Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VIII.

ON THE VARIOUS READINGS OCCURRING IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.

I. The Christian Faith not affected by Various Readings.-II. Nature of Various Readings. Difference between them and mere errata.-III. Causes of various readings; -1. The negligence or mistakes of transcribers;-2. Errors or imperfections in the manuscript copied ;-3. Critical conjecture; - 4. Wilful corrup tions of a manuscript from party motives. IV. Sources whence a true reading is to be determined;-1. Manuscripts ;-2. Antient Editions; 3. Antient Versions;-4. Parallel Passages;5. Quotations in the Writings of the Fathers; -6. Critical conjecture.-V. General Rules for judging of Various Readings. -VI. Notice of Writers who have treated on Various Readings. 1. THE Old and New Testaments, in common with all other antient writings, being preserved and diffused by transcription, the admission of mistakes was unavoidable: which, increasing with the multitude of copies, necessarily produced a great variety of different readings. Hence the labours of learned men have been directed to the collation of manuscripts, with a view to ascertain the genuine reading: and the result of their researches has shown, that these variations are not such as to affect our faith or practice in any thing material: they are mostly of a minute, and sometimes of a trifling nature. "The real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. It is competently exact indeed, even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them." It is therefore a very ungrounded fear that the number of various readings, particularly in the New Testament, may diminish the certainty of the Christian religion. The probability, Michaelis remarks, of restoring the genuine text of any author, increases with the increase of the copies; and the most inaccurate and mutilated editions of antient writers are precisely those, of whose works the fewest manuscripts remain. Above

1 Dr. Bentley's Remarks on Free-thinking, rem. xxxii. (Bp. Randolph's Enchiridion Theologicum, vol. v. p. 163.) The various readings that affect doctrines, and require caution, are extremely few, and easily distinguished by critical rules: and where they do affect a doctrine, other passages confirm and establish it. See examples of this observation in Michaelis, vol. i. p. 266, and Dr. Nares's Strictures on the Unitarian Version of the New Testament, pp. 219-221.

2 Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. pp. 263–268. "In profane authors," says Dr. Bentley," (as they are called) whereof one manuscript only had the luck to be preserved, -as Velleius Paterculus among the Latins, and Hesychius among the Greeks -- the faults of the scribes are found so nume rous, and the defects so beyond all redress, that notwithstanding the pains of the learnedest and acutest critics for two whole centuries, those books still are, and are likely to continue, a mere heap of errors. On the contrary, where the copies of any author are numerous, though the various readings always increase in propor tion, there the text, by an accurate collation of them ruade by skilful and judicious

all, in the New Testament, the various readings show that there could have been no collusion; but that the manuscripts were written independently of each other, by persons separated by distance of time, remoteness of place, and diversity of opinions. This extensive independency of manuscripts on each other, is the effectual check of wilful alteration; which must have ever been immediately corrected by the agreement of copies from various and distant regions out of the reach of the interpolator. By far the greatest number of various readings relate to trifles, and make no alteration whatever in the sense, such as Δαβιδ for Δαυιδ; Σολομωντα for Σολομωνα; και for δε ; καγω for και εγω &e for and I); ελαττων for ελάσσων, Κύριος for Θεός ; λαλωσιν for λαλήσωσιν ; Μωσης for Μωυσης ; and γινεσθω for yever; all which in most cases may be used indifferently.

In order to illustrate the preceding remarks, and to convey an idea of their full force to the reader, the various readings of the first ten verses of Saint John's Gospel are annexed in Greek and English; and they are particularly chosen because they contain one of the most decisive proofs of the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

hands, is ever the more correct, and comes nearer to the true words of the author." Remarks on Free-thinking, in Enchirid. Theol. vol. v. p. 158.

