stead of the received, the agreements of A with the received text will be found to be four hundred and fortyfour, and its disagreements only one hundred and forty, leaving a balance of three hundred and four to determine the MS. to belong to the Byzantine class. re The case before us, therefore, so far as we have hitherto followed Dr. Laurence as our guide, appears to stand thus. Griesbach supposes the existence of five or six separate texts, but brings only three to a comparison. Having classed a MS. from these insufficient data, he next ventures on the bold step of using it as an exemplar of its class, and represents its readings, in the defect or to the augmentation of collateral testimony, as the readings of the text to which it is appropriated. Having gone thus far, he proceeds to condemn the received text as the worst of the three classes, and yet tains it as the standard to which he refers the readings of his MSS., in order to ascertain the class to which they belong. Add to which, the very elements of his comparisons are proved to be in no slight measure erroneous, through his inaccuracy in collating the various readings themselves. Surely these are important circumstances, which ought not to lie concealed in a controversial pamphlet, not likely from its very subject to excite much attention; but which ought to be brought fully before the public eye. How far they are well established, we do not ourselves venture to determine. If, however, it should appear, on a thorough examination of the subject, that the case, as Dr. Laurence states it, can be fairly made out, it must infallibly lessen the authority of the critic, however eminent, to whom it relates. But though these are, perhaps, the most important of Dr. Laurence's statements, we have not yet seen all. Dr. Laurence, in order to strengthen bis remarks, proceeds to illustrate what he considers a better mode of investigating the relative CHRIST, OBSERV. No. 153. class of a MS. He disclaims, in doing this, any attempt at a perfect and full inquiry, or any admission of the truth of Griesbach's hypothesis. He simply supposes, that he had to fix the proximate affinity of the MS. A to one out of the three texts which Griesbach has brought under consideration. In order to effect this, he compares it, not with any one text as a standard, but with all the three. The result of the examination is, that A must be assign. ed by a large majority to the By, zantine class. This plain and simple method of proceeding, Dr. Lau rence can only imagine to have escaped the penetrating eye of Griesbach, by his being dazzled by the splendour of intricate and perplexed research, and being thus less aware of, or less disposed to examine, what lay immediately before him. Dr. Laurence, in the next place, detects an inconsistency of Griesbach in his application of his own system. Griesbach had distinctly laid it down as a rule, that his Alexandrine text was to be found in the quotations of Origen. In the second volume, however, of his Symbola Critica he departs from this rule, and, abandoning Origen, takes A and C, the Alexandrian and Ephrem MSS., for his exemplar; and not only regulates by them the alliances of other MSS., but admits their testimony as Alexandrines in his calculation of probabilities, improbabilities, and certainties. Against the consequences of such a mode of propagating classes, as it were, from wildings, Dr. Laurence solemnly protests. Nor is Dr. Laurence's earnestness on this topic without cause, for he goes on to shew, that although perhaps it may be thought that the assumption of any MS. as an exemplar of the class to which it is supposed to belong, can prove a circumstance of no great importance, yet, if this is done in the absence of more direct testimony, it may lead to the most hazardous 4 G results. This the Doctor conceives to have been actually the case in Griesbach's treatment of the celebrated passage*, 1 Tim. iii. 16; in which he inserts, in his text of the New Testament, is for Seos. This is a passage of so much real moment, and displays so fully the dangerous innovations which Dr. Laurence imputes to the great critic, that we shall be excused if we give some account of it to our readers. It appears, then, by Griesbach's calculation, that there are sixty Greek MSS. which read the disputed verse. Of these sixty MSS., fifty-three confessedly read 90s. These fifty-three, indeed, Griesbach calls younger MSS., chiefly of the Byzantine class. Yet amongst them are found almost all of those which, in his preface to the second volume of his Testament, he describes as the most excellent MSS. of St. Paul's Epistles, viz. 47, 67, 80, 31, 37, 39, 46, 71, 74. With what colour of reason, then, is és adopted as the true reading? Because, says Griesbach, resorting to his hypothesis, the most ancient