“Where one of the documents is found habitually to containmorally 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[pg 253]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, thoughyou(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 doesthatappear?“The cause”maybethe 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 themeaningof the learned Writer must rather be thatif we did but knowthe genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we[pg 254]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 inthe“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 oftheir History”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or againsttheir 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 producesnoinstance. 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, thanvice versâ.”[pg 255]Exactly so! We meant, and we meanthat, 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 fromProof 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 toProof 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 withno evidence at all,—“tangible”or“intangible.”Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupporteddictum, 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, 9could be provedto 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 ofthat?The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect thattherefore(indeedby his own showing) codicesband א, having beendemonstrably“executed from one and the same common original,”are not to be reckoned astwoindependent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more thanone. (See p. 257.)High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about“Genealogical evidence,”when applied to[pg 256]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, ithas. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted withone single instanceof a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about“Genealogical evidence,”whereno single step in the descentcan 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 onthatpart of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remoteancestorsof some sort. That they represent as manyfamilies, is at least afact. 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 iftheyare silent, andyouknow 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.[pg 257]The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd.fandgof 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.band 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 offandgis 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.band 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 witha, or ofain conjunction withc. 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 oflate extant Greek MSS.generally isbeyond all question identicalwith the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of thesecond half of the fourth century.”We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New[pg 258]Testament,—theTextus 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 thusassumeda“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“conflateReadings,”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 detectingeight.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 ofConflation(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.717[pg 259]And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to[pg 260]assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a[pg 261]dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a[pg 262]false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actualfactsof 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)aomits 138:b, 762: א, 870:d, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of whichaomits 208:b, 757; א, 816:d, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy.Thatis a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.718Codices must needs all alike be comparedwith something,—must perforce all alike be referred tosome 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 ofcomparison, not ofexcellence,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other,reveals—certainly does notoccasion—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)[pg 263](b) Dr. Hort has detectedfourinstances in S. Mark's Gospel, onlythreein S. Luke's—sevenin all—where Codicesbא anddhappen to concur in making an omissionat the same place, but notof 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 ofevery known copyof the Gospelsexcept five,)—אb c lexhibit only εὐλογοῦντες:d, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, אb c lomit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort:domits 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 toprove: in fact theyneverproveanything:)—(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, [onlyhowever because it is vouched for byband א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [thoughwhyit 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 SyrianConflation,”may be rejected at once. (Notes, p. 73.)[pg 264]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 withd: but then a few copiesalsoside with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claimsin favour of the latter. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, sincedomits 1552 words out of 19,941 (i.e.about one word in 13),whymay not καὶ εὐλογοῦντεςbe 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,—dis observed to leave outone word in sevenin 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.bאd. And[pg 265]yet it is demonstrable that out of that total,bomits 1519: א, 1686:d, 2452. The occasionalcoincidence in Omissionofb+ א andd, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—onsixoccasions,b+ א anddhave butomitted different words in the same sentence, thenthere has been no“Conflation”; and the (so-called)“Theory,”which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutelyupon 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 fiveout 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],dmerelyabridgesthe sentence: in the [2nd], itparaphrases11 words by 11; and in the [6th], itparaphrases12 words by 9. In the [5th],bdmerelyabridge. The utmostresiduumof fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words,bא omit 4:dother 4.[4th]. " " 9 words,bא omit 5:dother 5.[8th]. " " 5 words,bא omit 2:dother 2.But ifthisbe“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. Howanyrational 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[pg 266]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 אb 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 whateverhave 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 bybandd. But, once more, What isthe groundof this“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that“the provedactual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere avera causain the Newtonian sense.”But, once more,—Whereandwhatis 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 Assertionsabound, (as usual with this respected[pg 267]writer,) butProofhe 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 Readingshave shownthe 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 evidencehas shownthat 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.”Whereasno single appealhas been made to the evidence supplied byone 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 fromwhat,)—“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 sameFacts”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us withany)—“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[pg 268]handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed evento 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,”—(thoughhowit 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 Readingsmust 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[pg 269]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)—isThe Traditional Greek Textof 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 theTraditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Texthascome 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 Receptusisthe dominant Græco-Syrian Text ofa.d.350toa.d.400.721Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentiallythe samein 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 theTraditionalText,)—isthatcontained in a[pg 270]little handful of documents of which the most famous are codicesbא, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod.dand 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 nefasto vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and whenthatis 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:—suchfor 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 Textas 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 confessare not more ancientthan 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.—Lachmannavowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and thoughTregellesslightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—Tischendorf, appealing to every[pg 271]known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—therehis verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparentlyfoolishthan 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.WestcottandHort. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended byArgumentsof 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 meremoonshine,—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”[pg 272]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—
“Where one of the documents is found habitually to containmorally 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[pg 253]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, thoughyou(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 doesthatappear?“The cause”maybethe 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 themeaningof the learned Writer must rather be thatif we did but knowthe genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we[pg 254]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 inthe“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 oftheir History”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or againsttheir 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 producesnoinstance. 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, thanvice versâ.”[pg 255]Exactly so! We meant, and we meanthat, 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 fromProof 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 toProof 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 withno evidence at all,—“tangible”or“intangible.”Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupporteddictum, 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, 9could be provedto 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 ofthat?The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect thattherefore(indeedby his own showing) codicesband א, having beendemonstrably“executed from one and the same common original,”are not to be reckoned astwoindependent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more thanone. (See p. 257.)High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about“Genealogical evidence,”when applied to[pg 256]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, ithas. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted withone single instanceof a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about“Genealogical evidence,”whereno single step in the descentcan 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 onthatpart of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remoteancestorsof some sort. That they represent as manyfamilies, is at least afact. 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 iftheyare silent, andyouknow 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.[pg 257]The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd.fandgof 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.band 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 offandgis 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.band 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 witha, or ofain conjunction withc. 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 oflate extant Greek MSS.generally isbeyond all question identicalwith the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of thesecond half of the fourth century.”We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New[pg 258]Testament,—theTextus 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 thusassumeda“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“conflateReadings,”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 detectingeight.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 ofConflation(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.717[pg 259]And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to[pg 260]assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a[pg 261]dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a[pg 262]false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actualfactsof 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)aomits 138:b, 762: א, 870:d, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of whichaomits 208:b, 757; א, 816:d, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy.Thatis a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.718Codices must needs all alike be comparedwith something,—must perforce all alike be referred tosome 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 ofcomparison, not ofexcellence,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other,reveals—certainly does notoccasion—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)[pg 263](b) Dr. Hort has detectedfourinstances in S. Mark's Gospel, onlythreein S. Luke's—sevenin all—where Codicesbא anddhappen to concur in making an omissionat the same place, but notof 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 ofevery known copyof the Gospelsexcept five,)—אb c lexhibit only εὐλογοῦντες:d, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, אb c lomit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort:domits 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 toprove: in fact theyneverproveanything:)—(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, [onlyhowever because it is vouched for byband א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [thoughwhyit 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 SyrianConflation,”may be rejected at once. (Notes, p. 73.)[pg 264]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 withd: but then a few copiesalsoside with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claimsin favour of the latter. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, sincedomits 1552 words out of 19,941 (i.e.about one word in 13),whymay not καὶ εὐλογοῦντεςbe 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,—dis observed to leave outone word in sevenin 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.bאd. And[pg 265]yet it is demonstrable that out of that total,bomits 1519: א, 1686:d, 2452. The occasionalcoincidence in Omissionofb+ א andd, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—onsixoccasions,b+ א anddhave butomitted different words in the same sentence, thenthere has been no“Conflation”; and the (so-called)“Theory,”which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutelyupon 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 fiveout 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],dmerelyabridgesthe sentence: in the [2nd], itparaphrases11 words by 11; and in the [6th], itparaphrases12 words by 9. In the [5th],bdmerelyabridge. The utmostresiduumof fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words,bא omit 4:dother 4.[4th]. " " 9 words,bא omit 5:dother 5.