Scholz made two classes or families—the Alex andrian or Occidental, and Constantinopolitan or Oriental. Griesbach's western class is contained in the former. He referred to the Alexandrian, several of the ancient MSS., and a few later ones —the Memphitic, Thebaic, Ethiopic, and Latin versions, and the ecclesiastical writers belonging to western Europe with those of Africa. To the Constantinopolitan he referred the MSS. belong ing to Asia Minor, Palestine, Syria, eastern Europe, especially Constantinople, with the Philoxenian, Syriac, Gothic, Georgian, and Slavonic versions, besides the fathers of these regions. To the latter he gave a decided preference, because of their alleged mutual agreement, and also because they were supposed to be written with great care after the most ancient exemplars ; whereas the Alex andrian documents were arbitrarily altered by officious grammarians. Indeed, he traces the Con stantinopolitan to the autography of the original writers.
Rinck agrees with Scholz in classifying all docu ments under two heads—the Occidental and the Oriental—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 African (A B C) and the Latin codices (D E F G). He finds in it the result of arbitrary correc tion, 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 complexion, is presented in ABCD I L P Q T X Z A, perhaps also R in the gospels. A later form, bearing more of an Asiatic com plexion, isinEF GHK MOSU VP 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 repre sented by ABC HIDE G, the first five being 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 has disregarded all systems of recen sions, and proceeded to give a text from ancient documents of a certain definite time—the text which commonly prevailed in the 3d and 4th centuries, drawn from Oriental MSS. ; with the aid of Occi dental 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 department of N. T. 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 Griesbach and Tischendorf have done. On the contrary, he has simply undertaken to present that form of the text which is found in documents be longing 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 an tiquity. Uncial MSS. and their readings have been too implicitly followed by some.
Tischendorf has 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. If this principle he laid at the basis of his eighth edition now in progress, it will make a considerable difference between it and the seventh. The internal goodness of readings, the context, and sound judg ment, are thus excluded. And they are excluded 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 presentation of a text as near the original one as can be procured. The oldest text of the best MSS. and versions is valuable only as far as it assists in attaining that object. It is owing to the undue elevation of antiquity that such a reading as p.opo-yeviis 0e6s in John i. i8 has been given in the text of a recent edition. The same excessive veneration for antiquity has led to the separation of 5 14-yovev from silt (John i. 3) in modern times. Lachmann is exceeded by smaller follow ers ; 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 objec tions to it. In consequence of Hug's acute re marks the venerable scholar himself modified his views. He did not, however, give up the three recensions, but still maintained that the Alexan drian and Western were distinct. He admitted that the Syriac, which Hug had put with the KOZO), was nearer to that than to the Alexandrian class ; hut he hesitated to put it with the Western, be cause it differed so math. He denied that Origen used the KOW11 ; 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 Alexan drian one ; that in his commentary on Matthew, though the readings are chiefly Alexandrian, there is a great number of such as are western, and which therefore appear in D r, 13, 28, 69, 124, 13 r, 157, the old Italic, Vulgate, and Syriac. Thus Origen had various copies at hand, as he himself repeatedly asserts. Griesbach also conceded that Clemens Alexandrinus had various copies, differing in the forms of their texts. Hence his citations often agree with the KOLPil g K500" IT and D. Thus Origen and Clement cease in some measure to be standard representatives of the Alexandrian recension. The concessions of Griesbach, resulting from many acute observations made by Hug and others, amounted to this, that the nearness of MSS. and recensions to one another was greater than he had before assumed— that his two ancient recensions had more points of contact with one another in existing docu ments than he had clearly perceived. The line be tween his Alexandrian and Western classes became less perceptible. This indeed was the weak point of the system ; as no proper division can be drawn between the two. In the application of his system he professed to follow the consent of the Alexan drian 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. 4 ; Gal. iv. 14; Philip. iii. 3 ' • Thes. 7 ; Heb. iv. 2.