same J. G. Reiche:(868) whose words of warning to his countrymen deserve
the attention of every thoughtful scholar among ourselves at this day. Of
the same general tenor and purport as Reiche’s, are the utterances of
those giants in Textual Criticism, Vercellone of Rome and Ceriani of
Milan. Quite unmistakable is the verdict of our own Scrivener concerning
the views of Lachmann, Tischendorf and Tregelles, and the results to which
their system has severally conducted them.—If Alford adopted the
prejudices of his three immediate predecessors, his authority has been
neutralized by the far different teaching of one infinitely his superior
in judgment and learning,—the present illustrious Bishop of Lincoln.—On
the same side with the last named are found the late Philip E. Pusey and
Archd. Lee,—Canon Cook and Dr. Field,—the Bishop of S. Andrews and Dr. S.
C. Malan. Lastly, at the end of fifty-one years, (viz. in 1881,) Drs.
Westcott and Hort have revived Lachmann’s unsatisfactory
method,—superadding thereto not a few extravagances of their own. That
their views have been received with expressions of the gravest
disapprobation, no one will deny. Indispensable to their contention is the
grossly improbable hypothesis that the Peschito is to be regarded as the
“Vulgate” (_i.e._ the _Revised_) Syriac; Cureton’s, as the “Vetus” or
_original_ Syriac version. And yet, while I write, the Abbé Martin at
Paris is giving it as the result of his labours on this subject, that
Cureton’s Version cannot be anything of the sort.(869) Whether Westcott
and Hort’s theory of a “_Syrian_” Text has not received an effectual
quietus, let posterity decide. Ἁμέραι δ᾽ ἐπίλοιποι μάρτυρες σοφώτατοι.
From which it becomes apparent that, at all events, “the fabric of
Criticism which has been built up within the last fifty years” has not
arisen without solemn and repeated protest,—as well from within as from
without. It may not therefore be spoken of by you as something which men
are bound to maintain inviolate,—like an Article of the Creed. It is quite
competent, I mean, for any one to denounce the entire system of Lachmann,
Tischendorf and Tregelles,—_as I do now_,—as an egregious blunder; if he
will but be at the pains to establish on a severe logical basis the
contradictory of not a few of their most important decrees. And you, my
lord Bishop, are respectfully reminded that your defence of their
system,—if you must needs defend what I deem worthless,—must be conducted,
not by sneers and an affectation of superior enlightenment; still less by
intimidation, scornful language, and all those other bad methods whereby
it has been the way of Superstition in every age to rivet the fetters of
intellectual bondage: but by severe reasoning, and calm discussion, and a
free appeal to ancient Authority, and a patient investigation of all the
external evidence accessible. I request therefore that we may hear no more
of _this_ form of argument. The Text of Lachmann and Tischendorf and
Tregelles,—of Westcott and Hort and Ellicott, (_i.e._ _of the
Revisers_,)—is just now on its trial before the world.(870)
[8] Bp. Ellicott’s strange notions about the “Textus Receptus.”
Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with
the “Textus Receptus.” It evidently exercises you sorely that “with the
Quarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with
which all extant documents, _however indisputable their antiquity,_ are
measured.”(871) But pray,—
(1) By comparison with what _other_ standard, if not by the Received Text,
would you yourself obtain the measure of “all extant documents,” however
ancient?... This first. And next,
(2) Why should the “_indisputable antiquity_” of a document be supposed to
disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (_but only
for convenience_) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of
scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,
(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard
_of _COMPARISON, is not _therefore_ of necessity a standard _of
_EXCELLENCE. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript?
If you ever did, pray with _what_ did you make your collation? In other
words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like
Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and
Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and
Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your
manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable
antiquity,”—with _an ordinary copy of the Received Text_. If you did not,
your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,
(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received
Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that
_its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the
oldest of our extant manuscripts_? Surely, a traditional Text which
(_according to you_) dates from about A.D. 300, is good enough for the
purpose of _Collation_!