witnesses of all classes defend it, few as they are; whilst the common reading, eos, was the original reading neither of the Alexandrine nor Western class, but only of MSS. of more modern date, belonging chiefly to the Byzantine text. Let us then see in what way os is proved to have this preponderating testimony. The MSS. which Griesbach represents as reading os, are A, C, F, G, 17, and 73. Of these he reckons A, C, and 17, as more or less Alexandrine copies; F, and G, as ancient MSS. of the Western class. The Upsal MS. 73, is no where reckoned as Alexandrine, and its general readings Griesbach speaks of but slightly. If there should then arise any serious doubts as to the MSS. A, C, and 17, the whole of his argument derived from the testimony of the Alexandrine class of MSS. falls to the ground, and, of course, his assumption of the ma See an able view of this question by our correspondent J. T. H.; Christian Observer for 1809, page 269. jority of texts in favour of os. And what, then, are the MSS. known by the marks A and C ? Are they not the self-same Alexandrian and Ephrem MSS, which Dr. Laurence has sufficiently proved to belong, not to the Alexandrine, but to the Byzantine class? If, then, we doubt of the testimony of the clas sification of A and C, what will become of the conclusion as to the preponderance of classes in favour of? For of the Colbert MS. 17, Griesbach thus speaks: The MS. 17 very often joins itself to the Alexandrines in characteristic and other readings, though it sometimes inclines to other texts, chiefly to the Western, and at times, also, to the Byzantine. Wherefore, where it accords with the other Alexandrines, it is to be considered as an Alexandrine; but where it differs from them, its difference ought not to be opposed to the consent of the rest, but it is considered as having declined from the right way." The testimony of 17 is therefore neutralized. But this is not all. What if A and C are not only doubtful as to the class to which they belong, but are at least suspected as to the reading itself, which they are described as containing? Griesbach, it is true, now states that they read os; but even he, in his Symbolæ, was willing to concede that the reading of A was to be considered as neuter, and that of C as only probable. In fact, almost every scholar is aware of the controversy on the reading of these two MSS.; and as to the Alexandrian, Dr. Laurence strongly inclines to the opinion, maintained on the direct assertion of Mill, that Jɛos was the original reading. Suppose, then, the neutrality of A and C, and 17 is the only remaining witness to whom Griesbach appeals. And against this witness, dependent as it is allowed to be, there stands forth every other MS. of the Alexandrine class uniformly reading 90s. Of these, 6, 10, 23, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47, have each an affinity with 17; yet all these, together with every other of the Alexandrine class, read, with the Byzantine text, Jos. It is unnecessary to point out the consequence. nounces is to be the genuine.reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, becaue six MSS have, as he maintains, that reading, though fifty-three, MSS. read Seos. In this he is principally influenced by the presumed autho rity of certain of those six MSS. He then determines the Western reading to be a corruption of is. Upon this he considers os as common both to the Alexandrine and Western texts, and accordingly establishes a preponderance of classes against the Byzantine reading Sess. In this new reading, lastly, he is unsupported by the Fathers, and even, by his own account, only partially defended by the collateral testimony of Versions. Dr. Laurence accordingly conceives, that no case can place in a more conspicuous light the consequences deducible from Griesbach's theory of the classification and comparison of MSS. But then, what, it may be asked, is the testimony of the Fathers in corroboration of these respective readings? To the Byzantine and Western Fathers, Dr. Laurence replies, satisfactory references are made; but, in his appeal to the direct testimony of the Al xandrine, where his argument was most in need of support, Griesbach completely fails. Athanasius and others, he states, are silent. Clemens says, "O mystery! with us the angels saw Christ!" therefore, it is to be supposed that Clemens certainly did not read Sens! Not that it would have been conclusive had he read eos, because Gregory Thaumaturgus, or rather Apollinaris, uses indeed SEOs, but, notwithstanding, is represented as meaning Dr. Laurence further objects to XP50s. Cyrill accordingly reads Griesbach, that, notwithstanding the Seos, but it is maintained that the air of solid authority which the apcontext requires a different word.