Kinck agrees with Scholz in classifying all docu- ments under two heads — the Occidental and the Ori- ental ; the former exhibited in A, B, C, D, E, F, G, in the epistles, the latter containing the cursive MSS. The former he subdivides into two families — the Afri- can (A. B, C) and the Latin codices (D, E, F, G). He finds in it the result of arbitrary correction, ignorance, and carelessness.
Tischendorf's view, given in the prolegomena to the seventh edition of his Greek Testament, is that there are two pairs of classes— the Alexandrian and Latin, the Asiatic and Byzantine. The oldest form of the text, and that which most bears an Alexandrian com- plexion, is presented in A, B, C, D, I, L, P, Q. T, X, Z, A, perhaps also R, in the gospels. A later form, bear- ing more of an Asiatic complexion, is in E, F, G, H, K, M, O, S, U, V, T, A. For the Acts and Catholic epistles the oldest text is given in A, B,C; for Acts probably
D and I also. For the Pauline epistles the oldest text is represented by A, B, C, H, I, D, F, G, the first five be- ing Alexandrian, the last two Latin ; D standing be- tween the two classes. A and C in the Apocalypse have a more ancient text than B.
Lachmann disregarded all systems of recensions, and proceeded to give a text from ancient documents of a certain definite time — the text which commonly pre- vailed in the 3d and 4th centuries, drawn from Orient- al MSS. — with the aid of Occidental ones in cases where the former disagree among themselves. In his large edition he follows the united evidence of Eastern and Western MSS. His merits are very great in the de- partment of New-Test, criticism; but this is not the place to show them. He does not, however, profess to give a text as near as possible to that which he judges to proceed from the sacred writers themselves, as Gries- bach and Tischendorf have done. On the contrary, he has simply undertaken to present that form of the text which is found in documents belonging to a certain period as a basis contributing to the discovery of the authentic text itself. His text is an important aid to the work of finding out the original words; not the original itself, as he would have given it. For this reason his edition contains readings which, in his own opinion, could not have been original. His object was therefore somewhat different from that of most editors. But he set an example of rigid adherence to the task proposed, and of critical sagacity in eliminating the true text from ancient documents of the time, evincing the talents and skill of a master. Since his time it has been the fashion among inferior critics and imitators to attach undue weight to antiquity. Uncial MSS. and their readings have been too implicitly followed by some.
Tischendorf more recently adopted the same views as those of Lachmann, holding that the most ancient text alone should be edited, though it may not always be what the sacred authors wrote. This principle be- ing laid at the basis of his eighth edition, lately com- pleted, made a considerable difference between it and the seventh. The internal goodness of readings, the context, and sound judgment are thus excluded, and this at the expense of something more valuable; for mere outward and ancient testimony can never elicit what ought to be an editor's chief object — the presenta- tion of a text as near the original one as can be pro- cured. The oldest text of the best MSS. and versions is valuable only so far as it assists in attaining that object. It is owing to the undue elevation of antiquity that such a reading as 6 juovoyn'?)c 0£<'c in John i. 18 has been given in the text of a recent edition. The same excessive veneration for antiquity has led to the separation of (i ykyovt v from ovSe iv (John i, 3) in mod- ern times. Lachmann is exceeded by smaller followers, not in his own exact line.
To Griesbach all must allow distinguished merit. He was a consummate critic, ingenious, acute, candid, tolerant, and learned. His system was elaborated with great ability. It exhibits the marks of a sagacious mind. But it was assailed by many writers, whose combined attacks weakened its basis. In Germany, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Schulz, Gabler, and Schott made various objections to it. In consequence of Hug's acute remarks, the venerable scholar himself modified his views. He did not, however, give up the three re- censions, but still maintained that the Alexandrian and Western were distinct. He admitted that the Syriac, which Hug had put with the koivtj, was nearer to that than to the Alexandrian class; but he hesitated to put it with the Western because it differed so much. He denied that Origen usecf the kowi), maintaining that the Alexandrian, which existed before his time, was that which he employed. He conceded, however, that Origen had a Western copy of Mark besides an Alex- andrian one; that in his commentary on Matthew, though the readings are chietly Alexandrian, there is
RECENSIONS
952
RECENSIONS
a great number of such as are Western, and which ■ appear in !>.. L3, 28,69, L24, l:;i. L57, the old ulgate, and Syriac. Thus Origen had various il hand, as be himself repeatedly asserts, Gries- bach also ( ceded that Clemens Alexandrinus had va- rious copies, differing in the forms of their texts. Hence his citations often agree with the Kotvij in ooiq and 1). Thus ( >rigen and I i :rai nl cease, in some measure, to be standard representatives of the Alexandrian recension. 1 i iesbach, resulting from many acute