1850.]

Merits of the Work.

31

second-hand sources, there is abundant opportunity for the exercise of judgment and of talent. The author has modestly and plainly informed the reader in his Preface what languages he was acquainted with, and in regard to what he was dependent upon the statements and opinions of others. He has given also a satisfactory reason, in general, for not encumbering his pages with express citations or marginal references. With respect to the latter, we think he has been somewhat too sparing. After the ample acknowledgment made in his Preface, we should not, indeed, wish for marginal references merely for the sake of acknowledging the source from which he drew any particular information. But, in some cases, we do wish to know the authority on which the statement depends. Thus, when he states, on page 483, that an important alteration in a certain manuscript is betrayed by the fresh color of the ink, we wish to know the authority for the statement. But Professor Porter does not tell us that he saw it himself, nor inform us I who did see it.

Though not professing to derive the materials of his work from original sources, Professor Porter has availed himself of the best and latest investigations which have appeared. He has adopted an arrangement of his own, and given us his independent judgment upon those subjects where judgment was required; a judgment which will, we are confident, in general, approve itself to the reason of his readers.

We would not convey the impression, that Professor Porter has discharged merely the office of a compiler. His work contains a good deal that is valuable, which is the result of his own investigation and judgment. As an instance, we would refer to his elaborate examination of Scholz's edition of the Greek Testament. The result of this examination is given by Professor Porter in the following language, which we the more readily quote, because the size, cost, and apparatus of Scholz's edition of the New Testament, together with the praise which has been bestowed upon it, probably by some without examination, and by some from whom a better judgment might have been expected, have led many persons to attach a value to that unscholarlike, and, were it not for the manuscripts which it introduces to our notice for

the first time, we might almost say worthless, work. Great carelessness and little judgment are the principal characteristics of the author. Professor Porter says,

"Dr. Scholz has been a most enterprising collater, having expended a large amount of time, and, no doubt, of money, in ransacking the libraries of Italy, Greece, the Greek Islands, and Palestine, in quest of manuscript treasure. Besides availing himself of some publications (as Dr. Barrett's Codex Rescriptus, of Dublin College) which had appeared since the publication of Griesbach, he has himself examined and collated, in whole or in part, about three hundred and fifty manuscripts never referred to before in any critical edition; but his accuracy in exhibiting their various readings is matter of question, upon which serious doubts are felt.

"What has occasioned and strengthened these doubts is the almost incredible negligence of Scholz in representing the information afforded by his predecessors, especially by Griesbach. No one can compare his notes with those of Griesbach, without perceiving that nine tenths of the whole are simply copied from the edition of the latter; and no one can compare the two editions together attentively without perceiving that Scholz has displayed a degree of carelessness, as to the accuracy of his transcript, that could scarcely have been believed to be possible. By omissions, by misquotations, by misplaced signs, he has totally changed the character of the statements which it was his duty to reproduce, and in instances innumerable has misled the persons who rely upon his accuracy. In fact, such is his negligence, that nothing but rashness equal to his own would induce any person who has examined his work to employ his citations as material for the verification or amendment of the text, unless when corroborated by other authorities, or under very peculiar circumstances." p. 262.

After supporting his assertions respecting Scholz by numerous examples, he says," After these examples of headlong haste and almost incredible carelessness, it will surprise no one to be informed, that, in cases where his predecessors have made erroneous statements, Dr. Scholz has not taken the trouble to correct them, even when the means of doing so lay ready at hand. Having, in perusing the old Syriac Version, been struck by the occurrence of several readings which I did not recollect to have seen quoted from it, I compared whole passages in that document with the notes given in the critical editions; and I found with very few exceptions, so far as my collation. extended, that wherever Mill, Wetstein, and Griesbach

1850.]

Plan of the Work.

33

were correct in their citations, Scholz is also right, unless where he happens to misplace his note-marks: wherever they are wrong, he faithfully copies their mistakes...... Whether Dr. Scholz has been more careful in noting down, and more exact in copying, the readings of those manuscripts which he has for the first time collated, it is quite impossible to affirm as matter of fact. But, seeing that such is his negligence in making use of the materials existing in print, I do not think it would be safe to rely implicitly on his sole authority."*

Professor Porter's plan is,-1. to state and briefly illustrate the general principles of textual criticism; - II. to treat of these principles in connection with the text of the Old Testament; and III. to consider them with reference to that of the New. In each of the latter two divisions, he gives (1.) an outline of the history of the text; (2.) an account of the manuscripts, versions, and other authorities available for the verification or correc tion of the text; and (3.) an examination of the readings of some passages, which, from their nature or peculiar circumstances, possess an especial interest in connection with the object of the work. He has given a good account of the manuscripts of the Old Testament, and described twenty-three of the principal or uncial manuscripts of the New Testament. He has also given a general account of the cursive manuscripts and Lectionaries. He has likewise, in thirteen well-executed plates, presented fac-similes of portions of some of the most noted manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. Of particular texts, he examines sixteen of the Old Testament and twelve of the New, the different readings of

