under "Mastricht, Petrus van." The same is true of the excellent Catalogue of the Advocates' Library, Edinburgh, vol. v. (1877). In the Cat. . . . van godgeleerde Werken on sale by Frederick Muller at Amsterdam (1857), No. 3625, the Hist. juris ecclesiastici appears under the heading "Mastricht, G. von," while his brother's writings stand under "Mastricht, P. van." C. J. Stewart's Catalogue of Bibles and Biblical Literature, London, 1849, No. 503, has Mastricht (G. von) de Canone Scripturae. . . . Bremae, 1722, Sm. 8vo." In all probability he has given the name the form which he found on the title-page.

66

Probably in no catalogue in the world is so much pains taken to secure accuracy in the representation of names as in the Manuscript Catalogue of the British Museum, select portions of which are now in course of publication. The portion extending from D to Dal, in explaining the initialism “G. D. T. M. D.," gives the name as "G. von Mastricht."

In the notice of his death, in the Bibliotheca hist.-phil.-theol. Bremen, 1721, iv. 1091, his name appears as "Gerhardus a Mastricht."

I cannot speak from personal inspection of the title-pages of the juridical or theological writings of this author; it is doubtful whether any of them are to be found in the libraries in this country; but such an agreement in the copying of the titles which contain his name in the works referred to above, corroborated by the form under which they are entered in the best catalogues, leaves no doubt in my mind that in the titles themselves the surname appears as "Von Mastricht."

This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that in nearly all of the numerous biographical and bibliographical works which I have consulted the surname is given as Mastricht; generally with von, less frequently, but often, with van, and in Latin works often with a or de, as the translation of the prefix.

So in the great general biographical or bibliographical works, as Zedler's Univ. Lex. vol. xix. (1739), Georgi (1742), Jöcher (1751), Moréri, Saxius's Onomasticon (1785), Heinsius (1812), Rotermund, Fortsetzung zu Föcher's Gelehrten-Lex. vol. iv. (1813), Ebert, Graesse. Rotermund's authority is the more weighty, as he published an elaborate work on the literati of Bremen.

So in many special bibliographical or biographical or miscellaneous works; as Acta Eruditorum, 1709, p. 35; J. A. Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca (tom. iv., p. 845, ed. Harles); Joh. Fabricius, Hist. Bibl. Fabric. (1724), vi. 374; Reimman (1731); Bibliothèque raisonnée, etc. 1735, xv. 29; Baumgarten, Nachrichten, u.s.w. iv. 207; Francke, Cat. Biblioth. Bunav. (1750), i. 12; Knoch (1754); Paquot (1765); Koecher, Analecta (1766); Bauer, Biblioth. libb. rar. (1771); Goeze, Verzeichniss (1777); Kok, Vaderlandsch Woordenboek, vol. xxi. (1790); and Van der Aa, Biog. Woordenboek der Nederlanden, vol. xii. (Kok and Van der Aa have no article upon him, as he was not a Dutchman; but they mention him in treating of his brother.)

So in the special bibliographies of theological literature or some of its branches; as Buddæus, Isagoge (1730), Walch (1757-65), Masch's Le Long (1778), Rosenmüller (1797), Noesselt (4th ed., 1800), G. W. Meyer (1805), Simon (1813), Winer (3d ed., 1838–40), Danz (1843), Pérennès (1858).

So various writers on textual criticism; as Bengel (1734) and Wetstein (1735 and 1751), who call him "Gerardus à Mastricht"; C. B. Michaelis (De varr. lectt., 1749). Rumpæus (2d ed., 1757), Doedes, Tekstkritiek (1844). Griesbach (1777) has “Mastrichtius."

So among the "Introductions" to the N. T.; C. G. Hofmann in his edition of Pritius (1737 and 1764), and Kapp in his notes to the same; J. D. Michaelis (4th ed., 1787), Haenlein (2d ed., 1802), J. E. C. Schmidt (1805), Bertholdt (1812), Marsh (Lect. vii.), Hug (4th ed., 1847), Eichhorn (vol. v., 1827), Schott (1830), De Wette (6th ed., 1860), Guericke (3d ed., 1868). He does not appear to be mentioned by Bleek or Hilgenfeld.

I fear I have been tedious; but, having looked up the matter as well as I could conveniently in my physical weakness, I thought I would give you the benefit of my memoranda. I have cited, I believe, about sixty authorities for Mastricht as the form of the surname. There is, I think, no evidence on the other side of any weight, no reason to suppose that our Gerhard, a German, ever wrote his name Gerardus or Gerard van Maestricht, much less "Gerhard van Maestricht," which is mixing up German and Dutch. It is a small matter; but were I in your place, unless you have the man's autograph or something as decisive on the other side, I should request the printers to change van to von, and to strike out the e in Maestricht. I. H. H.]

VIII.

BUTTMANN'S GREEK TESTAMENT.*

[From the Bibliotheca Sacra for October, 1858.]

