ologians, conservative at heart, but advancing never- theless more or less with the times. Such was Gries- bacli, who may, perhaps, not unjustly be called a mid- dle-part}' man, in view of his Theojmeustie (1784), his Christologie d. Hebraerincfs (1791), and especially of his Anleitung z. Studium d. pupmldnn Dogmatik (1779., 1789, several ed.), a work considered at first as retro- grade and inconsequent by the so-called friends of progi'ess. His Vorlesungen ii. Uermeneutik d. K. T., printed after his death (in 1815), belongs to the so-cal'- ed school of grammatico-historical inter\iretsit\on which prevailed during the author's life, and is such a work as would naturally be expected from a pupil of Semler and Ernesti.
" The peculiar principle of Griesbach's system con- sists in a division of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament into tiiree classes, eacli of which is consid- ered as an independent witness for the various read- ings of the manuscripts which it comprises. He thus contemplates the existence of three distinct species of texts, which, with respect to their relationship or affin- itj', are called by Bengel , families,' and by Semler, Griesbach, and Michaelis 'recensions' or 'codices,' namely: 1. The 'Alexandrian' recension or codex, comprehending manuscripts which, in peculiar read- ings, agree with the citations found in the early Greek- Egyptian fathers, particularly Origen and Clemens of Alexandria. 2. The ' AVestern' recension, which is identified with the citations of the Latin fathers, espe- cially Cyprian and Tertullian, and was used by the Christians of Carthage, Rome, and the west of Europe. 3. The ' Byzantine' or Asiatic recension, comprising numerous manuscripts which were used especially in the see of Constantinople and the adjacent Oriental provinces, and have furnished the received text, called the Greek Vulgate. Each of these recensions has char- acteristics peculiar to itself, j'et no individual manu- script exhibits any recension in a pure state, but is as- signed to tlie Alexandrian or Western class, as the pe- culiar reading of each of those classes preponderate. Though Griesbach considers departures from the re- ceived Greek Vulgate as various readings, he does not allow the existence of anj' standard text as a criterion for determining which are genuine or spurious read- ings, his object being to show, not the cliaracter of par- ticular deviations from any individual recension, but the general coincidence of manuscripts with one recen- sion or codex more than with another. The authorized text does not regulate, but is regulated by his critical opinion of its comparative value; and the immense number of various readings form a floating medium in which the genuine text is considered to be in all in- stances discoveralile. However, although he professes to determine the value of readings 1)}' the number of classes by which they are supported, he constantly dis- plays a very decided preference for the Alexandrian class, which he places far above the two others in the rank of authority, a few manuscripts of this recension being supposed to outweigh a multitude of such as be- long to the Byzantine recension, which he regards as certainly the most untrustworthj' of all {Pro!. Ixxii). The reason assigned l)j' Griesbach for this decision is the fact tliat the Greek transcripts of this class contain a remarkablj' large number of suspected readings, ow- ing to the very great liberties taken by learned copj'- ists in making successive alterations ; and finding the coincidence of the numerous scriptural quotations of Origen of Alexandria with^fhe celebrated Greek man- uscript of the New Testament from that cit}' to be very striking, he thence concludes that the passages now ex- tant in this father's writings, of the commencement of the 3d century, discover the earliest, and therefore the purest text of which we have any knowledge to be that of the Alexandrian manuscripts. His ultimate choice of readings is consequently determined by the testimony of Origen, in confirmation of which he often adduces much collateral evidence from the primitive
GRIESBACH
1010
GRIFFEN
fathers and versions ; and of the readings thus proved to be genuine is formed his corrected text of the New Testament. Against the complicated hypothesis on which Griesbach has based liis sj'stem of recensions many very important objections were urged by learn- ed Biblical critics of Germany (as by Hartmann, men- tioned above), and in England, especially by archbish- op Lawrence and Dr. Fredericlc Nolan. The primary fact enforced by Griesbach, that the Alexandrian read- ings which are supported bj- the quotations of Origen ])0ssess the highest autliority of all, is disputed by pro- fessor Matthia^, of Moscow, in his critical edition of the New Testament, and with greater confidence by pro- fessor Martin Scholz, of Bonn, in the prolegomena to his very learned and elaborate edition, founded on a system wholly at variance with that of Griesbach. Tiie Alexandrian manuscripts are acknowledged bj' Scholz to be more ancient, but he asserts them to be more cor- rupt than any others, and contends that in Alexandria the alterations of the text principally originated. He divides all the manuscripts, not, asGriesbacli, into three, but into two classes, the Byzantine and the Alexan- drian, in which latter he includes the Western ; and he gives a decided superiority to the authority of the B}'- zantine recensions, which, in opposition to Griesbach, he strenuously maintains to be directly derived from the autographs of the evangelists and apostles them- selves. The work liy archbishop Lawrence on this subject is entitled Remarks vp07i the Si/s(emaiical Clas- sification ofMamiscriiits adoptedhy Dr. Griesbach (1814, 8vo). The learned author states that he considers Griesbach to be what bishop Marsh denominated him, ' the most consummate critic that ever undertook an edition of the New Testament;' but in the course of his critical strictures on the origin and execution of his plan of appreciating manuscripts, he employs the severest terms of censure, observing that 'Griesbach's mode of investigation is unsatisfactory, his classifica- tion fallacious, and his statement of the number of read- ings inaccurate; that no such classification of the man- uscripts of the New Testament is possible ; the exist- ence of three distinct species of texts being a fact onlj- synthetically presumed, and not capable of anj' ana- htical demonstration ; so that the student finds he is treading, not on solid ground, but on a critical quick- sand.' Griesbach was long and severe!}' attacked by Trinitarian writers as an opposer of the doctrine of Christ's divinity, chiefl}' in consec[uence of his having rejected from his text the celebrated passage respect- ing the three that bare witness (1 John v, 7), and also for inserting oq for BtoQ in 1 Tim. iii, 16, and Kvpiov for BfoD in Acts xx, 28. In consequence of these and other points in his critical works, the commendation and patronage of the Unitarians were bestowed upon him ; but in the preface to his treatise on the apostol- ical writings, he makes the following solemn declara- tion : ' Ut iniquas suspiciones omnes, quantum in me est, amoliar, et hominibus malevolis calumniandi an- sam praeripiam, puVdice profiteor, atque Deum tester, neutiquam me de veritate istius dogmatis dubitare ;' and to this may be added a statement from his Prole- fjnmena, nameh', that 'nulla emendatio a recentioribus editorilius tentata ullam Scrii^tuia; Sacr?e doctrinam immutat, aut evertit,' though 'paucae sensum senten- tiarum aflficiunt.' The laborious and minutelj' learn- ed work by the Rev. Dr. Nolan, entitled An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek VnJgnte, or Received Text of the New Testament, published in 1815, is chiefly occu- pied in presenting evidence to subvert the critical sj'S- tem of Griesbach, and to establish the position since taken by professor Scholz and others, that the Byzan- tine, and not the Alexandrian, codices are the most w-orthy of reliance. 'Griesbach's theory,' says Dr. Nolan, 'is one of the most elaliorate of those that have unsettled the foundation on which rests the entire can- on. His corrected text can be received onl}' as a proof of the general corruption of the sacred Scriptures, and