It may be well to remark, that Porter's estimate of the work of Scholz is the common opinion of critics in Germany. Tischendorf, the learned editor of the last critical edition of the New Testament, uses still stronger language of condemnation in relation to it than Mr. Porter. Dr. Davidson, an orthodox scholar of some note, appears to hold the same opinion. He says, "Little reliance can be placed on the accuracy of the extracts which he has given for the first time.... The merits of this laborious editor are considerable. He has greatly enlarged our critical apparatus. Yet in acuteness, sagacity, and scholarship, he is far inferior to Griesbach. His collations appear to have been superficial. They are not to be depended on." One instance of his inaccuracy, which it is in the power of any one who owns the Vulgate to ascertain, is that in which he represents the Vulgate as supporting the reading os in 1 Timothy iii. 16. By comparing his note with Griesbach's, one may see how his mistake originated.

which he discusses somewhat at large, and, as it appears to us, with good judgment.

One important requisite in a work of this kind, and at the same time difficult to be secured on account of the immense variety of particulars contained in it, is accuracy of statement. To speak with confidence in regard to the comparative freedom of such a work from errors would require a labor almost equal to that of making it. So far as we have examined it, however, we have found proof that the author has taken great pains to be accurate, though not equal pains in all its pages. We think, that, in general, the work is as worthy of confidence as can be expected in the first edition of a book of this kind. We have, however, met with some instances of inaccuracy, of which, from some cause, several occur on page 310. On page 493, he ascribes to Professor Porson opinions which seem to belong only to Kidd, the editor of Porson's Tracts. All the opinion which Kidd ascribes to Porson, in the passage to which Professor Porter refers, is that he judged as to be the original reading of the Codex Alexandrinus. Professor Porter also sometimes omits to state what properly belongs to a subject. Thus in describing the Codex Sangallensis he should have stated that it contains only the four Gospels. He sometimes makes a statement in too unqualified a manner, and hence is occasionally inconsistent with himself. Thus, on page 275, he says, "A manuscript in uncial character, inclined or slightly compressed, or an Evangelistarium or Lectionarium, however written, cannot be more ancient than the seventh century." But on page 309, speaking of Lectionaries, he says, "It is quite possible such manuscripts may have been used in the sixth century, though only mentioned in the authors of the seventh." See also page 273.

In two passages in the course of his examination of the text 1 Tim. iii. 16, opinions and statements occur of the correctness of which we have strong doubts. We take this opportunity to express them, for the consideration of Professor Porter and the few who take an interest in the subject, because they relate to the most important passage in the New Testament, the reading of which may yet be considered as sub judice, and because, as long as there is a variety of statement in relation to the facts of the case, it will be very difficult for the student to form a correct opinion.

1850.] Archbishop Laurence's Opinions controverted.

35

The first passage relates to Professor Porter's statement in reference to the reading of the Oriental versions of 1 Tim. iii. 16, in which, following Archbishop Laurence, he calls in question the correctness of Griesbach and other critical editors of Germany. Griesbach, who is followed by Heinrichs, Scholz, and, with a slight variation, by Tischendorf, states that the Coptic, Sahidic, and Philoxenian Syriac in the margin read ős, who, or he who was manifested, etc. He also states that both the Peshito and Philoxenian Syriac in the text, the Erpenian Arabic, the Æthiopic, and the Armenian, may have read either ős or 8.

Upon this statement Archbishop Laurence, whose opinion is adopted by Professor Porter, remarks," I contend, in the first place, that neither the Coptic, the Sahidic, nor the Philoxenian necessarily read os; but more probably use a relative connected with an antecedent expressive of the word mystery, in precise conformity with the Vulgate : for in both the Coptic and Sahidic the word denoting mystery is decidedly proved to be masculine by the definitive masculine article prefixed, so that the subsequent relative occurs of course in the same gender. A similar remark respecting the Philoxenian version is made by its editor, whom Griesbach very properly terms 'Whitius vir doctissimus,' who correctly translates the passage 'mysterium pietatis, quod manifestatum est in carne.'

"Having thus proved that the Coptic, the Sahidic, and the Philoxenian Syriac versions do not necessarily read ős, but most probably ő, I shall now show that the Peshito or vulgar Syriac, the Erpenian Arabic, and the Æthiopic do not indifferently read os or %, but indisputably ő. If ös be the reading, it is evident that the following clauses of the verse cannot be grammatically connected by a copulative; but that the passage must be translated as the Unitarians translate it,—' He, who was manifested in the flesh, was justified, etc. But, in all the versions alluded to, the subsequent clauses are grammatically connected by a copulative, i. e. by the same letter wau in the different characters of the different languages, expressive of the same conjunction and; so that the passage must unavoidably be rendered, which was manifested in the flesh,

6

Tischendorf also states that the reading os is found in the recently discovered fragments of the Gothic version, made in the fourth century.