Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (7)

II. It opens (p. 1-11) with some unsatisfactory Remarks on “Transmission by Writing;” vague and inaccurate,—unsupported by one single Textual reference,—and labouring under the grave defect of leaving the most instructive phenomena of the problem wholly untouched. For, inasmuch as “Transmission by writing” involves two distinct classes of errors, (1st) Those which are the result of _Accident_,—and (2ndly) Those which are the result of _Design_,—it is to use a Reader badly not to take the earliest opportunity of explaining to him that what makes codd. B א D such utterly untrustworthy guides, (except when supported by a large amount of extraneous evidence,) is the circumstance that _Design_ had evidently so much to do with a vast proportion of the peculiar errors in which they severally abound. In other words, each of those codices clearly exhibits a fabricated Text,—is the result of arbitrary and reckless _Recension_.

Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke’s Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the _transpositions_ in codex B amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words _omitted_ in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words _substituted_ in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings _peculiar_ to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these _can_ have been due to accidental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for א, it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)

We turn to codd. A and C—(executed, suppose, a hundred years _after_ B, and a hundred years _before_ D)—and the figures are found to be as follows:—

In A. In C. The transpositions are 75 67 affecting 199 words 197 The words omitted are 208 175 The words substituted 111 115 The peculiar readings 90 87 affecting 131 words 127

Now, (as we had occasion to explain in a previous page,(715)) it is entirely to misunderstand the question, to object that the preceding Collation has been made with the Text of Stephanus open before us. 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 from one another; A and C, so utterly at variance with both. The simplest explanation of the phenomena is the truest; namely, that B and D exhibit grossly depraved Texts;—a circumstance of which it is impossible that the ordinary Reader should be too soon or too often reminded. But to proceed.

III. Some remarks follow, on what is strangely styled “Transmission by printed Editions:” in the course of which Dr. Hort informs us that Lachmann’s Text of 1831 was “the first founded on documentary authority.”(716)... On _what_ then, pray, does the learned Professor imagine that the Texts of Erasmus (1516) and of Stunica (1522) were founded? His statement is incorrect. The actual difference between Lachmann’s Text and those of the earlier Editors is, that _his_ “documentary authority” is partial, narrow, self-contradictory; and is proved to be untrustworthy by a free appeal to Antiquity. _Their_ documentary authority, derived from independent sources,—though partial and narrow as that on which Lachmann relied,—exhibits (_under the good Providence of _GOD,) a Traditional Text, the general purity of which is demonstrated by all the evidence which 350 years of subsequent research have succeeded in accumulating; and which is confessedly the Text of A.D. 375.

IV. We are favoured, in the third place, with the “History of this Edition:” in which the point that chiefly arrests attention is the explanation afforded of the many and serious occasions on which Dr. Westcott (“W.”) and Dr. Hort (“H.”), finding it impossible to agree, have set down their respective notions separately and subscribed them with their respective initial. We are reminded of what was wittily said concerning Richard Baxter: viz. that even if no one but himself existed in the Church, “Richard” would still be found to disagree with “Baxter,”—and “Baxter” with “Richard”.... We read with uneasiness that

“no individual mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free
itself completely from _its own Idiosyncrasies_;” and that “the
danger of _unconscious Caprice_ is inseparable from personal
judgment.”—(p. 17.)

All this reminds us painfully of certain statements made by the same Editors in 1870:—

“We are obliged to come to the _individual mind_ at last; and
Canons of Criticism are useful only as warnings against _natural
illusions_, and aids to circumspect consideration, not as absolute
rules to prescribe the final decision.”—(pp. xviii., xix.)

May we be permitted without offence to point out (not for the first time) that “idiosyncrasies” and “unconscious caprice,” and the fancies of the “individual mind,” can be allowed _no place whatever_ in a problem of such gravity and importance as the present? Once admit such elements, and we are safe to find ourselves in cloud-land to-morrow. A weaker foundation on which to build, is not to be named. And when we find that the learned Professors “venture to hope that the present Text has escaped some risks of this kind by being the production of two Editors of different habits of mind, working independently and to a great extent on different plans,”—we can but avow our conviction that the safeguard is altogether inadequate. When two men, devoted to the same pursuit, are in daily confidential intercourse on such a subject, the “_natural illusions_” of either have a marvellous tendency to communicate themselves. Their Reader’s only protection is rigidly to _insist_ on the production of _Proof_ for everything which these authors say.

