Treatise. I will not, however, withhold a slight outline of what I
conceive to be the only safe method of procedure. I could but _fill up_
that outline, and _illustrate_ that method, even if I had 500 pages at my
disposal.
LVIII. “On first seriously applying ourselves to these studies, many years
ago, we found it wondrous difficult to divest ourselves of prepossessions
very like your own. Turn which way we would, we were encountered by the
same confident terminology:—‘the best documents,’—‘primary
manuscripts,’—‘first-rate authorities,’—‘primitive evidence,’—‘ancient
readings,’—and so forth: and we found that thereby cod. A. or B,—cod. C or
D—were _invariably and exclusively meant_. It was not until we had
laboriously collated these documents (including א) for ourselves, that we
became aware of their true character. Long before coming to the end of our
task (and it occupied us, off and on, for eight years) we had become
convinced that the supposed ‘best documents’ and ‘first-rate authorities’
are in reality among _the worst_:—that these Copies deserve to be called
‘primary,’ only because in any enumeration of manuscripts, they stand
foremost;—and that their ‘Evidence,’ whether ‘primitive’ or not, is
_contradictory_ throughout.—_All_ Readings, lastly, we discovered are
‘ancient.’
“A diligent inspection of a vast number of later Copies scattered
throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and the exact Collation of a
few, further convinced us that the deference generally claimed for B, א,
C, D is nothing else but a weak superstition and a vulgar error:—that the
date of a MS. is not of its essence, but is a mere accident of the
problem:—and that later Copies, so far from ‘crumbling down salient
points, softening irregularities, conforming differences,’(765) and so
forth,—on countless occasions, _and as a rule_,—preserve those delicate
lineaments and minute refinements which the ‘old uncials’ are constantly
observed to obliterate. And so, rising to a systematic survey of the
entire field of Evidence, we found reason to suspect more and more the
soundness of the conclusions at which Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf
had arrived: while we seemed led, as if by the hand, to discern plain
indications of the existence for ourselves of a far ‘more excellent way.’
LIX. “For, let the ample and highly complex provision which Divine Wisdom
hath made for the effectual conservation of that crowning master-piece of
His own creative skill,—THE WRITTEN WORD,—be duly considered; and surely a
recoil is inevitable from the strange perversity which in these last days
would shut us up within the limits of a very few documents to the neglect
of all the rest,—as though a revelation from Heaven had proclaimed that
the Truth is to be found exclusively in _them_. The good Providence of the
Author of Scripture is discovered to have furnished His household, the
Church, with (speaking roughly) 1000 copies of the Gospels:—with twenty
Versions—two of which go back to the beginning of Christianity: and with
the writings of a host of ancient Fathers. _Why_ out of those 1000 MSS.
_two_ should be singled out by Drs. Westcott and Hort for special
favour,—to the practical disregard of all the rest: _why_ Versions and
Fathers should by them be similarly dealt with,—should be practically set
aside in fact in the lump,—we fail to discover. Certainly the pleas urged
by the learned Editors(766) can appear satisfactory to no one but to
themselves.
LX. “For our method then,—It is the direct contradictory to that adopted
by the two Cambridge Professors. Moreover, it conducts us throughout to
directly opposite results. We hold it to be even axiomatic that a Reading
which is supported by only one document,—out of the 1100 (more or less)
already specified,—whether that solitary unit be a FATHER, a VERSION, or a
COPY,—stands self-condemned; may be dismissed at once, without concern or
enquiry.
“Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few
colleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary
document. Associated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt
א. Nay, six leaves of א are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have
been written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the
Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes
join the conspiracy,—and that the same Reading should find allies in
certain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton’s Syriac:—all
_this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in
our account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be
allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr.
Hort’s dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain
documents to fall into ‘groups:’ though his assertion that ‘it cannot be
too often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all
enduring Criticism_,’(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.
LXI. “So far negatively.—A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact,
of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method
which,—without prejudice or partiality,—simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF
THE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST
RESPECTABLE, AND—above all things—THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a
Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the
latest available evidence,—we hold to be a prime circumstance in its
favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in
sanctioning it,—we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers,
living in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to
recognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,—we have met with
all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be
further discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence,
and our confidence becomes absolute.
