed of the copy of the Old Testament, in the writing of Esdras, which the Bolognese boast of possessing. II. The autograph of the Gospel of St. John, appears to have been preserved for a long time in the church at Ephesus; since an an- cient writer of the fourth century, supposed by some to have been Peter Bishop of Alexandria, asserts that he had seen it. See the Chroni- con Pascliale Cangianum^ p. 5, and also the Uranologia Fetavii, p. 213.*^ But the authen- ticity of this passage and of the testimony it contains, has been questioned on gopd grounds by Scaliger, Petavius, Tillemont, and lately by Garhellus in the Prolegomena to the Evangel. Blanch, p. 42, who attribute both the treatise and the evidence to a later Peter in the sixth century. Fricke in his Cura Vet. Eccles. circa Canonem. p. 130, attempts to support it, and in my opinion argues successfully against tlie system oi' Sinion. But even he does not prove AND THEIR USE. 27 the authenticity of the passage by sufficient *' We may be allowed to doubt of this, because the auto- graph of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans had ceased to exist about the middle of the second century. That the autographs of the Apostolic writings had perished through constant wear in the first or second centuries, appears from the silence of Origen ; who, in his travels throughout the East in search of manuscripts, must have met with some autograph had any such existed. But the autographs, like the relics of the saints, are celebrated by posterity, after having been neglected by their cotemporaries. Concerning the autograph of St. Matthew, see Euseb. H. E. V. 10. III. Garbellus in the treatise above quoted, is of opinion that Tertullian. in a celebrated passage of his book de Praescrip. Heretic, c. 36, where he says, ipsas authenticas apostolorum literas recitari, means that the archetypes of the Apostolic books or Epistles were, in his own time, read in the churches which they had founded. He doubts, however, whether Tertullian delivers this as an ascertained fact, or only follows the current report. This is cer- tainly more rational than the interpretation of Pamelius and Simon, who imagine that by authenticas, Tertullian only means Greek copies, which certainly were read in other Greek churches as well as in these. And this reason also forbids us to interpret him as meaning 28 OF MANUSCRIPTS, genuine uncorrupted copies^ which may also be called authentic; especially when he says, " ipsas authenticas," which would have been absurd, had he meant only genuine ; and he names the churches to which Paul wrote, which would have been unnecessary had he not been speaking of autographs ; and had before said, that the very seats of the Apostles, that is, the churches founded by them, still remained. '^ Rossler however supports this interpretation in his Bi- hliothek der Kirchenv'dter, Library of the Fathers of the Church, t. iii. p. 118, seq. But it matters little whether we understand by authenticas, genuine or autograph. For Tertullian resided in Africa, and therefore could not have any personal knowledge of the fact. Besides his narratives are not always deserving of much credit. IV. It is of no greater importance to in- quire into the cause of this loss of the auto- graphs, than it is in the case of any other an- cient books. We may reasonably attribute something to the cruelty of the early persecu- tors ;^ for we know that they did extort copies of the sacred books from the churches, and from individual Christians. It seems unjust, as Fricke has well shewn, to accuse, as some have done, the indolence of the churches. ** Much more, however, is to be attributed to the injuries produced by time, and by the fates of the early churches. The Acts of the Apostles, for example, had few oi)ponents AND THEIR USE. 29 during the three first centviries ; yet this most useful book had lain almost unknown, and needed to be brought to light bv Chrysostom. See his First Homily on the Acts, Ed. Ducaei, t. iii. V. It is fortunate, however, that many ancient manuscripts have been preserved, and have successively been discovered in libraries ; by which means a complete and authentic text has been transmitted to us '} concerning which, whoever wishes for further information, may consult Mill, or rather Simon Hist. Crit. T. ii. c. 29. 30, and T. iii. at the end ; of the Ger- mans, Pfaff de Var. Lect. New Testament, Bengel, Michaelis de Var. Lect. Nov. Test. Wetstein, the most diligent of critics, and the illustrious Semler in his Prseparatio Her- meneutica, ought to be consulted.^ Many manuscripts still lie in libraries, which have not yet been sufficiently inspected and collated, as in those of St. Gall, the Escurial, &c.* Lami counts eighty-three Florentine Manuscripts in his de Erucl. Apost. p. 218. It appears, however, from Bandini's Catalogue of the Florence ma- nuscripts, that most of these are of little value : and there are others which it is unnecessary to mention. ' In our age the Manuscripts of Spain, Italy, France, England, Vienna, Moscow, and Manheim, have been collated. '' Add to these Griesbach's Symbola Critica, Halle l78o. 30 OF MANUSCRIPTS, Michaelis^ Introd. in N. T. Ed. 4, p. 545, seq. Birch and AfoA/^?i/iawer, Preface to the N. T., Copenhagen 1788, and Matfhai in his edition of the N. T. passim. ' Perhaps also in the eastern convents, esjtecially those of the Maronites. Villoison informs us that little is to be expected from the manuscripts of the Greek convents on jVIount Athos. VI. The Vatican and ^/d'A-^/ic/rme Manuscripts are reckoned the most ancient now existing-, both written in continuous uncial letters ; but the learned are not agreed upon their relative priority, some maintaining the superior an- tiquity of the Alexandrine, others that of the Vatican. Respecting the former, the student may consult the English editors [_Grahe~\ of the Septuagint version. Proleg. T. ii. c. i. prop. XV., concerning the latter, Zaccar/ni, p. 56, and concerning both, Wetstein in his Prolegomena to the New Testament.™ After the proofs of Wetstein, it cannot be doubted but that both have been interpolated from the Latin ver- sion ; and in the Alexandrine this appears from the comparison of readings. Lucas Brugensis, who possessed a colhition of it, sometimes men- tions the readings of the Vatican manuscript in \\\^ Notat. Far. Led; and there are also some among those published by Carj/opliilus at the onrl of the Catena of Posslnus. "' See Scmler de Aetate Cod. Alexandriiii, Ilalle I7''>9j AND THEIR USE. 31 and Notitia Cod. Alexandiini, by TVoicIe, republished by Spolm, Leipzig 1788. To Woide we also owe an edition of this manuscript. Besides the examples produced by Mi- chaelis, the interpolation of this manuscript from the Latin version, is proved from the reading of John vii. 39, where it has }ilof/.'cvov which is said to have been introduced by the Macedonians against the Pneumatomachi. Griesbach supplies better arguments, and holds that the manuscript was firmed upon three different recensions. Concerning the Vatican manuscript, Bentley's Proleg. and Wetstein may be consulted. Hitherto only excerpts of this manuscript, and a small number of its readings have been published ; we are therefore unable to decide with certainty as to what edition it follows. See £ic//^o?-nV Algem. Biblioth. ii. p. 473. Birch has lately published a larger collection in his edition of the New Testament, printed at Copenhagen, of which the reader may consult the Prolegomena, p, xiii. sq. [In Griesbach's notation, the Alexandrine is marked A, the Vatican B. Tiie interpolation of this manuscript from the Latin version is now generally discredited. See Home's Introd. ii. 71» and Semler's App. p. 45. Atnmon's proof from John vii. 39, is somewhat unaccountable. Certainly nothing could be introduced by tiie JVIacedonians against the Pneumato- machi, as these are but two names for the same sect, the former derived from their founder, the latter from their distinguishing tenet. See Mosheim Hist. Ecc- Ed. Helm- stadt, 1764, p. 170.] VII. Next to these may be ranked the Coclex Parisicnsis^^ which agrees remarkably with the Alexandrine, but is very incomplete : the orginal writing has been eiFaced, and the works of Ephrem Syriis written over it, but so that the original letters still appear and 32 OF MANUSCRIPTS, may be read; the Cantahriyieiisu° and Clo.- romontanus^ now called the Regius in the Paris library,P both having the Greek and a Latin version, and containing, the former the Gospel and Acts, the latter the Epistles of St. Paul, employed by Stephen, and still more by Beza ; the Boernerianus,^ Auyiensls,'^ and Sangerma- nensis* containing the Epistles of St. Paul in Greek and Latin ; but all these have the com- mon fault of interpolations from the Latin version. " A codex rescriptus, probably of the sixth century, and consequently one of the oldest extant. See Griesbach's Symb. C'rit. p. 1 — 54, and Prolegomena to New Testament, ed. 2, 1796, i. 101. [C of Griesbach.] ° Of the seventh century, and now accurately collated. It follows the western recension. See Griesbach, 1. c. p. 55, sq. A facsimile of this manuscript was published by Dr. Kipling, at Cambridge 1793, who thinks that it rivals the Alexandrine in antiquity. See Valckenaer''s Observations. [D of Griesbach.] »' Numbered 107, of the seventh or eighth century, of which W'etstein judges unfavourably, whom consult. See also (iriesbach's proleg. ed. 2, ii. p. 22. [D of Griesbach.] 1 Graeco-Latin interlinear. See MatlhaVs preface to his edition of this manuscript, Misnia 1791* [^' of Griesbach.] ' Of the ninth or tenth century, purchased by Bentley, and collated by Wetstein. It belongs to the western re- cension. [F of Griesbach] * Of the tenth or eleventh century. It is considered by W^etstein and Griesbach as a transcript of the Parisiensis and Glaromontanus. [By Griesbach, of the C'laromontanus alone. See his Proleg. ii. p. 22, and marked E.] AND THEIR USE. 33 VIII. Of later date, but yet of considerable value, are the Vienna* and Basle" Manuscripts, especially the copy of St. Paul's Epistles which Erasmus used, the Parisian, the Cottonian fragments of the Gospels collated by Wetstein and others, which it is unnecessary here to enumerate.* It will be more profitable briefly to teach the proper use of manuscript copies, and of the reading contained in them. ' See Treschow Tentamen descript. Codd. Vindob. Haf- niee 1773, and Alter's ed. N. T. [The codex Vindoboneuis t'aesareus, in uncial letters, attriuuted by Treschow to the seventh century, marked bv Griesl)ach N. also, in small letters 123, 124 and 125 of Grieshach, of the Gospels ; ami 3, 63 to 07 of the Acts and Epistles.] " See Bengel's App. Crit. who gives a full account of these manuscripts. [In uncial letters of the Gospels. E of Gries- bach attributed by Wetstein to the ninth century, and in small letters 1, 2. Of the Epistles 1, 2.] '^ See Birch var. lect. ad text. Act. Apost. Epistolas Cathol. and Paulin. Hafniae 1798. Var lect. ad text. Evangeliorum. lb. 1801. IX. It is necessary to observe, that few of the manuscripts above referred to, do, like the Vatican and Alexandrine, contain the whole of Scripture,^ a completeness which appears to me to lessen the probability of their antiquity: others contain the Gospels alone, or the Epis- tles of St. Paul, or the Catholic Epistles with the Acts, or the Acts alone ; few have the Apo- D 34 OF MANUSCRIPTS, calypsejaiui besides, many are mutilated of some leaves, as the Alexandrine, the Parisian C, the Cantabrigiensis D., &c. From whence it appears, that when no dissent between two manuscripts is noted, we cannnot thence infer their consent ; in which matter many have erred, by taking- such silence for consent/ ^ Both, however, omit the Apocalypse. See Birch's Var. liect. on the text of the Apocalypse. Havniae, 1800. ''■ We must here speak of the ancient recensions of the Greek text of the New Testament, that Ave may not be in- terrupted, when speaking of the interpolations from the Ivatin version. Semler, App. Crit. p. 45, admits of the fol- lowing, the Alexandrine, common to the Egyptian writers, the disciples of Origen, the Syi-ians, Copts, and Ethiopians ; the Oriental, used at Antioch and Constantinople, the Western, and mixed. See his Hermeneutische Vorbereitung, s. iii. p. 2, sq. Michaelis in his Introduction, p. 535, de- scribes the four principal recensions, as the Oriental, the Alexandrine, the Edessene, and the Western. Griesbach ad- mits of only two, see his Symb, Crit. p. 113, and his Hist. Text. Ep. Paul, which he denominates the Alexandrine a.nA the Western. Under the former he classes, for the Gospels, the manuscripts C. L. K. 1, 13, 33, GO, 106, 118, and the Kvangelistaria 18, 19, for the Epistles of St. Paul, A. C. 17? 46, 47, the quotations by the Alexandrine Fathers, Clemens, Origen, Damascenus, Eusebius, Cyril ; with the Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethiopic rersions. To the second he refers, for the Gospels, D. 1, 13, 69, for the Epis- tles, 1). E. F. G., together with the Latin versions, and the (flotations of the more ancient Latin Fathers. A mixed recension prevails in the quotations of Chrysostoni and Theodoret. See Griesbach's pref. N. T. p. 25, and Proleg. AND THEIR USE. 35 lo the 2d ed. Halle, 1796, i. p. 73, sq. This division, however, has not been received without opposition. See ]Matthai, in the preface and excursus to his larger edition of the N. T, in the prologue to his compendious edition ; and in the proleg. and notes to Euthymius Zigabenus, Lips. 1792. The learned Hug has taken a middle course, Ein- leitung, i. p, 437, sq. [For another classification of m.anu- scripts, see Nolaii's Enquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, &c. of which a synopsis is given by Home, vol. ii. p. 59.] Xx We must guard against being deceived by a diversity of names. For manuscripts have often changed their appellation on changing their owners ; and thus we may be led to mul- tiply a single copy, as has been done even by learned critics. We ought therefore to know the history of manuscripts and the causes of the names they bear ; and also to compare their readings, so as to be put upon our guard by a perpetual agreement, especially in the more remarkable readings.® ^ Thus, for example, the Codex Stephanianus is the same as the Cantabrigiensis, though its identity has escaped the notice both of Beza and Simon. See Wetstein's Proleg. ad N. T. i. p. 28. [The Codex Cantab, is the B. of Stephen. The same MS. is also indifferently called BezcB or Canta- hrigiensis. In the same way, the Claromon fames is also called Regitis, and the Ci/prins Colhertinus.l XL Nor is it immaterial to determine, whether manuscripts have been copied from 36 OF MANUSCRIPTS, the same original, or whether the one be a transcript of the other : as, for example, the codices Boernerianus and Avgiensis, the Sori- germanensis and Regius^ which agree through- out, even in the minutest errors -^ for such copies can only count for one, in the number- ing and weighing of authorities. ** A third point for examination, is whether a niamiscript has been copied from a printed edition, as the Cod. Ravia- nus from the Complutensian. See Pappelbaum Untersuchung der Ravischen Handschrift des N. T. Berlin 1785. XII. There is a further division of manu- scripts. For some contain merely the Greek, others the Greek with the Latin version, others are only lectionaries, containing such portions of the sacred books as were read in tlie public services of the church. It is to be observed, that all the Grseco-Latin copies are interpo- lated from the Latin version f and with re- spect to the lectionaries, we must beware of using their authority, except in passages of which they contain portions.^ " Oil this point there can l)e no doubt ; for such copies originated with Greeks who had conformed to the Latin church ; and who, both on account of their poverty, and in order to gratify the Latins, remodelled the Greek text in conformity with the Latin version. These copies, however, are not to be entirely despised, since it is clear there were AND THEIR USE. 37 many excellent readings in the Vetus Itala version. See Semler's Aipp. p. 44, and Vers. vet. Ital. Cod. D. ad Acts iii. 12. ^ The proper use of lectionaries is admirably treated by Matthai in his ed. N. T. passim. See also, Vetustum eccl. Graecse Constantinopolitanae Evangeliarum, ed. C. F. Matthai, Lips. 1701. [It is not easy to see how any one could use the authority of lectionaries " in aliis locis, quam quorum pericopas habent." Perhaps Ernesti means that we are not to conclude from their omission, that a passage is spuriouf. Lectionaries containing only portions of the Gospels, are called Evangeliaria.] XIII. In copies containing the Greek text alone, it is necessary to examine whether they be pure, or corrected, that is in fact vitiated, from the Latin version.® Purity may be in- ferred from their differing from the old Latin version in the more remarkable passages ; and from their agreement with versions formed from a pure Greek text ; and still more with the more ancient Greek fathers, as Origen, Chrysostom, Tlieodoret and the like, especially in their commentaries ; for the texts of Scrip- ture, inserted in their commentaries, have often been tampered with by editors. * This subject has taken a very different appearance since the inquiries of Semler and Griesbach into the variety of re- censions. The latter in his Symb. Crit. p. Ill, observes, " They err greatly, who imagine, because a manuscript agrees with the Latin version, that therefore it has been 38 OF MANUSCRIPTS, interpolated from it. Readings of this class are to he de- rived, not from the Latin version, but from the Greek copies of the Western recension." But consult the whole passage. [See also Semler's App. Crit. p. 45 ; and Her- meneutische Vorbereitung, 3d part, p. 45. With respect to the corruption of the texts quoted by the Fathers, the reader may find a probable example in Ernesti, Instit. Bib. Cab. vol. i. p. 1C2, N. c, where it appears that vt}(TTua, has been intei-polatod into the text, 1 Cor. vii. 5, as quoted by Chry- sostom.] XIV. And here occurs a great and difficult enquiry, which it is not easy to clear up, or which, at least, has not yet been cleared up ; first, as to the reason of this great discrepancy between the Greek text and the old Latin version, and next, as to the reasons why, and the method by which the Greek text was alter- ed into conformity with it -/ for it is evident that this has taken place in all the more an- cient copies mentioned, § 6, 7. A more difficult inquiry is that into the origin of the different recensions. For antiquity has handed down to us but little clear information respecting the manuscripts used by Oric/en, Pierhis, Pamphihcs, EusebiuSy Euthalius, and Athanasius. The Alexandrine recension, however, appears to have been made from apographi, the Western from copies of single books, collected by private individuals. [Those who wislx for a fuller knowledge of the different sys- tems of recensions, may consult (iriesbach's ed. N. T. Pro- leg, t. i. 72, sq. Hornets Introduction, vol. ii. sect. 2. Lmirence^s Remarks on the Classification of MSS., &c. AND THEIR USE. 39 Oxford, 1814; and Enquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, &c. by F. Nolan, London, 1815. The Translator cannot find the term apograpM to have been used, as it is here by Amnion, in opposition to codices. By apographi are probably meant the two ancient collections of the sacred books, one containing the four Gospels and called to ivay- yiXiov ; the other containing Acts, thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, 1 Peter, and 1 John, called o a.7roa-roXo;, or to u.-7ro- (TToXtKov. See Schotfs Isagoge Hist, in Lib. Nov. Ffed, p. 553.] XV. As to the Greeco-Latin copies, it is not to be wondered at if the Latin copyists were induced, through the differences of the Greek texts, and their own ignorance of the Greek language, to corrupt the text by at- tempting to reconcile it with the Latin, and to substitute more familiar words. In the same way the Greeks imagined that the He- brew text had been corrupted by the Jews ; of which many striking examples may be seen in Michaelis de Var. Lect. N. T. p. 92, 100. Concerning the merely Greek copies, written w^ithin the bounds of the Greek church, it is difficult to say anything with certainty. 1 am inclined to conjecture that this interpolation originated with the Egyptians, and this con- jecture is strengthened by the character of the Codex Alexandrinus. For it is manifest, and has been proved by others, and especially by Richer in his Concil. Gener. Hist, that the 40 OF xMANUSCRIPTS, Egyptian Patriarchs, from the time of Atlian- asius, that is, from the fourth century, previous to the date of any manuscript now existing", having- sought the assistance of the Roman church against the decrees of councils, were ever after too much inclined to favour and imitate the Romanists. This mio-ht extend so far as to induce^ them to alter their copies in conformity with the Latin version, as an act due to the dignity and authority of the Roman church. They appear to have derived their knowledge of the Latin language, not only from their intercourse with Rome, to which Wetstein attributes it, L 19; but in a much greater degree from their proximity to and intercourse with the province of Africa. This, however, is a matter of uncertainty,* re- specting which we might be better able to form a judgment, if we possessed an accurate colla- tion of the Vatican Manuscript, and knew whence it originally came. s Or rather, it is destitute of all j)robal)ility. For even supposing that the Alexandrines had thus submitted to the ecclesiastical yoke of Rome ; still it is scarcely possible to conceive that in the other provinces of the East, the Greek Text would be altered into conformity with a version in a barbarous and detested langnage. [See also Note e, § xiii. VVe may oliserve, also, as a fact quite inconsistent with Ernesti's reasoning, that of all the Eastern C()])ies, those of the Alexandrine recension are, in their readings, most re- AND THEIR USE. 41 mote from the Western recension, or the Latin version. The Alexandrine manuscript A. of Griesbach, is to be con- sidered as an example, not of the Alexandrine, but rather of the Constantiaopolitan recension.] XVI. That the Egyptian copies had not thus been corrupted at or previous to the time of Orir/en, appears both by the readings which he follows in his Commentaries, and by the text which he formed from the more ancient copies.** For his text is that of the Csesarean copies, which had frequently been copied, (See Eusehius, Vit. Const. Mag. c. 36,) and copies collated with which were current throughout all Greece and Asia. Nor had this interpretation been introduced, or at any rate approved of, in the time of Euthalius ; that is, in the middle of the fifth century, as appears from the fact, that having visited Csesarea by directions from Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, he compared his own copy of the Epistles with the manuscripts of Origen, and corrected it by them. He in- deed complains of the frequency of interpola- tions, which he removed in his revision, by consulting ancient and good copies; but he gives no account as to how this interpolation was introduced. ^ See Griesbach de Codicibus iv. Evangeliorum Origeni- anis Halle, 1771- 42 OF MANUSCRIPTS, XVII. As to die points of difference betwen the pure Greek copies and the Latin version, there are a few in which the reading of the latter has some resemblance to the pure origi- nal, so that we may see whence it sprung : as Matt. vi. 24, dv^s^srai, sustinebit, 1. Tim. vi. 20, xsvo(pu)/iag, novitates verhorum, &c. In other cases, where there is nothing in the Greek text from which the Latin reading could have originated, and yet that reading gives a good sense, as 1 John iv. 3, qui solvit lesum, >-'oii, for /A'/i o/jyoXoyei, some may suspect with Hem- sterhuis, that the sacred authors themselves wrote more than one copy, with some varia- tions in the expression, retaining the sentiment, at least so far that in each it was good and true ; for of this we have examples in works of hu- man production.^ If this were the case, each reading must be considered as having the au- thority of inspiration. But this conjecture is rendered improbable by the fact, that this dis- crepancy prevails, not in one or a few, but in all the copies ; unless we suppose that the sa- cred authors wished to retain a copy of each epistle, and therefore either wrote or dictated each twice. But, upon the whole, various causes of interpolation may have existed in these as well as in other books, of which nu)re liereafter.*^ ASB THEIR USE. 43 ' So Socrates H. E. vii, 32, and some of the Latin 3ISS. See Griesbach's Ed. ad loc. Which reading, though more difficult, does not harmonize with the simplicity of St. John's style ; and is not supported by the authority of Manu- scripts and versions. "O Xuu is the scholium of a later in- terpreter. ^ We know that Aristophanes, Cicero, and Apoilonius, published second editions of the Nubes, the Academical Questions, and the Argonautics. But we can hardly sus- pect this to have happened with respect to any of the sa- cred books ; for the poverty of the times, and the difficulty which the Apostles had in writing must have prevented it- [As the Apostles did not write for gain, the poverty of the times would be no impediment : with respect to their " im- peritia scribendi," which seems a singularly favourite topic with Dr. Ammon, see § 1. N. y. Yet the supposition of a I twofold edition seems quite unsupported by evidence, and I therefore must not be admitted as the ground of anv con- ( elusions respecting the probability of readings.] XVIII. But if one of two texts has been in- terpolated by mere human means, we must not suppose with Morinus (Exerc. Bibl. i. 2, 3,) and others, that the interpolation has been made in the Greek copies, which we call pure, but rather in the Latin -} because the Greek text agrees with, the most ancient books of the Greek church, and of the Greek doctors, of the first, second, and third centuries, at least in most points, where it differs from the Latin text. It is well, however, that these differ- ences are merely verbal, and do not affect the matter, nor disturb the analogy of faith. 