-peal to MSS. and the system of clasSurely this species of reasoning, to say the least of it, can never be admitted as decisive evidence of a reading attributable to the Alexandrine Fathers. No help can be derived, therefore, from this source. Let us go on to the Alexandrine Versions. To the admission of these, Dr. Laurence objects in limine; for, though certain versions have been classed as Alexandrine, Dr. L. considers that they have never been proved to be such. But allowing them to appear as witnesses, the Doctor contends that Griesbach's representation of their testimony is seriously inaccurate. Griesbach states, that, of the seven versions, three read os, and four os or d. But Dr. Laurence maintains, that, of these seven versions, one may be deemed perhaps as dubious; three others, instead of necessarily reading is, probably read ; and the remaining three, instead of indifferen ly reading s or , indisputably read. What then, in a word, are the steps of Griesbach's proof? He pro sification seem to carry with them, the whole is in fact made to act in subordination to conjectural criticism, Griesbach himself professes that the chief use of his classification is, that by the authority of it he may defend good readings, found only in a few MSS., against the almost innumerable crowd of more modern and common MSS. Thus, in some cases, new readings are inserted, as approving themselves to his judgment, on very slight external authority, whilst, in other cases, readings sup ported by far weightier testimony are at once dismissed from the text. It is important to understand this clearly it is an objection, not so much against the particular parts of Griesbach's hypothesis, as to the general purposes for which he em ploys it; and Dr. Laurence appears strongly to suspect, that a temerity of critical innovation will be found to govern, in point of fact, many of Griesbach's more important deci sions, however his whole consideration of them may seem governed 4 G/2vd) ; and protected by an appeal to the authority of MSS. If this suspicion should turn out to be wellfounded, the consequences on Gries bach's general authority are obvious: because, if we are to regard his determinations as the fair result of direct and unbending testimony, they will assume a very superior degree of credibility, from that to which the same determinations can be entitled, if they rest chiefly on the application of conjectural criticism. On this point the statements of Dr. Laurence may be of no mean service. The minds of ordinary students are often dazzled by names and authorities. We hear so much of 500 MSS. collated, of new texts discovered, of scientific classifications, of an accurate investigation of the readings of each class, of the superior merit of the Alexandrine text, of the weight of the classes in opposition to that of the number of MSS., &c. that we are in some danger of overlooking the very material circumstance, that all this display of evidence is far from really deciding on the purity of a read. ing; and that a critical conjecture founded on the internal character of different readings, on the facility of this or that reading being gene. rated from another, on the tendency of one reading to favour orthodoxy or the contrary, on the comparative brevity, obscurity, harshness, and emphasis of different readings, and on a vast variety of other topics, where all the literary and theological peculiarities of the critic will infallibly operate, is, after all, the rule by which the final sentence is passed. Accordingly, it is not a little curious to observe the manner in which Griesbach determines the Two of the canons by which Griesbach forins his judgment on readings differing between themselves are these:-"A read. ing calculated more than others to nourish piety (especially monastic) is suspected." "Amongst various readings, that which beyond the rest manifestly favours the tenets of the Orthodox is deservedly suspected."Vol, 2, New Test., p. lii internal marks of goodness in the three readings in 1 Tim. iii. 16, Seos, ós, and . He states, 1st, That from each, a good sense, yea, the very same, can be elicited. 2d, That the reading is is more difficult and unusual than the rest. 3d, That from the reading és the origin of the other readings can be best explained. For "O might easily pass into E, since the scribes could not be ignorant that the place was commonly understood of God the Word.