those of Prof. J. G. REICHE of Göttingen, whose note (Theil ii. pp. 268-278) is one of the fullest and best discussions of the passage, though he makes some mistakes about the Fathers; Prof. Eduard KOELLNER of Göttingen, and Dr. Conrad GLÖCKLER, whom Prof. Stuart calls "a Nicenian" as regards his theological position. In the 4th edition of K. G. BRETSCHNEIDER'S Handbuch der Dogmatik (1838) i. 604 f., he adopts our construction, though in the earlier editions of this work he had referred the 6 to Christ. He translates: "Der Herrüber alles, Gott, sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit." In 1839, Prof L. J. RÜCKERT of Jena, in the 2d edition of his elaborate and valuable commentary (vol. ii. pp. 13–17) discusses the passage fully, and though in the first edition (1831) he had strenuously contended for the reference of the last part of the verse to Christ, now pronounces the construction which makes it a doxology to God "far more probable." This year is also signalized in the history of the interpretation of our passage by the publication of vol. ii. of the commentary of Prof. C. F. A. FRITZSCHE of Rostock, who discusses the passage in a masterly manner (pp. 260-275). His translation has been given above, p. 106. In the 4th edition of his Greek Testament with a Latin version, published in 1839, Prof. H. A. SCHOTT of Jena adopted the punctuation and construction which make the clause beginning with a doxology to God, though in previous editions he had followed the common construction. In his essay De Invocatione Jesu Christi Partic. I. (1843), p. 8, thehighly esteemed commentator Dr. Friedrich LÜCKE, Professor at Göttingen, refers the last part of our verse to God. Professor A. L. G. KREHL of Leipzig does the same in his Der Brief an die Römer ausgelegt u. s. w. (1845), p. 322, though in an earlier work, Neutest. Handwörterbuch (1843) art. Christus, p. 114, he had cited Rom. ix. 5 in proof that Christ is called God.

BAUR, who makes the passage a doxology to God, has some valuable remarks upon it in his Paulus (1845), p. 624 f., 2te Aufl. (1866-67), ii. 263 f.; comp. his Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit (1841), i. 84, note. ZELLER agrees with him (Theol. Jahrbücher, 1842, p. 55). So J. F. RÄBIGER, a believer in the divine nature of Christ, in his De Christologia Paulina contra Baurium Commentatio (1852), pp. 26-28.

We may notice here the great commentators DE WETTE and MEYER. De Wette, not perfectly satisfied with any view, yet wavers between constructions Nos. 5 and 7; see above under No. 5. In his Bibl. Dogmatik, 3te Aufl. (1831), p. 249, and in the 2d ed. of his translation of the N. T., he had taken the name "God" here as a

designation of Christ; but in the 3d ed. of his translation he makes it begin a doxology. MEYER in his Das N. T. griechisch mit einer neuen Deutschen Uebersetzung (1829) followed the common construction; but in the first edition of his Comm. (1836), and all later eds., he makes the passage a doxology to God. His collaborator, HUTHER, maintains in his note on Tit. ii. 13 that the name 065 is not given to Christ in any of the New Testament Epistles.

In 1855 appeared the first edition of JOWETT's work on four of the Epistles of Paul (2d ed., 1859). He translates: "God, who is over all, is blessed for ever. Amen." So Bp. COLENSO, St. Paul's Ep. to the Romans, &c., Lond., 1861; Amer. ed., New York, 1863.

So

Prof. J. H. SCHOLTEN of Leyden, in his Dogmatices Christ. Initia, ed. 2da, Lugd. Bat. 1858, p. 193 f., adopts our construction. Athanase COQUEREL, Christologie (Paris, 1858), i. 76, note. So the celebrated Dutch commentator, VAN HENGEL, who in tom. ii. of his Interpretatio (1859), pp. 343-360, discusses the passage very fully. He mentions some Dutch scholars that agree with him, as VISSERING and SCHEFFER (Godgel. Bijdragen 1853 and 1854), whose writings I have not seen. The eminent Danish commentator, Dr. H. N. CLAUSEN, Pauli Brev til Romerne fortolket (Copenhagen, 1863), p. 124, translates: "Han som er over Alt, Gud, (eller, "Gud, som er over Alt") være priset i Evighed!" (He is the author of the Hermeneutik—the Germans spell his name Klausen.) HOLTZMANN in his translation of the Epistle in Bunsen's Bibelwerk (1864), vol. iv., gives the same construction to the passage; and so Prof. Willibald BEYSCHLAG of Halle, in his Christologie des N. T., Berl. 1866, p. 209 f.

