this text and the Peshito Syriac by supposing that that version had been revised by the aid of Greek MSS. of this kind. And all the researches of Hug, when properly used, went to show that this was the real character of the Constantinopolitan text; it might be said to bear the same relation to the more ancient readings that the common dialect, kový, of the Greeks did to the previously existing modes of speech. Hitherto Hug had done no more than re-arrange the previously recognised families or classes of text; but in his fourth class or third recension, the Origenian, he devised a something not easy to be defined. We know what is meant when we hear of a MS. of the Alexandrian, Western, or Constantinopolitan recensions of Griesbach, or of the xown, the Hesychian or Lucianean of Hug; but it is not so easy to define the Origenian text or readings of this lattermentioned critic. It is granted that the citations of Origen do not accord with this assumed recension; but for this Hug accounts by the supposition that it was the undertaking of his latter days, after his works had been completed. How then can a text be found which can be ascribed to Origen as its author? Hug appeals to what Jerome had written concerning the LXX., stating that the countries between Egypt and Antioch use the Palestinian MSS., elaborated by Origen. This (as before) he transfers to the New Testament, and then seeks for MSS. which will in his opinion answer the description: as being intermediate in text between the readings of Antioch and Egypt, they were what he expected would be found in the region locally interposed. And as the later Syriac seemed to be related to the version of the Old Testament in that language made from the Hexaplar text of Origen, this version (he thought) afforded a criterion of the text used by that father. But here we have ingenuity vainly employed; for all that could be said of the very few MSS. which he ascribes to this recension, is that they present features belonging apparently to a transition state; so that if they rightly form a class or a recension, several of those which he has placed either under the Kown or the Hesychian should also occupy a similar place. Again, some of the Hesychian contain mixtures of the readings which he termed Lucianean; why then do not they take their places as a distinct family? Also, it may well be asked, how it is that the ancients, who tell us so much of the Biblical labours of Origen, say not one word about the wearisome undertaking with which he is supposed to have been occupied in his latter days? And if Origen did indeed crown his years of toil and study by thus recording the result of his researches into the true text of the New Testament, would it not be at least remarkable that he should have given forth a text very little resembling that which he had used in any part of his life? and even in some places contradicting the readings which he expressly mentions, in some even of his later works, as being that of the Greek copies? These remarks and inquiries are equally applicable whichever of the documents said to contain this text may be assumed as its genuine form: for so vague is the whole theory respecting it, that there is no particular parity or mutual resemblance between the MSS. which Hug brings together as constituting this one class. Most of them belong just as much to the Constantinopolitan family (or that of Lucian) as those which Hug names under that head. But it was necessary to Hug's position to find a Palestinian recension, as one of the three classes of revised text; and therefore he found it here. One strong point in opposition to the notion that these documents contain a text of Palestine, given forth (according to Hug's supposition) by Pierius and Pamphilus from Origen's MSS., is found in the character of the citations of Eusebius, who uses a text generally Alexandrian. Twice, indeed, Jerome appeals to the exemplars of Origen; but this expression does not prove that any such recension existed, but merely that there were copies which Origen had used: in one place he joins the name of Pierius with that of Origen. These probabilities are strong against the hypothesis of an Origenian recension; but these are not all; for Origen himself in one of his later works disclaims such an undertaking as one that could not be carried out1; he knew that copies differed, he stated the fact, but how to apply a critical remedy was utterly unknown to him. This statement from himself might have sufficed to hinder such a work being attributed to him; and if he had really formed such a recension, in the text of which he contradicted all that he had definitely stated for forty years to be the reading of Holy Scripture (as would have been the case on the supposition before us), it would infer either that his judgment in this close of his life was impaired, or else that he had acted the critic, by using an unwarrantable licence of conjecture. Thus the theories of Hug possess rather a negative than a positive value. They led to a re-examination of the whole subject by Griesbach, who entered on it in a spirit of rare candour: the result is given in the Meletemata prefixed to his latest work (Commentarius criticus, part ii.) in 1811. He there refuted some of the positions of Hug, expressed his dissent from others, and at the same time admitted that his own system required certain modifications. He utterly 66 In his Commentary on St. Matthew, he questions, on internal probabilities, whether