The Revision Revised Part 26

Let us hear what comes next:-

"At this point a question suggests itself which we cannot refuse to consider. If the pedigree of the Received Text may be traced back to so early a period, does it not deserve the honour which is given to it by the Quarterly Reviewer?"-p. 12.

A very pertinent question truly. We are made attentive: the more so, because you announce that your reply to this question shall "go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned."(879) That reply is as follows:-

"If there were reason to suppose that the Received Text represented _verbatim et literatim_ the text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom, it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard _from which there was no appeal_. The reason why this would be impossible may be stated briefly as follows. In the ancient doc.u.ments which have come down to us,-amongst which, as is well known, are ma.n.u.scripts written in the fourth century,-we possess evidence that other texts of the Greek Testament existed in the age of Chrysostom, materially different from the text which he and the Antiochian writers generally employed. Moreover, a rigorous examination of extant doc.u.ments shows that the Antiochian or (as we shall henceforth call it with Dr. Hort) the Syrian text did not represent an earlier tradition than those other texts, but was in fact of later origin than the rest. We cannot accept it therefore as _a final standard_."-pp. 13, 14.

"A _final_ standard"!... Nay but, why do you suddenly introduce this unheard-of characteristic? _Who_, pray, since the invention of Printing was ever known to put forward _any_ existing Text as "a final standard"?

Not the Quarterly Reviewer certainly. "The honour which is given to the _Textus Receptus_ by the Quarterly Reviewer" is no other than the honour which it has enjoyed at the hands of scholars, by universal consent, for the last three centuries. That is to say, he uses it as a standard of comparison, and employs it for habitual reference. _So do you._ You did so, at least, in the year 1870. You did more; for you proposed "to proceed with the work of Revision, whether of text or translation, _making the current _'Textus Receptus'_ the standard_."(880) We are perfectly agreed therefore. For my own part, being fully convinced, like yourself, that essentially the Received Text is full 1550 years old,-(yes, and a vast deal older,)-I esteem it quite good enough for all ordinary purposes. And yet, so far am I from pinning my faith to it, that I eagerly make my appeal _from_ it to the threefold witness of Copies, Versions, Fathers, whenever I find its testimony challenged.-And with this renewed explanation of my sentiments,-(which one would have thought that no competent person could require,)-I proceed to consider the reply which you promise shall "go to the bottom of the controversy with which we are concerned." I beg that you will not again seek to divert attention from that which is the real matter of dispute betwixt you and me.

What kind of argumentation then is this before us? You a.s.sure us that,-

(_a_) "A rigorous examination of extant doc.u.ments,"-"shows" Dr. Hort-"that the Syrian text"-[which for all practical purposes may be considered as only another name for the "Textus Receptus"]-was of later origin than "other texts of the Greek Testament" which "existed in the age of Chrysostom."

(_b_) "We cannot accept it therefore as a final standard."

But,-Of what nature is the logical process by which you have succeeded in convincing yourself that _this_ consequent can be got out of _that_ antecedent? Put a parallel case:-"A careful a.n.a.lysis of herbs 'shows' Dr.

Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank gra.s.s which grows in the Ely fens. We must therefore leave off eating butcher's meat."-Does _that_ seem to you altogether a satisfactory argument? To me, it is a mere _non sequitur_. Do but consider the matter for a moment. "A rigorous examination of extant doc.u.ments shows" Dr. Hort-such and such things. "A rigorous examination of the" same "doc.u.ments shows" _me_-that Dr. Hort _is mistaken_. A careful study of his book convinces _me_ that his theory of a Syrian Recension, manufactured between A.D. 250 and A.D.

350, is a dream, pure and simple-_a mere phantom of the brain_. Dr. Hort's course is obvious. Let him _first_ make his processes of proof intelligible, and _then_ public. You cannot possibly suppose that the fable of "a Syrian text," though it has evidently satisfied _you_, will be accepted by thoughtful Englishmen without proof. What prospect do you suppose you have of convincing the world that Dr. Hort is competent to a.s.sign _a date_ to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has. .h.i.therto failed to demonstrate so much as the probable existence?

