صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Wetstenii Novum Testamentum Graecum.

Contains a very long and elaborate note, which deserves to be consulted by all who wish to ascertain the bearing of the ancient ecclesiastical testimonies on the subject. This bearing, most of the quotations adduced by Wetstein, show to be decidedly in favour of Osos; and the rest only require to be studied in their connexion, in order to its being perceived, that, if they do not confirm, they in no wise oppose this reading.

Arnoldi Religio Sociniana, containing a Refutation of the Racovian Catechism. Amstel. 1654. 4to. pp. 284-286. Wolfii Curae Philologicae et Criticae. Tom. IV. pp. 451

456.

Ridgley's Body of Divinity, Vol. IV. p. 263. London 1819.

8vo.

Heumann's Erklärung des N. Testaments.

Poecile, T. III. p. 448.

Edwards's Exercitations, p. 348. London 1702.
Baumgarten's Vindiciae vocis ɛós, 1 Tim. 3: 16.

Woog's Programma.

Pfaffius in Primitiis Tubingensibus.

Bentley's Remarks on Free Thinking, Part I. xxxIII.

Berriman's Critical Dissertation upon 1 Tim. 3:16. London 1741. 8vo.

This valuable work consists of an introduction on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; on the various readings, and the importance of the passage in question.-Chap. I. Rules to distinguish in various Readings which is genuine.-Chap. II. The Greek MSS. of St. Paul's Epistles described, and their Readings of 1 Tim. 3: 16 considered.-Chap. III. The Writings of the Greek and Latin Fathers examined.-Chap. IV. An Account of the Ancient Versions, and their readings of this text.-Chap. V. The several Readings compared with each other, and with the Context; and the Conclusion of the whole.

Whitby on the passage.

J. D. Michaelis in his Introd. to the N. T. 2d Edit. Vol. II. p. 71. Anmerkungen für Ungelehrte IV. Theil, pp. 106, 107. Orient. und Exeget. Bibliothek, VI. Theil, pp. 81 -87. VII. pp. 137-141.

Velthusen's Remarks on the true Reading of the passage 1 Tim. 3: 16. London 1773. 8vo.

This work, which is now very scarce, contains three parts.-I. Observations on the seven-times seventy Weeks of Daniel.-II. On the Canon of the Old Testament.-III. Remarks, etc. as above. In these remarks the following critical rules are laid down and illustrated with special reference to the passage in dispute.-1. Of two or three different readings, that reading is historically true, or critically certain, in which most of the chief characters of a true reading coincide.-2. That reading, in general, is the true one, which agrees with most of the manuscripts in the Original Language.-3. That reading, the later origin of which cannot be accounted for without supposing a wilful corruption, is (generally speaking) the true one; and that which we can account for from accidental causes, is (generally speaking) the false one.-4. Of two readings, (unless there be some material reason against the rule,) that reading is preferable which seems to convey a harsher sense. This maxim is almost infallible.-5. The most probable of two or three readings is that by which a writer, who is known to have had clear and precise ideas, shall express himself in the clearest and precisest manner.-6. The same obtains with regard to that reading, which, according to the tenor or the whole system of the book, it was most natural and reasonable to expect, should occur in that particular place. The tract contains an interesting account of the Askew MS. written in the year 834, which exhibits the reading Θεός.

Benson on the passage.

Woide's Preface to his edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, § 87, and in Cramer's Beyträge, T. III. p. 147.

G. F. Weber's Vindiciae vocis Otós 1 Tim. 3: 16. Argent. 1777.

Cramer, Nebenarbeiten. Stück I. 1782.

Griesbach's Greek N. T.

[ocr errors]

Symbolae Criticae, Vol. I. vIII-LIV. Vol. II. pp. 56-59. 64-76.

In his note on the passage, this celebrated critic gives a summary of the authorities which had induced him to prefer ös to either of the two other readings; but he is, as usual, defective in exhibiting those which go to support the received reading. The passages in his Symbolae are chiefly occupied with the subject of the uncial MSS. an abortive attempt to prove that the Fathers have been corrupted; and a defence of his positions against Weber and others, by whom they had been disputed.

M. Weber's Crisis loci Paullini 1 Tim. 3: 16. Lips. 1784. This author conjectures that őre was the original reading, and considers eos to be understood.

· Paulus Memorabilien, Stück I. pp. 97-194.

This dissertation is designed to show, that the object of the apostle was to correct false notions which had become prevalent in his day, relative to the human body, in consequence of which the primitive Christians were tempted absolutely to abandon all care of it, or concern about its interests. It contains remarks on the variety of reading, and the meaning of the several propositions in the text. Hill's Lectures in Divinity, Vol. II. pp. 189-193. 2d Ed. Laurence's Remarks upon the Systematic Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his Edition of the New Testament. Oxford 1814. pp. 72-84.

