8. Rinck's System. Rinck agrees with Scholz in assuming two classes of MSS., the Occidental and the Oriental ; the former exhibited by A, B, C, D, E, F, G in the epistles ; the latter, by MSS. written in the cursive character. The Occidental he subdivides into two families, the African (A, B, C) and the Latin codices (D, E, F, G).
9. Matthwi's System. Matthmi, as is well known, rejected the entire theory of recensions; and Lachmann, the latest editor of the Greek Tes tament, has no regard to such a basis for his new text.
10. Opposition to Griesbach. To Griesbach all concede the praise of ingenuity and acuteness_ His system was built up with great tact and abil ity. However rigidly scrutinized, it exhibits evi dences of a most sagacious mind. But it was as sailed by a host of writers, whose combined at tacks it could not sustain. In England, Dr. Lau rence shook its credit. In Germany, Michaelis, Matthxi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hug, Schulz, Scholz, Gabler, Schott, and others, have more or less made objection to it. The venerable scholar in his old age himself modified it to some extent, chiefly in consequence of Hug's investigations. By far the ablest opponent of it is Mr. Norton, who, after it had been assailed by others, finally stepped forth to demolish it beyond the possibility of revival. Bold indeed must be the man who shall undertake to defend it after such a refuta tion. The great point in which it fails is that the line of distinction between the Alexandrian and Western classes cannot be proved. Origen and Clement of Alexandria are the principal evidences for the Alexandrian form of the text, yet they coincide with the Western recension. Griesbach's allegations as to the origin of the Eastern and Western recensions are also visionary; while it is not difficult to see that the text followed by the old Syriac presents a formidable objection to the whole scheme.
11. Opposition to Hug. The system of Hug, in so far as it materially differs from its prede cessor, is as faulty as that of Griesbach. It puts Clement and Origen in the most ancient text. But Origen -employed an Occidental MS. only in his commentary on Matthew ; in his commentary on Mark he uniformly quotes the Alexandrian co dex ; and his usual text certainly agrees with the Alexandrian recension. As to Clement, he fre quently agrees with the Alexandrian in opposi tion to the \Vestern recension, and therefore he cannot be properly reckoned as belonging to the latter, in a system where there are two dis tinct recensions agreeing with the Occidental and the Alexandrian. The Hesychian revision does not seem to have had much authority, or to have been widely circulated even in the country where it was made. Besides the form of the text ascribed to Hesychius appears to be older, even as old as Clement's time. Hesychius, there fore, probably did nothing more than revise the Alexandrian recension.
12. Conclusions. With regard to Scholz's system, it commends itself to our approbation only in so far as it insists upon two families of docu ments, the Alexandrian and the Constantinopoli tan. There is no definite line of demarcation be tween the Alexandrian and the Western, as was long since shown by Laurence; although Tischen dorf has recently reasserted it. Egypt and the Western world were supplied with Biblical MSS. from Alexandria, some of them revised, others untouched and unpurged by the hand of a cor rector. Thus the Alexandrian and Occidental MSS. of Griesbach were the productions of one country and one age; differing, indeed, from one another in many respects, but that discrepancy owing to the caprice of transcribers, and to the varying tastes which they found it advantageous to please. But although we look upon Scholz's
system as simpler and better supported than any other, in so far as it asserts no more than two families, yet it is otherwise pressed by fatal ob jections. It is based on assertions, instead of ar guments solid and sufficient. The framer of it has failed to prove that the particular form of the text current during the first three centuries in Asia Minor and Greece was the same as that exhibited by the Constantinopolitan manuscripts of a much later date. He has failed to show that the Byzantine family was derived in a very pure state from the autographs of the inspired writers. Besides, he is obliged to admit, that the text which obtained at Constantinople in the reigns of Constantine and Constans, was collated with the Alexandrian, which would naturally give rise to a commingling of readings belonging to both. Eu sebius states that, at the request of Constantine, he made out fifty copies of the New Testament for the use of the churches at Constantinople; and as we know that he gave a decided preference to Alexandrian copies, it cannot be doubted that he followed those sanctioned by Origen's author ity. On the whole, it can never be made out on historic grounds, that the Constantinopolitan cod ices have descended from the autographs in a pure state. They differ, indeed, in characteristic readings from the Alexandrian, but that prefer ence should be given to the former is a most questionable position. Why should junior be set in value above much older documents? What good reason can be assigned for the predilection of Matthaei and Scholz? None truly. Antiquity may be outweighed by other considerations, and certainly the Alexandrine MSS. are neither fault less nor perfect ; but in the case of the Byzantine family there is no sufficient ground for arbitrarily placing it above the other. In the present day, numbers will not be considered as decisive of gen uine readings, in opposition to weighty consider ations founded on antiquity ; and yet. it is possible that numbers may have had an undue influence on the mind of Scholz. Such as desire to see a thorough refutation of the system may read es pecially Tischendorf's Preface to his edition of the Greek Testament, where it is dissected with great ability, and the foundation on which it pro fessedly rests demonstrated to he feeble and fu tile. In fact, the historical proofs of the indus trious Scholz are no better than fictions, which genuine ecclesiastical history will never sanction.
Perhaps the data are not sufficient to warrant or support any one system of recensions. Our knowledge of the manner in which the text was early corrupted, of the innumerable influences to which it was exposed, the revisions it underwent in different countries at different times, the modes in which transcribers dealt with it, and of the principles, if any such there were, on which they proceeded, is too scanty to allow of any definite superstructure. The subject must, therefore, be necessarily involved in obscurity. S. D.
See Laurence's remarks on Griesbach's Sys tematic Classification of MSS., Oxford, 1814, 8vo; Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Bos ton, 1837, 8vo; Davidson's Lectures on Biblical Criticism, Edinb. 1839, 8vo; Davidson, Biblical Criticism, ed. 1852). (See CRITICISM AND ARCH/E OLOGY ; INTERPRETATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.)