[8th]. " " 5 words,bא omit 2:dother 2.But ifthisbe“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. Howanyrational 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[pg 266]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 אb 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 whateverhave 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 bybandd. But, once more, What isthe groundof this“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that“the provedactual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere avera causain the Newtonian sense.”But, once more,—Whereandwhatis 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 Assertionsabound, (as usual with this respected[pg 267]writer,) butProofhe 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 Readingshave shownthe 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 evidencehas shownthat 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.”Whereasno single appealhas been made to the evidence supplied byone 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 fromwhat,)—“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 sameFacts”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us withany)—“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[pg 268]handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed evento 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,”—(thoughhowit 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 Readingsmust 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[pg 269]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)—isThe Traditional Greek Textof 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 theTraditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Texthascome 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 Receptusisthe dominant Græco-Syrian Text ofa.d.350toa.d.400.721Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentiallythe samein 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 theTraditionalText,)—isthatcontained in a[pg 270]little handful of documents of which the most famous are codicesbא, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod.dand 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 nefasto vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and whenthatis 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:—suchfor 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 Textas 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 confessare not more ancientthan 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.—Lachmannavowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and thoughTregellesslightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—Tischendorf, appealing to every[pg 271]known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—therehis verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparentlyfoolishthan 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.WestcottandHort. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended byArgumentsof 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 meremoonshine,—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”[pg 272]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—
“Where one of the documents is found habitually to containmorally 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[pg 253]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, thoughyou(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 doesthatappear?“The cause”maybethe 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 themeaningof the learned Writer must rather be thatif we did but knowthe genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we[pg 254]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 inthe“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 oftheir History”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or againsttheir 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 producesnoinstance. 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, thanvice versâ.”[pg 255]Exactly so! We meant, and we meanthat, 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 fromProof 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 toProof 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 withno evidence at all,—“tangible”or“intangible.”Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupporteddictum, 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, 9could be provedto 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 ofthat?The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect thattherefore(indeedby his own showing) codicesband א, having beendemonstrably“executed from one and the same common original,”are not to be reckoned astwoindependent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more thanone. (See p. 257.)High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about“Genealogical evidence,”when applied to[pg 256]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, ithas. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted withone single instanceof a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about“Genealogical evidence,”whereno single step in the descentcan 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 onthatpart of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remoteancestorsof some sort. That they represent as manyfamilies, is at least afact. 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 iftheyare silent, andyouknow 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.[pg 257]The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied—(1) by Codd.fandgof 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.band 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 offandgis 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.band 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 witha, or ofain conjunction withc. 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 oflate extant Greek MSS.generally isbeyond all question identicalwith the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of thesecond half of the fourth century.”We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New[pg 258]Testament,—theTextus 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 thusassumeda“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“conflateReadings,”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 detectingeight.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 ofConflation(which prove to be less than 7) to the foot of the page.717[pg 259]And, after an attentive survey of the Textual phenomena connected with these 7 specimens, we are constrained to[pg 260]assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a[pg 261]dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a[pg 262]false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actualfactsof 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)aomits 138:b, 762: א, 870:d, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of whichaomits 208:b, 757; א, 816:d, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy.Thatis a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.718Codices must needs all alike be comparedwith something,—must perforce all alike be referred tosome 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 ofcomparison, not ofexcellence,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other,reveals—certainly does notoccasion—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)[pg 263](b) Dr. Hort has detectedfourinstances in S. Mark's Gospel, onlythreein S. Luke's—sevenin all—where Codicesbא anddhappen to concur in making an omissionat the same place, but notof 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 ofevery known copyof the Gospelsexcept five,)—אb c lexhibit only εὐλογοῦντες:d, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, אb c lomit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort:domits 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 toprove: in fact theyneverproveanything:)—(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, [onlyhowever because it is vouched for byband א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [thoughwhyit 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 SyrianConflation,”may be rejected at once. (Notes, p. 73.)