NABCDILPQT X Z present an older form of the text than E F G H K M S U V r. Among the former, ti B Z have a text more ancient and correct than that of the others.
Matthaei repudiated the whole system of recen sions as useless and absurd. We question whether he was warranted by learning, penetration, or judgment, to use the contemptuous language which he applied. His industry 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 over-estimated his Moscow codices, and looked on Griesbach's merits with envious eye. Hence his diatribe on recen sions shows more ardent zeal than discretion. What sentence can show the spirit of the man better than this ?—' Griesbach has been hammer ing, filing, and polishing for thirty years at this masterpiece of uncriticism, unbelief, and irreli giousness, in Semler's recension - manufactory ' (Cider die sogenannten Recensionen welche der Herr Abt Bend, Der Herr Doctor Semler, rind der Herr Geheint-Kirchenrath Griesbach, in dem Griechischen Texte der N. T wollen es:ideal haben, p. 28). Professor Lee employed language equally strong as Matthmi's, but not so scurrilous, though of the same tendency—' Ingeniosm illm familiarum fabrics:, ut mihi videtur, in unum tan tummodo finem feliciter exstructm sunt ; ut se rem in seipsa haul valde obscuram, tenebris YEgyptiacis obscuriorem reddant ; Editoresque eos qui se omnia rem acu tetigisse potent, supra mor talium labendi statum, nescio quantum, evehere ' (Prolegomena in Biblia Poly lotto Londinensia minora, p. 69). Neither is sufficiently eminent to be justified in the employment of phraseology from which masters in criticism, like Griesbach, would refrain. Hear the veteran scholar, in his last publication, speaking of Hug—' Dubitationis igitur causas exponere mihi liceat, sed paucis et modeste, nec eo animo, ut cum viro doctissimo quern permagni me facere ingenue profiteor, decer tern, sed ut turn silos viros harum rerum peritos, turn in primis ipsum excitem et humanissime invitem ad novum instituendum causze, gum in universa re critica Novi Testamenti maximi mo menti est, examen, quo ea, si ullo modo fieri id possit, ad liquidum tandem perducatur' (l1leletemata de vetastis textus Novi Testaments' recensionibus, particula ii. p. 42).
The preceding 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 more families of documents. Others, with less acuteness or inge nuity, will rest satisfied with classes more strongly marked by the number of materials they embrace, or the breadth of territory over which they were supposed to circulate. There is no possibility of arriving at precision. The commingling of read ings has obliterated many peculiarities in the pro gress of time ; though enough has been left to form the basis of a rough classification.
It is more difficult to classify the ancient versions, such as the Peshito Syriac, because their texts have suffered frequent interpolations and changes.
In the quotations of the fathers we must make allowance for memoriter citation, without expecting great care or attachment to the letter. Griesbach, however, denies that Origen quoted from memory ; and none has investigated the citations of the Alexandrian father with equal labour. But the state of his commentaries is far from being what we could wish ; and the original is often lost or corrupted.
The term recension is sometimes applied to the O. T. as well as the N. T. There the materials hitherto collated all belong to one recension—viz., the Masoretic. Some, indeed, have divided them into Masoretic and Ante-Masoretic ; but the latter cannot be traced. At present, we are acquainted with only one great family ; though it is probable that particular revisions of parts of the O. T. pre ceded the labours of the Masoretes. Whether the Karaite Hebrew MSS., of which many have been recently brought to St. Petersburg, present a different form of the text from the Masoretic, will be seen after they have been collated. It is certain that their vowel-system is different from the present one. We expect, therefore, that important read ings may be furnished by these very ancient codices.
(See Bengel's Introductio ioe Crisin N. T., pre fixed to his edition of the Greek Testament, Tubingen 1734, 4to ; Semler's Vorbereitungen zur Hermenentik, Halle 176o-69, 8vo ; Michaelis's Introduction to the N. T., by Marsh, vol. ii. p. 173, et seq. ; Griesbach's Op/mai/a, edited by Gabler, with the Preface of the latter, Jena 1824-25, 2 vols. Svo ; Griesbach's Commentarius Criticus in Tex ture Gracum, particulae i. and ii., Jena 1798, 1811, 8vo; Griesbach's Prolegomena to the second edi tion of his Greek Testament, 1796, Svo ; Eich horn's Einleitung, vol. iv., Gottingen 1827, 8vo ; Bertholdt's Ehdritzeng, vol. i., Erlangen 1812, 8vo; Schulz's Prolegomena to the third edition of Gries bach, Berlin 1827, 8vo ; Hug's Einleit., vol. i., Stuttgart 1847, fourth edition, Svo ; De Wette's Einleit. in das Neves Testament, Berlin 1860, 8vo, sixth edition ; Schott's Isczgbge Historico-Critica, Jena 1830, 8vo ; Matthaei, Ueber die sogenannten Recensionen, u. s. w., Leipzig 1804, Svo ; Scholz's Biblisch-Kritische Reise, u.s. w., Leipzig 1823, 8vo; Scholz's .Prolegomena to the N. T., vol. i. 183o ; Laurence's remarks on Griesbach's Systematic Classification of MSS., Oxford ISI4, Svo ; Rinck's Lucubratio critica in Ada Apost., Epp. Cathol., et Paulin., u. s. w., Basel 183o, Svo ; Tischen dorf's Prolegomena to his edition of the Greek Testament, Lipsiw 184,, Svo, with the Prolegomena to his seventh edition, Leipzig 1859, and his article Bibeltext in Herzog's Encyklopaea'ie ; Reuss's Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Hewn Tes taments, fourth edition, Brunswick 1864 ; Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i., Boston 1837, Svo ; Davidson's Treatise on Biblical Criticism, vol. ii., Edinburgh IS52.)—S. D.