Review. ART. VII.—Biblisch-kritische Reise, &c. i. e. Travels for the purpose of Biblical Criticism in France, Switzerland, Italy, Palestine, and the Archipelago, during the Years 1818, 1819, 1820, and 1821; with a History of the Text of the New Testament. By DR. JOHN MARTIN AUGUSTIN SCHOLTZ, Professor of Theology in the University at Bonn. Leipsic. Fleischer. 1823. 8vo. pp. 214. DR. SCHOLTZ, who is a Roman Catholick, is preparing a new critical edition of the New Testament. He undertook these travels for the purpose of examining and collating manuscripts. The first, and much the longest part of his work consists, principally, of accounts of the number, which he found in different libraries, and particular remarks upon the character of some, with specimens of their various readings, glosses, corrections, subscriptions, &c. This part admits of no abstract, and affords but little opportunity for selecting any notices of particular interest. The Royal Library at Paris, he observes, possesses a greater number of valuable manuscripts than any other. Even the Vatican can compare with it only in the particular department of Syriack manuscripts. There are found in it nine manuscripts of the whole New Testament, one hundred and twelve of the Gospels, forty nine Evangelistaries, twenty four manuscripts of the Acts and the Epistles, three of the Acts, with the Catholick Epistles alone, sixteen of the Epistles of St. Paul, or of portions of these Epistles, nine of the Apocalypse, and eight containing various readings on the whole New Testament. The Ephraim manuscript, containing the whole New Testament, is the most famous and valuable of those in the Paris Library. Dr. Scholtz expresses a wish, as Griesbach had done before him, that it should be printed, as the Alexandrine and Cambridge manuscripts have been. It is becoming daily more illegible. It has,' he remarks, all the peculiar characteristicks which belonged to the numberless manuscripts 6 of Egypt, which are now lost; and is thus a true copy of the text, which was in use in this famous Patriarchy, and with which, alas! we are but very imperfectly acquainted.' The apparent inconsistency between the last clause and what precedes, may be partly explained by the circumstance, that the Ephraim manuscript is very defective, much of the writing being wholly defaced. He praises, as other criticks have done, the diligence and patience of Wetstein in tracing its almost obliterated characters; but says that it is objected to him concerning this, as well as other manuscripts, that he has quoted only a portion of its various readings. As it regards the Ephraim manuscript, we doubt whether there is any more ground for the assertion, than there is for many of the other attacks, which have been made upon this eminent critick. The present state of the manuscript may be conjectured from what Griesbach relates, that the keeper of the Royal Library, though very polite and attentive, could scarcely be persuaded to listen to his request to produce it; on the ground that the writing was so obliterated, that it was impossible for any one to read it. He was struck with admiration, when he found that Griesbach was able to read whole lines with little difficulty.* In the Vatican Library, are nine manuscripts of the whole New Testament, seven of which were seen by Birch; fifty one manuscripts of the Gospels, twenty seven of which were examined by Birch, and twenty four for the first time by Scholtz. Sixteen Evangelistaries, (first examined by Scholtz,) sixteen manuscripts of the Acts and Epistles, five only of which are quoted by Griesbach, nine of the Epistles of St. Paul, (one of them containing also the Apocalypse,) five only of which are quoted by Griesbach, three of the Apocalypse alone, and two Lectionaries. Dr. Scholtz has discovered in the Vatican Library another manuscript, containing the famous text 1 John, v. 7. It is marked Ottob. 298. It contains the Acts and Epistles, is accompanied with a Latin translation, and was written, as he supposes, in the fifteenth century. We will give the text as it is quoted by Scholtz from this manuscript, noting the variations of the Dublin manuscript, or Codex Montfortianus, the only other in which it is found, * Symbolæ Criticæ, I. 4. excepting the Berlin, or Codex Ravianus, which is now universally given up as a forgery. Απο του ουρανου [the Dublin manuscript reads εν τῳουρανο] πατηρ, λόγος και πνευμα άγιον • και [the Dublin inserts όντα] οι τρεις εις το [the Dublin omits εις το] έν εισι· και τρεις είσαι Οι μαρτυρούντες απο της γης [the Dublin reads εν τη γη]. The text of the Ottoboni manuscript, Scholtz observes, has been, in many other places, corrupted from the Latin version. In a short digression annexed to his account of the library at Paris, the author mentions some manuscript letters of Wetstein. They are in the possession of M. ChampollionFigeac at Paris. From one of them, addressed to Mr. Wetstein, chaplain to the Princess of Wales, Dr. Scholtz quotes an interesting passage, of which we will give a part. The original is in French. Wetstein, after remarking that he has been charged with plagiarism, meaning in his commentary, says; I read Greek and Latin authors for forty years, and it was thus that I began my labour. After retouching the work and my collections, I consulted the Thesaurus of Henry Stephens, and all those who have given notes, Price, Grotius, Alberti, Elsner, Raphel, Morus, Majus, &c. and from them I completed my collection, though seven eighths of their observations were already in my papers. If any one is disposed to believe that I have taken every thing from them, he may still enjoy the advantage of finding brought together, what he would have been obliged to