The Revision Revised Part 22

"Nor is the case materially altered if (as generally happens) a few colleagues of bad character are observed to side with the else solitary doc.u.ment. a.s.sociated with the corrupt B, is often found the more corrupt ?. Nay, six leaves of ? are confidently declared by Tischendorf to have been written by the scribe of B. The sympathy between these two, and the Version of Lower Egypt, is even notorious. That Origen should sometimes join the conspiracy,-and that the same Reading should find allies in certain copies of the unrevised Latin, or perhaps in Cureton's Syriac:-all _this_ we deem the reverse of encouraging. The attesting witnesses are, in our account, of so suspicious a character, that the Reading cannot be allowed. On such occasions, we are reminded that there is truth in Dr.

Hort's dictum concerning the importance of noting the tendency of certain doc.u.ments to fall into 'groups:' though his a.s.sertion that 'it cannot be too often repeated that the study of grouping is _the foundation of all enduring Criticism_,'(767) we hold to be as absurd as it is untrue.

LXI. "So far negatively.-A safer, the _only_ trustworthy method, in fact, of ascertaining the Truth of Scripture, we hold to be the method which,-without prejudice or partiality,-simply ascertains WHICH FORM OF THE TEXT ENJOYS THE EARLIEST, THE FULLEST, THE WIDEST, THE MOST RESPECTABLE, AND-above all things-THE MOST VARIED ATTESTATION. That a Reading should be freely recognized alike by the earliest and by the latest available evidence,-we hold to be a prime circ.u.mstance in its favour. That Copies, Versions, and Fathers, should all three concur in sanctioning it,-we hold to be even more conclusive. If several Fathers, living in different parts of ancient Christendom, are all observed to recognize the words, or to quote them in the same way,-we have met with all the additional confirmation we ordinarily require. Let it only be further discoverable _how_ or _why_ the rival Reading came into existence, and our confidence becomes absolute.

LXII. "An instance which we furnished in detail in a former article,(768) may be conveniently appealed to in ill.u.s.tration of what goes before. Our LORD'S 'Agony and b.l.o.o.d.y sweat,'-first mentioned by Justin Martyr (A.D.

150), is found _set down in every MS. in the world except four_. It is duly exhibited _by every known Version_. It is recognized by _upwards of forty famous Fathers_ writing without concert in remote parts of ancient Christendom. Whether therefore Antiquity,-Variety of testimony,-Respectability of witnesses,-or Number,-is considered, the evidence in favour of S. Luke xxii. 43, 44 is simply overwhelming. And yet out of superst.i.tious deference to _two_ Copies of bad character, Drs.

Westcott and Hort (followed by the Revisionists) set the brand of spuriousness on those 26 precious words; professing themselves 'morally certain' that this is nothing else but a 'Western Interpolation:' whereas, mistaken zeal for the honour of Incarnate JEHOVAH alone occasioned the suppression of these two verses in a few early ma.n.u.scripts. This has been explained already,-namely, in the middle of page 82.

LXIII. "Only one other instance shall be cited. The traditional reading of S. Luke ii. 14 is vouched for by _every __ known copy of the Gospels but four_-3 of which are of extremely bad character, viz. ? B D. The Versions are divided: but _not_ the Fathers: of whom _more than forty-seven_ from every part of ancient Christendom,-(Syria, Palestine, Alexandria, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Gaul,)-come back to attest that the traditional reading (as usual) is the true one. Yet such is the infatuation of the new school, that Drs. Westcott and Hort are content to make _nonsense_ of the Angelic Hymn on the night of the Nativity, rather than admit the possibility of complicity in error in ? B D: error in respect of _a single letter!_... The Reader is invited to refer to what has already been offered on this subject, from p. 41 to p. 47.

LXIV. "It will be perceived therefore that the method we plead for consists merely in a loyal recognition of the whole of the Evidence: setting off one authority against another, laboriously and impartially; and adjudicating fairly between them _all_. Even so hopelessly corrupt a doc.u.ment as Clement of Alexandria's copy of the Gospels proves to have been-(described at pp. 326-31)-is by no means without critical value.

