« AnteriorContinuar »
were foreign to the usage of the Hellenistic style is not LatinGreek; Greek Church, before the intro- whether the many new words in duction of printed editions, in the Elzivir Greek Testament are which the Latin chapters were not formed from the Latin ; and adopted, as well for the Greek as whether the hypothesis that the for the Latin Testament.
Greek Text of niany MSS. of the "....... The Dublin MS. New Testament is a translation or therefore, if not written for the re-translation from the Latin, seems purpose to which it was applied not to elucidate numerous pasin the third edition of Erasmus, sages, to account for the different could hardly have been written Recensions, and to explain many more than fifty years before. Phænomena hitherto inexplicable And how widely those critics have to Biblical Critics. erred in their conjectures, who The author of this volume, who have supposed that it was written was long concealed, and is not so early as the twelfth century, yet I believe generally known, appears from the fact, that the was the Rev. John Black, Minis. Latin chapters were not invented ter of Coylton, in the South of till the thirteenth century.
Scotland, and Author of the Life “But the influence of the Church and Translation of Tasso. It of Rome in the composition of the would scarcely be supposed that Dublin MS. is most conspicuous the Clergy man of a small and in the text of that manuscript, obscure parish north of the Tweed, which is a servile imitation of the would be the author of a work Latin Vulgate. It will be suffi- which has troubled both the Unicient to mention how it follows versities of England. But the the Vulgate in the place in ques. translator of Tasso was no ordition. It not only agrees with the nary man both in genius and Vulgate in the insertion of the learning. seventh verse : it follows the Vul. In this singular volume, the gate also at the end of the sixth author endeavours to revive someverse, having Xplotos, where all thing like the wild and exploded other Greek manuscripts have hypothesis of the Jesuit Hardouin, a vevua : and in the eighth verse it who maintained that our Lord and omits the final clause, which had his Apostles spoke Latin, and never been omitted in the Greek that the Latin Vulgate was the manuscripts, and was not omitted original of the New Testament. even in the Latin manuscripts be- The anonymous author of the Pa.fore the thirteenth century. Such læoromaica contends, that the is the character of that solitary Greek New Testament is a transmanuscript, which is opposed to lation of a Latin original, the text the united evidence of all former of which is not preserved in the manuscripts, including the Codex Vulgate, or any Latin version in Vaticanus, and the Codex Alex. being. He also maintains that andrinus."*
it is a translation by an unknown A singular work, in which this writer, imperfectly acquainted both controversy is introduced, ap- with Latin and Greek. peared in 1822, under the techni. The proofs of these fanciful and cal title of “ Palæoromaica; or extravagant notions, the reader Historical and Philological Disc will easily suppose, must be very quisitions; inquiring whether the extraordinary. The writer is by
no means deficient in ingenuity, * Lect. xxvii. pp. 19-26. and has evidently spared no pains to bolster up his theory. He original; and that the Elzevir argues from the existence of cer- Testament may, like the Aldine tain analogous cases of transla- Simplicius, be a Greek re-transtion from the Latin, and particu- lation from the Latin of an original larly from the Aldine edition of Greek work. This the author the Greek Simplicius : from the proceeds to corroborate, in the fact that in the days of the Apos- fourth disquisition, by a list of tles, Latin, not Greek, was the words, phrases, &c. arranged into prevailing language of Judea, and twelve different classes, all (if he other parts adjacent: and from the mistakes not) tending to establish existence of numerous Latinisms, that what is named the Hellenistic which, he thinks, he has dis- style is not Hebrew, but Latincovered in the New Testament, Greek; and all seeming to support
But it may be proper to give the conclusion, that the peculibis own analysis of his work. arities of words and style in our
“ It consists,” he says, “ of six Elzevir or Greek Vulgate are to Disquisitions, in the first of which be derived from a Latin original. he examines the opinion, that a In this Disquisition the origin of knowledge of Greek was general whole cohorts of Roman-Greek and almost universal in the age of words, which have been singly the Apostles; an opinion which the subjects of long dissertations, is, perhaps, proved to be at once will be shown; and many of them contrary to probability, and contra- which have frightened philologists dictory to facts. In the second by their portentous shapes, will and third Disquisitions it is sub- be recognised as old acquaintances mitted, that considering that, at somewhat mutilated and disguised. least, one of the Gospels, and se- “ The Author in the fifth Disveral of Paul's Epistles, were ad- quisition, after attempting a soludressed to Latins, it might have tion of some apparent objections been expected that such portions to, or difficulties in his hypothesis, of the New Testament should proceeds to show how much it have been sent to them rather in seems to be supported by the senLatin than in Greek. Whatever timents and statements of some of was the primitive language, how- the most distinguished Editors of ever, in which the Books of the the New Testament. It will be New Testament were originally found that of these some have composed, and admitting that it proceeded on