“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,”“is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with theTextus Receptusthat we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a‘Recension,’... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(Ibid.)Butwhy“must”it? Instead of“must in fact,”we are disposed to read“may—in fiction.”The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod.b, it becomes to himself self-evident thatone of the twohas been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should notthe solitary Codexbe the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod.b,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by[pg 273]the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of“universa vitiositas,”(to use Tischendorf's expression);—why(we ask) shouldcodexbbe upheld“contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of“the[imaginary]Syrian Text”),—“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if“the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,”had been firstdemonstrated? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this“distracting”phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence infact, what possible“probability”can be claimed for the history of a“Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point,has not been proved to have ever taken place at all?“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [if it existed] may perhaps [or perhaps may not] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:”but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(a) If the Recensionever took place: and—(b) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;722confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.723But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming thatany such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of[pg 274]the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if ithadtaken place?Having however in this way (1) Assumed a“Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens,more suo, to characterizethe historical resultin the following terms:—“The qualities whichthe Authors of the Syrian textseem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in dictionthe Syrian Textis conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from thebold vigourof the‘Western’scribes, andthe refined scholarshipof the‘Alexandrians,’the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yetshewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(pp. 134-5.)XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of“the critical and spiritual”perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed[pg 275]with our sketch of the Theory, (ofthe Dreamrather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which“the Authors of the Syrian Text”impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls“Syrian”or“Antiochian,”is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era.“It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,”(according to Bp. Ellicott,)“to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.”[p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts isto supposethat the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)“A Revision of the old Syriac Versionappearsto have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; anddoubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(Text, 552.)“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received byan evidently authoritative Revision,”—a Syriac“Vulgate”answering to the Latin“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)“Historical antecedents render ittolerably certainthat the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)[pg 276]In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as“Cureton's Syriac,”is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforthinvariablydesignated by these authors as“the old Syriac;”and referred to, as“syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin“vetus”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the“Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between therevised Syriac Textand the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“andstrong indicationsthat the Revisionwas deliberate and in some way authoritativein both cases,—it becomes natural to supposethat the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The veryfactof a“Revision”of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has beendemonstrated, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“To suppose”that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“To suppose”that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as“to suppose”either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist“strong indications”—(why are we notshownthem?)—that the Revision he speaks of was“deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”Out of this grows a“natural supposition”that“two [purely imaginary] operations,”“had somehistorical connexion.”[pg 277]Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance.“TheRevisedSyriac Text”has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been“deliberate and authoritative.”These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the“SyriacVulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome's Revision of the old Latin is styled the“LatinVulgate.”They even assure us that“Cureton's Syriac”“renders the comparatively late and‘revised’character of the Syriac Vulgatea matter of certainty”(p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with“tolerable certainty”(p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle documenthaving being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before”(Text, p. 552).—We read and marvel.So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere betweena.d.250 anda.d.350,“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this“final process”having been“apparently completed by [a.d.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealingthuswith what precedes, we propose to be most kind and[pg 278]accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceedto accept his Theory in its entirety. We will, with the Reader's permission, assume thatallhe tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowingfor ourselvesas much of the matter as we please.Somewhere betweena.d.250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence”[p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century,i.e.circaa.d.275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,”[p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity.“Thealmost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS., contrasted with the great number of extantVulgate Syriac MSS.,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [ibid.] Bp. Ellicott, by[pg 279]the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as“singular and sometimes rather wild.”“The text, of a very composite nature; sometimesinclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ.”[p. 42.] (It is, in fact, anutterly depravedandfabricateddocument.)We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the“leading Personages or Sees”(p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis)the latest possible datesof any of these Copies must range betweena.d.250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal[pg 280]to not a few codiceswritten within a hundred years of thedate of theinspired Autographsthemselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a“strictly Western,”or a“strictly Alexandrian,”or a“strictly Neutral”type. In plain English, if codicesb, א, anddhad been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod.dwould see the light. In the meantime, theimmediate ancestorsofbא anddwill perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is“subjected to a second authoritative Revision.”Again, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (a.d.308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch.[pg 281]Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but“carry out more completely the purposes of the first;”and“the final process was apparently completed bya.d.350”(p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it.We request him to note that,by the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiasticsnot a few codices of exactly the same type as codicesbandא: especially as codexb. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—(1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will have omittedthe last Twelve Verses(xvi. 9-20).(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted ourSaviour's Agony in the Garden(xxii. 43, 44).(3) HisPrayer on behalf of His murderers(xxiii. 34), will have also been away.(4) TheInscription on the Cross, inGreek, Latin, and Hebrew(xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.(5) And there will have been no account discoverable ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre(xxiv. 12).(6) Absent will have been also the record of ourLord's Ascension into Heaven(ibid.51).(7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question[pg 282]will have omitted the incident ofthe troubling of the pool of Bethesda(v. 3, 4).Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that,according to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e.against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codicesbandא,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (stillaccording to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first ina.d.250 and then ina.d.350,—by common consent set a mark ofcondemnation. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod.a,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—(1)The last Twelve Versesof S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a“very early interpolation.”“Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.”“It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.”“It is[pg 283]doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(Notes, pp. 46 and 51.)(2)The Agony in the Garden(he would have told them) is“an early Western interpolation,”and“can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)(3)The Prayer of our Lord for His Murderers(Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.”It is“a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)(4)To the Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew[S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.(5) The spuriousness of the narrative ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a“moral certainty.”He would have assured them that it is“a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another“Western non-interpolation.”Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them thatour Lord's Ascension into Heaven“was evidently inserted from an assumptionthat a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospelmust be the Ascension,”(Notes, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)(7)The Troubling of the pool of Bethesda[S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity.[pg 284]Why, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand.“If Baal beGod, then followhim!”Dr. Hort has his codexband his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that“the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that thepre-eminent relative purity”of those two codices“is approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.”On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it tohim, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a“Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of hisNotes),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to“Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to ourMumpsimus!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers donotsay, as from what theydo;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a“Syrian text.”A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant[pg 285]fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment.“Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,”say they,“you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as anargumentum ad hominem, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.XXV. How then about those“SyrianConflations”concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is“an eclectic textcombining Readings from the three principal Texts”(p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls“conflate.”How then is it to be supposed that these“Conflations”arose? The answer is obvious. As“Conflations,”they have no existence,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop”[see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273]“for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy![pg 286]Ourbusiness was not toinventreadings whether by‘Conflation’or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of whatyouare pleased to call‘Conflate Readings,’learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that theyare,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of theLord: theipsissima verbaof theSpirit:‘the true sayings of theHoly Ghost.’”[See p.38, note 2.]All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—on two distinct occasions betweena.d.250and350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forththatTraditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,”“is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with theTextus Receptusthat we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a‘Recension,’... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(Ibid.)Butwhy“must”it? Instead of“must in fact,”we are disposed to read“may—in fiction.”The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod.b, it becomes to himself self-evident thatone of the twohas been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should notthe solitary Codexbe the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod.b,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by[pg 273]the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of“universa vitiositas,”(to use Tischendorf's expression);—why(we ask) shouldcodexbbe upheld“contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of“the[imaginary]Syrian Text”),—“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if“the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,”had been firstdemonstrated? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this“distracting”phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence infact, what possible“probability”can be claimed for the history of a“Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point,has not been proved to have ever taken place at all?“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [if it existed] may perhaps [or perhaps may not] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:”but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(a) If the Recensionever took place: and—(b) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;722confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.723But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming thatany such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of[pg 274]the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if ithadtaken place?Having however in this way (1) Assumed a“Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens,more suo, to characterizethe historical resultin the following terms:—“The qualities whichthe Authors of the Syrian textseem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in dictionthe Syrian Textis conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from thebold vigourof the‘Western’scribes, andthe refined scholarshipof the‘Alexandrians,’the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yetshewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(pp. 134-5.)XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of“the critical and spiritual”perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed[pg 275]with our sketch of the Theory, (ofthe Dreamrather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which“the Authors of the Syrian Text”impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls“Syrian”or“Antiochian,”is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era.