‘Western’ and other (neutral and ‘Alexandrian’) Readings, shown by
Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.”
In which however we are really “shown” nothing of the sort. _Bold
Assertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he
never attempts any. Not a particle of “Evidence” is adduced.—Next come 5
pages headed,—“Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other
(neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings” (p.
115).
But again we are “_shown_” absolutely nothing: although we are treated to
the assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, “the Syrian
conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least
two ancient forms still extant” (p. 115): which is the very thing they
have signally failed to do. Next,
“Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and
also a third, must have already existed early in the third
century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in
the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been
formed.”
Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one
single ancient Father_!—
“Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings
distinctively Syrian.”—(_Ibid._)
And yet we are never told which the “Readings distinctively Syrian”
_are_,—although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are
we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is
unfortunate, since “it follows,”—(though we entirely fail to see from
_what_,)—“that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once
as certainly originating after the middle of the third century.” (p. 117)
... Let us hear a little more on the subject:—
“The same _Facts_”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us
with _any_)—“lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater
importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since
the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier
Texts independently attested,”—
(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the
problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),—
“existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but
itself.”—(p. 118.)
Presently, we are informed that “it follows from what has been said
above,”—(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)—“that all Readings in
which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the
Apostolic Readings_:” and that “all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be
at once rejected_.”—(p. 119.)
Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes
apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way
of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his
secret to any who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We look
back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded
that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should
henceforth speak of certain “groups of documents,” by the conventional
names “Western”—“Pre-Syrian”—“Alexandrian”—and so forth. Accordingly, ever
since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719))
we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to
accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not
till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully
aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time
too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither
he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has
been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying
the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the
present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and
what is Dr. Hort’s actual contention.
XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint
Editor,(720)—(as well it may)—is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New
Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text
of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or
the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;—the fact
remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general
consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at
all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity
of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet
forgotten his virtual admission that,—_Beyond all question the Textus
Receptus_ is _the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D.
400.(721)
Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially
_the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its
lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an
excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead
critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will
venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T.
which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of
Griesbach’s school.
XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which is identical with
the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore
reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)—is _that_
contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are
codices B א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one
hand,—cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits
of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and
scandalous defects and blemishes:—_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their
paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when
_that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient
Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,—namely, to
embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:—_such_ for the last 50 years has
been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among
ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been
the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has
come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as
bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in
every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among
the monuments of the Past. Even to have “used the Received Text _as a
basis for correction_” (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one “great
cause” why Griesbach went astray.
XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in
this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional
Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which
documents however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the
“Traditional Text” which they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing
just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek
to justify their preference.—LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very
few of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged
the area of his predecessor’s observations, his method was practically
identical with that of Lachmann.—TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known
authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has
himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—_there_ his verdict
is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical,
more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be
conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more
hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their
credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must
needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will
inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge
it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient
resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.
XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that the Received or
Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) “_is virtually
identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the
latter part of the IVth century_:” and fully alive to the fact that it
“_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which
are now surviving_” (_Text_, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary
Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:—
They assume that the writings of Origen “establish the prior existence of
at least three types of Text:”—the most clearly marked of which, they call
the “Western:”—another, less prominent, they designate as
“Alexandrian:”—the third holds (they say) a middle or “Neutral” position.
(That all this is mere _moonshine_,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall
insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors
are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing with the creations of
their own brain.) “The priority of two at least of these three Texts just
noticed to the Syrian Text,” they are confident has been established by
the eight “_conflate_” Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they
have already resolved into their “Western” and “Neutral” elements (_Text_,
p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to
hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion
for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure
which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away
(pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.
At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the
characteristics of “Western” (pp. 120-6), of “Neutral” (126-30), and of
“Alexandrian” Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance
that—
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,” “is
the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)
“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to
contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p.
133.)
Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually
identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an
imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made
attentive.
“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a ‘_Recension_,’
... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by
Scribes.”—(_Ibid._)
But _why_ “must” it? Instead of “_must in fact_,” we are disposed to read
“_may—in fiction_.” The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the
Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to
himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted.
Then,—Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what
imaginable reason should cod. B,—which comes to us without a character,
and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted
of “_universa vitiositas_,” (to use Tischendorf’s expression);—_why_ (we
ask) should _codex_ B be upheld “contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort
proceeds—(still speaking of “_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_”),—
“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient
currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same
region.”—(p. 133.)
Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if “the currency of at
least three conflicting Texts in the same region,” had been first
_demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this
“distracting” phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any
existence in _fact_, what possible “probability” can be claimed for the
history of a “Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point, _has not
been proved to have ever taken place at all_?
“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading
personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation
of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)
Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps
may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or
Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:” but then, be it remembered, this will
only have been possible,—(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_:
and—(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which
prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have
the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the
Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately
invented.(723)
But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such
Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,—what else but a
purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort
should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or
would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?
Having however in this way (1) Assumed a “Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented
the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into
execution,—the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical
result_ in the following terms:—
“The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have
most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They
were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the
way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without
recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally
desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter
contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse
the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions
accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to
contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the
other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or
other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in
matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full
Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and
supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable
Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the
‘Western’ scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the
‘Alexandrians,’ the spirit of its own corrections is at once
sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or
religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet
_shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it
presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but
appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for
cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent
study_.”—(pp. 134-5.)
XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought
uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of “the critical and
spiritual” perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We
prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,)
which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of
the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been
high time to discuss the characteristics which “the Authors of the Syrian
Text” impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at
least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed
Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this
distinguished and highly imaginative writer.
XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr.
Hort’s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls
“Syrian” or “Antiochian,” is the fact that what he so designates bears a
most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version;
which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally
assigned to the second century of our era. “It is at any rate no stretch
of imagination,” (according to Bp. Ellicott,) “to suppose that portions of
it might have been in the hands of S. John.” [p. 26.] Accordingly, these
Editors assure us that—
“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to
suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent
Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS.
represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p.
136.)
“A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken
place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some
connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the
readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(_Text_, 552.)
“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which
it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,”—_a
Syriac _“Vulgate”_ answering to the Latin _“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)
“Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the
locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision
however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported
conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)
In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as “Cureton’s
Syriac,” is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving
specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_
designated by these authors as “the old Syriac;” and referred to, as “syr.
vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin “_vetus_”): the venerable Peschito being
referred to as the “Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”
“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between
the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers
of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences,
(be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the
Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the
inspired autographs;]—“and _strong indications_ that the Revision
_was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,—_it
becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some
historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)
XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without
offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is
supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should
habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_
of a “Revision” of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been
_demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of
demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“_To suppose_” that such a
Revision took place: and (2)—“_To suppose_” that all our existing
Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is
produced why we should be so complaisant as “to suppose” either the one
thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to
assure us that there exist “strong indications”—(why are we not _shown_
them?)—that the Revision he speaks of was “deliberate, and in some way
authoritative.”
Out of this grows a “natural supposition” that “two [purely imaginary]
operations,” “had some _historical connexion_.” Already therefore has the
shadow thickened into a substance. “The _Revised_ Syriac Text” has by this
time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came
into being is even assumed to have been “deliberate and authoritative.”
These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the “_Syriac_ Vulgate,”—as
confidently as Jerome’s Revision of the old Latin is styled the “_Latin_
Vulgate.” They even assure us that “Cureton’s Syriac” “renders the
comparatively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter
of certainty_” (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent
Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with “_tolerable certainty_” (p.
136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?
At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the
hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer
announces that—“The textual elements of each principle document _having
being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy
of a much larger number of individual readings than before_” (_Text_, p.
552).—We read and marvel.
So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that,
somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,
“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an
authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as
standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac
text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second
authoritative Revision”—this “final process” having been
“apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)
XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a
series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation
and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is
entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of
dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and
accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its
entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that _all_ he
tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually
did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize
the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably
pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to
ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter
as we please.
Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say
with confidence” [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors
evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_
A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four
great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the
prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective
churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an
authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of
all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the
hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or
Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose
language was Syriac,” [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the
project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the
only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally
prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. “The _almost total
extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant
_Vulgate Syriac MSS._,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits
evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of
the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by
the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton’s Syriac as
“_singular and sometimes rather wild_.” “_The text, of a very composite
nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the
Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic
character of text as the Codex Bezæ_.” [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an
_utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)