V. The dissertation on “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability” which follows (pp. 20-30),—being _unsupported by one single instance or illustration_,—we pass by. It ignores throughout the fact, that the most serious corruptions of MSS. are due, _not_ to “Scribes” or “Copyists,” (of whom, by the way, we find perpetual mention every time we open the page;) but to the persons who employed them. So far from thinking with Dr. Hort that “the value of the evidence obtained from Transcriptional Probability is incontestable,”—for that, “without its aid, Textual Criticism could rarely obtain a high degree of security,” (p. 24,)—we venture to declare that inasmuch as one expert’s notions of what is “transcriptionally probable” prove to be the diametrical reverse of another expert’s notions, the supposed evidence to be derived from this source may, with advantage, be neglected altogether. Let the study of _Documentary Evidence_ be allowed to take its place. Notions of “Probability” are the very pest of those departments of Science which admit of an appeal to _Fact_.

VI. A signal proof of the justice of our last remark is furnished by the plea which is straightway put in (pp. 30-1) for the superior necessity of attending to “the relative antecedent credibility of Witnesses.” In other words, “The comparative trustworthiness of documentary Authorities” is proposed as a far weightier consideration than “Intrinsic” and “Transcriptional Probability.” Accordingly we are assured (in capital letters) that “Knowledge of Documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (p. 31).

“Knowledge”! Yes, but how acquired? Suppose two rival documents,—cod. A and cod. B. May we be informed how you would proceed with respect to them?

“Where one of the documents is found habitually to contain
_morally certain, or at least strongly preferred, Readings_,—and
the other habitually to contain their rejected rivals,—we [_i.e._
_Dr. Hort_] can have no doubt that the Text of the first has been
transmitted in comparative purity; and that the Text of the second
has suffered comparatively large corruption.”—(p. 32.)

But can such words have been written seriously? Is it gravely pretended that Readings become “_morally certain_,” because they are “_strongly preferred_”? Are we (in other words) seriously invited to admit that the “STRONG PREFERENCE” of “the individual mind” is to be the ultimate standard of appeal? If so, though _you_ (Dr. Hort) may “_have no doubt_” as to which is the purer manuscript,—see you not plainly that a man of different “idiosyncrasy” from yourself, may just as reasonably claim to “have no doubt”—_that you are mistaken_?... One is reminded of a passage in p. 61: viz.—

“If we find in any group of documents a succession of Readings
exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,—_Readings which
the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pronounces to be
right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Documentary
Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these
Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the
common ancestor of all the members of the group.”

But how does _that_ appear? “The cause” _may_ be _the erroneous judgment of the Critic_,—may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own inner consciousness “pronounces to be right,” against “Documentary Evidence,” however multitudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty shall be supreme,—shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?

VII. We are next introduced to the subject of “Genealogical Evidence” (p. 39); and are made attentive: for we speedily find ourselves challenged to admit that a “total change in the bearing of the evidence” is “made by the introduction of the factor of Genealogy” (p. 43). Presuming that the _meaning_ of the learned Writer must rather be that _if we did but know_ the genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we read on: and speedily come to a second axiom (which is again printed in capital letters), viz. that “All trustworthy restoration of corrupted Texts is founded on the study of their History” (p. 40). We really read and wonder. Are we then engaged in _the _“restoration of corrupted Texts”? If so,—which be they? We require—(1) To be shown the “_corrupted Texts_” referred to: and then—(2) To be convinced that “the study of _their History_”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or against _their Readings_)—is a thing feasible.

“A simple instance” (says Dr. Hort) “will show at once the
practical bearing” of “the principle here laid down.”—(p. 40.)

But (as usual) Dr. Hort produces _no_ instance. He merely proceeds to “suppose” a case (§ 50), which he confesses (§ 53) does not exist. So that we are moving in a land of shadows. And this, he straightway follows up by the assertion that

“it would be difficult to insist too strongly on the
transformation of the superficial aspects of numerical authority
effected by recognition of Genealogy.”—(p. 43.)