“It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,”(according to Bp. Ellicott,)“to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.”[p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts isto supposethat the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)“A Revision of the old Syriac Versionappearsto have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; anddoubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(Text, 552.)“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received byan evidently authoritative Revision,”—a Syriac“Vulgate”answering to the Latin“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)“Historical antecedents render ittolerably certainthat the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)[pg 276]In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as“Cureton's Syriac,”is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforthinvariablydesignated by these authors as“the old Syriac;”and referred to, as“syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin“vetus”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the“Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between therevised Syriac Textand the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“andstrong indicationsthat the Revisionwas deliberate and in some way authoritativein both cases,—it becomes natural to supposethat the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The veryfactof a“Revision”of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has beendemonstrated, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“To suppose”that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“To suppose”that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as“to suppose”either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist“strong indications”—(why are we notshownthem?)—that the Revision he speaks of was“deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”Out of this grows a“natural supposition”that“two [purely imaginary] operations,”“had somehistorical connexion.”[pg 277]Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance.“TheRevisedSyriac Text”has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been“deliberate and authoritative.”These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the“SyriacVulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome's Revision of the old Latin is styled the“LatinVulgate.”They even assure us that“Cureton's Syriac”“renders the comparatively late and‘revised’character of the Syriac Vulgatea matter of certainty”(p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with“tolerable certainty”(p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle documenthaving being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before”(Text, p. 552).—We read and marvel.So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere betweena.d.250 anda.d.350,“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this“final process”having been“apparently completed by [a.d.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealingthuswith what precedes, we propose to be most kind and[pg 278]accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceedto accept his Theory in its entirety. We will, with the Reader's permission, assume thatallhe tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowingfor ourselvesas much of the matter as we please.Somewhere betweena.d.250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence”[p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century,i.e.circaa.d.275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,”[p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity.“Thealmost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS., contrasted with the great number of extantVulgate Syriac MSS.,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [ibid.] Bp. Ellicott, by[pg 279]the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as“singular and sometimes rather wild.”“The text, of a very composite nature; sometimesinclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ.”[p. 42.] (It is, in fact, anutterly depravedandfabricateddocument.)We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the“leading Personages or Sees”(p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis)the latest possible datesof any of these Copies must range betweena.d.250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal[pg 280]to not a few codiceswritten within a hundred years of thedate of theinspired Autographsthemselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a“strictly Western,”or a“strictly Alexandrian,”or a“strictly Neutral”type. In plain English, if codicesb, א, anddhad been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod.dwould see the light. In the meantime, theimmediate ancestorsofbא anddwill perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is“subjected to a second authoritative Revision.”Again, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (a.d.308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch.[pg 281]Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but“carry out more completely the purposes of the first;”and“the final process was apparently completed bya.d.350”(p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it.We request him to note that,by the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiasticsnot a few codices of exactly the same type as codicesbandא: especially as codexb. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—(1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will have omittedthe last Twelve Verses(xvi. 9-20).(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted ourSaviour's Agony in the Garden(xxii. 43, 44).(3) HisPrayer on behalf of His murderers(xxiii. 34), will have also been away.(4) TheInscription on the Cross, inGreek, Latin, and Hebrew(xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.(5) And there will have been no account discoverable ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre(xxiv. 12).(6) Absent will have been also the record of ourLord's Ascension into Heaven(ibid.51).(7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question[pg 282]will have omitted the incident ofthe troubling of the pool of Bethesda(v. 3, 4).Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that,according to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e.against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codicesbandא,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (stillaccording to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first ina.d.250 and then ina.d.350,—by common consent set a mark ofcondemnation. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod.a,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—(1)The last Twelve Versesof S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a“very early interpolation.”“Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.”“It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.”“It is[pg 283]doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(Notes, pp. 46 and 51.)(2)The Agony in the Garden(he would have told them) is“an early Western interpolation,”and“can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)(3)The Prayer of our Lord for His Murderers(Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.”It is“a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)(4)To the Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew[S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.(5) The spuriousness of the narrative ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a“moral certainty.”He would have assured them that it is“a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another“Western non-interpolation.”Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them thatour Lord's Ascension into Heaven“was evidently inserted from an assumptionthat a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospelmust be the Ascension,”(Notes, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)(7)The Troubling of the pool of Bethesda[S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity.