The Revision Revised Part 15

"If we find in any group of doc.u.ments a succession of Readings exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is,-_Readings which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence p.r.o.nounces to be right, in opposition to formidable arrays of Doc.u.mentary Evidence_; the cause must be that, as far at least as these Readings are concerned, some one exceptionally pure MS. was the common ancestor of all the members of the group."

But how does _that_ appear? "The cause" _may_ be _the erroneous judgment of the Critic_,-may it not?... Dr. Hort is for setting up what his own inner consciousness "p.r.o.nounces to be right," against "Doc.u.mentary Evidence," however mult.i.tudinous. He claims that his own verifying faculty shall be supreme,-shall settle every question. Can he be in earnest?

VII. We are next introduced to the subject of "Genealogical Evidence" (p.

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

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

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

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

Presently, he a.s.sures us that

"a few doc.u.ments are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appreciably less likely to be right than a mult.i.tude opposed to them." (p. 45.)

On this head, we take leave to entertain a somewhat different opinion.

_Apart from the character of the Witnesses_, when 5 men say one thing, and 995 say the exact contradictory, we are apt to regard it even as axiomatic that, "by reason of their mere paucity," the few "are appreciably far less likely to be right than the mult.i.tude opposed to them." Dr. Hort seems to share our opinion; for he remarks,-

"A presumption indeed remains that a majority of extant doc.u.ments is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral doc.u.ments, than _vice versa_."

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

Not so thinks Dr. Hort. "This presumption," (he seems to have persuaded himself,) may be disposed of by his mere a.s.sertion that it "is too minute to weigh against the smallest tangible evidence of other kinds" (_Ibid._).

As usual, however, he furnishes us with _no evidence at all_,-"tangible"

or "intangible." Can he wonder if we smile at his unsupported _dictum_, and pa.s.s on?... The argumentative import of his twenty weary pages on "Genealogical Evidence" (pp. 39-59), appears to be resolvable into the following barren truism: viz. That if, out of 10 copies of Scripture, 9 _could be proved_ to have been executed from one and the same common original (p. 41), those 9 would cease to be regarded as 9 independent witnesses. But does the learned Critic really require to be told that we want no diagram of an imaginary case (p. 54) to convince us of _that_?

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

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

Further we cannot go.

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

The nearest approximation to the phenomenon about which Dr. Hort writes so glibly, is supplied-(1) by Codd. F and G of S. Paul, which are found to be independent transcripts of the same venerable lost original:-(2) by Codd.

13, 69, 124 and 346, which were confessedly derived from one and the same queer archetype: _and especially_-(3) by Codd. B and ?. These two famous ma.n.u.scripts, because they are disfigured exclusively by the self-same mistakes, are convicted of being descended (and not very remotely) from the self-same very corrupt original. By consequence, the combined evidence of F and G is but that of a single codex. Evan. 13, 69, 124, 346, when they agree, would be conveniently designated by a symbol, or a single capital letter. Codd. B and ?, as already hinted (p. 255), are not to be reckoned as two witnesses. Certainly, they have not nearly the Textual significancy and importance of B in conjunction with A, or of A in conjunction with C. At best, they do but equal 1- copies. Nothing of this kind however is what Drs. Westcott and Hort intend to convey,-or indeed seem to understand.

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

"The fundamental Text of _late extant Greek MSS._ generally is _beyond all question identical_ with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian Text of the _second half of the fourth century_."

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

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

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

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

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

(_b_) Dr. Hort has detected _four_ instances in S. Mark's Gospel, only _three_ in S. Luke's-_seven_ in all-where Codices B ? and D happen to concur in making an omission _at the same place_, but not _of the same words_. We shall probably be best understood if we produce an instance of the thing spoken of: and no fairer example can be imagined than the last of the eight, of which Dr. Hort says,-"This simple instance needs no explanation" (p. 104). Instead of a?????te? ?a? e???????te?,-(which is the reading of _every known copy_ of the Gospels _except five_,)-? B C L exhibit only e???????te?: D, only a?????te?. (To speak quite accurately, ?

B C L omit a?????te? ?a? and are followed by Westcott and Hort: D omits ?a? e???????te?, and is followed by Tischendorf. Lachmann declines to follow either. Tregelles doubts.)

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

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

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

Nay, look into the matter a little more closely:-(for surely, before we put up with this queer illusion, it is our duty to look it very steadily in the face:)-and note, that in this last chapter of S. Luke's Gospel, which consists of 837 words, no less than 121 are omitted by cod. D. To state the case differently,-D is observed to leave out _one word in seven_ in the very chapter of S. Luke which supplies the instance of "Conflation"

under review. What possible significance therefore can be supposed to attach to its omission of the clause ?a? e???????te?? And since, _mutatis mutandis_, the same remarks apply to the 6 remaining cases,-(for one, viz.

the [7th], is clearly an oversight,)-will any Reader of ordinary fairness and intelligence be surprised to hear that we reject the a.s.sumed "Conflation" unconditionally, as a silly dream? It is founded entirely upon the omission of 21 (or at most 42) words out of a total of 31,587 from Codd. B ? D. And yet it is demonstrable that out of that total, B omits 1519: ?, 1686: D, 2452. The occasional _coincidence in Omission_ of B + ? and D, was in a manner inevitable, and is undeserving of notice.

If,-(which is as likely as not,)-on _six_ occasions, B + ? and D have but _omitted different words in the same sentence_, then _there has been no _"Conflation"; and the (so-called) "Theory," which was to have revolutionized the Text of the N. T., is discovered to rest absolutely _upon nothing_. It bursts, like a very thin bubble: floats away like a film of gossamer, and disappears from sight.

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

[3rd]. In a sentence of 11 words, B ? omit 4: D other 4.

[4th]. " " 9 words, B ? omit 5: D other 5.

[8th]. " " 5 words, B ? omit 2: D other 2.

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

XI. In the meantime, Drs. Westcott and Hort, instead of realizing the insecurity of the ground under their feet, proceed gravely to build upon it, and to treat their hypothetical a.s.sumptions as well-ascertained facts.

They imagine that they have already been led by "independent Evidence" to regard "the longer readings as conflate each from the two earlier readings:"-whereas, up to p. 105 (where the statement occurs), they have really failed to produce a single particle of evidence, direct or indirect, for their opinion. "We have found reason to believe" the Readings of ? B L, (say they,) "to be the original Readings."-But why, if this is the case, have they kept their "finding" so entirely to themselves?-_No reason whatever_ have they a.s.signed for their belief. The Reader is presently a.s.sured (p. 106) that "_it is certain_" that the Readings exhibited by the traditional Text in the eight supposed cases of "Conflation" are all posterior in date to the fragmentary readings exhibited by B and D. But, once more, What is _the ground_ of this "certainty"?-Presently (viz. in p. 107), the Reader meets with the further a.s.surance that

"_the proved_ actual use of [shorter] doc.u.ments in the conflate Readings renders their use elsewhere a _vera causa_ in the Newtonian sense."

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

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

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

115).