Servilely followed, it would confessedly land us in hopeless error: but, judiciously employed, as a set-off against _other_ evidence; regarded rather as a check upon the exorbitances of _other_ foul doc.u.ments, (_e.g._ B ? C and especially D); resorted to as a protection against the prejudice and caprice of modern Critics;-that venerable doc.u.ment, with all its faults, proves invaluable. Thus, in spite of its own aberrations, it witnesses to _the truth of the Traditional Text_ of S. Mark x. 17-31-(the place of Scripture above referred to(769))-in several important particulars; siding with it against Lachmann, 9 times;-against Tischendorf, 10 times;-against Tregelles, 11 times;-against Westcott and Hort, 12 times.

"We deem this laborious method the only true method, in our present state of imperfect knowledge: the method, namely, of _adopting that Reading which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation.

Antiquity, and Respectability of Witnesses,_ are thus secured. How men can persuade themselves that 19 Copies out of every 20 may be safely disregarded, if they be but written in minuscule characters,-we fail to understand. To ourselves it seems simply an irrational proceeding. But indeed we hold this to be no _seeming_ truth. The fact is absolutely demonstrable. As for building up a Text, (as Drs. Westcott and Hort have done,) with special superst.i.tious deference to a _single codex,_-we deem it about as reasonable as would be the attempt to build up a pyramid from its apex; in the expectation that it would stand firm on its extremity, and remain horizontal for ever."

And thus much in reply to our supposed Questioner. We have now reached the end of a prolonged discussion, which began at page 320; more immediately, at page 337.

LXV. In the meantime, _a pyramid balanced on its apex_ proves to be no unapt image of the Textual theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort. When we reach the end of their _Introduction_ we find we have reached the point to which all that went before has been evidently converging: but we make the further awkward discovery that it is the point on which all that went before absolutely _depends_ also. _Apart from_ codex B, the present theory could have no existence. _But for_ codex B, it would never have been excogitated. _On_ codex B, it entirely rests. _Out of_ codex B, it has _entirely sprung._

Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort's volume becomes absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning. _One-fifth_ of it(770) is devoted to remarks on B and ?. The fable of "the _Syrian_ text" is invented solely for the glorification of B and ?,-which are claimed, of course, to be "_Pre_-Syrian." This fills 40 pages more.(771) And thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay _perdu_ on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;-Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper basket(772) in the convent of S. Catharine at the foot of Mount Sinai,-from which he rescued it on the 4th February, 1859:-neither, we venture to think, a very likely circ.u.mstance. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine.

Are we asked for the ground of our opinion? We point without hesitation to the 998 COPIES which remain: to the many ancient VERSIONS: to the many venerable FATHERS,-_any one_ of whom we hold to be _a more trustworthy authority_ for the Text of Scripture, _when he speaks out plainly,_ than either Codex B or Codex ?,-aye, or than both of them put together. Behold, (we say,) the abundant provision which the All-wise One hath made for the safety of the Deposit: the "threefold cord" which "is not quickly broken"!

We hope to be forgiven if we add, (not without a little warmth,) that we altogether wonder at the perversity, the infatuation, the blindness,-which is prepared to make light of all these precious helps, in order to magnify two of the most corrupt codices in existence; and _that_, for no other reason but because, (as Dr. Hort expresses it,) they "_happen_ likewise to be the oldest extant Greek MSS. of the New Testament." (p. 212.)

LXVI. And yet, had what precedes been the sum of the matter, we should for our own parts have been perfectly well content to pa.s.s it by without a syllable of comment. So long as nothing more is endangered than the personal reputation of a couple of Scholars-at home or abroad-we can afford to look on with indifference. Their private ventures are their private concern. What excites our indignation is the spectacle of the _Church of England_ becoming to some extent involved in their discomfiture, because implicated in their mistakes: dragged through the mire, to speak plainly, at the chariot-wheels of these two infelicitous Doctors, and exposed with them to the ridicule of educated Christendom.

