Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (8)

We request him to note that, _by the hypothesis_, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiastics _not a few codices of exactly the same type as codices_ B _and_ א: especially as codex B. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—

(1) From S. Mark’s Gospel, those depraved copies will have omitted THE LAST TWELVE VERSES (xvi. 9-20).

(2) From S. Luke’s Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted our SAVIOUR’S AGONY IN THE GARDEN (xxii. 43, 44).

(3) His PRAYER ON BEHALF OF HIS MURDERERS (xxiii. 34), will have also been away.

(4) The INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, in GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW (xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.

(5) And there will have been no account discoverable of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE (xxiv. 12).

(6) Absent will have been also the record of our LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN (_ibid._ 51).

(7) Also, from S. John’s Gospel, the codices in question will have omitted the incident of THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA (v. 3, 4).

Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr. Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._ _against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_ א,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,—by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—

(1) THE LAST TWELVE VERSES of S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a “very early interpolation.” “Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.” “It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.” “It is doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(_Notes_, pp. 46 and 51.)

(2) THE AGONY IN THE GARDEN (he would have told them) is “an early Western interpolation,” and “can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)

(3) THE PRAYER OF OUR LORD FOR HIS MURDERERS (Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.” It is “a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)

(4) TO THE INSCRIPTION ON THE CROSS, IN GREEK, LATIN, AND HEBREW [S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.

(5) The spuriousness of the narrative of S. PETER’S VISIT TO THE SEPULCHRE [S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a “moral certainty.” He would have assured them that it is “a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)

(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another “Western non-interpolation.” Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them that OUR LORD’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN “_was evidently inserted from an assumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel _must be the Ascension_,” (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)

(7) THE TROUBLING OF THE POOL OF BETHESDA [S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort’s Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.

XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand. “If Baal be GOD, then follow _him_!” Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that “the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_” of those two codices “is approximately _absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_.” On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a “Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.

Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of his _Notes_),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to “Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to our _Mumpsimus_!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers do _not_ say, as from what they _do_;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a “Syrian text.” A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment. “Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,” say they, “you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as an _argumentum ad hominem_, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.

XXV. How then about those “Syrian _Conflations_” concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is “an eclectic text _combining Readings from the three principal Texts_” (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls “_conflate_.” How then is it to be supposed that these “Conflations” arose? The answer is obvious. As “Conflations,” _they have no existence_,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop” [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] “for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether by ‘Conflation’ or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_ are pleased to call ‘Conflate Readings,’ learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that they _are_,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT: ‘_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.’ ” [See p. 38, note 2.]

All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250 _and_ 350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—

“_An authoritative Revision_ at Antioch ... was itself subjected
to _a second authoritative Revision_ carrying out more completely
the purposes of the first.” “At what date between A.D. 250 and 350
_the first process_ took place, it is impossible to say with
confidence.” “_The final process_ was apparently completed by A.D.
350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)

“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 IVth century_.”—(p.
92.)

Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and א _was deliberately condemned_ by the assembled piety, learning, and judgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a period when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and א,—nothing _so_ modern as A and C,—all specimens of the former class were _rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for repeated Transcription_.

XXVI. Pass _fifteen hundred_ years, and the Reader is invited to note attentively what has come to pass. Time has made a clean sweep, it may be, of every Greek codex belonging to either of the two dates above indicated. Every tradition belonging to the period has also long since utterly perished. When lo, in A.D. 1831, under the auspices of Dr. Lachmann, “a new departure” is made. Up springs what may be called the new German school of Textual Criticism,—of which the fundamental principle is a superstitious deference to the decrees of cod. B. The heresy prevails for fifty years (1831-81) and obtains many adherents. The practical result is, that its chief promoters make it their business to throw discredit on the result of the two great Antiochian Revisions already spoken of! The (so-called) “Syrian Text”—although assumed by Drs. Westcott and Hort to be the product of the combined wisdom, piety, and learning of the great Patriarchates of the East from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350; “a ‘Recension’ in the proper sense of the word; a work of attempted Criticism, performed deliberately by Editors and not merely by Scribes” (p. 133):—this “Syrian Text,” Doctors Westcott and Hort denounce as “_showing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—

It “presents” (say they) “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.”—(p. 135.)

