Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

cluded in those MSS., though which four had not been ascertained, little doubt could be entertained of Stephens's mistake.

Le Long, in 1720, undertook to ascertain the four very MSS. belonging to the Royal Library used by Stephens. He succeeded in identifying them; and found they omitted the whole verse. From this period Stephens's semicircle was abandoned to its fate, till Archdeacon Travis took a journey to Paris, in 1791, with a view to re-collate the MSS. on which Le Long had fixed, as the seven which were used by Stephens. The effect of his examination was a full confidence on his part that Le Long had been mistaken in the MSS., that the crotchet stands in the proper place in the text of Stephens, and that the calumniated memory of Ste phens would be redeemed to its ancient honours." But all this is no better than idle vaunting, for Travis only proved himself to be totally unfit for the task of examining and collating Greek MSS., as no doubt can be entertained of the identity of the MSS. in question.

Four of the seven MSS. used by Stephens, containing the Catholic Epistles, and referred to by the mistaken placing of his crotchet, as if they read the disputed verse, being thus ascertained, and found not to contain it; during the interval of 1791 and 1794, when Travis's last edition of his letters appeared, Mr., now Dr. Marsh, Bishop of Peterborough, thought he discovered another of those MSS. in the library of the University of Cambridge. And in the year 1793, in a note to the second volume of his Translation of Michaelis' Introduction to the New Testament, he intimated this discovery. This MS. had once belonged to Vatabalus, the friend N. S. No. 52,

of Stephens, and perfectly corresponds with the Codex Stephani ιγ. This MS. also omits the whole of the disputed verse; and thus five of Stephens's seven MSS., containing the Catholic Epistles, have been discovered, and are found to want the passage. The two other MSS. have not yet, I believe, been found, but the question, as to all the MSS., must be regarded as settled.

This note of Dr. Marsh, Travis attacked in the last edition of his Letters to Gibbon. The following is the passage:

"In addition to these adversaries, the learned translator of Michaelis has lately informed the world, that the MS. distinguished by the letters y R. Stephens, is now in the Library of the University of Cambridge, is there marked Kk, 6.4, and that it contains the epistle of St. John, but not the verse, 1 John v. 7. His argument on this subject may be reduced to the following heads.

"1. The readings which R. Stephens has produced from the MS. y alone, throughout the Catholic Epistles, amount to twenty.

[ocr errors]

2. These singular readings are all found without any exception, and without the least variation' in this MS. Kk.

"3. Several of these singular readings have been discovered in no MS. whatever since the days of R. Stephens.

"4. This extraordinary coincidence, united with the circumstance that the MS.Kk has the name of a contemporary, and a friend of R. Stephens in it, affords the strongest proof that the MS., now in question, and the MS. ty of R. Stephens, are one and the same book: And therefore,

"5. The semicircle of R. Stephens is misplaced.

"The observations on this arBb

gument, founded on an examination of the Catholic Epistles, in this MS. Kk, shall follow the order in which the several parts of that argument are here arranged.

1. On referring to the margin of R. Stephens, it will appear that he has quoted his MS. y solely, not merely in twenty, but in twenty-five places.

But

"2. One of these singular readings, which is not found in the MS. Kk, is in James v. 7, in which passage this copy reads ewe Maß καρπον πρωιμον και οψιμον. the MS. y reads the passage thus, ews av λaßη πwiμor kai ofipov, without kaprov or any other substantive. This may, perhaps, be one of those five passages which Mr. Marsh did not reckon. It renders his whole argument ineffective, although the other twentyfour singular readings should be (as on examination they appear to be) in the MS. Kk.

"3. As to the assertion that several of these singular readings have been discovered in no MS. whatever since the days of R. Stephens, it will appear, on consulting the various readings collected by Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach, that the case stands thus, or nearly thus. Of the twenty-four singular readings, in which the MS. ty and Kk agree, twelve have been discovered in other Greek MSS., six more have been found in some of the oldest versions, and one more in Cyril, of Alexandria; so that there are only five singular readings, which have not yet been found any where, except in the MSS. Kk,

and y.

"4. Mr. Marsh infers from this extraordinary coincidence, (a coincidence of twelve readings,) and from the word Vatablus being written in the MS. Kk, that it

must be the MS. y of R. Stephens. It will instantly appear how insignificant the latter circumstance is. And with regard to the former, if it be a just inference that two MSS. are the same, because they agree in a certain number of passages, where they deviate from all other copies; it is surely reasonable to conclude, that if one of two given MSS. shall disagree, not only with the other, but also with the rest of the MSS. which have hitherto been collated, in a far greater number of passages, they must be two different MSS.