the assumption that was Greek, it is shown by nume- even the Latin Vulgate (itself a rous phenomena that, at least, our version from the Greek) is of Elzevir text, or its basis, and, greater authority than the modern indeed, that of several other Greek text; while others accuse copies of the Greek Testament in the most venerable Greek MSS. the Author's possession, (none of of the New Testament, and, inthem, however, so old as our re- deed, in proportion to their anticeived English version,) bear quity of Latinizing. In the sixth marks of being a version from the and last Disquisition, the author Latin. It is submitted, that it applies his hypothesis to an eluseems not improbable that a trans cidation of the German theory of lated or re-translated text may (as different families or recensions of in Matthew's Gospel and various the MSS. of the New Testament; other remarkable instances which and here, as all along, he illusare exhibited) have supplanted the trates (if he mistakes not) numer rous passages, and many various subject was again brought into readings, which have hitherto re- review by Dr. Maltby, in a visisisted the efforts of all critics to tation sermon, entitled, “ The Oriexplain them."*
ginal Greek of the New TestaOn these grounds chiefly he ment asserted and vindicated.” raises his visionary structure, Such is the present state of the which, if true, would go far to Palæoromaican Controversy. It endanger the whole fabric of is very curious as a display of Christianity. His learning is ingenuity, and as affording anoevidently considerable, but his ther proof that the text of the love of paradox would seem to New Testament is capable of be still greater. The work was bearing any ordeal to which it regarded, on its first appearance, is possible for the learning or as dangerous, and immediately genius of man to put it. occasioned a considerable con- Having noticed the work itself, troversy.
and the discussion which it occaIn the British Critic for January, sioned, I must state how it came February, and April, a long and to be connected with the disable article combated the main pute about the Heavenly Witpositions of the Palæorumaica. nesses. In the course of the same year The author considers the disputed it was attacked by Bishop Burgess, verse a specimen of translation from in the Postscript to his Vindica- Latin, and therefore one of the tion of 1 John v. 7.; by the Rev. supports of his argument for the J. T. Conybeare, in his “ Exami- Latin origin of the New Testanation of certain arguments in ment. The following passage Palæoromaica ;" by Dr. Falconer, contains the substance of his in the “ Second Part of the Case of theory on this part of his subject. Eusebius ;"_and by the Rev. W. “ I still more appropriate exG. Broughton, in his “ Examina- ample of the origin of recensions, tion of the Hypothesis advanced arising from a diversity of versions in a recent publication, entitled from the Latin, may be given from Palæoromaica.”
an interpolation in the Greek New · The last is the ablest and fullest Testament itself. In his two first exposure of the fallacy and ab- editions of the New Testament, surdity of the whole scheme. The Erasmus omitted the famous verse, author, however, far from being 1 John v. 7, concerning the three discouraged by the number and heavenly witnesses, but inserted it weight of his opponents, again in his later editions on the authotook the field against them all, rity of a Codex Britannicus. This in a “ Supplement to Palæoro. Cod. Brit. is supposed to be the maica, with Remarks on the Cod. Montfortianus or Dublinensis, Strictures made on that work, by one proof of which is, that the the Bishop of St. David's, the text of the third edition of ErasRev. J. J. Conybeare, the British mus, printed in 1522, agrees verCritic; also by the Rev. W. G. batim in this interpolated passage Broughton, and Dr. Falconer." with the Dublin MS., while it dif1824.
fers from all other editions, except To the second " Postscript" such as were copied from itself. in this publication, Mr. Broughtou Nor does it differ only from the replied in 1825. And the whole usual text, but (as Michaelis ob
serves) “ is, written in such Greek * Pref, pp. viii-xi. ' as manifestly betrays a translation from the Latin.” I shall transcribe τρεις εις το εν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν the interpolated words as they οι μαρτυρουντες επι της γης. exist in the three celebrated edin.In the above text, translated tions of the New Testament, from Latin into Greek, we have
« Cod. Montfort. and Edit. a specimen of three different reErasmi tertia, anni 1522.
censions arising from thre e dif“ £v Ty ovpavy, marne, loyos, ferent versions from the Latin ; or, kal Tvevua å ylov, Kal OvTol oi at least, from two immediate verτρεις εν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν οι sions from that language, and an μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη.
improvement upon one of them by "Here (says Michaelis, ii. modelling it into better Greek. 286), the article is omitted be- This improvement is produced, in fore the words expressive of Fa- the first place, by an insertion of ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, be- the articles. I formerly [p. 2977 cause there is no article in the endeayoured to account for the Latin, and it occurred not to the non-existence of the dual number translator, that the usual Greek in the Greek Scriptures, from the was ó trarne, ó loyos, To Tvevua. circumstance of its non-existence He has also even yn, which is in the Latin, whence our Vulgate false Greek for etlans yns, be- Greek copies may have been cause he found in the Latin in translated ; and, in like manner, terrâ.'