XXVII. We are content to leave this matter to the Reader’s judgment. For ourselves, we make no secret of the grotesqueness of the contrast thus, for the second time, presented to the imagination. On _that_ side, by the hypothesis, sit the greatest Doctors of primitive Christendom, assembled in solemn conclave. Every most illustrious name is there. By ingeniously drawing a purely arbitrary hard-and-fast line at the year A.D. 350, and so anticipating many a “_floruit_” by something between five and five-and-twenty years, Dr. Hort’s intention is plain: but the expedient will not serve his turn. Quite content are we with the names secured to us within the proposed limits of time. On _that_ side then, we behold congregated choice representatives of the wisdom, the piety, the learning of the Eastern Church, from A.D. 250 to A.D. 350.—On this side sits—Dr. Hort! ... An interval of 1532 years separates these two parties.

XXVIII. And first,—How may the former assemblage be supposed to have been occupying themselves? The object with which those distinguished personages came together was the loftiest, the purest, the holiest imaginable: viz. to purge out from the sacred Text the many corruptions by which, in their judgments, it had become depraved during the 250 (or at the utmost 300) years which have elapsed since it first came into existence; to detect the counterfeit and to eliminate the spurious. Not unaware by any means are they of the carelessness of Scribes, nor yet of the corruptions which have been brought in through the officiousness of critical “Correctors” of the Text. To what has resulted from the misdirected piety of the Orthodox, they are every bit as fully alive as to what has crept in through the malignity of Heretical Teachers. Moreover, while the memory survives in all its freshness of the depravations which the inspired Text has experienced from these and other similar corrupting influences, the _means abound_ and _are at hand_ of _testing_ every suspected place of Scripture. Well, and next,—How have these holy men prospered in their holy enterprise?

XXIX. According to Dr. Hort, by a strange fatality,—a most unaccountable and truly disastrous proclivity to error,—these illustrious Fathers of the Church have been at every instant substituting the spurious for the genuine,—a fabricated Text in place of the Evangelical Verity. Miserable men! In the Gospels alone they have interpolated about 3100 words: have omitted about 700: have substituted about 1000; have transposed about 2200: have altered (in respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c.) about 1200.(724) This done, they have amused themselves with the give-and-take process of mutual accommodation which we are taught to call “_Conflation_:” in plain terms, _they have been manufacturing Scripture_. The Text, as it comes forth from their hands,—

(a) “_Shews no marks of either critical or spiritual insight:_”—

(b) “Presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but _appreciably impoverished in sense and force_:”—

(c) “_Is more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation, than for repeated and diligent study._”

Moreover, the mischief has proved infectious,—has spread. In Syria also, at Edessa or Nisibis,—(for it is as well to be circumstantial in such matters,)—the self-same iniquity is about to be perpetrated; of which the Peschito will be the abiding monument: _one_ solitary witness only to the pure Text being suffered to escape. Cureton’s fragmentary Syriac will alone remain to exhibit to mankind the outlines of primitive Truth. (The reader is reminded of the character already given of the document in question at the summit of page 279. Its extravagance can only be fully appreciated by one who will be at the pains to read it steadily through.)

XXX. And pray, (we ask,)—_Who_ says all this? _Who_ is it who gravely puts forth all this egregious nonsense?... It is Dr. Hort, (we answer,) at pp. 134-5 of the volume now under review. In fact, according to _him_, those primitive Fathers have been the great falsifiers of Scripture; have proved the worst enemies of the pure Word of GOD; have shamefully betrayed their sacred trust; have done the diametrical reverse of what (by the hypothesis) they came together for the sole purpose of doing. They have depraved and corrupted that sacred Text which it was their aim, their duty, and their professed object to purge from its errors. And (by the hypothesis) Dr. Hort, at the end of 1532 years,—aided by codex B and his own self-evolved powers of divination,—has found them out, and now holds them up to the contempt and scorn of the British public.

