“Two striking factssuccessively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א andb,is found... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing neither; and every group containingb...is foundin a large preponderance of cases ... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)“Is found”! but pray,—By whom?And“apparently”! but pray,—To whom?andOn what grounds of Evidence? For unless it be oncertaingrounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us“two strikingfacts”?Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these“two striking facts”“come out withespecial clearness”? so long as their very existence remainsin nubibus,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoingthenonly begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—“We found א andbto stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... andbto stand far above א in itsapparentfreedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)[pg 303]But pray, gentlemen,—Whereandwhendid“we find”either of these two things? We have“found”nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“I have heard your Royal Highness say so.”... At the end of a few pages,“Having foundאbthe constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings,we foundno less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)What! again? Why, we“have found”nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,“The independence [ofband א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is givenhow,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א andbthemselves by at least two centuries,—probablyby a generation or two more.”Howthat“independence”was established, and howthis“probability”has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch asa.d.100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,“The respective ancestries of א andbmust have diverged from a common parentextremely near the Apostolic autographs.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)Or that,—“The close approach to the time of the autographsraises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)[pg 304]And lo, before we turn the leaf, this“presumption”is found to have ripened into certainty:—“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of אb, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of casesa safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrustedexcept on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of אbshould be accepted as the true Readingsuntil strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2),That no Readings ofאbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”—(p. 225.)XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codicesband א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codexb.And yet, the“immunity from substantive error”of alostCodex ofimaginarydate andunknownhistory, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as“a safe criterion of genuineness,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א andbto the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common sourcenot much later than the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 247.)And again:—“Near as the divergenceof the respective ancestries ofband אmust have been to the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 273.)[pg 305]Until at last, we find it announced as a“moral certainty:”—“It is morally certainthat the ancestries ofband אdiverged from a point near the Autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(Text, p. 556.)After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relativepurityis approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs”—(p. 296.)XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of“pass”Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has producednot one particle of evidencethat his opinion concerningband א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able todemonstratethat those two codices, and especially the former of them, has“preserved not only a very ancient Text, buta very pure line of ancient Text”also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the[pg 306]first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—only in a louder tone of voice”... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an“Appendix”bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codexbis so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The“wise master-builder”was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve[pg 307]their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual“strong preference”of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary.“Formidable arrays of[hostile]Documentary evidence,”he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own“fullest consideration of Internal Evidence”has“pronounced certain Readings to be right”[p. 61].The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actualgroundof Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—“Every binary group [of MSS.]containingbis found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, havethe ring of genuineness: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested whichlook suspiciousafter full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T.“The ring of genuineness”!Thisit must be which was referred to when“instinctive processes of Criticism”were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that“the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”729“We are obliged”(say these accomplished writers)“tocome to the individual mind at last.”730And thus, behold,“at last”wehavereached the goal!...Individual idiosyncrasy,—notexternal Evidence:—Readings“strongly preferred,”—notReadingsstrongly attested:—“personal discernment”(self! still self!)conscientiously exercising[pg 308]itself upon Codexb;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim“personal discernment”as“the surest ground for confidence.”731Accordingly, they judge of Readings by theirlooksand by theirsound. When, intheiropinion, words“look suspicious,”words are to be rejected. If a word has“the ring of genuineness,”—(i.e.if it seems to themto have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which“look suspicious”to one expert, may easilynot“look”so to another. A man's“inner consciousness”cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule“the easy method of ...using a favourite Manuscript,”combined with“some supposed power of divining the Original Text;”732—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has“the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a“rough and ready”expedient practised byreceivers of moneyin the way of self-defence, andonlyfor their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction ofhim who uttersthe suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort[pg 309]would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons“plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds“no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight”(p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars tilla.d.1831,—(although he confesses that“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”733); and vaunts in preference“the bold vigour”and“refined scholarship”which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of ourSaviour'sside (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49,as well asin S. John xix. 34:734—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses),“presents serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,”—treats it as“an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”735and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it“would fatally interrupt”the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”736)—yet who straightway proceeds to annex,as an alternative Conclusion(ἄλλως),“the wretched supplement derived from codexl:”737—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of“solid reason and pure taste,”finds music in the“utterly marred”“rhythmical arrangement”of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the[pg 310]Nativity:738—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about“the ring of genuineness.”He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codicesbאd lareinstances of Omission. In the Gospels alone,bomits 2877 words.How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to aNon-entity? How will you ascertain whether something whichdoes not exist in the Texthas“the ring of genuineness”or not? There can beno“ring of genuineness,”clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend thatthe omissionof the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any“ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that“the ring of genuineness”is imparted to the history of ourSaviour'sPassion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer for His murderers has beenomitted?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has“the ring of genuineness”as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious[pg 311]that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit thatthe omitted wordsactuallyhave“the ring of genuineness.”The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuousfor the very qualitywhich (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.739In the meantime, the[pg 312]matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world.“I have listened to those bells,”(he was accustomed to say,)“for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee's!Theyalone havethe ring of genuineness.”... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee's.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one of the few churches in that districtwithoutbells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor's theory.LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codicesband א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,“The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS.[band א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)[pg 313]In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codicesband א,—(which, he naïvely remarks,“happen likewise to be the oldest extantGreek MSS. of the New Testament”[p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever haveheardof these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort“must not hesitate to express”his own robust conviction,“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected,except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain.”—(p. 285.)LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1) Codicesband א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction and Notes on Select Readingsin vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:—“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [i.e.of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort]from any acquisition of new Evidence.”—(p. 285.)And yet,whythe anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence“would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian'sDiatessaron,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codicesband א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's[pg 314]equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions,—we are well aware.So indeed are they.Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate,weas earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(Ibid.)knowing well that“the documents”referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,)Codicesbandא: knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting documentis generally in agreement with codexb.For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codexbis to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation fromanyextraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual,mereassertion,) that,“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)And yet,—Whya reading foundonly in codexbshould experience greater indulgence than another reading foundonly in codexa, we entirely fail to see.On the other hand,“an unique criterionis supplied by the concord of the independent attestation ofband א.”—(Notes, p. 46.)But pray, how doesthatappear? Sinceband א are derived from one and the same original—Why should not“the concord”spoken of be rather“an unique criterion”of the utter depravity of the archetype?LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no[pg 315]stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codicesband א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.740These are[pg 316]two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that—“A Text formed”by“taking Codexbas the sole authority,”“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document”(p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary,by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words[pg 317]of Prebendary Scrivener (Introduction, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—
“Two striking factssuccessively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א andb,is found... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing neither; and every group containingb...is foundin a large preponderance of cases ... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)“Is found”! but pray,—By whom?And“apparently”! but pray,—To whom?andOn what grounds of Evidence? For unless it be oncertaingrounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us“two strikingfacts”?Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these“two striking facts”“come out withespecial clearness”? so long as their very existence remainsin nubibus,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoingthenonly begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—“We found א andbto stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... andbto stand far above א in itsapparentfreedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)[pg 303]But pray, gentlemen,—Whereandwhendid“we find”either of these two things? We have“found”nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“I have heard your Royal Highness say so.”... At the end of a few pages,“Having foundאbthe constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings,we foundno less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)What! again? Why, we“have found”nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,“The independence [ofband א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is givenhow,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א andbthemselves by at least two centuries,—probablyby a generation or two more.”Howthat“independence”was established, and howthis“probability”has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch asa.d.100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,“The respective ancestries of א andbmust have diverged from a common parentextremely near the Apostolic autographs.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)Or that,—“The close approach to the time of the autographsraises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)[pg 304]And lo, before we turn the leaf, this“presumption”is found to have ripened into certainty:—“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of אb, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of casesa safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrustedexcept on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of אbshould be accepted as the true Readingsuntil strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2),That no Readings ofאbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”—(p. 225.)XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codicesband א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codexb.And yet, the“immunity from substantive error”of alostCodex ofimaginarydate andunknownhistory, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as“a safe criterion of genuineness,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א andbto the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common sourcenot much later than the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 247.)And again:—“Near as the divergenceof the respective ancestries ofband אmust have been to the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 273.)[pg 305]Until at last, we find it announced as a“moral certainty:”—“It is morally certainthat the ancestries ofband אdiverged from a point near the Autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(Text, p. 556.)After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relativepurityis approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs”—(p. 296.)XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of“pass”Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has producednot one particle of evidencethat his opinion concerningband א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able todemonstratethat those two codices, and especially the former of them, has“preserved not only a very ancient Text, buta very pure line of ancient Text”also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the[pg 306]first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—only in a louder tone of voice”... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an“Appendix”bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codexbis so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The“wise master-builder”was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve[pg 307]their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual“strong preference”of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary.“Formidable arrays of[hostile]Documentary evidence,”he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own“fullest consideration of Internal Evidence”has“pronounced certain Readings to be right”[p. 61].The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actualgroundof Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—“Every binary group [of MSS.]containingbis found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, havethe ring of genuineness: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested whichlook suspiciousafter full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T.