Our Church has boasted till now of learned sons in abundance within her pale, ready at a moment's notice to do her right: to expose shallow sciolism, and to vindicate that precious thing which hath been committed to her trust.(773) Where are the men _now?_ What has come to her, that, on the contrary, certain of her own Bishops and Doctors have not scrupled to enter into an irregular alliance with Sectarians,-yes, have even taken into partnership with themselves one who openly denies the eternal G.o.dhead of our LORD JESUS CHRIST,-in order, as it would seem, to give proof to the world of the low ebb to which Taste, Scholarship, and Sacred Learning have sunk among us?

LXVII. Worse yet. We are so distressed, because the true sufferers after all by this ill-advised proceeding, are the 90 millions of English-speaking Christian folk scattered over the surface of the globe.

These have had the t.i.tle-deeds by which they hold their priceless birthright, shamefully tampered with. _Who_ will venture to predict the amount of mischief which must follow, if the "_New Greek Text_" which has been put forth by the men who were appointed _to revise the English Authorized Version,_ should become used in our Schools and in our Colleges,-should impose largely on the Clergy of the Church of England?...

But to return from this, which however will scarcely be called a digression.

A pyramid poised on its apex then, we hold to be a fair emblem of the Theory just now under review. Only, unfortunately, its apex is found to be constructed of brick without straw: say rather _of straw-without brick._

LXVIII. _Why_ such partiality has been evinced latterly for Cod. B, none of the Critics have yet been so good as to explain; nor is it to be expected that, satisfactorily, any of them ever will. _Why_ again Tischendorf should have suddenly transferred his allegiance from Cod. B to Cod. ?,-unless, to be sure, he was the sport of parental partiality,-must also remain a riddle. If _one_ of the "old uncials" must needs be taken as a guide,-(though we see no sufficient reason why _one_ should be appointed to lord it over the rest,)-we should rather have expected that Cod. A would have been selected,(774)-the text of which "Stands in broad contrast to those of either B or ?, though the interval of years [between it and them] is probably small." (p. 152.) "By a curious and apparently unnoticed coincidence," (proceeds Dr. Hort,) "its Text in several books agrees with the Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of old Latin attestation, as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS. largely employed by Jerome"-[and why not "THE_ Greek copies_ employed by Jerome"?]-"in his Revision of the Latin version must have had to a great extent a common original with A." (_Ibid_.)

Behold a further claim of this copy on the respectful consideration of the Critics! What would be thought of the Alexandrian Codex, if some attestation were discoverable in its pages that it actually _had belonged_ to the learned Palestinian father? According to Dr. Hort,

"Apart from this individual affinity, A-both in the Gospels and elsewhere-may serve as _a fair example of the Ma.n.u.scripts that,_ to judge by Patristic quotations, _were commonest in the IVth century._"-(p. 152.)

O but, the evidence in favour of Codex A thickens apace! Suppose then,-(for, after this admission, the supposition is at least allowable,)-suppose the discovery were made tomorrow of half-a-score of codices of the _same date as Cod._ B, but exhibiting the _same Text as Cod._ A. What a complete revolution would be thereby effected in men's minds on Textual matters! How impossible would it be, henceforth, for B and its henchman ?, to obtain so much as a hearing! Such "an eleven" would safely defy the world! And yet, according to Dr. Hort, the supposition may any day become a fact; for he informs us,-(and we are glad to be able for once to declare that what he says is perfectly correct,)-that such ma.n.u.scripts once abounded or rather _prevailed;_-"_were commonest_ in the IVth century," when codices B and ? were written. We presume that then, as now, such codices prevailed universally, in the proportion of 99 to 1.

