any criteria by which we can determine the boundaries between these two classes. The Byzantine text is found in the four Gospels of the Alexandrian manuscript; it was the original of the Sclavonic or old Russian version, and was cited by Chrysostom and Theophylact bishop of Bulgaria.

As the Peschito, or Old Syriac version of the New Testament, differs from the three preceding recensions, Michaelis has instituted another, which he terms,

4. The EDESSENE EDITION, Comprehending those manuscripts from which that version was made.

Of this edition no manuscripts are extant; which circumstance Michaelis accounts for, by the early prejudice of the Syriac literati in favour of whatever was Grecian, and also by the wars that devastated the East for many ages subsequent to the fifth century. But by some accident which is difficult to be explained, manuscripts are found in the west of Europe, accompanied even with a Latin translation, such as the Codex Beza, which so eminently coincide with the Old Syriac Version; that their affinity is indisputable.

Although the readings of the Western, Alexandrine, and Edessene editions sometimes differ, yet they very frequently harmonise with each other. This coincidence Michaelis ascribes to their high antiquity, as the oldest manuscripts extant belong to one of these editions, and the translations themselves are antient. A reading confirmed by three of them is supposed to be of the very highest authority; yet the true reading may sometimes be found only in the fourth. 2. The second system of recensions is that proposed by Dr. Scholz in his Cura Critice in Historiam Textus Evangeliorum, founded on a long and minute examination of the treasure of Biblical manuscripts contained in the Royal Library at Paris: this system is in effect a modification of that proposed by Griesbach. According to this critic, there are five recensions, viz. 1. The Alexandrine; 2. The Occidental or Western; 3. The Asiatic; 4. The Byzantine; and 5. The Cyprian.

1, 2. The Alexandrine and Occidental are the same as the two first classes of Griesbach; the Byzantine of the latter critic, Dr. S. divides into two distinct families, viz. the Asiatic and the Byzantine.

3. The ASIATIC RECENSION, as its name implies, is that text which has prevailed in Asia from the apostolic times, and which has undergone fewer changes than the Alexandrine or Egyptian and Occidental or Western Editions have experienced.

To this recension belongs the Codex Regius 53, a manuscript of the tenth century, written on Mount Athos, and transcribed with great correctness from the Jerusalem manuscripts. To this class also are referred the Codices Regii 186, 188, 277, 293, 298, and 300. No. 186. is a manuscript of the eleventh century, containing the four Gospels, together with the commentaries of Chrysostom and others, and disquisitions on select passages. No. 188. (Griesb. 20.) is a manuscript of the four Gospels, of the eleventh century, with the commentaries of various authors. No. 177 is an evangelistarium, or collection of lessons from the Gospels of the ninth, and Nos. 293, 298, and 300 are evangelistaria of the eleventh century;

but all, in the judgment of Dr. Scholz, are copied from very antient Palestine manuscripts.

With the Asiatic recension coincide the Peschito or Old Syriac Version, and the fathers who have used it, the Syro-Philoxenian version, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, and Heschius of Jerusalem.

4. The BYZANTINE or CONSTANTINOPOLITAN RECENSION Contains that text, which is found in the manuscripts in use at Constantinople, and in the Greek Churches.

This text is found in A. the Codex Alexandrinus (but in the four Gospels only;) in E. the Codex Basileensis B. VI. 21; in F. the Codex Boreelii; in G. the Codex Harleianus 5684; in H. the Codex Wolfii B.; in M. the Codex Regius 48. (a manuscript of the tenth century containing the four Gospels); S. the Codex Vaticanus 354 (a manuscript of the tenth century collated by Birch); and the manuscripts noted by Griesbach, 42, 106. (both of the tenth century,) 116 (of the twelfth century), 114 of the thirteenth century, and one of the Moscow manuscripts, (No. 10 of Matthæi's notation) written in the thirteenth century. To this class also are referred fifty-three other manuscripts contained in the royal library, either collated for the first time by Dr. Scholz, or (if previously collated by Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, Alter, Birch, Matthæi, and others) subjected by him to a second examination and collation. With the Byzantine Recension agree the Gothic and Sclavonic versions, and most of the Greek fathers (fifty-five are enumerated by Dr. Scholz,) particularly by Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, Apollinaris, bishop of Laodicea, Cæsarius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzum, Theodoret, and Theophylact.

From the preceding manuscripts there is a slight variation, and kind of transition to the received or Vulgate Greek text, in the Codices Regii, as well as in many others preserved in different libraries. Dr. S. has enumerated eighty-seven manuscripts of this decription, that are in the royal library at Paris, fifteen only of which have been collated for Griesbach's edition of the New Testament.