“The ring of genuineness”!Thisit must be which was referred to when“instinctive processes of Criticism”were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that“the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”729“We are obliged”(say these accomplished writers)“tocome to the individual mind at last.”730And thus, behold,“at last”wehavereached the goal!...Individual idiosyncrasy,—notexternal Evidence:—Readings“strongly preferred,”—notReadingsstrongly attested:—“personal discernment”(self! still self!)conscientiously exercising[pg 308]itself upon Codexb;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim“personal discernment”as“the surest ground for confidence.”731Accordingly, they judge of Readings by theirlooksand by theirsound. When, intheiropinion, words“look suspicious,”words are to be rejected. If a word has“the ring of genuineness,”—(i.e.if it seems to themto have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which“look suspicious”to one expert, may easilynot“look”so to another. A man's“inner consciousness”cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule“the easy method of ...using a favourite Manuscript,”combined with“some supposed power of divining the Original Text;”732—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has“the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a“rough and ready”expedient practised byreceivers of moneyin the way of self-defence, andonlyfor their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction ofhim who uttersthe suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort[pg 309]would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons“plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds“no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight”(p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars tilla.d.1831,—(although he confesses that“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”733); and vaunts in preference“the bold vigour”and“refined scholarship”which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of ourSaviour'sside (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49,as well asin S. John xix. 34:734—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses),“presents serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,”—treats it as“an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”735and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it“would fatally interrupt”the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”736)—yet who straightway proceeds to annex,as an alternative Conclusion(ἄλλως),“the wretched supplement derived from codexl:”737—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of“solid reason and pure taste,”finds music in the“utterly marred”“rhythmical arrangement”of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the[pg 310]Nativity:738—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about“the ring of genuineness.”He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codicesbאd lareinstances of Omission. In the Gospels alone,bomits 2877 words.How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to aNon-entity? How will you ascertain whether something whichdoes not exist in the Texthas“the ring of genuineness”or not? There can beno“ring of genuineness,”clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend thatthe omissionof the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any“ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that“the ring of genuineness”is imparted to the history of ourSaviour'sPassion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer for His murderers has beenomitted?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has“the ring of genuineness”as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious[pg 311]that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit thatthe omitted wordsactuallyhave“the ring of genuineness.”The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuousfor the very qualitywhich (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.739In the meantime, the[pg 312]matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world.“I have listened to those bells,”(he was accustomed to say,)“for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee's!Theyalone havethe ring of genuineness.”... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee's.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one of the few churches in that districtwithoutbells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor's theory.LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codicesband א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,“The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS.[band א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)[pg 313]In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codicesband א,—(which, he naïvely remarks,“happen likewise to be the oldest extantGreek MSS. of the New Testament”[p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever haveheardof these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort“must not hesitate to express”his own robust conviction,“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected,except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain.”—(p. 285.)LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1) Codicesband א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction and Notes on Select Readingsin vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:—“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [i.e.of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort]from any acquisition of new Evidence.”—(p. 285.)And yet,whythe anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence“would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian'sDiatessaron,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codicesband א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's[pg 314]equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions,—we are well aware.So indeed are they.Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate,weas earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(Ibid.)knowing well that“the documents”referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,)Codicesbandא: knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting documentis generally in agreement with codexb.For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codexbis to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation fromanyextraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual,mereassertion,) that,“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)And yet,—Whya reading foundonly in codexbshould experience greater indulgence than another reading foundonly in codexa, we entirely fail to see.On the other hand,“an unique criterionis supplied by the concord of the independent attestation ofband א.”—(Notes, p. 46.)But pray, how doesthatappear? Sinceband א are derived from one and the same original—Why should not“the concord”spoken of be rather“an unique criterion”of the utter depravity of the archetype?LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no[pg 315]stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codicesband א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.740These are[pg 316]two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that—“A Text formed”by“taking Codexbas the sole authority,”“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document”(p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary,by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words[pg 317]of Prebendary Scrivener (Introduction, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—
“Two striking factssuccessively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א andb,is found... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing neither; and every group containingb...is foundin a large preponderance of cases ... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)“Is found”! but pray,—By whom?And“apparently”! but pray,—To whom?andOn what grounds of Evidence? For unless it be oncertaingrounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us“two strikingfacts”?Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these“two striking facts”“come out withespecial clearness”? so long as their very existence remainsin nubibus,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoingthenonly begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—“We found א andbto stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... andbto stand far above א in itsapparentfreedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)[pg 303]But pray, gentlemen,—Whereandwhendid“we find”either of these two things? We have“found”nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“I have heard your Royal Highness say so.”... At the end of a few pages,“Having foundאbthe constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings,we foundno less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)What! again? Why, we“have found”nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,“The independence [ofband א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is givenhow,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א andbthemselves by at least two centuries,—probablyby a generation or two more.”Howthat“independence”was established, and howthis“probability”has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch asa.d.100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,“The respective ancestries of א andbmust have diverged from a common parentextremely near the Apostolic autographs.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)Or that,—“The close approach to the time of the autographsraises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)[pg 304]And lo, before we turn the leaf, this“presumption”is found to have ripened into certainty:—“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of אb, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of casesa safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrustedexcept on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of אbshould be accepted as the true Readingsuntil strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2),That no Readings ofאbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”—(p. 225.)XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codicesband א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codexb.And yet, the“immunity from substantive error”of alostCodex ofimaginarydate andunknownhistory, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as“a safe criterion of genuineness,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א andbto the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common sourcenot much later than the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 247.)And again:—“Near as the divergenceof the respective ancestries ofband אmust have been to the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 273.)