The Revision Revised Part 17

In the meantime, the abominably corrupt doc.u.ment known as "Cureton's Syriac," is, by another bold hypothesis, a.s.sumed to be the only surviving specimen of the unrevised Version, and is henceforth _invariably_ designated by these authors as "the old Syriac;" and referred to, as "syr.

vt.,"-(in imitation of the Latin "_vetus_"): the venerable Peschito being referred to as the "Vulgate Syriac,"-"syr. vg."

"When therefore we find large and peculiar coincidences between the _revised Syriac Text_ and the Text of the Antiochian Fathers of the latter part of the IVth century,"-[of which coincidences, (be it remarked in pa.s.sing,) the obvious explanation is, that the Texts referred to are faithful traditional representations of the inspired autographs;]-"and _strong indications_ that the Revision _was deliberate and in some way authoritative_ in both cases,-_it becomes natural to suppose_ that the two operations had some historical connexion."-(pp. 136-7.)

XIX. But how does it happen-(let the question be asked without offence)-that a man of good abilities, bred in a University which is supposed to cultivate especially the Science of exact reasoning, should habitually allow himself in such slipshod writing as this? The very _fact_ of a "Revision" of the Syriac has all to be proved; and until it has been _demonstrated_, cannot of course be reasoned upon as a fact. Instead of demonstration, we find ourselves invited (1)-"_To suppose_" that such a Revision took place: and (2)-"_To suppose_" that all our existing Ma.n.u.scripts represent it. But (as we have said) not a shadow of reason is produced why we should be so complaisant as "to suppose" either the one thing or the other. In the meantime, the accomplished Critic hastens to a.s.sure us that there exist "strong indications"-(why are we not _shown_ them?)-that the Revision he speaks of was "deliberate, and in some way authoritative."

Out of this grows a "natural supposition" that "two [purely imaginary]

operations," "had some _historical connexion_." Already therefore has the shadow thickened into a substance. "The _Revised_ Syriac Text" has by this time come to be spoken of as an admitted fact. The process whereby it came into being is even a.s.sumed to have been "deliberate and authoritative."

These Editors henceforth style the Peschito the "_Syriac_ Vulgate,"-as confidently as Jerome's Revision of the old Latin is styled the "_Latin_ Vulgate." They even a.s.sure us that "Cureton's Syriac" "renders the comparatively late and 'revised' character of the Syriac Vulgate _a matter of certainty_" (p. 84). The very city in which the latter underwent Revision, can, it seems, be fixed with "_tolerable certainty_" (p.

136).... Can Dr. Hort be serious?

At the end of a series of conjectures, (the foundation of which is the hypothesis of an Antiochian Recension of the Greek,) the learned writer announces that-"The textual elements of each principle doc.u.ment _having being thus ascertained, it now becomes possible to determine the Genealogy of a much larger number of individual readings than before_" (_Text_, p.

552).-We read and marvel.

So then, in brief, the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort is this:-that, somewhere between A.D. 250 and A.D. 350,

"(1) The growing diversity and confusion of Greek Texts led to an authoritative Revision at Antioch:-which (2) was then taken as standard for a similar authoritative Revision of the Syriac text:-and (3) was itself at a later time subjected to a second authoritative Revision"-this "final process" having been "apparently completed by [A.D.] 350 or thereabouts."-(p. 137.)

XX. Now, instead of insisting that this entire Theory is made up of a series of purely gratuitous a.s.sumptions,-dest.i.tute alike of attestation and of probability: and that, as a mere effort of the Imagination, it is ent.i.tled to no manner of consideration or respect at our hands:-instead of dealing _thus_ with what precedes, we propose to be most kind and accommodating to Dr. Hort. We proceed _to accept his Theory in its entirety_. We will, with the Reader's permission, a.s.sume that _all_ he tells us is historically true: is an authentic narrative of what actually did take place. We shall in the end invite the same Reader to recognize the inevitable consequences of our admission: to which we shall inexorably pin the learned Editors-bind them hand and foot;-of course reserving to ourselves the right of disallowing _for ourselves_ as much of the matter as we please.

