scholars, to attend well to the distinction between what is asserted and what is proved. All, with which we are at present concerned, is the inconsistency of these statements with Griesbach's principles of criticism. But in his Commentarius Criticus, the whole doctrine of two standard texts, the Western and Alexandrine, may be considered as abandoned. In this work, he remarks upon a new theory, or rather upon a new modification of his own theory, proposed by Hug. The latter, which deserves little attention, it is not necessary to explain, except so far as it is connected with Griesbach's statements. Hug supposes that there was no recension before one made by Hesychius, about the middle of the third century. Previous to that time, there existed only the common edition, exocois navn, derived without intervention from the original text; and to this he refers the principal Western authorities. Upon this Griesbach remarks; 'In the first place, respecting the Western recension, or the common edition, there is a sufficient agreement between Hug and myself. I did not suppose that we were indebted for its original formation to the labour of any learned man, revising a copy before him, and settling the text by the collation of manuscripts according to his own judgment; but I rather supposed that it was derived from ancient copies of single books of the New Testament, or from partial collections of those books. Not a few manuscripts of this kind were in general circulation before the publication of the Ευαγγελιον and the Αποστολος, and were afterwards laid aside by the Greeks, but preserved by the Latins or Western Christians. But although such was its origin, I did not hesitate to call the Western text, a recension ; partly, because in works of criticism, mention is often to be made conjointly of the Alexandrine and Byzantine recensions and of the Western text; and therefore, for the sake of brevity, I thought that they might all not improperly be called by the common name of recension; partly, because I doubted whether it could be proved, by sufficient historical arguments, that the text of the other families, the Alexandrine and Byzantine, derived its origin, as regards either class, from the revision of any particular critick; and lastly, because I was persuaded that the text of the manuscript D, which takes the lead among Western authorities, was transcribed from another, which some critick had diligently revised, upon certain principles. For these reasons I think I spoke without rashness of a Western recension.'* It cannot be necessary to remark at length upon this passage. Griesbach adopted, it seems, the word 'recension' in preference to 'text,' or 'class,' or family,' or any other, because it suited two of the subjects to which it was applied, though it did not suit the other; because he doubted whether it was really more applicable to the two former than to the latter; and because one manuscript, which he reckons of the Western class, actually exhibited a text, which might be called a recension. But it is not to the improper use of this word that we particularly object. The point is, that what is peculiar in his system of criticism falls to the ground, if the word be not properly used. Notwithstanding what has been quoted, however, Griesbach is still unwilling to give up the notion of a recension; and, though he thinks no account is to be given of the author of the Alexandrine, he adopts the opinion of Hug, that we are indebted to Lucian for the Byzantine.† We have not seen the work of Hug, but find an abstract of his theory and arguments in Bertholdt. Lucian published a revised edition of the New Testament, but the supposition, that copies of it ever obtained general circulation, seems to rest merely upon an errour. Hug, and Bertholdt following him, have both applied to his edition of the New Testament, language used by Jerom in reference to an edition of the Septuagint, likewise published by him.‡ Of both the Septuagint and the New Testament, however, Jerom elsewhere says, that their authority is perversely maintained by a few.'§ 6 If the notion of a standard Western text, different from the original, were not sufficiently abandoned in what we have quoted, it might be urged against it, that the Sahidick version is classed by Griesbach with the Western authorities. But how could a Western penetrate through the Alexandrine text into Upper Egypt? The old Syriack version, likewise, we are told by Michaelis, agrees remarkably with the Western authorities. There is a general coincidence,' he says, 'between *Commentarius Criticus Partic. II. p. Hieron. Ep. ad Sunniam et Frettell. XLIII. seqq. the old Syriack version, the old Latin versions, and those ancient Greek manuscripts, which were undoubtedly written in the West, as appears from the Latin translations with which they are accompanied.' This wonderful harmony,' he adds, 'between the two most ancient versions of the New Testament, one of which was spread throughout Europe and the North of Africa, the other propagated from Edessa to China, could have had no other cause than a similarity of the Greek manuscripts, in the West of Europe, and the East of Asia, which must have deviated in an equal degree from our printed text, and the manuscripts of what is called the Greek edition."* Griesbach allows that this version is nearly related to the Western recension, but contends that it is not actually the same; here again, as elsewhere, having in mind the notion of a standard text. In his last work he is disposed, for the sake of the Syriack version, to make a new recension, as Michaelis had done before him, calling it the Edessene or Oriental.