[pg 305]Until at last, we find it announced as a“moral certainty:”—“It is morally certainthat the ancestries ofband אdiverged from a point near the Autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(Text, p. 556.)After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relativepurityis approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs”—(p. 296.)XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of“pass”Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has producednot one particle of evidencethat his opinion concerningband א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able todemonstratethat those two codices, and especially the former of them, has“preserved not only a very ancient Text, buta very pure line of ancient Text”also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the[pg 306]first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—only in a louder tone of voice”... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an“Appendix”bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codexbis so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The“wise master-builder”was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve[pg 307]their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual“strong preference”of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary.“Formidable arrays of[hostile]Documentary evidence,”he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own“fullest consideration of Internal Evidence”has“pronounced certain Readings to be right”[p. 61].The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actualgroundof Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—“Every binary group [of MSS.]containingbis found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, havethe ring of genuineness: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested whichlook suspiciousafter full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T.“The ring of genuineness”!Thisit must be which was referred to when“instinctive processes of Criticism”were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that“the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”729“We are obliged”(say these accomplished writers)“tocome to the individual mind at last.”730And thus, behold,“at last”wehavereached the goal!...Individual idiosyncrasy,—notexternal Evidence:—Readings“strongly preferred,”—notReadingsstrongly attested:—“personal discernment”(self! still self!)conscientiously exercising[pg 308]itself upon Codexb;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim“personal discernment”as“the surest ground for confidence.”731Accordingly, they judge of Readings by theirlooksand by theirsound. When, intheiropinion, words“look suspicious,”words are to be rejected. If a word has“the ring of genuineness,”—(i.e.if it seems to themto have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which“look suspicious”to one expert, may easilynot“look”so to another. A man's“inner consciousness”cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule“the easy method of ...using a favourite Manuscript,”combined with“some supposed power of divining the Original Text;”732—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has“the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a“rough and ready”expedient practised byreceivers of moneyin the way of self-defence, andonlyfor their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction ofhim who uttersthe suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort[pg 309]would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons“plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds“no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight”(p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars tilla.d.1831,—(although he confesses that“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”733); and vaunts in preference“the bold vigour”and“refined scholarship”which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of ourSaviour'sside (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49,as well asin S. John xix. 34:734—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses),“presents serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,”—treats it as“an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”735and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it“would fatally interrupt”the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”736)—yet who straightway proceeds to annex,as an alternative Conclusion(ἄλλως),“the wretched supplement derived from codexl:”737—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of“solid reason and pure taste,”finds music in the“utterly marred”“rhythmical arrangement”of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the[pg 310]Nativity:738—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about“the ring of genuineness.”He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codicesbאd lareinstances of Omission. In the Gospels alone,bomits 2877 words.How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to aNon-entity? How will you ascertain whether something whichdoes not exist in the Texthas“the ring of genuineness”or not? There can beno“ring of genuineness,”clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend thatthe omissionof the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any“ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that“the ring of genuineness”is imparted to the history of ourSaviour'sPassion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer for His murderers has beenomitted?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has“the ring of genuineness”as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious[pg 311]that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit thatthe omitted wordsactuallyhave“the ring of genuineness.”The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuousfor the very qualitywhich (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.739In the meantime, the[pg 312]matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world.“I have listened to those bells,”(he was accustomed to say,)“for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee's!Theyalone havethe ring of genuineness.”... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee's.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one of the few churches in that districtwithoutbells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor's theory.LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codicesband א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,“The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS.[band א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)[pg 313]In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codicesband א,—(which, he naïvely remarks,“happen likewise to be the oldest extantGreek MSS. of the New Testament”[p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever haveheardof these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort“must not hesitate to express”his own robust conviction,“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected,except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain.”—(p. 285.)LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1) Codicesband א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction and Notes on Select Readingsin vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:—“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [i.e.of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort]from any acquisition of new Evidence.”—(p. 285.)And yet,whythe anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence“would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian'sDiatessaron,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codicesband א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's[pg 314]equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions,—we are well aware.So indeed are they.Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate,weas earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(Ibid.)knowing well that“the documents”referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,)Codicesbandא: knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting documentis generally in agreement with codexb.For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codexbis to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation fromanyextraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual,mereassertion,) that,“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)And yet,—Whya reading foundonly in codexbshould experience greater indulgence than another reading foundonly in codexa, we entirely fail to see.On the other hand,“an unique criterionis supplied by the concord of the independent attestation ofband א.”—(Notes, p. 46.)But pray, how doesthatappear? Sinceband א are derived from one and the same original—Why should not“the concord”spoken of be rather“an unique criterion”of the utter depravity of the archetype?LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no[pg 315]stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codicesband א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.740These are[pg 316]two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that—“A Text formed”by“taking Codexbas the sole authority,”“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document”(p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary,by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words[pg 317]of Prebendary Scrivener (Introduction, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—
“Two striking factssuccessively come out with especial clearness. Every group containing both א andb,is found... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing neither; and every group containingb...is foundin a large preponderance of cases ... to havean apparently more original Textthan every opposed group containing א.”—(p. 210.)
