however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass
that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and
perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like
the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly
inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort’s mathematical
training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had
no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process
necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader’s mind. Surely,
(one tells oneself,) a minimum of “pass” Logic would have effectually
protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging
exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has
produced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and
א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance
that, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and
especially the former of them, has “preserved not only a very ancient
Text, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_” also (p. 251), his entire
work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically
handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the
first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look
for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no
thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration,
however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.
“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville
to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views,
Rouser’s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the
same words,—_only in a louder tone of voice_” ... The delicate rhetorical
device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the
University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of
conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be
serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short
of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious
footnotes, or an “Appendix” bristling with impregnable facts,—could
sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex
B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief
guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.
It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had
to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear
up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work
which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire
area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and
proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The “wise
master-builder” was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so
Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar
anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are
evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn
every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen
already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual “STRONG
PREFERENCE” of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to
determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or
the contrary. “_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,”
he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own “_fullest
consideration of Internal Evidence_” has “pronounced certain Readings to
be right” [p. 61].
The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr.
Hort’s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim
that,—
“Every binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a
large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have
THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any
Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full
consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is
repeated.)
XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate
principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N.
T. “_The ring of genuineness_”! _This_ it must be which was referred to
when “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” were vaunted; and the candid
avowal made that “the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual
correction and recorrection.”(729)
“We are obliged” (say these accomplished writers) “to _come to the
individual mind at last_.”(730)
And thus, behold, “at last” we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual
idiosyncrasy_,—_not_ external Evidence:—Readings “_strongly
preferred_,”—_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:—“_personal discernment_”
(self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_
B;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these
accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim “_personal discernment_” as
“the surest ground for confidence.”(731) Accordingly, they judge of
Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion,
words “look suspicious,” words are to be rejected. If a word has “the ring
of genuineness,”—(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)—they claim
that the word shall pass unchallenged.
XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It
practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting
individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible
result: for Readings which “look suspicious” to one expert, may easily
_not_ “look” so to another. A man’s “inner consciousness” cannot possibly
furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp.
Ellicott ridicule “the easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,”
combined with “_some supposed power of divining the Original
Text_;”(732)—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow
at certain of his friends.
As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a
reading has “the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent
mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a “rough and
ready” expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of
self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should
be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous
test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected
article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course,
because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort
would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated;
but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons “plenty as
blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional
inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds “_no marks of
either Critical or Spiritual insight_” (p. 135) in the only Greek Text
which was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,—(although he confesses that
“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is
substantially identical with it”(733)); and vaunts in preference “_the
bold vigour_” and “_refined scholarship_” which is exclusively met with in
certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it
not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side
(ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of
S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)—the man who is
of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12
verses), “presents serious differences from the diction of S. John’s
Gospel,”—treats it as “an insertion in a comparatively late Western
text”(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground
that it “would fatally interrupt” the course of the narrative if suffered
to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S.
Mark’s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark’s last 12 verses, (on the
plea that they “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are
doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”(736))—yet who
straightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (ἄλλως),
“the wretched supplement derived from codex L:”(737)—the man (lastly) who,
in defiance of “solid reason and pure taste,” finds music in the “utterly
marred” “rhythmical arrangement” of the Angels’ Hymn on the night of the
Nativity:(738)—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks
about “_the ring of genuineness_.” He has already effectually put himself
out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of
judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical
inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees
nugatory, and his opinions worthless.
L. But apart from all this, the Reader’s attention is invited to a little
circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the
instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to
melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.
On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of
codices B א D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits
2877 words.
How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to a
_Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not
exist in the Text_ has “the ring of genuineness” or not? There can be _no_
“ring of genuineness,” clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will
any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of
the pool has in it any “ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that “the
ring of genuineness” is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR’S Passion,
by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His
Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers
has been _omitted_?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has
“the ring of genuineness” as the conclusion of the last chapter of the
Gospel according to S. Mark?
But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the
contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted
words_ actually _have_ “the ring of genuineness.” The words which he
insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very
quality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of
this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of
the present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be
conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—
Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated
to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge
Doctor—were the most musical in the world. “I have listened to those
bells,” (he was accustomed to say,) “for 30 years. All other bells are
cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S.
Bee’s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.” ... Accordingly, he
published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical
properties of the bells of S. Bee’s.—At this juncture, provokingly enough,
some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee’s is one of
the few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it
is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor’s theory.
LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached
the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort’s extravagant and
unsupported estimate of Codices B and א. On the contrary. Those two
documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to
darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the
announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for
particular readings,
“_The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy
circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and
א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional
purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence
of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p.
287.)
In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to
codices B and א,—(which, he naïvely remarks, “_happen likewise to be the
oldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament” [p. 212],)—lies all our
hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of these
two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary
cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)...
Moreover, Dr. Hort “must not hesitate to express” his own robust
conviction,
“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected, _except in
accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have
endeavoured to explain_.”—(p. 285.)
LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1)
Codices B and א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction and Notes
on Select Readings_ in vindication of their contents! It is proposed to
shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly
suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to
light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and
reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it
down:—
“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text
[_i.e._ of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort] _from any
acquisition of new Evidence_.”—(p. 285.)