LXIX. But-what need to say it?-we entirely disallow any such narrowing of the platform which Divine Wisdom hath willed should be at once very varied and very ample. Cod. A is sometimes in error: sometimes even _conspires in error exclusively with Cod._ B. An instance occurs in 1 S. John v. 18,-a difficult pa.s.sage, which we the more willingly proceed to remark upon, because the fact has transpired that it is one of the few places in which _entire unanimity_ prevailed among the Revisionists,-who yet (as we shall show) have been, one and all, mistaken in subst.i.tuting "_him_" (a?t??) for "_himself_" (?a?t??).... We venture to bespeak the Reader's attention while we produce the pa.s.sage in question, and briefly examine it. He is a.s.sured that it exhibits a fair average specimen of what has been the Revisionists' fatal method in every page:-

LXX. S. John in his first Epistle (v. 18) is distinguishing between the mere recipient of the new birth (? G????T??S ?? t?? Te??),-and the man who retains the sanctifying influences of the HOLY SPIRIT which he received when he became regenerate (? G?G????????S ?? t?? Te??). The latter (he says) "_sinneth not_:" the former, (he says,) "_keepeth himself, and the Evil One toucheth him not_." So far, all is intelligible. The nominative is the same in both cases. Subst.i.tute however "keepeth _him_ (a?t??)," for "keepeth _himself_ (?a?t??)," and (as Dr. Scrivener admits(775)), ?

?e????e?? ?? t?? Te?? can be none other than the Only Begotten SON of G.o.d.

And yet our LORD is _nowhere_ in the New Testament designated as ?

?e????e?? ?? t?? Te??.(776) Alford accordingly prefers to make nonsense of the place; which he translates,-"he that hath been begotten of G.o.d, _it keepeth him_."

LXXI. Now, on every occasion like the present,-(instead of tampering with the text, _as Dr. Hort and our Revisionists have done without explanation or apology,_)-our safety will be found to consist in enquiring,-But (1) What have the Copies to say to this? (2) What have the Versions? and (3) What, the Fathers?... The answer proves to be-(1) _All the copies except three,_(777) read "himself."-(2) So do the Syriac and the Latin;(778)-so do the Coptic, Sahidic, Georgian, Armenian, and aethiopic versions.(779)-(3) So, Origen clearly thrice,(780)-Didymus clearly 4 times,(781)-Ephraem Syrus clearly twice,(782)-Severus also twice,(783)-Theophylact expressly,(784)-and c.u.menius.(785)-So, indeed, Cod. A; for the original Scribe is found to have corrected himself.(786) The sum of the adverse attestation therefore which prevailed with the Revisionists, is found to have been-_Codex_ B _and a single cursive copy_ at Moscow.

This does not certainly seem to the Reviewer, (as it seemed to the Revisionists,) "decidedly preponderating evidence." In his account, "_plain and clear error_" dwells with their Revision. But this may be because,-(to quote words recently addressed by the President of the Revising body to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol,)-the "Quarterly Reviewer" is "_innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._"(787)

LXXII. "It is easy,"-(says the learned Prelate, speaking on his own behalf and that of his co-Revisionists,)-"to put forth to the world a sweeping condemnation of many of our changes of reading; and yet all the while to be _innocently ignorant of the now established principles of Textual Criticism._"

May we venture to point out, that it is easier still to denounce adverse Criticism in the lump, instead of trying to refute it in any one particular:-to refer vaguely to "established principles of Textual Criticism," instead of stating which they be:-to sneer contemptuously at endeavours, (which, even if unsuccessful, one is apt to suppose are ent.i.tled to sympathy at the hands of a successor of the Apostles,) instead of showing _wherein_ such efforts are reprehensible? We are content to put the following question to any fair-minded man:-Whether of these two is the more facile and culpable proceeding;-(1) _Lightly to blot out an inspired word from the Book of Life, and to impose a wrong sense on Scripture_, as in this place the Bishop and his colleagues are found to have done:-or, (2) To fetch the same word industriously back: to establish its meaning by diligent and laborious enquiry: to restore both to their rightful honours: and to set them on a basis of (_hitherto un.o.bserved_) evidence, from which (_faxit DEUS!_) it will be found impossible henceforth to dislodge them?

This only will the Reviewer add,-That if it be indeed one of the "now established principles of Textual Criticism," that the evidence of _two ma.n.u.scripts and-a-half_ outweighs the evidence of (1) All _the remaining_ 997-,-(2) The whole body of the Versions,-(3) _Every Father who quotes the place, from_ A.D. 210 to A.D. 1070,-and (4) _The strongest possible internal Evidence_:-if all this _indeed_ be so,-he devoutly trusts that he may be permitted to retain his "Innocence" to the last; and in his "Ignorance," when the days of his warfare are ended, to close his eyes in death.-And now to proceed.

LXXIII. The Nemesis of Superst.i.tion and Idolatry is ever the same.

Phantoms of the imagination henceforth usurp the place of substantial forms. Interminable doubt,-wretched misbelief,-childish credulity,-judicial blindness,-are the inevitable sequel and penalty. The mind that has long allowed itself in a systematic trifling with Evidence, is observed to fall the easiest prey to Imposture. It has doubted what is _demonstrably_ true: has rejected what is _indubitably_ Divine.

Henceforth, it is observed to mistake its own fantastic creations for historical facts: to believe things which rest on insufficient evidence, or on no evidence at all. Thus, these learned Professors,-who condemn the "last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to S. Mark;" which have been accounted veritable Scripture by the Church Universal for more than 1800 years;-nevertheless accept as the genuine "_Diatessaron of Tatian_" [A.D.

170], a production which was discovered yesterday, and which _does not even claim to be_ the work of that primitive writer.(788)

Yes, the Nemesis of Superst.i.tion and Idolatry is ever the same. General mistrust of _all_ evidence is the sure result. In 1870, Drs. Westcott and Hort solemnly a.s.sured their brother-Revisionists that "the prevalent a.s.sumption that throughout the N. T. the true Text is to be found _somewhere_ among recorded Readings, _does not stand the test of experience_." They are evidently still haunted by the same spectral suspicion. They invent a ghost to be exorcised in every dark corner.

Accordingly, Dr. Hort favours us with a chapter on the Art of "removing Corruptions of the sacred Text _antecedent to extant doc.u.ments_" (p. 71).

We are not surprised (though we _are_ a little amused) to hear that,-

"The _Art of Conjectural Emendation_ depends for its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of resource in the first instance, and even more an appreciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true character as a critical operation founded on knowledge and method."-(p. 71.)

LXXIV. _Very_ "easy," certainly. One sample of Dr. Hort's skill in this department, (it occurs at page 135 of his _Notes on Select Readings_,) shall be cited in ill.u.s.tration. We venture to commend it to the attention of our Readers:-

(a) S. Paul [2 Tim. i. 13] exhorts Timothy, (whom he had set as Bp. over the Church of Ephesus,) to "_hold fast_" a certain "_form_" or "pattern"

(?p?t?p?s??) "_of sound words_, _which_" (said he) "_thou hast heard of me_." The flexibility and delicate precision of the Greek language enables the Apostle to indicate exactly what was the prime object of his solicitude. It proves to have been the safety of _the very words_ which he had syllabled, (???a????t?? ????? ?? pa?? ??? ????sas). As learned Bp.

Beveridge well points out,-"_which words_, not _which form_, thou hast heard of me. So that it is not so much the _form_, as the _words_ themselves, which the Apostle would have him to hold fast."(789)

All this however proves abhorrent to Dr. Hort. "This sense" (says the learned Professor) "cannot be obtained from the text except by treating ??

as put in the genitive by _an unusual and inexplicable attraction_. It seems more probable that ?? is a _primitive corruption_ of ?? after p??t??."

Now, this is quite impossible, since neither ?? nor p??t?? occurs anywhere in the neighbourhood. And as for the supposed "unusual and inexplicable attraction," it happens to be one of even common occurrence,-as every attentive reader of the New Testament is aware. Examples of it may be seen at 2 Cor. i. 4 and Ephes. iv. 1,-also (in Dr. Hort's text of) Ephes. i. 6 (?? in all 3 places). Again, in S. Luke v. 9 (whether ? or ?? is read): and vi. 38 (?):-in S. Jo. xv. 20 (??):-and xvii. 11 (?): in Acts ii. 22 (???): vii. 17 (??) and 45 (??): in xxii. 15 (??),&c.... But why entertain the question? There is absolutely _no room_ for such Criticism in respect of a reading which is found _in every known MS.,-in every known Version,-in every Father who quotes the place_: a reading which Divines, and Scholars who were not Divines,-Critics of the Text, and grammarians who were without prepossessions concerning Scripture,-Editors of the Greek and Translators of the Greek into other languages,-all alike have acquiesced in, from the beginning until now.

We venture to a.s.sert that it is absolutely unlawful, in the entire absence of evidence, to call such a reading as the present in question. There is absolutely no safeguard for Scripture-no limit to Controversy-if a place like this may be solicited at the mere suggestion of individual caprice.

(For it is worth observing that _on this, and similar occasions, Dr. Hort is forsaken by Dr. Westcott_. Such notes are enclosed in brackets, and subscribed "H.") In the meantime, who can forbear smiling at the self-complacency of a Critic who puts forth remarks like those which precede; and yet congratulates himself on "_personal endowments, fertility of resource, and a too delicate appreciation of language_"?

(b) Another specimen of conjectural extravagance occurs at S. John vi. 4, where Dr. Hort labours to throw suspicion on "the Pa.s.sover" (t? p?s?a),-in defiance of _every known Ma.n.u.script,-every known Version_,-and _every Father who quotes or recognizes the place_.(790) We find _nine columns_ devoted to his vindication of this weak imagination; although so partial are his _Notes_, that countless "various Readings" of great interest and importance are left wholly undiscussed. Nay, sometimes entire Epistles are dismissed with a single weak annotation (_e.g._ 1 and 2 Thessalonians),-_or with none_, as in the case of the Epistle to the Philippians.

(c) We charitably presume that it is in order to make amends for having conjecturally thrust out t? p?s?a from S. John vi. 4,-that Dr. Hort is for conjecturally thrusting into Acts xx. 28, ???? (after t?? ?d???),-an imagination to which he devotes a column and-a-half, but _for which he is not able to produce a particle of evidence_. It would result in our reading, "to feed the Church of G.o.d, which He purchased"-(not "with _His own_ blood," but)-"with the _blood of His own_ SON:" which has evidently been suggested by nothing so much as by the supposed necessity of getting rid of a text which unequivocally a.s.serts that CHRIST is G.o.d.(791)

LXXV. Some will be chiefly struck by the conceit and presumption of such suggestions as the foregoing. A yet larger number, as we believe, will be astonished by their essential foolishness. For ourselves, what surprises us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It _never is to invent new Readings_, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting ones. He who seeks to thrust out "THE Pa.s.sOVER" from S. John vi. 4, (where it may on no account be dispensed with(792)); and to thrust "THE SON" into Acts xx. 28, (where His Name cannot stand without evacuating a grand Theological statement);-will do well to consider whether he does not bring himself directly under the awful malediction with which the beloved Disciple concludes and seals up the Canon of Scripture:-"I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book,-If any man shall _add unto_ these things, G.o.d shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book. And if any man shall _take away from_ the words of the Book of this prophecy, G.o.d shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy City, and from the things which are written in this Book."(793)

May we be allowed to a.s.sure Dr. Hort that "CONJECTURAL EMENDATION" CAN BE ALLOWED NO PLACE WHATEVER IN THE TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT?

He will no doubt disregard our counsel. May Dr. Scrivener then [p. 433] be permitted to remind him that "it is now agreed among competent judges that _Conjectural emendation_ must _never_ be resorted to,-even in pa.s.sages of acknowledged difficulty"?

There is in fact no need for it,-nor can be: so very ample, as well as so very varied, is the evidence for the words of the New Testament.

LXXVI. Here however we regret to find we have _both_ Editors against us.

They propose "the definite question,"-