recent Revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament Scriptures,
we speedily became aware that an entirely different problem awaited us and
demanded preliminary investigation. We made the distressing discovery,
that the underlying Greek Text had been completely refashioned throughout.
It was accordingly not so much a “_Revised English Version_” as a “_New
Greek Text_,” which was challenging public acceptance. Premature
therefore,—not to say preposterous,—would have been any enquiry into the
degree of ability with which the original Greek had been rendered into
English by our Revisionists, until we had first satisfied ourselves that
it was still “the original Greek” with which we had to deal: or whether it
had been the supreme infelicity of a body of Scholars claiming to act by
the authority of the sacred Synod of Canterbury, to put themselves into
the hands of some ingenious theory-monger, and to become the dupes of any
of the strange delusions which are found unhappily still to prevail in
certain quarters, on the subject of Textual Criticism.
The correction of known Textual errors of course we eagerly expected: and
on every occasion when the Traditional Text was altered, we as confidently
depended on finding a record of the circumstance inserted with religious
fidelity into the margin,—as agreed upon by the Revisionists at the
outset. In both of these expectations however we found ourselves sadly
disappointed. The Revisionists have _not_ corrected the “known Textual
errors.” On the other hand, besides silently adopting most of those
wretched fabrications which are just now in favour with the German school,
they have encumbered their margin with those other Readings which, after
due examination, _they had themselves deliberately rejected_. For why?
Because, in their collective judgment, “for the present, it would not be
safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others.”(705) A
fatal admission truly! What are found in the margin are therefore
“_alternative Readings_,”—in the opinion of these self-constituted
representatives of the Church and of the Sects.
It becomes evident that, by this ill-advised proceeding, our Revisionists
would convert every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament into a
one-sided Introduction to the Critical difficulties of the Greek Text; a
labyrinth, out of which they have not been at the pains to supply him with
a single hint as to how he may find his way. On the contrary. By candidly
avowing that they find themselves enveloped in the same Stygian darkness
with the ordinary English Reader, they give him to understand that there
is absolutely no escape from the difficulty. What else must be the result
of all this but general uncertainty, confusion, distress? A hazy mistrust
of all Scripture has been insinuated into the hearts and minds of
countless millions, who in this way have been _forced_ to become
doubters,—yes, doubters in the Truth of Revelation itself. One recals
sorrowfully the terrible woe denounced by the Author of Scripture on those
who minister occasions of falling to others:—“It must needs be that
offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”
For ourselves, shocked and offended at the unfaithfulness which could so
deal with the sacred Deposit, we made it our business to expose, somewhat
in detail, what had been the method of our Revisionists. In our October
number(706) we demonstrated, (as far as was possible within such narrow
limits,) the utterly untrustworthy character of not a few of the results
at which, after ten years of careful study, these distinguished Scholars
proclaim to the civilized world that they have deliberately arrived. In
our January number(707) also, we found it impossible to avoid extending
our enumeration of Textual errors and multiplying our proofs, while we
were making it our business to show that, even had their _Text_ been
faultless, their _Translation_ must needs be rejected as intolerable, on
grounds of defective Scholarship and egregious bad Taste. The popular
verdict has in the meantime been pronounced unmistakably. It is already
admitted on all hands that the Revision has been a prodigious blunder. How
it came about that, with such a first-rate textual Critic among them as
Prebendary Scrivener,(708) the Revisers of 1881 should have deliberately
gone back to those vile fabrications from which the good Providence of GOD
preserved Erasmus and Stunica,—Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—three
centuries ago:—how it happened that, with so many splendid Scholars
sitting round their table, they should have produced a Translation which,
for the most part, reads like a first-rate school-boy’s _crib_,—tasteless,
unlovely, harsh, unidiomatic;—servile without being really
faithful,—pedantic without being really learned;—an unreadable
Translation, in short; the result of a vast amount of labour indeed, but
of wondrous little skill:—how all this has come about, it were utterly
useless at this time of day to enquire.
Unable to disprove the correctness of our Criticism on the Revised Greek
Text, even in a single instance, certain partizans of the
Revision,—singular to relate,—have been ever since industriously
promulgating the notion, that the Reviewer’s great misfortune and fatal
disadvantage all along has been, that he wrote his first Article before
the publication of Drs. Westcott and Hort’s Critical “_Introduction_.” Had
he but been so happy as to have been made aware by those eminent Scholars
of the critical principles which have guided them in the construction of
their Text, how differently must he have expressed himself throughout, and
to what widely different conclusions must he have inevitably arrived! This
is what has been once and again either openly declared, or else privately
intimated, in many quarters. Some, in the warmth of their partizanship,
have been so ill-advised as to insinuate that it argues either a
deficiency of moral courage, or else of intellectual perception, in the
Reviewer, that he has not long since grappled definitely with the Theory
of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—and either published an Answer to it, or else
frankly admitted that he finds it unanswerable.