I have, for my own part, established by abundant references to his writings that he is one of those who, (through some intellectual peculiarity,) are for ever mistaking conjectures for facts,-a.s.sertions for arguments,-and reiterated a.s.severation for acc.u.mulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,-(like the man who pa.s.sed his life in trying to count how many grains of sand will exactly fill a quart pot;-or like his unfortunate brother, who made it his business to prove that nothing, multiplied by a sufficient number of figures, amounts to something;)-he has evidently taken a prodigious deal of useless trouble. The spectacle of an able and estimable man exhibiting such singular inapt.i.tude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispa.s.sionate judgment,-creates distress.

[13] Bp. Ellicott has completely adopted Westcott and Hort's Theory.

But in the meantime, so confident are _you_ of the existence of a "Syrian text,"-(_only however because Dr. Hort is_,)-that you inflict upon your readers all the consequences which "the Syrian text" is supposed to carry with it. Your method is certainly characterized by humility: for it consists in merely serving up to the British public a _rechauffe_ of Westcott and Hort's Textual Theory. I cannot discover that you contribute anything of your own to the meagre outline you furnish of it. Everything is a.s.sumed-as before. Nothing is proved-as before. And we are referred to Dr. Hort for the resolution of every difficulty which Dr. Hort has created. "According to Dr. Hort,"-"as Dr. Hort observes,"-"to use Dr.

Hort's language,"-"stated by Dr. Hort,"-"as Dr. Hort notices,"-"says Dr.

Hort:" yes, from p. 14 of your pamphlet to p. 29 you do nothing else but reproduce-Dr. Hort!

First comes the fabulous account of the contents of the bulk of the cursives:(881)-then, the imaginary history of the "Syriac Vulgate;" which (it seems) bears "indisputable traces" of being a revision, of which you have learned _from Dr. Hort_ the date:(882)-then comes the same disparagement of the ancient Greek Fathers,-"for reasons which have been _stated by Dr. Hort_ with great clearness and cogency:"(883)-then, the same depreciatory estimate of writers subsequent to Eusebius,-whose evidence is declared to "stand at best on no higher level than the evidence of inferior ma.n.u.scripts in the uncial cla.s.s:"(884) but _only_ because it is discovered to be destructive of the theory _of Dr. Hort_.

Next comes "the Method of Genealogy,"-which you declare is the result of "vast research, unwearied patience, great critical sagacity;"(885) but which I am prepared to prove is, on the contrary, a shallow expedient for dispensing with scientific Induction and the laborious acc.u.mulation of evidence. This same "Method of Genealogy," you are not ashamed to announce as "the great contribution of our own times to a mastery over materials."

"For the full explanation of it, _you must refer your reader to Dr. Hort's Introduction_."(886) Can you be serious?

Then come the results to which "the application of this method _has conducted Drs. Westcott and Hort_."(887) And first, the fable of the "Syrian Text"-which "_Dr. Hort considers_ to have been the result of a deliberate Recension," conducted on erroneous principles. This fabricated product of the IIIrd and IVth centuries, (you say,) rose to supremacy,-became dominant at Antioch,-pa.s.sed thence to Constantinople,-and once established there, soon vindicated its claim to be the N. T. of the East: whence it overran the West, and for 300 years as the "Textus Receptus," has held undisputed sway.(888) Really, my lord Bishop, you describe imaginary events in truly Oriental style. One seems to be reading not so much of the "Syrian Text" as of the Syrian Impostor.

One expects every moment to hear of some feat of this fabulous Recension corresponding with the surrender of the British troops and Arabi's triumphant entry into Cairo with the head of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in his hand!

All this is followed, of course, by the weak fable of the "Neutral" Text, and of the absolute supremacy of Codex B,-which is "_stated in Dr. Hort's own words_:"(889)-viz. "B very far exceeds all other doc.u.ments in neutrality of text, being in fact always, or nearly always, neutral." (The _fact_ being that codex B is demonstrably one of the most corrupt doc.u.ments in existence.) The posteriority of the (imaginary) "Syrian," to the (imaginary) "Neutral," is insisted upon next in order, as a matter of course: and declared to rest upon three other considerations,-each one of which is found to be pure fable: viz. (1) On the fable of "Conflation,"

which "_seems_ to supply a proof" that Syrian readings are posterior both to Western and to Neutral readings-but, (as I have elsewhere(890) shown, at considerable length,) most certainly _does_ not:-(2) On Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence,-of which however not a syllable is produced:-(3) On "_Transcriptional probability_"-which is about as useful a subst.i.tute for proof as a sweet-pea for a walking-stick.

