that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an
authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament
achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were
indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our
confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate
verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church,
in the Nicene age. The _Latin_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 385] is the work of a
single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 616] was also the work of
a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ “Vulgate” was (by the
hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in
her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the
collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with
unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we
should insist that no important deviation from such a “_Textus Receptus_”
as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s
theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at
all_ in fact, it is “all up” with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He
has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.
For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this
way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the
case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of
the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is
really reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE
being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the
Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but
_two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_—or
the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the
whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the
self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but
conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in
fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are
invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION.... All this, of
course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s
“New Textual Theory.”
XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the
supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence,
traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be
fatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an
incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in
history. As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr.
Hort’s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth
centuries,—which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our
own _Received Text_,—came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned.
In the words of a learned living Prelate,—“_the supposition_” on which
Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, “_is a
manifest absurdity_.”(725)
XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary “Antiochian”
or “Syrian text,” not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason.
Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy
tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30
years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a “Syrian” text,—the
immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the
N. T.,—_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the
entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin.
And with it, of necessity, goes the “New Greek Text,”—and therefore the
“_New English Version_” of our Revisionists, which in the main has been
founded on it.
XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been
based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct
us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at
by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on
the practical “identity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and
Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few” (p. 143).
We fully admit the truth of his statement that—
“_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially
differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,”—[and why not of the
VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of
the XIIth?]—“century, was dominant at Antioch.”—(p. 142.)
And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this
continual mention of “_Antioch_”—this perpetual introduction of the
epithet “_Syrian_”? Neither designation applies to Irenæus or to
Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his
namesake of Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to
Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or to the later Cyril.—In
brief,
“The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is,
beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to
call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second
half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers,
and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to
ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater
number of extant variations, a common original _either
contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._”—(p.
92.)
XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question
is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,—_not_,
certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable—so _irrational_ a
conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,—and then again about A.D.
350,—an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which
all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but
transcripts:—but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity
of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable
general fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars
themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And
surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years,
(viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been
faithfully retained and transmitted,—it will be impossible to assign any
valid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard,
should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the
Apostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)—_i.e._ throughout an interval of
less than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.
XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But what has been Drs.
Westcott and Hort’s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis?
and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by
reminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727)
The _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises
Critics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical
authority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under
which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is
easiest of all. But _to ignore_ the “Traditional Text,” is impossible.
Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text
of Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he
became Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance,
and must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from
the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and Stunica,
Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch and Constantinople in the
latter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?
XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this “Antiochian text”—found in
the later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth
century—must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a
text _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so
fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all
will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed “consent of Fathers”
to the reproduction of one and the same single “primary documentary
witness:”(728)—and “it is hardly necessary to point out the total change
in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of
Genealogy_” (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on
the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is
perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined
evidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner,
“the approximate consent of the cursives” (see the foot-note), is
perceived to be equivalent _not_ to “A PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,”—_not_
to “ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,”—but to be tantamount to the articulate
speech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every
quarter_ of primitive Christendom.
XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In favour of which
document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made
to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary
English Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century,
our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to speak plainly—insufficient.
As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two
primitive Versions, “the Syriac and the old Latin,” the second is grossly
corrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) “to a perilous confusion between
transcription and _reproduction_;” “the preservation of a record and _its
supposed improvement_” (p. 121). “Further acquaintance with it only
increases our distrust” (_ibid._). In plainer English, “the earliest
readings which can be fixed chronologically” (p. 120) belong to a Version
which is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though “there
is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as
old as the Latin Version” (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is
“impossible”—(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this
supposed “impossibility” consists),—to regard “_the present form_ of the
Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.” The date of
it (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are
assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important “evidence for the Greek text
is hardly to be looked for from _this_ source” (p. 85).—The Fathers of the
IIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are
but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending
the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.
XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In favour of
_which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more
considerable portion of that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as
belongs to the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto
accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,—
“Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply
affected by mixture that” they “cannot at most count for more than
so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to
the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.”—(p. 202.)
And thus, at a stroke, behold, “almost _all Greek Fathers after
Eusebius_”—(who died A.D. 340)—are disposed of! washed overboard! put
clean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2
Gregories—the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and
Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus and Nonnus—Isidore of
Pelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left
scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are pronounced
_inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We
commend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors
to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as
dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest
which we now possess:—_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors
and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and
irresponsible Scribes):—_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted
Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained
period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without
a history and without a character):—in no such light are we henceforth to
regard Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only “as so many secondary
MSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.”
XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in
some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we were perfectly well aware. It is simply
fatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a
demonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose
is only the following,—If the Text “used by _great Antiochian theologians_
not long after the middle of the IVth century” (p. 146) is undeserving of
our confidence:—if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of
Scripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd
century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of
it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took place at Antioch, and
resulted in the vicious “traditional Constantinopolitan” (p. 143), or (as
Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the “eclectic Syrian Text:”—_What remains to
us_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own “inner consciousness” for
illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the
inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to
the _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide?
If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so
good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment,
we _may_ rely?
XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The
assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,
“B—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout
_Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively
Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have
not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in
any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early
streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable
extent.”—(p. 150.)
“The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)” also “seems to be entirely,
or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text
is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_
elements.”—(p. 151.)
“_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a
Syrian text.”—(p. 151.)
Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret
comes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have
been all along driving at:—the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of
theirs about “Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,”—“Genealogical
evidence, simple and divergent,”—and “the study of Groups:”—the one reason
of all their vague terminology,—and of their baseless theory of
“Conflation,”—and their disparagement of the Fathers:—the one _raison
d’être_ of their fiction of a “Syrian” and a “Pre-Syrian” and a “Neutral”
text:—the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly
Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed
up in the curt formula—_Codex_ B!
Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be
ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely
no appeal:—the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every
riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name
has been pronounced of—codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph
on the floor of the Chapel of S. John’s College, “_Verbum non
amplius—Fisher_”! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must
give way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ “requires
critical sifting” (p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp.
202-5),—if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! “B very far exceeds all
other documents in neutrality of Text.”—(p. 171.)
XLIV. “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all
other MSS., stands א” (p. 171).—Such is the sum of the matter!... A
coarser,—a clumsier,—a more unscientific,—a more _stupid_ expedient for
settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for
the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the
_Introduction_ is encumbered, “Textual Criticism made easy,” might well
have been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at
last it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the
fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.
XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the “General relations of B
and א to other documents:” wherein we are assured that,—
“_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial
clearness. Every group containing both א and B, _is found_ ... to
have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group
containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in
a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more
original Text_ than every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)
“_Is found_”! but pray,—_By whom?_ And “_apparently_”! but pray,—_To
whom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_
grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us “two
striking _facts_”?
Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these
“two striking facts” “come out with _especial clearness_”? so long as
their very existence remains _in nubibus_,—has never been established, and
is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only
begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has
some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but
impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being
trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous
for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however.
We are still at p. 210:—
“We found א and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity
from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above א in
its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian
readings.”—(p. 210.)
But pray, gentlemen,—_Where_ and _when_ did “we find” either of these two
things? We have “found” nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is
disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington’s courteous reply to the
Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in
the victory of Waterloo:—“_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.”...
At the end of a few pages,
“_Having found_ א B the constant element in groups of every size,
distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no
less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other
attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p.
219.)
What! again? Why, we “_have found_” nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to
this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In
the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not,
unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they
proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,
“The independence [of B and א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a
hint is given _how_,)—“that their concordant testimony may be
treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and B
themselves by at least two centuries,—_probably_ by a generation
or two more.”
How _that_ “independence” was established, and how _this_ “probability”
has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to
however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D.
100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,
“The respective ancestries of א and B must have diverged from a
common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.”—(p. 220.
See top of p. 221.)
Or that,—“_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the
presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)
And lo, before we turn the leaf, this “presumption” is found to have
ripened into certainty:—
“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common
original of א B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity,
provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness,
not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence.
Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of א B _should
be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence
is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ א B _can
be safely rejected absolutely_.”—(p. 225.)
XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration,
accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have
reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending:
viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and א above all other
codices,—and, when they differ, then of codex B.
And yet, the “immunity from substantive error” of a _lost_ Codex of
_imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure
imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these
respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz.
to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as
“_a safe criterion of genuineness_,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse
of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א and B
to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer
matter of conjecture:—
“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source
_not much later than the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 247.)
And again:—
“_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and א
_must have been to the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 273.)
Until at last, we find it announced as a “moral certainty:”—
“_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and א _diverged
from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact
subsequently.”—(_Text_, p. 556.)
After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured
that:—
“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that
their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately
_absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the
Autographs_”—(p. 296.)