by a series ,,f proofs and connected arguments the most decisive that can be reasonably desired or ex|
With regard to Scholz.'s system, which is identical with P.engil's. it maybe preferable to Griesbach's so far as it allows but two classes of documents; it is certainly simpler. His estimate, however, of tfo ruin, of families i- erroneous. He failed to prove that the particular : form of the text current in Asia Minor and Greece dur- ing the lirst three centuries was the same as that pre- sented by the ( lonstantinopolitan MSS. of a much later dale. lb- did not show that the Byzantine family was derived from the autographs of the original writers in a very pure state: and he was obliged to admit that the icxi which obtained ai Constantinople in the reigns of Constantine and Constance was collated with the Alex- andrian, a circumstance which would naturally give rise to a mingling of readings belonging to both. Eusebius stati a that he made out fifty copies of the New Test for the use of the churches at ( 'oiistaul i nople at the requi Si of Constantine; and as we know that he gave a decided preference lo Alexandrian copies, it cannot be doubled that he followed those sanctioned by < Irigen's authority. Constantinopolitan codices differ in their characteristic readings from the Alexandrian, but the preference be- ne kilter, not lo the former. Why should jun- ior be placed above older documents? Antiquity may be overbalanced by other considerations, and certainly the Alexandrian MSS. are neither faultless nor pure. Hut the 'Byzantine and later MSS. are more corrupt Numbers must not be considered decisive of right read- ings in opposition to antiquity, yet numbers had an un- due influence on Scholz's mind. Rinck ha- r< futed his supposed proofs of the superiority of Constantinopolitan MSS., and Tischendorf ha- more elaborately done the same in i he preface lo his first edition of the Greek Testament (1841). In fact, Scholz's historical proofs arc no better than fictions which true history rejects. No definite system of recensions such as those >'\
Griesbach, ling, and Scholz can be made out. because bins of division cannot be drawn with accuracy. Out
knowledge of the wax's in which the early icxi was de- teriorated— ofthe influences to which it was exposed, the
RECENSIONS
953
RECEPTION
corrections it underwent in different places at different times, the methods in which it was copied, the princi- ples, if such there were, on which transcribers proceed- ed— is too meagre to build up a secure structure. The subject must therefore remain in obscurity. Its nature is such as to give rise to endless speculation without affording much real knowledge; it is vague, indefinite, shadowy, awakening curiosity without satisfying it. Yet we are not disposed to reject the entire system of classification as visionary* It is highly useful to arrange the materials. The existence of certain characteristic readings may be clearly traced in various monuments of the text, however much we may speculate on their causes. It is true that in several cases it is very diffi- cult to distinguish the family to which a particular reading belongs, because its characteristics may be di- vided between two classes, or they may be so mixed that it is almost impossible to detect the family with which it should be united ; the evidences of its rela- tionship may be so obscure as to render the determina- tion of its appropriate recension a subtle problem. It is also unquestionable that no one MS. version or father exhibits a recension in a pure state, but that each form of the text appears more or less corrupted. The specu- lations of the critics to which we have referred have had one advantage, viz. that they have made the char- acteristic readings of MSS. better understood, and ena- bled us to group together certain documents presenting the same form of text. Thus in the gospels, N, A, B, C, D, I, L, P, Q, T, X. Z present an older form of the text than E, F, G, H, K, M. S. U. V, T. Among the former, N, B, Z have a text more ancient and correct than that of the others.
Matthai repudiated the whole system of recensions as useless and absurd. We question whether he was warranted by learning, penetration, or judgment to use the contemptuous language which he applied. His in- dustry in collating MSS. and editing their text was praiseworthy, but he had not the genius to construct a good text out of the materials within his reach. He overestimated his Moscow codices, and looked on Gries- bach's merits with envious eye ; hence his diatribe on recensions shows more ardent zeal than discretion. What, sentence can show the spirit of the man better than this? — "Griesbach has been hammering, filing, and polishing for thirty years at this masterpiece of uncriti- cism, unbelief, and irreligiousness in Semler's recension- manufactory" (Ueber die sogenannten Recensiomn, welche dt r lit rr Abt Bengel, der I/err Doctor Sender, und der lh rr (li In im-Kirc/n uriith C riesbaeh, in dem ijrieckischen Tex/e des N. T. wollen entdecM haben, p. 28). Prof. Lee employed language equally strong with Matthai's, but not so scurrilous, though of the same tendency: "Inge- niosai ilke familiarum fabrics, ut mihi videtur, in uiuim tantummodo finem feliciter exstructre sunt; ut rem in seipsa baud valde obscuram, tenebris /Egyptiacis obscu- riorem reddant; Editoresque eos qui se omnia rem acu tetigisse putent, supra mortalium labendi statum, nescio quantum, evehere" (Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotia J.oiniiiii nsia Minora, p. G9). Neither is sufficiently em- inent to be justified in the employment of phraseology from which masters in criticism like Gric-baeh would refrain. Hear the veteran scholar, in his last publica- tion, speaking of Hug : T< Dubitationis igitur causas ex- ponere mihi liceat, sed paucis et modeste, nee eo animo, ut cum viro doctissimo quern permagni me facere inge- nue profiteor, decertem, sed ut turn alios viros harum re- rum peritos, turn in primis ipsum excitem et humanissi- me invitem ad novum instituendum causa?, qtue in uni- versa re critica Novi Testamenti maxim i momenti est, examen, quo ea, si ullo modo fieri id possit, ad liquidum tandem perducatur" (Mdetemata de Vetustis TextusNovi Testamenti Recensionibus, particula ii, p. 42). The pre- ceding observations will help to account for the varying schemes of different critics. Some may look for greater exactness and nicety than others, hence they will make