mistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and
Hort solemnly assured their brother-Revisionists that “the prevalent
assumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found
_somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of
experience_.” They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral
suspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.
Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of “removing
Corruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant documents_” (p. 71).
We are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,—
“The _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on
personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even
more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely
plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a
critical operation founded on knowledge and method.”—(p. 71.)
LXXIV. _Very_ “easy,” certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort’s skill in this
department, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,)
shall be cited in illustration. We venture to commend it to the attention
of our Readers:—
(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over
the Church of Ephesus,) to “_hold fast_” a certain “_form_” or “pattern”
(ὑποτύπωσιν) “_of sound words_, _which_” (said he) “_thou hast heard of
me_.” The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables
the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his
solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he
had syllabled, (ὑγιαινόντων λόγων ὯΝ παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἤκουσασ). As learned Bp.
Beveridge well points out,—“_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast
heard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_
themselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast.”(789)
All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. “This sense” (says the
learned Professor) “cannot be obtained from the text except by treating ὧν
as put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It
seems more probable that ὧν is a _primitive corruption_ of ὅν after
πάντων.”
Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ὅν nor πάντων occurs anywhere
in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed “unusual and inexplicable
attraction,” it happens to be one of even common occurrence,—as every
attentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen
at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,—also (in Dr. Hort’s text of) Ephes. i. 6
(ἧς in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether ᾗ or ὧν is read):
and vi. 38 (ῷ):—in S. Jo. xv. 20 (οὗ):—and xvii. 11 (ᾧ): in Acts ii. 22
(οἷς): vii. 17 (ἧς) and 45 (ὧν): in xxii. 15 (ὧν),&c.... But why entertain
the question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect
of a reading which is found _in every known MS.,—in every known
Version,—in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines,
and Scholars who were not Divines,—Critics of the Text, and grammarians
who were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,—Editors of the Greek
and Translators of the Greek into other languages,—all alike have
acquiesced in, from the beginning until now.
We venture to assert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence
of evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is
absolutely no safeguard for Scripture—no limit to Controversy—if a place
like this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice.
(For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort
is forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and
subscribed “H.”) In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the
self-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which
precede; and yet congratulates himself on “_personal endowments, fertility
of resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_”?
(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4,
where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on “the Passover” (τὸ πάσχα),—in
defiance of _every known Manuscript,—every known Version_,—and _every
Father who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_
devoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial
are his _Notes_, that countless “various Readings” of great interest and
importance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are
dismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2
Thessalonians),—_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the
Philippians.
(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having
conjecturally thrust out τὸ πάσχα from S. John vi. 4,—that Dr. Hort is for
conjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, Υἱοῦ (after τοῦ ἰδίου),—an
imagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is
not able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our
reading, “to feed the Church of GOD, which He purchased”—(not “with _His
own_ blood,” but)—“with the _blood of His own_ SON:” which has evidently
been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting
rid of a text which unequivocally asserts that CHRIST is GOD.(791)
LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such
suggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be
astonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises
us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of
Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent
new Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting
ones. He who seeks to thrust out “THE PASSOVER” from S. John vi. 4, (where
it may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust “THE SON” into
Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand
Theological statement);—will do well to consider whether he does not bring
himself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved
Disciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:—“I testify unto
every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,—If any man
shall _add unto_ these things, GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are
written in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of
the Book of this prophecy, GOD shall take away his part out of the Book of
Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in
this Book.”(793)
May we be allowed to assure Dr. Hort that “CONJECTURAL EMENDATION” CAN BE
ALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?
He will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be
permitted to remind him that “it is now agreed among competent judges that
_Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,—even in passages of
acknowledged difficulty”?
There is in fact no need for it,—nor can be: so very ample, as well as so
very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.
LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us.
They propose “the definite question,”—
“ ‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are
_constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to recognize the existence
of Textual error in _all_ extant documents?’ To this question we
have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.”—(p. 279.)
Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They
flatter themselves that they are able to produce “_overwhelming evidence_”
in proof that there are places where _every extant document_ is in error.
The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter’s prophetic announcement
(2 Pet. iii. 10), that in “the day of the LORD,” “the earth and the works
that are therein _shall be burned up_” (κατακαήσεται).
