printed Editions:” in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that
Lachmann’s Text of 1831 was “the first founded on documentary
authority.”(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor
imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were
founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between
Lachmann’s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_
“documentary authority” is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is
proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_
documentary authority, derived from independent sources,—though partial
and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (_under the good
Providence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is
demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research
have succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D.
375.
IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the “History of this
Edition:” in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the
explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr.
Westcott (“W.”) and Dr. Hort (“H.”), finding it impossible to agree, have
set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with
their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said
concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in
the Church, “Richard” would still be found to disagree with “Baxter,”—and
“Baxter” with “Richard”.... We read with uneasiness that
“no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free
itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;” and that “the
danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal
judgment.”—(p. 17.)
All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same
Editors in 1870:—
“We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and
Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural
illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute
rules to prescribe the final decision.”—(pp. xviii., xix.)
May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time)
that “idiosyncrasies” and “unconscious caprice,” and the fancies of the
“individual mind,” can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such
gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we
are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on
which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned
Professors “venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks
of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of
mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,”—we
can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate.
When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential
intercourse on such a subject, the “_natural illusions_” of either have a
marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader’s only
protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for
everything which these authors say.
V. The dissertation on “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability” which
follows (pp. 20-30),—being _unsupported by one single instance or
illustration_,—we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most
serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to “Scribes” or “Copyists,” (of
whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;)
but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort
that “the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability
is incontestable,”—for that, “without its aid, Textual Criticism could
rarely obtain a high degree of security,” (p. 24,)—we venture to declare
that inasmuch as one expert’s notions of what is “transcriptionally
probable” prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert’s notions,
the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage,
be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be
allowed to take its place. Notions of “Probability” are the very pest of
those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.
VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the
plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of
attending to “the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.” In other
words, “The comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities” is
proposed as a far weightier consideration than “Intrinsic” and
“Transcriptional Probability.” Accordingly we are assured (in capital
letters) that “Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon
readings” (p. 31).
“Knowledge”! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,—cod. A
and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?
“Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain
_morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,—and
the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [_i.e._
_Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been
transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second
has suffered comparatively large corruption.”—(p. 32.)
But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended
that Readings become “_morally certain_,” because they are “_strongly
preferred_”? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the
“STRONG PREFERENCE” of “the individual mind” is to be the ultimate
standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may “_have no doubt_”
as to which is the purer manuscript,—see you not plainly that a man of
different “idiosyncrasy” from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to
“have no doubt”—_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage
in p. 61: viz.—
“If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings
exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—_Readings which
the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be
right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary
Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these
Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the
common ancestor of all the members of the group.”
But how does _that_ appear? “The cause” _may_ be _the erroneous judgment
of the Critic_,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own
inner consciousness “pronounces to be right,” against “Documentary
Evidence,” however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty
shall be supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?
VII. We are next introduced to the subject of “Genealogical Evidence” (p.
39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to
admit that a “total change in the bearing of the evidence” is “made by the
introduction of the factor of Genealogy” (p. 43). Presuming that the
_meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_
the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more
confidently concerning their Texts,—we read on: and speedily come to a
second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that “All
trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of
their History” (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in
_the _“restoration of corrupted Texts”? If so,—which be they? We
require—(1) To be shown the “_corrupted Texts_” referred to: and then—(2)
To be convinced that “the study of _their History_”—(as distinguished from
an examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)—is a thing
feasible.
“A simple instance” (says Dr. Hort) “will show at once the
practical bearing” of “the principle here laid down.”—(p. 40.)
But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to
“suppose” a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that
we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by
the assertion that
“it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the
transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority
effected by recognition of Genealogy.”—(p. 43.)
Presently, he assures us that
“a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity,
appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to
them.” (p. 45.)
On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion.
_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and
995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic
that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less
likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to
share our opinion; for he remarks,—
“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents
is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents,
than _vice versâ_.”
Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we
venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates
the case: seeing that the “_vice versâ presumption_” is absolutely
non-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we
are disposed to maintain that “a majority of extant documents” in the
proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates more than “a
presumption.” It amounts to _Proof of _“a majority of ancestral
documents”.
Not so thinks Dr. Hort. “This presumption,” (he seems to have persuaded
himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it “is too minute
to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” (_Ibid._).
As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,—“tangible”
or “intangible.” Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_,
and pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on
“Genealogical Evidence” (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the
following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9
_could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common
original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent
witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we
want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?
The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does
not seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices
B and א, having been _demonstrably_ “executed from one and the same common
original,” are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the
Text of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)
High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk
about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts,
is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has
fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family;
and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens,
unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a
known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about
“Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be
produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is
absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard
where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose
without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which
subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which
they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture,
is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of
Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the
subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen,
bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of
some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_.