XXXI. In the meantime the illustrious Professor invites us to believe that the mistaken textual judgment pronounced at Antioch in A.D. 350 had an immediate effect on the Text of Scripture throughout the world. We are requested to suppose that it resulted in the instantaneous extinction of codices the like of B א, wherever found; and caused codices of the A type to spring up like mushrooms in their place, and _that_, in every library of ancient Christendom. We are further required to assume that this extraordinary substitution of new evidence for old—the false for the true—fully explains why Irenæus and Hippolytus, Athanasius and Didymus, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, Basil and Ephraem, Epiphanius and Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Isidore of Pelusium, Nilus and Nonnus, Proclus and Severianus, the two Cyrils and Theodoret—_one and all_—show themselves strangers to the text of B and א.... We read and marvel.

XXXII. For, (it is time to enquire,)—Does not the learned Professor see that, by thus getting rid of the testimony of the whole body of the Fathers, he leaves the Science which he is so good as to patronize in a most destitute condition,—besides placing himself in a most inconvenient state of isolation? If clear and consentient Patristic testimony to the Text of Scripture is not to be deemed forcible witness to its Truth,—_whither_ shall a man betake himself for constraining Evidence? Dr. Hort has already set aside the Traditional Text as a thing of no manner of importance. The venerable Syriac Version he has also insisted on reducing very nearly to the level of the despised cursives. As for the copies of the old Latin, they had confessedly become so untrustworthy, at the time of which he speaks, that a modest Revision of the Text they embody, (the “_Vulgate_” namely,) became at last a measure of necessity. What remains to him therefore? Can he seriously suppose that the world will put up with the “idiosyncrasy” of a living Doctor—his “personal instincts” (p. xi.)—his “personal discernment” (p. 65),—his “instinctive processes of Criticism” (p. 66),—his “individual mind,”—in preference to articulate voices coming to us across the gulf of Time from every part of ancient Christendom? How—with the faintest chance of success—does Dr. Hort propose to remedy the absence of External Testimony? If mankind can afford to do without either consent of Copies or of Fathers, why does mankind any longer adhere to the ancient methods of proof? Why do Critics of every school _still_ accumulate references to MSS., explore the ancient Versions, and ransack the Patristic writings in search of neglected citations of Scripture? That the ancients were indifferent Textual Critics, is true enough. The mischief done by Origen in this department,—through his fondness for a branch of Learning in which his remarks show that he was all unskilled,—is not to be told. But then, these men lived within a very few hundred years of the Apostles of the LORD JESUS CHRIST: and when they witness to the reading of their own copies, their testimony on the point, to say the least, is worthy of our most respectful attention. _Dated codices,_ in fact are they, _to all intents and purposes,_ as often as they bear clear witness to the Text of Scripture:—a fact, (we take leave to throw out the remark in passing,) which has not yet nearly attracted the degree of attention which it deserves.

XXXIII. For ourselves, having said so much on this subject, it is fair that we should add,—We devoutly wish that Dr. Hort’s hypothesis of an authoritative and deliberate Recension of the Text of the New Testament achieved at Antioch first, about A.D. 250, and next, about A.D. 350, were indeed an historical fact. We desire no firmer basis on which to rest our confidence in the Traditional Text of Scripture than the deliberate verdict of Antiquity,—the ascertained sanction of the collective Church, in the Nicene age. The _Latin_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 385] is the work of a single man—Jerome. The _Syriac_ “Vulgate” [A.D. 616] was also the work of a single man—Thomas of Harkel. But this _Greek_ “Vulgate” was (by the hypothesis) the product of the Church Catholic, [A.D. 250-A.D. 350,] in her corporate capacity. Not only should we hail such a monument of the collective piety and learning of the Church in her best days with unmingled reverence and joy, were it introduced to our notice; but we should insist that no important deviation from such a “_Textus Receptus_” as _that_ would deserve to be listened to. In other words, if Dr. Hort’s theory about the origin of the _Textus Receptus_ have _any foundation at all_ in fact, it is “all up” with Dr. Hort. He is absolutely _nowhere._ He has most ingeniously placed himself on the horns of a fatal dilemma.