as the articles are wanting in the “ Editio Stephani tertia, anni Latin language, there is usually a 1550.
deficiency in this respect in every “ EV Tự ovpavo ó marnp, ó loyos, literal Greek version from the Kal to åylov avevua, kui outoi ól Latin. Thus, as we have seen τρεις εν εισι. Και τρεις εισιν οι above, we have in the Dublin ΜS., μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη.
and in the edition of Erasmus “ Here Stephens, or rather, as which was derived from it, ratne Dr. Marsh observes, Erasmus him- and loyoç and avevua without any self, in his two last editions, has article. It is stated by Erasmus, modelled the verse into better in one of his Apologies, in speakGreek by the insertion of the ar- ing of his first edition, “In calce ticle. Still, however, we have the Apocalypsis in exemplari, quod Latinism ev in yo. It has been tum nobis erat unicum, nam is proved irrefragably by several liber apud Græcos rarus est incritics, that the Complutensian ventu, deerat unus atque alter editors translated also the above versus. Eos nos addidimus secuti verse from the Latin, and inter- Latinos Codices.” Wetstein, polated it into their Greek text. who quotes this passage, remarks, * And it is no more than justice "Accuratius tamen omnia rimanti (says Porson) to allow that they satis constat, non, ut Erasmus at least did their work like work- scribit, per pauca fuisse, quæ ipse men. They made good Greek of ex Latinis utcunque et festinanter their Latin-a task to which the Græce reddidit, sed a vers. 16 ad translator of the Lateran Decrees, finem libri sex integros versus. In and the writer of the Dublin MS. istis enim omnibus Erasmi editio were unequal. This Complu- abit a Codicibus MSS. et ita tensian text is as follows:
quidem, ut Græca ipsius non “ Editio Complutensis, anni obscurum sit ex Latinis fuisse 1514.
conversa. Hinc enim profecta “ev Tự ovpavy, ó marng, kal ó est perpetua illa omissio articudoyos, kai TO Trevpå åylov, kai ól lorun vers. 16, piga pro û pisa;
daun pos pro é daun poc; vers. 18, of the Palæoromaica in favour a poontelas Bibcov pro TNS a poortelas of the Latin origin of the New Tov Bibliov, ev Pebrew pro ev Tu Testament would by no means Biblew bis ; vers. 19, Biblov pro follow, as I suppose the disputed TOV Bibliov; Ewns pro ins &wns; verse is the only passage in this πολεως αγιας pro της πολεως της peculiar situation. The author àylac.”
is aware of this, and therefore This, it must be confessed, is supports his hypothesis by other ingenious; but though it should arguments, which it is no part of be proved that the disputed pas- my business to answer. Those. sage was first translated into who wish to enter fully into this Greek by the Complutensian curious, and not uninteresting Editors, or the writer of the controversy, must consult the Dublin manuscript, the argument works on both sides which have
been enumerated. * Pp. 411–415.
ON THE PECULIAR TEMPTATIONS TO WHICH CONGREGATIONAL
DISSENTERS ARE EXPOSED.
PERFECTION and excellence are no other. But if it be ever realized only relative terms. When we at all, we think it is the property apply these words to any indivi- of that system which seeks to duals or circumstances, we speak guide the feelings and the conduct of them in comparison with what of those who receive it by the they once were, or with what Word of God, and by that alone. others are now. In this world, Or rather we ought to say, it is no situation, and no character, is so, as far as it has been successful absolutely perfect. This fact is in actually bringing their hearts so well known, that the state- and lives under the sole and conment of it is a mere truism. plete guidance of the principles But the principles whence it of the Gospel. Allowing that a arises are not, by many, dis- man, or any body of men, have tinctly understood. It is usual to become the subjects of its inaccount for imperfection by some fluence; that they discovered and thing negative—some defect or sought to obey all the laws of weakness. There are, however, Christ; and that they fully and other causes. Human circum- completely understood his holy stances may here attain all the Word : even then they would be perfection of which their nature exposed to danger. And that admits. But, as the necessary danger might arise in those very consequence of man's state and things, in regard to which they character in this world, that per- had got the better of that imperfection may generate something fection which marks all human within itself, which, if not rooted conduct. This situation, so happy out, may prove its destruction. and so excellent, exposes to trials Although this kind of perfection unknown in others. Here there is is not only possible, but does no exercise for those virtues and actually exist, yet it is very graces, which more untoward cirrarely to be found. Except the cumstances, and less clear percepcase we have in view, we know of tions, require. And if the Chris.