Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

this does not determine the construction of what follows. The Sinaitic MS. has only a single point (after outw5 Rom. ix. 20) in the whole page containing the passage, 4 cols. of 48 lines each, from Rom. viii. 38 ours 17:07W71 to upoouvre5 X. 3, inclusive. It is therefore neutral. The same is true for a different reason of F and G, in which the numerous points are distributed in the most arbitrary manner, so that, although they each have a point after oupza, it counts for nothing. We have no report of K, collated by Matthaei, who does not record the punctuation of MSS. L, the remaining uncial, has a point after gapza according to Tischen dorf. There is no break between o wy and ana in A B C.

As to the cursive MSS., their punctuation has been very rarely noted by collators. The sweeping statement of Mr. Burgon is made entirely at random. But a point after cápa is found in at least six cursives, viz. No. 5 (collated by Scholz), 47 (by Griesbach), 71, 77, 80, and 89 (by Birch); also in the beautiful Greek Praxapostolos or Lectionary of the twelfth century belonging to the Library of Harvard College (pp. 150, 151), and the fine Lectionary in the Astor Library (p. 117), assigned to the eleventh century (?), formerly in the possession of the Duke of Sussex. In the Harvard Lectionary there is also a point after 0eus, which is not the case in the Astor Library manuscript.* A point has also been noted after osóş in 17 (Griesb.), and after rúrswy in 71 (Birch).

Incorrect statements are often made in regard to the extreme rarity of punctuation in our oldest N. T. MSS. I therefore note the fact, that on the page of the Alexandrian MS. (A) which contains our passage, extending from Rom. viii. 21 αλλα δια τον υποταξαντα to προθεσις του Ου 14.57 . . ix. II, there are 64 points in Woide's edition; in the Ephrem MS. (C) from Rom. viii. 27 o de speurwy to any, ix. 5 in Tischendori's edition there are 45 points; for B see above. In the three pages of Paul's Epistles in B published by Tischendorf line for line in his are points with no space in the Sinaitic MS. alter the words tovepla zan!a: reovela. Rom. i. 29. On the page of B (1453) which contains Rom. ix. 5 there is no extra space in the printed edition with the point after anezdeyoueba, col. 1, 1. 12, or after texva, col. 3, 1. 28. It will be observed that all the words which have been mentioned end with the letter A, which on account of its peculiar form in the uncial MSS. did not need any extra space for the insertion of a point after it at the top of the line, the shape of the letter necessarily leaving a space there. But the absence of extra space after the letter would render it less likely that the late corrector would insert a point after it.

It is expressly stated by a gentleman who recently examined the MS., and whose letter from Rome I have been permitted to see, that the point alter oápra " is of lighter color than the adjoining letters," and that it was certainly much fainter than a point in the space after 72.0% on the same page, " which was as black as the touched letters."

* For a careful copy of that part of the Astor Library manuscript which contains Rom. ix. 4, 5, I am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. S. M. Jackson.

Appendix codd. celeb. Sin. Vat. Alex. (1867), p. 1445 (Rom. i. 1–26) has 15 points which he regards as a prima manu; p. 1460 (Rom. xv. 24– xvi. 17) has 35; p. 1506 (Col. iv. 8—1 Thess. i. 8, with more than half a column blank, has 17. These pages, however, were selected partly on account of their exceptional frequency of punctuation.

The truth is, that this whole matter of punctuation in the ancient MSS. is of exceedingly small importance, which might be shown more fully, had not this paper already extended to an excessive length. In the first place, we cannot infer with confidence the construction given to the passage by the punctuator, the distribution of points even in the oldest MSS. is so abnormal; in the second place, if we could, to how much would his authority amount?

All that I have argued from the point after odpza in A B C L, &c., is that a pause after that word was felt by ancient scribes to be natural.

NOTE B. (See p. 112.)

On the Distinction bettercu ευλογητός andt ευλογημένος.