the words in chap. xix. 19., ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν, are really part of the genuine text (a thing which, on grounds of critical evidence, need not be doubted); and then he speaks of the diversities of copies: καὶ εἰ μὲν μὴ καὶ περὶ ἄλλων πολλῶν διαφωνία ἦν πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ἀντιγράφων ὥστε πάντα τὰ κατὰ Ματθαῖον μὴ συνάδειν ἀλλήλοις, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ εὐαγγέλια, κἂν ἀσεβής τις ἔδοξεν εἶναι ὁ ὑπονοῶν ἐνταῦθα προσεῤῥίφθαι, οὐκ εἰρημένην ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος πρὸς τὸν πλούσιον τὴν “ ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν ἐντολήν· νυνὶ δὲ δηλονότι πολλὴ γέγονεν ἡ τῶν ἀντιγράφων διαφορά, εἴτε ἀπὸ ῥαθυμίας τινῶν γραφέων, εἴτε ἀπὸ τόλμης τινῶν μοχθηρᾶς τῆς διορθώσεως τῶν γραφομένων, εἴτε καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τὰ ἑαυτοῖς δοκοῦντα ἐν τῇ διορθώσει προστιθέντων ἢ ἀφαιρούντων. τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τοῖς ἀντιγρά φοις τῆς παλαιᾶς διαθήκης διαφωνίαν, θεοῦ διδόντος, εὕρομεν ἰάσασθαι, κριτηρίῳ χρησάμενοι ταῖς NoImaïs ékbóσeσw. K. 7.λ. — (iii. 671. De la Rue). This implies pretty plainly that no such method had been devised, at least by Origen himself, for forming a recension of the text of the New Testament. The old Latin translator of Origen has here, "In exemplaribus autem Novi Testamenti, hoc ipsum me posse facere sine periculo non putavi." Even if this be not a genuine clause, which has been lost in the Greek, it is an apt commentary; and it shows that the ancients were wholly unconscious of any such work having been undertaken by Origen. Indeed, it is marvellous that any modern writers should have adopted such a theory with regard to Origen. doubted the historical basis and nomenclature assumed by Hug; he disproved the notion of any recension by Origen, especially such a one as Hug had defined. And, although he still considered that the establishment of recensions, as such, was essential to drawing true results from textual criticism, he now thought that, except perhaps his own Alexandrian class, there was none to which that name would in strictness apply. And this leads to the inquiry how far such a thing can be shown as actual textual revision of the Greek New Testament in early days. Is there any real evidence of such procedures on the part of Christian scholars? Of course it is admitted that after a MS. had been written it passed (or ought to have done so) into the hands of him who was called ὁ ἀντιβάλλων. And the business of such properly was to revise what had been written so as to make it according to the copy (just as a modern press-corrector does). This name or occupation, as well as that of a διορθωτής, occurs in the subscriptions yet found in Biblical MSS.: as to these, however, it should be observed that the existing subscriptions are often, if not always, copies from that which had been originally appended to a MS.; so that though it seems occasionally that some particular copy had been revised or examined by some known individual, the attestation properly belongs to some more ancient MS. from which what we possess has been derived. The subscription of a MS. (itself of the eleventh century) from which Zacagni published the divisions and summaries employed by Euthalius, at the end of the Catholic Epistles, runs thus : — ἀντε βλήθη δὲ τῶν πράξεων καὶ καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν τὸ βιβλίον πρὸς τὰ ἀκριβῆ ἀντίγραφα τῆς ἐν Καισαρείᾳ βιβλιοθήκης Εὐσεβίου τοῦ Παμφιλου. And the subscription of the ancient Coislin fragments (H. of St. Paul's Epistles) is of a similar kind; ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον. In other MSS. the work of the διορθωτής is also mentioned, and that in such a manner as to indicate some difference. The following are subscriptions appended to portions of the LXX. version: from the end of Esther copied from παλαιώτατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον in the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (of the fourth or fifth century) added by a later hand of the sixth or seventh century), μετελήμφθη καὶ διορθώθη πρὸς τὰ Εξαπλᾶ Ωριγένους ὑπ' αὐτοῦ διωρθώμενα. Αντωνίνος ὁμολογητὴς ἀντέβαλεν, Πάμφιλος διόρθωσα τὸ τεῦχος ἐν τῇ φυλακῇ. At the end of Ezekiel in the Codex Marechallianus is found, μετελήφθη ἀπὸ ἀντιγράφου τοῦ ̓Αββᾶ ̓Απολλιναρίου τοῦ κοινοβιάρχου. ἐν ᾧ καθυποκεῖται ταῦτα, μετελήφθη ἀπὸ τῶν κατὰ τὰς ἐκδόσεις ἑξαπλῶν, καὶ διωρθώθη ἀπὸ τῶν Ωριγένους αὐτοῦ τετραπλῶν, ἅτινα καὶ αὐτοῦ χειρὶ διώρθωτο, καὶ ἐσχολιογράφητο. ὁ Εὐσέβιος ἐγὼ σχόλια παρέθηκα. Πάμφιλος καὶ Εὐσέβιος ἐδιωρθώσαντο. The work of a διορθωτής may apparently be regarded as more critical than that of the mere ἀντιβάλλων; the latter answering 1 Zacagni Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum. Rome, 1698, p. 513, rather to one who read by copy, the former to him who used a critical judgment; and thus from him might arise naturally such results as would be introduced by a comparison of various copies: a transcript made from some exemplar, when corrected by means of another, would produce a modified text. And this may account for the alterations made in various MSS.: when first written the comparer would examine it with the copy, so as to exclude mere clerical errors: but when at any time it passed into the hands of a corrector, the alterations would be of a different kind; for then readings would be changed to suit what