Presently, he assures us that

“a few documents are not, by reason of their mere paucity,
appreciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed to
them.” (p. 45.)

On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion. _Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, “by reason of their mere paucity,” the few “are appreciably far less likely to be right than the multitude opposed to them.” Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,—

“A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant documents
is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral documents,
than _vice versâ_.”

Exactly so! We meant, and we mean _that_, and no other thing. But then, we venture to point out, that the learned Professor considerably understates the case: seeing that the “_vice versâ presumption_” is absolutely non-existent. On the other hand, apart from _Proof to the contrary_, we are disposed to maintain that “a majority of extant documents” in the proportion of 995 to 5,—and sometimes of 1999 to 1,—creates more than “a presumption.” It amounts to _Proof of _“a majority of ancestral documents”.

Not so thinks Dr. Hort. “This presumption,” (he seems to have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere assertion that it “is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds” (_Ibid._). As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,—“tangible” or “intangible.” Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_, and pass on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on “Genealogical Evidence” (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 _could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?

The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect that _therefore_ (indeed _by his own showing_) codices B and א, having been _demonstrably_ “executed from one and the same common original,” are not to be reckoned as _two_ independent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more than _one_. (See p. 257.)

High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about “Genealogical evidence,” when applied to Manuscripts, is—_moonshine_. The expression is metaphorical, and assumes that it has fared with MSS. as it fares with the successive generations of a family; and so, to a remarkable extent, no doubt, it _has_. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted with _one single instance_ of a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about “Genealogical evidence,” where _no single step in the descent_ can be produced,—in other words, _where no Genealogical evidence exists_,—is absurd. The living inhabitants of a village, congregated in the churchyard where the bodies of their forgotten progenitors for 1000 years repose without memorials of any kind,—is a faint image of the relation which subsists between extant copies of the Gospels and the sources from which they were derived. That, in either case, there has been repeated mixture, is undeniable; but since the Parish-register is lost, and not a vestige of Tradition survives, it is idle to pretend to argue on _that_ part of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remote _ancestors_ of some sort. That they represent as many _families_, is at least a _fact_. Further we cannot go.

But the illustration is misleading, because inadequate. Assemble rather an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scot; a Frenchman, a German, a Spaniard; a Russian, a Pole, an Hungarian; an Italian, a Greek, a Turk. From Noah these 12 are all confessedly descended; but if _they_ are silent, and _you_ know nothing whatever about their antecedents,—your remarks about their respective “genealogies” must needs prove as barren—as Dr. Hort’s about the “genealogies” of copies of Scripture. “_The factor of Genealogy_,” in short, in this discussion, represents a mere phantom of the brain: is the name of an imagination—not of a fact.

The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:—(2) by Codd. 13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same queer archetype: _and especially_—(3) by Codd. B and א. These two famous manuscripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. B and א, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1-½ copies. Nothing of this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,—or indeed seem to understand.

VIII. It is not until we reach p. 94, that these learned men favour us with a single actual appeal to Scripture. At p. 90, Dr. Hort,—who has hitherto been skirmishing over the ground, and leaving us to wonder what in the world it can be that he is driving at,—announces a chapter on the “Results of Genealogical evidence proper;” and proposes to “determine the Genealogical relations of the chief ancient Texts.” Impatient for argument, (at page 92,) we read as follows:—

“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_.”

We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament,—the TEXTUS RECEPTUS, in short,—is, according to Dr. Hort, “BEYOND ALL QUESTION” the “TEXT OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.” We shall gratefully avail ourselves of his candid admission, by and by.

Having thus _assumed_ a “dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second half of the IVth century,” Dr. H. attempts, by an analysis of what he is pleased to call “_conflate_ Readings,” to prove the “posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other ‘Neutral’ readings.”... Strange method of procedure! seeing that, of those second and third classes of readings, we have not as yet so much as heard the names. Let us however without more delay be shown those specimens of “Conflation” which, in Dr. Hort’s judgment, supply “the clearest evidence” (p. 94) that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “Neutral readings.” Of these, after 30 years of laborious research, Dr. Westcott and he flatter themselves that they have succeeded in detecting _eight_.