Somewhere between A.D. 250 and 350 therefore,-("it is impossible to say with confidence" [p. 137] what was the actual date, but these Editors evidently incline to the latter half of the IIIrd century, _i.e._ _circa_ A.D. 275);-we are to believe that the Ecclesiastical heads of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom,-Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople,-had become so troubled at witnessing the prevalence of depraved copies of Holy Scripture in their respective churches, that they resolved by common consent on achieving an authoritative Revision which should henceforth become the standard Text of all the Patriarchates of the East. The same sentiment of distress-(by the hypothesis) penetrated into Syria proper; and the Bishops of Edessa or Nisibis, ("great centres of life and culture to the Churches whose language was Syriac," [p. 136,]) lent themselves so effectually to the project, that a single fragmentary doc.u.ment is, at the present day, the only vestige remaining of the Text which before had been universally prevalent in the Syriac-speaking Churches of antiquity. "The _almost total extinction of Old Syriac MSS._, contrasted with the great number of extant _Vulgate Syriac MSS._,"-(for it is thus that Dr. Hort habitually exhibits evidence!),-is to be attributed, it seems, to the power and influence of the Authors of the imaginary Syriac Revision. [_ibid._] Bp. Ellicott, by the way (an unexceptionable witness), characterizes Cureton's Syriac as "_singular and sometimes rather wild_." "_The text, of a very composite nature_; sometimes _inclining to the shortness and simplicity of the Vatican ma.n.u.script, but more commonly presenting the same paraphrastic character of text as the Codex Bezae_." [p. 42.] (It is, in fact, an _utterly depraved_ and _fabricated_ doc.u.ment.)

We venture to remark in pa.s.sing that Textual matters must have everywhere reached a very alarming pa.s.s indeed to render intelligible the resort to so extraordinary a step as a representative Conference of the "leading Personages or Sees" (p. 134) of Eastern Christendom. The inference is at least inevitable, that men in high place at that time deemed themselves competent to grapple with the problem. Enough was familiarly known about the character and the sources of these corrupt Texts to make it certain that they would be recognizable when produced; and that, when condemned by authority, they would no longer be propagated, and in the end would cease to molest the Church. Thus much, at all events, is legitimately to be inferred from the hypothesis.

XXI. Behold then from every princ.i.p.al Diocese of ancient Christendom, and in the Church's palmiest days, the most famous of the ante-Nicene Fathers repair to Antioch. They go up by authority, and are attended by skilled Ecclesiastics of the highest theological attainment. Bearers are they perforce of a vast number of Copies of the Scriptures: and (by the hypothesis) _the latest possible dates_ of any of these Copies must range between A.D. 250 and 350. But the Delegates of so many ancient Sees will have been supremely careful, before starting on so important and solemn an errand, to make diligent search for the oldest Copies anywhere discoverable: and when they reach the scene of their deliberations, we may be certain that they are able to appeal to not a few codices _written within a hundred years of the_ date of the _inspired Autographs_ themselves. Copies of the Scriptures authenticated as having belonged to the most famous of their predecessors,-and held by them in high repute for the presumed purity of their Texts-will have been freely produced: while, in select receptacles, will have been stowed away-for purposes of comparison and avoidance-specimens of those dreaded Texts whose existence has been the sole cause why (by the hypothesis) this extraordinary concourse of learned Ecclesiastics has taken place.

After solemnly invoking the Divine blessing, these men address themselves a.s.siduously to their task; and (by the hypothesis) they proceed to condemn every codex which exhibits a "strictly Western," or a "strictly Alexandrian," or a "strictly Neutral" type. In plain English, if codices B, ?, and D had been before them, they would have unceremoniously rejected all three; but then, (by the hypothesis) neither of the two first-named had yet come into being: while 200 years at least must roll out before Cod. D would see the light. In the meantime, the _immediate ancestors_ of B ? and D will perforce have come under judicial scrutiny; and, (by the hypothesis,) they will have been scornfully rejected by the general consent of the Judges.

XXII. Pa.s.s an interval-(are we to suppose of fifty years?)-and the work referred to is "_subjected to a second authoritative Revision_." _Again_, therefore, behold the piety and learning of the four great Patriarchates of the East, formally represented at Antioch! The Church is now in her palmiest days. Some of her greatest men belong to the period of which we are speaking. Eusebius (A.D. 308-340) is in his glory. One whole generation has come and gone since the last Textual Conference was held, at Antioch. Yet is no inclination manifested to reverse the decrees of the earlier Conference. This second Recension of the Text of Scripture does but "carry out more completely the purposes of the first;" and "the final process was apparently completed by A.D. 350" (p. 137).-So far the Cambridge Professor.

XXIII. But the one important fact implied by this august deliberation concerning the Text of Scripture has been conveniently pa.s.sed over by Dr.

Hort in profound silence. We take leave to repair his omission by inviting the Reader's particular attention to it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, we request that it may be clearly noted that, _according to Dr.