The distinction between cuiu777's and viory:26us is dwelt upon by Philo, De Migr. Abrah. c. 19, Opp. i. 453, in his remarks on Gen. xii. 2. The former word, according to him, describes one who by nature or character is worthy of praise or blessing, evhoylaş üzcos; the latter one who is in fact praised or blessed, whether rightfully or otherwise. In other words, svorisós, in doxologies, would be laudandus or laude dignus; suhormóvos laudatus. So Theodore of Mopsuestia on Eph. i. 3 explains ευλογητός as του επαινείσθαι και θαυμάζεσθαι άξιος. (Migne, Patrol, Gr. Ixvi. 912.) It is true that in classical Greek verbals in -565, like the Latin participles in -tus, have generally a simply passive sig. nification; but we find exceptions, particularly in the later Greek, and especially in the case of words analogous in meaning to chło777's. See in the Lexicons αινετός, έπαινετός, υπεραινετός, εγκωμιαστός, θαυμαστός, μακαριστός (2 Μacc. vii. 24), μεμπτός, (εκτός, μισητός, στυγητός, υμνητός, υπερυμνητός. Οη επαινετός and Ψεκτός see Philo, ubi supra. (See also Kühner, Ausführl. Gram., 2te Aufl., i. 716.) This view is confirmed by the fact that we never find suhorsós used like cviorytos with ey, or ow; wherever the verb is expressed with 12077rós it is always in the indicative. For example, in Rom. i. 25. sú zrioara, 0 - 267!svors sis tous awvas, it is surely more natural to take sùio770- as signifying “to be praised,laudandus, than actually "praised," laudatus. See Fritzsche and Van Hengel in loc., the latter of whom cites the passage of Philo referred to above. So in other doxologies we find the indicative, cùlorytós él, Ps. cxviii. (cxix.) 12; Judith xiii. 17; Tob. iii. 11; viii. 5, 15, 16, 17; xi. 13; Orat. Azar. 2; Cant. trium puer. (Fritzsche), 28, 30, 31, 32, 33; 1 Esdr, iv. 60; i Macc. iv, 20; Const. Apost. vii. 34, 49; Act. Phil. c. 26; Lit. S. Jac. in Hammond's Antient Liturgies (Oxford, 1878), pp. 25, 26, 28, 31, 33, 38, 39, 53, 54; Lit. Const. (Anaph. S. Chrys.), p. 119; (Anaph. S. Basil.) p. 128; Lit. S. Marci, p. 179; and so ó üv eủhorntós, 2 Cor. xi. 31; Lit. S. Marci, pp. 176, 192. This is the view of many excellent scholars besides Fritzsche and Van Hengel; as Erasmus, Beza (on Mark xiv. 61), Crell on Rom. ix. 5, Tholuck, Rückert, and the lexicographers Schleusner, Wahl, Bretschneider, and Robinson. On the other side there are indeed very eminent names, as Grimm in his Lex., Meyer, De Wette and Philippi on Rom. i. 25, and Harless on Eph. i. 3, but I find no argument in any of them except Harless, and his arguments seem to me of little weight. They rest mainly on the assumption that cùlomtós is taken to mean "one who must be praised" instead "one to whom praise is due." That the latter conception of God may naturally be expressed in a doxology is shown by Rev. iv. 11, άξιος εί, ο κύριος και Θεός ημών, λαβείν την 06a, 2. c. 1.; comp. Rev. v. 12. See also Ruinart, Acta Martyrum, ed. Galura, ii. 186 (S. Bonifatius, § 12), 6te COL A PÉTEL TIPT) %. T. d., and iii. 62 (SS. Tarachus, Probus, etc. 11), 674 avrò Apétel 0650 %. 7. h.; Const. Ap. vii. 48; Act. Barn. c. 26; Act. Joh. c. 22; Protev. Jac. C. 25, 22, MSS.; Act. Pil. A. C. 16, 8, MSS.; Narr. Jos. c. 5, %4. I accordingly agree with Buttmann, N. T. Gram. p. 120 (137 Thayer), that in doxologies with ευλογητός we are to supply εστίν rather than είη or έστω. . The sentence is therefore, in these cases, grammatically considered, declarative, not optative, though the whole effect of the original is perhaps better given by rendering “be blessed” than “is to be praised." Compare further i Pet. iv. 11; Matt. vi. 13 (text. rec.); Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. c. 58 (new addit.; contra, c. 32); and see Lightfoot's note on

Gal. i. 5.