44 OF MANUSCRIPTS, ' Scpulveda defended against Erasmus the integrity of tlie Latin text, where it opposed the Greek. But even Jerome complains of the corruption of the Latin text, in his Com- mentary on Gal. ii. 5, where IvSi was omitted in the Latin version. [All this seems to proceed upon the supposition of a very general agreement in the different copies of the Latin version. But for the discrepancies of the Vulgate^ the Brescia, and the Verceli manuscripts, and their accord- ance with different classes of Greek manuscripts. See Nolan's Enquiry, p. 58, seq., and Home, ii. 60.] XIX. In judging of manuscripts, we must consider their age and their goodness. The age is to be determined from the style of the let- ters, the accents, and the punctuation; and also from other circumstances occurring in the manuscript."* Thus when in the Alexandrine Manuscript, we find the Canons of Eusebius, and the Subscriptions to the Epistles, and in these the words ^sor^xog for the Virgin, and a^X'^'TKsy.o'xou^ we know at once that it must have been written posterior to the age of Eusebius and Nestorius, The form of the letters, how- ever, is not a very safe ground of judgment, for it is clear that the copyists, either through ignorance, or in order to raise the value of their copies, imitated the old writing, and gave rather a facsimile than a copy ; on which point there is a remarkable passage in J. Gerson^ de libris scribendis. ™ Uncifil letters witliout accents or breathings, shotv a date AND THEIR USE. 45 previous to the ninth rentury ; after which small letters came into use. Respecting the imitation of the earlier forms of letters by the copyists, see Waide and Kipling, in their Prolegomena to their editions of the Alexandrine and Cam- bridge manuscripts. XX. The goodness of manuscripts is to be determined, not by their age alone, for later manuscripts may be good when they have been transcribed from other good ones ; but first from the paucity and slightness of the faults and variations, and next from the preservation of ancient and good readings ; from which two points it will appear to have been written by a careful copyist, and to have been transcribed from a good copy. Nor are faulty manuscripts totally destitute of value, for they sometimes contain the best readings. We must there- fore choose from all the best readings, accord- ing to the rules of the critical art, which will be treated of in their proper place." " For example, in Luke ii. 22, few manuscripts have utiTov, which appears to be the true reading : J\iost have avrv; or avruv, both of which are unsuitable to the context. [The goodness of a manuscript of course is the same thing as the goodness of its readings. For the principles on which these are to be judged, see Griesbach's Proleg. i. sect 3, p. 59, seq.] XXI. In judging of the age, and still more 46 OF MANUSCRIPTS, in judging of the goodness of a manuscript, we must guard against being led by our wishes to attribute to it more authority than reality and truth admit of; and this we are tempted to do when the manuscript is our own property, or when it favours our own opinion in any matter. Upon the whole, none ought to assume the right of judging on these points, but those whose eyes are practised in the various forms of letters, and whose judgment is exercised to the accurate investigation of critical questions.® ° That is to say, those who have themselves carefully in- spected manuscripts. For withoxit such practice we can form no certain decision, and are in danger of being in^ fiuenced by the hints of others EDITIONS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 47 CHAPTER IIL OF EDITIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. I. When manuscript copies of the Greek Testament began to be drawn from libraries, and to be submitted to the notice and inspec- tion of the learned, there arose a laudable de- sire of editing the Greek Text : and as ma- nuscripts successively appeared, which might be of service in correcting the text, so new editors applied themselves to the task of pro- ducing new and corrected editions.^ P See the prefaces to the Complutensian and Erasmus' editions. II. But although the manuscript copies of the Greek text were the ground work, yet men of learning and experience in criticism sought for other aids ; especially as the num- ber of manuscripts to which they had access was not great, and these were neither very an- 8 EDITIONS OF cient nor very good. Therefore the ancient versions, in languages which tliey understood, began to be applied to the purposes of correc- tion, and not only the commentaries of the fathers upon the several books of the New Testament, but also their other writings, in which single passages are either commented upon, or in any way noticed. Nor did the early editors entirely abstain from conjectural emendations, as is quite evident from the re- censions of Erasmus and Beza.*' •• The conjectures of Erasmus are introduced silently ; it is sufficient to turn over the Apocalypse in his earlier edi- tions. But Beza expressly declares in his Epistle to Queen Elizabeth, " Se ex ingenio aut simplici conjectura, ne api- cem qu idem mutavisse." [Erastmis in his apology aj^ainst Lee, charges these upon (Ecolampad'ms and Gerbelius, who superintended the printing of his first edition. III. Thus then the Greek text was formed in the early editions, and was afterwards gra- dually emended, at least such was the inten- tion, by others, who possessed new aids ami instruments for this purpose. The wants of the learned also continually demanded new editions, the supply of the older editions be- ing always unequal to the demand. IV. Of these then we siiall treat in such a way as to arrange them into clas.ses, and shall THE NEW TESTAMENT. 49 shew from what sources, and how each was formed, in the hope of thus rendering this no- tice of the editions useful in the formation of a judgment respecting 1;hem. For a bare ca- talogue of editions, containing merely a notice of the editor, with the time and place of pub- lication can be of little service/ ^ The editions of the New Testament may conveniently be divided into, 1st, The primai-y or fundamental, as the Complutensian and Erasmian. 2d, Editions which have formed upon these, but improved by the collation of more recently discovered manuscripts; such are the editions of CoUncBus, Bogard, Stephen, Beza and Harwood. 3d, Edi- tions formed from a comparison of several editions, such are the editions of Plantinus. Rapheling, Elzevir, E. Schmidt, and Bengel. 4th, Reprints of former editions without any material change : thus the Aldine editions follow that of Erasmus, and the editions of Oporinus, Walton, Mill, Kus- ter, &c. follow that of Stephen. 5th, Editions which con- tain critical collections of the various readings, as those of Walton^ Fell, Maestricht, Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Matth'di, Birch, Alter. V. The primary editions are, at most, not more than three, the Complutensian, that of Erasmus, and that of Beza, From these all the succeeding editions have been derived ; some containing improvements, and others be- ing mere reprints. VI. The Complutensian edition was pre- E 50 EDITIONS OF pared and printed at Complutum (Alcala) A. D. lol4, at the expense of Cardinal Xime- nes; but was publislied somewhat later, A. D. 1517, when the whole work of the Polyglot t Bible was finished. In arranging the text, the editors principally used Italian manuscripts, and those of a recent date, namely of the four- teenth and fifteenth centuries, with which this edition often agrees, against the earlier copies, the Greek Fathers, and the more ancient ver- sions. In many cases it is altered even in op- position to their own manuscripts, so as to liar- monize with the Latin version, as it then ex- isted in the printed copies ; this has been no- ticed by Mill and Wetstein." * The manuscripts used by the Complutensian eflitors, were neither numerous nor ancient. It is certain that they did not possess the Vatican MS. Tliey admitted some texts from the Latin version, as 1 .John v. 7, (See (h-iesbach ad loo.,) and in the Apocalypse they altered many things in conformity with it. They did not sufficiently use the Oriental versions, and the testimony of the Fathers. See the merits of this edition, canvassed by Goetz in his Vertheidi- pung der Complutens. Biliel., Hamb. 17C5 — 17C9, and Walch in his Neueste Religionsgeschichte, 1771, sq. p. iv. VII. The text of the Complutensian edition, was repeated in the Gospels and Acts by IL Stephni^^ in his fir.st edition, Paris 1546; by J^laiiihnui, both in the Antwerp Poly<^l(>tt, THE NEW TESTAMENT. 51 and separately, by the Geneva editors ; and in the Paris Pohjglott : As far also as it was fol- lowed by Stephen, it has been repeated by JVechel, Walton, Boeder, Mill,^ and Bengel. In all these, however, it must be understood that the Complutensian text is occasionally depart- ed from, sometimes inadv^ertently, and some- times through design. ^ The elder, father of Henry and Robert Stephen. ° MilVs text follows the third edition of Stephen. It n'as published at Oxford 1707, reprinted by Kiister 1710, and at Leipzig 1723. A great mass of useful learning is con- tained in the Prolegomena. A collection of various readings from many manuscripts and fathers, and from the Latin in- terpretation of the Oriental versions, is added ; which gave occasion to the Criticce Pseudo-MilliancB of Bodenius, Halle 1767. VIII. Erasmus published his first edition of the Greek Testament in 1516, with the assist- ance of CEcolainjjadius, Capito, and Gerhelius. In the Gospels he made a Basle manuscript of the fifteenth century his base, and in the remainder another, correcting its readings, how- ever, from Theophylactand other Fathers, from the Latin Version, and from conjecture. To- wards the conclusion of the Apocalypse lie translated into Greek, from the Latin version, what was wanting in the text of his manu- script. This text, in the reprints of 1519, 52 EDITIONS OF 1522, 1527, 1535,=^ was altered from the Fa- thers principally, though a few other manu- scripts were also employed : in the fourth edi- tion, 1527, it was altered from the Complu- tensian, which alterations are enumerated by Mill. The remarkably disputed verse, 1 John V. 7, w^as first inserted in the third edition : The cause of these variations is to be found in the multiplicity of difficult tasks, which the editor was carrying on at the same time ; from the fewness of his manuscripts, especially at the commencement; and finally, from the in- consistency of his judgment, which is not to be wondered at, considering the time at which he lived. ^ The most correct, and therefore the most rare of Eras- mus' editions, are those of 1516, 1522. See Wetsteiri's Proleg. N. T. i. 120, seq. IX. The text of Erasmus, though not al- ways that of the same edition, was principally followed by Aldus,^ Colinceus^ Bogard,^ R. Stephen in the Epistles, by some of the Basil editions, as the Hervagian, and partly by i?oec/er, with the exceptions mentioned at § 7. The Aldine differs only in errors of the press, which Erasmus himself mentions as various readings. R, Stephen in his first edition, 1546, and his THE NEW TESTAMENT. 53 second, 1549, wliicli goes by tlie name of the mirifica edition,* departs from the text of Erasmus in cases where it is opposed to all the manuscripts, as he had before done in the edi- tion of CoHncEus, which he corrected. In his third edition of 1550, he followed Erasmus' last edition of 1535, with almost no variation, and this text was preserved in the others above mentioned. Luther in his version generally followed the first edition of Erasmus, as no other could then be obtained; though some maintain that he used the Haguenan edition of 1521. It is unnecessary to specify the less important editions derived from these. y Published in 1518, fol., and very rare» Upon the whole, Aldus follows Erasmus, but differs from him in about a hundred places. The reason for these differences is not apparent ; for in other places even the errors of the press are retained. ^ Paris, 1543, 8vo. The basis is the text of Erasmus, but sometimes Colinceus is followed. ^ From the commencement of the preface, " O mirlficam regis liberalitatem /" It contains, however, fourteen errors, corrected in the third edition, 1550, which is generally con- sidered immaculate. See, however, Godf. Olearius on IMatt. p. 130= It is a most elegant edition, and celebrated as con- taining the first collection of various readings. There was also a fourth edition published at Geneva, 1551, in 8vo ; and a fifth at Paris, 1569, in 12mo. [The fourth edition is remarkable, as being the first in which the division of verses was introduced : the Paris edition of 1569 was edited by the younger Stephen.] 54 EDITIONS OF X. Tlieodore Beza formed his first text, published in 1559 and 1565, upon the text of Stephens' third edition of 1550. i^fter- wards having used, for the correction of the text, the Cambridge and Clermont manuscripts, the Latin version, and the Syriac and Arabic of the Acts, and of the two Epistles to the Co- rinthians, he published editions in 158*2, 1589, and 1598, in which he also inserted his own conjectures, and failed to obtain the character of a dilio-ent and modest critic.*^ This text was reprinted by Henry Stephen, Er. Schmidt, and others. Schmidt made some rash altera- tions, of which, as happened frequently in those days, no notice was taken. '• See Wetstein's Froleg. p. 146, seq., and Hug's Intro- duction, p. 2G9, seq. [Beza's edition of 1559 was merely a reprint of Stephen's fourth edition, but that of 15G5, with tlie succeeding, contains a text formed by Beza himself. See Griesbach's Proleg. i. p. 31. The Translator cannot understand the expression " Caiterum id exemj)lum tum alii, tum Henr. Stephanus, Er. Schmidiusexpressere." H. Stephens printed the ed. of 15G5, and all the rest except the last. Erasmus Sclimid left a corrected copy of Beza's Laiiii version, which Avas published in folio, Nuremburg, 1658. Noesselt in his Anweisilng zur Kentniss, &c. does not mention Beza's edition of 1559, probably considering it as a mere reprint of Stephen.] XL I'pon Stephen's third edition, and the text of Beza, a new text was formed, it does THE NEW TESTAMENT. 55 not appear by whom, and published by the FAzevirs, in 1624.'^ This text was adopted by Curcellceus^ and Leusden, and after them by the Oxford editors,^ McBstricht,^ Wetstein,^ and ocher more recent and ordinary editors, as those of Leipzig}^ This text, through the pre- valent want of knowledge on such matters, for a long time possessed so much authority, that those who departed from it incurred the charge of vitiating the very words of the Holy Spirit. '^ The editor's name is still unknown : on the title appears, ex regiis aliisque optimis editionibus cum cura expressum. ^ Consult Calovius de Curcellcei edit, socinizante. « First by Fell iu 1665, who follows the text of Walton. The second is of the year 1702. \^Walton''s text is that printed in the 5th vol. of the London Polygiott. FelVs edition was reprinted at I^eipzig in 1697 and 1702. at Ox- ford in 1703, under the charge of Gregory. ^ * With various readings from the Vienna Manuscript and Fell's edition. The critical canons prefixed are of no value. s In the edition of 1751, which follows the text of Elzevir, and contains a rich collection of various readings from Manuscripts, Fathers, and Versions. Semler republished the prolegomena and critical tracts, at Halle 1762 and 1764. [A new edition is now in course of publication, edited bv Dr. J. A. Lotze at Rotterdam, who proposes, with the assistance of the later critics, to correct the many errors which appear iu the various readings of Wetstein, especially in those taken from the oriental versions. The first Fasciculus only, containing the Prolegomena, has yet appeared.] ^ Rechenberg and Reineck. 56 EDITIONS OF XII. A species of Variorum text was pub- lished by J, A, Bengel^^ at Tubingen, 1 734, founded on the Complutensian edition, and those of Erasmus and the Stephens ; not a syllable being admitted which had not previ- ously been printed, and the highest authority being given to R. Stephen. This selection of readings, was however neglected, and some- times altered by the editor in his Gnomon. Bengel's text was reprinted at Leipzig in 1737, and elsewhere.*^ ■ This edition was intended to contain the cream of the best readings, selected from printed copies only. Various readings are given in the margin, with the judgment of the editor. An Apparatus Criticus is added, containing many extracts from the Fathers, and additions to MiWs edition. See Wetstehi's Proleg. p. 15(>. ^ As at Tubingen in 177G. To these we must add Gries- bach^s edition of the New Testament 1775 and 1777, which has formed a new aera in the criticism of the New Testa- ment. A second corrected edition was published at Halle and London, in 179C and 180G, 2 vols. 8vo. HarwoocTs London 1776 and 17«4, 2vols. 12mo. Matthsi's 1782-1788, in 12 vols, respecting which it is unnecessary to repeat the judgment of Michaelis in the Bibliotheca Or. P. xx. p. 107, seq. and of Eichhorn in the Bibliotheca Lit. Bibl. Univ. ii. ;^02. See the Prolegomena of Matthcei to his editio N. T. Cnmpendiaria, vol i. Wittenberg 1803. For the same rea- son we shall pass over the eilition of Alter, Vienna 1786, see Allg. Bibl. d. Bild. Lit. II. p. 102. The edition of Birch, Copenhagen, [Mavnia*,] 1788 is of tlieliigliest value, on account of the various readings collected from the THE NEW TESTA3IENT. 57 Vatican. Escurial, and Copenhagen manuscripts, and from the Philoxenian and Jerusalem versions. The edition of Knappe, Halle 1797, distinguished hy an excellent preface, and that of Schott, Lips. I8O0, with a new Latin version, both follow the text of Griesbach. XIII. Great expectations were formed of the edition promised by R. Bentley^ of which a specimen was published in 17*20, 1721. The plan of the editor, as given by himself, shews that he would have attached too great weight to those Greek manuscripts, which, in our judgment, have been interpolated from the Latin version, and to those Latin manuscripts which he supposed to contain the genuine version of Jerome, which certainly followed the text of Origen ; and thus he would have considered his text as a restoration of that of Orio-en. In this matter the illustrious editor fell into more than one error.^ ' See, Prolegomena ad N. T. Grseci Editionem accura- tissimam, Amst. 1730, and Wetstebi's Proleg. p. 153. XIV. This review of the editions of the New Testament, and the account thus given of the origin of the text, which we now call \\\Q received ox Vulgate^ may enable the student to form some estimate of the value of each par- ticular edition, and also of that received text, which some ignorant persons appear almost to 58 EDITIONS OF revere, and to consider as havino- been provi- dentially preserved from corruption. The re- view, it is hoped, may tend to render them more moderate in their judgment.™ "" See Hug's Introduction, I. p. 270, and Mattha'i pref. ad Evang. Matt. p. 28, [The texlus receptu>i is that of Elzevir's edition, see § xi.] XV. The authority of any text or edition depends upon the authority of the manuscripts from which it was derived. He, therefore, will be able rightly to use the published edi- tions, who knows, in the first place, whence and how the text was formed, and in the next place, how to apply the rules of sound criti- cism to passages where the readings are doubc- ful or various. What these rules are will be shown in their proper place. XVI. In determining the origin from which any text has been derived, we must be care- ful not rashly to credit the assertions of the editor, as to the multitude, antiquity, and ex- cellence of his manuscripts ; for unfounded assertions of this kind were very common among editors. Besides, when they speak of Codices^ we are not to understand them as speak- ing exclusively of Greek manuscripts, few of which were possessed by the earlier editors ; but THE NEW TESTAMENT. 59 as comprehending- the Latin version, the Greek and Latin Fathers, and sometimes even pre- vious printed editions. Ignorance of this usage of language in such matters, has led many very grossly to misunderstpnd the assertions of the Complutensian editors, Erasmus and Stephen. LTpon the whole, those who wish for an accu- rate knowledge of editions must consult Mill, Ben(/el, and JVetstehi.^- ° Together with the Bibliotheca Sacra, continued after Le Long and Boerner bv Masch, Halle 177^* 60 OF VERSIONS. CHAPTER IV. OF VERSIONS. 1. As the truths of Christianity were speedily communicated in every direction, to nations, either totally ig-norant of Greek, or at least vernacularly using some other language, the necessity for translations of the inspired books arose immediately after the Apostolic age.° It may be going too far to assert with Walton and Garhellus^ that without translations the church among such nations, the Latin church for ex- ample, could not have continued to exist ; but it is clear that she would have been exposed to great difficulties and inconvenience. ° Almost every where converts were to be found, who did not understand Greek. For the ancient versions generally, see Semler's Versuch, die gemeinmitziue Aiislcyiing des N. T. zu bef'ordern. Attempt to further the popular interpre- tation of the N. T. p. ICO. sq. II. The translation then of the sacred books into many languages at a very early period, is OF VERSIONS. 61 proved by the evidence of JEuseljius in Orat. in Laudem Const, Mag. p. 662 ; and other Fathers of the ChiirchjP quoted by Fabricms, BibL Grsec. iv. p. 191, first edition; the application of whose evidence is however denied by Blan- chinus in his Proleg. Evangeliarii, i. 78. Their testimony, in fact, proves the translation of the New Testament into other languages, but does not precisely mark the time when these translations were formed. P As Theodoret and Chrysostom. TertulHan in the second century uses a Latin version, as a work of undis- puted authority. See Semler, note on Wetstein's Proleg. p. 684, sq. III. The most ancient known version, sup- posed by some to have been made by an Apos- ( tie, or by a cotemporary of the Apostles, is the \ Syriac.^ This version was first introduced i into Europe by a certain Moses, sent as agent by Ignatius^ Patriarch of the Maronites, to the Popes Leo X. and Julius III. It was first published at Vienna in 1555, by Alht Wid- nianstadt ; and afterwards by Plantinus and Hutter. The Apocalypse having been added by L. De Dieu, and 2d Peter, 2d and 3d John, and Jude, by Pocock, the whole was reprinted in the London and Paris Polyglotts, by Gut- bier [at Hamburgh, 1664], and by C. Schaaf 6*2 OF VERSIONS. at Leydeii, 1709, 1717. Tremellius [Geneva, 1569,] added the passaoe 1 John v. 7, trans- lated by himself from tlie Greek, but placed it in the marjjfin, while Guthier introduced it into the text. Both he and the editors of the London Polyglott admitted into the text the narrative of the woman taken in adultery, John viii. 1 — 11, from the Usher Manuscript, which ought to have been placed in the margin. 1 In Asseman's Bibl. Oriental. II. 86, a manuscript of this version is attributed to the first century, on the autho- rity of an addition at the end. But these additions, or sub- scriptions as they are called, merit little attention in critical matters. This version called the Peshito, that is, the simple or literal, was formed before the Eutychian and Nestorian Schism, and probably in the second century. [The Peshito, however, is not a literal version ; it is by no means so literal as the Philoxenian. JMichaelis renders the word Pe&hito, pure, uncorrupted, accurate. 1 IV. It has been doubted whether the Pes- hito Syriac version was made from tlie original Greek, or from a Latin version. Michaclis in Var. Lect. N. T. § '21, contends that it was formed from the Greek ; and Simon, Hist. Crit. c. 13, 14, 15, shews that it more frequently agrees with the Greek text against tlie Latin, than with the Latin against the Greek ;' this, however, sometimes liappens, and thence we may conclude, that it was formed from a loss in- OF VERSIONS. 63 terpolatecl copy, but yet from a copy with some interpolations. From the Syriac was formed the old Persian version of the four Gospels, which, with a translation by Sam. Clarke^ and notes by T, Graves, was published in the London Polyglott. Another version, part of which was published at London in 1657, and afterwards, the whole by Wlieeloch and Pier- son, was made from the Greek, but as late as the fourteenth century. '^ There can now lie no doubt but that the Syriac version was made directly from the Greek : see Marsh's Michaelis II. 23. Ed. 4th. Michaehs, however, in another work, Curae in Vers. Syriacam Act. Apost. attempts to persuade us that it was interpolated from the Latin. It seems more pr«)bable that this version suffered changes in the eighth and ninth centuries, to bring it into conformity with the Greek copies of the western recension. It therefore abounds in false readings, and cannot be relied upon in critical mat- ters, till, by the assistance of the Arabic and Persian ver- sions, it shall have been reduced to its pristine purity. See Reusch, Syrus interpres cum fonte N. T. Grseco collatus. Lips. 1741 ; and Weber de Usu vers. Syr, hermen. liips. 