“Is found”! but pray,—By whom?And“apparently”! but pray,—To whom?andOn what grounds of Evidence? For unless it be oncertaingrounds of Evidence, how can it be pretended that we have before us“two strikingfacts”?
Again, with what show of reason can it possibly be asserted that these“two striking facts”“come out withespecial clearness”? so long as their very existence remainsin nubibus,—has never been established, and is in fact emphatically denied? Expressions like the foregoingthenonly begin to be tolerable when it has been made plain that the Teacher has some solid foundation on which to build. Else, he occasions nothing but impatience and displeasure. Readers at first are simply annoyed at being trifled with: presently they grow restive: at last they become clamorous for demonstration, and will accept of nothing less. Let us go on however. We are still at p. 210:—
“We found א andbto stand alone in their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syriac readings ... andbto stand far above א in itsapparentfreedom from either Western or Alexandrian readings.”—(p. 210.)
But pray, gentlemen,—Whereandwhendid“we find”either of these two things? We have“found”nothing of the sort hitherto. The Reviewer is disposed to reproduce the Duke of Wellington's courteous reply to the Prince Regent, when the latter claimed the arrangements which resulted in the victory of Waterloo:—“I have heard your Royal Highness say so.”... At the end of a few pages,
“Having foundאbthe constant element in groups of every size, distinguished by internal excellence of readings,we foundno less excellence in the readings in which they concur without other attestations of Greek MSS., or even of Versions or Fathers.”—(p. 219.)
What! again? Why, we“have found”nothing as yet but Reiteration. Up to this point we have not been favoured with one particle of Evidence!... In the meantime, the convictions of these accomplished Critics,—(but not, unfortunately, those of their Readers,)—are observed to strengthen as they proceed. On reaching p. 224, we are assured that,
“The independence [ofband א] can be carried back so far,”—(not a hint is givenhow,)—“that their concordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that of a MS. older than א andbthemselves by at least two centuries,—probablyby a generation or two more.”
Howthat“independence”was established, and howthis“probability”has been arrived at, we cannot even imagine. The point to be attended to however, is, that by the process indicated, some such early epoch asa.d.100 has been reached. So that now we are not surprised to hear that,
“The respective ancestries of א andbmust have diverged from a common parentextremely near the Apostolic autographs.”—(p. 220. See top of p. 221.)
Or that,—“The close approach to the time of the autographsraises the presumption of purity to an unusual strength.”—(p. 224.)
And lo, before we turn the leaf, this“presumption”is found to have ripened into certainty:—
“This general immunity from substantive error ... in the common original of אb, in conjunction with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of casesa safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrustedexcept on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly ... it is our belief, (1) That Readings of אbshould be accepted as the true Readingsuntil strong internal evidence is found to the contrary; and (2),That no Readings ofאbcan be safely rejected absolutely.”—(p. 225.)
XLVI. And thus, by an unscrupulous use of the process of Reiteration, accompanied by a boundless exercise of the Imaginative faculty, we have reached the goal to which all that went before has been steadily tending: viz. the absolute supremacy of codicesband א above all other codices,—and, when they differ, then of codexb.
