and "Blessed be thou of the Lord," and remarks that "Dr. Abbot 'overlooks the fact' that, whatever difference there may be, it lies not in the sense of the word evλoynrós, but in the different relations of the persons blessing and blessed." I must confess that I have overlooked the fact, if it be a fact; and must also confess my belief that not a few of Dr. Gifford's readers will be surprised at the proposition that there is no difference in the sense of the word eλoynrós when, applied to God, it means "praised" or "worthy to be praised," and when, applied to men, it means "prospered" or "blessed" by God. The fact on which Dr. Gifford seems to lay great stress, that comτós in these different senses represents the same Hebrew word, will not weigh much with those who consider that many words in common use have several very different meanings in Hebrew as well as in other languages. The two meanings are as distinct as those of evλoyía in the sense of laus, laudatio, celebratio (Grimm, Lex. s.v. evλoyía No. 1), and of bonum, beneficium (Grimm, ibid., No. 5). The very common use of ciloyŋrós in doxologies to God seems to have led the Septuagint translators to restrict its application in the sense of "praised," or rather "worthy to be praised," to the Supreme Being. To this perhaps the only exception is in the expression EvλoуητÒS & трóños σov in 1 Sam. xxv. 33. In the New Testament, apart from the passage in debate, its application is restricted to God, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." My point is that whatever force there may be in the argument from this extensive usage in favor of its application to God rather than to Christ in Rom. ix. 5, it is not diminished in the slightest degree by the fact that, in a few passages of the LXX the word is applied to men in the very different sense of "prospered" or "recipients of blessings," i.e. benefits, from God. I have now, I believe, taken notice of all the points of importance in which Dr. Gifford has criticised my statements, or statements which he has ascribed to me. I am not without hope that in a future edition of his pamphlet he may see reason for modifying some of his remarks, and for giving more fully the context of some of his quotations. The Readings Ελληνας and Ἑλληνιστάς, Acts xi. 20. PROF. B. B. WARFIELD, D.D. HIS is one of the very few passages of importance in the New justice as yet unsettled. The great modern editions from Griesbach to Tregelles Matthaei alone excepted - are, indeed, unanimous in reading Έλληνας. With them most commentators and historical students agree.2 There never was a time, however, when λλŋviorás did not have a respectable following among exegetes.3 And Westcott and Hort have put an end to the unanimity of even the editions. The Revised English New Testament so far follows as to put "Many ancient authorities read Grecian Jews" in their margin; although exactly what is meant by this, it is impossible for an outsider to divine, amid the contradictory reports of what the margin was intended for, and the curious distribution of the terms "many," "some," "most," "ancient authorities." At all events, it is clear that a new discussion of the reading, on its merits, cannot be thought a re-opening of a dispute already practically closed. What is proposed, is to briefly consider the evidence, and attempt to reach at least a provisional conclusion. 1 Usher, Grotius, Witsius, and especially Bengel (not in ed. maj., but “Gnomoni et margo, ed. 2. . . et vers. Germ.," says his son) were their forerunners. Cf. Erasmus and Drusius. 2 The following rather miscellaneous list of recent names will show how widely spread the opinion is among English writers: Alford, Farrar, Hackett, Hinds, Howson (in Life of Paul), Jacobus, J. B. Lightfoot (in Galatians "), Norris, Plumptre, Purves, Scrivener, Schaeffer (in Lange), Tate, Webster, and Wilkinson (in notes). 3 Among recent English writers there are for this view such as: J. A. Alexander, W. Kay, P. Schaff (Companion to New Testament, p. 8, note 2), Shirley, Canon Spence (apparently: in Schaff's Popular Commentary, in lc., “On the whole, the evidence is in favor of 'E77vioráç," yet very doubtfully), Bishop Wordsworth, etc. 4 The most elaborate recent discussions of this reading in English are probably the following: KAY, W., "On the Word Hellenist, with Especial Reference to Acts xi. 19 (20),” Calcutta, 1856 [defends 'Liquoráç]; ALFORD, H., Excursus II. to Prolegomena to Acts in his Greek Testament [against Kay, defends 'Envaç]; SCRIVENER, F. H., in his Plain Introduct., etc., p. 536 of ed. 2, 1874, cf. The External Evidence. The essential facts of the evidence are included in the following summary: For Enviorás: [? *], B, D, E, H, L, P, almost all uncials, all cursives except one (including 13, 61, etc.), [Pst. ?], Eus. [? Chrys.]. For Anvas, A, D*, csc. [= Hort's 112], [? Chrys.]. In explanation of this summary we need to remark: (1) C is here defective; but in no other case in Acts does it desert the mass of documents when they read either Έλληνες or ἑλληνισταί. (2) It is exceedingly doubtful whether should be cited for ἑλληνιστάς. It actually reads εὐαγγελιστάς, which is usually assumed to presuppose ¿λλŋnσтás, on account of its like termination. But since it seems certain that evayyediσrás was suggested by, and results from, the proximity of evayyeligóμuevo, the inference does not seem secure. No doubt ἑλληνιστάς could be more readily than Έλληνας mistaken for evayyedirás; but if any substantive were derived from εὐαγγελιζόμενοι, it could not fail to take the form εὐαγγελιστάς. It is only with grave doubt, therefore, that the weight of * can be thrown in favor of ἑλληνιστάς. (3) The force of A, as a witness for ŋvas, is somewhat weakened by the fact that this MS. reads ŋvas also at ix. 29, where the true reading is undoubtedly Annorrás. D is defective at ix. 29; but, as