This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when
men knew no better. Thus, Cod. C substitutes—“_shall vanish away_:”(794)
the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“_shall not be found_,” (apparently
in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the “not” was
accidentally omitted(795) in some very ancient exemplar;—or else because
it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his
simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latin
_urerentur_,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted “_hang hog_” to be Latin
for “bacon,”)—codices א and B (with four others of later date) exhibit
“_shall be found_,”(796)—which obviously makes utter nonsense of the
place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort’s text: _in
consequence of which_, the margin of our “Revised Version” is disfigured
with the statement that “The most ancient manuscripts read _discovered_.”)
But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional
reading?—supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the
Latin,(797)—the Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides
the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,(798) and
John Damascene(799) once?... As for pretending, at the end of the
foregoing enquiry, that “we are _constrained by overwhelming evidence_ to
recognize the existence of textual error _in all extant documents_,”—it is
evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.
LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort’s view of “the
existence of corruptions” of the Text “antecedent to all existing
authority,”(800)—falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such
corruptions “will sooner or later have to be acknowledged,” may be
dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not
presume to forecast the Future.
The one “matter of fact,” which at every step more and more impresses an
attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,—(1st), The utterly
depraved character of Codices B and א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation
of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices “_stand alone
in their almost complete immunity from error:_”(801)—that “the fullest
comparison does but increase the conviction that _their pre-eminent
relative purity is approximately absolute_.”(802)
LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves the question, while
studying these laborious pages,)—How does it happen that a scholar like
Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the
creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice
while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not
hitherto expressed our astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an
end,—that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own
arbitrary use of such expressions as “Pre-Syrian” and “Neutral,”—“Western”
and “Alexandrian,”—“Non-Western” and “Non-Alexandrian,”—“Non-Alexandrian
Pre-Syrian” and “Pre-Syrian Non-Western,”—will produce any (except an
irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.
The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a
Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes of logical proof, might
possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there
are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if
there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it
to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30
years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the
favour of candid criticism.
Has no friend ever reminded him that assertions concerning the presence or
absence of a “Syrian” or a “Pre-Syrian,” a “Western” or a “Non-Western
_element_,” are but wind,—the merest chaff and draff,—_apart from proof_?
Repeated _ad nauseam_, and employed with as much peremptory precision as
if they were recognized terms connoting distinct classes of
Readings,—(whereas they are absolutely without significancy, except, let
us charitably hope, to him who employs them);—such expressions would only
be allowable on the part of the Critic, if he had first been at the pains
to _index every principal Father_,—and _to reduce Texts to families_ by a
laborious process of Induction. Else, they are worse than foolish. More
than an impertinence are they. They bewilder, and mislead, and for a while
encumber and block the way.
LXXIX. This is not all however. Even when these Editors notice hostile
evidence, they do so after a fashion which can satisfy no one but
themselves. Take for example their note on the word εἰκῆ (“_without a
cause_”) in S. Matthew v. 22 (“But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry
with his brother _without a cause_”). The Reader’s attention is specially
invited to the treatment which this place has experienced at the hands of
Drs. Westcott and Hort:—
(_a_) They unceremoniously eject the word from S. Matthew’s Gospel with
their oracular sentence, “_Western and Syrian._”—Aware that εἰκῆ is
recognized by “Iren. lat-3; Eus. _D. E._ Cyp.,” they yet claim for
omitting it the authority of “Just. Ptolem. (? Iren. 242 _fin_.), Tert.;
and certainly” (they proceed) “Orig. on Eph. iv. 31, noticing both
readings, and similarly Hier. _loc._, who probably follows Origen: also
Ath. _Pasch._ Syr. 11: Ps.-Ath. _Cast._ ii. 4; and others”.... Such is
their “_Note_” on S. Matthew v. 22. It is found at p. 8 of their volume.
In consequence, εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”) disappears from their Text
entirely.
(_b_) But these learned men are respectfully informed that neither Justin
Martyr, nor Ptolemæus the Gnostic, nor Irenæus, no, nor Tertullian
either,—that _not one of these four writers_,—supplies the wished-for
evidence. As for Origen,—they are assured that _he_—_not_ “probably” but
_certainly_—is the cause of all the trouble. They are reminded that
Athanasius(803) quotes (_not_ S. Matt. v. 22, but) 1 Jo. iii. 15. They are
shown that what they call “ps.-Ath. _Cast._” is nothing else but a
paraphrastic translation (by _Græculus quidam_) of John Cassian’s
_Institutes_,—“ii. 4” in the Greek representing viii. 20 in the Latin....
