ART. I. Dr. Laurence's Remarks upon Griesbach's Classification, &c.

[Concluded from p. 241.]

SOUND Biblical Critic is formed

practical skill, rather than by theoretic rules. This was Griesbach's distinction, but has not belonged to his

censors.

The subjects of which Dr. L. professes to treat in the fifth chapter of these Remarks, &c. are intimated in the following table of it's contents: More correct mode of ascertaining the class of a manuscript. Comparison of A with Origen. With G or the Western text. Affinity of A to the Byzantine greater than to the Western, or Alexandrine.

He begins the chapter by speaking of his own endeavours "to prove, that Griesbach's mode of investigation is unsatisfactory, and his statement of the number of readings inaccurate." Now the Remarker's proof does not accord with his declaration. If we receive his account of his labours, he has done that generally and completely which, at the furthest, he has done but partially-in a single case, and with regard to one class of examples. Not deeming it sufficient however to overthrow error, without erecting an accurate system on it's ruins, he attempts to describe what appears to him "a more satisfactory mode of investigation" than that which Griesbach has prosecuted!

In making this attempt, he needlessly repeats doubts and fears which he had before expressed, and then says, 50, 51, that error

"is most to be apprehended in Griesbach's favourite text, the Alexandrine; because, if it really be a distinct text, which [adds Dr. L.] I much doubt, it is the least complete of the three, the quotations of Origen, which are published in the Symbolæ, being only applicable to particular parts of the New Testament, and not to the whole."

We must here call the recollection of our readers to Griesbach's emphatic

* Allgem: Biblioth: der biblisch: Literat: 5r, Band, 25, 26.

language," in the Symbol:" neutrius recensionis [sc: Occid: et Alex:] codex ullus ad nos pervenit, quin plurimis locis interpolatus sit. Nulli enim codici

cunque probemus.† "A distinct text" is a characteristic text, not one which is absolutely pure. Nor do the readings of the Alexandrine edition occur solely in Origen, but are also found in Clement of Alexandria, and in other ancient Christian authors.‡

The Remarker, as though he designed to throw contempt on Biblical Criticism, observes, p. 51, note, that the manuscript A " is commonly called the Alexandrine, because it was brought into England from Alexandria: but," he subjoins, "even the knowledge of the country, in which it was originally written, is only at. tainable by conjecture." If by conjecture he means the exercise of a sound and well-informed understanding on the evidence presented, he is in the right. Michaelis considers it as 66 very probable" that the Alexandrine M. S. was written in Egypt." And his accomplished annotator thinks it "reasonable to suppose" that this codex was "really written" there. The conjectures of such individuals, are better than some men's proofs.

66

Dr. Laurence proceeds to "detail" what he conceives" to be a more correct mode of ascertaining the relative classification of a manuscript, than that which Griesbach has adopted:" and, in order to reduce his remarks to a moderate compass, he limits them to the classification of the manuscript A in the Epistles of Paul. That he may likewise bring the Western text into some sort of comparison, he takes into consideration the readings of the Boernerian marked G.

As however he merely numbers readings, and does not weigh them, we must be excused from accompanying him in his investigation. On the unsoundness of this principle of the Re

† Tom. I. cxix.

Ib. I. xxvi. II. 241,&c.
Introd: to N. T. II. 197, 651.

Dr. Laurence's fifth chapter is entitled,

Comparison of the Colbert manuscript with A. Mistakes of Griesbach. Controverted reading 1 Tim. iii. 16. Existence of the Alexandrine text problematical. Conclusion.

in p. 64 he informs us that Griesbach, "notwithstanding his theory of classification, in deciding upon the purity of a reading, seems principally guided by critical conjecture."

Now this remark virtually acquits Griesbach of the charge of being unduly attached to any "theory of classification," whether it be established or his own. And what does Dr. L. mean by critical conjecture? Surely he employs these words in a very dif fereut sense from that in which they are commonly understood. He shall explain this apparently formidable accusation. In the next page he tells us that Griesbach endeavours "to point out, from general maxims of criticism, by investigating the internal marks of validity in their respective readings, the relative habits and value of" the Alexandrine and of the Western text. And this process our author thinks fit to style critical conjecture! We leave the inference to our readers.

It was with reason that the learned Professor considered manuscripts as the most important of the sources whence corrections of the received text are to be derived. 65, 66. This also was the opinion of Michaelis, * who says, they alone can be admitted as evidence, who simply report what they have heard and seen.'

66

Griesbach professed to extract from six chapters in the Codex Colbert [17] all those readings on which he had formed a definite judgment-lectiones omnes, de quibus certo mihi constat. His investigation of these was undertaken in order that he might fully illustrate the character and value of the Alexandrine and Western texts. But his enumeration is, according to the Remarker, "strangely incorrect, as he omits one reading in the agreements, and not less than eighteen in the disagreements." We think that Griesbach purposely limited himself to the readings which we have just

* Introd. &c. Vol. II. 159.
+ Symb. Critic. II. 89.

described, and concerning the quality of which his mind had acquired a sufficient degree of satisfaction. If however we even take the fact to be such as Dr. L. represents it, Griesbach's principle of classification remains unimpeached. This intelligent and laborious editor was not, after all, completely accurate. He did not claim to be so nor do we recollect that any such claim has ever been advanced in his behalf. We should feel and acknowledge some obligations to the Remarker, for assisting us to decide on the correctness or incorrectness of Griesbach's "enumeration" of readings, had the assistance been offered with greater modesty and distinctness.