And yet, the“immunity from substantive error”of alostCodex ofimaginarydate andunknownhistory, cannot but be a pure imagination,—(a mistaken one, as we shall presently show,)—of these respected Critics: while their proposed practical inference from it,—(viz. to regard two remote and confessedly depraved Copies of that original, as“a safe criterion of genuineness,”)—this, at all events, is the reverse of logical. In the meantime, the presumed proximity of the Text of א andbto the Apostolic age is henceforth discoursed of as if it were no longer matter of conjecture:—
“The ancestries of both MSS. having started from a common sourcenot much later than the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 247.)
And again:—
“Near as the divergenceof the respective ancestries ofband אmust have been to the Autographs,”&c.—(p. 273.)
Until at last, we find it announced as a“moral certainty:”—
“It is morally certainthat the ancestries ofband אdiverged from a point near the Autographs, and never came into contact subsequently.”—(Text, p. 556.)
After which, of course, we have no right to complain if we are assured that:—
“The fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relativepurityis approximatelyabsolute,—a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs”—(p. 296.)
XLVII. But how does it happen—(we must needs repeat the enquiry, which however we make with unfeigned astonishment,)—How does it come to pass that a man of practised intellect, addressing persons as cultivated and perhaps as acute as himself, can handle a confessedly obscure problem like the present after this strangely incoherent, this foolish and wholly inconclusive fashion? One would have supposed that Dr. Hort's mathematical training would have made him an exact reasoner. But he writes as if he had no idea at all of the nature of demonstration, and of the process necessary in order to carry conviction home to a Reader's mind. Surely, (one tells oneself,) a minimum of“pass”Logic would have effectually protected so accomplished a gentleman from making such a damaging exhibition of himself! For surely he must be aware that, as yet, he has producednot one particle of evidencethat his opinion concerningband א is well founded. And yet, how can he possibly overlook the circumstance that, unless he is able todemonstratethat those two codices, and especially the former of them, has“preserved not only a very ancient Text, buta very pure line of ancient Text”also (p. 251), his entire work, (inasmuch as it reposes on that one assumption,) on being critically handled, crumbles to its base; or rather melts into thin air before the[pg 306]first puff of wind? He cannot, surely, require telling that those who look for Demonstration will refuse to put up with Rhetoric:—that, with no thoughtful person will Assertion pass for Argument:—nor mere Reiteration, however long persevered in, ever be mistaken for accumulated Proof.
“When I am taking a ride with Rouser,”—(quietly remarked Professor Saville to Bodley Coxe,)—“I observe that, if I ever demur to any of his views, Rouser's practice always is, to repeat the same thing over again in the same words,—only in a louder tone of voice”... The delicate rhetorical device thus indicated proves to be not peculiar to Professors of the University of Oxford; but to be familiarly recognized as an instrument of conviction by the learned men who dwell on the banks of the Cam. To be serious however.—Dr. Hort has evidently failed to see that nothing short of a careful induction of particular instances,—a system of laborious footnotes, or an“Appendix”bristling with impregnable facts,—could sustain the portentous weight of his fundamental position, viz. that Codexbis so exceptionally pure a document as to deserve to be taken as a chief guide in determining the Truth of Scripture.
It is related of the illustrious architect, Sir Gilbert Scott,—when he had to rebuild the massive central tower of a southern Cathedral, and to rear up thereon a lofty spire of stone,—that he made preparations for the work which astonished the Dean and Chapter of the day. He caused the entire area to be excavated to what seemed a most unnecessary depth, and proceeded to lay a bed of concrete of fabulous solidity. The“wise master-builder”was determined that his work should last for ever. Not so Drs. Westcott and Hort. They are either troubled with no similar anxieties, or else too clear-sighted to cherish any similar hope. They are evidently of opinion that a cloud or a quagmire will serve[pg 307]their turn every bit as well as granite or Portland-stone. Dr. Hort (as we have seen already, namely in p. 252,) considers that his individual“strong preference”of one set of Readings above another, is sufficient to determine whether the Manuscript which contains those Readings is pure or the contrary.“Formidable arrays of[hostile]Documentary evidence,”he disregards and sets at defiance, when once his own“fullest consideration of Internal Evidence”has“pronounced certain Readings to be right”[p. 61].
The only indication we anywhere meet with of the actualgroundof Dr. Hort's certainty, and reason of his preference, is contained in his claim that,—
“Every binary group [of MSS.]containingbis found to offer a large proportion of Readings, which, on the closest scrutiny, havethe ring of genuineness: while it is difficult to find any Readings so attested whichlook suspiciousafter full consideration.”—(p. 227. Also vol. i. 557—where the dictum is repeated.)