Hort_, against every copy of the Gospels so maimed and mutilated, (_i.e._ _against every copy of the Gospels of the same type as codices_ B _and_ ?,)-the many ill.u.s.trious Bishops who, (_still_ according to Dr. Hort,) a.s.sembled at Antioch, first in A.D. 250 and then in A.D. 350,-by common consent set a mark of _condemnation_. We are a.s.sured that those famous men,-those Fathers of the Church,-were emphatic in their sanction, instead, of codices of the type of Cod. A,-in which all these seven omitted pa.s.sages (and many hundreds besides) are duly found in their proper places.

When, therefore, at the end of a thousand and half a thousand years, Dr.

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

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

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

66-7.)

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

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

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

(6) They would have learned that, in the account of the same Critic, S.

Luke xxiv. 51 is another spurious addition to the inspired Text: another "Western non-interpolation." Dr. Hort would have tried to persuade them that OUR LORD'S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN "_was evidently inserted from an a.s.sumption_ that a separation from the disciples at the close of a Gospel _must be the Ascension_," (_Notes_, p. 73).... (What the Ante-Nicene Fathers would have thought of their teacher we forbear to conjecture.)-(p.

71.)

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

XXIV. It is plain therefore that Dr. Hort is in direct antagonism with the collective mind of Patristic Antiquity. _Why_, when it suits him, he should appeal to the same Ancients for support,-we fail to understand. "If Baal be G.o.d, then follow _him_!" Dr. Hort has his codex B and his codex ?

to guide him. He informs us (p. 276) that "the fullest consideration does but increase the conviction that the _pre-eminent relative purity_" of those two codices "is approximately _absolute_,-_a true approximate reproduction of the Text of the Autographs_." On the other hand, he has discovered that the Received Text is virtually the production of the Fathers of the Nicene Age (A.D. 250-A.D. 350),-exhibits a Text fabricated throughout by the united efforts of those well-intentioned but thoroughly misguided men. What is it to _him_, henceforth, how Athanasius, or Didymus, or Cyril exhibits a place?

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

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

XXV. How then about those "Syrian _Conflations_" concerning which a few pages back we heard so much, and for which Dr. Hort considers the august tribunal of which we are now speaking to be responsible? He is convinced that the (so-called) Syrian Text (which he regards as the product of their deliberations), is "an eclectic text _combining Readings from the three princ.i.p.al Texts_" (p. 145): which Readings in consequence he calls "_conflate_." How then is it to be supposed that these "Conflations"

arose? The answer is obvious. As "Conflations," _they have no existence_,-save in the fertile brain of Dr. Hort. Could the ante-Nicene fathers who never met at Antioch have been interrogated by him concerning this matter,-(let the Hibernian supposition be allowed for argument sake!)-they would perforce have made answer,-"You quite mistake the purpose for which we came together, learned sir! You are evidently thinking of your Jerusalem Chamber and of the unheard-of method devised by your Bishop" [see pp. 37 to 39: also p. 273] "for ascertaining the Truth of Scripture. Well may the resuscitation of so many forgotten blunders have occupied you and your colleagues for as long a period as was expended on the Siege of Troy! _Our_ business was not to _invent_ readings whether by 'Conflation' or otherwise, but only to distinguish between spurious Texts and genuine,-families of fabricated MSS., and those which we knew to be trustworthy,-mutilated and unmutilated Copies. Every one of what _you_ are pleased to call 'Conflate Readings,' learned sir, we found-just as you find them-in 99 out of 100 of our copies: and we gave them our deliberate approval, and left them standing in the Text in consequence. We believed them to be,-we are confident that they _are_,-the very words of the Evangelists and Apostles of the LORD: the _ipsissima verba_ of the SPIRIT: '_the true sayings of the_ HOLY GHOST.' " [See p. 38, note 2.]

All this however by the way. The essential thing to be borne in mind is that, according to Dr. Hort,-_on two distinct occasions between_ A.D. 250 _and_ 350-the whole Eastern Church, meeting by representation in her palmiest days, deliberately put forth _that_ Traditional Text of the N. T.

with which we at this day are chiefly familiar. That this is indeed his view of the matter, there can at least be no doubt. He says:-

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

350 or thereabouts."-(p. 137.)

"The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS. generally _is beyond all question_ identical with the dominant Antiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of _the second half of the IVth century_."-(p.

92.)

Be it so. It follows that the Text exhibited by such codices as B and ?

_was deliberately condemned_ by the a.s.sembled piety, learning, and judgment of the four great Patriarchates of Eastern Christendom. At a period when there existed _nothing more modern_ than Codices B and ?,-nothing _so_ modern as A and C,-all specimens of the former cla.s.s were _rejected_: while such codices as bore a general resemblance to A were by common consent pointed out as deserving of confidence and _recommended for repeated Transcription_.