[blocks in formation]

On the whole, these various readings.— though not selected from any single manuscript, but from all that have. been collated, together with the antient versions and the quotations from the fathers, no where contradict the sense of the evangelist; nor do they produce any material alteration in the text.1

The principal collators and collectors of various readings for the Old Testament, are Dr. Kennicott and M. de Rossi, of whose labours an account has already been given. As the price of their publications necessarily places them out of the reach of very many biblical students, the reader, who is desirous of availing himself of the results of their laborious and learned researches, will find a compendious abstract of them in Mr. Hamilton's Codex Criticus.3 For the New Testament, the principal collations are those of Erasmus, the editors of the Complutensian and London Polyglotts, Bishop Fell, Dr. Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetstein, Dr. Griesbach, and Matthæi, described in the preceding pages of this volume; and for the Septuagint, the collations of the late Rev. Dr. Holmes, and his continuator, the late Rev. J. Parsons.5

II. However plain the meaning of the term Various Reading' may be, considerable difference has existed among learned men concerning its nature. Some have allowed the name only to such readings as may possibly have proceeded from the author; but this restriction is improper. Michaelis's distinction between mere errata and various readings appears to be the true one. "Among two or more different readings, one only can be the true reading; and the rest must be either wilful corruptions or mistakes of the copyist." It is often difficult to distinguish the genuine from the spurious; and whenever the smallest doubt can be entertained, they all receive the name of VARIOUS READINGS; but, in cases where the transcriber has evidently written falsely, they receive the name of errata.

III. As all manuscripts were either dictated to copyists or transcribed by them, and as these persons were not supernaturally guard

1 Christian Observer for 1807, vol. vi. p. 221.

2 See pp. 122, 123. supra.

3 Codex Criticus of the Hebrew Bible, wherein Vander Hooght's text is corrected from the Hebrew manuscripts collated by Kennicott and De Rossi, and from the antient versions; being an attempt to form a standard text of the Old Testament. To which is prefixed an Essay on the nature and necessity of such an undertaking. By the Rev. George Hamilton, A. M. London, 1821, 8vo.

4 See pp. 127. 130. 132, 133, 134. 136. supra. Michaelis has given a list of authors who have collected various readings, with the remarks on their labours. Introd. vol. ii. part i. pp. 419-429. See also Pfaff's Dissertatio de Genuinis Novi Testamenti Lectionibus, pp. 101-122.

5 See an account of their edition of the Septuagint, supra, p. 132. of this volume.

ed against the possibility of error, different readings would naturally be produced: 1. By the negligence or mistakes of the transcribers; to which we may add, 2. The existence of errors or imperfections in the manuscripts copied; 3. Critical emendations of the text; and 4. Wilful corruptions made to serve the purposes of a party. Mistakes thus produced in one copy would of course be propagated through all succeeding copies made from it, each of which might likewise have peculiar faults of its own; so that various readings would thus be increased, in proportion to the number of transcripts that were made.

1. Various readings have been occasioned by the negligence or mistakes of the transcribers.

(1.) When a manuscript is dictated, whether to one or to several copyists, the party dictating might not speak with sufficient clearness; he might read carelessly, and even utter words that were not in his manuscript; he might pronounce different words in the same manner. copyist, therefore, who should follow such dictation, would necessarily produce different readings. One or two examples will illustrate this re

mark.

The

In Eph. iv. 19. Saint Paul, speaking of the Gentiles, while without the Gospel, says, that being past feeling, they gave themselves over to lasciviousness. For annynkorts, past feeling (which the context shows to be the genuine reading), several manuscripts, versions, and fathers read andяikores, being without hope. Dr. Mill is of opinion, that this lection proceeded from some ignorant copyist who had in his mind Saint Paul's account of the Gentiles in Eph. ii. 12. where he says that they had no hope, sida un exovres. But for this opinion there is no foundation whatever. The antient copyists were not in general men of such subtle genius. It is therefore most probable that the word anλIKOTES crept in, from a mis-pronunciation on the part of the person dictating. The same remark will account for the reading of vytɩn, young children, instead of no, gentle, in 1 Thes. ii. 7., which occurs in many manuscripts, and also in several versions and fathers. But the scope and context of this passage prove that no cannot be the original reading. It is the Thessalonians, whom the apostle considers as young children, and himself and fellow labourers as the nurse. He could not therefore with any propriety say that he was among them as a little child, while he himself professed to be their nurse.