For,—(let it be carefully noted,)—the entire discussion becomes, in this way, brought (so to speak) within the compass of a nutshell. To state the case briefly,—We are invited to make our election between the Fathers of the Church, A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,—and Dr. Hort, A.D. 1881. The issue is really reduced to _that._ The general question of THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE being the matter at stake; (not any particular passage, remember, but _the Text of Scripture as a whole;_)—and the _conflicting parties_ being but _two_;—_Which_ are we to believe? the _consentient Voice of Antiquity,_—or the solitary modern Professor? Shall we accept the august Testimony of the whole body of the Fathers? or shall we prefer to be guided by the self-evolved imaginations of one who confessedly has nothing to offer but conjecture? The question before us is reduced to that single issue. But in fact the alternative admits of being yet more concisely stated. We are invited to make our election between FACT and—FICTION.... All this, of course, on the supposition that there is _any truth at all_ in Dr. Hort’s “New Textual Theory.”

XXXIV. Apart however from the gross intrinsic improbability of the supposed Recension,—the utter absence of one particle of evidence, traditional or otherwise, that it ever did take place, must be held to be fatal to the hypothesis that it _did._ It is simply incredible that an incident of such magnitude and interest would leave no trace of itself in history. As a conjecture—(and it only professes to be a conjecture)—Dr. Hort’s notion of how the Text of the Fathers of the IIIrd, IVth, and Vth centuries,—which, as he truly remarks, is in the main identical with our own _Received Text_,—came into being, must be unconditionally abandoned. In the words of a learned living Prelate,—“_the supposition_” on which Drs. Westcott and Hort have staked their critical reputation, “_is a manifest absurdity_.”(725)

XXXV. We have been so full on the subject of this imaginary “Antiochian” or “Syrian text,” not (the reader may be sure) without sufficient reason. Scant satisfaction truly is there in scattering to the winds an airy tissue which its ingenious authors have been industriously weaving for 30 years. But it is clear that with this hypothesis of a “Syrian” text,—the immediate source and actual prototype of the commonly received Text of the N. T.,—_stands or falls their entire Textual theory_. Reject it, and the entire fabric is observed to collapse, and subside into a shapeless ruin. And with it, of necessity, goes the “New Greek Text,”—and therefore the “_New English Version_” of our Revisionists, which in the main has been founded on it.

XXXVI. In the meantime the phenomena upon which this phantom has been based, remain unchanged; and fairly interpreted, will be found to conduct us to the diametrically opposite result to that which has been arrived at by Drs. Westcott and Hort. With perfect truth has the latter remarked on the practical “identity of the Text, more especially in the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, in all the known cursive MSS., except a few” (p. 143). We fully admit the truth of his statement that—

“_Before the close of the IVth century_, a Greek Text not materially differing from the almost universal Text of the IXth,”—[and why not of the VIth? of the VIIth? of the VIIIth? or again of the Xth? of the XIth? of the XIIth?]—“century, was dominant at Antioch.”—(p. 142.)

And why not throughout the whole of Eastern Christendom? _Why_ this continual mention of “_Antioch_”—this perpetual introduction of the epithet “_Syrian_”? Neither designation applies to Irenæus or to Hippolytus,—to Athanasius or to Didymus,—to Gregory of Nazianzus or to his namesake of Nyssa,—to Basil or to Epiphanius,—to Nonnus or to Macarius,—to Proclus or to Theodoras Mops.,—to the earlier or to the later Cyril.—In brief,

“The fundamental text of the late extant Greek MSS. generally is,
beyond all question, identical with [what Dr. Hort chooses to
call] the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian text of the second
half of the IVth century.... The Antiochian [and other] Fathers,
and the bulk of extant MSS. written from about three or four, to
ten or eleven centuries later, must have had, in the greater
number of extant variations, a common original _either
contemporary with, or older than, our oldest extant MSS._”—(p.
92.)