[pg 284]Why, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand.“If Baal beGod, then followhim!”Dr. Hort has his codexband his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that“the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that thepre-eminent relative purity”of those two codices“is approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.”On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it tohim, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a“Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of hisNotes),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to“Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to ourMumpsimus!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers donotsay, as from what theydo;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a“Syrian text.”A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant[pg 285]fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment.“Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,”say they,“you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as anargumentum ad hominem, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.XXV. How then about those“SyrianConflations”concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is“an eclectic textcombining Readings from the three principal Texts”(p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls“conflate.”How then is it to be supposed that these“Conflations”arose? The answer is obvious. As“Conflations,”they have no existence,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop”[see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273]“for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy![pg 286]Ourbusiness was not toinventreadings whether by‘Conflation’or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of whatyouare pleased to call‘Conflate Readings,’learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that theyare,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of theLord: theipsissima verbaof theSpirit:‘the true sayings of theHoly Ghost.’”[See p.38, note 2.]All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—on two distinct occasions betweena.d.250and350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forththatTraditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,”“is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with theTextus Receptusthat we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a‘Recension,’... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(Ibid.)Butwhy“must”it? Instead of“must in fact,”we are disposed to read“may—in fiction.”The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod.b, it becomes to himself self-evident thatone of the twohas been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should notthe solitary Codexbe the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod.b,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by[pg 273]the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of“universa vitiositas,”(to use Tischendorf's expression);—why(we ask) shouldcodexbbe upheld“contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of“the[imaginary]Syrian Text”),—“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if“the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,”had been firstdemonstrated? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this“distracting”phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence infact, what possible“probability”can be claimed for the history of a“Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point,has not been proved to have ever taken place at all?“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [if it existed] may perhaps [or perhaps may not] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:”but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(a) If the Recensionever took place: and—(b) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;722confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.723But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming thatany such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of[pg 274]the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if ithadtaken place?Having however in this way (1) Assumed a“Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens,more suo, to characterizethe historical resultin the following terms:—“The qualities whichthe Authors of the Syrian textseem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in dictionthe Syrian Textis conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from thebold vigourof the‘Western’scribes, andthe refined scholarshipof the‘Alexandrians,’the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yetshewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(pp. 134-5.)XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of“the critical and spiritual”perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed[pg 275]with our sketch of the Theory, (ofthe Dreamrather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which“the Authors of the Syrian Text”impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls“Syrian”or“Antiochian,”is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era.“It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,”(according to Bp. Ellicott,)“to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.”[p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts isto supposethat the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)“A Revision of the old Syriac Versionappearsto have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; anddoubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(Text, 552.)“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received byan evidently authoritative Revision,”—a Syriac“Vulgate”answering to the Latin“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)“Historical antecedents render ittolerably certainthat the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)[pg 276]In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as“Cureton's Syriac,”is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforthinvariablydesignated by these authors as“the old Syriac;”and referred to, as“syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin“vetus”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the“Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between therevised Syriac Textand the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“andstrong indicationsthat the Revisionwas deliberate and in some way authoritativein both cases,—it becomes natural to supposethat the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The veryfactof a“Revision”of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has beendemonstrated, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“To suppose”that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“To suppose”that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as“to suppose”either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist“strong indications”—(why are we notshownthem?)—that the Revision he speaks of was“deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”Out of this grows a“natural supposition”that“two [purely imaginary] operations,”“had somehistorical connexion.”[pg 277]Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance.“TheRevisedSyriac Text”has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been“deliberate and authoritative.”These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the“SyriacVulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome's Revision of the old Latin is styled the“LatinVulgate.”They even assure us that“Cureton's Syriac”“renders the comparatively late and‘revised’character of the Syriac Vulgatea matter of certainty”(p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with“tolerable certainty”(p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle documenthaving being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before”(Text, p. 552).