For Dr. L., whose experience in the collation of manuscripts is comparatively slight, to assume the individual readings of one of them as "characteristical of it's class, in the absence of more direct testimony," might indeed be a bold measure. 71. Let it, nevertheless, be recollected that the eye and the discernment of Griesbach had long been habituated to this task. It was not till after patient examination that he pronounced on the age and character of a manuscript. If by more direct testimony the Remarker means external evidence, let him shew whence it is to be obtained: or if he intends to speak of plainer and stronger proofs than the manuscript itself affords, he will do us a favour by saying, where these are to be discovered.

He attempts to illustrate this part of his reasoning by a number of observations on "the celebrated, the often discussed, and the long tortured reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16," in which Griesbach " proposes to substitute os for 90S.”

Griesbach's notes, in loc. to the last of his editions of the N. T., contain his final and maturest thoughts on the reading of this passage. It is a case which demonstrates beyond contradiction that he relied on the native excellence, and not on the number, of Codices manuscripti. The mass of manuscripts was opposed to him: but the best and the most ancient were on his side. "It is admitted," writes Dr. L., with a solemn air, "that all known manuscripts, with the exception of four, which have is read SEOs." To the suffrages of the οι πολλοι Dr.

L. shall be perfectly welcome, while he leaves us in possession of a few competent and approved witnesses. Our readers will do well to make themselves masters of the Professor's statement of his reasons for printing og in his text. In receiving it as genuine, he submits to competent judges the evidence of its being such-salvo uniuscujusque lectoris judicandi facultate pollentis judicio. He alleges that his decision is formed agreeably to the established principles of criticism: and of the deductions which he draws from his researches one is that antiquity cannot here be claimed for the vulgar reading, of which he adds, numero et recentiorum patrum græcorum ancipiti fide nititur, nec in ullo antiquitatis monumento, seculo quarto exeunte anteriore, reperiri potuit.

Cyrill, the Remarker concedes, 75, "quotes the passage more than once; yet," says this gentleman," although the printed copies of that Father's works have Seos, it is maintained that the context requires a different reading. If we do not perceive a little wire-drawing in this species of proof, which, being ingeniously deduced from the very materials furnished by the adverse party, was commenced by Wetstein, and completed by Griesbach, we cannot surely admit it as direct and decisive evidence of a reading attributable to the Alexandrine fathers."

It is sufficient evidence: whether it be direct and decisive, or whether evidence strictly so termed be attainable on such a subject, are questions practically unimportant. With regard to Cyrill, does Dr. Laurence believe in the immaculateness of the editions of this father, as well as in the antiquity of the Byzantine text? If his belief, or rather his credulity, extend so far, reasoning cannot impress his nind. On the other hand, if his power of digesting the crambe recocta of a scholastic literature and theology be not quite so strong, justice and decorum, united with taste, should have preserved him from the use of such invidious language as "a little wire-drawing." We refer the Biblical student to the Symbol. Critic. T. I. xliii. &c.

Of the ancient versions it is remarkable that not one reads Ceos: whether

s or be the reading of some of them, is an inquiry of far less moment-and in their answers to it Griesbach and Dr. Laurence differ.

A note occurs, in p. 83, which causes us to suspect that Griesbach's censor is little of a proficient in the history and the exercise of Biblical Criticism. "Griesbach supposes that O2 was mistaken for E, because the transcriber knew that the passage was usually interpreted of God, the word. But surely," proceeds Dr. L., "transcribers by profession (and such, before the invention of printing, were those who transcribed manuscripts) are never in the habit of reasoning upon the sense of what they copy. Ask a law-stationer of the present day, after he has engrossed the conveyance of an estate with a long description of the title, whether that title accrued by descent or purchase; and he will perhaps be puzzled to answer the question."

66

The cases are not analogous to each other. A law-stationer of the present day" is not a student or practitioner of the law, but owes his name and his subsistence to his ability of writing a fair round haud" or of engrossing. On the contrary, and from the very nature of the thing, the copyists of ancient manuscripts of the N. T. were men conversant with the theology and literature of the age, and personally or ecclesiastically interested in the determinations of Biblical and Scriptural Criticism. Such individuals could and did reason upon the sense of what they transcribed and many of them must be included in the following description,

"Sæpissime et librarii et editores in transcribendis vel recensendis allegatis e bibliis sacris tam fuere vel negligentes vel temerarii, ut in locum lectionis genuine subderent aliam, cum eo textu, cui ipsi adsueti essent, consentientem, aut e discrepantibus plurium codicum lectionibus eam deligerent auctorique suo supponerent, quam textui S. S. recepto præ cæteris consentaneam esse viderent."*

Dr. Laurence recollects the occasion of this statement, and has not forgotten Cyrill of Alexandria, and his editors!

The willing censor of Griesbach,

Symb. Crit. T. L. xliii. &c.