XLVIII. And thus we have, at last, an honest confession of the ultimate principle which has determined the Text of the present edition of the N. T.“The ring of genuineness”!Thisit must be which was referred to when“instinctive processes of Criticism”were vaunted; and the candid avowal made that“the experience which is their foundation needs perpetual correction and recorrection.”729
“We are obliged”(say these accomplished writers)“tocome to the individual mind at last.”730
And thus, behold,“at last”wehavereached the goal!...Individual idiosyncrasy,—notexternal Evidence:—Readings“strongly preferred,”—notReadingsstrongly attested:—“personal discernment”(self! still self!)conscientiously exercising[pg 308]itself upon Codexb;—this is a true account of the Critical method pursued by these accomplished Scholars. They deliberately claim“personal discernment”as“the surest ground for confidence.”731Accordingly, they judge of Readings by theirlooksand by theirsound. When, intheiropinion, words“look suspicious,”words are to be rejected. If a word has“the ring of genuineness,”—(i.e.if it seems to themto have it,)—they claim that the word shall pass unchallenged.
XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; substituting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which“look suspicious”to one expert, may easilynot“look”so to another. A man's“inner consciousness”cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance in this subject matter. Justly does Bp. Ellicott ridicule“the easy method of ...using a favourite Manuscript,”combined with“some supposed power of divining the Original Text;”732—unconscious apparently that he is thereby aiming a cruel blow at certain of his friends.
As for the proposed test of Truth,—(the enquiry, namely, whether or no a reading has“the ring of genuineness”)—it is founded on a transparent mistake. The coarse operation alluded to may be described as a“rough and ready”expedient practised byreceivers of moneyin the way of self-defence, andonlyfor their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an analogous test for the exclusive satisfaction ofhim who uttersthe suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort[pg 309]would attempt to pass off as genuine what he suspects to be fabricated; but because we are fully convinced—(for reasons“plenty as blackberries”)—that through some natural defect, or constitutional inaptitude, he is not a competent judge. The man who finds“no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight”(p. 135) in the only Greek Text which was known to scholars tilla.d.1831,—(although he confesses that“the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the IVth century is substantially identical with it”733); and vaunts in preference“the bold vigour”and“refined scholarship”which is exclusively met with in certain depraved uncials of the same or later date:—the man who thinks it not unlikely that the incident of the piercing of ourSaviour'sside (ἄλλος δὲ λαβῶν λόγχην κ.τ.λ.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49,as well asin S. John xix. 34:734—the man who is of opinion that the incident of the Woman taken in Adultery (filling 12 verses),“presents serious differences from the diction of S. John's Gospel,”—treats it as“an insertion in a comparatively late Western text”735and declines to retain it even within brackets, on the ground that it“would fatally interrupt”the course of the narrative if suffered to stand:—the man who can deliberately separate off from the end of S. Mark's Gospel, and print separately, S. Mark's last 12 verses, (on the plea that they“manifestly cannot claim any apostolic authority; but are doubtless founded on some tradition of the Apostolic age;”736)—yet who straightway proceeds to annex,as an alternative Conclusion(ἄλλως),“the wretched supplement derived from codexl:”737—the man (lastly) who, in defiance of“solid reason and pure taste,”finds music in the“utterly marred”“rhythmical arrangement”of the Angels' Hymn on the night of the[pg 310]Nativity:738—such an one is not entitled to a hearing when he talks about“the ring of genuineness.”He has already effectually put himself out of Court. He has convicted himself of a natural infirmity of judgment,—has given proof that he labours under a peculiar Critical inaptitude for this department of enquiry,—which renders his decrees nugatory, and his opinions worthless.
L. But apart from all this, the Reader's attention is invited to a little circumstance which Dr. Hort has unaccountably overlooked: but which, the instant it has been stated, is observed to cause his picturesque theory to melt away—like a snow-wreath in the sunshine.
On reflexion, it will be perceived that the most signal deformities of codicesbאd lareinstances of Omission. In the Gospels alone,bomits 2877 words.
How,—(we beg to enquire,)—How will you apply your proposed test to aNon-entity? How will you ascertain whether something whichdoes not exist in the Texthas“the ring of genuineness”or not? There can beno“ring of genuineness,”clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend thatthe omissionof the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any“ring of genuineness”?—or dare to assert that“the ring of genuineness”is imparted to the history of ourSaviour'sPassion, by the omission of His Agony in the Garden?—or that the narrative of His Crucifixion becomes more musical, when our Lord's Prayer for His murderers has beenomitted?—or that ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (“for they were afraid”), has“the ring of genuineness”as the conclusion of the last chapter of the Gospel according to S. Mark?