XXXVII. So far then, happily, we are entirely agreed. The only question is,—How is this resemblance to be accounted for? _Not_, we answer,—_not_, certainly, by putting forward so violent and improbable—so _irrational_ a conjecture as that, first, about A.D. 250,—and then again about A.D. 350,—an authoritative standard Text was fabricated at Antioch; of which all other known MSS. (except a very little handful) are nothing else but transcripts:—but rather, by loyally recognizing, in the practical identity of the Text exhibited by 99 out of 100 of our extant MSS., the probable general fidelity of those many transcripts _to the inspired exemplars themselves from which remotely they are confessedly descended_. And surely, if it be allowable to assume (with Dr. Hort) that for 1532 years, (viz. from A.D. 350 to A.D. 1882) the _Antiochian_ standard has been faithfully retained and transmitted,—it will be impossible to assign any valid reason why the inspired Original itself, the _Apostolic_ standard, should not have been as faithfully transmitted and retained from the Apostolic age to the Antiochian,(726)—_i.e._ throughout an interval of less than 250 years, or _one-sixth_ of the period.

XXXVIII. Here, it will obviously occur to enquire,—But what has been Drs. Westcott and Hort’s _motive_ for inventing such an improbable hypothesis? and why is Dr. Hort so strenuous in maintaining it?... We reply by reminding the Reader of certain remarks which we made at the outset.(727) The _Traditional Text_ of the N. T. is a phenomenon which sorely exercises Critics of the new school. To depreciate it, is easy: to deny its critical authority, is easier still: to cast ridicule on the circumstances under which Erasmus produced his first (very faulty) edition of it (1516), is easiest of all. But _to ignore_ the “Traditional Text,” is impossible. Equally impossible is it to overlook its practical identity with the Text of Chrysostom, who lived and taught _at Antioch_ till A.D. 398, when he became Abp. of _Constantinople_. Now this is a very awkward circumstance, and must in some way be got over; for it transports us, at a bound, from the stifling atmosphere of Basle and Alcala,—from Erasmus and Stunica, Stephens and Beza and the Elzevirs,—to Antioch and Constantinople in the latter part of the IVth century. What is to be done?

XXXIX. Drs. Westcott and Hort assume that this “Antiochian text”—found in the later cursives and the Fathers of the latter half of the IVth century—must be an _artificial_, an _arbitrarily invented_ standard; a text _fabricated_ between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350. And if they may but be so fortunate as to persuade the world to adopt their hypothesis, then all will be easy; for they will have reduced the supposed “consent of Fathers” to the reproduction of one and the same single “primary documentary witness:”(728)—and “it is hardly necessary to point out the total change in the bearing of the evidence by the introduction of _the factor of Genealogy_” (p. 43) at this particular juncture. _Upset_ the hypothesis on the other hand, and all is reversed in a moment. Every attesting Father is perceived to be a dated MS. and an independent authority; and the combined evidence of several of these becomes simply unmanageable. In like manner, “the approximate consent of the cursives” (see the foot-note), is perceived to be equivalent _not_ to “A PRIMARY DOCUMENTARY WITNESS,”—_not_ to “ONE ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL,”—but to be tantamount to the articulate speech of _many_ witnesses _of high character_, coming to us _from every quarter_ of primitive Christendom.

XL. But—(the further enquiry is sure to be made)—In favour of which document, or set of documents, have all these fantastic efforts been made to disparage the commonly received standards of excellence? The ordinary English Reader may require to be reminded that, prior to the IVth century, our Textual helps are few, fragmentary, and—to speak plainly—insufficient. As for sacred Codices of that date, we possess NOT ONE. Of our two primitive Versions, “the Syriac and the old Latin,” the second is grossly corrupt; owing (says Dr. Hort) “to a perilous confusion between transcription and _reproduction_;” “the preservation of a record and _its supposed improvement_” (p. 121). “Further acquaintance with it only increases our distrust” (_ibid._). In plainer English, “the earliest readings which can be fixed chronologically” (p. 120) belong to a Version which is licentious and corrupt to an incredible extent. And though “there is no reason to doubt that the Peschito [or ancient Syriac] is at least as old as the Latin Version” (p. 84), yet (according to Dr. Hort) it is “impossible”—(he is nowhere so good as to explain to us wherein this supposed “impossibility” consists),—to regard “_the present form_ of the Version as a true representation of the original Syriac text.” The date of it (according to _him_) _may_ be as late as A.D. 350. Anyhow, we are assured (but only by Dr. Hort) that important “evidence for the Greek text is hardly to be looked for from _this_ source” (p. 85).—The Fathers of the IIIrd century who have left behind them considerable remains in Greek are but two,—Clemens Alex. and Origen: and there are considerations attending the citations of either, which greatly detract from their value.