(2.) Further, as many Hebrew and Greek letters are similar both in sound and in form, a negligent or illiterate copyist might, and the collation of manuscripts has shown that such transcribers did, occasion various readings by substituting one word or letter for another. Of these permutations or interchanging of words and letters, the Codex Cottonianus of the Book of Genesis affords the most striking examples.

Thus, B and M are interchanged in Gen. xliii. 11. TEPEμvov is written for τερεβινθον. — Γ' and K, as γυνηγος for κυνηγος, x. 9. ; and e contra φαλεκ for φαλέγ, xi. 10. - r and N, as συγκόψουσιν for συνκοψουσιν, xxxiv. 30. — Γ and X, as δραχματα for δράγματα, xxxvii. 6. A and A, as Keλpovacovs for Kedμwvalovs, XV. 19.; and è contra Διέωμ for Διλωμ, χχχνί. 2. . — Δ and N, as Νεβρων for Νεβρώδ, π. 9. -A and T, as Arar for Arad, x. 10., &c. -Z and 2, as Xacad for Xalad, xxii. 22.; and pakapišovov for Θ and Τ, αποςραφήτε pakapiooniv, XXX. 13. — and X, Oxolax for Oxosad, xxvi. 26. for απογραφηθι, χνί. θ. for ovk, xiii. ουχ -K and X, as Kadax for Xadax, x. 11.; and 9.-II and 4, as vpečnonrai for vñežnonra, xxxix. 9. Sometimes consonants are added to the end of the words apparently for the sake of euphony; as Xabad for Xoba, xiv. 15.-yvvaikav for yvvaika, xi. 13. — Evilar for Evida, x. 7.-M is generally retained in the different fexions of the verb λαμβάνω, in the future λημψομαι, Anpyorra, xiv. 23, 24, &c. and in the aorist, Anuponro, xviii. 4. And also in the word •μzapadnupons, xix. 17. This also is common in the Codex Vaticanus. Sometimes a double consonant is expressed by a single one, and rice versa; for instance, EVEVηKOVTU for εννενήκοντα, Ν. 9., and Σεννααρ for Σενααρ, Χ. 10. ; ψέλια for ψέλλια, χχίν. 47., 40

VOL. II.

-

&c.

μαχαιρη

for

μαχαίρα,

The VOWELS are often interchanged, for instance, A and E, as spakovra for τεσσαράκοντα, vii. 4., αναζη for ανεση, xxi. 14. — A and H, us ανέωξεν for ηνεωξεν, viii. 6, xxvii. 40. E and H, as εψεμα for έψημα, χχν. 29., ηνυπνιασθη for CvUTVIαon, xxviii. 12. Η and I, as Κιτιοι for Κητιοι, Χ. 4., ελικη for ελίκι, xlix. 11. O and Y, as wṛvda Η and Y, as πήχην for πήχυν, vi. 17. — Penua for Prupa, xxii. 24. for dopopa, vi. 17. — 0 and £, as Powbod for Powbwe, x. 11.

--

The Vowels are often interchanged with the Diphthongs, for instance, AI and E, 25 απελεύσεσθαι for απελεύσεσθε, xix. Σ., ανενεγκαι for ανενεγκε, xxii. 2., παιδιου for πεδίου, -EI and A, as yпpu for γηρα, χν. 15. χχχν. 27., καταξεται for κατάξετε, xlii. 38. El and E, as IVEKEY for EVEKEY, xviii. 5. El and H, as είδειν for ήδειν, xviii. 19. — ΕΙ and 1, as παρίσηκει for παρεισήκει, xviii. 8., γυναικια for γυναικεία, xviii. 11., ούδες for ουδεις, xxxi. 41., for κρείον OI and H, a. λabois for yabns, xxxi. 50. κριον, XV. 9., &c. ΟΥ and H, as πληρης for πληρους, xxvii. 27. ; and lastly, Οf and Ω, as καταρουμένους for καταρωμένους, xii. 13.1