—We read and marvel.So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere betweena.d.250 anda.d.350,“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this“final process”having been“apparently completed by [a.d.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealingthuswith what precedes, we propose to be most kind and[pg 278]accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceedto accept his Theory in its entirety. We will, with the Reader's permission, assume thatallhe tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowingfor ourselvesas much of the matter as we please.Somewhere betweena.d.250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence”[p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century,i.e.circaa.d.275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,”[p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity.“Thealmost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS., contrasted with the great number of extantVulgate Syriac MSS.,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [ibid.] Bp. Ellicott, by[pg 279]the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as“singular and sometimes rather wild.”“The text, of a very composite nature; sometimesinclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ.”[p. 42.] (It is, in fact, anutterly depravedandfabricateddocument.)We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the“leading Personages or Sees”(p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis)the latest possible datesof any of these Copies must range betweena.d.250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal[pg 280]to not a few codiceswritten within a hundred years of thedate of theinspired Autographsthemselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a“strictly Western,”or a“strictly Alexandrian,”or a“strictly Neutral”type. In plain English, if codicesb, א, anddhad been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod.dwould see the light. In the meantime, theimmediate ancestorsofbא anddwill perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is“subjected to a second authoritative Revision.”Again, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (a.d.308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch.[pg 281]Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but“carry out more completely the purposes of the first;”and“the final process was apparently completed bya.d.350”(p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it.We request him to note that,by the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiasticsnot a few codices of exactly the same type as codicesbandא: especially as codexb. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—(1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will have omittedthe last Twelve Verses(xvi. 9-20).(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted ourSaviour's Agony in the Garden(xxii. 43, 44).(3) HisPrayer on behalf of His murderers(xxiii. 34), will have also been away.(4) TheInscription on the Cross, inGreek, Latin, and Hebrew(xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.(5) And there will have been no account discoverable ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre(xxiv. 12).(6) Absent will have been also the record of ourLord's Ascension into Heaven(ibid.51).(7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question[pg 282]will have omitted the incident ofthe troubling of the pool of Bethesda(v. 3, 4).Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that,according to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e.against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codicesbandא,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (stillaccording to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first ina.d.250 and then ina.d.350,—by common consent set a mark ofcondemnation. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod.a,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—(1)The last Twelve Versesof S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a“very early interpolation.”“Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.”“It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.”“It is[pg 283]doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(Notes, pp. 46 and 51.)(2)The Agony in the Garden(he would have told them) is“an early Western interpolation,”and“can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)(3)The Prayer of our Lord for His Murderers(Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.”It is“a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)(4)To the Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew[S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.(5) The spuriousness of the narrative ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a“moral certainty.”He would have assured them that it is“a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another“Western non-interpolation.”Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them thatour Lord's Ascension into Heaven“was evidently inserted from an assumptionthat a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospelmust be the Ascension,”(Notes, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)(7)The Troubling of the pool of Bethesda[S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity.[pg 284]Why, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand.“If Baal beGod, then followhim!”Dr. Hort has his codexband his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that“the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that thepre-eminent relative purity”of those two codices“is approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.”On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it tohim, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a“Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of hisNotes),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to“Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to ourMumpsimus!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers donotsay, as from what theydo;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a“Syrian text.”A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant[pg 285]fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment.“Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,”say they,“you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as anargumentum ad hominem, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.XXV. How then about those“SyrianConflations”concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is“an eclectic textcombining Readings from the three principal Texts”(p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls“conflate.”How then is it to be supposed that these“Conflations”arose? The answer is obvious. As“Conflations,”they have no existence,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop”[see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273]“for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy![pg 286]Ourbusiness was not toinventreadings whether by‘Conflation’or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of whatyouare pleased to call‘Conflate Readings,’learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that theyare,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of theLord: theipsissima verbaof theSpirit:‘the true sayings of theHoly Ghost.’”[See p.38, note 2.]All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—on two distinct occasions betweena.d.250and350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forththatTraditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,”“is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)
“The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us,”“is the chief monument of a new period of textual history.”—(p. 132.)
“Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all.”—(p. 133.)
Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with theTextus Receptusthat we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.
“The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a‘Recension,’... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes.”—(Ibid.)