Mr. Purves notes, both A and D insert kai before ¿Xλývwv in xvii. 4as do also the good cursives, 13 and 61. If this be due, as he suggests, to a tendency in A and D to put forward the Gentile work of the Church, the testimony of these MSS. here to Anvas should be somewhat suspected. The existence of such a tendency in A and D needs, however, justification. (4) The versions fail to distinguish between the terms Aniorrás and ŋvas, and hence are not valid witnesses in this matter. Only the Peshitto may be an exception, inasmuch as it reads, at ix. 29, "those Jews who knew Greek"; but even it reads "Greeks" at vi. 1. ed. 3, 1883 [defends "E22ŋvac]; HAMMOND, C. E., in his Outlines of Textual Crit., etc., ed. 2, 1876, p. 113 [defends "E2λnvac]; HORT, F. J. A., in his Notes on Select Readings, Gr. Test. vol. II., p. 93, 1881 [defends 'E27 qvioráç]; PURVES, G. T., "The Reading" Envas in Acts xi. 20,” in The Presbyterian Review, vol. IV., p. 835 sq., 1883 [defends "Emaç against Hort]. See also the elaborate notes in the critical editions; in the commentaries of Alford, Wordsworth, Bloomfield, Plumptre and Howson and Spence, in loc.; and in Farrar's Life of Paul, I. 285, etc. (5) Chrysostom (whose words, ἴσως διὰ τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι ἑβραϊστὶ ἔλλη vas avroùs ékáλov, both Theophylact and Ecumenius repeat) reads "Greeks" in his commentary clearly, although nvuorús stands in the text commented on. This throws his testimony somewhat in doubt. It may be that the quotation from Acts has been conformed by later copyists to the Syrian type of text (which undoubtedly read ŋνιστάς); or it may be that Chrysostom understood ἑλληνιστάς as equivalent to Anvas, either in the general import of the word or in this context, and hence, though reading the former, could cry out, ὅρα, Ἕλλησιν εὐαγγελίζονται. The weight of his evidence for ἕλληνας is weakened in proportion to the probability of his being able to thus interpret ἑλληνιστάς. The evidence being thus before us, its estimation is not without its difficulties, although the issue can scarcely remain doubtful. The Genealogical Evidence. -The application of genealogical considerations leads immediately to the conclusions that both readings are pre-Syrian, and that neither is Alexandrian in its origin, as, indeed, the presence of B in the one group and of D* in the other sufficiently evinces. Beyond that, progress is more difficult. It is certainly striking that, with the exception of D*, Aλŋvas is not supported by any of the typical Western documents. It is not easy to suppose, on the one hand, that ŋnvas arose as a Western corruption and yet failed to propagate itself in the later Western texts, or, on the other, that Anvarrás was originally Neutral or Neutral-Alexandrian, and thence seeped, by mixture, into all late Western texts. One is almost tempted to suppose the support of Anvas due to the accidental conformity of independent obvious conjectural emendation. On closer consideration, however, it appears that all the documents which class here with B have Neutral or Neutral-Alexandrian elements; and thus AAŋvorás is readily accounted for as the NeutralAlexandrian reading, and AAŋvas as the Western. On genealogical considerations, therefore, there is a probability that ŋviorás is the more original reading. This probability fails to be decisive only because genealogical evidence only assigns readings to their respective classes, and leaves it to internal evidence to determine the relative purity of the classes; and internal evidence of classes can only determine usual, not invariable, relations. Although, therefore, it is certain that the Neutral-Alexandrian readings are generally better than the Western, the rule is not absolutely without exceptions, and there is a possibility that the present case may be an exception. Internal Evidence of Groups. We appeal, consequently, to In ternal Evidence of Groups for additional evidence and greater surety. Here we find ourselves embarrassed at once by the doubt resting on the testimony of *. If its witness were clearly for nurrás, the known high character of the combination B, here increased greatly by the adjunction of many other important witnesses, would throw the weight of the external evidence overwhelmingly for that reading. Just in the degree that we judge it probable that the present reading of ** is only a stupid blunder for Aŋviorás, must the testimony for that reading appear to us to approach the overwhelming point. Even when we lay aside the testimony of *, however, the internal evidence of groups appears still to support Mŋviorás, — B being rarely wrong when in conjunction with such a train as here sides with it. Still another mode of procedure is open to us, by which we may reach an independent result, and thus test the probabilities already raised. We may try, by internal evidence of groups, the special value of the group which here appears as the evidence for ¿Aλnvas. We have noted something over a hundred cases in which the group, A, D* occurs in the Book of Acts. In the great majority of these, however, it has either actually or practically the support of all other MSS. except *; in other words, the rival reading is a mere individualism or slip of the careless scribe of *, which has been corrected into conformity with the universally supported reading by the scholarly hand whom we know as . These cases are only valuable in helping us estimate the value of, to whom hardly due credit is usually attached. The remaining instances may be conveniently classified as follows: (1) Instances in which, A, D* have the support of two or more of the primary documents: 1 The letters in the fifth column explain themselves: L. Lachmann; T.= Tischendorf's viii. ed.; T.vii. Tischendorf's vii. ed.; H. Westcott and Hort; and A. Alford. = = L. T. Tr. H. A. right.] *BE al.10+ vg. Cop. L. T. Tr. H. A. right. |