IX. Now because, on the one hand, it would be unreasonable to fill up the space at our disposal with details which none but professed students will care to read;—and because, on the other, we cannot afford to pass by anything in these pages which pretends to be of the nature of proof;—we have consigned our account of Dr. Hort’s 8 instances of _Conflation_ (which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.(717)

And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actual _facts_ of the case shall be submitted to the judgement of learned and unlearned Readers alike: and we promise beforehand to abide by the unprejudiced verdict of either:—

(_a_) S. Mark’s Gospel is found to contain in all 11,646 words: of which (collated with the Traditional Text) A omits 138: B, 762: א, 870: D, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of which A omits 208: B, 757; א, 816: D, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy. _That_ is a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.(718) Codices must needs all alike be compared _with something_,—must perforce all alike be referred to _some one common standard_: and we, for our part, are content to employ (as every Critic has been content before us) the traditional Text, as the most convenient standard that can be named. So employed, (viz. as a standard of _comparison_, not of _excellence_,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other, _reveals_—certainly does not _occasion_—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)

(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark’s Gospel, only _three_ in S. Luke’s—_seven_ in all—where Codices B א and D happen to concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,—“This simple instance needs no explanation” (p. 104). Instead of αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες,—(which is the reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)—א B C L exhibit only εὐλογοῦντες: D, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, א B C L omit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to follow either. Tregelles doubts.)

(_c_) Now, upon this (and the six other instances, which however prove to be a vast deal less apt for their purpose than the present), these learned men have gratuitously built up the following extravagant and astonishing theory:—

(_d_) They assume,—(they do not attempt to _prove_: in fact they _never_ prove _anything_:)—(1) That αἰνοῦντες καί—and καὶ εὐλογοῦντες—are respectively fragments of two independent Primitive Texts, which they arbitrarily designate as “Western” and “Neutral,” respectively:—(2) That the latter of the two, [_only_ however because it is vouched for by B and א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [though _why_ it must, these learned men forget to explain:]—(3) That in the middle of the IIIrd and of the IVth century the two Texts referred to were with design and by authority welded together, and became (what the same irresponsible Critics are pleased to call) the “Syrian text.”—(4) That αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες, being thus shown [?] to be “a Syrian _Conflation_,” may be rejected at once. (_Notes_, p. 73.)

X. But we demur to this weak imagination, (which only by courtesy can be called “_a Theory_,”) on every ground, and are constrained to remonstrate with our would-be Guides at every step. They assume everything. They prove nothing. And the facts of the case lend them no favour at all. For first,—We only find εὐλογοῦντες standing alone, in two documents of the IVth century, in two of the Vth, and in one of the VIIIth: while, for αἰνοῦντες standing alone, the only Greek voucher producible is a notoriously corrupt copy of the VIth century. True, that here a few copies of the old Latin side with D: but then a few copies _also_ side with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claims _in favour of the latter_. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, since D omits 1552 words out of 19,941 (_i.e._ about one word in 13), _why_ may not καὶ εὐλογοῦντες _be two of the words it omits_,—in which case there has been no “Conflation”?

Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:—(for surely, before we put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily in the face:)—and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke’s Gospel, which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To state the case differently,—D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_ in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of “Conflation” under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to attach to its omission of the clause καὶ εὐλογοῦντες? And since, _mutatis mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,—(for one, viz. the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)—will any Reader of ordinary fairness and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the assumed “Conflation” unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587 from Codd. B א D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B omits 1519: א, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of B + א and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—on _six_ occasions, B + א and D have but _omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no _“Conflation”; and the (so-called) “Theory,” which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely _upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.

But further, as a matter of fact, _at least five_ out of the eight instances cited,—viz. the [1st], [2nd], [5th], [6th], [7th],—_fail to exhibit the alleged phenomena_: conspicuously ought never to have been adduced. For, in the [1st], D merely _abridges_ the sentence: in the [2nd], it _paraphrases_ 11 words by 11; and in the [6th], it _paraphrases_ 12 words by 9. In the [5th], B D merely _abridge_. The utmost _residuum_ of fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—

[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B א omit 4: D other 4. [4th]. " " 9 words, B א omit 5: D other 5. [8th]. " " 5 words, B א omit 2: D other 2.