Butwhy“must”it? Instead of“must in fact,”we are disposed to read“may—in fiction.”The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod.b, it becomes to himself self-evident thatone of the twohas been fabricated. Granted. Then,—Why should notthe solitary Codexbe the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod.b,—which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by[pg 273]the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of“universa vitiositas,”(to use Tischendorf's expression);—why(we ask) shouldcodexbbe upheld“contra mundum”?... Dr. Hort proceeds—(still speaking of“the[imaginary]Syrian Text”),—
“It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region.”—(p. 133.)
Well but,—Would it not have been more methodical if“the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region,”had been firstdemonstrated? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this“distracting”phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence infact, what possible“probability”can be claimed for the history of a“Recension,”—which very Recension, up to this point,has not been proved to have ever taken place at all?
“Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims.”—(p. 134.)
Why yes, to be sure,—“each Text [if it existed] may perhaps [or perhaps may not] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:”but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,—(a) If the Recensionever took place: and—(b) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;722confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,—by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.723
But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming thatany such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all,—what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of[pg 274]the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if ithadtaken place?
Having however in this way (1) Assumed a“Syrian Recension,”—(2) Invented the cause of it,—and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,—the Critic hastens,more suo, to characterizethe historical resultin the following terms:—
“The qualities whichthe Authors of the Syrian textseem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in dictionthe Syrian Textis conspicuously a full Text. It delights in Pronouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from thebold vigourof the‘Western’scribes, andthe refined scholarshipof the‘Alexandrians,’the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yetshewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study.”—(pp. 134-5.)
XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of“the critical and spiritual”perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed[pg 275]with our sketch of the Theory, (ofthe Dreamrather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which“the Authors of the Syrian Text”impressed upon their work, when it had been first established—or at least rendered probable—that the supposed Operators and that the assumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.
XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr. Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls“Syrian”or“Antiochian,”is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally assigned to the second century of our era.“It is at any rate no stretch of imagination,”(according to Bp. Ellicott,)“to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John.”[p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors assure us that—
“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts isto supposethat the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)“A Revision of the old Syriac Versionappearsto have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; anddoubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(Text, 552.)“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received byan evidently authoritative Revision,”—a Syriac“Vulgate”answering to the Latin“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)“Historical antecedents render ittolerably certainthat the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)
“the only way of explaining the whole body of facts isto supposethat the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS. represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text.”—(p. 136.)
“A Revision of the old Syriac Versionappearsto have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; anddoubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text, the readings being to a very great extent coincident.”—(Text, 552.)
“Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received byan evidently authoritative Revision,”—a Syriac“Vulgate”answering to the Latin“Vulgate.”—(p. 84.)
“Historical antecedents render ittolerably certainthat the locality of such an authoritative Revision”—(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)—“would be either Edessa or Nisibis.”—(p. 136.)
In the meantime, the abominably corrupt document known as“Cureton's Syriac,”is, by another bold hypothesis, assumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforthinvariablydesignated by these authors as“the old Syriac;”and referred to, as“syr. vt.,”—(in imitation of the Latin“vetus”): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the“Vulgate Syriac,”—“syr. vg.”
“When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between therevised Syriac Textand the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,”—[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in passing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]—“andstrong indicationsthat the Revisionwas deliberate and in some way authoritativein both cases,—it becomes natural to supposethat the two operations had some historical connexion.”—(pp. 136-7.)
XIX. But how does it happen—(let the question be asked without offence)—that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The veryfactof a“Revision”of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has beendemonstrated, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)—“To suppose”that such a Revision took place: and (2)—“To suppose”that all our existing Manuscripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as“to suppose”either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to assure us that there exist“strong indications”—(why are we notshownthem?)—that the Revision he speaks of was“deliberate, and in some way authoritative.”
Out of this grows a“natural supposition”that“two [purely imaginary] operations,”“had somehistorical connexion.”[pg 277]Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance.“TheRevisedSyriac Text”has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even assumed to have been“deliberate and authoritative.”These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the“SyriacVulgate,”—as confidently as Jerome's Revision of the old Latin is styled the“LatinVulgate.”They even assure us that“Cureton's Syriac”“renders the comparatively late and‘revised’character of the Syriac Vulgatea matter of certainty”(p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with“tolerable certainty”(p. 136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?