XLI. The question therefore recurs with redoubled emphasis,—In favour of _which_ document, or set of documents, does Dr. Hort disparage the more considerable portion of that early evidence,—so much of it, namely, as belongs to the IVth century,—on which the Church has been hitherto accustomed confidently to rely? He asserts that,—

“Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply
affected by mixture that” they “cannot at most count for more than
so many secondary Greek uncial MSS., _inferior in most cases to
the better sort of secondary uncial MSS. now existing_.”—(p. 202.)

And thus, at a stroke, behold, “almost _all Greek Fathers after Eusebius_”—(who died A.D. 340)—are disposed of! washed overboard! put clean out of sight! Athanasius and Didymus—the 2 Basils and the 2 Gregories—the 2 Cyrils and the 2 Theodores—Epiphanius and Macarius and Ephraem—Chrysostom and Severianus and Proclus—Nilus and Nonnus—Isidore of Pelusium and Theodoret: not to mention at least as many more who have left scanty, yet most precious, remains behind them:—all these are pronounced _inferior_ in authority to as many IXth- or Xth-century copies!... We commend, in passing, the foregoing _dictum_ of these accomplished Editors to the critical judgment of all candid and intelligent Readers. _Not_ as dated manuscripts, therefore, at least equal in Antiquity to the oldest which we now possess:—_not_ as the authentic utterances of famous Doctors and Fathers of the Church, (instead of being the work of unknown and irresponsible Scribes):—_not_ as sure witnesses of what was accounted Scripture in a known region, by a famous personage, at a well-ascertained period, (instead of coming to us, as our codices _universally_ do, without a history and without a character):—in no such light are we henceforth to regard Patristic citations of Scripture:—but only “as so many secondary MSS., _inferior to the better sort of secondary uncials now existing_.”

XLII. That the Testimony of the Fathers, in the lump, must perforce in some such way either be ignored or else flouted, if the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort is to stand,—we were perfectly well aware. It is simply fatal to them: _and they know it_. But we were hardly prepared for such a demonstration as _this_. Let it all pass however. The question we propose is only the following,—If the Text “used by _great Antiochian theologians_ not long after the middle of the IVth century” (p. 146) is undeserving of our confidence:—if we are to believe that a systematic depravation of Scripture was universally going on till about the end of the IIIrd century; and if at that time, an authoritative and deliberate recension of it—conducted on utterly erroneous principles—took place at Antioch, and resulted in the vicious “traditional Constantinopolitan” (p. 143), or (as Dr. Hort prefers to call it) the “eclectic Syrian Text:”—_What remains to us_? Are we henceforth to rely on our own “inner consciousness” for illumination? Or is it seriously expected that for the restoration of the inspired Verity we shall be content to surrender ourselves blindfold to the _ipse dixit_ of an unknown and irresponsible nineteenth-century guide? If neither of these courses is expected of us, will these Editors be so good as to give us the names of the documents on which, in their judgment, we _may_ rely?

XLIII. We are not suffered to remain long in a state of suspense. The assurance awaits us (at p. 150), that the Vatican codex,

“B—is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout
_Pre-Syrian_, perhaps _purely Pre-Syrian_.... From distinctively
Western readings it seems to be all but entirely free.... We have
not been able to recognize as _Alexandrian_ any readings of B in
any book of the New Testament.... So that ... neither of the early
streams of innovation has touched it to any appreciable
extent.”—(p. 150.)

“The text of the Sinaitic codex (א)” also “seems to be entirely,
or all but entirely, _Pre-Syrian_. A very large part of the text
is in like manner free from _Western_ or _Alexandrian_
elements.”—(p. 151.)

“_Every other_ known Greek manuscript has either a mixed or a
Syrian text.”—(p. 151.)