[blocks in formation]

Among the 135 readings, just mentioned, there are 42 which are not to be met with, either in the margin of R. Stephens, or in the various readings of Mill, of Wetstein, or of Griesbach; that is, there are 42 passages wherein the MS. Kk differs, not only from the MS. 7, (as the fair presumption is,) but from every other known MS. But there are twelve places alone in which the MS. 7 is known to disagree with the MS. Kk, and to differ from every other copy. From all which facts and circumstances taken together, it appears most probable that the copies now in question are two different MSS. And therefore that

[ocr errors]

5. Mr. Marsh's argument does not shew that the semicircle of R. Stephens is misplaced.

"It will not be too strong an observation to remark, that such accusations tarnish not his well

[blocks in formation]

It was in defence of his note, therefore, and in farther support of his own views, and those of Michaelis, on 1 John v. 7, that this learned writer published at Leipsic, where he was then residing, the following able volume; "Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, in Vindication of one of the Translator's Notes to Michaelis's Introduction, and in confirmation of the opinion that a Greek MS. now preserved in the Public Library of the University of Cambridge, is one of the seven, which are quoted by R. Stephens, at 1 John v. 7. With an Appendix, containing a Review of Mr. Travis's Collation of the Greek MSS. which he examined in Paris; an Extract from Mr. Pappelbaum's Treatise on the Berlin MS.; and an Essay on the Origin and Object of the Valesian Readings. 8vo. 1795."

These letters, seven in number, with the appendices, supplied every thing that was wanting to complete the discomfiture and disgrace of the unfortunate Archdeacon. They deprive him not only of every shadow of argument, but clearly prove that he resorted to artifice to support the cause he had rashly undertaken to defend. It is impossible to convey an idea of the labour, research, and learning, which this admirable volume displays. It is worth being consulted, as an exercise of the un

* Travis's Letters, pp. 410-414.

Mr. Butler, by mistake, represents

Michaelis as at first an advocate for the

disputed verse, and refers to a book, by him, on that side of the question, and to another also in opposition to it--Horæ Biblica, Vol. I. p. 379.-What he affirms of Michaelis, belongs to Semler, who changed his views, and wrote both the works which Mr. Butler ascribes to Michaelis. See Marsh's Michaelis, vol. vi. p. 413.

derstanding, and of being refer red to as a specimen of the most admirably sustained argumentation. The main positions are established by a superfluity of proof, so that the reader has no option, but to adopt the conclusion respecting the identity of the MSS., the misplacing of the crotchet, and consequently that none of the MSS. used by Stephens really contained this passage. On every point, indeed, involved in this discussion, much curious and accurate information is communicated, so that the reader will find it one of the most valuable works in the whole range of biblical criticism. One of the most curious applications of mathematical science to moral evidence, is contained in this work. By the application of a mathematical theorem, in the fourth letter, to the documents produced in the second and fifth letters, the learned writer endeavours to show that the probability in favour of the MS. Kk. 6. 4, in the University of Cambridge, being one of the MSS. collated by Stephens, is, to the probability of the contrary, as two nonillions to unity. This he conceives, if the calculation be correct, every one will consider as amounting to a moral certainty.

Various opinions may be entertained respecting the propriety of applying mathematical science to such subjects; and also respecting the perfect accuracy of the algebraic formula on which he reasons; but only one opinion can exist respecting the point to which it is applied. Dr. Marsh's account of the steps which led to the result at which he finally arrived, is singularly interesting, though too long for quotation, and affords a beautiful specimen of critical caution and, acumen. The following passage will show his views and feelings respecting

the moral and intellectual qualities of his antagonist.

"Here I would willingly close this subject; but as you, your self, are so extremely liberal of censure, even in cases where you ought rather to applaud, you must not expect to escape, where censure is justly due. The expression, shameful debility,' which you apply to Le Long, Wetstein, and Griesbach, might be retorted, not four but four score fold upon yourself; for of an hundred examples, which you have produced, p. 220-241, and which have been the subject of the preceding inquiry, there are more than seventy, which are either false, or prove nothing, or prove against your self. When I find you arguing from Stephens's silence, and concluding that his MSS. agreed with his text, wherever he has not specified the contrary, or when I see you gravely copying Stephens's own words, and producing them as various readings of a Greek MS., I have no other sensation than that of pity for a man, who has imprudently engaged in sacred criticism, without possessing the necessary qualifications. But when I meet with assertions that cannot be ascribed to want of knowledge; when I find you quoting Stephens for evidence, which he has not given, and suppressing that which he really has, and consider that there are instances of the former kind, in which you could hardly have been taken by surprise, and examples of the latter, in which you neither could have been ignorant of what Stephens had quoted, nor of the impossibility of concealing that quotation, without leading your readers into error, it is really difficult to avoid giving way to the feelings of a just indignation.'