At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that—“The textual elements of each principle documenthaving being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before”(Text, p. 552).—We read and marvel.
So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:—that, somewhere betweena.d.250 anda.d.350,
“(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:—which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:—and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision”—this“final process”having been“apparently completed by [a.d.] 350 or thereabouts.”—(p. 137.)
XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous assumptions,—destitute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is entitled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:—instead of dealingthuswith what precedes, we propose to be most kind and[pg 278]accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceedto accept his Theory in its entirety. We will, with the Reader's permission, assume thatallhe tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors—bind them hand and foot;—of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowingfor ourselvesas much of the matter as we please.
Somewhere betweena.d.250 and 350 therefore,—(“it is impossible to say with confidence”[p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century,i.e.circaa.d.275);—we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,—Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,—had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress—(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, (“great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac,”[p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary document is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity.“Thealmost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS., contrasted with the great number of extantVulgate Syriac MSS.,”—(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),—is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [ibid.] Bp. Ellicott, by[pg 279]the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as“singular and sometimes rather wild.”“The text, of a very composite nature; sometimesinclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican manuscript, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezæ.”[p. 42.] (It is, in fact, anutterly depravedandfabricateddocument.)
We venture to remark in passing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pass indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the“leading Personages or Sees”(p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.
XXI. Behold then from every principal Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis)the latest possible datesof any of these Copies must range betweena.d.250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal[pg 280]to not a few codiceswritten within a hundred years of thedate of theinspired Autographsthemselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,—and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts—will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away—for purposes of comparison and avoidance—specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.
After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves assiduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a“strictly Western,”or a“strictly Alexandrian,”or a“strictly Neutral”type. In plain English, if codicesb, א, anddhad been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod.dwould see the light. In the meantime, theimmediate ancestorsofbא anddwill perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.
XXII. Pass an interval—(are we to suppose of fifty years?)—and the work referred to is“subjected to a second authoritative Revision.”Again, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (a.d.308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch.[pg 281]Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but“carry out more completely the purposes of the first;”and“the final process was apparently completed bya.d.350”(p. 137).—So far the Cambridge Professor.
XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently passed over by Dr. Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it.
We request him to note that,by the hypothesis, there will have been submitted to the scrutiny of these many ancient Ecclesiasticsnot a few codices of exactly the same type as codicesbandא: especially as codexb. We are able even to specify with precision certain features which the codices in question will have all concurred in exhibiting. Thus,—
(1) From S. Mark's Gospel, those depraved copies will have omittedthe last Twelve Verses(xvi. 9-20).
(2) From S. Luke's Gospel the same corrupt copies will have omitted ourSaviour's Agony in the Garden(xxii. 43, 44).
(3) HisPrayer on behalf of His murderers(xxiii. 34), will have also been away.
(4) TheInscription on the Cross, inGreek, Latin, and Hebrew(xxiii. 38), will have been partly, misrepresented,—partly, away.
(5) And there will have been no account discoverable ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre(xxiv. 12).
(6) Absent will have been also the record of ourLord's Ascension into Heaven(ibid.51).
(7) Also, from S. John's Gospel, the codices in question[pg 282]will have omitted the incident ofthe troubling of the pool of Bethesda(v. 3, 4).
Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that,according to Dr. Hort, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (i.e.against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codicesbandא,)—the many illustrious Bishops who, (stillaccording to Dr. Hort,) assembled at Antioch, first ina.d.250 and then ina.d.350,—by common consent set a mark ofcondemnation. We are assured that those famous men,—those Fathers of the Church,—were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod.a,—in which all these seven omitted passages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.