LXII. “An instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768)
may be conveniently appealed to in illustration of what goes before. Our
LORD’S ‘Agony and bloody sweat,’—first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D.
150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is
duly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of
forty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient
Christendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,—Variety of
testimony,—Respectability of witnesses,—or Number,—is considered, the
evidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet
out of superstitious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs.
Westcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of
spuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves ‘morally
certain’ that this is nothing else but a ‘Western Interpolation:’ whereas,
mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the
suppression of these two verses in a few early manuscripts. This has been
explained already,—namely, in the middle of page 82.
LXIII. “Only one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of
S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but
four_—3 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. א B D. The Versions
are divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from
every part of ancient Christendom,—(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia
Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)—come back to attest that the traditional
reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new
school, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the
Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the
possibility of complicity in error in א B D: error in respect of _a single
letter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been
offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.
LXIV. “It will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for
consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence:
setting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially;
and adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a
document as Clement of Alexandria’s copy of the Gospels proves to have
been—(described at pp. 326-31)—is by no means without critical value.
Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but,
judiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded
rather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul documents, (_e.g._
B א C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice
and caprice of modern Critics;—that venerable document, with all its
faults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it
witnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31—(the
place of Scripture above referred to(769))—in several important
particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;—against
Tischendorf, 10 times;—against Tregelles, 11 times;—against Westcott and
Hort, 12 times.
“We deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state
of imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading
which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation.
Antiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can
persuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely
disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,—we fail to
understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But
indeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely
demonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have
done,) with special superstitious deference to a _single codex,_—we deem
it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from
its apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity,
and remain horizontal for ever.”
And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the
end of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately,
at page 337.
LXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no
unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach
the end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which
all that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the
further awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went
before absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory
could have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been
excogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has
_entirely sprung._
Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort’s volume becomes absolutely without
coherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks
on B and א. The fable of “the _Syrian_ text” is invented solely for the
glorification of B and א,—which are claimed, of course, to be
“_Pre_-Syrian.” This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear
that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for
ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a
forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;—Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been
deposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at
the foot of Mount Sinai,—from which he rescued it on the 4th February,
1859:—neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline
to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown
Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished
gentlemen imagine.
Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to
the 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many
venerable FATHERS,—_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy
authority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than
either Codex B or Codex א,—aye, or than both of them put together. Behold,
(we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the
safety of the Deposit: the “threefold cord” which “is not quickly broken”!
We hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we
altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,—which
is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify
two of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other
reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they “_happen_ likewise to
be the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament.” (p. 212.)
LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for
our own parts have been perfectly well content to pass it by without a
syllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the
personal reputation of a couple of Scholars—at home or abroad—we can
afford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their
private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the
_Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their
discomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the
mire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous
Doctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom.
Our Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her
pale, ready at a moment’s notice to do her right: to expose shallow
sciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed
to her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on
the contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to
enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,—yes, have even taken
into partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal Godhead
of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,—in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the
world of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have
sunk among us?
LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after
all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of
English-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe.
These have had the title-deeds by which they hold their priceless
birthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the
amount of mischief which must follow, if the “_New Greek Text_” which has
been put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English
Authorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our
Colleges,—should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?...
But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a
digression.
A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the
Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be
constructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw—without brick._
LXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none
of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be
expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again
Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to
Cod. א,—unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,—must
also remain a riddle. If _one_ of the “old uncials” must needs be taken as
a guide,—(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed
to lord it over the rest,)—we should rather have expected that Cod. A
would have been selected,(774)—the text of which “Stands in broad contrast
to those of either B or א, though the interval of years [between it and
them] is probably small.” (p. 152.) “By a curious and apparently unnoticed
coincidence,” (proceeds Dr. Hort,) “its Text in several books agrees with
the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin
attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by
Jerome”—[and why not “THE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome”?]—“in his
Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common
original with A.” (_Ibid_.)
Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the
Critics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some
attestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_
to the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,
“Apart from this individual affinity, A—both in the Gospels and
elsewhere—may serve as _a fair example of the Manuscripts that,_ to judge
by Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._”—(p. 152.)
O but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose
then,—(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least
allowable,)—suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of
codices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as
Cod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men’s
minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B
and its henchman א, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such “an eleven” would
safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may
any day become a fact; for he informs us,—(and we are glad to be able for
once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)—that such
manuscripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_—“_were commonest_ in the
IVth century,” when codices B and א were written. We presume that then, as
now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.
LXIX. But—what need to say it?—we entirely disallow any such narrowing of
the platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied
and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in
error exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,—a
difficult passage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon,
because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which
_entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,—who yet (as we shall
show) have been, one and all, mistaken in substituting “_him_” (αὐτόν) for
“_himself_” (ἑαυτόν).... We venture to bespeak the Reader’s attention
while we produce the passage in question, and briefly examine it. He is
assured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the
Revisionists’ fatal method in every page:—
LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the
mere recipient of the new birth (ὁ ΓΕΝΝΗΘΕῚΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ),—and the man who
retains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received
when he became regenerate (ὁ ΓΕΓΕΝΝΗΜΈΝΟΣ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). The latter (he
says) “_sinneth not_:” the former, (he says,) “_keepeth himself, and the
Evil One toucheth him not_.” So far, all is intelligible. The nominative
is the same in both cases. Substitute however “keepeth _him_ (αὐτόν),” for
“keepeth _himself_ (ἑαυτόν),” and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), ὁ
γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of GOD.
And yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as ὁ
γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of
the place; which he translates,—“he that hath been begotten of GOD, _it
keepeth him_.”
LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,—(instead of tampering with
the text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation
or apology,_)—our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,—But (1)
What have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3)
What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be—(1) _All the copies except
three,_(777) read “himself.”—(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)—so
do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and Æthiopic
versions.(779)—(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)—Didymus clearly 4
times,(781)—Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)—Severus also
twice,(783)—Theophylact expressly,(784)—and Œcumenius.(785)—So, indeed,
Cod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786)
The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the
Revisionists, is found to have been—_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_
at Moscow.
This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the
Revisionists,) “decidedly preponderating evidence.” In his account,
“_plain and clear error_” dwells with their Revision. But this may be
because,—(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the
Revising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and
Bristol,)—the “Quarterly Reviewer” is “_innocently ignorant of the now
established principles of Textual Criticism._”(787)
LXXII. “It is easy,”—(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf
and that of his co-Revisionists,)—“to put forth to the world a sweeping
condemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to
be _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual
Criticism._”
May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse
Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one
particular:—to refer vaguely to “established principles of Textual
Criticism,” instead of stating which they be:—to sneer contemptuously at
endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are
entitled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead
of showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put
the following question to any fair-minded man:—Whether of these two is the
more facile and culpable proceeding;—(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired
word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as
in this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:—or,
(2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by
diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours:
and to set them on a basis of (_hitherto unobserved_) evidence, from which
(_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?
This only will the Reviewer add,—That if it be indeed one of the “now
established principles of Textual Criticism,” that the evidence of _two
manuscripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_
997-½,—(2) The whole body of the Versions,—(3) _Every Father who quotes
the place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,—and (4) _The strongest possible
internal Evidence_:—if all this _indeed_ be so,—he devoutly trusts that he
may be permitted to retain his “Innocence” to the last; and in his
“Ignorance,” when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in
death.—And now to proceed.
LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superstition and Idolatry is ever the same.
Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial
forms. Interminable doubt,—wretched misbelief,—childish
credulity,—judicial blindness,—are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The
mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence,
is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is
_demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine.
Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for
historical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence,
or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,—who condemn the
“last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;” which have been
accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800
years;—nevertheless accept as the genuine “_Diatessaron of Tatian_” [A.D.
170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not
even claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)