And yet, _why_ the anticipation of important help from the acquisition of
fresh documentary Evidence “would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That
the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still,
of Tatian’s _Diatessaron_,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of
Codices B and א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from
one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will
come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and
Hort’s equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most
confident conclusions,—we are well aware. _So indeed are they._ Hence,
what those Critics earnestly deprecate, _we_ as earnestly desire. We are
therefore by no means inclined to admit, that
“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of
the relations between the documents that we already
possess;”—(_Ibid._)
knowing well that “_the documents_” referred to are chiefly, (if not
solely,) _Codices_ B _and_ א: knowing also, that it is further meant, that
in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be
enquired after is whether or no the attesting document _is generally in
agreement with codex_ B.
For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codex B is to be the
standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_
extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_
assertion,) that,
“_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be
lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)
And yet,—_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater
indulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail
to see.
On the other hand, “_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the
concord of the independent attestation of B and א.”—(_Notes_, p.
46.)
But pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and א are derived from one and
the same original—Why should not “the concord” spoken of be rather “an
unique criterion”_ of the utter depravity of the archetype_?
LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And
now, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest
link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must
be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream,
pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now
that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these
Editors have been all along building. A child’s house, several stories
high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail
erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story;
and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble.
The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole
edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved
assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—
(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and א is not a matter
of opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least
trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort’s
position that—“A Text formed” by “taking Codex B as the sole authority,”
“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from
any other Greek or other single document” (p. 251),—we venture to assert
that it would be, on the contrary, _by far the foulest Text that had ever
seen the light_: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs.
Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and
faithful words of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),—words
which deserve to become famous,—
“It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the
worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been
subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was
composed: that Irenæus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and
the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far
inferior manuscripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or
Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus
Receptus.”
And Codices B and א are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the
depraved class thus characterized_.
Next—(2), We assert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and
_exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and א,(741) that instead of accepting
these codices as two “independent” Witnesses to the inspired Original, we
are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction
of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy.
By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any
particular reading, “_an unique criterion_” of its worthlessness; a
sufficient reason—_not_ for adopting, but—for unceremoniously rejecting
it.
Then—(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only
be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is
demonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,—persevered in for any number
of centuries,—could by possibility have resulted in two such documents.
Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100
years,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt
ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving
influences. The result is, that codex א, (which evidently has gone through
more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been
corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more
untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings
_quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,—א has 1460 such Readings,
affecting 2640 words.
One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in passing,)
is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the
value of a Codex, than any number of such “reckless and unverified
assertions,” not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the
highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.
(4) Lastly,—We suspect that these two Manuscripts are indebted for their
preservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has
occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a
forgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising
the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually
(viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the
Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and א been copies of average
purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books
which are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen
into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold,
their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and
(strange to relate) is even considered to constitute a sufficient reason
why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the
actual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied
with one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these
“two false Witnesses,”—for such B and א _are_, as the concurrent testimony
of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superstitious
reverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and
Hort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their
blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.
LIV. With this,—so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,—we
might, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show
that Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an
utterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already
sufficiently shown it. The Theory,—the Hypothesis rather, on which their
Text is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that
hypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left
behind,—except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the
simplicity of its accomplished Authors.
Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the
matter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must
perforce look on with utter perplexity—not to say distress—at the strange
spectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the
Revised English Version_) on the one hand,—and _this_ Review of it, on the
other:—
(1) “And pray, which of you am I to believe?”—will inevitably be, in
homely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the
present number of the “_Quarterly_.” “I pretend to no learning. I am not
prepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Manuscript
_must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?—Then further,
I admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet,
since the three most famous Editors of modern times are against
you,—Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,—excuse me if I suspect that you
_must_ be in the wrong, after all.”
LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain
the matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as
follows:—
_Q. R._ “You are perfectly right. The oldest Manuscript _must_ exhibit the
purest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it
happens that _we do not possess it_. ‘The oldest Manuscript’ is lost. You
speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long
since disappeared.”
(2) _S. O._ “No, I meant to say that the _oldest Manuscript we possess_,
if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest.”
_Q. R._ “O, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart
from experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove
the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you
however that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based
upon more than one false assumption,—with which nevertheless you shall not
be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that,
_because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits
will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,—(and it
is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a
prepossession which has fatally misled so many,)—you are invited to
enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication
indicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a
fac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written
about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus.
Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been
penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let
the learned Editor of the document in question be listened to, rather than
the present Reviewer:—
“On voit que le texte du papyrus est hérissé des fautes les plus
graves. _Le plus récent et le plus mauvais de nos manuscrits
d’Euripide vaut infiniment mieux que cette copie,—faite, il y a
deux mille ans, dans le pays où florissaient l’érudition
hellénique et la Critique des textes._”(745)—(p. 17.)
“Why, the author of the foregoing remarks might have been writing
concerning Codex B!”
(3) _S. O._ “Yes: but I want _Christian_ evidence. The author of that
scrap of papyrus _may_ have been an illiterate slave. What if it should be
a _school-boy’s exercise_ which has come down to us? The thing is not
impossible.”