And now, how much of the adverse Evidence remains?
(_c_) Only this:—Jerome’s three books of Commentary on the Ephesians, are,
in the main, a translation of Origen’s lost 3 books on the same
Epistle.(804) Commenting on iv. 31, Origen says that εἰκῆ has been
improperly added to the Text,(805)—_which shows that in Origen’s copy_
εἰκῆ _was found there_. A few ancient writers in consequence (but only in
consequence) of what Jerome (or rather Origen) thus delivers, are observed
to omit εἰκῆ.(806) That is all!
(_d_) May we however respectfully ask these learned Editors why, besides
Irenæus,(807)—Eusebius,(808)—and Cyprian,(809)—they do not mention that
εἰκῆ is _also_ the reading of Justin Martyr,(810)—of Origen
himself,(811)—of the _Constitutiones App._,(812)—of Basil three
times,(813)—of Gregory of Nyssa,(814)—of Epiphanius,(815)—of Ephraem Syrus
twice,(816)—of Isidorus twice,(817)—of Theodore of Mops.,—of Chrysostom 18
times,—of the _Opus imp._ twice,(818)—of Cyril(819)—and of
Theodoret(820)—(each in 3 places). It was also the reading of Severus,
Abp. of Antioch:(821)—as well as of
Hilary,(822)—Lucifer,(823)—Salvian,(824)—Philastrius,(825)—Augustine,
and—Jerome,(826)—(although, when translating from Origen, he pronounces
against εἰκῆ(827)):—not to mention Antiochus mon.,(828)—J.
Damascene,(829)—Maximus,(830)—Photius,(831)—Euthymius,—Theophylact,—and
others?(832)... We have adduced no less than _thirty_ ancient witnesses.
(_e_) Our present contention however is but this,—that a Reading which is
attested by _every uncial Copy of the Gospels except_ B _and_ א; by a
whole _torrent of Fathers_; by _every known copy_ of the old Latin,—by
_all_ the Syriac, (for the Peschito inserts [not translates] the word
εἰκῆ,)—by the Coptic,—as well as by the Gothic—and Armenian versions;—that
such a reading is not to be set aside by the stupid dictum, “WESTERN AND
SYRIAN.” By no such methods will the study of Textual Criticism be
promoted, or any progress ever be made in determining the Truth of
Scripture. There really can be no doubt whatever,—(that is to say, if we
are to be guided by _ancient Evidence_,)—that εἰκῆ (“_without a cause_”)
was our SAVIOUR’S actual word; and that our Revisers have been here, as in
so many hundred other places, led astray by Dr. Hort. So true is that
saying of the ancient poet,—“Evil company doth corrupt good manners.” “And
if the blind lead the blind,”—(a greater than Menander hath said
it,)—“_both shall fall into the ditch_.”(833)
(_f_) In the meantime, we have exhibited somewhat in detail, Drs. Westcott
and Hort’s Annotation on εἰκῆ, [S. Matth. v. 22,] in order to furnish our
Readers with at least _one definite specimen_ of the Editorial skill and
Critical ability of these two accomplished Professors. Their general
practice, as exhibited in the case of 1 Jo. v. 18, [see above, pp. 347-9,]
is to tamper with the sacred Text, without assigning their
authority,—indeed, without offering apology of any kind.
(_g_) The _sum_ of the matter proves to be as follows: Codd. B and א (the
“two false Witnesses”),—B and א, _alone of MSS._—omit εἰκῆ. On the
strength of this, Dr. Hort persuaded his fellow Revisers to omit “_without
a cause_” from their Revised Version: and it is proposed, in consequence,
that every Englishman’s copy of S. Matthew v. 22 shall be mutilated in the
same way for ever.... _Delirant reges, plectuntur Achivi._
(_h_) But the question arises—Will the Church of England submit to have
her immemorial heritage thus filched from her? We shall be astonished
indeed if she proves so regardless of her birthright.
LXXX. Lastly, the intellectual habits of these Editors have led them so to
handle evidence, that the sense of proportion seems to have forsaken them.