Thus then, at last, at the end of exactly 150 weary pages, the secret comes out! The one point which the respected Editors are found to have been all along driving at:—the one aim of those many hazy disquisitions of theirs about “Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability,”—“Genealogical evidence, simple and divergent,”—and “the study of Groups:”—the one reason of all their vague terminology,—and of their baseless theory of “Conflation,”—and their disparagement of the Fathers:—the one _raison d’être_ of their fiction of a “Syrian” and a “Pre-Syrian” and a “Neutral” text:—the secret of it all comes out at last! A delightful, a truly Newtonian simplicity characterizes the final announcement. All is summed up in the curt formula—_Codex_ B!

Behold then the altar at which Copies, Fathers, Versions, are all to be ruthlessly sacrificed:—the tribunal from which there shall be absolutely no appeal:—the Oracle which is to silence every doubt, resolve every riddle, smooth away every difficulty. All has been stated, where the name has been pronounced of—codex B. One is reminded of an enegmatical epitaph on the floor of the Chapel of S. John’s College, “_Verbum non amplius—Fisher_”! To codex B all the Greek Fathers after Eusebius must give way. Even Patristic evidence _of the ante-Nicene period_ “requires critical sifting” (p. 202),—must be distrusted, may be denied (pp. 202-5),—if it shall be found to contradict Cod. B! “B very far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of Text.”—(p. 171.)

XLIV. “At a long interval after B, but hardly a less interval before all other MSS., stands א” (p. 171).—Such is the sum of the matter!... A coarser,—a clumsier,—a more unscientific,—a more _stupid_ expedient for settling the true Text of Scripture was surely never invented! _But_ for the many foggy, or rather unreadable disquisitions with which the _Introduction_ is encumbered, “Textual Criticism made easy,” might well have been the title of the little volume now under Review; of which at last it is discovered that _the general Infallibility of Codex_ B is the fundamental principle. Let us however hear these learned men out.

XLV. They begin by offering us a chapter on the “General relations of B and א to other documents:” wherein we are assured that,—

“_Two striking facts_ successively come out with especial
clearness. Every group containing both א and B, _is found_ ... to
have _an apparently more original Text_ than every opposed group
containing neither; and every group containing B ... _is found_ in
a large preponderance of cases ... to have _an apparently more
original Text_ than every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)

“_Is found_”! but pray,—_By whom?_ And “_apparently_”! but pray,—_To whom?_ and _On what grounds of Evidence_? For unless it be on _certain_ grounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us “two striking _facts_”?

Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these “two striking facts” “come out with _especial clearness_”? so long as their very existence remains _in nubibus_,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoing _then_ only begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—

“We found א and B to stand alone in their almost complete immunity
from distinctive Syriac readings ... and B to stand far above א in
its _apparent_ freedom from either Western or Alexandrian
readings.”—(p. 210.)

But pray, gentlemen,—_Where_ and _when_ did “we find” either of these two things? We have “found” nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington’s courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“_I have heard your Royal Highness say so_.”... At the end of a few pages,

“_Having found_ א B the constant element in groups of every size,
distinguished by internal excellence of readings, _we found_ no
less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other
attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p.
219.)

What! again? Why, we “_have found_” nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,

“The independence [of B and א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a
hint is given _how_,)—“that their concordant testimony may be
treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א and B
themselves by at least two centuries,—_probably_ by a generation
or two more.”

How _that_ “independence” was established, and how _this_ “probability” has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch as A.D. 100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,

“The respective ancestries of א and B must have diverged from a
common parent _extremely near the Apostolic autographs_.”—(p. 220.
See top of p. 221.)

Or that,—“_The close approach to the time of the autographs_ raises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)

And lo, before we turn the leaf, this “presumption” is found to have ripened into certainty:—

“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common
original of א B, in conjunction with its very high antiquity,
provides in a multitude of cases _a safe criterion of genuineness,
not to be distrusted_ except on very clear internal evidence.
Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of א B _should
be accepted as the true Readings_ until strong internal evidence
is found to the contrary; and (2), _That no Readings of_ א B _can
be safely rejected absolutely_.”—(p. 225.)

XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codices B and א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codex B.

And yet, the “immunity from substantive error” of a _lost_ Codex of _imaginary_ date and _unknown_ history, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as “_a safe criterion of genuineness_,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א and B to the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—

“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common source
_not much later than the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 247.)

And again:—

“_Near as the divergence_ of the respective ancestries of B and א
_must have been to the Autographs_,” &c.—(p. 273.)

Until at last, we find it announced as a “moral certainty:”—

“_It is morally certain_ that the ancestries of B and א _diverged
from a point near the Autographs_, and never came into contact
subsequently.”—(_Text_, p. 556.)

After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—

“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that
their pre-eminent relative _purity_ is approximately
_absolute_,—_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the
Autographs_”—(p. 296.)

XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort’s mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader’s mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of “pass” Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has produced _not one particle of evidence_ that his opinion concerning B and א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able to _demonstrate_ that those two codices, and especially the former of them, has “preserved not only a very ancient Text, but _a very pure line of ancient Text_” also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.

“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser’s practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—_only in a louder tone of voice_” ... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an “Appendix” bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codex B is so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.

It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The “wise master-builder” was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual “STRONG PREFERENCE” of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary. “_Formidable arrays of_ [hostile] _Documentary evidence_,” he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own “_fullest consideration of Internal Evidence_” has “pronounced certain Readings to be right” [p. 61].

The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actual _ground_ of Dr. Hort’s certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—

“Every binary group [of MSS.] _containing_ B is found to offer a
large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, have
THE RING OF GENUINENESS: while it is difficult to find any
Readings so attested which LOOK SUSPICIOUS after full
consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is
repeated.)

XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T. “_The ring of genuineness_”! _This_ it must be which was referred to when “_instinctive processes of Criticism_” were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that “the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”(729)

“We are obliged” (say these accomplished writers) “to _come to the
individual mind at last_.”(730)

And thus, behold, “at last” we _have_ reached the goal!... _Individual idiosyncrasy_,—_not_ external Evidence:—Readings “_strongly preferred_,”—_not_ Readings _strongly attested_:—“_personal discernment_” (self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_ B;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim “_personal discernment_” as “the surest ground for confidence.”(731) Accordingly, they judge of Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion, words “look suspicious,” words are to be rejected. If a word has “the ring of genuineness,”—(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.

XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which “look suspicious” to one expert, may easily _not_ “look” so to another. A man’s “inner consciousness” cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule “the easy method of ... _using a favourite Manuscript_,” combined with “_some supposed power of divining the Original Text_;”(732)—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.

As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has “the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a “rough and ready” expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons “plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds “_no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight_” (p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars till A.D. 1831,—(although he confesses that “the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”(733)); and vaunts in preference “_the bold vigour_” and “_refined scholarship_” which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of our SAVIOUR’S side (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in S. John xix. 34:(734)—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses), “presents serious differences from the diction of S. John’s Gospel,”—treats it as “an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”(735) and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it “would fatally interrupt” the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark’s Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark’s last 12 verses, (on the plea that they “manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”(736))—yet who straightway proceeds to annex, _as an alternative Conclusion_ (ἄλλως), “the wretched supplement derived from codex L:”(737)—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of “solid reason and pure taste,” finds music in the “utterly marred” “rhythmical arrangement” of the Angels’ Hymn on the night of the Nativity:(738)—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about “_the ring of genuineness_.” He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.

L. But apart from all this, the Reader’s attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.

On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codices B א D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits 2877 words.

How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to a _Non-entity_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not exist in the Text_ has “the ring of genuineness” or not? There can be _no_ “ring of genuineness,” clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any “ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that “the ring of genuineness” is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR’S Passion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord’s Prayer for His murderers has been _omitted_?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has “the ring of genuineness” as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?

But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted words_ actually _have_ “the ring of genuineness.” The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very quality_ which (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—

Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world. “I have listened to those bells,” (he was accustomed to say,) “for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee’s! _They_ alone have _the ring of genuineness_.” ... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee’s.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee’s is one of the few churches in that district _without_ bells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor’s theory.