seek in ten or twelve octavos not very common in England. As to the Hebrew [Rabbinical] quotations, I began at second hand with Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Buxtorf's Lexicon; but in order to complete the work, I read myself the Babylonian Talmud, and all the Rabboth.' It was thus that this most valuable commentary was formed. Wetstein speaks of it in the conclusion of his letter with equal propriety and modesty. The commentary was not my principal object, but only an accessory to my work; and it is rather a mass of materials, than an arranged and finished edifice.' This is true; but it is a mass of materials, which subsequent scholars have used most freely, and to the greatest advantage. In the last portion of his work, Dr. Scholtz gives his views of the history of the text of the New Testament, of the classifi cation of authorities, and of their relative value. On these points, he differs from Griesbach, and most other preceding criticks. The subject is important; and we shall take this opportunity to make some remarks upon it. The statements and theory of Griesbach seem to us to lie open to great objections, while, at the same time, we are far from adopting the opinions of the present writer. · Griesbach divides the authorities for settling the text of the New Testament into three principal classes, called by him recensiones, recensions, or critical editions. He regards the manuscripts, versions, and quotations, belonging respectively to each of these classes, as more or less conformed to a standard text different from that of either of the two other classes. The grounds of this classification are briefly explained by him in the third section of the Prolegomena to his edition of the New Testament. That two different recensions,' he says, were in existence at the commencement of the third century, appears from comparing the quotations of Origen with those of Tentullian and Cyprian. The Greek Text, implied in the quotations of the latter, is different in its whole conformation and entire colouring (toto suo habitu universoque colore) from that which was used by Origen, and, before him, by Clement of Alexandria. The former text is found in those manuscripts, in which the Greek text is accompanied with a Latin version, in the Latin versions which preceded the Vulgate, in that portion of the Vatican manuscript, which contains the Gospel of Matthew,' in seven other more modern manuscripts mentioned by him, in the Sahidick version, and the Syriack of Jerusalem.' The latter text (the Alexandrine) is found in the Ephraim manuscript, in that marked L, in the Gospels (the Codex Stephani,) in the Vatican, with the exception of the first and greater part of St. Matthew's Gospel, in that part of the Alexandrine, which contains St. Paul's Epistles, in a very few more modern manuscripts, though in these in a more corrupt state, in the Coptick, Æthiopick, Armenian and Philoxenian-Syriack versions, and in the quotations of Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril of Alexandria, Isidore of Pelusium, and others. This text, being used by Clement and Origen, who flourished at Alexandria, and generally at Alexandria and throughout Egypt, may be denominated the Alexandrine. The other text, being from the time of Tertullian used throughout the West in the Latin Church, may be called the Western. It was not, however, says Griesbach, confined within the bounds of the Western Empire, as appears from the agreement of the Sahidick version, and the Syriack of Jerusalem, which though not constant is frequent.' But besides these two most ancient texts, there was a third, which is first found in the quotations of the Greek Fathers, who flourished about the close of the fourth, and in the fifth and sixth centuries. It has been distinguished into the earlier and later, and in one or the other form is found in the great majority of manuscripts; and in the Sclayonick and Gothick versions. It prevailed in the Patriarchy of Constantinople, and was thence spread over the world. It may therefore be denominated the Constantinopolitan or Byzantine. The characteristicks of these three different texts, as given by Griesbach, are as follows. "The Western text preserves genuine readings of a harsher kind, remote from the analogy of the Greek language, Hebraisms, solecisms, cacophonies; by all which Western readers would be less offended. In the Alexandrine recension, there appears a disposition to remove or alter whatever might be offensive to the ear of a native Greek. The Western endeavours to explain the sense, and render it more obvious by interpretations, periphrases, additions, which were eagerly sought for, (additamentis undecunque conquisitis), and by transpositions of words and sentences. It is the object of the Alexandrine to improve the language, rather than illustrate the meaning. The Western presents us with longer readings, it has more words, it contains additions derived from parallel passages; but it also sometimes omits words, which seem to obscure the sense, or to be contradictory to the context, or to what is found elsewhere; in all which respects the Alexandrine is purer. In a word, in the Alexandrine text we discover the work of a grammarian, in the Western that of an interpreter. In all the particulars which have been mentioned, the Byzantine corresponds much with the Alexandrine, differing from it only in discovering yet more regard to purity of language, and in admitting readings from the Western text different from the Alexandrine, or readings compounded of those found in both texts.' The origin,' says Griesbach, 'of these different recensions, in the deficiency of ancient documents and testimony, cannot be historically explained.' |