Further we cannot go.
But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an
Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a
Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah
these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and
_you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about
their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort’s
about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of
Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of
the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.
The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so
glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be
independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd.
13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same
queer archetype: _and especially_—(3) by Codd. B and א. These two famous
manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same
mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from
the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence
of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when
they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single
capital letter. Codd. B and א, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be
reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual
significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in
conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of this
kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,—or indeed
seem to understand.
VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us
with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,—who has
hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what
in the world it can be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the
“Results of Genealogical evidence proper;” and proposes to “determine the
Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.” Impatient for
argument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:—
“The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is
_beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or
Græco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_.”
We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully
noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,—the TEXTUS
RECEPTUS, in short,—is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION” the
“TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.” We shall gratefully avail
ourselves of his candid admission, by and by.
Having thus _assumed_ a “dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the
second half of the IVth century,” Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what
he is pleased to call “_conflate_ Readings,” to prove the “posteriority of
‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other ‘Neutral’ readings.”... Strange method of
procedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we
have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more
delay be shown those specimens of “Conflation” which, in Dr. Hort’s
judgment, supply “the clearest evidence” (p. 94) that “Syrian” are
posterior alike to “Western” and to “Neutral readings.” Of these, after 30
years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that
they have succeeded in detecting _eight_.
IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the
space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will
care to read;—and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by
anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we
have consigned our account of Dr. Hort’s 8 instances of _Conflation_
(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)
And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with
these 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation
put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless
imagination,—a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted
analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and
hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture,
divorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be
submitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we
promise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:—
(_a_) S. Mark’s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which
(collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: א, 870: D,
900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; א, 816:
D, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is
itself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the
question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over
again, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be
compared _with something_,—must perforce all alike be referred to _some
one common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as
every Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most
convenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of
_comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more
conveniently than any other, _reveals_—certainly does not
_occasion_—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)
(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark’s Gospel, only
_three_ in S. Luke’s—_seven_ in all—where Codices B א and D happen to
concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same
words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of
the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last
of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—“This simple instance needs no
explanation” (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the
reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)—א B C L
exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: D, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א
B C L omit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits
καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to
follow either. Tregelles doubts.)
(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to
be a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned
men have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing
theory:—
(_d_) They assume,—(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_
prove _anything_:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are
respectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they
arbitrarily designate as “Western” and “Neutral,” respectively:—(2) That
the latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and
א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_
it must, these learned men forget to explain:]—(3) That in the middle of
the IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with
design and by authority welded together, and became (what the same
irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the “Syrian text.”—(4) That
αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] to be “a Syrian
_Conflation_,” may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)
X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be
called “_a Theory_,”) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate
with our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove
nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For
first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two documents of the
IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for
αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a
notoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies
of the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the
traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their
rival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are
in fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941
(_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες _be two of
the words it omits_,—in which case there has been no “Conflation”?
Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, before we
put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily
in the face:)—and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel,
which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To
state the case differently,—D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_
in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of “Conflation”
under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to
attach to its omission of the clause καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, _mutatis
mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz.
the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness
and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed
“Conflation” unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely
upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587
from Codd. B א D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B
omits 1519: א, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of
B + א and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice.
If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on _six_ occasions, B + א and D have but
_omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no
_“Conflation”; and the (so-called) “Theory,” which was to have
revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely
_upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a
film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.
But further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight
instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—_fail to
exhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been
adduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the
[2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_
12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_
of fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—
[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B א omit 4: D other 4.
[4th]. " " 9 words, B א omit 5: D other 5.
[8th]. " " 5 words, B א omit 2: D other 2.
But if _this_ be “the clearest Evidence” (p. 94) producible for “the
Theory of Conflation,”—then, the less said about the “Theory,” the better
for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual
Theory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to
divine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—_a
dream_, and nothing more.
XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the
insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon
it, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts.
They imagine that they have already been led by “independent Evidence” to
regard “the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier
readings:”—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have
really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or
indirect, for their opinion. “We have found reason to believe” the
Readings of א B L, (say they,) “to be the original Readings.”—But why, if
this is the case, have they kept their “finding” so entirely to
themselves?—_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The
Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that “_it is certain_” that the
Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of
“Conflation” are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings
exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this
“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further
assurance that
“_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate
Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the
Newtonian sense.”
But, once more,—_Where_ and _what_ is the “proof” referred to? May a plain
man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after wasting many precious hours over
these barren pages—be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn
trifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that “_Pickwickian_”—not
“Newtonian”—was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe
for the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)