1778, but above all Storr^s Observations, super N, T. vers. Syriac, Stuttg. 1772, and Hug's Introduction, i. p. 292. Michaelis ii. p. 25. [RIarsh, allowing the strong coinci- dences of the Peshito and the Western, or Latinizing ma- nuscripts, accounts for it, by supposing that the more re- mote churches in Western Europe and Eastern Asia, had more ancient, and consequently purer copies, than the in- termediate churches using the Constantinopolitan recen- sion.] 64 OF VERSIONS. V. Besides this ancient Syriac or Peshito version, there exists another more recent one, called the Philoxenian, from Xenyas or Phil- oxenus^ under whose authority it was made by a certain Polycarp. It is also called Heradean, from Thomas Bishop of Heraclea, who care- fully revised it :^ and sometimes goes under the name of BarsalibcBus, who brought it to light in the twelfth century. For information re- specting this version, the reader may consult Michaelis' Introduc. ii. 58, seq., or rather the Dissertation of Ridley, at the end of the Wet- stein tracts, edited by Semler. * The Philoxenian version was published by White at Ox- ford, 1773. Storr, as is usual with him, gives a learned judgment on its merits in Eichhorn's Repertorium, vii. 1, seq. It is to be distinguished from the Hierosohjmiian ver- sion, in a Chaldee dialect, made at Jerusalem between the fourth and sixth centuries. See Adler, versiones N. T. Syriacse, Simplex, Philox. et Hieros. denuo examinatae, Haf- niae, 1780; iii* 137. [For an account of Adler's work, see Michaelis' Introd. ii. 75. Philocvenus was Bisliop of iliera- polis from 4C8 to 518, and Polycarp his rural bishop. Dio- nysms Barsalilxxus was Bishop of Amida, from 1 17G to 1171. Full information on all these points maybe found in Assemari's Bibliotheca Orientalis.] VI. The Coptic version, edited by Daniel Wilkins, a Prussian, at Oxford, 1716. With a Latin version, which, in the opinion of La OF VERSIONS. 65 Croze and Jablonski is far from correct, al- though it be not more ancient than the time of Origen, as Wilkins supposes it to be, a sup- position disproved by the division of the Gos- pels, according to the Eusebian canons, and of the Epistles by the Griyjj, which being the invention of Euthalius, bring it down to the fifth century : is yet of great antiquity. Critics doubt whether it was formed from the Greek or the Latin; Mill in his Proleg. N. 1407, maintaining the former, and Whitby, i. 4, 1, the latter opinion.* It certainly often agrees with the Latin against the Greek. See, for example, the Var. Lect. at 1 Cor. end of cli. vi., and beginning of ch. vii. But these passages might have been previously interpolated from the Latin into the Greek copies. * It is now ascertained that the Coptic version was made j in the fifth century, and from the Greek. It contains j many valuable various readings, which agree in general with the quotations of the Alexandrine Fathers. See the select readings given by Woide in Michaelis Bibl. Orient. X. 198, and, Fragmentum Evangelii S. Johannis grseco- coptico-thebaicum, ex ed. Georgii. Rome, 1789. Miinier, on the age of the Coptic version, in Eichorn''s Bibliotheca Lit. Bib. Univers. iv. 1 and 385. [The date of this ver- sion is not so indisputably ascertained as Dr. Ammon sup-( poses. At any rate, ErnestVs argument is of no weight ; for, upon the same principle, we might contend that the Is'ew Testament in Greek was not written before the time 66 OF VERSIONS. of R. Stephen^ because our copies have his division of verses. For a specimen of the readings of the Coptic, see Marsh's Notes on Michaeh's, ii. 589. The biblical student, who is unacquainted with the eastern languages, must be careful not to give implicit credit to the Latin translation of the Oriental versions, especially those made by the first editors, which are often incorrect. Between the Coptic and TEthio- pian, some mention ought; to be made of the Sahidic version, in tlie dialect of Upper lH;ypt. Manuscripts, or portions of manuscripts of this version are preserved in the Libraries of Rome, Paris, Oxford, Berlin, and Venice. Part of St. John's Gospel was publislied at Rome by Georgi in 1789. Other fragments were prepared by Woide, and completed and published by Dr. Ford at Oxford in 1799. Mingarelli also pu Wished some fragments, Bologna, 1785. The version is ancient, Georgi attributes it to the fourth century. It agrees very closely with the Codex Cantabrigiensis. For a collation of it with thatiMS., see Marsh's Notes on Michae- lis, ii. 593.] VII. The Ethiopic version is supposed to be referred to by Chrysostom in his Homily on John ii., and consequently, the existing ver- sion is supposed to be of a date previous to his time. But from that passage nothing certain can be concluded. The Ethiopians, (Abyssi- niiniN) thtmselves, attributeit to 8t. Frffmentias, who flourished in the time of Constantine the (Trent. Michaelis in his Var. Lect. N. T j '24, 25, n.aintains that it was made from the Crreek. Its frcqurnt accordances with the Latin ver- sion, may be accounted for from tlie fact, that OF VERSIONS. 67 it was published at Rome in 1548-9, by Tessa TziOf an Abyssinian monk, from a defective copy, whose deficiencies were supplied from the Latin. The republication of it in the London Polyglot is still more erroneous. The learned have pronounced both the Latin translations extremely faulty, see Michaelis Var. Leet. N. T., § 34, 35, and the preface to Bodes Collatio Evang. Matt, cum vers, ^thicp. Halle, 1749. This collation, however, ought not to have been made with the printed copy alone, which the Abyssinians disapprove of, as differing from their own copies. See Ludolf Prsef. in Lex. ^thiop. VIII. The Armenia??, version was published at Amsterdam in 1668, by Usca.n, an Arme- nian Bishop, who had been sent by the rulers of his church for this purpose. The Armenians say that this version was made by Miesrob, the inv^entor of the Armenian character, of whose life some account is given by Sainjore, i. e. R. Simon in the Bibliotheque Critique, iv. 196. Moses Chorenensis, Hist. lib. iii. 313, in- forms us that Miesrob was assisted by his dis- ciple Moses, and that the version was mLule from a Greek copy brought from the Council of Ephesus ; though elsewhere, lib. iii. 299, he asserts that the translation liad been made. 6^ OF VERSIONS. or at least attempted before. It is believed, however, to have been interpolated from the Latin by Usean, as he himself confesses in his preface." Certainly the text 1 John v. 7, which is in his printed edition, is not found in the manuscripts. See La Croze, Thes. Epist. i. 359. Nachricht von einer Hallischcn Biblio- thek, iii. 189. Also Simon's Hist. Crit. iv. 17, his Bibl. Crit. iv. 193, and his Lettres Choisies, p. iv. n. 24. " This interpolation does not, however, extend to all the books. It agrees generally with the Coptic version. Origan and Manuscripts of the Alexandrine recension. See Hug^ I. 322, seq. IX. The Arabic versions, some made from the Syriac or Coptic, others from the Greek, are all supposed to be of a later date than the Mohammedan sera. The version of the Gospels, which was published at Rome in 1591 and 1619, agrees in many points with the Syriac, while it differs from it in others. It was reprinted in the Paris Polyglot, to- gether with a more recent version of the other books, but stupidly interpolated by Ga- briel Sionites, Hence it was transferred to the London Polyglot, but corrected from ma- nuscripts. Another version of the whole New Testament was published by Erpenias at Ley- OF VERSIONS. 69 den, 1616, from a Coptic eoTpj, without in- terpolation or version. In the Gospels it ge- nerally agrees with the Latin ; in the Epistles Erpenius thinks it follows the Syriac version, and in the Apocalypse it follows the Coptic, as Michaelis thinks, Var. Lect., N. T. § 29. Those Arabic versions alone have any critical value, which were made from the Greek by the Melchites, who use the Greek language in their religious services.'^ ^ No accurate collection of the Arabic versions, with a discrimination of their ages, as yet exists. See Storr de Evangeliis Arahicis, Tubing. 1775, and Hug's Introd. I. 354. [By a Coptic copy is meant an Arabic Manuscript, written in Upper Egypt. The date of this, Erpenius' MS. is of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. See Marsh, Notes on Michaelis II. 604. The Roman Propaganda published an Arabic Bible in 1671, under the inspection of Sergius Risius Bishop of Damascus, and the English Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, an Arabic N. T. in 1727, edited, and in some places altered from the text of the Polyglots by Salomon Negri. The N. T. in the modern, Arabic was published in 1816, at Calcutta by the British and Foreign Bible Society.] X. Ulphilas, Bishop of the Goths, is said to have translated the New Testament into the Gothic language in the fourth century ; and it is supposed to be his version which was pub- lished by Junius and Marshall from the Codex 70 OF VERSIONS. Aro-enteus, Dordrecht, 1665, Amsterdam, 1684, by Stiernhielm, Holmise, 1671, and lastly, from a copy of E. Benzelius, by E, Lye, Oxford, 1750. La Croze, Thes. Epist. iii. 78, con- cludes from the place where the Codex Ar- genteus was found, the monastery of Werden in Westphalia, and from the form of the cha- racter, that the version is not Gothic but Frankish. But the Goths were in that coun- try, of whom were the Sunila and Fretela mentioned by Jerome, whom they consulted respecting the discrepancies of the Greek and Latin texts. Whichever it may be, it con- tains readings which could not have been de- rived but from a Greek text, as has been al- lowed, after the demonstration of Bengel, App. Crit. 408, even by Wetstein, i. 114. This appears more natural to a Gothic than to a Frankish version. See Hires, Ulphilas Illus- tratus.y Another portion of this version was discovered in the library of Wolfenbiittel, and published in 1762 by the learned Knittel. J See also Comm. de lingiia Codicis Argentei, Upsal, 1754. [The Dordieclit edition IGGo, contains the (Jothic edited by Junius, and the Anglo-Saxon by IMarshall. Sternhielm's contains the (iothic, Suio-(iothic, and Islandic For proofs that the language of the Codex Argenteus and Carolinus or Wolfenbiittel, is not Frankish but M(jeso-Gothic, see OF VERSIONS. 71 Marsh's Michaelis, II. 137, seq. and for a description and specimen of the Cod. Arg., see Home's Introd. II. 90.] XI. It is the general opinio r./ founded on the testimony of Augustine (Doct. Christ, ii. 11, 14), that there were many Latin versions in the earliest ages of the church. This tes- timony has, through an absurd partiality for the Latin Vulgate, been interpreted by Sa- baiier (in Prsef. Gener. Bibl. Vers. Ital.), and Blanchini (in Proleg. Evang. i. 81), as refer- ring to the multitude of copies, and by Gar^ hellus to the scholiasts and interpreters, in di- rect opposition to the express words of Au- gustine, the perspicuity of which will admit of no such interpretations. And since, at the same period, Greek versions of the Old Tes- tament were made at different places, it seems probable that the same woukl be done from the Greek New Testament into Latin ; espe- cially when we consider the greater facility of the task in the inferior size of the work to be translated. Finally, the differences among the old copies are such as to prove an original di- versity of versions. ''■ ^QQ also Jerome's Prolei^. in Evangel. Hug's Introd. i. 380, [and .Marsh's Michaelis, II. 11)8.] 72 OF VERSIONS. XII. Of all these, that version was the most approved and in most ordinary use, which Jerome calls the common or Vulgate, shewing by the very epithets that there existed others. This was afterwards called the Vetiis Itala or old version, when it had been renewed by his corrections.^ =* [The reader will of course not confound this with the version now called Vulgate, of which mention will be made hereafter. Among Biblical critics, it now generally goes by the name of the Vetus-Itala, or Ante-Hieronymian ver- sion.] XIII. We may grant that this version was made in Italy, although that conclusion is by no means necessary, as the Latin language was vernacular in many other parts of Europe, and in Africa also. That it was called Itala, which is commonly believed on the authority of Augustine, De Doct. Christ, ii. 15, is doubted by Bentley, who thinks that for, in ipsis autem inter pretationibus Itala ccateris prce- feratur : nam est verhorum tenacior^ cum perspi- cuitate sententicB ; we ought to read, Ilia cceteris pra'feratur qucc est, &c. in which correction he is followed by Casley (Catal. Bibl. Cotton.) and by the learned Venema. Bentley's sug- gestion in this matter is suj)p{)rted by many OF VERSIONS. 73 considerations. First, by the form and con- text of the sentence; for Augustine is here giving a general rule respecting versions, and afterwards treats of the Latin versions sepa- rately and by name. Secondly, Augustine was quite ignorant of Greek, or at any rate so ignorant as to be incapable, without great te- merity, of estimating the merits of a version. Lastly, the manuscripts of Augustine vary much in this w^ord, as has been shewn by Casley. Sabatier, however, takes the oppo- site side, in Proleg. Bibl. Vet. Ital. to whom may be added Mosheim de rebus Christ, ante Const. Mag. p. 2*24, seq., who however fluc- tuates in his opinion.** ^ It appears highly probable, that this vei'sion was made about the end of the second century. 1. Because the Latin church could scarcely have done without a version. 2. Be- cause it follows a context venerable through antiquity. 3. Because the Latin Fathers of the third century agree with it in their quotations. See Fragmenta Versionis Latinae antehieronymianse, in Paulus" Repert. Lit. Or. et Orient, and Bibl. nov. part IIL p. 115, seq. [With respect to the testimony of Augustine, and Bentley's emendation of it, though the change of Itala into Ilia is ingenious, that of nam into qucs^ which becomes necessary, is quite arbitrary. Potter suggests that Itala is a mistake for usitata, and that the passage in the ancient manuscripts stood as fol- lows, IMPSISAUTEMINTERPRETATIONIBUSUSl- TATAPRAEFERATUR ; that a transcriber after having 74 OF VERSIONS. copied interpretationibus, took the first syllable of usitata for the last syllable of the word he had just written, and of course read the next word ITATA, which he concluded to be an erratum for ITALA, and in this manner produced our present spurious reading. See Marsh's Michaelis, II. C23.] XIV. Wliatev^er may have been its origin, attempts have, for a long time, been made to- wards its restoration, first hy Flainmuff: XoMli/(.% with the assistance of other learned men, especi- ally v^. Ar/ellius, who attempted to correct it from the writings of the Ante-Hieronymian Fathers, Rome, 1588. Next by MarciancBiis, who first used manuscripts of a date prior to Jerome's version; and more recently by P. Sabatler, in his Bibliis veteris Versionis Italica^, Rheims, 1743, and Blanching who published the Latin Evangeliaries from ancient manuscripts in 1749, not to mention others of less note, whom Sabatier reviews in his Proleg. § IGG.*^ " [The Roman edition by Nohilius contains only the Old Testament. The New was added by Morinvs in the Paris edition 1C28. MarciancBiis, (J. ]\Iartianay,) published the Gospel of St. Matthew, Paris IG90, and the Kpisile of James. Hearne published the Acts from the Codex Laudianus, Ox- ford 1715. Semler has given the old Latin version, from the Codex Cantab, at the end of his Paraphrasis Lvang. Johann. Halle 1771- A fragment of St. Mark's Gospel was published by Dobrowsky^ at Prague 1778, from a manu- OF VERSIONS. 75 script found there : and fragments of Mark and Luke, from a manuscript in the Imperial Library at Vienna, were pub- lished by Alter in Paulus^ Neues Repertorium, &c. P. III. 124,] XV. The labours of these editors, though deserving the gratitude of scholars, and not without use to those who know how to use them aright, have not accomplished, and could not accomplish that which they wished and in- tended. All the specious boasts that have been made of Ante-Hieronymian manuscripts do not render it probable that this version can be restored; nor do I believe Fabricius, who as- serts in the Bibl. Grsec. iv. p. 198, that it can be restored from the manuscripts of Beza, and the Regius Secunchis^ which is in fact the Cla- romontanus of Beza. XVI. For the writings of the Latin fathers, who lived before Jerome, have in many places been corrected, both by copyists and editors, into conformity with Jerome's version, as has been shewn by the Benedictine editors in the cases of Ambrose and Augustine; and by others in the case of other fathers. Besides, they quoted from different versions, or from discre- pant copies of the same version ; while those who were familiar with Greek, translated for themselves, without supposing themselves 76 OF VERSIONS. bound in all cases to follow the Vulgate. Finally, the manuscripts containing a version substantially different from that of Jerome, vary so widely from one another, that they can by no process be reduced into harmony/ And this is the less to be wondered at, since we know that in the time of Damasus and Je- rome perfectly coinciding copies could not be found. Therefore Jerome well observes in his preface to the Gospels : " if the Latin translator is to be followed in preference to the Greek text, I would ask, which of them is to be followed ?" '^ Because the Latin text was generally altered into con- formity with the later Greek copies, as appears particularly in the case of the Codex Brixiensis. XVII. I would not directly deny, although I cannot fully assent to, the opinion of Mill, (Proleg. n. 313,) who concludes from the di- versity of style, that the old Italian version must have had different authors, meaning by diversity of style, that the same Greek words are not always expressed by the same Latin ones. It is clear that the author was too tena- cious of a literal adherence to his original, having preserved the genders, cases, numbers, and tenses of the Greek, in opposition to the OF VERSIONS. 77 rules of Latin grammar, as Acpnla had done in his Greek version of the Old Testament. Whence it is clear that the translator was im- perfectly acquainted with Greek, or rather with Latin ; or what is more probable, that he was actuated by a silly and judaical supersti- tion, and consequently that he was a convert from Judaism ; for who, in that age, can we suppose to have been affected by such a su- perstition but a Jew. Sometimes, however, at least in single words, its Latinity is of a better quality ; and in this also it resembles the Greek version of the Old Testament.® ^ [For instances of the barbarisms of this version, see Marsh's Michaehs, II. 114. It is also highly probable, in- dependent of any internal evidence, that the first translators of the N. T. into Latin, were Jews; as dui'ing the first century, almost all the Chi-istian teachers were of that na- tion. Bishop Marsh (Note p. 626,) is of opinion, that Jews residing in Europe spoke no language but Greek. He could not surely mean to deny that those who were domici- liated at Rome, had at least some knowledge of Latin : and, on the other hand, it seems improbable that those of easy circumstances and intelligent minds, would remain totally ignorant of the original language of Scripture. Yet it is certainly improbable, that a Roman Jew would be so fami- liar with Hebrew or Syriac idioms, as strongly to affect his Latin style.] XVin. When the copies of this version 78 OF VERSIONS. had gradually become corrupted, and perhaps its barbarism become ridiculous; and thus it was to be feared, that the contempt would ex- tend, as often happens, from the style to the truths conveyed by it ; Jerome, at the sugges- tion of Damasus, Bishop of Rome, undertook its correction. His object was not to make a new version from the Greek, but, in the first place, to correct the solecisms of the old ver- sion ; and, in the next place, by collating the Greek manuscripts in the Csesarean Library, to alter those passages where the sense had been altogether misunderstood. Everything else he left as it was, in order not to offend the habits and the prejudices of those who had grown up in the use of the ohi version. Hence it arises, that the commentaries of Jerome sometimes differ from his version ; nor is his practice even in it perfectly consistent. All this caution, however, was insufficient to secure him from blame, and even Augustine disap- proves of the correction of the vicious Latinity ; nor were copies of his emended version gene- rally received by the church before the eighth century. '^ 'Ami tliosiu'opies which were received, were generally writ- ten uith the old version in a parallel column. Hence origi- n.tied in a later age a mixed version. See ling, I. MCI), [and OF VERSIONS. 79 Marsh's Michaelis, II. 125. A celebrated MS. of this mixed version, written in 870, in golden letters, is preserved in the library of St. Emeram in Ratisbon.] XIX. Martianai/, in his Hieronymi Bihlio- tJieca divina, and Sahatier in his Bihlia Vet. Vers. Itol. have professed to print this correct- ed version. Little reliance, however, can be placed upon the purity of their text. For Jerome's recension was soon altered in many places, both by copyists and correctors, some- times from the more ancient version, some- times from the quotations of the Fathers, and sometimes at their own discretion ; and thus it became so corrupted and interpolated, as to render vain all hopes of restoring it to its ori- ginal state. And the version of Jerome in this its altered state, is that which we now call the Vulgate. The best editions of this, corrected from the most ancient manuscripts, are those of 7^. Stephen, especially his editions of 1540, 1545, and 1546, that of Henten, 1547, and that of the Lou vain doctors, 1557, 1573, among whom Lucas Brugensis was the most active. The Sixtine edition, pnhllshed at Rome, 1590, must also be noticed, which was quickly fol- lowed in 1502, by the Clementine, in many places differing vcum tli^e Sixtine. The Clementine recension has been followed by most succeed- 80 OF VERSIONS. iiig- editors, and it is this which now bears the name of Vulgate. For the first editions, as those of Scheffei^ Jenson, and others previous to Stephen, are valuable rather for their rarity, than for any critical use, being formed from such copies as came to hand, without selection or critical diligence. They are not, however, entirely to be neglected ; for though they may have been prepared from single recent copies, still they may contain some readings of critical value.^ s Especially -when their readings are supported by more ancient authorities. For the differences between the Cle- mentine and Sixtlne recensions, see James'' Bellum Papale sive Concordia discors Sixti v. et Clementis viii. Lond. 16*00. [And in his treatise, on the Corruption of Scripture, &c. 1611. Ernesti's account of the earlier editions of the Vulgate is not correct. Henten's edition of 1547, was pre- pared under the inspection of the Louvain divines, wJio again, not in 1557, but in 1573, prepared a more accurate edition, by the command of the Council of Trent.] XX. Since, however, this version does not in all cases express the sense of the original with sufficient perspicuity and fidelity, many scholars have attempted new versions, ever since the restoration of the study of the Greek text. We may mention those of Erasmus, Pagninij a better translator of the Old than OF VERSIONS. 81 of the New Testament, Castellio, Beza, whose versions Boyse has compared with the old Latin, and shewn that they have often departed from it without sufficient cause. Boyse's zeal, however, has carried him too far in some of his remarks. Of other versions, and especially those into the vernacular tongues, it is un- necessary here to treat. XXI. Versions have two uses, the one her- meneutical^ the other critical. Both the ancient and modern versions possess that common her- meneutical use, w^hich we may call historical : that is to say, we learn from them what each translator understood by the words of the ori- ginal ; and are thus often led to the true sense of the passage. XXII. Those ancient versions, however, which were made directly from the Greek, and by men skilled in the peculiar idiom of the New Testament, may have also a proper and dogmatic hermeneutical use ; that is to say, we may learn from them the usus loquendi, in cases where it could not be discovered by other ^ The literal exactness of the Latin version, has intro- duced doctrinal errors into theology. Thus in 2 Cor. viii. 19, T^o^vfAia is rendered by the Vulgate, destinata voluntas^ and this Aquinas uses to support the doctrine of predestina- G 82 OF VERSIONS. tion. For a still stronger example, see Ephes. v. 32, where fAvtrrvi^iov is rendered in the Vulgate by sacramentum, [and thus marriage is made one of the seven sacraments. These, however, are certainly not instances of the proper herme- neutical use of versions : and probably the Old Syriac is the only version, for which any such use can fairly be claimed.] XXIII. Versions fail of attaining either of these hermeneutical uses, in proportion as they are too tenacious of verbal accuracy, and by an unnecessary adherence to the Greek idiom, offend against purity and perspicuity. In this way even learned theologians and interpreters have been led into error. If the reader wishes for examples of this species of translation from the old Latin, he may consult Erasmus' Pre- face to the New Testament, 1522, c. 6, b. sq. XXIV. Before we can hope to derive this use from a version, we must determine, as was before observed, that it was really made from the Greek : and, in the next place, we must be I careful with respect to the Oriental versions, not to trust to the Latin interpretations of them, which are generally faulty and obscure.' If our knowledge of the language is not suffi- cient to enable us to use the version itself, it will be better to forego it altogether. ' Mill has fallen into this error, see Bodii Pseiulocritica Millio-Bengeliana. Halle 17G7, 1769. With equal care- OF VERSIONS. 