(_a_) All of which strikes us as queer in a high degree. First, because as
a matter of fact we were careful to make it plain that the _Introduction_
in question had duly reached us _before the first sheet_ of our earlier
Article had left our hands. To be brief,—we made it our business to
procure a copy and read it through, the instant we heard of its
publication: and on our fourteenth page (see above, pp. 26-8) we
endeavoured to compress into a long foot-note some account of a Theory
which (we take leave to say) can appear formidable only to one who either
lacks the patience to study it, or else the knowledge requisite to
understand it. We found that, from a diligent perusal of the _Preface_
prefixed to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, we had formed a
perfectly correct estimate of the contents of the _Introduction_; and had
already characterized it with entire accuracy at pp. 24 to 29 of our first
Article. Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _New Testament in the original Greek_
was discovered to “partake inconveniently of the nature of a work of the
Imagination,”—as we had anticipated. We became easily convinced that
“those accomplished Scholars had succeeded in producing a Text vastly more
remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists and Apostles of our
LORD, than any which has appeared since the invention of Printing.”
(_b_) But the queerest circumstance is behind. How is it supposed that any
amount of study of _the last new Theory_ of Textual Revision can seriously
affect a Reviewer’s estimate of the evidential value of the historical
_facts_ on which he relies for his proof that a certain exhibition of the
Greek Text is untrustworthy? The _onus probandi_ rests clearly not with
_him_, but with those who call those proofs of his in question. More of
this, however, by and by. We are impatient to get on.
(_c_) And then, lastly,—What have _we_ to do with the _Theory_ of Drs.
Westcott and Hort? or indeed with the Theory of _any other person who can
be named_? We have been examining the new Greek Text _of the
Revisionists_. We have condemned, after furnishing detailed proof, _the
results_ at which—by whatever means—that distinguished body of Scholars
has arrived. Surely it is competent to us to upset their _conclusion_,
without being constrained also to investigate in detail the illicit
logical processes by which two of their number in a separate publication
have arrived at far graver results, and often even stand hopelessly apart,
the one from the other! We say it in no boastful spirit, but we have an
undoubted right to assume, that unless the Revisionists are able by a
stronger array of authorities to set aside the evidence we have already
brought forward, the calamitous destiny of their “Revision,” so far as the
New Testament is concerned, is simply a thing inevitable.
Let it not be imagined, however, from what goes before, that we desire to
shirk the proposed encounter with the advocates of this last new Text, or
that we entertain the slightest intention of doing so. We willingly accept
the assurance, that it is only because Drs. Westcott and Hort are
virtually responsible for the Revisers’ Greek Text, that it is so
imperiously demanded by the Revisers and their partizans, that the Theory
of the two Cambridge Professors may be critically examined. We can
sympathize also with the secret distress of certain of the body, who now,
when it is all too late to remedy the mischief, begin to suspect that they
have been led away by the hardihood of self-assertion;—overpowered by the
_facundia præceps_ of one who is at least a thorough believer in his own
self-evolved opinions;—imposed upon by the seemingly consentient pages of
Tischendorf and Tregelles, Westcott and Hort.—Without further preface we
begin.
It is presumed that we shall be rendering acceptable service in certain
quarters if,—before investigating the particular Theory which has been
proposed for consideration,—we endeavour to give the unlearned English
Reader some general notion, (it must perforce be a very imperfect one,) of
the nature of the controversy to which the Theory now to be considered
belongs, and out of which it has sprung. Claiming to be an attempt to
determine the Truth of Scripture on scientific principles, the work before
us may be regarded as the latest outcome of that violent recoil from the
Traditional Greek Text,—that strange impatience of its authority, or
rather denial that it possesses any authority at all,—which began with
Lachmann just 50 years ago (viz. in 1831), and has prevailed ever since;
its most conspicuous promoters being Tregelles (1857-72) and Tischendorf
(1865-72).
The true nature of the Principles which respectively animate the two
parties in this controversy is at this time as much as ever,—perhaps
_more_ than ever,—popularly misunderstood. The common view of the
contention in which they are engaged, is certainly the reverse of
complimentary to the school of which Dr. Scrivener is the most
accomplished living exponent. We hear it confidently asserted that the
contention is nothing else but an irrational endeavour on the one part to
set up the many modern against the few ancient Witnesses;—the later
cursive copies against the “old Uncials;”—inveterate traditional Error
against undoubted primitive Truth. The disciples of the new popular
school, on the contrary, are represented as relying exclusively _on
Antiquity_. We respectfully assure as many as require the assurance, that
the actual contention is of an entirely different nature. But, before we
offer a single word in the way of explanation, let the position of our
assailants at least be correctly ascertained and clearly established. We
have already been constrained to some extent to go over this ground: but
we will not repeat ourselves. The Reader is referred back, in the
meantime, to pp. 21-24.
