dressy literature, an exaggerated literature seem to be fated to These are our curses, as other times had theirs. us. "And yet Think not the living times forget, W. B. ART. III.-MODERN EDITIONS OF THE GREEK TESTAMENT CONSIDERED, INCLUDING THE STATE OF THE TEXT AND ITS INTERPRETATION. Novum Testamentum Græce. Ad antiquos testes denuo recensuit apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit, commentationem isagogicam prætexuit, Enoth. Frid. Const. Tischendorf. Editio septima. 2 Vols., 8vo. 1859. THE labours of Griesbach in connection with the text of the New Testament are too well known to need explanation. At an early age he began to turn his attention to the subjects which continued to occupy his maturer years. As soon as 1771, when he was only twenty-seven years of age, he composed a dissertation, De codicibus quatuor Evangeliorum Origenianis. From that time till his death in 1812, the New Testament was the great theme of his lectures; all his researches tending to throw light upon its meaning, or to ascertain the original reading of the text. His labours may be said to have culminated in the second edition of his Greek Testament, published in the years 1796 and 1806, which has a valuable collection of critical authorities in support of readings; and was elaborated with great care. In some cases the text of the smaller octavo edition of 1805, two volumes, containing a few of the most important various readings, occasionally differs from that of its large predecessor, and may therefore be said to represent Griesbach's latest opinion. Thus, in his large edition, no sign is prefixed to Mark xvi. 9-20, to show the opinion he entertained of the passage; but in the smaller, he puts one of "probable omission." We know from his Commentarius Criticus, that he thought it spurious. The differences are very few and unimportant. Whatever may be thought of his recension-system, derived with much ingenuity from the characteristic readings of MSS., versions, and ecclesiastical quotations, he did an invaluable service to criticism by putting the different documents it employs into certain classes. As it was deemed hazardous in his day to depart from the received text, it could not be expected that he should throw it aside altogether and construct a new one. Taking it as the basis, his deviations are few, and well considered. Few as they are, however, he was assailed with reproaches, accused of heresy, and charged with dishonesty. His rejection of 1 John v. 7, as spurious; his substitution of öç for eÓS in 1 Timothy iii. 16, and his alteration of Acts xx. 28, exposed him to unjust suspicions or unmerited abuse. That he was right with regard to the three places, is usually admitted at the present day. The invectives of his assailants are consigned to oblivion; while the reputation of the critic rests on an immovable basis.* His second edition of the Greek Testament constituted an epoch; and cannot be safely dispensed with by the scholar. If the text he has printed as the best be too modern because it does not depart far enough from the Elzevir, it should be remembered that he had not accurate collations of many ancient MSS.; and that he did not think of making an entirely new one based on ancient authorities. He could not do impossibilities. But he had remarkable sagacity, sound judgment, a calm temperament, and an impartial spirit. He was candid, upright, and honest in his treatment of evidence. In capacity for textual criticism he stands conspicuous; and we do not envy the man who attempts to detract from his fair fame, or to depreciate his learning. There are few critics, indeed, in whose competency we should have more reliance. In the line of illustrious scholars, Bengel, Wetstein, and Mill, his place is pre-eminently honourable. The guiding principle of the Jena professor is well-known. "We have reason to apprehend," said one, "that the precious balms of the English Unitarians, or their grateful incense to his first edition, brake the head or disordered the judgment of this liberal Trinitarian,' while the munificent patronage of their noble leader, the Duke of Grafton, warped his integrity, and both probably rendered him a decided Unitarian in the second, in which we seek in vain for his former profession of faith in the divinity of Christ recorded in the first edition."-Hales's Faith in the Holy Trinity, vol. ii. p. 31. From the consent of the Alexandrian and Western recensions he concludes that a reading common to both is the most ancient and therefore authentic, provided its own internal goodness be patent to view. If it be destitute of the internal criteria of truth, it should be considered whether the want of these criteria has greater weight than the consenting testimony of the Alexandrian and Western recensions. Perhaps he has attributed too much importance to the consent of the two recensions; especially in the first volume of his edition. Nor has he been very successful in classifying the documents belonging to the recensions, chiefly because they cannot all be brought under these different heads, owing either to the mixed state of their texts, or our imperfect acquaintance with them. As an instance of Griesbach's sagacity, we may refer to the mark of approbation he prefixes to the reading in Acts ix. 31, ἡ μὲν οὖν ἐκκλησία εἶχεν κ.τ.λ, indicating that it is worthy of farther examination. So it is; the singular church instead of the plural churches being the right reading. It is often asserted by Congregationalists and others, especially at their little meetings for self-glorification, that when a particular place a town or city-is spoken of, we have the church in that place; and when a region or district of country is referred to, we have the churches in that district. "Invariably," says Dr. Wardlaw, "whenever a place is mentioned, we have the singular, church, and whenever a district the plural, churches." Not so; since the present text dissipates that idea. Again, at 1 Corinthians xv. 51, he places a mark of approbation before the reading πάντες μὲν κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δέ, which is undoubtedly correct. - All scholars regret that Dr. Schulz of Breslau did not re-edit the entire work, but only the four Gospels. The improved and enlarged