-The extreme uncertainty of all this sort of reasoning, connected, as we find it to be, with a similar kind of conjecture employed in determining on doubtful readings in particular MSS., as well as in arranging and supporting the general plan of classification, seems strongly to have impressed the mind of Dr. Laurence, and to have made him justly anxious to call the attention of students to the progress of such a system, and to excite their caution in lending themselves too confidently to its decisions. But we must not forget that Dr. Laurence has one more objection to urge against Griesbach's system of classification. He doubts whether there really exists any Alexandrine text, as distinguishable from the Byzantine and Western. If Dr. Laurence be correct in this sentiment, it will go, not merely, like his former objections, to sap the theory of Griesbach's system, but to overthrow it from its foundations. If out of three texts, to which all MSS. are referred, one entire one, and that the most ancient and valuable in the opinion of Griesbach, be proved to have no actual existence, we need not remark into what inevitable ruin the whole of his superstructure must fall. That there is a sufficiently marked difference between the Latin version and the received text, Dr. Laurence considers to be unquestionable; and that there are Greek MSS. generally coinciding with the Latin version, so as to afford a separate classification, he readily grants; but that there exists an Alexandrine text, more valuable as well as more ancient than either the Byzantine or Western, has in his judgment never been proved. There is certainly no MS. to be referred to as containing any thing like a clear specimen of such a text. And what is the testimony of the Alexandrine fathers? Has it ever been shewn, that where they depart from the Byzantine text, they do not coincide with the Western? A collection of their characteristical readings is absolutely necessary as a preliminary to decision; and this has never been attempted. When Griesbach introduced a novel hypothesis as a rule of textual criticism, continues Dr. Laurence, he ought 'surely to have placed the accuracy of it in the clearest light, and not to have proceeded on a bare probability. The Alexandrine text constitutes the main pin, which holds together his complicated machinery. When, however, he undertakes to defend the existence of this text, how does he proceed? He appeals to the joint readings of A and C in conjunction with those of Origen. But when we remember, that the reality of an Alexandrine text is the point to be proved, and not to be presupposed, surely such a mode of argument is inadmissible. Griesbach, however, states that there are seventy-five (Dr. Laurence makes them only seventy-two) joint readings of A and C common to Origen; but of these there are not more than seven which do not agree with the Western text, as well as with A, C, and Origen: how then can such coincidences be employed to prove the separate existence of an Alexandrine text? But the quotations of Origen are considered by Griesbach as the best specimen of the Alexandrine class. Of the readings in Origen, there are two hundred and twenty-six which coincide with either Western or Alexandrine authority, or with both. But what, asks Dr. Laurence, is the testimony which they bear? Of these two hundred and twenty-six readings, only eighteen are supported by Alexandrine authority alone (Clemens, Cyrill, &c.), whilst one hundred and eighteen rest on Western authority alone. The conclusion is inevitable. Supposing, as Griesbach does, the existence of an Alexdrian text, we might be sure that Origen would have associates in peculiar readings, in the Alexandrine fathers; but the fact is, he is not so supported he has but eighteenreadings distinguishable from the Western text in which he is joined by any Alexandrine father, so far as the matter is at present known. The respect paid to the Western text was always considerable, and there is no difficulty in supposing that it attracted every thing within its influence towards itself. That Origen should coincide with Western readings, is therefore perfectly natural. That he should depart eighteen times from this Western text, with which he usually accords, is, on the other hand, by no means remarkable: it is precisely the case with other writers confessedly belonging to the Western or Byzantine classes. Chrysostom himself sometimes departs from the received text, in conjunction with other Byzantine au thorities; but will any one on that account maintain, that the writings of Chrysostom afford a new and distinct text? And if country is to be esteemed the criterion of classification, there seems to be no reason why Syria and Asia Minor should not have separate classes, as well as Byzantium, Rome, and Egypt. The conclusion which Dr. Laurence draws from these considerations is, that the existence of an Alexandrine text is at the best only problematical, and that the classification which rests on the assumption of that text, must be in the highest degree hazardous and unsatisfactory. Such is the substance of what Dr. Laurence advances against the system adopted by the celebrated Griesbach. He is well aware of the high reputation of his author, |