Lachmann’s ruling principle then, was exclusive reliance on a very few
ancient authorities—_because_ they are “ancient.” He constructed his Text
on three or four,—not unfrequently on _one or two_,—Greek codices. Of the
Greek Fathers, he relied on Origen. Of the oldest Versions, he cared only
for the Latin. To the Syriac (concerning which, see above, p. 9), he paid
no attention. We venture to think his method _irrational_. But this is
really a point on which the thoughtful reader is competent to judge for
himself. He is invited to read the note at foot of the page.(709)
Tregelles adopted the same strange method. He resorted to a very few out
of the entire mass of “ancient Authorities” for the construction of his
Text. His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who—in order that he may
the better explore a comparatively unknown region—begins by putting out
both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him
the way. _Why_ he rejected the testimony of _every Father of the IVth
century, except Eusebius_,—it were unprofitable to enquire.
Tischendorf, the last and by far the ablest Critic of the three, knew
better than to reject “_eighty-nine ninetieths_” of the extant witnesses.
He had recourse to the ingenious expedient of _adducing_ all the available
evidence, but _adopting_ just as little of it as he chose: and he _chose_
to adopt those readings only, which are vouched for by the same little
band of authorities whose partial testimony had already proved fatal to
the decrees of Lachmann and Tregelles. Happy in having discovered (in
1859) an uncial codex (א) second in antiquity only to the oldest before
known (B), and strongly resembling that famous IVth-century codex in the
character of its contents, he suffered his judgment to be overpowered by
the circumstance. He at once (1865-72) remodelled his 7th edition (1856-9)
in 3505 places,—“to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism,
as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and
consistency.”(710) And yet he knew concerning Cod. א, that at least ten
different Revisers from the Vth century downwards had laboured to remedy
the scandalously corrupt condition of a text which, “as it proceeded from
the first scribe,” even Tregelles describes as “_very rough_.”(711) But in
fact the infatuation which prevails to this hour in this department of
sacred Science can only be spoken of as incredible. Enough has been said
to show—(the only point we are bent on establishing)—that the one
distinctive tenet of the three most famous Critics since 1831 has been a
superstitious reverence for whatever is found in the _same little handful_
of early,—but _not_ the earliest,—_nor yet of necessity the
purest_,—documents.
Against this arbitrary method of theirs we solemnly, stiffly remonstrate.
“Strange,” we venture to exclaim, (addressing the living representatives
of the school of Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf):—“Strange, that
you should not perceive that you are the dupes of a fallacy which is even
transparent. You _talk_ of ‘Antiquity.’ But you must know very well that
you actually _mean_ something different. You fasten upon three, or perhaps
four,—on two, or perhaps three,—on _one, or perhaps two_,—documents of the
IVth or Vth century. But then, confessedly, these are one, two, three, or
four _specimens only_ of Antiquity,—not ‘Antiquity’ itself. And what if
they should even prove to be _unfair samples_ of Antiquity? Thus, you are
observed always to quote cod. B or at least cod. א. Pray, why may not the
Truth reside instead with A, or C, or D?—You quote the old Latin or the
Coptic. Why may not the Peschito or the Sahidic be right rather?—You quote
either Origen or else Eusebius,—but why not Didymus and Athanasius,
Epiphanius and Basil, Chrysostom and Theodoret, the Gregories and the
Cyrils?... It will appear therefore that we are every bit as strongly
convinced as you can be of the paramount claims of ‘Antiquity:’ but that,
eschewing prejudice and partiality, we differ from you only in _this_,
viz. that we absolutely refuse to bow down before the _particular
specimens of Antiquity_ which you have arbitrarily selected as the objects
of your superstition. You are illogical enough to propose to include
within your list of ‘ancient Authorities,’ codd. 1, 33 and 69,—which are
severally MSS. of the Xth, XIth, and XIVth centuries. And why? Only
because the Text of those 3 copies is observed to bear a sinister
resemblance to that of codex B. But then why, in the name of common sense,
do you not show corresponding favour to the remaining 997 cursive Copies
of the N. T.,—seeing that these are observed to bear _the same general
resemblance to codex_ A?... You are for ever talking about ‘old Readings.’
Have you not yet discovered that ALL ‘Readings’ are ‘OLD’?”
The last contribution to this department of sacred Science is a critical
edition of the New Testament by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. About this, we
proceed to offer a few remarks.