in

The manuscripts of the New Testament abound with similar instances of perfor Axap mutations. Thus we meet with Αμιναδαμ for Αμιναδαβ, in Matt. i. 4. ; Ακειμ in Matt. i. 14.; dia twv padпwv for duo twv pantov, in Matt. xi. 2.; Marsas for Marθar, in Luke iii. 24. ; μαρανθη for μωρανθη, in Luke xiv. 34. ; τόπον for τύπον, John xx. 25.; xatpw for Kvow, in Rom. xii. 11.; Aavid for Aaßid, in Matt. i. 1., and in many other passages. The reader will find numerous other examples in the elder Michaelis's Dissertation on various readings.2 Permutations of this kind are very frequent in antient manuscripts, and also in inscriptions on coins, medals, stones, pillars, and other monuments of antiquity.

(3.) In like manner the transcribers might have mistaken the line on which the copy before them was written, for part of a letter; or they might have mistaken the lower stroke of a letter for the line; or they might have mistaken the true sense of the original, and thus have altered the reading; at the same time they were unwilling to correct such mistakes as they detected, lest their pages should appear blotted or defaced, and thus they sacrificed the correctness of their copy to the beauty of its appearance. This is particularly observable in Hebrew manuscripts. (4.) A person having written one or more words from a wrong place, and not observing it, or not choosing to erase it, might return to the right line, and thus produce an improper insertion of a word or a clause. Do the rulers know 18Of this we have a striking instance in John vii. 26.DEED (anews), that this is the VERY Christ, (aλndws ó Xpisos, TRULY the Christy The second anws is wanting in the Codices Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis (or Codex Beze), Cyprius, Stephani n, or Regius 62, Nanianus, and Ingolstadiensis, in numbers 1, 13, 28, 40, 63, 69, 116, 118, and 124 of Griesbach's notation, and nine other manuscripts of less note, which are not specified by him; it is also wanting in the manuscripts noted by Matthæi with the letters a, 1, s, and 10, in all the editions of the Arabic version, in Wheeloc's edition of the Persian version, in the Coptic, Ar menian, Sclavonic, and Vulgate versions; and in all the copies of the Old Italic version, except that of Brescia. Origen, Epiphanius, Cyril, Isidore of Pelusiars, Chrysostom, and Nonnus, among the antient fathers; and Grotius, Mill, Benge, Bishop Pearce, and Griesbach, among the modern writers, are all unanimous in rejecting the word αληθως. The sentence in 1 Cor. x. 23. Του γαρ Κυρίου η γη και To пλεowμа aurns, The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof, is wanting in the Codices Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Cantabrigiensis, Basileensis, Boreeli, Harleizaus, No. 5864, and Seidelii, and in Nos. 10, 17, 28, 46, 71*, 73, and 80, of Griesbach's notation: it is also wanting in the Syriac version, in Erpenius's edition of the Arabic version, in the Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, and Old Italic versions, and in the quotations of the fathers Johannes Damascenus, Ambrosiaster, Augustine, Isidore of Pelusium, and Bede. Griesbach has left it out of the text, as a clause that ought most undoubtedly to be erased. There is, in fact, scarcely any authority to support it; and the clause is superfluous; in all probability it was inserted from the twenty-sixth verse, which is word for word the same.

1 Dr. Holmes's Edition of the Septuagint, Vol. I. Præf. cap. II. 6 I.

2 D. Christiani Benedicti Michaelis Tractatio Critica de Variis Lectionibus Novi Testamenti, pp. 8-10. Halæ Magdeburgica, 1749, 4to.

« ZurückWeiter »