66

Prof. R. A. LIPSIUS of Jena, in the Protestanten-Bibel Neuen Testamentes (1872-73), p. 572, translates:-"Der da ist über Alles, Gott, sei gelobt in Ewigkeit"; VOLKMAR, Römerbrief (Zürich, 1875), p. 32: Der über Allen seiende Gott sei gelobt in Ewigkeit!" His comment is (p. 97):- Der Gott, der über allen (Völkern) waltet, sei dafür gepriesen, dass er aus Israel den Heiland (für Alle) hervorgehen liess." The Rev. John H. GODWIN, "Hon. Prof. New Coll., Lond.," and Congregational Lecturer, translates, "God who is over all be praised for ever. Amen.," and has a good note. (Ep. to Rom., Lond. 1873.) Prof. Lewis CAMPBELL, the editor of Sophocles, in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug., 1876, p. 484, adopts the rendering of Prof. Jowett. The Rev. Joseph Agar BEET, Wesleyan Methodist, in a Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans of very marked ability (Lond. 1877, 2d ed., 1881), defends this view in an excellent note (pp. 267-272, 2d ed.). The same construction is followed in Herm. BARTELS'S Exeget. Uebersetzung des Briefs, etc. (Dessau, 1878), which

I mention because Prof. WOLDEMAR SCHMIDT of Leipzig in a notice of the book (Theol Literaturzeitung, 1879, No. 22), expresses his approval of this. C. HOLSTEN, in an article in the Jahrbücher f. prot. Theol., 1879, p. 683, translates:- Der über allen Völkern waltende Gott (der doch Israels Volk so begnadet hat) sei gepriesen in Ewigkeit!"

Some of the best recent translations adopt this construction of the passage; e. g. Het Nieuwe Testament, etc. (published by the authority of the General Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church), Amst., 1868:"Hij, die over alles is, God, zij geprezen tot in eeuwigheid!" and the versions by Dr. George R. NOYES (Boston, 1869), Hugues OLTRAMARE (Genéve, 1872), "Que celui qui gouverne toutes choses, Dieu, en soit béni éternellement!" Carl WEIZSÄCKER, Das N. T. uebersetzt, Tübingen, 1875, and Dr. Samuel DAVIDSON, Lond., 1875, 2d ed. 1876.

No one who knew the scholarship and the impartiality of the late Dr. Noyes will wonder that I have cited him here. A dispassionate, judicial spirit in the examination of such questions as the one before us is not the exclusive posession of the Dean of Chichester and of "the Church" in distinction from "the Sects," though there are many noble examples of it in the Church of England.

Among critical editors of the Greek Testament who have placed a period after sápza, making the passage a doxology to God, I may mention HARWOOD (1776), LACHMANN, (1831-50), SCHOTT (4th ed., 1839), TISCHENDORF (1841-73), VON MURALT (1846-48), BUTTMANN (1856-67), Aug. HAHN, assisted by his son G. L. Hahn (1861), KUENEN and COBET (1861), and Westcott and Hort (1881) in their margin, representing the judgment of Dr. HORT.

To these authorities may be added the names of the grammarians WINER and WILKE. See Winer, Gram. 7te Aufl., 1867, §§ 61, 3, e., and 64, 2, b., pp. 513, 545, or 551, 586 Thayer, 690, 733 Moulton; and WILKE, Hermeneutik (1844), ii. 88.

It is interesting to notice that many scholars who had already in their publications adopted or even strongly contended for the common construction of this passage, afterwards saw reason to change their minds. Such was the case with Eckermann, De Wette, Meyer, Rückert, Bretschneider, Schott, Krehl, Hahn (perhaps both father and son); and it is so with Ritschl, as I am assured by a very intelligent student (the Rev. Alfred Gooding), who took full notes of his exegetical lectures on Romans in the semester of 1879-80. I know of only one instance of a conversion in the opposite direction, that of Dr. G. V. Lechler, who, in the first edition of his Das apost. u. das

nachapost. Zeitalter (1851). pp. 38, 39, made the last part of the verse a doxology to God, but in the second edition (1857), p. 63 f., applies it to Christ. He expressly admits, however, as regards the two opposing views, that "sprachlich und logisch sind beide gleichberechtigt."