[ocr errors]

The learned author (now Archbishop of Cashel) reviews with great ability the arguments of Griesbach, which he shows to be defective, wire-drawn, and inadmissible; even on the supposition, that his classification of MSS. were just. His conclusion is: Should we not rather say, that because the Byzantine text, with an infinity of manuscripts and Fathers, reads Oɛós, and because eight (viz. 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47) out of eleven Alexandrian MSS. coincide with it, while only one certainly opposes it, the other two being doubtful, therefore the preponderance of classes is against the Western; and that eos, not ő or ös, seems to be the genuine reading?"

Eclectic Review, N. S. Vol. IV. pp. 178-187.

Contains a masterly review of the above work, by a writer who discovers himself to be thoroughly versed in the principles of biblical criticism. In his judgment, the external evidence does actually preponderate in favour of Oos.-In Vol. V. of the Old Series of the same work, the Reviewer, following Griesbach too implicitly, declares himself in favour of ös, but rejects as false Greek, the construction put upon it in the "Improved Version."

Wardlaw's Discourses on the principal Points of the Socinian Controversy. Third Edition. London 1819. pp.

414-419.

Though the passage is not introduced into these discourses, which exhibit a series of the most luminous and conclusive arguments on the great subjects in dispute, because the excellent author was desirous of having it to say, that he had built no part of his argument on any passage which eminent critics had pronounced of doubtful

authority, yet in Note D, he very clearly gives his readers to understand, that, in his opinion, eos is the true lection.

Nolan's Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, etc. London, 1815.

In various parts of this very elaborate and learned work, the passage is brought forward for the purpose of exemplifying, in its various readings, the untenableness of Griesbach's hypothesis, and the application of those new principles of classification, which the author had adopted with respect to the Greek MSS.

Hales' Faith in the Holy Trinity, the Doctrine of the Gospel, and Sabellian Unitarianism shewn to be "The God-denying Apostasy." Vol. II. pp. 67-104. 2d Edit. London

1818.

In his nineteenth Letter, the author enters very fully into an examination both of the external and internal evidence, and shows, in opposition to Griesbach and Carpenter, that Osos is the genuine reading.

Tracts on the Divinity of Christ. By the Bishop of St. David's. London 1820.

Pp. 197-222 contain a postscript on the Anti-Socinianism of Newton and Locke, in which the reader will find some interesting matter relative to the principles and connexions of these two distinguished men, and also some remarks on 1 Tim. 3: 16.

Holden's Scripture Testimonies to the Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, collected and illustrated. London 1820. pp. 181-188.

Among other decided statements made in this valuable work is the following: "The reading ös, if it be the true one, will not essentially benefit the Unitarian cause; but the received text has been ably defended by several eminent writers; and after an attentive examination of the evidence on both sides, I am convinced that Osos is the true reading."

[ocr errors]

Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ. Oxford 1826. pp. 141-145.

J. P. Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, Vol. II. Part II. pp. 701-703. or 2d Edit. Vol. III. pp. 352-357.

The Author cannot conclude this list without once more particularly recommending the two editions of Matthaei's Greek N. T. in both of which the biblical scholar will find much to enable him to make up his mind on the subject.

ART II. REMARKS ON THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE RESPECTING THE VARIOUS READINGS IN 1 TIM. III. 16.

By M. Stuart, Prof. of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andover.

(SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE PRECEDING ARTICLE.)

It is not my intention here to re-examine the whole subject that has been discussed with so much ability and impartiality, as it seems to me, in the preceding pages. I tender the author of them my sincere thanks for his learned labours; and I have only to add, that long ago, from Griesbach's own shewing, I was satisfactorily persuaded that the conclusion to which he had come in respect to os instead of sós, was not warranted by the rules of criticism by which he himself is guided on most other occasions. So far as manuscripts are concerned, I am fully persuaded, that the weight of authority is altogether preponderant against the reading ös or . In regard to the ancient versions and the fathers of the church, the discrepance of testimony is such, that no one can appeal to them with confidence as settling the controversy in respect to the reading under consideration.

Most of the discrepancy among them seems to be connected with, or dependent upon, the old Latin version or Itala, which was made at an early period of the Christian era, and which runs thus: QUOD manifestum est in carne, etc. The Latin fathers generally adopt this; the Greek fathers follow the reading of the Textus Receptus, viz. Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη κ. τ. λ. But the whole subject of external evidence has been so fully discussed in the preceding pages, that I deem it quite superfluous to add any thing more in this place.

In regard to the internal evidence, produced in Sect. III. there are many very striking remarks, and such as are worthy of particular attention and consideration. I have read them, once and again, with great interest; and after pondering over them, and examining with a good degree of minuteness several of the positions advanced, I have attained to some views respecting them, which I deem it not improper here to communicate.

With regard to the reading ő, it may be said, that it is now generally abandoned by critics, so far as I am acquainted with VOL. II. No. 5.

8

« السابقةمتابعة »