‡ A revised text, common to Syria and to Italy, seems to be out of the question. Yet according to the statements which have been quoted, the same phenomena, which led to the supposition of a revised text as the common basis and bond of any other class of authorities, would lead to its supposition in regard to the Western authorities, the Sahidick version, and the Syriack version. If the phenomena prove nothing in the latter case, they prove nothing in any other. Respecting the Syriack version, however, the confusion and difficulty are aggravated by Bertholdt ; according to whom, it is conformed to the Byzantine recension, to the latest supposed text, the critical formation of which is referred to a period subsequent to the time when this version was made. He states this as an important, unanswered difficulty, by which Griesbach's system is embarrassed. Such uncertainty about the character and class of this version goes to prove that the character of the supposed classes, with which it is compared, is far from being so well defined, as Bertholdt's own statements, and those of Griesbach and his other followers, would lead us to believe. *Marsh's Michaelis, vol. II. p. 27. + Prolegomena, Sect. III. Comment. Crit. P. II. p. L. Comment. Crit. ibid. § Bertholdt's Introduction, P. I. p. 319, After what has been alleged, it is only necessary to state briefly, that the notion of such recensions as have been supposed is not only wholly unnecessary to account for the phenomena existing in our present manuscripts, and other authorities for settling the text of the New Testament, but, on the contrary, if the preceding statements are correct, is irreconcileable with these phenomena. It is unsupported by historical evidence; yet it is scarcely credible that we should not have found some, one may say frequent, mention of these recensions in ancient authors, if they actually had been made. But the supposition is not merely unsupported by such evidence; it is inconsistent with those notices respecting the history of the text of the New Testament, which we find in the writers of the first four centuries. The Alexandrine recension, for instance, is supposed to have been formed a little before the time of Origen, and to have been followed by the Alexandrine transcribers, and quoted by the Alexandrine fathers. But of the manuscripts of the New Testament Origen says, 'It is manifest that there is a great difference of copies, partly from the carelessness of some transcribers, partly from the improper liberties taken by others, in altering what they find written,* and partly because some revisers strike out, or add, according to their own judgment.' The passage seems to afford sufficient proof that there was at this time no standard corrected text at Alexandria, no late Alexandrine recension, which transcribers felt themselves bound to follow. Again, the Byzantine recension is supposed to have been formed somewhat before the time of Chrysostom. Yet according to a passage quoted from him by Scholtz, the most ancient copies were so eagerly sought after, and the sellers of manuscripts were so little disposed to have it thought that their copies were conformed to any new recension, that it was a common fraud to bury manuscripts lately written in a heap of grain, in order so to discolour them, as to give them an appearance of antiquity. In regard to the three texts, which have been mentioned, Griesbach, as is well known, prefers the authority of the Alexandrine. Eichhorn considers the Western as at once the * Απο τόλμης τινων, μοχθηρας της [1. τε] διορθώσεως των γραφομένων. + Origenes ad Matth. xix. 19. + Page 171. most ancient and the purest. .* Scholtz admits but two classes of authorities, blending into one, as we have seen, the Western and the Alexandrine, and using the latter as the common name for this class. At the same time, taking quite new ground, he gives the preference to the Byzantine text. "The internal character,' he says, of the Byzantine readings affords. decided proof of their genuineness. On this subject I dare appeal to the judgment of competent criticks; and especially of the great Griesbach, who with all his attachment to the Alexandrine manuscripts as the most ancient, yet very seldom follows them.'† The notions of Scholtz do not seem to us clear, nor his arguments satisfactory. But it would require more time and space to state and answer them, than it seems worth while to give. The paradox of preferring the more modern, to the more ancient authorities, is not likely to be readily adopted. We have, in the preceding remarks, endeavoured to show, that the language, which has been used respecting the differences existing between the text of any one class of authorities, and the text of any other class, or the received text, is in a high degree extravagant; that there seems to be no ground for distinguishing an Alexandrine and a Western text from each other, as characterised by any important peculiarities; and that there is no proof or probability, that the text in common use either in the West of Europe, in Egypt, or in the Byzantine patriarchy, owed its origin to a recension, or critical edition of the New Testament. All our present authorities, it is believed, are to be referred back to the original text, as their nearer or more remote standard, without the intervention of any such recensions as have been supposed. These conclusions seem to us important in regard to the history of the text of the New Testament, and as strengthening our confidence, which the theory of Griesbach is adapted to weaken, in the genuineness and authority of such a corrected text as at the present day we have ample means of forming. Such a text, generally speaking, Griesbach has himself given us. The rules of criticism, which he has actually followed, rest so little upon his peculiar theory, that the former may * Eichhorn's Einleitung, &c. i. e. Introduction to the New Testament, vol. I. p. 675. seqq. + Page 178. |