5. The CYPRIAN RECENSION contains that text, which is exhibited in the Codex Cyprius, a manuscript of the eighth century, brought from the Isle of Cyprus, of which a description is given in a subsequent page.1

By a comparison of the readings of the Codex Cyprius, with the received text, and with the Alexandrine and Constantinopolitan Recensions, in nearly one hundred instances, Dr. Scholz has shown, that it very frequently coincides with the two last, sometimes agreeing with both, sometimes following one or the other of them, and sometimes holding a mean between them. In many instances it harmonises with but few manuscripts, and in some cases its readings are peculiar to itself. On these accounts he is of opinion that the Codex Cyprius exhibits a family which has sprung from a collation of various manuscripts, some of which owe their origin to Egypt, others to Asia, and others to Cyprus.

Most of the Manuscripts now extant exhibit one of the texts above described; some are composed of two or three recensions. No individual manuscript preserves any recension in a pure state; but ma

1 See pp. 99, 100. infra.

nuscripts are said to be of the Alexandrian or Western recension, as the appropriate readings of each preponderate. The margins of these manuscripts, as well as those of the Ethiopic, Armenian, Sahidic, and Syro-Philoxenian versions, and the Syriac version of Jerusalem, contain the Alexandrian variations for the Western readings, or vice versâ; and some Byzantine manuscripts have the Alexandrian or Western various lections in their margins."

Each of these recensions has characteristics peculiar to itself. The Occidental or Western preserves harsh readings, Hebraisms and solecisms, which the Alexandrine has exchanged for readings more conformable to classic usage. The Western is characterised by readings calculated to relieve the text from difficulties, and to clear the sense: it frequently adds supplements to the passages adduced from the Old Testament; and omits words that appear to be either repugnant to the context or to other passages, or to render the meaning obscure. The Alexandrine is free from the interpretations and transpositions of the Western recension. An explanatory reading is therefore suspicious in the Western recension, and a classical one in the Alexandrine. The Byzantine or Constantinopolitan recension (according to Griesbach's system) preserves the Greek idiom still purer than the Alexandrine, and resembles the Western in its use of copious and explanatory readings. It is likewise mixed, throughout, with the readings of the other recensions.

The Asiatic recension of Scholz coincides with the Western in its supplementary and explanatory readings; and his Byzantine or Constantinopolitan family with the Alexandrine in the affinity of certain manuscripts, which in some instances is so great as to prove that they had one common origin.2

2.

The system of recensions, above proposed by Bengel and Semler, and completed by the late celebrated critic Dr. Griesbach, has been subjected to a very severe critical ordeal; and has been formidably attacked, on the continent by the late M. Matthæi, and in this country by the Rev. Dr. Laurence (now archbishop of Cashel),3 and the Rev. Frederic Nolan.

3. Totally disregarding Griesbach's system of recensions, M. Matthæi recognises only one class or family of manuscripts, which he terms Codices textús perpetui, and pronounces every thing that is derived from commentaries and scholia to be corrupt. As the manuscripts of the New Testament, which he found in the library of the Synod, came originally from Mount Athos, and other parts of the Greek empire; and as the Russian church is a daughter of the Greek

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 163–177. Griesbach's Symbole Critice, tom. i. pp. cxvii.-exxii. cxxxvii. clvii.-clxiv. tom. ii. pp. 132-148. Griesbach's edit. of the New Test. vol. i. Proleg. pp. lxxiii.-lxxxi. edit. Hala, 1796.

2 Dr. Scholz has given numerous examples of the characteristics of the several recensions above noticed. Cur. Crit. in Hist. Text. Evang. pp. 31-42. 46–51.

3 In his " Remarks on the Classification of Manuscripts adopted by Griesbach in his edition of the New Testament," (8vo. Oxford, 1814.) For learned and elabo rate analyses of Dr. Laurence's work, see the Eclectic Review for 1815, vol. iv. N. S. pp. 1-22. 173-189., and particularly the British Critic for 1814, vol. i. N. S. 173-192. 296-315. 401-428.

pp.

church, those manuscripts consequently contain what Griesbach has called the Byzantine Text; which Matthæi admits to be the only authentic text, excluding the Alexandrine and Western recensions, and also rejecting all quotations from the fathers of the Greek church. To the class of manuscripts to which the Codex Beza, the Codex Claromontanus, and others of high antiquity belong, he gave, in the preface to his edition of Saint John's Gospel, the appellation of editio scurrilis, nor did he apply softer epithets to those critics who ventured to defend such manuscripts.1

4. The last system of recensions which remains to be noticed is that of the Rev. F. Nolan. It is developed in his " Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or received Text of the New Testament, in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed, the Integrity of the authorised Text vindicated, and the various Readings traced to their Origin." (London, 1815, 8vo.)2 That integrity he has confess edly established by a series of proofs and connected arguments, the most decisive that can be reasonably desired or expected: but as these occupy nearly six hundred closely printed pages, the limits of this section necessarily restrict us to the following concise notice of his elaborate system.