"THE awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage," says the Scotch commentator Haldane, "more fully manifest the depravity of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against God, than the grossest works of the flesh."* "The dishonest shifts," says Dean Burgon, "by which unbelievers seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our Revisionists in the following terms." (Here Mr. Burgon quotes the margin of the Revised version at Rom. ix. 5, regarding these renderings as "not entitled to notice in the margin of the N. T.," and their admission as "a very grave offence.")

Σὺ τίς εἶ, ὁ κρίνων ἀλλότριον οἰκέτην, ὁ κατήγωρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν; In contrast with these utterances, not addressed to the reason of men, and not adapted to promote Christian charity or Christian humility, it is refreshing to read a discussion so calm, so clear, so fair, and so able as that of Professor Dwight.

*Exposition of the Ep. to the Romans, Amer. reprint of the 5th Edinburgh edition, p. 454.

The Quarterly Review for January, 1882, p. 54; see also the same for April, 1882, p. 370.

NOTE A.-(See p. 99.)

On the Punctuation of Rom. ix. 5 in Ancient Manuscripts.

In regard to the punctuation of this passage in ancient manuscripts, though the matter is in itself of little importance, it may be well to correct some current errors, especially as the supposed absence of a point after cápza in the manuscripts has been urged as an objection to the construction which makes the ó v z. 7. 2. a doxology to God. For example, Dr. Gifford, the latest commentator, speaks of the stop after sapza as found simply "in two or three inferior MSS."; while Mr. Burgon, in the Quarterly Review for January, 1882, says 'the oldest codices, besides the whole body of the cursives [the Italics are his],

་་

་་

know nothing about the method of some modern Interpreters' [referring to the margin of the Revised Version]; and he remarks in a note, “C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς rob; alāvas. But this is an entirely different thing from what is noted in the margin." (p. 54.)

The facts of the case do not accord with these statements. In the first place, C, according to Tischendorf's very careful edition of this MS. (Lips. 1843), has no point after dry, and there can be little doubt that such a stop exists only in Mr. Burgon's very lively imagination; it does have, on the other hand, as Tischendorf's edition shows, both a point and a space after aapza, unquestionably a prima manu. The Alexandrian manuscript (A) has also a point after aapza, as appears by Woide's edition (1786), by the recent photograph published by the British Museum (1879), and by .the express testimony of Dr. Vance Smith and of Dr. Sanday, who says, The point is clearly marked, and

it is evidently by the first hand." (The Expositor, Sept., 1879; x. 235.) This fact has been overlooked both by Tischendorf, and by Westcott and Hort. There is, moreover, a point after øápza in the Vatican man. uscript (B), which, though it does not appear in the Roman edition, is amply attested by Dr. Vance Smith from personal inspection (The Expositor, May, 1879, ix. 399, comp. his The Spirit and the Word of Christ, Lond., 1874, p. 138), and by others. This point also, from the description of it, seems to be probably by the first hand, though more careful examination and comparison may be required to settle the question.* The Clermont MS. (D) ends a stichometric line at sápza, but

*The facts as to the Vatican MS. are these. Tischendorf, who has given the most careful attention to its palæography, states that "ipsam primam manum passim, in nonnullis libris haud raro interpunxisse, sine ulla dubitatione asseverandum est." (N. T. Vat. p. xx.; comp. p. xxi.) The later hand, of the tenth or eleventh century, has but rarely supplied points. (Ibid.) The original scribe indicates a pause, sometimes by a small space simply; sometimes by such a space with a point, and sometimes by a point with a very small space between the letters or none at all. Of the latter there are two unquestionable examples by the first hand in Tischendorf's facsimiles, made from parts of the MS. which, having been accidentally repeated, were wholly untouched by the corrector and freshener of the ink, namely, after the word ogetiqua in Rom. iv. 4 (cod. p. 1448), where there is no space, and after strat in 2 Cor. iii. 15 (cod. p. 1479), where the space is exceedingly small. Tischendorf was unable to examine carefully the punctuation of the MS. beyond the end of the Gospel of Luke; but he observed that punctuation was much more frequent in the Epistles than in the Gospels. I notice that in the Roman edition there are 12 points on the page (p. 1453) that contains Rom. ix. 5, extending from Rom. viii. 23 (7)ES to a rap ix. II, inclusive. There is no extra space after sápza, but perhaps that does not diminish the probability that the point is by the first hand. There is no extra space, as we have seen, after openna Rom. iv. 4; and Tischendorf observes (Nov. Test. Sin. p. xix.) that there

in