idi I ■> I In.;- and others, amounted to this thai the nearness of Mss. and recensions to one another was greater than he had before assumed; that
his two ancient recensions had i -e points of contact
with one another in existing documents than he had clearly perceived. The line between his Alexandrian and Western classes became less perceptible. This, in- deed, was the weak point of the system, as no proper division can be drawn between the two. In the appli- cation of his system he professed to follow the consent of the Alexandrian and Western recensions, unless the internal marks of truth in a reading were so strong as to outweigh this argument. But he departed from his principle in several instances, as in I Cor.iii, !: Gal. iv, 11: Phil. hi. 3; 1 Thess.ii,7; Heb.iv,2.
In the year 1814 Dr. Laurence published objections to Griesbach's system, many of which are unfounded. Some of his observations are pertinent and fair; more are irrelevant. He does not show much appreciation of i he comparative value of MSS. and texts, and reasons in a sort of mechanical method against Griesbach. It is evident that he was somewhat prejudiced against the Alexandrian recension. < Observations like the following show an animus against the German critic: -Too much dazzled, perhaps, by the splendor of intricate and per- plexing research, he overlooked what lay immediately before him. When he threw his critical howl among the established theories of his predecessors, he too hastily attempted to set up his own without having first totally demolished theirs, forgetting that the very nerve of his criticism was a principle of hostility to every standard text" (Remarks upon th System/it it- Cltt.<.-iji<-tiii'>n ■•/' MSS. adopted by Griesbach, p. 57). The pamphlet of rl scholar is now almost forgotten, yet it pro- duced considerable effect at the time of its appearance, when the reprinting of Griesbach's Greek Testament in England was associated with the active dissemination of Unitarian tenets, and the ac< plished German him- self was unjustly charged with leaning to similar \ iews.
In America, Mr. Notion subsequently animadverted upon the same system with considerable acuteness and plausibility. It is evident, however, that he did not fully understand all Griesbach's sentiments; he had not studied the peculiar readings of MSS., the quotations of the fathers, .and the characteristics of ancient ver- sions, yet he has urged son bjections forcibly and
conclusivi ly against the adoption of the system.
Hug's theory of recensions, so far as it differs from Griesbach's, is without foundation. It makes Origen use the Koivrj ticoWic, whereas his usual text agrees with the Alexandrian. The Hesychian recension was employed at least a hundred year- previously by ('leni- ent of Alexandria, and that Hesychius was really the author of a recension is historically baseless; he may
Cted, in some places, a few copies which he
used. I I e n cension attributed to Lucian is also desti- tute of historical proof. The basis of this is supposed to have been the i:<>ifi) hSoaig as it existed in Syria. Again, it is very improbable that Origen undertook to revise the koivtj ikSooiq. It is true that Jen peals to the < ■ mplai - of < Irigen, but this does not im- ply that the latter made a revision of existing epics. The Alexandrian father used copies of the New Test select* d with care, and probal lj corrected them in va- rious places, but he did not undertake in his old age the lal us task of making a peculiar revision. The si- lence of ancient writers, i spi i tally of Eusebius, who is
most copious in his praises of Origen, speaks strongly against the critical studies of the Alexandrian father iii the New-Test text We believe, then lore, that the re- cension system of Hug is nnsustained by historical data. Succeeding critics have refused to adopt it. Griesbach himself made several pertinent objections to it. It was also assailed by Scbott, Rinck, Gabler, and others. Mr. Norton, too, opposed it
Nolan's system is fundamentally wrong. There is no evidence that the Codex Brixianus contains the Latin
version in its oldest form, and therefore the assumed
connection of it with the Byzantine text fails to Bhow
that the latter is the most ancient and b -i n
live of the original Greek. The Codex Brixianus, on
the contrary, is itself a revision of the old Latin text. Nolan thinks that the Codex Vercellensis has a text corrected by Eusebius of Vercelli after that which he brought from Egypt on his return from exile, lint this form of the text circulated in the West before Eusebius, and i he Palestinian recension, which he supposes to have been introduced into Alexandria by Enthallus, was there before; thus the system so ingeniously elaborated by the critic is historically erroneous. It introduce- arbi- trary and baseless conjectures into the department of criticism, ignores facts, and deal- in unjust accusations against ancient writers, such a- Eusebius of ( ., -area. who were as honest as the zealous upholder himself of the Byzantine text. All attempts to maintain the most recent in opposition to the most ancient text must nec- essarily fail. Thoroughly erroneous as Nolan's theory is. it was eagerly welcomed by some advocates of the received text in England. Mr. Home could say of it, even in the ninth edition of his Introduction to tie Crit- ical Study and Knowledge <>/th< Scriptures, "The integ- rity of the Creek Vulgate he has confessedly established