[pg 264]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 withd: but then a few copiesalsoside with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claimsin favour of the latter. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, sincedomits 1552 words out of 19,941 (i.e.about one word in 13),whymay not καὶ εὐλογοῦντεςbe 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,—dis observed to leave outone word in sevenin 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.bאd. And[pg 265]yet it is demonstrable that out of that total,bomits 1519: א, 1686:d, 2452. The occasionalcoincidence in Omissionofb+ א andd, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—onsixoccasions,b+ א anddhave butomitted different words in the same sentence, thenthere has been no“Conflation”; and the (so-called)“Theory,”which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutelyupon 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 fiveout 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],dmerelyabridgesthe sentence: in the [2nd], itparaphrases11 words by 11; and in the [6th], itparaphrases12 words by 9. In the [5th],bdmerelyabridge. The utmostresiduumof fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words,bא omit 4:dother 4.[4th]. " " 9 words,bא omit 5:dother 5.[8th]. " " 5 words,bא omit 2:dother 2.But ifthisbe“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. Howanyrational 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[pg 266]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 אb 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 whateverhave 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 bybandd. But, once more, What isthe groundof this“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that“the provedactual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere avera causain the Newtonian sense.”But, once more,—Whereandwhatis 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 Assertionsabound, (as usual with this respected[pg 267]writer,) butProofhe 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 Readingshave shownthe 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 evidencehas shownthat 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.”Whereasno single appealhas been made to the evidence supplied byone 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 fromwhat,)—“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 sameFacts”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us withany)—“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[pg 268]handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed evento 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,”—(thoughhowit 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 Readingsmust 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[pg 269]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)—isThe Traditional Greek Textof 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 theTraditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Texthascome 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 Receptusisthe dominant Græco-Syrian Text ofa.d.350toa.d.400.721Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentiallythe samein 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 theTraditionalText,)—isthatcontained in a[pg 270]little handful of documents of which the most famous are codicesbא, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod.dand 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 nefasto vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and whenthatis 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:—suchfor 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 Textas 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 confessare not more ancientthan 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.—Lachmannavowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and thoughTregellesslightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—Tischendorf, appealing to every[pg 271]known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—therehis verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparentlyfoolishthan 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.WestcottandHort. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended byArgumentsof 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 meremoonshine,—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”[pg 272]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—
“Where one of the documents is found habitually to containmorally 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[pg 253]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, thoughyou(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 doesthatappear?“The cause”maybethe 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 themeaningof the learned Writer must rather be thatif we did but knowthe genealogy of MSS., we should be in a position to reason more confidently concerning their Texts,—we[pg 254]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 inthe“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 oftheir History”—(as distinguished from an examination of the evidence for or againsttheir 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 producesnoinstance. 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, thanvice versâ.”
Exactly so! We meant, and we meanthat, 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 fromProof 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 toProof 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 withno evidence at all,—“tangible”or“intangible.”Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupporteddictum, 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, 9could be provedto 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 ofthat?
The one thing here which moves our astonishment, is, that Dr. Hort does not seem to reflect thattherefore(indeedby his own showing) codicesband א, having beendemonstrably“executed from one and the same common original,”are not to be reckoned astwoindependent witnesses to the Text of the New Testament, but as little more thanone. (See p. 257.)
High time however is it to declare that, in strictness, all this talk about“Genealogical evidence,”when applied to[pg 256]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, ithas. But then, it happens, unfortunately, that we are unacquainted withone single instanceof a known MS. copied from another known MS. And perforce all talk about“Genealogical evidence,”whereno single step in the descentcan 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 onthatpart of the subject. It may be reasonably assumed however that those 50 yeomen, bearing as many Saxon surnames, indicate as many remoteancestorsof some sort. That they represent as manyfamilies, is at least afact. 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 iftheyare silent, andyouknow 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.fandgof 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.band 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 offandgis 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.band 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 witha, or ofain conjunction withc. 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 oflate extant Greek MSS.generally isbeyond all question identicalwith the dominant Antiochian or Græco-Syrian Text of thesecond half of the fourth century.”
We request, in passing, that the foregoing statement may be carefully noted. The Traditional Greek Text of the New[pg 258]Testament,—theTextus 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 thusassumeda“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“conflateReadings,”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 detectingeight.