#66

[blocks in formation]

This volume may be considered as concluding the direct contro. versy occasioned by Gibbon's attack. Travis never returned to the charge. He died about this time, not without a suspicion that the controversy severely affected his health, and contributed to shorten his days.

In 1801, Dr. Marsh published the second part of the translation of Michaelis's Introduction. The last volume of this work contains a Dissertation of that learned German on the passage in question; in which, among other things, he gives a short account of what had been published in Germany, in defence of the passage, subsequently to 1750, the year in which the first edition of his Introduction appeared, and in which he had expressed his opinion that the passage was spurious.

"The first is a thesis written for a public disputation by Dr. Semler, at Halle, in 1751, entitled, Vindicia plurium præcipuarum lectionum codicis Græci Novi Testamenti, adversus Whistonum, atque ab eo latas leges criticas. This tract eminently distinguishes itself from the rest by its profound learning, and great moderation. It would be superfluous to make any reply to it at present, because the learned author himself, who soon after altered his opinion, not only confuted all the arguments which had been used in favour of 1 John v. 7, but wrote the most important work which we have on this subject.

"The next defence of 1 John v. 7, was written by Mr. I. E. Wagner, in 1752, and entitled, Integritas commatis septimi capitis quinti primæ Joannis epistolæ ab impugnationibus novatoris cujusdam denuo vindicata. This treatise was directed particularly against me, whom the author

[ocr errors]

meant by his novator quidam.' But with such an adversary as Mr. Wagner, I never could persuade myself to enter into any controversy.

"After a lapse of above thirty years, the learned Knittel undertook another defence of the disputed passage in his New Criticisms on 1 John v. 7,' printed at Brunswick, in 1785. This is a valuable work, and much useful information may be derived from it; but in the proof of the principal point the author has totally failed.

"In the same year, Mr. Travis published in London his Letters to Gibbon;' and in the year following, Mr. Stresow printed at Hamburgh his Open Avowal of the Doctrine of the Trinity, as delivered in 1 John v. 7.' But both of these publications betrayed the utmost partiality and ignorance."* The greatest part of Michaelis's dissertation is occupied in combating the ground on which Bengel had rested the defence of the text, which is done in a very masterly and convincing manner. The sixth section is occupied with Michaelis's view of the manner in which the passage was introduced into the Latin copies, from which little doubt can be entertained, it was afterwards translated into Greek, and thus obtained possession, first of one Greek MS., and then of the Complutensian Edition. As the section is short, I shall give it entire.

"When it has been proved, by satisfactory evidence, that a passage is spurious, it is wholly unnecessary to show at what time, or in what manner, the passage was first introduced. There are many readings in our common printed

[blocks in formation]

we

text, which, at present, are universally allowed to be false, though we cannot ascertain by what copyist they were first written, or what particular cause has given them birth. In such cases must be satisfied with probable conjecture; for historical evidence is seldom to be expected, since interpolations are in general clandestine facts, and are very rarely recorded. But since the advocates of 1 John v. 7, contend, that this passage would not have been contained in the Latin version, unless it had been contained likewise in the Greek, I will endeavour to show in what manner it was first introduced into the Latin version.

"The simple fact, that it had its origin in the Latin, is indisputable, since it is contained in no ancient Greek manuscript, and in no other version. And the cause, which gave it birth, was probably the following. It appears from the third section of this chapter, that the African fathers interpreted 1 John 5. 8, mystically, and considered the spirit, the water, and the blood,' as denoting the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Further it must be remarked, that the African fathers were the first who discovered 1 John v. 7, in the Latin version. The combination of these two facts leads to the following probable conclusion; that the spiritual interpretation of 1 John v. 8, was written in the margin of one or more Latin manuscripts, and that in order to distinguish the terrestial from the celestial meaning, the words in terra' were added as a marginal gloss, in reference to ' testimonium dant' in the eighth verse, by which means both the literal and the spiritual meaning were rendered perfect. According to this repre

« AnteriorContinuar »