form which he gave to the first volume in 1827, shows the hand of one competent to the task. The additions and corrections are considerable, especially from Bentley's collation of B; the readings of Z or the Dublin MS. of St. Matthew; from K or the cod. Cyprius; and from the Gothic version as edited by Zahn, with the fragments published by Mai, together with the fragments of the Sahidic and Bashmuric, published respectively by Ford and Engelbreth. But it is sufficient to refer to Schulz's own preface for an account of what he did in connection with the first volume. After Griesbach's, no edition of importance in the criticism of the text appeared till the unpretending duodecimo of Lachmann was published at Berlin, in the year 1831. In thirteen lines of explanation appended to this work, the editor states that he never followed his own opinion merely, but the custom of the most ancient Oriental churches. As often as he perceived that to be variable, he preferred the readings sanctioned by the consent of the Africans and Italians. In 1842, 1850, a larger edition was published by the same critic, having the authorities appended by Buttmann. Lachmann seems to have felt that the text of his smaller edition was almost useless without the authorities on which it rested; and therefore a larger was prepared, which has the Vulgate accompanying the Greek text. The object of the second is to give the text current in the third and fourth centuries, from Oriental sources, with the application of Western MSS. where the former do not agree among themselves. The design of it was not to restore the true, original text, but the oldest available one. The former task seems to have been thought impossible, because contemporary testimonies are wanting. For the Oriental readings the editor relies mainly upon A, B, C, as also on P, Q, T, Z, for the gospels; on H for Paul's epistles, and on Origen; for the Western he uses in the Gospels the oldest MSS. of the Italic; for the Pauline epistles D, G, and generally Irenæus, Cyprian, Hilary of Poictiers, Lucifer, with Primasius in the Apocalypse. D in the Gospels, and E of the Acts, as well as the Vulgate, are only applied in a secondary degree. It is to be regretted that his Oriental MSS. are so few in parts of the New Testament; sometimes B alone, and sometimes A alone, or nearly so. His basis is too narrow, as it excludes the valuable Peshito and some other ancient versions of importance. The The idea of Lachmann is a sound one, to procure as ancient a text as possible from the most approved authorities, that it may become the basis of a pure text. As the editor carries out his plan with mathematical exactness, the mere mistakes of the ancient testimonies on which he relies are given, as rǹY without ἀγάπην in Ephes. i. 15; and εἰ μὴν for ἦ μὴν in Hebrews vi. 14. This is consistent with his purpose, which was meant to exclude all subjectivity and caprice. principle of the work cannot be gainsaid. It sets aside the common text as the source from which the genuine original should be sought; and takes the oldest that is procurable with a view to the same end. Hence it makes an epoch in the criticism of the New Testament. It would have been an improvement if the editor had taken a wider range; since his authorities are occasionally too few. He might have profitably descended as far as the seventh century. But we are not disposed to complain. The service which Lachmann rendered must be highly valued by every competent judge. The collations, indeed, of his authorities were imperfect and faulty, especially of B C. Even for the Vulgate he had not the exact readings of the best codices. Hence the work is susceptible of correction and improvements. It should never be forgotten that it was not meant to be an edition in the ordinary sense; but an exhibition of the text current in the time of Jerome. And the critic did not think that even that presented the genuine original in many cases. Thus in Matthew xxvii. 28, he has ivdúouvres, though he believes that ἐκδύσαντες was the original word. In Acts xxvi. 28, ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι which he edits, is thought to have been at first ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθῃ χριστιανὸν ποιῆσαι. In 1 Cor. viii. 1, he supposes that πάντες γνῷσιν ἔχομεν was originally οὐ πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν. We agree with him in believing that the original must sometimes be sought by conjecture, as in John viii. 44, where the words as they stand can only be understood as meaning "when he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own; for he is a liar, and so is his father," i.e., the father of the devil is a liar; which is absurd and senseless. Supposing that the words were at first ὥς ἄν λαλῆ instead of ὅταν λαλῆ, all will be plain. "Whosoever speaks a lie, speaks of his own, for his father too is a liar." In not a few instances the critic is mistaken, as in Matthew xxi. 31, where he defends the reading o vorEpos as yielding a good sense, which it does not: Undoubtedly the right reading is ὁ πρῶτος ; for ὁ ὕστερος can hardly be equivalent to ὁ ὕστερος ἀπελθών. Scholz's edition of the Greek Testament appeared in 1830 and 1836; 2 vols. 4to. His revised text comes nearer the received one than that of Griesbach; a fact arising from his putting the Constantinopolitan above the Alexandrian family. Those who prefer the readings of the most ancient MSS. will not estimate it highly; while such as are partial to the younger copies, will attach more importance to it. We believe that the work is a failure. The editor was not competent to the task. He wanted accuracy, sound judgment, acuteness, skill, sagacity. No reliance can be placed upon his collations; nor can it be said that he advanced the criticism of the Greek Testament. Inconsistent with himself, he often adopts a reading which is not Constantinopolitan; as in Acts xx. 28, where he should have κupíov κai Orov instead of TOU OɛOU. Griesbach's notes are sometimes copied so thoughtlessly, that his very references to other works are retained; which would lead an ordinary reader to the conclusion that Scholz, not Griesbach, had written those works. For example, in quoting Cyril of Alexandria on 1 Timothy iii. 16, |