We must notice the difference in meaning, not affecting however the position of the words, between cühorytós in the Septuagint when applied to men, as in Gen. (xii. 2, variante lectione) xxiv. 31 (v. 1.); xxvi. 29 (v. 1.); Deut. vii. 14; (xxviii, 6, v. 1.; xxxiii. 24, v. l.); Judg. xvii. 2 (v. 1.); 1 Sam. XV. 13 (v. l.); Judith xiii. 18 (v. l.); Tob. xi. 16 (in one text), and when applied to God. In the former case it is used in the sense of “prospered," "blessed" (viz. by God), and is to be taken, probably, in a simply passive sense; cùhoy nuevos often occurs as a various reading. As applied to God, I believe Philo's distinction holds good. In the particular case, however, to which he refers, Gen. xii. 2, where he reads ejhorncós (so many other authorities, see Holmes), applied to Abraham, his exposition is fanciful. In several cases the terms may seem to be intentionally distinguished; see Gen. xiv. 19, 20; 1 Sam. xxv. 32, 33; Tob. xi. 16 Sin.; contra, Judith xiii. 18.

One other remark may be made. In speaking of eviorFós and similar words in "exclamatory doxologies" (see above, pp. 31-39), we must guard against a fallacy. “Exclamatory" as applied to sentences denotes a characteristic which exists in very different degrees in different cases; where one printer would use a mark of exclamation, another would often put a period. Because the placing of such a predicate as ejhoy, Fus first in the sentence gives or tends to give it an exclamatory character, we cannot straightway draw the inference that in all doxologies in which the verb is omitted suhorntós, if used, must have the first place. One may admit that in exclamatory doxologies worrtós always stands first, and deny that the doxology in Rom. ix. 5 is exclamatory. The elliptical word I suppose to be toti, as in most at least of the clauses immediately preceding.

CORRECTION.

The statement on p. 108 about the reading of the ancient versions in Gen. xxvi. 29 lacks precision. The versions made directly from the Hebrew, of course, do not come under consideration. Of those made from the Septuagint, the Armenian, the Georgian, and the Old Slavic (Cod. Ostrog.) support elo7.; the Ethiopic, cukoy. cú; the Old Latin has perished; and the Coptic, as I am informed by Prof. T. 0. Paine, omits the last clause of the verse,

Examination of Exodus xxxij. 7-11.

BY PROF. C. M. MEAD, PH. D.

This passage has occasioned much perplexity and discussion. The difficulty is a very obvious one, when the passage is considered in connection with the context. In chh. xxiv.-xxxi. we have the account of Moses' being called up into the mount, and there receiving directions concerning the building of the tabernacle. In ch. xxxii. is narrated how the people, during Moses' long delay, had made them a golden calf, and how Moses, after administering reproof and chastisement, returned to Jehovah to intercede for the people. In ch. xxxiii. 1-3, Jehovah renews his promise that the people shall go to the land of Canaan, and says, “I will send an angel before thee and I will drive out the Canaanite," etc.

“for I will not go up in the midst of thee: for thou art a stiffnecked people; lest I consume thee in the way.” In consequence of this utterance, it is said (ver. 4) that "the people mourned, and no man did put on him his ornaments.” Then, in ver. 5, we have an apparent repetition of ver. 3, “And Jehovah said unto Moses, Say unto the children of Israel, Ye are a stiffnecked people; should I for one moment go up in the midst of thee, I should consume thee: and now put off thy ornaments from thee, that I may know what I will do with thee." This command to put off the ornaments, coming after the statement that the people did not put them on, seems to be out of place. The A. V, accordingly renders, “For the Lord had said unto Moses," etc. We are not warranted in so translating, though often the Vav Consecutive introduces a verb which is not consecutive to the foregoing in a strictly chronological sense. But inasmuch as ver. 5 is a repetition and enlargement of ver. 3, and is followed (ver. 6) by the statement, "And the children of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments from Mt. Horeb on,” we are compelled to hold that vers. 5 and 6 are a substantial repetition of the foregoing, with the addition that the laying off of the ornaments was in direct consequence of a divine

« ÎnapoiContinuați »