80 ^.essness Wetstein refers to the testimony of the Syriac ver- % "r -sion, at Acts xi. 20, in which passage ^jOO, may mean the Hellenists, see Acts vi. 1. : and at Philipp. ii. 30, where OLa£XJ V\l^^ ' (T)^ gives the sense of the reading ^a^a. 7 Covkiva-rJi/xivos. In a similar way, the Syriac version in many texts, follows very different readings from those which are assigned to it in the best critical editions. [This, how- ever, relates to the critical use of versions, which is treated of more fully in the following sections. ] XXV. Having attended to these two points, we must next ascertain the value of the ver- sion, in order to determine whether it will re- pay the labour of reading and consultation. This we may do by comparing several passages, whose sense is not easy, but which we have satisfactorily determined. R. Simon has given examples of this sort of comparison from the Syriac version, in his Hist. Crit. ii. c. 15. If the result of such an examination be favour- able, we may then proceed to use the version with greater hope and confidence. XXVI. In the use of versions we must avoid the common error of those who have un- dertaken to illustrate the New Testament bv the versions of the Oriental churches. For all, and among them L. de Dieu, in his Crit. Sac, spend their labour very idly in comparing those words which can be sufficiently explained 84 OF VERSIONS. from the Greek or Hebrew.'^ All that they can possibly effect in this way, is to show that such words have been rightly understood by the writer of the version; and this may tend to raise the character of the version, or to il- lustrate the language in which it is written : but can never tend to advance the interpreta- tion of the Scriptures. ^ For example, he attempts to illustrate (in IMatt. i. 19,) the Greek ^a.^a^nyfjcoc.riira.t from the Syriac ^sD\Si ^^ reveal, which again has a disgraceful sense. XXVII. Finally, the student ought to con- sult such versions, only when he meets with passages which he is unable to explain from the usages of the Greek or Hebrew languages. He must next examine whether the passage has been rendered etymologically, and word for word, a species of translation which can be of no service ; or whether, on the con- trary, it has been translated into the idiom of the language in which the version is, and in a style explicable by the known usages of that language. If the latter be the case, then we may hope, if in other respects the render- ing be probable and consistent, that we have found something that will be conducive to the OF VERSIONS. 85 discovery of tlie true sense. And this is true, especially of the Syriac version, which is in the language vernacular to the Apostles, or in one very similar to it ; and it is highly proba- ble that modes and figures of speech were bor- rowed from it as well as from the Hebrew, and introduced into the Greek of the New Testa- ment. Besides, from the number of Syriac books still existing, the usages of that language may be accurately ascertained.* Matt. vi. 11, el^Tog iTrtovfftos is rendered |voa.\ . imnnn i the bread of our necessity, i. e. the bread that is necessary for us. XXVIII. Those versions alone have a cri- tical use, which have been made directly from the Greek ; for such only can show what read- ings the writers of them found in the manu- scripts from which they translated. Showing this, they may be useful in discovering genuine readings, in confirming those already disco- vered, and in detecting the origin of false read- ings. Those versions which have been made from other versions, show the readings of these, and not of the original text."" ™ Thus the Persic and Arabic versions may be used cri- tically, not to emend the Greek text of the New Testament, 86 OF VERSIONS. but to correct the Syriac version, from which they were both derived. XXIX. Those who with Whitbi/, Maes- tricht, and others very imperfectly acquainted with criticism, deny that versions afford va- rious readings, especially the ancient versions of the New Testament, which are generally literal, are opposed to the universal practice of critics on other books of antiquity," and to the reason of the case itself. Besides, they throw suspicion upon the Greek text, which they pretend to defend ; for it is certain that many readings were introduced into it from the Latin version, by the Complutensian editors, Erasmus^ and Beza, many of which are still re- tained : and finally, they are refuted by their own practice. For all of them, especially Whitby^ in defending particular readings, are in the habit of referring to versions, as is well urged by Bengel, p. 427. Glasse properly acknowledges this use of versions in his Phil, Sac. Tr. ii. P, i. memb. 3, and also Luther, who not unfrequently follows the reading of the Latin version. " Wesseling in his preface to Herodotus, confesses that he has gathered many various readings from the Latin version of L. Valla, The same holds good with versions of th^ OF VERSIONS. 87 New Testament. [For the critical use of the Syriac version, see Marsh's Michaelis, II. 45, and for that of the old Latin, p. 121. When the Latin copies all agree in a reading, their evidence goes far to prove that it existed in various manu- scripts older than any now existing. For the Latin manu- scripts which go by the names of Vercellensis, Brixiensis, Veronensis, &c. diflFer so much, that they may be considered as separate versions.] XXX. But in this application of versions, much caution is to be used. For, in the first place, all those passages are to be set aside, in which it is clear that the translator has erred, either through the errors of the manuscript which he used, or through his own ignorance of Greek or Hebrew, or through negligence ; and those also in which he has inserted his own explanation rather than a fair version of the Greek, with those in which he has wTitten ambiguously, or is such a way as that it can- not clearly be determined from his version what was the reading in the manuscript which he used f all which exceptions frequently oc- cur in the Latin version. I am inclined, how- ever, to give more weight to the Latin version in its omissions, especially where the other versions agree with it, than in other respects. For if the readina: be still consistent with reason and the context, no good reason-can be given for the omission ; whereas in other va- 88 OF VERSIONS. nations, ignorance, negligence, or interpola- tion may be supposed. In the use of oriental versions we must be careful not to trust to tlie ordinary Latin interpretation, by which confi- dence Mill, with others, has been grossly mis- led. Finally, good and ancient manuscripts ought to be inspected, and not merely the printed copies; because the versions them- selves, as h^s already been shown of many, have been vitiated and interpolated. That this has taken place in the Latin version, has been abundantly shown by those who have undertaken its correction.^ ° For example in Luke ii. 22. ^Vetstein says, that the Vulgate indicates the reading eLVToZ. But ejus may with equal probability be referred to the reading avrtjs. J' To these cautions we may add the following rules. He who wishes to make a judicious use of versions, must ob- serve, 1. Whether he possesses the text of the version which he is using critically edited and emended. 2. M'hether he is intimately acquainted with the language of the version. 3. What recension the version follows. 4. Let him be- ware of mistaking synonyms in the version, for a variety in the reading. 5. Let him be aware that readings supported by only one version, carry no great weight with them. [It is hoped, that the junior student of theology will rise from the perusal of this chapter, with a conviction, that the emendation of the text from versions, or indeed from any other source, is a work requiring all the matured judgment and k)U)wledge of the veteran scholar : and that the utmost which he can liope to effect at present by the most careful OF VERSIONS. 89 attention to the subject, is to qualify himself in some mea- sure to judge of the emendations, or systems of emendation, which he finds proposed in the more celebrated critical edi- tions of the New Testament. And if even in this judgment he finds much difficulty and obscurity, he may comfort him- self with the assurance that there is no edition of the New Testament, which does not substantially contain all the facts narrated, and all the doctrines taught by the Aposto- lic writers. The labours of the critics have probably been more useful, in establishing the general agreement of all the copies, than in deducing any important result from their little discrepancies.] 90 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, CHAPTER V. ON THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, AND THEIR APPLICATION. I. The writings of the doctors of the church, in its early ages, form also a part of the appa- ratus necessary to an interpreter.^ We shall therefore briefly treat of them, in so far as they are connected with our purpose, either as aid- ing the verification of the text, or its interpre- tation. And in this we shall comprehend all sacred writings which refer to Scripture, not commentaries solely or even principally, since they have been separately considered in an- other chapter. 1 From the quotations of the Fathers we learn varieties of the text, more ancient than those supplied by the manu- scripts ; we learn also the age and country of particular readings, jmd tlie origin of glosses. [The old readings are to be deduced rather fi-om the comments and observations of the Fathers, than from their quotations, which have in AND THEIR APPLICATION. 91 some cases been altered by the copyists into conformity with the prevailing text, and in others appear to have been made memoriter and inaccurately by the Father himself. See Marsh's Michaelis, II. p. 370, 371.] II. The uses to which these writings may be applied are of two kinds, the one critical^ the other hermeneuticah But in order to give accurate precepts for each of these, it seems necessary, in the first place, to say something respecting the text which was used by the Fathers and of its history ; and then respecting the nature of ancient interpretation. III. In the first place, since the historical books of the New Testament were written by diff*erent authors in diiferent places, and the Epistles were sent to different churches through particular channels, it is clear they could not be immediately known to all the churches \ much less could they be immediately collected into volumes and possessed by all Christians, or even by all the teachers of the church. And this is confirmed by ancient custom in such matters, and by the manuscripts which are now extant. See chap. ii. § 9.® ^ Chrysostom, for example, declares in his Prol, I. Horn, on the Acts, that this book was entirely unknown to his diocese. * In the 1st Epistle of Clemens Rom. no book of the New 92 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, Testament is quoted, except the 1st Ep. to the Corinthians, which he calls ivayyiXtov. Tertullian and Justin, indeed quote almost all the books of the N. T. with the exception of the Apocalypse : but the embodying of the several books into one volume, was not thought of till the third century. IV. Since the copies that were made, were made by the Christians themselves, among whom there were few who had been regularly educated, it is not to be wondered at if they abounded in errors of orthography, or were in other respects faulty ; the substantial sense of the text being, however, always preserved, with which these simple and uneducated men were contented. Nor had they among them professional grammarians to whom they might give their copies for correction.* * Add also, that on account of the contempt and persecu- tions under which the church then suffered, these copies were made clandestinely. Hence we may infer the origin and causes of erroneous readings. V. The second century certainly produced Christians who had been regularly educated, as Justin, Pantcenus, Clemens, and others ; but these were rather philosophers than gram- marians, and better qualified to write books than to correct them. It appears also, that AND THEIR APPLICATION. 93 about tins time the several books of the New Testament began to be embodied, as IrencRus^ Clemens Alex., and Tertullian quote nearly all of them." " The first of these was ignorant of Hebrew : the second was the instructor of Clemens and a Stoic. Neither of them was quahfied to correct the text of the New Testa- ment. The reader may note how the representations of Justin in his dialogue with Trypho, respecting the Magi coming from Damascus to Bethlehem, diflfer from the ac- count given by St. INlatthew. VI. Origen, in the third century, was the first who undertook, from a comparison of nu- merous ancient manuscripts, to make a selec- tion of the best readings, and thus to form a pure and uncorrupted text. There can be lit- tle doubt, from the authority which his recen- sion held, both in the Greek and Latin church, that this learned father applied his knowledge of criticism, and his familiarity with the old copies, to a useful and successful result. It has been argued, though without sufficient proof, that he sometimes introduced conjectural emen- dations into the text.^ For these emendations, which are proposed in his Commentaries, were not inserted in the text. See my Disp. de Origene interp. SS. librorum grammaticse aiic- tore, § 16, 17, 20. 94 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, ^ Origen, however, cannot be completely acquitted of an immoderate fondness for emendation. See, for example, Matt. viii. 28, where he is said to have substituted Ta^yiffyivuv for ra5«^-/5v&?v ; and John i. 28. B>j^a?a^a for Bn^avia, in both cases erroneously. See Huetii Origeniana iii. ch. 2. [Tipyia-'/ivav not Ta^ysffyivuv is the conjecture of Origen. For a full consideration of this reading, see Marsh's Mi- chaelis, II. 397) seq., and for his attempted emendation of John i. 28, see the same, p. 399. In this last case, however, Origen seems to have had a more probable ground of con- jecture : for there was a Bethany near Jerusalem, and no other that we read of elsewhere. The addition beyond Jordan would mark a diversity of places with the same name, if those places were cities or large towns, but not if the place intended were a village. Thus we say Neivcastle on Tyne, as distinguished from Newcastle under Line ; but when we say Triimpington near Cambridge, we do not im- ply the existence of any other place with the same name. Had there been a city called Bethany beyond Jordan, it seems scarcely probable that it should have been so utterly annihilated and forgotten, as to have escaped the researches of so intelligent a traveller as Origen. For a comparison of the readings of Origen with those of Codex L. see Griesbach's Symb. Crit. T. I. p. Ixxvii. seq. ErnestVs tract de Origene Interp. &c. has been translated by Mr. R. B. Patton, and printed in Hodge's Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. New York, 1827.] VII. Copies of Origen's recension being deposited in the celebrated Csesarean Library, became the exemplar by which other copies were tried and corrected, (see ch. i. § 17,) and many transcripts were made from them in the time of EuseUusy and afterwards, (see ch. ii. § AND THEIR APPLICATION. 95 16.) Almost all the more learned Fathers, and celebrated interpreters of the Greek Church, followed this text, and among the Latins, Je- rome ; so that Origen may justly be reckoned the parent of the pure Oriental Greek text. Nor is it clearly ascertained, that any one after him undertook and accomplished the labour of a like recension. For the manuscripts of Pie- rius and Pamj^hihis^ so highly praised by the ancients, were, without doubt, copies of Origen's recension, carefully written out by those per- sons. This is proved with respect to Pam- pliilus, by Euthalius^ in the subscription to Epp. Cathol., p. 513. VIII. In the same century, but towards the end of it, and subsequent to Orirjen^ we are informed by Jerome (Prsef in iv. Evang.) that Lucian of Antioch, and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, made a new recension of the text, and laboured also on the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Jerome, however, thought very meanly of their copies ; " I omit," says he, " those copies named after Lucian and Hesychius, which the contentious perversity of some men is in the habit of referring to ; nor were they successful in their emendations of the New Testament." As, however, the Hesy- chian text of the Septuagint was generally 96 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, received by the Alexandrines, and in Egypt, so also his text of the New Testament is believed to have had considerable currency. Hence, it is called by some the Alexandrine text : and TVetstein, i. 69, observes, that the glosses of Hesy chilis, which relate to the New Testament, agree with its readings. The same may have been the case with Lucian's text, in the countries where his emended text of the Septuagint was received, as in Syria. And the prevalent dislike to Origen, might have a further efficacy in this matter. ^ y See a learned dissertation on this subject in Hug's In- troduction, I. 176, 198. IX. We must not, however, suppose that either countries or individuals, restricted them- selves to particular copies of the New Testa- ment, any more than they had done in the case of the Old Testament. We have seen that Euthalius, an Egyptian, visited Ccesarea, in order to correct his copy by the text of Origen; and afterwards the Syrian author of the new version, collected copies of Origen's recension. And thus the readings of various recensions might be mingled together, as it is evident was done in the case of the Old Tes- tament. In all ages then, even after the la- AND THEIR APPLICATION. 97 boors of Orlgen, the existence of various read- ings is mentioned by many, as Chrysostom^ Theophylact, CEcumenius, and others. X. These manuscripts, however, and those derived from them, with greater or less degrees of accuracy, still substantially retained the verity of the original Greek. But a new class of manuscripts afterwards arose, of which, as we have before observed, many very ancient copies still exist, in which the Greek text was in many places altered or interpolated into conformity with the Latin version. Mill in his Proleg. n. 378, and JVetstein, i. 79,^ have repeated the well known remark of Epipkanius and TertuUian, that this practice was first in- troduced with a bad design by Marcion. But the orthodox themselves soon began to follow the same system, either through ignorance, or a servile submission to the Romans,^ (see chap, ii. § J 6), or from other causes. For that the Romans may have thought this submission reasonable, is very possible ; nor will it appear extraordinary to those who judge of human nature by the experience of facts. The ortho- dox Greeks, who were ignorant of Hebrew, were fully persuaded that the Greek version of the Old Testament, which they had received from their Fathers, was more pure than the H 98 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, Hebrew text : and the Latins considered it a heavy crime in Jerome^ that he had dared to correct the Latin version of the Old Testament by the Hebrew, rendering it thereby very different from their copies which adhered close- ly to the Greek. Hilary^ a Roman deacon, or whoever was the author of the Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, usually published with the works of Ambrose^ sometimes, as at Rom. V. 14, directly requires that the Greek should be corrected by the Latin. Jerome^ however, the most learned of the Latins, and Augustine^ are of another and sounder opinion. See the Prsef. ad iv. Evang. of the former, and Doct. Christ, ii. 13, and De Pecc. mere, et remiss, i. 11, of the latter. They hold that the Latin copies ought to be corrected in con- formity with the Greek verity. ' See Loeffier's Dissertation, Marcionem Pauli epistolas et Ijucas evangelium adulterasse dubitatur. Utrecht 17^8. ^ [For arguments against the existence of this servile sub- mission, or Foedus cum Latinis as it is usually called, see Marsh's Michaelis, II. IC.'J, seq., and Griesbach's Symb. Crit. I. 110. seq.] XL It is clear, then, that those copies which we call purely Greek, are to be preferred to those which follow the Latin version, from AND THEIR APPLICATION. 99 many arguments, and especially from this, that it is as clear as the sun, that many of the read- ings in which the Latin differs from the Greek, arose partly from ignorance of the old Greek character, and of the contractions usual in the old manuscripts, partly from ignorance of the language, and partly from the carelessness by which words or clauses were omitted. Nor is the force of this argument weakened by any Latin manuscript, however ancient, as the His- palensis in Gothic characters, which Mariana long ago boasted of, in his Prsef. Schol. V. et N. T., and which Blaiicliini extols, as contain- ing the genuine version of Jerome.^ For, like other ancient copies, it contains traces of the original purity, and departs from the ordinary Latin copies in many remarkable readings : and even if*xlid contain the version of Jerome in its purity, still it could not outweigh the authority of the Greek text, for the reasons mentioned above, ch. iv. § 18. It is an old invention of the heretics, to prefer versions, especially the Latin version, to the original Greek ; and to speak of the Greek text as cor- rupted, in order to heighten the credit of the Latin. Jerome, with great justice, reproves Helvidius for this error, and his arguments are very properly approved of even by H. ISinion, 100 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, Hist. Crit. ch. vi. The argument, Lowever, o{ Jerome, that the fountain must necessarily be purer than the stream, is not sufficient; for it may properly be enquired, whether the foun- tain itself be pure. We must not, however, go so far as to hold that no good readings are retained in the Latin, and that its critical au- thority is absolutely nothing. On this head some remarks were made in the last chapter ; and the subject will be resumed in the next. *• Jerome asserts that he sent a copy of his version, both of the Old and New Testament, to a friend in Batic Spain. There is still extant in the church of Seville (Hispalis,) a copy of the whole New Testament in Gothic letters, pre- sented to the church, as appears from the subscription, in 991, at which time it was reckoned an ancient copy. It contains good readings; for example in John vii. 3^, it ha& ^ not datus ; in Rom. v. 14, it has, qui pcccarunt sicut Adaniy omitting the negative, and thereby favouring the doctrine of Pelagius. Augustine blames this omission : the strenuous defenders of this manuscript, ought, therefore, to pay some respect to the opinion of him whom they acknowledge as a Father. [The translator can make nothing of the reference to John vii. 34, and takes for granted that the verse intended is 39, where datus occurs in the Vulgate text. This is one instance out of a hundred, where he has had to correct the references of the notes or text, and often like this, when neither lexicon nor concordance could direct him aright.] XII. Since vestiges of the pure Greek text are supposed to exist in the writings of the Fathers of the primitive church, who used AND THEIR APPLICATION. 101 copies containing it; a good interpreter must necessarily understand the method of properly- investigating their writings for the discovery of these readings. And in doing this, we must attend to the distinctions of age^ learning^ hooks, and finally oi particular passages in those books. For this is manifest, that greater weight ought to be given to the Greek Fathers than to the Latin ; and that among the Latin, those deserve the most attention, who appear to have under- stood Greek, and to have been in the habit of consulting Greek copies, such as Jerome, and a few others.*^ In the rest of the Latins, we must rather look for the readings of the Latin version. '^ Among whom we may class Hilary of Poitou, who took his citations from Origen. Augustine and Ambrose were but indifferent scholars. XIIL First then, we may observe, that au- thorities ought to weigh in proportion to their antiquity. And here we have reason to regret, that so few monuments of the twb first centu- ries remain to us ; and that in these there is little which can safely be applied to the pur- pose which we have now in view. For those writings which bear the names of fathers of the first century, are either manifestly spurious,^ ]02 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, or SO interpolated, as to be unworthy of our confidence in any part; or else the passages of the New Testament, which they contain, are quoted carelessly, and not for the purpose of being interpreted. And nearly the same may be said respecting those of the second century. For the Hypotyposes of Clemens Alexandrinus, in which P/wtius, (Cod. 109,) informs us he had examined passages both of the Old and New Testament, have been almost entirely lost. In his other writings, indeed, there are passages which show the nature of the copy he used, and which give us reason to believe that it was partially interpolated from the Scholia. Justin has few quotations, and those only from the Gospels : while the works of Irenceiis exist only in Latin, and the quotations are made from the Latin version.