It has been an opinion as early as the times of Bishop Walton, that the purest text of the scripture canon had been preserved at Alexandria; the libraries of that city having been celebrated from an early period for their correct and splendid copies. From the identity of any MS. in its peculiar readings, with the scripture quotations of Origen, who presided in the catechetical school of Alexandria, a strong presumption arises that it contains the Alexandrine recension: the supposition being natural, that Origen drew his quotations from the copies generally prevalent in his native country. This, as we have seen, was the basis of Dr. Griesbach's system of recensions: accordingly he ascribes the highest rank to the manuscripts of the Alexandrine class, the authority of a few of which in his estimation outweighs that of a multitude of the Byzantine. The peculiar readings, which he selects from the manuscripts of this class, he confirms by a variety of collateral testimony, principally drawn from the quotations of the antient fathers and the versions made in the primitive ages. To the authority of Origen, however, he ascribes a paramount weight, taking it as the standard by which his collateral testimony is to be estimated; and using their evidence merely to support his testimony, or to supply it when it is deficient. The readings which he supports by this weight of testimony, he considers genuine; and, introducing a number of them into the sacred page, he has thus formed his corrected text of the New Testament. The necessary result of this process, as obviously proving the existence of a great number of spurious readings, has been that of shaking the authority of the au

1 Schoell, Hist. de la Littérature Grècque, tom. ii. p. 136. Bishop Marsh's Lectures, part ii. p. 30.

2 There is a copious analysis of this work in the British Critic, (N. S.) vol. v. pp. 1-24, from which, and from the work itself, the present notice of Mr. Nolan's system of recensions is derived.

thorised English version, together with the foundation on which it

rests.

In combating the conclusions of Griesbach, Mr. Nolan argues from the inconstancy of Origen's quotations, that no certain conclusion can be deduced from his testimony; he infers from the history of Origen, who principally wrote and published in Palestine, that the text, quoted by that antient father, was rather the Palestine than the Alexandrine and he proves, from the express testimony of Saint Jerome, that the text of Origen was really adopted in Palestine, while that of Hesychius was adopted at Alexandria.

Having thus opened the question, and set it upon the broader ground assumed by those critics, who confirm the readings of the Alexandrine text, by the coincidence of the antient versions of the Oriental and Western churches; Mr. N. combats this method, proposed for investigating the genuine texts, in two modes. He first shows that a coincidence between the Western and Oriental churches does not necessarily prove the antiquity of the text which they mutu ally support; as the versions of the former church were corrected, after the texts of the latter, by Jerome and Cassiodorus, who may have thus created the coincidence, which is taken as a proof of the genuine reading. In the next place, he infers, from the prevalence of a text published by Eusebius of Cæsarea, and from the comparatively late period at which the Oriental Versions were formed, that their general coincidence may be traced to the influence of Eusebius's edition. This position he establishes, by a proof deduced from the general prevalence of Eusebius's sections and canons in the Greek MSS. and antient versions, and by a presumption derived from the agreements of those texts and versions with each other in omitting several passages contained in the Vulgate Greek, which were at variance with Eusebius's peculiar opinions. And having thus established the general influence of Eusebius's text, he generally concludes against the stability of the critical principles on which the German critics have undertaken the correction of the Greek Vulgate.

The material obstacles being thus removed to the establishment of his plan, Mr. Nolan next proceeds to investigate the different classes of text which exist in the Greek manuscripts. Having briefly considered the scripture quotations of the fathers, and shown that they afford no adequate criterion for reducing the text into classes, he proceeds to the consideration of the antient translations, and after an examination of the Oriental versions, more particularly of the Sahidic, he comes to the conclusion, that no version but the Latin can be taken as a safe guide in ascertaining the genuine text of Scripture. This point being premised, the author lays the foundation of his scheme of classification, in the following observations.

1 In the course of this discussion, Mr. Nolan assigns adequate reasons for the omission of the following remarkable passages, Mark xvi. 9-20. John viii. 1-11, and for the peculiar readings of the following celebrated texts, Acts xx. 28. 1 Tim. iii. 16. 1 John v. 7. See his Inquiry, pp. 35-41.