THIS edition of the Greek Testament forms a part of the popular collection of ancient Greek and Latin authors published by Teubner of Leipzig. Like the other volumes in the series, it is neatly printed, and sold at a moderate price. Its editor, Philip Buttmann, the son of the distinguished philologist of the same name, was associated with Lachmann in the preparation of his larger edition of the Greek Testament he arranged the authorities for the various readings of the Greek text. The edition which he now presents to the public purports to be based on the celebrated Codex Vaticanus No. 1209, except in the latter part of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the Apocalypse, in which portions of the New Testament that MS. is unfortunately mutilated. Here its place is supplied by the Alexandrine. Buttmann professes

to give, in the margin, all the variations from his own text which are found in the Vatican MS., the Elzevir edition of 1624, or the "Received Text," Griesbach's larger edition. (Vol. I. ed. Schulz, 1827; Vol. II., 1805), Lachmann's larger edition (1842-50), and Tischendorf's edition of 1854, included in his Novum Testamentum Triglottum, but also issued separately.

One serious defect in the present work, considered as a manual for common use, is the absence of all references to the quotations from the Old Testament, or to parallel pas

Novum Testamentum Graece. Ad fidem potissimvm Codicis Vaticani B recensvit, varias lectiones Codicis B, Textvs Recepti, Editionvm Griesbachii Lachmanni Tischendorfii integras adiecit PHILIPPVS BVTTMANN. Lipsiae svmptibus et typis B. J. Tevbneri. 1856. Small 8vo. pp. viii., 543.

sages in the New. Some may also regret that it has no analysis of the contents of the different books, in the form of running titles or headings of chapters. But, if the promises of the title-page and preface were fulfilled, it would still be a convenient and useful book, supplying an impor tant desideratum. No other edition gives a complete view of the critical results arrived at in respect to the text by Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, the three editors whose judgment is now most highly respected by scholars.

The editions of Hahn (1840) and Theile (stereotyped in 1844), and the edition of the New Testament in Stier and Theile's Polyglotten-Bibel (stereotyped in 1846), profess, indeed, to exhibit the various readings of the principal recent editors of the Greek Testament; but they do this very imperfectly. In giving the readings of Griesbach, they take no notice of those which he marks as probably spurious, or of those which he designates as equal in authority to the reading of the text. Hahn preceded Tischendorf; and he professedly exhibits a selection only from the readings of Lachmann, taken of course from his first edition of 1831. He is, moreover, inaccurate, incorrectly representing the critical judgment of Knapp alone in more than one hundred and thirty instances.

Theile intentionally passes over the minuter variations; and both his Greek Testament and the Polyglotten-Bibel were published too soon to enable him to use the second volume of Lachmann's larger edition, or the second Leipzig edition of Tischendorf (1849), the most important, so far as the criticism of the text is concerned, since the time of Griesbach. (The first edition of Tischendorf, published in 1841, is comparatively of little value.) The Greek portion of Theile's Novum Testamentum Tetraglotton (1855) is merely taken from the stereotype plates of the Polyglotten-Bibel.

Tischendorf's edition of 1849 gives the various readings of Griesbach, Scholz, and Lachmann, with those of the Elzevir edition of 1624 and Stephens's of 1550; but he neglects the readings which Lachmann places in the margin as equal in value to those of the text; and Griesbach's are

taken from his larger edition, instead of the manual edition of 1805, which generally represents his later conclusions.

Bagster's Large-print Greck Testament (London, 1851) contains only "selected various readings from Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf," though the selection is copious, and made with care and judgment.

Buttmann speaks in his preface of the difficulty of making a selection of this kind, and thinks it better to let the student decide for himself as to the comparative importance of particular differences in the text. He accordingly professes to give all the various readings of the authorities named in his title-page, "even the most trivial" (et levissimas). Where Griesbach and Lachmann regard two readings of the same passage as possessing equal claims to reception, he indicates the fact by citing their authority for both. Such are his promises; and the value of his work must chiefly depend on the fidelity with which they are performed. Few critics will doubt that he overestimates the authority of the Vatican MS., regarding it as equal, if not superior, to that of all the rest of our MSS. of the New Testament united. He even ventures, in one instance (2 Pet. iii. 10), to alter the text by conjecture, changing á into à, because, otherwise, the reading of this MS. would be without meaning. Still, the Vatican MS. is undoubtedly the oldest and best which has come down to us; and, if Buttmann has relied upon it too exclusively, the error is not of much consequence, if he sets before us the text of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tischendorf in connection with. his own.

Such being the case, we regret to say that all which would give value to this edition is wanting. No reliance can be placed on Buttmann's account of the various readings of any one of the authorities cited. His carelessness is extraordinary. We have gone over the Gospel of Matthew, comparing the representations of Buttmann with the authorities to which he refers; and it appears that he has committed more than five hundred errors in that Gospel alone. These mistakes may be divided as follows: