The Revision Revised Part 20

(self! still self!) _conscientiously exercising __ itself upon Codex_ B;-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."(731) Accordingly, they judge of Readings by their _looks_ and by their _sound_. When, in _their_ opinion, words "look suspicious," words are to be rejected. If a word has "the ring of genuineness,"-(_i.e._ _if it seems to them_ to have it,)-they claim that the word shall pa.s.s unchallenged.

XLIX. But it must be obvious that such a method is wholly inadmissible. It practically dispenses with Critical aids altogether; subst.i.tuting individual caprice for external guidance. It can lead to no tangible result: for Readings which "look suspicious" to one expert, may easily _not_ "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 Ma.n.u.script_,"

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 coa.r.s.e operation alluded to may be described as a "rough and ready" expedient practised by _receivers of money_ in the way of self-defence, and _only_ for their own protection, lest base metal should be palmed off upon them unawares. But Dr. Hort is proposing an a.n.a.logous test for the exclusive satisfaction of _him who utters_ the suspected article. We therefore disallow the proposal entirely: not, of course, because we suppose that so excellent and honourable a man as Dr. Hort would attempt to pa.s.s 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 const.i.tutional inapt.i.tude, 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 till A.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 our SAVIOUR'S side (????? d? ?a?? ?????? ?.t.?.) was actually found in the genuine Text of S. Matt. xxvii. 49, _as well as_ in 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"(735) and 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_ (?????), "the wretched supplement derived from codex L:"(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 Nativity:(738)-such an one is not ent.i.tled 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 inapt.i.tude 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 circ.u.mstance 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 codices B ? D L are _instances of Omission_. In the Gospels alone, B omits 2877 words.

How,-(we beg to enquire,)-How will you apply your proposed test to a _Non-ent.i.ty_? How will you ascertain whether something which _does not exist in the Text_ has "the ring of genuineness" or not? There can be _no_ "ring of genuineness," clearly, where there is nothing to ring with! Will any one pretend that _the omission_ of the incident of the troubling of the pool has in it any "ring of genuineness"?-or dare to a.s.sert that "the ring of genuineness" is imparted to the history of our SAVIOUR'S Pa.s.sion, 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 been _omitted_?-or that ?f????t? ??? ("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 circ.u.mstance is behind. It is notorious that, on the contrary, Dr. Hort is frequently constrained to admit that _the omitted words_ actually _have_ "the ring of genuineness." The words which he insists on thrusting out of the Text are often conspicuous _for the very quality_ which (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.(739) In the meantime, the matter discoursed of may be conveniently ill.u.s.trated 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! _They_ alone have _the 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 district _without_ bells: 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 Codices B and ?. On the contrary. Those two doc.u.ments 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 circ.u.mstance that the fourth century has bequeathed to us two MSS._ [B and ?], of which even the less incorrupt [?] 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 a.s.sures us that in a dutiful submission to codices B and ?,-(which, he navely remarks, "_happen likewise to be the oldest extant_ Greek MSS. of the New Testament" [p. 212],)-lies all our hope of future progress. (Just as if we should ever have _heard_ of 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) Codices B and ?, with-(2) Drs. Westcott and Hort's _Introduction and Notes on Select Readings_ in 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 antic.i.p.ate 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, _why_ the antic.i.p.ation of important help from the acquisition of fresh doc.u.mentary Evidence "would be an illusion,"-does not appear. That the recovery of certain of the exegetical works of Origen,-better still, of Tatian's _Diatessaron_,-best of all, of a couple of MSS. of the date of Codices B and ?; but not, (like those two corrupt doc.u.ments) 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 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, _we_ as 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 doc.u.ments that we already possess;"-(_Ibid._)

knowing well that "_the doc.u.ments_" referred to are chiefly, (if not solely,) _Codices_ B _and_ ?: 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 doc.u.ment _is generally in agreement with codex_ B.

For, according to these writers,-tide what tide,-codex B is to be the standard: itself not absolutely requiring confirmation from _any_ extraneous quarter. Dr. Hort a.s.serts, (but it is, as usual, _mere_ a.s.sertion,) that,

"_Even when_ B _stands quite alone_, its readings must never be lightly rejected."-(p. 557.)

And yet,-_Why_ a reading found _only in codex_ B should experience greater indulgence than another reading found _only in codex_ A, we entirely fail to see.

On the other hand, "_an unique criterion_ is supplied by the concord of the independent attestation of B and ?."-(_Notes_, p.

46.)

But pray, how does _that_ appear? Since B and ? 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 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 bas.e.m.e.nt-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved a.s.sertions which go before, we a.s.sert as follows:-

(1) The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and ? is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.(740) These are two of the least trustworthy doc.u.ments in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position that-"A Text formed" by "taking Codex B as the sole authority,"

"would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single doc.u.ment" (p. 251),-we venture to a.s.sert 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 of Prebendary Scrivener (_Introduction_, p. 453),-words which deserve to become famous,-

"It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within a hundred years after it was composed: that Irenaeus [A.D. 150], and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church, used far inferior ma.n.u.scripts to those employed by Stunica, or Erasmus, or Stephens thirteen centuries later, when moulding the Textus Receptus."

And Codices B and ? are, demonstrably, nothing else but _specimens of the depraved cla.s.s thus characterized_.

Next-(2), We a.s.sert that, so manifest are the disfigurements jointly and _exclusively_ exhibited by codices B and ?,(741) that instead of accepting these codices as two "independent" Witnesses to the inspired Original, we are constrained to regard them as little more than a single reproduction of one and the same scandalously corrupt and (_comparatively_) late Copy.

By consequence, we consider their joint and exclusive attestation of any particular reading, "_an unique criterion_" of its worthlessness; a sufficient reason-_not_ for adopting, but-for unceremoniously rejecting it.

Then-(3), As for the origin of these two curiosities, it can perforce only be divined from their contents. That they exhibit fabricated Texts is demonstrable. No amount of honest _copying_,-persevered in for any number of centuries,-could by possibility have resulted in two such doc.u.ments.

Separated from one another in actual date by 50, perhaps by 100 years,(742) they must needs have branched off from a common corrupt ancestor, and straightway become exposed continuously to fresh depraving influences. The result is, that codex ?, (which evidently has gone through more adventures and fallen into worse company than his rival,) has been corrupted to a far graver extent than codex B, and is even more untrustworthy. Thus, whereas (in the Gospels alone) B has 589 Readings _quite peculiar to itself_, affecting 858 words,-? has 1460 such Readings, affecting 2640 words.

One _solid fact_ like the preceding, (let it be pointed out in pa.s.sing,) is more helpful by far to one who would form a correct estimate of the value of a Codex, than any number of such "reckless and unverified a.s.sertions," not to say peremptory and baseless decrees, as abound in the highly imaginative pages of Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(4) Lastly,-We suspect that these two Ma.n.u.scripts are indebted for their preservation, _solely to their ascertained evil character_; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican library: while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D. 1844(743)) got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai. Had B and ? been copies of average purity, they must long since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely _used_ and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight. But in the meantime, behold, their very Antiquity has come to be reckoned to their advantage; and (strange to relate) is even considered to const.i.tute a sufficient reason why they should enjoy not merely extraordinary consideration, but the actual surrender of the critical judgment. Since 1831, Editors have vied with one another in the fulsomeness of the homage they have paid to these "two false Witnesses,"-for such B and ? _are_, as the concurrent testimony of Copies, Fathers and Versions abundantly proves. Even superst.i.tious reverence has been claimed for these two codices: and Drs. Westcott and Hort are so far in advance of their predecessors in the servility of their blind adulation, that they must be allowed to have easily won the race.

LIV. With this,-so far as the Greek Text under review is concerned,-we might, were we so minded, reasonably make an end. We undertook to show that Drs. Westcott and Hort, in the volumes before us, have built up an utterly worthless Textual fabric; and we consider that we have already sufficiently shown it. The Theory,-the Hypothesis rather, on which their Text is founded, we have _demonstrated_ to be _simply absurd_. Remove that hypothesis, and a heap of unsightly ruins is all that is left behind,-except indeed astonishment (not unmingled with concern) at the simplicity of its accomplished Authors.

Here then, we might leave off. But we are unwilling so to leave the matter. Large consideration is due to ordinary English Readers; who must perforce look on with utter perplexity-not to say distress-at the strange spectacle presented by _that_ Text (which is in the main _the Text of the Revised English Version_) on the one hand,-and _this_ Review of it, on the other:-

(1) "And pray, which of you am I to believe?"-will inevitably be, in homely English, the exclamation with which not a few will lay down the present number of the "_Quarterly_." "I pretend to no learning. I am not prepared to argue the question with you. But surely, the oldest Ma.n.u.script _must_ be the purest! It even stands to reason: does it not?-Then further, I admit that you _seem_ to have the best of the argument so far; yet, since the three most famous Editors of modern times are against you,-Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf,-excuse me if I suspect that you _must_ be in the wrong, after all."

LV. With unfeigned humility, the Reviewer [_Q. R._] proceeds to explain the matter to his supposed Objector [_S. O._], in briefest outline, as follows:-

_Q. R._ "You are perfectly right. The oldest Ma.n.u.script _must_ exhibit the purest text: _must_ be the most trustworthy. But then, unfortunately, it happens that _we do not possess it_. 'The oldest Ma.n.u.script' is lost. You speak, of course, of the inspired Autographs. These, I say, have long since disappeared."

(2) _S. O._ "No, I meant to say that the _oldest Ma.n.u.script we possess_, if it be but a very ancient one, must needs be the purest."

_Q. R._ "O, but _that_ is an entirely different proposition. Well, _apart from experience_, the probability that the oldest copy extant will prove the purest is, if you please, considerable. Reflection will convince you however that it is _but_ a probability, at the utmost: a probability based upon more than one false a.s.sumption,-with which nevertheless you shall not be troubled. But in fact it clearly does not by any means follow that, _because_ a MS. is very ancient, _therefore_ the Text, which it exhibits will be very pure. That you may be thoroughly convinced of this,-(and it is really impossible for your mind to be too effectually disabused of a prepossession which has fatally misled so many,)-you are invited to enquire for a recent contribution to the learned French publication indicated at the foot of this page,(744) in which is exhibited a fac-simile of 8 lines of the _Medea_ of Euripides (ver. 5-12), written about B.C. 200 in small uncials (at Alexandria probably,) on papyrus.

Collated with any printed copy, the verses, you will find, have been penned with scandalous, with incredible inaccuracy. But on this head let the learned Editor of the doc.u.ment in question be listened to, rather than the present Reviewer:-