(5) At last you say,—
“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”(872)
Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the
more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From
the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and
especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the
Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must
have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But
indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither
of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted
with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,
(_a_) You speak of “representing _verbatim et literatim_ THE Text which
was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really
suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between A.D. 354 and
A.D. 407, _some one definite Text of the N. T. _CAPABLE_ of being so
represented_?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for
such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles)
will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once
and for ever.” And secondly,
(_b_) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the
“Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible
to regard it as _a standard from which there was no appeal_.”
But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed
of regarding the “Received,”—aye, _or any other known _“Text,”—as “a
standard _from which there shall be no appeal_”? Have I ever done so? Have
I ever _implied_ as much? If I have, show me _where_. You refer your
readers to the following passage in my first Article:—
“What precedes admits to some extent of further numerical
illustration. It is discovered that, in 111 pages, ... the serious
deflections of A from the _Textus Receptus_ amount in all to only
842: whereas in C they amount to 1798: in B, to 2370: in א, to
3392: in D, to 4697. The readings _peculiar to_ A within the same
limits are 133: those peculiar to C are 170. But those of B amount
to 197: while א exhibits 443: and the readings peculiar to D
(within the same limits), are no fewer than 1829.... We submit
that these facts are not altogether calculated to inspire
confidence in codices B א C D.”—p. 14.
But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely
to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as
is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made
with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not _the self-same
phenomenon_ have been evolved by collation with _any other_ text? If you
doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert
Etienne in the XVIth century was not _the cause_ why cod. B in the IVth
and cod. D in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one
another: A and C so utterly at variance with both.(873) We _must_ have
_some_ standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What
is more, (give me leave to assure you,) _to the end of time_ it will
probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the
“Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old
uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring
each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—_What_
standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the
good Providence of GOD, was universally employed throughout Europe for the
first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically
_identical_ with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use
at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs
themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.
[9] The Reviewer vindicates himself against Bp. Ellicott’s misconceptions.
But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially
different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that
the Received Text needs but little emendation; and _may be used without
emendation as a standard_.”(874) I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt
the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”(875) My
“Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it
is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three
hundred years.”(876) (“_The last three hundred years_:” as if the
Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen
Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as
the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a
thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”(877) I mistake
the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred
Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no
appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.”
That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly _confusing_ the
standard of _Comparison_ with the standard of _Excellence_.
By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person
that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let _any_ candid
scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty
pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of
any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my
criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of
Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has _the
fullest_, _the widest_, _and the most varied attestation_.(878) Do I not
invariably make _the consentient __ voice of Antiquity_ my standard? If I
do _not_,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received
Text,” and made _it_ my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your
allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead
of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and
which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead
the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly
divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound
the standard _of Comparison_ with the standard _of Truth_.
[10] Analysis of contents of Bp. Ellicott’s pamphlet.
You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet,
is,—
“_First_, to supply accurate information, in a popular form,
concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:
“_Secondly_, to establish, by means of the information so
supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers
have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the
importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p.
29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question
of _the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers_.”
To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p.
7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78).
The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(_a_) To the constitution of
the Revisionist body: and next, (_b_) To the amount of good faith with
which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by
the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the
ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of
every position in turn.
[11] Bp. Ellicott’s account of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS.”
First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to prejudice the
question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the _Textus
Receptus_—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that
the “Textus Receptus” is _not_ the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do
you so describe its origin as to imply that _it is_? You ridicule the
circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the
light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of
Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus
chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave
for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the
Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for
the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to
blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes
were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and
a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus
exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw
therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your
argument:—
“We have entered into these details, because we desire that the
general reader should know fully the true pedigree of that printed
text of the Greek Testament which has been in common use for the
last three centuries. It will be observed that its documentary
origin is not calculated to inspire any great confidence. Its
parents, as we have seen, were two or three late manuscripts of
little critical value, which accident seems to have brought into
the hands of their first editor.”—p. 10.
Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered
to stand uncontradicted. But the important _inference_, which you intend
that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be
scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less
distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone
before, you are constrained to confess _in the very next page_ that:—
“The manuscripts which Erasmus used differ, for the most part,
_only in small and insignificant details from the bulk of the
cursive manuscripts_. The general character of their text is the
same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is
carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus....
_That_ pedigree stretches back to a remote antiquity. _The first
ancestor of the Received Text was at least contemporary with the
oldest of our extant manuscripts, if not older than any one of
them._”—pp. 11, 12.