I. The first thing here which unfavourably arrests attention is the
circumstance that this proves to be the only Critical Edition of the New
Testament since the days of Mill, which does not even pretend to
contribute something to our previous critical knowledge of the subject.
Mill it was (1707) who gave us the great bulk of our various Readings;
which Bengel (1734) slightly, and Wetstein (1751-2) very considerably,
enlarged.—The accurate Matthæi (1782-8) acquainted us with the contents of
about 100 codices more; and was followed by Griesbach (1796-1806) with
important additional materials.—Birch had in the meantime (1788) culled
from the principal libraries of Europe a large assortment of new Readings:
while truly marvellous was the accession of evidence which Scholz brought
to light in 1830.—And though Lachmann (1842-50) did wondrous little in
this department, he yet furnished the critical authority (such as it is)
for his own unsatisfactory Text.—Tregelles (1857-72), by his exact
collations of MSS. and examination of the earliest Fathers, has laid the
Church under an abiding obligation: and what is to be said of Tischendorf
(1856-72), who has contributed more to our knowledge than any other editor
of the N. T. since the days of Mill?—Dr. Scrivener, though he has not
independently edited the original Text, is clearly to be reckoned among
those who _have_, by reason of his large, important, and accurate
contributions to our knowledge of ancient documents. Transfer his
collections of various Readings to the foot of the page of a copy of the
commonly Received Text,—and “_Scrivener’s New Testament_”(712) might stand
between the editions of Mill and of Wetstein. Let the truth be told. C. F.
Matthæi and he are _the only two Scholars who have collated any
considerable number of sacred Codices with the needful amount of
accuracy_.(713)
Now, we trust we shall be forgiven if, at the close of the preceding
enumeration, we confess to something like displeasure at the oracular tone
assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort in dealing with the Text of Scripture,
though they admit (page 90) that they “rely for documentary evidence on
the stores accumulated by their predecessors.” Confident as those
distinguished Professors may reasonably feel of their ability to dispense
with the ordinary appliances of Textual Criticism; and proud (as they must
naturally be) of a verifying faculty which (although they are able to give
no account of it) yet enables them infallibly to discriminate between the
false and the true, as well as to assign “a local habitation and a name”
to every word,—inspired or uninspired,—which purports to belong to the N.
T.:—they must not be offended with us if we freely assure them at the
outset that we shall decline to accept a single argumentative assertion of
theirs for which they fail to offer sufficient proof. Their wholly
unsupported decrees, at the risk of being thought uncivil, we shall
unceremoniously reject, as soon as we have allowed them a hearing.
This resolve bodes ill, we freely admit, to harmonious progress. But it is
inevitable. For, to speak plainly, we never before met with such a
singular tissue of magisterial statements, unsupported by a particle of
rational evidence, as we meet with here. The abstruse gravity, the
long-winded earnestness of the writer’s manner, contrast whimsically with
the utterly inconsequential character of his antecedents and his
consequents throughout. Professor Hort—(for “the writing of the volume and
the other accompaniments of the Text devolved” on _him_,(714))—Dr. Hort
seems to mistake his Opinions for facts,—his Assertions for arguments,—and
a Reiteration of either for an accession of evidence. There is throughout
the volume, apparently, a dread of _Facts_ which is even extraordinary. An
actual illustration of the learned Author’s meaning,—a concrete
case,—seems as if it were _never_ forthcoming. At last it comes: but the
phenomenon is straightway discovered to admit of at least two
interpretations, and therefore never to prove the thing intended. In a
person of high education,—in one accustomed to exact reasoning,—we should
have supposed all this impossible.... But it is high time to unfold the
_Introduction_ at the first page, and to begin to read.
II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on “Transmission
by Writing;” vague and inaccurate,—unsupported by one single Textual
reference,—and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most
instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as
“Transmission by writing” involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st)
Those which are the result of _Accident_,—and (2ndly) Those which are the
result of _Design_,—it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest
opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B א D such utterly
untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of
extraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so
much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they
severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a
fabricated Text,—is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.
Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke’s Gospel
alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B
amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401
words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S.
Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words
_substituted_ in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_
to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and
affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental
causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for
א, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration
for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)
We turn to codd. A and C—(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B,
and a hundred years _before_ D)—and the figures are found to be as
follows:—
In A. In C.
The transpositions are 75 67
affecting 199 words 197
The words omitted are 208 175
The words substituted 111 115
The peculiar readings 90 87
affecting 131 words 127
Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is
entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding
Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. Robert
Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth,
and cod. D in the VIth, are so widely discordant from one another; A and
C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the
phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved
Texts;—a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader
should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.