But the strangest circumstance is behind. It is notorious[pg 311]that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit thatthe omitted wordsactuallyhave“the ring of genuineness.”The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuousfor the very qualitywhich (by the hypothesis) was the warrant for their exclusion. Of this, the Reader may convince himself by referring to the note at foot of the present page.739In the meantime, the[pg 312]matter discoursed of may be conveniently illustrated by a short apologue:—
Somewhere in the fens of Ely diocese, stood a crazy old church (dedicated to S. Bee, of course,) the bells of which—according to a learned Cambridge Doctor—were the most musical in the world.“I have listened to those bells,”(he was accustomed to say,)“for 30 years. All other bells are cracked, harsh, out of tune. Commend me, for music, to the bells of S. Bee's!Theyalone havethe ring of genuineness.”... Accordingly, he published a treatise on Campanology, founding his theory on the musical properties of the bells of S. Bee's.—At this juncture, provokingly enough, some one directed attention to the singular fact that S. Bee's is one of the few churches in that districtwithoutbells: a discovery which, it is needless to add, pressed inconveniently on the learned Doctor's theory.
LI. But enough of this. We really have at last, (be it observed,) reached the end of our enquiry. Nothing comes after Dr. Hort's extravagant and unsupported estimate of Codicesband א. On the contrary. Those two documents are caused to cast their sombre shadows a long way ahead, and to darken all our future. Dr. Hort takes leave of the subject with the announcement that, whatever uncertainty may attach to the evidence for particular readings,
“The general course of future Criticism must be shaped by the happy circumstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS.[band א], of which even the less incorrupt [א] must have been of exceptional purity among its contemporaries: and which rise into greater pre-eminence of character the better the early history of the Text becomes known.”—(p. 287.)
In other words, our guide assures us that in a dutiful submission to codicesband א,—(which, he naïvely remarks,“happen likewise to be the oldest extantGreek MSS. of the New Testament”[p. 212],)—lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever haveheardof these two codices, had their contents come down to us written in the ordinary cursive character,—in a dated MS. (suppose) of the XVth century!)... Moreover, Dr. Hort“must not hesitate to express”his own robust conviction,
“That no trustworthy improvement can be effected,except in accordance with the leading Principles of method which we have endeavoured to explain.”—(p. 285.)
LII. And this is the end of the matter. Behold our fate therefore:—(1) Codicesband א, with—(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort'sIntroduction and Notes on Select Readingsin vindication of their contents! It is proposed to shut us up within those limits!... An uneasy suspicion however secretly suggests itself that perhaps, as the years roll out, something may come to light which will effectually dispel every dream of the new School, and reduce even prejudice itself to silence. So Dr. Hort hastens to frown it down:—
“It would be an illusion to anticipate important changes of Text [i.e.of the Text advocated by Drs. Westcott and Hort]from any acquisition of new Evidence.”—(p. 285.)
And yet,whythe anticipation of important help from the acquisition of fresh documentary Evidence“would be an illusion,”—does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,—better still, of Tatian'sDiatessaron,—best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codicesband א; but not, (like those two corrupt documents) derived from one and the same depraved archetype;—That any such windfall, (and it will come, some of these days,) would infallibly disturb Drs. Westcott and Hort's[pg 314]equanimity, as well as scatter to the winds not a few of their most confident conclusions,—we are well aware.So indeed are they.Hence, what those Critics earnestly deprecate,weas earnestly desire. We are therefore by no means inclined to admit, that
“Greater possibilities of improvement lie in a more exact study of the relations between the documents that we already possess;”—(Ibid.)
knowing well that“the documents”referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,)Codicesbandא: knowing also, that it is further meant, that in estimating other evidence, of whatever kind, the only thing to be enquired after is whether or no the attesting documentis generally in agreement with codexb.
For, according to these writers,—tide what tide,—codexbis to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation fromanyextraneous quarter. Dr. Hort asserts, (but it is, as usual,mereassertion,) that,
“Even whenbstands quite alone, its readings must never be lightly rejected.”—(p. 557.)
And yet,—Whya reading foundonly in codexbshould experience greater indulgence than another reading foundonly in codexa, we entirely fail to see.
On the other hand,“an unique criterionis supplied by the concord of the independent attestation ofband א.”—(Notes, p. 46.)
But pray, how doesthatappear? Sinceband א are derived from one and the same original—Why should not“the concord”spoken of be rather“an unique criterion”of the utter depravity of the archetype?
LIII. To conclude. We have already listened to Dr. Hort long enough. And now, since confessedly, a chain is no[pg 315]stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—
(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codicesband א is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.740These are[pg 316]two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that—“A Text formed”by“taking Codexbas the sole authority,”“would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document”(p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary,by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal. In the brave and faithful words[pg 317]of Prebendary Scrivener (Introduction, p. 453),—words which deserve to become famous,—