But if _this_ be “the clearest Evidence” (p. 94) producible for “the Theory of Conflation,”—then, the less said about the “Theory,” the better for the credit of its distinguished Inventors. How _any_ rational Textual Theory is to be constructed out of the foregoing Omissions, we fail to divine. But indeed the whole matter is demonstrably a weak imagination,—_a dream_, and nothing more.

XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon it, and to treat their hypothetical assumptions as well-ascertained facts. They imagine that they have already been led by “independent Evidence” to regard “the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier readings:”—whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. “We have found reason to believe” the Readings of א B L, (say they,) “to be the original Readings.”—But why, if this is the case, have they kept their “finding” so entirely to themselves?—_No reason whatever_ have they assigned for their belief. The Reader is presently assured (p. 106) that “_it is certain_” that the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of “Conflation” are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this “certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that

“_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate
Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the
Newtonian sense.”

But, once more,—_Where_ and _what_ is the “proof” referred to? May a plain man, sincerely in search of Truth,—after wasting many precious hours over these barren pages—be permitted to declare that he resents such solemn trifling? (He craves to be forgiven if he avows that “_Pickwickian_”—not “Newtonian”—was the epithet which solicited him, when he had to transcribe for the Printer the passage which immediately precedes.)

XII. Next come 8 pages (pp. 107-15) headed—“Posteriority of ‘Syrian’ to ‘Western’ and other (neutral and ‘Alexandrian’) Readings, shown by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence.”

In which however we are really “shown” nothing of the sort. _Bold Assertions_ abound, (as usual with this respected writer,) but _Proof_ he never attempts any. Not a particle of “Evidence” is adduced.—Next come 5 pages headed,—“Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other (neutral) Readings, shown by Internal evidence of Syrian readings” (p. 115).

But again we are “_shown_” absolutely nothing: although we are treated to the assurance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, “the Syrian conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms still extant” (p. 115): which is the very thing they have signally failed to do. Next,

“Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and
also a third, must have already existed early in the third
century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in
the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been
formed.”

Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one single ancient Father_!—

“Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings
distinctively Syrian.”—(_Ibid._)

And yet we are never told which the “Readings distinctively Syrian” _are_,—although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is unfortunate, since “it follows,”—(though we entirely fail to see from _what_,)—“that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating after the middle of the third century.” (p. 117) ... Let us hear a little more on the subject:—

“The same _Facts_”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us
with _any_)—“lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater
importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since
the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier
Texts independently attested,”—

(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),—

“existing documents descended from it can attest nothing but
itself.”—(p. 118.)

Presently, we are informed that “it follows from what has been said above,”—(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)—“that all Readings in which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the Apostolic Readings_:” and that “all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be at once rejected_.”—(p. 119.)

Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his secret to any who care to accept—without questioning—his views. We look back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should henceforth speak of certain “groups of documents,” by the conventional names “Western”—“Pre-Syrian”—“Alexandrian”—and so forth. Accordingly, ever since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719)) we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circumlocution, proves to be; and what is Dr. Hort’s actual contention.

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor,(720)—(as well it may)—is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—_Beyond all question the Textus Receptus_ is _the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D. 400.(721)

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially _the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,—which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T. which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach’s school.

XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,—(which is identical with the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)—is _that_ contained in a little handful of documents of which the most famous are codices B א, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and scandalous defects and blemishes:—_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when _that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,—namely, to embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:—_such_ for the last 50 years has been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among the monuments of the Past. Even to have “used the Received Text _as a basis for correction_” (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one “great cause” why Griesbach went astray.

XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text,—their superstitious veneration for a few ancient documents; (which documents however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the “Traditional Text” which they despise;)—knows no bounds. But the thing just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek to justify their preference.—LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged the area of his predecessor’s observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—_there_ his verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.

XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.—Aware that the Received or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) “_is virtually identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the IVth century_:” and fully alive to the fact that it “_must therefore have been represented by Manuscripts as old as any which are now surviving_” (_Text_, p. 547),—they have invented an extraordinary Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:—

They assume that the writings of Origen “establish the prior existence of at least three types of Text:”—the most clearly marked of which, they call the “Western:”—another, less prominent, they designate as “Alexandrian:”—the third holds (they say) a middle or “Neutral” position. (That all this is mere _moonshine_,—a day-dream and no more,—we shall insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors are moving amid material forms,—not discoursing with the creations of their own brain.) “The priority of two at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text,” they are confident has been established by the eight “_conflate_” Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they have already resolved into their “Western” and “Neutral” elements (_Text_, p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away (pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.

At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the characteristics of “Western” (pp. 120-6), of “Neutral” (126-30), and of “Alexandrian” Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the assurance that—

“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,” “is
the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)

“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to
contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p.
133.)

Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.

“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a ‘_Recension_,’
... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by
Scribes.”—(_Ibid._)

But _why_ “must” it? Instead of “_must in fact_,” we are disposed to read “_may—in fiction_.” The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod. B,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of “_universa vitiositas_,” (to use Tischendorf’s expression);—_why_ (we ask) should _codex_ B be upheld “contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of “_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_”),—

“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient
currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same
region.”—(p. 133.)

Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if “the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,” had been first _demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this “distracting” phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence in _fact_, what possible “probability” can be claimed for the history of a “Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point, _has not been proved to have ever taken place at all_?

“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading
personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation
of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)

Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:” but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_: and—(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.(723)

But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?

Having however in this way (1) Assumed a “Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical result_ in the following terms:—

“The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have
most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They
were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the
way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without
recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally
desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter
contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse
the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions
accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to
contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the
other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or
other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in
matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full
Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and
supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable
Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the
‘Western’ scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the
‘Alexandrians,’ the spirit of its own corrections is at once
sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or
religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet
_shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it
presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but
appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for
cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent
study_.”—(pp. 134-5.)

XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of “the critical and spiritual” perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which “the Authors of the Syrian Text” impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.

XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort’s unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls “Syrian” or “Antiochian,” is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era. “It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,” (according to Bp. Ellicott,) “to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.” [p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—

“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to
suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent
Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS.
represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p.
136.)

“A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken
place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some
connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the
readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(_Text_, 552.)

“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which
it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,”—_a
Syriac _“Vulgate”_ answering to the Latin _“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)

“Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the
locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision
however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported
conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)

In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as “Cureton’s Syriac,” is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_ designated by these authors as “the old Syriac;” and referred to, as “syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin “_vetus_”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the “Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”

“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between
the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers
of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences,
(be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the
Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the
inspired autographs;]—“and _strong indications_ that the Revision
_was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,—_it
becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some
historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)

XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a “Revision” of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“_To suppose_” that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“_To suppose_” that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as “to suppose” either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist “strong indications”—(why are we not _shown_ them?)—that the Revision he speaks of was “deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”

Out of this grows a “natural supposition” that “two [purely imaginary] operations,” “had some _historical connexion_.” Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance. “The _Revised_ Syriac Text” has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been “deliberate and authoritative.” These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the “_Syriac_ Vulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome’s Revision of the old Latin is styled the “_Latin_ Vulgate.” They even assure us that “Cureton’s Syriac” “renders the comparatively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter of certainty_” (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with “_tolerable certainty_” (p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?

At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle document _having being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before_” (_Text_, p. 552).—We read and marvel.

So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,

“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an
authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as
standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac
text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second
authoritative Revision”—this “final process” having been
“apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)

XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader’s permission, assume that _all_ he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence” [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_ A.D. 275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,” [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. “The _almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant _Vulgate Syriac MSS._,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton’s Syriac as “_singular and sometimes rather wild_.” “_The text, of a very composite nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ_.” [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an _utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ document.)

We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the “leading Personages or Sees” (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church’s palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a “strictly Western,” or a “strictly Alexandrian,” or a “strictly Neutral” type. In plain English, if codices B, א, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of B א and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.

XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is “_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_.” _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but “carry out more completely the purposes of the first;” and “the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350” (p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.

XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader’s particular attention to it.