When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr. Hort (guided by his inner consciousness, and depending on an intellectual illumination of which he is able to give no intelligible account) proposes to reverse the deliberate sentence of Antiquity,—his position strikes us as bordering on the ludicrous. Concerning the seven places above referred to, which the assembled Fathers pronounce to be genuine Scripture, and declare to be worthy of all acceptation,—Dr. Hort expresses himself in terms which—could they have been heard at Antioch—must, it is thought, have brought down upon his head tokens of displeasure which might have even proved inconvenient. But let the respected gentleman by all means be allowed to speak for himself:—
(1)The last Twelve Versesof S. Mark (he would have been heard to say) are a“very early interpolation.”“Its authorship and precise date must remain unknown.”“It manifestly cannot claim any Apostolic authority.”“It is[pg 283]doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age.”—(Notes, pp. 46 and 51.)
(2)The Agony in the Garden(he would have told them) is“an early Western interpolation,”and“can only be a fragment from traditions, written or oral,”—“rescued from oblivion by the scribes of the second century.”—(pp. 66-7.)
(3)The Prayer of our Lord for His Murderers(Dr. Hort would have said),—“I cannot doubt comes from an extraneous source.”It is“a Western interpolation.”—(p.68.)
(4)To the Inscription on the Cross, in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew[S. Luke xxiii. 38], he would not have allowed so much as a hearing.
(5) The spuriousness of the narrative ofS. Peter's Visit to the Sepulchre[S. Luke xxiv. 12] (the same Ante-Nicene Fathers would have learned) he regards as a“moral certainty.”He would have assured them that it is“a Western non-interpolation.”—(p. 71.)
(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S. Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another“Western non-interpolation.”Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them thatour Lord's Ascension into Heaven“was evidently inserted from an assumptionthat a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospelmust be the Ascension,”(Notes, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)—(p. 71.)
(7)The Troubling of the pool of Bethesda[S. John v. 3, 4] is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's Text. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine.
XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity.[pg 284]Why, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,—we fail to understand.“If Baal beGod, then followhim!”Dr. Hort has his codexband his codex א to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that“the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that thepre-eminent relative purity”of those two codices“is approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs.”On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it tohim, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?
Yes, we repeat it,—Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the Fathers of the IIIrd and the IVth Century. His own fantastic hypothesis of a“Syrian Text,”—the solemn expression of the collective wisdom and deliberate judgment of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (a.d.250-a.d.350),—is the best answer which can by possibility be invented to his own pages,—is, in our account, the one sufficient and conclusive refutation of his own Text.
Thus, his prolix and perverse discussion of S. Mark xvi. 9-20 (viz. from p. 28 to p. 51 of hisNotes),—which, carefully analysed, is found merely to amount to“Thank you for showing us our mistake; but we mean to stick to ourMumpsimus!”:—those many inferences as well from what the Fathers donotsay, as from what theydo;—are all effectually disposed of by his own theory of a“Syrian text.”A mighty array of forgotten Bishops, Fathers, Doctors of the Nicene period, come back and calmly assure the accomplished Professor that the evidence on which he relies is but an insignificant[pg 285]fraction of the evidence which was before themselves when they delivered their judgment.“Had you known but the thousandth part of what we knew familiarly,”say they,“you would have spared yourself this exposure. You seem to have forgotten that Eusebius was one of the chief persons in our assembly; that Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as his namesake of Nyssa,—were all living when we held our Textual Conference, and some of them, though young men, were even parties to our decree.”... Now, as anargumentum ad hominem, this, be it observed, is decisive and admits of no rejoinder.
XXV. How then about those“SyrianConflations”concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is“an eclectic textcombining Readings from the three principal Texts”(p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls“conflate.”How then is it to be supposed that these“Conflations”arose? The answer is obvious. As“Conflations,”they have no existence,—save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,—(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)—they would perforce have made answer,—“You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop”[see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273]“for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy![pg 286]Ourbusiness was not toinventreadings whether by‘Conflation’or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,—families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,—mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of whatyouare pleased to call‘Conflate Readings,’learned sir, we found—just as you find them—in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,—we are confident that theyare,—the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of theLord: theipsissima verbaof theSpirit:‘the true sayings of theHoly Ghost.’”[See p.38, note 2.]
All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,—on two distinct occasions betweena.d.250and350—the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forththatTraditional Text of the N. T. with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:—