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 ofConflation(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[pg 260]assert that the interpretation put upon them by Drs. Westcott and Hort, is purely arbitrary: a baseless imagination,—a[pg 261]dream and nothing more. Something has been attempted analogous to the familiar fallacy, in Divinity, of building a[pg 262]false and hitherto unheard-of doctrine on a few isolated places of Scripture, divorced from their context. The actualfactsof 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)aomits 138:b, 762: א, 870:d, 900.—S. Luke contains 19,941 words: of whichaomits 208:b, 757; א, 816:d, no less than 1552. (Let us not be told that the traditional Text is itself not altogether trustworthy.Thatis a matter entirely beside the question just now before the Reader,—as we have already, over and over again, had occasion to explain.718Codices must needs all alike be comparedwith something,—must perforce all alike be referred tosome 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 ofcomparison, not ofexcellence,) the commonly Received Text, more conveniently than any other,reveals—certainly does notoccasion—different degrees of discrepancy. And now, to proceed.)
(b) Dr. Hort has detectedfourinstances in S. Mark's Gospel, onlythreein S. Luke's—sevenin all—where Codicesbא anddhappen to concur in making an omissionat the same place, but notof 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 ofevery known copyof the Gospelsexcept five,)—אb c lexhibit only εὐλογοῦντες:d, only αἰνοῦντες. (To speak quite accurately, אb c lomit αἰνοῦντες καί and are followed by Westcott and Hort:domits 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 toprove: in fact theyneverproveanything:)—(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, [onlyhowever because it is vouched for byband א,] must needs exhibit what the Evangelist actually wrote: [thoughwhyit 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 SyrianConflation,”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 withd: but then a few copiesalsoside with the traditional Text: and Jerome is found to have adjudicated between their rival claimsin favour of the latter. The probabilities of the case are in fact simply overwhelming; for, sincedomits 1552 words out of 19,941 (i.e.about one word in 13),whymay not καὶ εὐλογοῦντεςbe 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,—dis observed to leave outone word in sevenin 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.bאd. And[pg 265]yet it is demonstrable that out of that total,bomits 1519: א, 1686:d, 2452. The occasionalcoincidence in Omissionofb+ א andd, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice. If,—(which is as likely as not,)—onsixoccasions,b+ א anddhave butomitted different words in the same sentence, thenthere has been no“Conflation”; and the (so-called)“Theory,”which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutelyupon 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 fiveout 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],dmerelyabridgesthe sentence: in the [2nd], itparaphrases11 words by 11; and in the [6th], itparaphrases12 words by 9. In the [5th],bdmerelyabridge. The utmostresiduumof fact which survives, is therefore as follows:—
[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words,bא omit 4:dother 4.[4th]. " " 9 words,bא omit 5:dother 5.[8th]. " " 5 words,bא omit 2:dother 2.
[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words,bא omit 4:dother 4.
[4th]. " " 9 words,bא omit 5:dother 5.
[8th]. " " 5 words,bא omit 2:dother 2.
But ifthisbe“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. Howanyrational 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[pg 266]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 אb 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 whateverhave 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 bybandd. But, once more, What isthe groundof this“certainty”?—Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further assurance that
“the provedactual use of [shorter] documents in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere avera causain the Newtonian sense.”
But, once more,—Whereandwhatis 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 Assertionsabound, (as usual with this respected[pg 267]writer,) butProofhe 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 Readingshave shownthe 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 evidencehas shownthat 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.”
Whereasno single appealhas been made to the evidence supplied byone 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 fromwhat,)—“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 sameFacts”—(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us withany)—“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[pg 268]handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed evento 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,”—(thoughhowit 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 Readingsmust 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[pg 269]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)—isThe Traditional Greek Textof 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 theTraditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Texthascome 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 Receptusisthe dominant Græco-Syrian Text ofa.d.350toa.d.400.721
Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentiallythe samein 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 theTraditionalText,)—isthatcontained in a[pg 270]little handful of documents of which the most famous are codicesbא, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,—cod.dand 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 nefasto vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and whenthatis 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:—suchfor 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 Textas 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 confessare not more ancientthan 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.—Lachmannavowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known documents: and thoughTregellesslightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.—Tischendorf, appealing to every[pg 271]known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself accumulated. Where certain of the uncials are,—therehis verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparentlyfoolishthan 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.WestcottandHort. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended byArgumentsof 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 meremoonshine,—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”[pg 272]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—