By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “_at least_,” 1550
years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt
from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort’s _Introduction_ [see above, p. 257], and
clearly make your own:—
“The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally is
_beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or
Græco-Syrian _Text of the second half of the fourth century_.”—p.
12.
But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a
single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your
present contention, that the ancestry of the WRITTEN WORD (like the
ancestors of the WORD INCARNATE) had at one time declined to the wondrous
low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction?
Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband
of Mary, of whom was born JESUS, who is called CHRIST,”—what possible
inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing
contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of MESSIAH is
lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King?
And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the
Incarnate WORD, is traceable back by _two distinct lines of descent_,
remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the
“Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which
did not see the light till two years later.
[12] Bp. Ellicott derives his estimate of the “TEXTUS RECEPTUS” from
Westcott and Hart’s fable of a “SYRIAN TEXT.”
Let us hear what comes next:—
“At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse
to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced
back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is
given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?”—p. 12.
A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so,
because you announce that your reply to this question shall “go to the
bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned.”(879) That reply is
as follows:—
“If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text
represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at
Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to
regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The
reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as
follows. In the ancient documents which have come down to
us,—amongst which, as is well known, are manuscripts written in
the fourth century,—we possess evidence that other texts of the
Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially
different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers
generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant
documents shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth
call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an
earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later
origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final
standard_.”—pp. 13, 14.
“A _final_ standard”!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this
unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing
was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as “a final standard”?
Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. “The honour which is given to the
_Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer” is no other than the honour
which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for
the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of
comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did
so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed “to proceed
with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the
current _‘Textus Receptus’_ the standard_.”(880) We are perfectly agreed
therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that
essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,—(yes, and a vast
deal older,)—I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And
yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my
appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers,
whenever I find its testimony challenged.—And with this renewed
explanation of my sentiments,—(which one would have thought that no
competent person could require,)—I proceed to consider the reply which you
promise shall “go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are
concerned.” I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from
that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.
What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You assure us that,—
(_a_) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that
the Syrian text”—[which for all practical purposes may be considered as
only another name for the “Textus Receptus”]—was of later origin than
“other texts of the Greek Testament” which “existed in the age of
Chrysostom.”
(_b_) “We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard.”
But,—Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in
convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_
antecedent? Put a parallel case:—“A careful analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr.
Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass
which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher’s
meat.”—Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me,
it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. “A
rigorous examination of extant documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such
things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents shows” _me_—that
Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that
his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D.
350, is a dream, pure and simple—_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort’s
course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof
intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the
fable of “a Syrian text,” though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be
accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you
suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to
assign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has
hitherto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?
I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his
writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual
peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,—assertions for
arguments,—and reiterated asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves
sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed his life in trying to
count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;—or like his
unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing,
multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)—he
has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of
an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inaptitude for a
province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a
calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.
[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort’s Theory.
But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a “Syrian
text,”—(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)—that you inflict upon your
readers all the consequences which “the Syrian text” is supposed to carry
with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it
consists in merely serving up to the British public a _réchauffé_ of
Westcott and Hort’s Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute
anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything
is assumed—as before. Nothing is proved—as before. And we are referred to
Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has
created. “According to Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort observes,”—“to use Dr.
Hort’s language,”—“stated by Dr. Hort,”—“as Dr. Hort notices,”—“says Dr.
Hort:” yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but
reproduce—Dr. Hort!
First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the
cursives:(881)—then, the imaginary history of the “Syriac Vulgate;” which
(it seems) bears “indisputable traces” of being a revision, of which you
have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)—then comes the same
disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,—“for reasons which have been
_stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:”(883)—then, the
same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,—whose
evidence is declared to “stand at best on no higher level than the
evidence of inferior manuscripts in the uncial class:”(884) but _only_
because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.
Next comes “the Method of Genealogy,”—which you declare is the result of
“vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;”(885) but
which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for
dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious accumulation of
evidence. This same “Method of Genealogy,” you are not ashamed to announce
as “the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials.”
“For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort’s
Introduction_.”(886) Can you be serious?