“He who has long pondered over a train of Reasoning,”—(remarks the elder
Critic,)—“_becomes unable to detect its weak points_.”(834) Yes, the
“idols of the den” exercise at last a terrible ascendency over the
Critical judgment. It argues an utter want of mental perspective, when we
find “the Man working on the Sabbath,” put on the same footing with “the
Woman taken in Adultery,” and conjectured to have “_come from the same
source_:”—the incident of “the Angel troubling the pool of Bethesda”
dismissed, as having “_no claim to any kind of association with the true
Text_:”(835)—and “the _two_ Supplements” to S. Mark’s Gospel declared to
“_stand on equal terms_ as independent attempts to fill up a gap;” and
allowed to be possibly “_of equal antiquity._”(836) How can we wonder,
after this, to find _anything_ omitted,—_anything_ inserted,—_anything_
branded with suspicion? And the brand is very freely applied by Drs.
Westcott and Hort. Their notion of the Text of the New Testament, is
certainly the most extraordinary ever ventilated. It has at least the
merit of entire originality. While they eagerly insist that many a passage
is but “a Western interpolation” after all; is but an “Evangelic
Tradition,” “rescued from oblivion by the Scribes of the second
century;”—they yet _incorporate those passages with the Gospel_. Careful
enough to clap them into fetters first, they then, (to use their own queer
phrase,)—“_provisionally associate them with the Text_.”
LXXXI. We submit, on the contrary, that Editors who “_cannot doubt_” that
a certain verse “comes from an extraneous source,”—“_do not believe_ that
it belonged originally to the Book in which it is now included,”—are
unreasonable if they proceed to assign to it _any_ actual place there at
all. When men have once thoroughly convinced themselves that two Verses of
S. Luke’s Gospel are _not Scripture_, but “only a fragment from the
Traditions, written or oral, which were for a while locally
current;”(837)—what else is it but the merest trifling with sacred Truth,
to promote those two verses to a place in the inspired context? Is it not
to be feared, that the conscious introduction of _human Tradition_ into
GOD’S _written Word_ will in the end destroy the soul’s confidence in
Scripture itself? opening the door for perplexity, and doubt, and
presently for Unbelief itself to enter.
LXXXII. And let us not be told that the Verses stand there “provisionally”
only; and for that reason are “enclosed within double brackets.” Suspected
felons are “provisionally” locked up, it is true: but after trial, they
are either convicted and removed out of sight; or else they are acquitted
and suffered to come abroad like other men. Drs. Westcott and Hort have
_no right_ at the end of thirty years of investigation, _still_ to
encumber the Evangelists with “provisional” fetters. Those fetters either
signify that the Judge is _afraid to carry out his own righteous
sentence_: or else, that he _entertains a secret suspicion that he has
made a terrible mistake after all,—has condemned the innocent_. Let these
esteemed Scholars at least have “the courage of their own convictions,”
and be throughout as consistent as, in two famous instances (viz. at pages
113 and 241), they have been. Else, in GOD’S Name, let them have the
manliness to avow themselves in error: abjure their πρῶτον ψεῦδος; and
cast the fantastic Theory, which they have so industriously reared upon
it, unreservedly, to the winds!
LXXXIII. To conclude.—It will be the abiding distinction of the Revised
Version (_thanks to Dr. Hort,_) that it brought to the front a question
which has slept for about 100 years; but which may not be suffered now to
rest undisturbed any longer. It might have slumbered on for another
half-century,—a subject of deep interest to a very little band of Divines
and Scholars; of perplexity and distrust to all the World besides;—_but_
for the incident which will make the 17th of May, 1881, for ever memorable
in the Annals of the Church of England.
LXXXIV. The Publication on that day of the “Revised English Version of the
New Testament” instantly concentrated public attention on the neglected
problem: for men saw at a glance that the Traditional Text of 1530 years’
standing,—(the exact number is Dr. Hort’s, not ours,)—had been
unceremoniously set aside in favour of _an entirely different Recension_.
The true Authors of the mischief were not far to seek. Just five days
before,—under the editorship of Drs. Westcott and Hort, (Revisionists
themselves,)—had appeared the most extravagant Text which has seen the
light since the invention of Printing. No secret was made of the fact
that, under pledges of strictest secrecy,(838) a copy of this wild
performance (marked “Confidential”) had been entrusted to every member of
the Revising body: and it has since transpired that Dr. Hort advocated his
own peculiar views in the Jerusalem Chamber with so much volubility,
eagerness, pertinacity, and plausibility, that in the end—notwithstanding
the warnings, remonstrances, entreaties of Dr. Scrivener,—his counsels
prevailed; and—the utter shipwreck of the “Revised Version” has been, (as
might have been confidently predicted,) the disastrous consequence. Dr.
Hort is calculated to have _talked for three years_ out of the ten.