® See Mill's Proleg. n. 366. "* As the Avri tings of Clemens Romanus, Barnabas, and Ignatius, with the Apostolic Constitutions. [But the reader will do well to examine this mattei- more particularly. The first Epistle of Clemens to the Corinthians is almost uni- versally acknowledged genuine, though some suppose it to have been partially corrupted. See WotfoJi^s Obs. in his edition of Clemens, Camb. 1718. Nor are the works of Ignatius so universally discredited as Dr. Ammon implies. Seven of his Epistles are generally admitted to be genuine. See J. A. Fabricius Bibl. Grsec. Lib. v. c. i. p. 38-47] AND THEIR APPLICATION. 103 ' We have suffered much in the loss of IrencBus' work on Heresies, in which many passages from the Apocalypse, and the 2d Epistle of Peter, were quoted. Fragments only of it are to be found in Epiphanius. XIV. With respect to learning^ we must take care to follow those among the Fathers who were well instructed, and who applied themselves diligently to the grammatical in- terpretation of Scripture. XV. With respect to the several classes of books, commentaries hold the first place ; and in them those passages are most deserving of the attention of the critic which treat of single words ; and which shew, without ambiguity, what the writer found in his copy ; for some- times nothing more than the general meaning of the passage is treated of. Upon a level with commentaries, are those writers who, in treating of dogmas, controversies, or any matters relat- ing to religion, interpret Scripture in proof of their argument, or deduce consequences from it, or refute erroneous interpretations, in such a way as to shew what was the reading which they found in their manuscripts. Still more valuable are those who expressly quote or defend the readings of ancient manuscripts. And in this point of view, the writings of he- retics and unbelievers may be applied to the J 04 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, support of the true reading. Thus when Julian objects ag-ainst the Christians/ that John calls Jesus "koyov ^£ov, and again that he calls him God; all must see that the reference is to 1 John V. 20. There are more passages of the same kind in the fragments of Julian, preserved by Ci/ril, which I do not find to have been noticed by learned men. ''See Cyrilli Alexandrini opp. ed. Auberti. vi. 327, and also his work against Julian, Lib. x. at the beginning. [Ernestisays, "quod ad 1, Johann. v. extr. pertinere omnes vident." The translator has supplied the number of the rerse to which he supposed the author to refer. The first expression of Julian, the Xoyov B-iov as clearly refers to John XVI. But this reference to the Fathers must be made with a cautious regard to many cir- cumstances. For, Jirst, when the text is in- serted in a commentary, we must examine whether it has been edited from a manuscript or from a printed copy ; as in the printed com- mentaries of O^cumenius, it is tolerably clear that the text has been inserted by Morell from the printed text of Erasmus ; and secondly, we must examine in those passages where the words of Scripture are simply quoted, on what grounds the editor has proceeded ; whether he has \r\\Qr\ them from an ancient manuscript, AND THEIR APPLICATION. 105 or from a printed copy, as we know has fre- quently been done.^ s Especially in the sixteenth century, when, in the editions of the Fathers, printed at Rome and in France, the text was generally altered into conformity with the Vulgate. XVII. Thirdly^ we must be careful not to conclude rashly from the silence of the Fathers, either in interpreting- or disputing, that they were ignorant of any particular reading, or judged it spurious. For in inrerpretation, it still frequently happens, that many things are omitted, or, at any rate, slightly touched upon ; so that we need not wonder if the same prac- tice prevailed among the ancients. Thus, in Rom. xi. 6, tlie clause « ^s st, IvTizri IcW soyov, is not interpreted by Chrysostom^ in his Com- mentary, nor by any of the Greek Fathers, except Theophylact. And yet it appears from the Catena MS. Augustana, extracts of which are given by Ehinger in his Hist. Eccl. Sec. XV. p. 67*2, that Clvry^ostom had the clause in the copy which he used. Another memor- able example, relating to John v. may be found in Wesseling's Disp. ad Marmor vetus, p. 19. In disputations also, even when managed with the greatest care, all the arguments do not always occur to the mind of the writer, and the 106 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, best known and most suitable sometimes escape his recollection. Thus Chrysostom had the right reading of Rom. ix. 5, and yet he did not use it in his dispute with the Arians. See Mill ad loc. Such omissions might arise from a diversity of interpretation: and, besides, theo- logians are in the habit of quoting certain es- tablished texts, to the omission of others which are more to the purpose.** ^ Yet the common silence of all the Fathers, renders the genuineness of a reading suspicious ; as, for example, the famous text I John v. 7? which is quoted by no Greek Father. XVIII. They, however, are decidedly wrong, who with Whitby, Mcestricht,^ and others, to- tally deny the legitimacy of supplying varieties in the reading, especially important varieties, from the works of the P'athers ; for tiiis can be denied only in those passages where they quote casually and from memory, and where, consequently, doubts may exist as to what read- ing they had in their copies. On the other hand, it is quite absurd to suppose they would give a formal interpretation of that which was not in their copies. Besides, such reasoners do thus unwittingly throw doubts u{)on the genuineness of the Vulgate text, into which it AND THEIR APPLICATION. 107 is clear that some readings were introduced by the earliest editors from the writings of the Fathers. Finally, they themselves, in defend- ing readings, use the testimony of the Fathers, and sometimes it alone, which would be quite futile if they possessed no authority in this matter. Nor is the example of Irenceus fairly produced by Michdelis, de V. L. N. T., § 14, to show that the readings of the Fathers ought to yield to those of manuscripts and versions.'^ For his work does not exist in Greek, nor is it a commentary upon the Scripture. The learned Glasse has pronounced a very sensible judgment on this matter, in his Phil Sac. L. I. Tr. ii., p. i. memb. 3, n. 2; and decides, that where manuscripts oppose each other, the true reading may be determined from the writings of the Greek Fathers.' ' [The translator supposes that the opinions of Mcestricht, on this subject are to be found in his Canon Script. Sac. &c. Jena 17'25. Whitby's are given in his Diss, de S. S. interpretatione secundum Patrum Commentarios, Lond. 1714.] ^ The reverse of this appears from Matt, xviii. 11, which is omitted in some manuscripts ; and yet its genuineness is proved from Chrysostom, Theophylaci, and Euthymius Ziga- benus, who all quote it. ' We may add, that the quotations of the Fathers have critical weight, 1. When they appeal to manuscripts. 2. 108 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, When they subjoin an explanation. 3. When they pro- duce several parallel passages. 4. When the quotation is so long as to render it improbable they quoted by memory. 5. M^hen the same passages are often repeated in the same words. 6. When they are supported by mantiscripts and versions. [Much still remains to be done in critically as- certaining the readings of the Fathers. Griesbach has made an important addition to this branch of the critical appa- ratus, by collating all the passages quoted by Origen and Clemens Alex. See his Symb. Crit. II. 229, to the end.] XIX. So much respecting the critical use of the works of the Fathers : we have now, as was proposed, to speak of their hermeneutical application. And, as our first object in this book is to lay down grammatical principles of interpretation, so is it clear that the writings of the Fathers ought to be in the first place applied to this purpose. Not that we would despise their allegorical system, provided it be managed with sobriety and modesty ; but as it cannot be called interpretation, it should be reserved for popular addresses.™ " [It must, however, be kept in mind, that a preacher cannot conscientiously give an allegorical interpretation of a passage of Scripture, unless he is convinced that such an interpretation was in the mind of the sacred writer. The existence of such an intention must be ascertained upon grammatical grounds ; and the only legitimate difference between a Scholastic interpretation and a popular discourse is, that in the latter we may state merely the results, while AND THEIR APPLICATION, 109 in the former we must state tbe steps by which we have arrived at them.] XX. Origen gave the first example of gram- matical interpretation, worthy of a scholar and theologian, as appears from his Scholia, and other books, especially that entitled c/y/xg/wcs/g ; and that, almost everything valuable in this branch of letters, which was possessed by the ancient church, originated with him, has been proved by induction in my Disp. de Origene, &c., § 27, 28, 29. It must be allowed, how- ever, that something was added to the labours of Origen, by the talents, learning, and ac- curacy of his successors. XXL Nor, in the present day, ought we to despise that which the ancient church pos- sessed from the system started by Origen; nor are the writers who followed him to be neglected for the sake of novelties. For all that the present age possesses in this matter, beyond what was possessed by the ancient church, is not much in quantity, nor of very high importance : and we often see interpre- tations praised as being new, which are in reality of a very old standing." Besides many passages which the early church, from its fa- 110 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, miliarity with the genius of the Greek lan- guage, interpreted rightly, have been mis- taken by modern interpreters, misled by the errors or ambiguities of versions. Wesseling in his Disp. ad Marmor vet. p. 21, has clearly shown this respecting the Census in Luke ii. 1, 2. Examples may also be found in my Disp. de Origene, and in other writers. ° Thus TTiffTiv 'Tu^i^itv Acts xvii. 31, was explained by Chrysostom and Theophylact, fidem facere, to give a con- vincing proof : so that they judge rashly who consider this as a new interpretation. XXII The student, therefore, must make himself acquainted not only with those com- mentaries of the ancients which relate to gram- matical interpretation, and which will be enu- merated elsewhere ; but also with those of the allegorical, dogmatic, and controversial classes, which may throw light upon the interpretation. And in the use of these, he ought particularly to consult those passages in which difficult texts are handled ; and either vindicated from objections, or by argument applied to the il- lustration or demonstration of some point of doctrine. Luther, in his Epistles, i. 27, says with truth, that Jerome interprets Scripture AND THEIR APPLICATION. Ill better when he does it casually, as in his Epis- tles, than when he ^tpplies himself professedly to interpretation. ° ° We may illustrate the remark of Luther by two ex- amples. In Matt. vi. 11. Jerome renders Wioua-tovfuturumj crastimum "T)nD DHS which form Matthew himself had used. In Gal. v. 12, aToxo-^ovrai r. %. Ti^iKOTTiff^ucrav. is excellently explained by Jerome, " si enim exspoliatio mem- bri proficit, quanto magis abscissio." Neither of these pas- sages require any further explanation. [Certainly these in- terpretations admit of some question ; for how did Jerome^ or how can Dr. Ammon know what form Matthew used, sup- posing him to have written in Hebrew. As to Gal. v. 12, Jerome's interpretation is also that of Chrysostom, Theo- doret^ and Theophylact. Koppe renders the clause, non modo circumcidant se, sed, si velint etiam mutilent se. Compare Philipp. iii. 2, 3. Both the syntax, and the use of the word aTrox-oTTidoci are of very difficult interpretation. Koppe ob- serves, that 'd(piXov is no where else joined to an indicative : but see 2 Cor. xi. 1. o^iXov avu^iffSi.'] XXIII. Nor will it be without its use, to examine carefully the sense in which the Greek Fathers use expressions borrowed from Scrip- ture, as this may throw light upon the Scrip- ture itself. Of this class many may be found, as I have before mentioned, by the misappre- hension of which men give themselves much unnecessary trouble, or by wandering from the true sense are thrown into difficulties and dis- putes. It will be sufficient to produce a few 112 WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS, examples. It is clear that Clemens Rom, in his Ep. I. p. m. 53, uses -/.avovcc to express the limits of an office or province : and this he borrows from 2 Cor. x. 13. The same Father, p. 20, in the words 'iricoZg h-o% jjX^si/ b xIim'ttu) akaZoviiag, hvh\ V'7rs^r,(paviag, xa/crs^ dvvd/Mivog, d7^Xa ra'7rsivo(p^ovuv, explains Philipp. ii. 6, 7.p Ci/ril of Jerusalem, Cat. xi. p. m. 222, referring to 1 Cor. ii. 10, says "^i so't'/v 'irzoo]i yhuGxov rd /3aS?j roD 0£oD. Whence it is clear that Igeuvai/ in the Epistle has no emphatic force : and Clemens, Ep. i. p. 52, renders it by syz-J'TrTeiv lyTtsKvipoTig stg rd (3d^r} rrig %iag 'yvu)gsug ; which also shows, that by (3d'^rj he understood the Gospel, as con- taining- the mystery of God, his hitherto con- cealed will respecting the salvation of mankind. The same Cyrlll, Cat. xvi. p. 429, renders cvyx^mtv, 1 Cor. ii. 13, to interpret, which has not been understood by Prevost ; and explains many other words of Scripture in other places. In the Epist. Cone. Ephes. ad Imp. in the Acta. Cone. p. 296, we read [J^^rd r:d5ffxg/ag s-s-g/A^/a/Agj/,*! loith most devoted sentiments of piety towards thee, from Coloss. ii. 23. The reader, for additional examples, may consult Fromau's Obs. ad N. T. e. Clemente Roman. P Cyrill, Ed. Helmstadt. p. 42, calls man as formed by God, Twj UKovoi ahrov ;^;aoa«T>j^, which illustrates, 1 1 el), i. AND THEIR APPLICATION. 113 3. [No further than it is illustrated by Gen. i. 26. The idea in both cases seems that of delegated, and consequently representative authority ; that of Adam being over the in- ferior animals, that of the man Christ Jesus over all things in heaven and in earth.] 1 [Rendered in our version ivill-worship : but its connex- ion with croiptcc and TccTuvoip^offuv'/i, shews that it is to be taken in a good sense.] XXIV. In consulting the Fathers for pur- poses of interpretation, two errors must be avoided : first, we must be careful not to ima- gine that no interpretation is admissible which is not to be found in their works, which seems to be the opinion of those who hold that no new interpretation can be discovered : and next, we must avoid that common inconsistency, of assenting or dissenting from the opinion of antiquity, just as it happens to coincide with, or to oppose our own. See Wesseling^s Disp. ad Marmor. Vet. de P. S. Quirini censu. p. 21, 22. 114 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE CHAPTER VI. OF THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE OF VARIOUS READINGS. I. Having treated of the use of manuscripts and printed editions, of versions, and the writings of the Fathers, it remains for us to consider the subject of various readings, which can be pro- perly treated only when a previous knowledge of these subjects has been acquired."^ ' The subject of this chapter is the theory of sacred criti- cism, which they who are familiar with the labours of Sem- ler, Michaelis, Griesbach, Hug, and others, will easily be able to form. We shall endeavour to add a few observa- tions in the notes, which may be useful to the clear concep- tion of the subject. [Semler in his Notes and Appendix to Wetstein's Proleg. Halle 17'>4, and Apparatus ad liberalem N. T. interpretationem, 17G7; Michaelis, (C. B.) in his tractatio critica de variis Lectionibus N. T. ; Griesbach in his Symbola Critica, and Prefaces to N. T. ; Hug in his In- troduction, F. 437, seq.] n. If the autographs of the Apostles still remained, or if there existed but one ancient OF VARIOUS READINGS. 115 manuscript, without either ancient versions or commentaries, in either case there could be no such thing as varieties in the readings. Of these suppositions, however, the former coukl not have happened without miracle ; the latter it would be madness to wish for. And yet those do seem to wish for it, who, from the time of Erasmus down to the present day, have set themselves against the collection of various readings, through ignorance of the real nature and effects of biblical criticism. III. But now, when so many manuscripts exist of the sacred books, written at different times, many of them in barbarous ages, by men little skilled in Greek; for even women (Euseb. vi. 3,) and Latin copyists wrote Greek copies ; when, moreover, so many ancient ver- sions and commentaries, treating of the words of these books, are extant ; and finally, so many printed editions; it must follow of necessity, that there are more various readings of the New Testament than of any other ancient book whatever. But that all these in no de- gree detract from their integrity, has been already shown.^ ^ Various readings existed so early as the time of Clemens Alexandrinus, for he mentions two readings of 2 Cor. v. 3, \vbvffu,iJ.i\ioi and lK^ticrtx.f/.ivoi. (Ecumenius who took his read- 116 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE ings from ancient copies, notices on 1 Cor. xv. 51, that in some copies lu is placed before aXXay^fra^sS^a, and suppress- ed before xotiJi,Yt^ri!rofjt,i^ot,. IV. We have therefore to oppose not only the objections of Atheists and Deists, but also the ignorance of well meaning men, which sometimes operates in the same direction. In this last class we may notice Whitby, the eager antagonist of Mill, who treated the whole sub- ject with great weakness, and as far as in him lay, introduced a scepticism most favourable to the views of the Romanists. It is indeed wonderful that his book and its object could ever receive the 'approbation of good men ; and, as Pfaff well observes, that men should have been found in an enlightened age, capable of venting such silly objections against the va- rious readings collected by Mill ; whereas they ought to have joined the learned and pious Bengel, in acknowledging the inestimable bene- fit which Mill had bestowed upon the Church. But the same age is not equally bright in every department of letters : and the theology preva- lent at the beginning of last century, being principally dogmatic and scholastic, was little adapted for aj^plication to sacred criticism.* ' See Griesbacirs Prfpf. at N. T. Vol. I. p. V>\\ se.j. l^Vhitby opi)Osed Mill in his Exameu variantiuin lectiouum OF VARIOUS READINGS. 117 J. JMillii in N. T. opera et studio Dan. Whitby, London 1710. It was reprinted with an introduction by Haver- camp at Ijyden 1733. Pfaff's work is entitled, Diss, critica de genuinis N. T. lectionibus, in his Syntagma Diss. Theol. Stutgardt 1720.] V. From what has been already said, it will be clear that the sources of various readings are four in number ; and that they originate from manuscripts^ from ancient versions^ from the quotations of the Fathers, or from printed edi- tions. Of the nature and history of each of these sources, enough has been said in pre- ceding chapters. VI. Of various readings, as they originate from manuscripts, there are many causes. The first and most extensive is the carelessness or ignorance of copyists. For when a book was copied by dictation, the dictator sometimes pronounced the letters indistinctly, or run the words into one another, and the writer heard imperfectly what was dictated to him : or if the copyist wrote even from a good manuscript laid before him, he sometimes omitted or trans- posed words, or joined or divided them impro- perly ; he substituted familiar ideas for those which he did not understand, and introduced glosses and scholia into the text, and thus many errors and various readings were intro- 118 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE diiced into their copies." If the reader wishes to see this subject fully examined and illus- trated, he may consult L,e Clcrds Ars. Critica, p. iii. sect 1 , or Pfuff^ de Var. Lect. N. T., who has drawn his materials from Le Clerc, or, above all, Michaelii treatise with same title. " Other sources of various readings may easily be pointed out by any one accustomed to the examination of manu- scripts. [The recurrence of the same word or syllable is a common source of error. Thus in the Nov. Test. Kop- pianum, Rom» xi. 22, instead of l^rJ 1>\ ai ^^^nffromra, lav Wifiiivn; T>j ^^mrToryiTi, appears Wi 5s tr\ ^^vnrrorrsTu This omission is found in the editions of 1806 and 1824. For similar sources of error in IManuscripts, see Griesbach's Proleg. N. T. I. Sec. iii. § 9, 10.] VII. Another source of error has been the rashness and ignorance of correctors^ of which even Origen had reason to complain on Matt, chap. xix. For they were in the habit of changing, correcting, or interpreting, whatever appeared to them obscure, harsh, superfluous, ill-arranged, or omitted, and finally, whatever they thought adverse to sound doctrine, and favourable to the opinions of heretics ; and thus for many reasons they ventured to interpolate the text.^ In this the Latins were most faulty, who even interpolated their Greek copies from the Latin version, as has been before observed. OF VARIOUS READINGS. 119 See on this subject Pfaif, c. x., and Michaelis, §7. ^ In 3Iatt. xxvii. 16, 17, the reading was "I'/iirovs BappaCa;. "Itktovs was omitted from a mistaken scruple of applying it to a bad man. [Griesbach, however, does not admit 'Inffov; either into the text or margin-] In Mark xi. 32, for \(poQovvTo, some over zealous Grammarian inserted (poiovfMv [or rather (poSodfu^a, see Griesbach ad loc] In 1 Tim. iv. 3, they misinterpreted ^tsXswovrwv and v. 3, XH"-^' Other additions may be found in Matt. xx. 28. Mark xvi. 8, 14 ; Luke vi. 5, and omissions in Matt. vi. 13, xvi. 2, 3, Mark xvi. 9 — 25; Luke xxii. 42, 44; John viii. 1 — 11. [Respecting the Latin interpolations, see the contrary opinion of Griesbach, Proleg. in N. T. I. Sec. iii. § 15, and in Symb. Crit. I. 100. Woide in Pref. to Codex Alex- andrinus, and the latest opinion of J. D. Michaelis, Intro- duction 11- 1G3, seq.] VIII. Next, we may reckon the impiety of heretics and impostors, which, however, has seldom done much harm, as the impudence of their corruptions was too palpable. See Mill, Proleg. n. 306, and PfafF, c. ll.y And even those who, without any intention of altering the text, introduced scholia or glosses between the lines, or in the margin, for the use of the unlearned, or for their own, did thereby give occasion to the introduction of spurious read- ings, as their glosses were, through ignorance, admitted into the text. That this reallv took 120 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE place at a very early period, may be proved by satisfactory testimony. y Thus Epiphanius witnesses that Marcion, from his hoe?- tilitv to the Mosaic law, changed Matt. v. 11, into a con- trary sense. See Mill, Proleg. § 328, 300. IX. There are various principles upon which readings may he estimated. For they may be considered either abstractedly in themselves, or judged according to their origin. When they are considered in themselves, we have to estimate either the weight (gravitas), or the goodness of the reading. For, not to speak of minutige, such as articles, pronouns, and the order of words, some readings are clearly, both as to the words and the sense, upon an equality : some are equal only in the sense, while the expression in the one is more accurate or ele- gant than that in the other : some again differ as to the sense, either by a different choice of words, or by the addition or omission of ideas.^ ^ As examples of each class we have, 1st. Luke i. 42, where some copies read u,vi(puvn(n, others a.viSot} As in profane Greek literature, Stobceus, Atherueus, Pausanias, are applied to emend the text of the Tragedians and others, so in the New Testament we use the writings of the Fathers. XVI. Having settled these points, it re- mains that we should demonstrate the use of various readings^ and so of the whole critical apparatus treated of in this and the preceding chapters, by certain observations or canons as they are usually called. They may be applied in two ways, that is, either critically or her- meneutically. XVII. The critical application consists in the choice of various readings : and this ought to be made with so much greater care and modesty than in other books, as the sacredness and importance of the subject fully demands a higher degree of reverence. On this account, therefore, it is the more necessary that it should be guarded by written canons. XVIII. Such canons are superfluous in the opinion of those who hold that the I'cceived text is in no case to be deserted.