might be found in the text or margin of another exemplar. And this process may be noticed in many MSS., where the corrections show that many successive hands have occupied themselves with it. But we have no proof that any Stopwτns ever made a formal revision of the Greek New Testament, such as were executed by several with regard to the LXX.; the utmost that can be proved is, that MSS. were transcribed from some well-known exemplar, such as that in the library of Cæsarea, or else were compared with it. It can hardly be doubted that this exemplar of Pamphilus the martyr was one containing such a text as had been used by Origen, even if it were not a copy which had belonged to that laborious critic: no doubt it was supposed to be free from the interpolations and additions of which so much complaint had been made; but that it was strictly a recension cannot be shown, and if it had any connection with Origen, the contrary may be regarded as very certain. It was probably to such a copy at Cæsarea that Jerome appealed when he spoke of the exemplars of Origen and Pierius. If any theory were admissible on which to rest a conjectural recension, it is remarkable that the name of Pamphilus has been passed by; for copies are again and again stated to be taken from his, and we know that he prepared many codices, and was diligent in circulating copies of the Scriptures', - no doubt such as he considered to be correct; but it has been rightly seen that his having transcribed a copy with his own hand is wholly different from his having made a recension of the text. Hug, indeed, does suppose that the recension of Origen was thus published by Pamphilus; but this conjecture does not hold well with another part of his theory, in which he maintains that the recension of Origen never had any wide or general circulation; for it is clear that this Cæsarean exemplar was used by many, and from the connection of Eusebius with Pamphilus in his Biblical studies and labours, and his residence at Cæsarea, it is difficult for any to advance that the copies which he sent to the churches at Constantinople contained a text which he supposed to be different. The following is part of an extract given by Jerome from the third book of Eusebius's Life of Pamphilus :-"Quis studiosorum amicus non fuit Pamphili? Si quos videbat ad victum necessarium indigere, præbebat large quæ poterat. Scripturas quoque sanctas non ad legendum tantum, sed et ad habendum, tribuebat promptissime. Nec solum viris, sed et feminis, quas vidisset lectioni deditas. Unde et multos codices præparabat, ut quum necessitas poposcisset volentibus largiretur."-Contra Ruffinum, lib. i. 9. (ed. Vallarsi, ii. 465.) Up to the middle, then, of the third century, we find, from the testimony of Origen, that there was no revised text of the New Testament; in the beginning of the fourth, we meet with nothing more than particular exemplars used to copy other MSS. from, but nothing that looks like a standard of appeal; and at the end of the fourth century, it is certain that Jerome knew nothing of any such text: had known recensions existed, they would have afforded him no small aid in his revision of the Latin translation: it would have been also surprising, if he had known of such recensions, that he had said not one word on the subject, when noticing differences of reading in particular copies. Thus we are without any historical grounds for maintaining that such recensions of the New Testament were made, as we know to have been executed of the LXX. One simple reason may be specified for this: in the LXX., the Hexapla of Origen afforded what some might regard as a standard of appeal, and what others might consider to be materials for critical correction; and thus revised texts were actually formed, in which, however, the real LXX. was more and more mixed with portions of the other Greek versions. It is well for the text of the New Testament, that there were no means of subjecting it to any such process, for if there had been, it would, no doubt, have suffered even more than it has from the proceedings of transcribers, and the attempts at local emendation and correction. For a while the theories of Hug obtained a considerable reception amongst German Biblical scholars: Eichhorn, for instance, generally agreed with his classification, not, however, receiving as proved an Origenian recension. His arrangement was, an unrevised text in Asia, and with some differences in Africa; a recension of the first by Lucian, of the second by Hesychius, and a mixture of both texts. The admission, however, of a recension by Origen with the arrangement is needed if the basis of the system be at all firm; and thus Eichhorn's modification has still less to recommend it than the classification proposed by Hug. From all the discussions there arose this benefit, that facts were more diligently sifted, and thus more firmly apprehended, and that all in early writers that could bear on the history of recensions, or of the state of the text at particular periods, was clearly brought forward. But this was not obtained without such a process of examination as showed how groundless are many theories, and how critics had pressed into the service of their views passages and statements which really applied to things that were very different. The general result was a doubt as to the tenability of Griesbach's system, but without any decided feeling as to what ought to take its place, or what modifications it should receive. |