* But such men scarcely know what they affirm, for they can scarcely say what is the received text, OF VARIOUS READINGS. 127 unless they choose to apply that term to the Elzevir edition, which, through ignorance, has become a standard. In the next place, they attribute infallibility to men, some of whom they would class among heretics, by whom readings have been inserted from mere con- jecture, or from the Latin version, as we have before shown, and as Bengel has proved by many examples, p. 436, 437. ' In every branch of letters, weak minds have always scrupled to depart from received opinions. We need not wonder therefore, if Theologians, accustomed to bow to au- thority, have defended inveterate errors in the criticism of the New Testament. What sense, for instance, is afforded in Acts iii. 12, by Ivindicc, which is still retained in the best editions. 'E^ouffiu ought to be restored, as Semler has re- marked ; not to mention other texts. [Yet it would be dif- ficult to construct a Canon which would authorize the in- sertion of \%ovffia which Griesbach does not consider even as a probable reading. If wickedness was considered as a reason why a man could not have miraculous powers, John ix. 24, piety might, by parity of reason, be supposed a reason for its being granted.] XIX. The proper enunciation of such canons is no easy task; nor can any canon be so enun- ciated as to be universally applicable, or which can ever be applied without great caution. And this difficulty arises, partly from the very nature of criticism, in which we have to deal 128 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE not with certainties, but with probabilities ; and partly from the peculiarity of the diction used by the inspired writers.^ For as their style is very far from being strictly grammati- cal, it cannot be judged by the ordinary rules laid down by grammarians. ^ Criticism may with more ease be applied to the writings of Cicero on account of their rhetorical accuracy, than to those of Pliny ; and we may apply general rules more con- fidently to the emendation of the text of Xenophon and Thucydides, than to that of Polybius, [because we know better the rules of the Attic dialect, than of the Macedo- XX. Some critical canons, therefore, which may safely be applied to other books, must be reversed when applied to the New Testament. As for example, that canon generally reckon- ed the most certain, which asserts that of two readings, we ought to prefer that which is most consistent with grammatical accuracy. XXI. In stating critical canons, though it be impossible to embrace every thing, or to satisfy the wishes of all ; yet we may and ought to lay down some rules with greater care than has yet been bestowed upon the subject:' as I have already shown in my Disp. de Interpr. Grammat. N. T. § 8, 9. I shall, therefore, attempt to include the whole subject in a few OF VARIOUS READINGS. 129 observations, by aid of which the student may be enabled to estimate readings with modera- tion and diligence. • As in the Canons of Maestricht, prefixed to his edition of N. T. and those of Pfaff (de Var. Lect. N. T.) The subject, however, has since that time been much better treated by Wetstein, Seniler, Griesbach, and Hug. XX II. In estimating readings, we must at- tend to their antiquity^ their goodness, and their truth, so as to judge no reading true but one which is both ancient and good. The con- verse, however, does not hold good, as we are not warranted in supposing every ancient and good reading to be true. For there are often several readings of the same passage, all an- cient and good, which yet cannot all be true : and varieties began to exist so early as the second century, nor do the Fathers always dare to decide between them, but prefer rather to explain both readings, as Chrysostom on 2 Cor. V. 3. XXIII. If one reading be both ancient and good, as 'Tr^oTirayiJjhoug Acts xvii. 26. hsy.o^i, Gal. V. 7, it ought to be preferred to others deficient in either of these qualities. If of two readings equally ancient, one be better than the other, as ^sos, I Tim. iii. 16, 'Tr^ox/.iajv, ib. V. 21, it ought to be received ; and of several 130 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE equally good, the more ancient is to be pre- ferred as hwKCL^oLT^i^di^ 1 Tim. vi. 5.™ "* [Of these readings preferred by Ernesti, two are rejected by Griesbach, who reads T^otmrayfitvo; in Acts xvii. 26, and OS in 1 Tim. iii. 16. The question respecting this last reading is a very entangled one, and the different decisions of Ernesti and Griesbach appear to arise from their differ- ent notions of the probability attached to goodness, that is, to the grammatical purity of a reading. Compare § x. and the Canons of Griesbach given in Note b.] XXIV. Between readings which are equally ancient and good, we must decide partly by books, and partly by grammatical rules. The evidence of books must be weighed according to the rules laid down in § 11, 12, 14: the grammatical rules we shall consider in the fol- lowing sections. XXV. Readings which are difficult, un- usual, and, if we maybe allowed the expression, far-fetched, are to be preferred to those which are plain, usual and direct, as hXyi^ui^rifi^ev^ Eph. i. 11. Thus also we prefer those readings, which, at first sight, seem least correct, either in the sentiment, as o ogy/^o.agi/og ru ddiXftp, Matt. V. 22, ouToo yd^ ?Jv 'TTvsvfxu, John vii. 39, and cuvstdfiffii 1 Cor. viii. 7, where most copies read Gwri^iia, from the greater easiness of its inter- pretation ; or in the grammatical form, as e/^wj OF VARIOUS READINGS. 131 for /5wi/, Mark xii. 28, wj havrov for asavrhv, Gal. v. 14, s'xsrs for £%o/Asi/, 1 Tliess. iv. 9. And the rea- son for this preference is, that the copyist might be tempted to alter the former class of readings into the latter, but could have no temptation to alter in the contrary direction. Thus Gerhard, in his Loci Theologici de Resurrectione, § I]?, follows Erasmus, on 1 Cor. xv. 51, who, on this principle, defends the reading of the Greek text." " [That is, -rdvTis fiiv oh xotju,yiS'/]trofci$x' yrxvrts ^£ aXXa- •yritrofii^a, in preference to *«vt£j f/,iv Koifinaou-Ja.' iv fuins Ti a.>.Xa,yri(TOf^iSa.. This last reading was adopted by Jerome, and is continued in the modern Vulgate, Omnes quidem re- surgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur.] XXVI. That reading ought to be preferred which is most in analogy with the practice of the author. Thus, in the New Testament, a reading which is Hebraistic, ought to be pre- ferred to one purely Greek, because the latter may have been interpolated by a Greek copyist, the former could not.° ° Thus in Ep. Jude 1. riyienrf^ivois is a better reading than ^yaT'/if/ivois, as being more consistent with the practice of the Apostles in the introductions to their epistles. In Acts xvii. 26, i^ Ivo; alifiaro; is better than l| ho;, (though this occurs in Rom. ix. 10,) because it is more close to the He- brew idiom. 132 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE XXVII. Of two readings equal in goodness and antiquity, that is to be preferred which agrees with the quotations of the Fathers, and with the ancient versions. See § 23, 24.P P Thus l/x'? is wanting in Codd. B, 48, 49. Their evi- dence is supported by Justin M. (Apol. I. § 20, p. 24, Ed. Thirlby,) by Tertullian, (Apol. abv. gent. c. 45,) and Je- rome, who testifies that sine causa was not in the ancient copies. Why then should we not reject a superfluous word, foreign to the context, and justly condemned by Eichhorn ? XXVIII. We must be careful not to rest too much upon the authority of manuscripts, certainly not upon that of one or two which we particularly value :^ and we rest too much upon them, w^hen w^e look to them alone, with- out considering the grammatical rules, and the practice of the author. Nor, on the other hand, ought we to rest upon these consider- ations to the neglect of manuscripts ; for, if un- supported by the evidence of manuscripts, they may deceive us ; and a reading may be gram- matically correct which is not the true one. Learned men have erred in both these ex- tremes. •J Thus Grotius and Bengel attrilmte too much weight to the Codices A and B ; Kipling to Codex D ; Matthaei to the testimony of Chrysostom, and tlie Moscow MSS. XXIX. If the subject, the sense, and the OF VARIOUS READINGS. i33 grammar require it, we must not scruple some- times to prefer the authority of the Fathers and ancient versions to that of manuscripts, as all editors have done, some indeed incautiously, and Luther in his version ; and under the same circumstances, we may prefer the readings of modern manuscripts to those of more ancient ones. For these recent manuscripts may have been copied from others both ancient and good."^ ' [We may certainly act thus where the old manuscripts vary among themselves, although none of them should con- tain the reading which we adopt. But, it may be doubted, whether we can with safety ever reject a reading in which all the old manuscripts concur.] XXX. Since the evidence on which a judg- ment of readings must be formed, seldom amounts to certainty, but must be estimated by conjecture and acuteness, we ought to ex- ercise a modesty which will render our failures more excuseable." And now enough has been said respecting the critical use of various read- ings.' • In criticism, the truth often rests upon a single point, and that so small that it may easily escape our notice. The critic therefore ought to exercise modesty in his decisions, and urbanity towards his fellow labourers. 134 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE ' We may, however, add the following rules. 1. Manuscripts, versions, and Fathers which follow the same recension, are all to he considered as constituting only one witness. 2. That reading in which all the recensions agree is the best. 3. When the recensions diflfer, that reading is the more probable, which the best old editions contain. 4. The authority of recensions is determined by the good- ness of their readings upon the whole compared with other manuscripts. Thus, for example, the Alexandrine is better than the Western, though this also is not without good readings. 5. Readings which are found in none of the ancient re- censions, cannot be maintained on the authority of later manuscripts, however numerous. [These rules of Ammon will not be found of easy applica- tion, for the recensions, (see chap. ii. § 9, note t.) are not like our modern stereotype editions, nor are all the IMSS. classed under one recension facsimiles of one another ; and besides, many manuscripts mix the readings of different re- censions. With respect to the third rule, the translator cannot understand what is meant by optimcB editiones anti- que. If the old printed editions are meant, as the Com- plutensian and Erasmian, Ammon differs widely from Griesbach, who holds that these editors possessed few ma- nuscripts, and those of inferior value ; and, moreover, that they did not very well know how to use what they had. If this be not the meaning, the only other sense of editio, makes it synonymous with rccensio. Upon the whole, the reader had better consult Griesbach, Proleg. Sec iii. p. 77 — 81.] XXXI. However desirable it may be that all the reasons of preference should concur in OF VARIOUS READINGS. 135 favour of some one particular reading; yet, since this seldom occurs, we must prefer that reading which is supported by the more nu- merous and more weighty reasons. And, for our guidance in this matter, abstract rules are not sufficient. We must also have experience, so that, by the accurate addition and subtrac- tion of conflicting reasons, we may be able to determine the real preponderance of the evi- dence, and determine accordingly. And to attain this experience, it will be useful to per- use the works of those who have written on biblical criticism with accuracy and circum- spection." " [As the Prolegomena of Mill and Wetstein, BengeVs A pp. Crit. in N. T., GrieshacK's Prolegomena and Sym- bolae Criticae, Wetstein's Libelli ad crisin atque Interp. N. T., Michaelis' Int. Vol. I. Chap. vi. Hm-ne's Int. Vol. II. Chap. 8.] XXXII. There is a use in various readings^ as applicable to interpretation and theology. For sometimes the interpretations of ancient or modern commentators, and the arguments of theological disputants, can neither be de- fended nor refuted, unless we know what read- ing they followed.'^ * Thus the Latin Fathers maintain the universality of the resurrection, from their reading of 1 Cor. xv. 51. [See 136 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE § 25, note n.] \V'ithout a knowledge of the various readings Luther^s version can neither be understood nor defended. Thus in 2 Pet. ii. 13, he has von euerem Al~ mosen, from your charity, reading «y«?ra/j for u-Ta.Ta.is, which reading is preferred by Griesbach. Compare also, Heb. ix. 14, with Luther's translation. XXXIII. They, therefore, have done a use- ful service, who have collected various readings, from the sources already mentioned. The first instance of such a collection worthy of men- tion, (for there already existed something of the same kind in the biblical coUectories,) is that of L. Valla^ who collated three Greek manuscripts for the purpose of correcting the Latin version ; which was also the object of Lucas Briigensis. The desire of publishing the Greek text, and of adding an increased value to each successive edition, gave fresh vigour to this pursuit, which was followed by Erasmus^ who first gave the various readings in notes, and then by R. Stejjhen in his edition of 1550. Curcellceus, however, was the mani instrument of promoting this study, not that he himself produced anything very valuable, though he certainly surpassed all the editors between Stephen and himself: but his edition excited Fell to prepare his new edition with various readings, printed at Oxford 1675, and reprinted by Gregory in 1703, and excited OF VARIOUS READINGS. 137 Mill to set about the preparation of his great work. But besides this, as Curcellseus appear- ed, in his selection of readings, to have fa- voured the Socinians, and was supposed even to have forged readings in their behalf; a new impulse was thus given to the collation of manuscripts, and critical enquiries began to be handled with greater care and accuracy than before. The character of the age also favoured this progress, as criticism in general had become a subject of more careful examina- tion.y J See Wetstein's Proleg. p. 170. Add also, the works of MichaeliSj Semler, Griesbach, Birch, Alter, Matthcei and others. XXXIV. The first rank as a critical edi- tor must be given to J. Mill, who, after the labour of thirty years, completed and published at Oxford in 1707 his great work, containing the text of Elzevir or CurcellcEUs^ with 30,000 various readings and prolegomena of great learning and critical utility. This edition, though it be not without faults, some arising from errors of opinion, such as the too great respect paid to the Latin version, and the Greek manuscripts interpolated from it ; others from oversight, such as the erroneous naming 138 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE of manuscripts, or false references to the Fa- thers or to versions, is still, as Fabricius has justly designated it, a work of admirable in- dustry and judgment. For whereas. Mill often gives a different judgment respecting readings in his Prolegomena from that given in his notes ; this, though it may be inconvenient to the reader, is highly to the credit of his dili- gence : for having read the Histoire Critique of R. Simon during the course of his labours, he thence learned to correct many false views, and ingenuously retracted his errors in the Prolegomena. Whitby's Examen, (see § 4, and note) though its professed object of prov- ing the universal defensibility of the text of Elzevir and CurcellcEUs, gave it favour in the eyes of the ignorant, yet both its object and its execution are justly condemned by the learned. See c. v. § 18, and c. iv. § 29. The canons prefixed to Maestrichfs edition, are formed according to the principles of Whitby, as may easily be seen from comparing them. XXXV. Kuster, Bengel, and Wetstein, must be reckoned as the three next promoters of biblical criticism. For Kuster, in his reprint of Mill's edition, added readings from twelve Greek manuscripts. His merits, however, would have been greater, had he edited the work with OF VARIOUS READINGS. 139 more care, avoided a repetition of the errors of the press, and everywhere corrected or en- larged the notes by the Prolegomena. XXXVI. Bengel, in his Apparatus Criticus, not only gave the readings of fifteen manu- scripts previously uncollated, but also added many from previous editions, together with readings derived from the Fathers and versions; and, by the execution of his work, earned the praise both of diligence and of modesty. His judgment in the choice of readings is not ap- proved of; for he chose as his criterion of the true reading, the agreement of the Codex Alexandrinus with the Latin version ; never suspecting, what is sufficiently evident, that such an agreement argues the interpolation of the manuscript from the version.^ Besides, in opposition to his own rules, he does not give the weight which he ought to grammatical reasons, in judging of the goodness of a read- ing; and often decides in opposition to these, on the authority of manuscripts alone, (see § 23,) and those such as I have described. Thus, in Eph. V. 9, he prefers xa^Tog (pc^rhg, relying upon the latinizing MSS., and still more upon the Latin authorities : not considering that xa^'rhg (p^rhg is a very frigid expression, con- trary to the usage of the sacred writers, and 140 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN AND CHOICE that St. Paul apparently changed the meta- phor by design, and wrote ptup'^rog crvsu/xaro;. Upon the whole, he was deficient in the know- ledge of Greek f and in the various readings he made improper omissions, not to mention other errors. The Apparatus Criticuswas re- printed in 1763, with the addition of several critical tracts ; but in this edition, Bengel neither increased his observations from Wet- stein, Blanchini, Sabatier, and others, nor did he change his judgment respecting the autho- rity of the Alexandrine manuscript. * [The reader will do well to consider the defences of the Alex. MS. against this charge of latinizing, by 3Iichaelis Introd. II. p. 190, and Griesbach Symb. Crit. I. 110, sq.] * Being deficient in profane literature, he entertained false notions respecting the genealogy of manuscripts. He rarely retracted his admitted errors in the Gnomon, and on this account was chastized by Wetstein, Woljius, and Baum- garteru XXXVII. Wetstein, finally, after the la- bour of many years, collated many manuscripts for the first time, and recollated others that had been used before, inspected the versions and quotations of the Fathers, corrected the errors of his predecessors, rendered the use of his various readings more easy, by describing the character and age of the manuscripts which OF VARIOUS READINGS. 141 he used, and thus carried off the palm from all who had gone before him. His judgment of readings is also to be approved, having been guided by pure Greek copies uninterpolated from the Latin, and by the quotations of the Greek Fathers.** In some places, however, he allowed himself to be misled by the desire of supporting his opinion respecting the divinity of Christ. On this account he has been just- ly reprehended by Venema in his Exerc. de vera Divinitate Christi, and by myself in my Castigationes Wetsten. in which I have also remarked some other points, which need not be repeated here. He is also to be blamed for not having procured and inserted the va- rious readings of the Vatican manuscript. ^ It ought to be mentioned among the merits of Wetstein, that he seldom or never relies upon conjecture. In using versions, especially the Oriental ones, he trusts too much to the accuracy of tlie Latin translation ; he often errs in his references to the Fathers, and utters opinions formed upon a hasty judij^ment, as for example, on John viii. 1 — 11. \We may add here, that the theory of the interpolation of the Greek text from the Latin version originated with Wetstein.] XXXVHI. Some have given the readings of one or more manuscripts separately ; but it is unnecessary here to mention all such colla- 142 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE tors. Velesius, whose collations of sixteen ma- nuscripts are given in Cerdanus' Adversaria Sac. c. 91, appears to have acted with bad faith, by- giving various readings without naming or specifying the manuscripts from which he de- rived them, and hiding his fraud under the general and vague word manuscripts. His ob- ject seems to have been, to support the autho- rity of the Vulgate. Upon examination, how- ever, it appears that his various readings were drawn not only from manuscripts posterior to the Council of Florence, and corrected by the Vulgate, as Mariana has judged in the Pre- face to his Scholia on the Old and New Tes- tament, but even directly from Latin manu- scripts, as Wetstein has demonstrated, and Mi- chaelis [C. B. in his Tractatio Critica de variis lectionibus N. T. &c.] § 87. Nor are the read- ings of CaryopJiilus, published by Possinus at the end of the Catena on Mark, of much value ; for the nature of the manuscripts from which they are taken is unknown, and it is tolerably clear that they were interpolated from the Latin version, to support the credit of which was the object of Caryophilus, (see Bengel's A pp. p. 439 :) although he sometimes prefers a reading which differs from the Latin, and gives as a rule that this ought to be done when the OF VARIOUS READINGS. 143 majority of Greek manuscripts concur. Among them, moreover, are to be found readings from the Codex Vaticanus, extracted for the use of those who were employed by Urban VIII. , upon an edition of the New Testament, on the plan of the Sixtine edition of the Old Testa- ment. Of this I have been informed by learned men at Rome, and besides all the readings which I have found extracted from that manu- script, are to be found among the readings of Caryophilus.*^ •= [Velesius (Peter Faxard, Marquis of Velez) collated six- teen manuscripts, eight of which he borrowed from the King of Spain's library. Mariana gave the collection to Cerdanus or De la Cerda, and from his work they were transferred into the London Polyglot, and admitted by Ameiot, Fell, Mill, and Bengel. Wetstein has numbered them in his catalogue, but not quoted them. See Michaelis Introd. Ch. viii. Sect. vi. Vol, II. p. 351. For an account of the collection of Caryophilus, see the same section, under the head Barherini MSS. and for notices of other collectors of various readings, see p. 419, seq.] XXXIX. It must be evident, from what has been said respecting the collectors of various readings, how far even the most learned men have been led astray by hastily assumed opi- nions respecting the authority of particular manuscripts or versions, as the Vetus Itala, or the Vulgate, or by their peculiar views of doc- 144 THE CAUSE, ORIGIN, AND CHOICE trine. Nothing, therefore, ought to be more carefully guarded against than the influence of such prejudices in the formation of any critical judgment. XL. These errors we shall avoid, if we keep in mind what has been said respecting the different sources of various readings ; and if, in selecting a reading, we always proceed upon general rules ; not giving an unwarranted preference to a particular reading, and then looking about for arguments in its favour ; but first weighing every argument according to pre-established rules, and then determining by the preponderance of the evidence. XLI. We must not suppose that the work of Biblical criticism is exhausted, and that nothing remains for us to do. We ought rather to be on the watch for farther light, and in reading either ancient or modern copies, to remark everything that bears upon this sub- ject, and to note it in its proper place.*^ I have myself observed many points either omit- ted or neglected, or erroneously noticed, by those who have gone before. But enough, and perhaps more than enough, has now been said on this branch of the subject. We shall now proceed to other subsidiary instruments of interpretation. OF VARIOUS READINGS. 145 * As instances of passages, where further critical labour is required for the determination of the true reading, the reader may be referred to Matt. v. 22, vi. 13 ; Mark xvi. 9 — 20 ; Luke i. 66, ii. 22 ; John xviii. 1 ; Acts ii. 30, iii. 12, viii. 37, X. 33, xi. 20, xiii. 18, xvii. 26, xviii. 5, xx. 28, xxiii. 9 ; Rom= viii. 33, seq. x. 16 ; 1 Cor. iii. 4. 146 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE CHAPTER VII. OF THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE FRAG- MENTS OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. I. Among the subsidiary aids to the inter- pretation of the New Testament, none are more valuable than the Greek translators of the Old Testament, among whom we must give the first place to those, who, from the vulgar history of the translation, are called the Seventy, but whom we shall, with greater pro- priety, denominate the Alexandrine transla- tors.® For the unanimous voice of antiquity declares that this version was made at Alex- andria : which assertion, however, is to be un- derstood only of the books which were at that time read in the synagogues. For it can scarce- ly be doubted but that other books, among which I would class Job, Proverhs, Canticles, and Ecclesiasticus, were translated at a later FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C, ]47 period; and tlie version of these lias by some been attributed to Aquila. One thing is clear, namely, that the whole version is not by one hand. This appears from the great diversity of styles : for in some books the Hebraisms are strictly preserved, while the Greek style is ut- terly destitute of purity and elegance : in others again, especially in Job and the books just mentioned, Hebraisms are avoided, and a purer and more elegant Greek style is affected. ^ See Eichhom's Repert. Lit. Or. I. p. 266, where, by a diligent examination of traditions, it is shewn that the Alexandrine Jews contrived, by fabulous accounts of its origin, to pass off this version upon their brethren in Pa- lestine, as being of equal authority with the original, and possessing in common with it the character and dignitv of inspiration. It appears, however, to have been made at dif- ferent times, and by different translators, see Hody de Text. Orig. L. I. C. 7—9- The Pentateuch was first trans, lated, then the Psalms, then the historical books, afterwards Isaiah, and finally the other books of the Old Testament. Hitherto we possess only two fundamental editions of the Septuagint : the Sixt'me or Vatican of 1587, re-edited by Bos ; and Grade's, Oxford 1707, which follows the Codex Alex, and has been re-editedby Breitmger. After the labours of Holmes and other learned men, it cannot be hoped that much more will be done towards restoring the text of this version. [Two fundamental editions ought to be mention- ed antecedent to these, that printed in the Complutensian Polyglot, 1514, and the Aldine 1518, both of which texts have frequently been reprinted. For an account of Holmes's 148 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE unfinished edition, and its continuation by Parsons, see Home's Introd. II. 182, and for a general account of the editions of the Septuagint, see INIori Acroases Acad. II. p. 108.] II. It may be difficult exactly to account for tlie Hebraisms witli which the Greek of this version is so strongly tinctured/ Per- haps it arose from the unskilfulness of the translators, who were unable to render He- brew words and phrases, especially such as re- lated to religion, into pure Greek ; or it may have arisen from a certain superstitious feeling, which we know to have prevailed in later times, and which probably originated in the persecution by Antiochus, that sacred subjects were dishonoured by the aifectation of classical elegance. This style, whatever may have been the first cause of its adoption, became the standard which was followed by all Jews writing in Greek upon religious subjects, who wished to conform to their ancestral habits, and to gain the approbation of their brethren. See my Program ma, De Odio JudcBorum in Unguam GrcEcam. Hence the Romaic version of the Pentateuch, and the Italian and Spaiiish ver- sions of the Bible by Jews are formed upon the same principle. See Simon, Bibl. Crit. P. iv. p. 133. FRAGMENTS OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 149 f The Greek style of the Septuagint may be divided into three classes : 1st. Some parts are merely Hebraistic, as the version of Ecclesiastes ; 2d. Some parts are pure Greek, as the version of Job, Proverbs, and Canticles, in vrhich even poetical expressions are introduced ; 3d. The rest of the version is of a mixed character. See Miicke, de Origine versionis LXX. interpretum. ZUllich, 1789. III. Since, then, this style was adopted, as we have before shown, by the inspired writers of the New Testament, it follows of course, as the most learned interpreters have always held, that the study of the Septuagint is of the great- est use in determinino^ the usag^e of lang-uasre in the New Testament. See especially Pear- son's Preface to the Cambridge edition, and that of Grabe, and also Caiyzov's Crit. Sac. p. 547.g s Together with Biel, Schleusner, Paulus. Beckhaus, and others. See Bretschneider''s Exc. II. ad Jes. Siracidem. Ratisbon, 1806, p. 709, seq. IV. The more recent and learned interpre- ters have therefore judged the use of this ver- sion most necessary to the illustration of the phraseology of the New Testament; nor was that phraseology ever rightly explained, until light was thrown upon it from this quarter. In this application of the Septuagint, Grotius 150 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE led the way, being" the first who brought the necessary diligence and learning to the task.*^ ^ The Fathers did not use the Septuagint in illustrating the New Testament, because they were generally ignorant of Hebrew. Even Melancthon and Camerarhishave seldom availed themselves of its assistance. Next to Grotius we may class Beachenius Observ. in N. T. ex LXX. [The reader will obsei've, that a mere knowledge of Greek will not enable the student to use the Septuagint for hermeneu- tical purposes. His object ought to be to discover the He- braisms in the New Testament, and to explain them by finding what Hebrew expressions are rendered by the same Greek expressions in the Septuagint ; and this of course cannot be done without a competent knowledge of He- brew.] V. Much help may also be derived from those writers who have illustrated the Hebraisms of the New Testament,* by the aid of this ver- sion ; sometimes by producing examples to show how a particular phrase would be given in the Hebrew; and sometimes by noticing the various ways in which a Hebrew word is rendered, in order to show what is the pure Greek corresponding to a Hebraistic word ; the latter, however, has been done less fre- quently than might have been wished. As, however, these writers have proceeded rather by example than precept, and have thereby led their followers into considerable errors, it FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 151 seems expedient to reduce the subject to a few perspicuous rules, and so to render the use of this version more easy and definite. ' As Wysse in his Dialectologia Sacra. Vorstius is fuller, but Leusden more compendious ; both of their works have been edited by Fischer. [The Title of Vorsfs book is, Johannis Vorstii Commentarius de Hebraismis N. T. seu philologia sacra. That of Leusden' s, Joh. Leusdeni de Dialec- tis N. T. singulatim de ejus Hebraismis, libellus singularis, denuo edidit, J. F. Fischer. Leipzig, 1754 and 1792. VI. We must, in the first place, premise a few grammatical observations, on the princi- ples according to which the Greek of the Sep- tuagint imitates the original Hebrew ; and from these we shall proceed to draw rules and limitations by which the use of this version may be properly directed. VII. The most important observations are these. First, whatever Greek word corres- ponded etymologically to a Hebrew word, or expressed its primary signification, was em- ployed by the translators to express, not merely that signification, but also all tropical significa- tions of the same word. Thus, the primary or proper use of the words p*»"irT. /Tll^j rS^12i T\\r\'^^ ir\1^ N'^pj is expressed by r/.'ks^aG^at, 152 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE and so they are rendered. But besides this, these Greek words and their conjugates are used in the Septuagint to express the corres- ponding Hebrew words in all their varieties of tropical application ; and that in a way quite irreconcileable with the usages of the Greek language.^ ^ To these we may add, "j^T '^vord, tropically fhi7ig, in this sense p*}f/,a. is to be understood Matt. iv. 4, Luke i. 37. J-)'*")^ a treaty, tropically, a system of revealed religion, ha- ^TiKTi. "^X^ a secret, tropically, "profound wisdom, fMMrrn^tov. [For the manner in which these words are used, the reader will find full information, by consulting Schleusner^ s The- saurus, which ought to be in the library of every biblical student ; or, if he chooses to follow the advice of Michaelis, he may, by the aid of Trommius'' Concordance, investigate the requisite passages for himself. See Michaelis' Introd. i. 177.] VIII. Secondly, when Hebrew words have many different meanings, wliich cannot be well explained by tropical transference, nor derived from the primary signification, as D'^DJl ''^^^s^os, oi'/.aiog, h7M^'W the corresponding Greek words are used with the same latitude of jiermutation. Gataker has been very diligent in the elucida- tion of this class of words, as Vorstius has with respect to those mentioned before. FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 153 ^ So |j^J is either to give or to place; hence rtdivut and 'hiVova.i are used alternatively in the N. T. as in John X. 11. '^l^v^riv Tifivut: ^"^"JJ, either benefactor oy prince y hence ivi^yirri?, prince, Luke xxii. 25. IX. In such cases the Septuagint uses one Greek word with the same variety of signifi- cations : thus, since /J^a^rv^iov answers to nTfJ? or JlXiy, and since the Hebrew word is used for law or doctrine, therefore also i-'Morb^m Xoiffrov is used for the doctrine of Christ, and fjMPTu^sTv for to teach. In the same way, v6/jjog like r\li)r\ is used not only for laic^ as in pure Greek writers, but also for revealed religion in general, and for its particular parts, as, for example, its promises. Ignorance of this prin- ciple has led commentators into the most strange and involved attempts at explanation ; see Vitringah Obs. iii. 1. As another example, we may observe, that the Hebrew prefix 3 answers properly, or nearly, to the Greek b : consequently sv is used in the Septuagint, with all the latitude of signification which this pre- fix possesses in Hebrew. Ignorance of this particular point has led interpreters into ab- surd and forced renderings.™ "" We may give as examples, Iv X^iittm uvm to be a Christian : Iv a,/u,a^Tixts KvroSvriffKuv, to die laden with sin. 154 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE Nor must we omit to observe, that in the New Testament Iv and lis are used interchangeably, as ^ and ^ in Hebrew. [It appears more suitable to the present enquiry to examine, what is done in the Septuagint, than what is done in the New Testament. There h will be found expressing all the following, in, to, loith, when, near, for, on account of, by, against. An examination of the passages in which it is thus used, will, probably, shew, that h a,[ji,a.^7ta.i; icrod- vmKUi means rather to die on account of sin, than laden with sin. Deut. xxiv. 10, and Hosea xii. 12.] X. Greek words sometimes occur in the Septuagint, the reason for the choice of which it is impossible for us to discover, either from Greek or Hebrew usage. In these cases, ac- cording to Le Dieu and others, the Chaidee or Arabic usage has been followed, or the primary meaning of the word, which has been lost in Hebrew, remains in Chaidee or Arabic." Thus "1/13 is rendered avyK^ivnv instead of s^,u^rivsv£iv, or ImXvuv, and this signification, which is per- haps the primary one, or existed in the Chaidee or Arabic, has been introduced into the New Testament, (1 Cor. ii. ]3.) " This seldom happens. Compare, however, Rom. xi. 9. with Isaiah xxix. 10. where nDTl/l' ^^^P *^^^J0) is ren- dered by the LXX. xaravw^/,-, compunctio. This is taken from the Arabic use of Q'7"l» to sew or prick. It is a fa- miliar phi-ase among the Arabians, " sleep has sewed toge- FRAGMENTS OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 155 ther my eyes." See Michaelis Supplem. p. 449. And Chrestomachia, Arab. p. 66. Lennep, however, gives an- other view of the word, tracing it from vuti> to nod, hence vt/o-ra^w and KXToivvlis sleep. [We may observe, that in some such cases, it is probable the LXX. had a different reading from that which we now possess ; and in others, it is clear they introduced glosses expressing the current opinion of their own time, rather than the literal meaning of the passage. Thus, in Deut. xxxii. 8. □'^Q^ J1^23 3iJ"' /Xnti^*^ "'JH *1S)DQ7 ^^ rendered sVtjjo-sv o^ia, iSvm Kara, u,^t6~ fjLov ayyixuv 6iou; whereas the two last words ought to have been, as they are rendered by Aquila and Symmachus, i/i&iv 'Itr^oc'/iX. This version is evidently taken from (the popular notion of tutelary angels presiding over different nations. See Mori Acroases, Ed. Eichstadt. ii. 71- 1 XI. Sometimes, on the other hand, the Sep- tuagint translators render Hebrew forms, by pure Greek forms, expressive of the sense ; thus rSDi^ [properly truth'], is rendered sXs^j/xo- (fm, and J1DN ^"^K by dya^og : and in the same way D'^'inhi is rendered not only Uxc^rog, but also s';r/w!/ ; and with D^^''^T not only ev Ic-xdraig Ti/Ms^aig, but also fJi'srd ravra. It is unnecessary to mention Hebraisms in the construction, and others which do not affect the sense ; as femi- nines for neuters, and the like.° ° As for example in Matt. xxi. 42, ^av[/.affT'/i for 9-avf/.ai^it 'roocrurov, which is scarcely Greek ; but from this we may derive the formula in the N. T. kct/x^dvuv T^oa-uTov. [This expression may more properly be explained by the well known Hebraism, that the several parts of the body are used to express merely the man to whom they be- long ; thus Q'*7^T \^f2 ^^ simply from him. See Ernesti's Instit. Bib. Cab. I. p. 92, 93.] XII. These observations then ought to be familiar to our minds, so as to be ready for application, both generally, and especially when we have to consider words of frequent recur- rence in the sacred books, and such as we may style dogmatic terms. And this familiarity we may best attain, by always reading the Greek of the Septuagint together with the Hebrew original, and by comparing the Greek of one passage with that of another where the same Hebrew word occurs : keeping at the same time these general observations in view, that guided by them w^e may attain a knowledge of the usages of that version with respect to each particular word.P •' [The translator understands Ernesti to mean, that the observations in the preceding paragraphs will enable us to classify for future use, the several particles of information which we may derive from the comparisons just recom- mended.] XIII. Our application of the Septuagint FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 157 version to the elucidation of the New Testa- ment, by the aid of these observations, ought to be guided by the following rules. First, when we meet with any thing in the New Tes- tament which is bad Greek, and which we know to be so from our previous acquaintance with the genius and analogy of the Greek language, and from the impossibility of reconciling the genuine Greek signification of some particular word, with the general sense of the passage, then we must have recourse to the Septuagint, and examine what is the Hebrew word which they render by this Greek word, and thus, from the usage of the Hebrew, we may deter- mine the signification of the Greek : as in the words yCkr^f^ii, hXcyri and its conjugates, and f/^oyiXaXog, Mark vii. 32, answering to the He- brew Cbi^, dumb. Isaiah xxxv, 6.^ In this, however, we must be careful to attain the real force and signification of the Hebrew word, and not satisfy ourselves with the renderings of the ordinary lexicons, the Latin of w^iich is frequently Hebraistic, and often borrowed etymologically from this very version ; in such cases, of course, they can do us no good, and may lead us into great errors. Students ought, therefore, to make themselves familiar with the best treatises on Hebraisms, and endeavour to 158 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE obtain a clear and accurate knowledge of the genius and peculiarities of that language. 1 fAoyiXiXoi cannot be rendered speaking with difficulty^ for those who are naturally deaf, are consequently dumb. By an examination of the passage quoted, it appears that fjuayiXa.Xoi isused for tt.Xa.Xoi. [The substance of this rule is thus briefly given by IMorus ; the Hebraisms of the N. T. are to be compared with the Hebrew, not arbitrarily, that is, not according to our own general knowledge of Hebrew, but by the aid and through the medium of the Septuagint.] XIV. Secondly, whenever we find any thing in the Septuagint expressed in pure Greek, which, as has been observed, is sometimes the case, we must apply this in the New Testa- ment to passages in which, judging from the genius of the Greek language, it appears that the Hebrew has been rendered verbatim into Greek. In such cases, the best plan is to re- translate the Greek verbatim into Hebrew. Thus, if in 1 Cor. xv. 54, you render hg vTytog by the Hebrew TOi'?, and observe that this is rendered by the LXX. hg rsXog, dia-rravrbg, sig Tov diojm, y^^ovov 'ttoXvv, as well as s/g vTxog, you will discover the true sense. Such instances in that version ought, therefore, to be carefully noted, so as to be ready for application when- ever an occasion is ofTered.'^ FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 159 "■ In the same way we shall find that Iv l^x.^roii? v/^i^uts of the N. T. corresponds to the f/,iTa. ravra of the Septuagint. See § xi. XV. And even in pure Greek expressions, common to the Old and New Testaments, it will be useful to examine the corresponding Hebrew in the Old Testament ; lest we should be entirely misled, or at least fail of perceiving the full sense of the passage. For the LXX. often translate indefinitely, they give genus for species, antecedent for consequent, and the like. Thus, they render niil'' ilN "]7»inn, by svTj^sffrriffi ruj %uj, Gen. v. 24, vi. 9, putting the consequent for the antecedent; and this has been retained by the Apostle, Heb. xi. 5.® ^ f^ovoyivhs, John i. 14. corresponds to the Hebrew V^^ ■^1^** which the LXX. render, Gen. xxii. 2. iios uyec^viTos [This ought evidently to be given as an illustration of § 14. Ernesti's criticism would have been clearer, had he said, that in the example produced, the LXX. had given the effect for the cause ; Enoch's walking with God was the cause, his pleasing God was the effect.] XVI. Both in the Septuagint and in the Greek Testament, there are many forms which appear to be pure Greek, and which still re- quire to be interpreted from the Hebrew. Thus, in Eph. iv. 9, Ps. Ixii. 9, %aru)-ara /ms^t^ 160 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE rrig y^g, can be understood only by comparing it with the Hebrew Y"1^^ nvnnn. This class of texts, and they are almost innumerable, re- quire particular care, and often escape the in- telligence of interpreters. See Ernesti's Inst. Bib. Cab. vol. i. p. 103, 104. The student ought, therefore, to be peculiarly diligent in this branch of enquiry, so as always to have his results ready for application.' * The labours of Biel and Schleusner cannot be too highly praised ; and the Biblical student cannot dispense with their great work Novus Thesaurus Phil. Crit. &c. Lips. 1820. [Of the class mentioned in this § 1, are ti a^irh rov hou, ryi^i7t Tov x'oyov ToZ hov, ok'ox.Xri^o;. In these the expression is pure Greek, but the sense is Hebraistic. For a^irvi ^ioZ means, not, as we should suppose, the moral perfections of God, but specifically his mercy ; and this specific sense of a^irh is to be taken in 1 Pet. xi. 9, rno'Jv tov Xoyov, accord- ing to Greek usage, signifies to watch a person's words in a bad sense ; but in the Septuagint, ryiozTv is used for the Hebrew T)Qti^, to attend to or obey. 'OXoxX'/ioo; which in its Greek usage means complete, is used in the Septuagint for the Hebrew Q''^/l, and signifies, when applied to a man, pure from sin ; and in this sense it is used also in the N. T. The words 3£;^;£amsm*/a;i*, deriving "T^^/^ from "TlQf7, and that again falsely from "70^7 to stand. Thus a good rendering is support- ed by futile arguments. [T^Q/1 is more probably derived, (unless 1Q/1 be considered as a distinct root) from "1*TQ ^^ which it is referred by Simon and Fichfiorn.] ' See note on § 16. XVIII. Whoever will keep these ruk-s in FRAGMENTS OF AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 163 mind, and add thereto private application, and attention to the lectures of ^ood interpreters, may derive great use from the Septuagint ver- sion ; the assistance to be derived from which to the interpretation of the New Testament, has, as yet, by no means been exhausted. XIX. This version may also be applied to other uses besides those already mentioned. It may be very serviceable in comparing pas- sages from the Old Testament which are quot- ed in the New ; nor is its critical use to be overlooked in the judgment and choice of va- rious readings. And, thirdly, it throws much light on the commentaries of the fathers, which generally depend upon this version. XX. For it is clear, that the inspired writers of the New Testament sometimes quoted from the Septuagint version of the Old Testament. Sometimes, indeed, they appear to have quot- ed from the Hebrew, rendering it word for word into Greek, as any of us might do at the present day. That they have thus translated, appears from many passages in which they agree with the Hebrew text, in opposition to the Greek, as Matt. viii. 17, from Is. liii. 4, and John xix. 37, from Zech. xii. 10. In many passages, however, it is clear, that the writers of the New Testament have quoted 164 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE from the Septuagint, in those, namely, where they agree with it in its departures from the Hebrew. And these discrepancies often affect the sense, and are such, that we can hard- ly conceive them to have been made inde- pendently by two different translators ; such, for example, are Heb. x. 38; xi. 21. In such passages, if we assert with some learned men, that the Apostles translated from the Hebrew, it must follow, either that they have erred in the translation, or that our Hebrew text has been corrupted in these passages, neither of which is probable ; or, finally, that the apos- tolic translation has been removed from the text by copyists, and its place supplied from the Septuagint. This last opinion has been held by some; and a full discussion of the sub- ject will be found in Lud. Capelli Append. Crit. Sac. p. 443.^ ' The Old Testament is quoted by the inspired authors of the New, either literally from the Hebrew text, or from the Septuagint, or from some other version now lost, or from memory. See Eichhorn's, Allg. Bibliothek der Bibl. liit. II. 948, sq., and Eckermaii's SymboL-v Theologictv. Upon the whole we may observe, that in that age quotations were m ade, I. Rather with a view to the sense of the passage tliau to the exact words, so that much was occasionally added or omitted. FRAGMENTS OF AOUILA, SYMMACHUS, &C. 165 2. The sense of the passage quoted was often altered so as to suit the notions of the person quoting. 3. Authors, even in quoting from the writings of others, shewed their own genius. Peter, Acts ii. 25, and James, lb. xv. 16, could not use the Septuagint version at Jerusalem, for Greek was very un- popular there, and each Apostle must have spoken, not in Greek but in Syriac. The passages from the Old Testa- ment there quoted, must therefore have been recorded by- Luke from memory. [Of these three methods of quotation, the second and third appear to the translator to be substan- tially the same. On the subject of this chapter, the student will do well to consult Marsh'' s Michaelis, I. 200, sq. And Koppe, Excursus I. in Ep. ad Rom.] XXI. It is not necessary here to inquire very minutely into the reasons for this variety in the manner of quoting, and for the custom of quoting the Septuagint version even where it departs from the Hebrew text. But since the whole force of an argument in the New Testament sometimes depends upon the word- ing of the Greek version, where it differs from the Hebrew, not merely in entire sentences, but in particular words, it will readily be per- ceived how necessary an acquaintance with that version must be to a right understanding of the New Testament.^ ^ [The Translator has seldom had reason to warn the reader against the sentiments of Ernesti ; but in this chap- 166 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE ter he has certainly admitted that, which if allowed, would go far to overthrow the divine authority of Scripture. If the writers of the New Testament reaily proved their doc- trines, not from the word of God, but from the misrepre- sentations of it by the LXX. it would be verv difficult to conceive that in so doing they acted under the influence of the Divine Spirit. The learned Michaelis speaks with more reverence, and with fuller information on this subject. " Great diffidence," says he, " is requisite on our parts in our critical explanation of the Old Testament, nor must we conclude that an Apostle has made a false quotation, be- cause he has applied a passage in the Old Testament, in a sense which, according to our judgment, it does not admit. Our own ignorance may be the cause of the seeming im- propriety, and having found, by actual experience, and a more minute investigation of the subject, that many pas- sages, which other critics, as well as myself, have taken for false quotations, were yet properly cited by the Apostles, I trust that future critics will be able to solve the doubts in the few examples which remain." Introd. i. 210. And again, in reference more particularly to quotations from the Septuagint, having examined the practice of St. Matthew, he adds, " With respect to the other writers of the New Testament, it is certain that they have quoted in most in- stances from the Septuagint, even where the translation from the Hebrew is inaccurate, but where the errors are of such a nature as not to weaken the proofs for which they are alleged. This has been used as an argument against divine inspiration, but the argument is without foundation, for the proof depends not on all the words of the quotation, but simply on those few which are immediately applicable to the subject ; the rest are introduced merely on account of the connexion, and that the reader might more easily refer to the passages in the New Testament, from which they are taken." But the reader will do well to study the whole FRAGMENTS OF AgUILA, SYMMACHLS, kc. 167 of Michaelis' chap, v., sect iii. on this important and diffi- cult subject.] XXII. The Septuagint version has a cri- tical application, first, in those passages which are quoted from it. For in these the old ma- nuscripts sometimes differ, so that we have to determine which we ouglit to follow. In all which cases it cannot be doubted, but that we ought to prefer that reading which is found in good old copies, especially if it contain any- thing studied or unusual in the expression. Thus in Heb. i. 11. the Vulgate reading gX/Js/c ought to be preferred to aXXags/g, con- trary to the opinion of Wetstein and Bengel^ because sX/gs/g is in the Septuagint, from whence the whole passage is taken ;^ and aXka^ng has the air of a gloss from the Latin version of the New Testament, which appears to have this word from the correction of Jerome ; although it must be granted that aXXags/f is closer to the Hebrew ^^H. Cases, however, sometimes occur where we must, for special reasons, re- ject the authority of the Septuagint: for in- stance, where the nature of the argument ap- pears to have required some change in the expression^ wliich has therefore been made designedly, while the general sense of the 168 SEPTUAGINT VERSION, AND THE passage is retained. Thus St. Paul, Heb. x. 5, appears to have put cw/o-a for ojria from Ps, xl. as more suitable to his purpose of showing that Christ had propitiated the Father by the sacrifice of his body.*^ *• It oui^ht not, however, to be omitted, that Grahe's edi- tion has xXXa^u; in Ps. cii. 26 — 28. ° The Philoxenian version has Jra in this passage : and so Michaelis, (Coll. Crit. de Psalmis praecip. de Christo agen- tilms, p. 358, seq.) thinks it ought to be read. XXIII. In cases where the authority of good manuscripts is equally balanced, and where the sense of the two readings is equally good, we must determine from the nature of the words. See ch. vi. § 25. For it cannot be doubted, but that the reading, which is more consonant to the usage of this version, and especially that reading which, according to Greek habits, would be considered the harsher, ought to be preferred. By the use of this principle corruptions of the text may be de- tected, and the true reading established. The Latin translator, at Acts xv. 2, would not, I think, have omitted ?ta/ cr-j^^jr^^sw^, as being too weak a word to be coupled with tfratfswc, had he known that ?v a,i&)viov. Those who explain this in a Jewish sense, consider riTayf^ivoi as used for the Hebrew T)")iJ, destined. The Greek signification, however, affords a bet- ter explanation of the passage : rumiv laurov tt; t<, is to be studious or active for any thing. See Koppe on Rom. ix. 22. [It may be doubted, however, whether the superiority of the sense, that is, its accordance with our preconceived systems, is a very safe guide in this matter. With reference to the limitation proposed by Ernesti, we may observe, that in many cases the general sense derived from the Greek is quite consistent with the context, and yet the passage has a special sense which can be learned only from the Jewish writings. Thus in the sermon on the Mount, the phrase ny,ou(ra.Ti on ipp'^^yi, ye have heard that it hath been said, judged merely from the Greek, might mean, that some one indivi- dual had said so ; or if rois a^^a'iois be added, that it was an old opinion : but the frequent expression of Maimonides 182 THE USE OF WORKS they learned by hearing^ shews that the meaning is, ye have been taught by tradition.'\ VIII. In all that relates to antiquities, Philo and Josephiis are to be preferred to the Rab- binical writers, as being both earlier and more learned than they : nor are they to be listened to who, misled by a foolish partiality for the Rabbins, or by their own partial opinions, maintain that their authority ought to be pre- ferred, when it contradicts that of Philo and Josephus. For when the question is respect- ing the Temple, or the religious rites con- nected with it, as, for example, the Passover, the Holy Place, and the Temple of Herod, a higher degree of credit ought surely to be given to those who saw and took a share in these things, than to those who lived after the Temple was destroyed, and the rites connected wdth it disused.P The ignorance of the Jews, and their gross falsehoods respecting Hebrew antiquities, are well exposed by Heinins in his Obs. Sac. i. 9, ii. 3. p Thus, for instance, the Talmudists assert that the priests sacrificed the paschal lamb, while Philo asserts that the sa- crifice was performed by each father of a family. They say, that the old temple was not entirely destroyed by Herod ; Josephus asserts that even the sanctuary was pulled down. WRITTEN BY THE JEWS. 183 In these cases Philo and Joseplius are the more credible au- thorities. Light is thrown upon some passages of the New- Testament, by the Samaritan remains published in Eich- horri's Repertorium Lit. Or. et Bibl. T. ix. and in Paulus* Repert. T. I. p. 120, seq. IX. Philo is particularly useful in illustrat- ing the allegorical and mystical reasonings, so much used by St. Paul : in which point there is so striking a similarity between him and St. Paul, that some have supposed the Apostle must have seen the writings of Philo,^ and among these TVetstein, see his N. T. p. 384. This, however, appears to me hardly more credible than the opinion advanced by Ottius in his Spicilegium, that Josejjhus had availed himself of the writings of St. Paul. For, as it can scarcely be supposed, that St. Paul was so well skilled in Greek as to understand the works of Philo, written in a style quite re- moved from Hebrew usage, and emulating the elegance of Plato and Demosthenes; so, on the other hand, there is no difficulty in sup- posing that they both drew from the same ancient fountains. On these points I would refer the reader to Loesner''s Lectiones Phi- lonianse. •5 [For a compendious view of the passages in Philo ap- plicable to the elucidation of the New Testament, see G. 184 THE USE OF WORKS Dahlii Chrestomathia Philoniana, sive Loci illustres ex Phi- lone Alexandrino decerpti. Harnb. 1800, 8. The whole works of Philo were edited by T. Mangey, Lond. 1742, 2 vols, fol.] X. I must deny what I find asserted by some unskilful philologers, that the writings of Josephus are useful to the interpretation of the New Testament, because he writes in the same style in which it is written. For Jose- phus imitates with great care and considerable success, the writers of pure Greek, especially Polyhius, both in single words, and in the turn of his sentences : intermixing but few He- braisms, and therein, as he himself says, depart- ing from the custom of his fellow countrymen. He sometimes, however, exhibits peculiarities worthy of observation ; these have been col- lected by Ottius, in his Spicilegium, and still more carefully by Krebsius, in his Observa- tiones ad N. T. a Josepho.' Even by these collectors, some things, as might be expected, have been omitted ; thus Josephus uses roc /3Xscro/x£va for the accomplishment of a promise, (A. J. 10, ad extr.) which illustrates Hebr. xi. 1. He uses also hXoynv for lihejiy, which illustrates Rom ix. 11, where n '^olt hXoyriv ir^odsffig, about which systematic divines have given themselves so much unnecessary trouble. WRITTEN BY JEWS. 185 means merely the free will of God in confer- ring benefits ; and this use of the word is taken, partly from the usage of the Hebrews, who had no word to express liberty but "1112 ; and partly from the nature of the thing, since li- berty consists in the power of choice. But the perusal of Josephus will be most available to the interpretation of the New Testament, if we observe how he expresses in Greek, ideas drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus, in the history of Corah, the words HTT^ ''^S^, which the LXX. render xarsvavr/ tox) Kv^kv, are rendered by Josephus ^arsmvri rou Tgors/xsi/zV/xarog, [before the vestibule of the tabernacle]. This class of observations has been too much ne- jj-lected. '^ Josephus imitates with success, Thucydides and Poly- bius, with the admixture of a very few Hebraisms ; such as xoivos for ?£?5?Xoj, croixx.ovs Ti^iriB-itrS-en for to put on mourning. Interpreters, therefore, must not abuse the diction of Jo- sephus to illustrate the words of the N. T., but rather use it to illustrate the history of the Old, and sometimes of the New Testament. Many good observations on the N. T., drawn from the writings of the Jews, may be found in Raymundi Martini pugio tidei adversus JMauros et Ju- da?os. Lips. 1687. [The historical authority of Josephus is high with respect to rites and customs existing in his own time ; but in his representations of Jewish ancient his- tory, he appears to have aimed at presenting to the heathen world a favourable, rather than accurate picture of his an- 186 THE USE OF WORKS, &C. cestors. The best critics, therefore, agree in limiting the historical utility of Josephus in the interpretation of Scrip- ture, to these rites and customs. See Mori Acroases Acad, ii. 179. And for the character and origin of his style, id. 183. seq.] THE INTERPRETERS OF NEW TESTAMENT. 187 CHAPTER IX. OF THE INTERPRETERS OF THE NEW TESTA- MENT ; AND OF THEIR USE. I. The early ages of the Cluircli admitted several kinds of interpretation, as the mystical or allegorical, the dogmatic, and the grammati- cal or grammatico-rhectorical. Nor did all in- terpreters use the same form : for some wrote Commentaries, others Scholia, and others Ho- milies. II. The most ancient is the allegorical, ori- ginating, no doubt, from the synagogue, which is styled on that account ^'V^U IT1, and from the schools of the Jewish doctors. For the Gospels inform us, that it was lawful in the synagogues to comment upon passages of Scrip- ture : and in the schools of the Rabbins, which were also, called synagogues, after the de- struction of the Temple, the only topic of in- struction was the proper method of interpret- 188 THE INTERPRETERS OF THE ing- the Law and the Prophets; in which, in- deed, the sum and substance of Jewish learning consisted.^ ^ They interpreted, however, without any taste or per- ception of beauty and truth. See Vitringa, de Synagoga Vet. p. 137, sq. [The general character of their interpre- tations may be best learned from the Targums, in which are collected the opinions of many doctors, and specifically of Gamaliel, Hillely and others of high eminence. The schools may liavebeen usually called ti^"T7Q r\*^ll liouse of investi- gation, but the ordinary name of the synagogue, or house of religious asseraldy, was JlOJDn /T'll' ^^use of the con- gregation.] III. This style of interpretation was used of old by the Prophets, in such a manner, how- ever, as to be perfectly free from all human fancies and errors. In this way they inter- preted the prophecies relating to Christ, and accommodated types and facts, especially his- torical facts, to the illustration of human and divine truths, to the confirmation of doctrine and precept, and, upon the whole, to the pro- motion of faith and holy practice. And this we ought to call mystical interpretation^ which differs from allegorical^ as among the Greeks, i^sww'a differs from aXXriyopia} ' The history of the interpretation of Scripture shews, that both the mystical and allegorical interpretation of the NEW testament; and their use. 189 New Testament, were derived from Hebrew models. These methods, as hurtful to all sound theology, ought carefully to be avoided by teachers of religion. [Morus understands Ernesti to be speaking in this chapter of the schools of the Prophets, (1 Sara. xix. 20,) but every thing here said, ex- cept that of the interpretation of the prophecies relative to Christ, is true of the writings of the Prophets. It is evi- dent that the practice of inspired men can form no rule with respect to interpretation, for those who are unin- spired.] IV. The system of mystical interpretation was, however, speedily corrupted, by men of uncultivated minds, who aspired to the praise of originality and acuteness. They omitted the better part of the system, that which treat- ed of types and prophecies; and forced into some spiritual accommodation the most minute circumstances, and even single words. Inter- pretation thus degenerated into a mere play upon words," and the indulgence of unground- ed fancies ; and it is to be regretted, that these errors are still entertained by some in their in- terpretations of the Parables. Philo uses this system more judiciously, as might be expected from his cultivated intellect ; but he indulged too much in philosophical refinements. " [The Jewish interpreters play not merely upon words but upon letters. Some of them hold that Adam, David, JMessias, are three incarnations of the same spiritual sub- 190 THE INTERPRETERS OF THE stance ; and the proof of this is, that Q"T»^ consists of three letters, whereof the ^ represents Adam, the 1 David, and the Q IMessias. The translator received this interpreta- tion, by tradition, from a learned Jew.] V. This method, then, which had its origin among the Jews, was adopted by the early Christian teachers, and especially by those of Egypt, who were influenced by the example of Philo. That example taught them stu- diously to lead the minds of men from sensible objects, to the contemplation and the know- ledge of those which are spiritual and invisible. Even after the introduction of grammatical in- terpretation, this method was still pursued by those who, through ignorance of languages and history, were almost necessarily compelled to have recourse to allegories : thus, Jerome confesses of himself, that, when a young man, he had interpreted Ahdias allegorically, be- cause he was ignorant of his history, and he begs pardon of the public for this ignorance. Nor did the most learned, as Origen, in all cases show themselves more capable of restrain- ing their fancy than the Jews had been. We must grant, however, that this method of inter- pretation was serviceable against the Millen- arians, the Anthopomorphites, and the Gnos- tics.'' NEW testament; and their use. 191 ^ Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, have all used allegorical interpre- tation, with some mixture of gentile philosophy. See Schuler''s History of the Interpretation of Scripture, Tubin- gen, 1787 ; Semler's Versuch die Auslegung des N. T. zu befordern, p. 185, seq. and Rosenmiiller^s Comm. de fatis In- terpretationis sac. lit. in Ecclesia Christiana, Lips. 1789- 1791. VI. To tins metiiodj which tended rather to edification, that is to the inculcation of dogmas and precepts, and to the exhibition of an in- genious fraicy, than to the explanation of Scrip- ture, was afterwards added the grammatieal method of interpretation. This consisted in the explanation of words, sentences, and his- tories, either difiBcult or obscure ; and in the statement and critical choice of various read- ings. It was first used by Origen, a man not more skilled in theology than in general litera- ture, which, as we learn from Eusebius, he tauo^ht at Alexandria.^ > Origen began with interpreting the Scriptures allego- rically, but deserted this method when his mind had be- come familiar with the true principles of philology ; and the same change is every day taking place in our own time. [The critical labours of Origen have already been noticed, chap. vii. § 29, n. f. As to interpretation, we find that he was the author of a work entitled ffyif^uuffus, which we may render scholia, or with Jerome eoccerpta. His work 19*2 THE INTERPRETERS OF THE is not now extant, but from the fragments still existing, we may conclude that it \vas a grammatical commentary. The fragments are to be found in Origen's Philocalia, a compi- lation of what we might now call the beauties of Origen, collected by Basil the Great, and Gregory, surnamed the Theologian. It was printed by «/. Tamms, at Paris, 1618.] VII. Finally, as the number of interpreters completely acquainted with the requisite lan- guages, and cultivated by the study of polite literature, began to increase among the Greeks, so the allegorical method of interpretation gra- dually fell into disuse. Diodorus Tarsensis (see Socrat. vi. 3, Sozom. viii. 2,) led the way in this change, and his system was followed by his pupils, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, and J. Chrysostom. As to the charge brought against Diodorus and Theodorus, of turning the historical sense of the Prophets into accom- modations, this may either have been a ca- lumny, invented by those whose love for alle- gorical interpretation led them to calumniate the works of grammatical interpreters, whose reputation they envied : or, if the charge were true, they may still have applied the principles of grammatical interpretation to the faithful interpretation of Scripture in general. For an account of Theodorus^ see Buddei Isagoge, p. 1405. It is remarkable, however^ that Bud- NEW TESTAMENT ; AND THEIR USE. 193 deus, in his catalogue of interpreters, makes no mention of Diodorus, when there are so many extracts from his works in the Catenae, although, as far as I have been able to discover, nothing of very high value/ ' [It seems unnecessary to say more of Diodorus and Theo- dorus ; Chrysostom will come under our notice again in a succeeding chapter. The CatencB, or collections of the ex- positions of the Fathers are very numerous. Besides those on the Old Testament, there are upon the New, Sjmibola- rum in Matthaeum tomus prior, &c. edited by Peter Pos~ sinus, Thoulouse 1646, and a second volume published the next year. Catena in Evang. sec. JMarcum, by P. Possinusj Rome 1673. Victor'' s, &c. Exegesis on Mark, published by C. F. Matthcei at Moscow 1775. Catena sexaginta quin^ue PP. Gra>,c. in Lucam, &c. by Bait. Corderiiis, Antwerp 1628. Catena of Greek Fathers on John, by the same, 1630. To these we may add CEcumenii Comment, in Acta Apost. et omnes Pauli Epistolas, &c. edited by Morel, Paris 1631.] VIII. Allegorical interpretation prevailed also in the Latin Church ; and it had its origin there, partly in the Latin version of Origen's commentaries ; and partly in the study of Ori- gen and similar writers, by Hilary, Ambrose, and others who were acquainted with the Greek language. IX. Dogmatic interpretation, is that which consists not in the accurate interpretation of o 194 THE INTERPRETERS OF THE words, but in the illustration of previously- formed opinions, by disquisitions on heads of doctrine or practice ; in the management of controversies; and in the defence of Scrip- tural doctrine against the corruptions of here- tics. Under this head we may class the Com- mentary on John, by Cyrill of Alexandria, in which, however, something of grammatical in- terpretation is intermixed, and many others, especially among the Latin Fathers and mo- dern writers, who have written since the Re- formation. This method, however useful it may be for theological purposes, is seldom of any use to the purposes of interpretation pro- perly so called.* " Dogmatic interpretation is perfectly legitimate, if it be founded upon that which is grammatical. Thus, for ex- ample, John X. 39, iyu ko.) o ^arh^ 'iv la-fuv. Since this text treats of the moral union or communion existing between the Father and the Son with respect to the salvation of sinners ; and the dogmatic inference would be just, that the Saviour was united to the Father in a very remarkable and special manner. But if the doctrine of the Trinity, and the unity of essence, be immediately inferred, this is a faulty application of the dogmatic system, because the con- text of the passage is neglected. [To this class may be at- tributed almost all our popular commentaries, as those of Scoitj IJenry, &c. Whether in these the induction of dog- mas is sufficiently supported by previous grammatical in- terpretation, may perhaps be doubted. The experiment NEW testament; and their use. 195 seems never to have been fairly tried, as to how far gram- matical and historical interpretation may be rendered in- telligible and useful to those who know not the languages of Scripture.] X. There is also a sort of interpretation, compounded of all these, especially of the two last, which both treats of the meaning of words with grammatical accuracy; and also deduces theological dogmas. This method, if it ob- serve the limits we have laid down, is not only unobjectionable, but praiseworthy.^ The laws of interpretation have, however, been already explained. See vol. i. p. 185, seq. '^ Since the interpretation of Scripture, according to sys- tematic and rational rules, may not always favour the pre- valent and authorized system of dogmatic theology ; a pru- dent interpreter therefore will probably abstain from all dogmatic observations ; and he may properly so abstain, be- cause dogmas are to be supposed not by single passages, but from the whole analogy of the New Testament. [Except the contempt here thrown upon the Protestant confessions and liturgies, the observation of Amnion is correct. A grammatical interpreter may very properly avoid all dog- matic conclusions ; but, on the other hand, a dogmatic in- terpreter will produce a very imperfect work, if he neglects all reference to grammatical interpretation.] XL With respect to the different forms of interpretation, the first place must be given to commentaries,'^ in which, at first, merely alle- 196 THE INTERPRETERS OF THE gories were explained more fully and copious- ly ; then grammatical observations were occa- sionally introduced, as in OrigerCs Tomi ; and still later, the general sense of the author was explained. The nature of this form of inter- pretation is well described by Jerome ; " what," says he, " is the nature of commentaries ? They explain the writings of authors; they propound fully and plainly, what has been written briefly and obscurely ; they lay before the reader the opinions of many interpreters : some, say they, explain the passage thus; others explain it in this sense : they support their interpretations by this and that argu- ment. So that the careful reader having read much that is admissible, and much that is to be rejected, may be enabled to judge, which, among the proposed explanations, comes near- est to the truth." Jerome, cont. Rufinum, 1. i. p. m. 202. • A Commentary is a continuous explanation of an au- thor ; proportionate attention being paid to the difficulties that occur either in words or matter. Heyne's interpreta- tion of Virgil is an example of a good commentary. This style is very difficult, and hence the extreme rarity of good commentators. [It is in conitnuity alone that a commentary diifers from a series of notes. As an example of a good commentary on the New Testament, the translator would NEW testament; and their use. 197 recommend Koppe on the Romans, Galatians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians.] XII. Another form of interpretation is the Homily, in which either longer portions of Scripture, or single texts are explained and applied to the practical purposes of admoni- tion, instruction, or consolation ; and properly intended for the service of the Church.'* The Latins called them sermones or tractatus, and the authors tractafores, whom we should call preachers; though, indeed, interpreters of every class were called tractatores scripturariim. The Glossaries also render hfuXia by tractatus^ and o/x;j>./xog by tractator. See especially Du Cange on the words. * The Homily corresponded to our sermon or lecture, but was often filled with pious fables, and the philosophy of the age. Origen and Chrysostom are the best writers in this form. XIII. The third form is that of Scholia^ which were likewise called Paul. These Scholia are, however, attributed to GEcumenius merely on the conjecture of Donatus of Ve- rona, the first editor, without any authority from the manuscripts, from which, in the opinion of Finetti^ they rather appear to have been the work of Theophylact ; see his Preface, T. iii. 0pp. Theophylact. This is the work so frequently quoted under the general name of Scholia^ by Erasmus, Camerarius, Beza, and other writers of that age; and is to be considered rather as a compilation from diiferent authors by some unknown hand, than as the work of one person. The name of CEcumenius occurs indeed on the margin, but so do those of John, that is of Chrysqstom and Photius. It may be concluded, that some extracts have been made from the works of Origen, as traces of his pe- culiar opinions may be detected ; see Erasmus on Heb. vii. 25.°* NEW TESTAMENT ; AND THEIR USE. 205 ™ [ Ammon in his note on this section observes, that Theo- phylact and (Ecumenius being mere compilers from Chry- sostom, are of little value : but it is this very circumstance that has rendered them valuable in the judgment of all the most eminent modern interpreters, who consider the value of time and the prolixity of Chrysostom.] XXII. Very similar to these is the short commentary of Johannes Damascenus on the Epistles of St. Paul, published in the 2d vol. of the Benedictine edition of his works. Da- mascenus, in his very title, professes to oiFer nothing but extracts from Chrysostom." ° Damascenus, a Syrian Monk, flourished in the eighth century, and was celebrated, not so much for his ability in interpretation, as on account of the dogmatic system which he gave in his book,