Widely dissimilar of course is your own view of the importance of the foregoing instruments of conviction. To _you_, "these three reasons taken together seem to make up an argument for the posteriority of the Syrian Text, which it is impossible to resist. They form" (you say) "a threefold cord of evidence which [you] believe will bear any amount of argumentative strain." You rise with your subject, and at last break out into eloquence and vituperation:-"Writers like the Reviewer may attempt to cut the cord _by reckless and unverified a.s.sertions_: but _the knife has not yet been fabricated that can equitably separate any one of its strands_."(891)...

So effectually, as well as so deliberately, have you lashed yourself-for better or for worse-to Westcott and Hort's New Textual Theory, that you must now of necessity either share its future triumphs, or else be a partaker in its coming humiliation. Am I to congratulate you on your prospects?

For my part, I make no secret of the fact that I look upon the entire speculation about which you are so enthusiastic, as an excursion into cloud-land: a _dream_ and nothing more. My contention is,-_not_ that the Theory of Drs. Westcott and Hort rests on an _insecure_ foundation, but, that it rests on _no foundation at all_. Moreover, I am greatly mistaken if this has not been _demonstrated_ in the foregoing pages.(892) On one point, at all events, there cannot exist a particle of doubt; namely, that so far from its "_not being for you to interpose in this controversy_"-you are without alternative. You must either come forward at once, and bring it to a successful issue: or else, you must submit to be told that you have suffered defeat, inasmuch as you are inextricably involved in Westcott and Hort's discomfiture. You are simply without remedy. _You_ may "_find nothing in the Reviewer's third article to require a further answer_:" but readers of intelligence will tell you that your finding, since it does not proceed from stupidity, can only result from your consciousness that you have made a serious blunder: and that now, the less you say about "Westcott and Hort's new textual Theory," the better.

[14] The Question modestly proposed,-Whether Bp. Ellicott's adoption of Westcott and Hort's "new Textual Theory" does not amount to (what lawyers call) "CONSPIRACY"?

But, my lord Bishop, when I reach the end of your laborious avowal that you entirely accept "Westcott and Hort's new Textual Theory,"-I find it impossible to withhold the respectful enquiry,-Is such a proceeding on your part altogether allowable? I frankly confess that to _me_ the wholesale adoption by the Chairman of the Revising body, of the theory of two of the Revisers,-and then, his exclusive reproduction and vindication of _that theory_, when he undertakes,

"to supply the reader with a few broad outlines of Textual Criticism, so as to enable him to form _a fair judgment_ on the question of the trustworthiness of _the readings adopted by the Revisers_,"-p. 29,

all this, my lord Bishop, I frankly avow, to _me_, looks very much indeed like what, in the language of lawyers, is called "Conspiracy." It appears then that instead of presiding over the deliberations of the Revisionists as an impartial arbiter, you have been throughout, heart and soul, an eager partizan. You have learned to employ freely Drs. Westcott and Hort's peculiar terminology. You adopt their scarcely-intelligible phrases: their wild hypotheses: their arbitrary notions about "Intrinsic" and "Transcriptional Probability:" their baseless theory of "Conflation:"

their shallow "Method of Genealogy." You have, in short, evidently swallowed their novel invention whole. I can no longer wonder at the result arrived at by the body of Revisionists. Well may Dr. Scrivener have pleaded in vain! He found Drs. Ellicott and Westcott and Hort too many for him.... But it is high time that I should pa.s.s on.

[15] Proofs that the Revisers have outrageously exceeded the Instructions they received from the Convocation of the Southern Province.

It follows next to enquire whether your work as Revisers was conducted in conformity with the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern House of Convocation, or not. "_Nothing_" (you say)-

"_can be more unjust_ on the part of the Reviewer than to suggest, as he has suggested in more than one pa.s.sage,(893) that the Revisers _exceeded their Instructions_ in the course which they adopted with regard to the Greek Text. On the contrary, as we shall show, they adhered most closely to their Instructions; and did neither more nor less than they were required to do."-(p. 32.)

"The Reviewer," my lord Bishop, proceeds to _demonstrate_ that you "exceeded your Instructions," even to an extraordinary extent. But it will be convenient first to hear you out. You proceed,-

"Let us turn to the Rule. It is simply as follows:-'That the text to be adopted be that for which the Evidence _is decidedly preponderating_: and that when the text so adopted differs from that from which the Authorized Version was made, the alteration be indicated in the margin.' "-(_Ibid._)

But you seem to have forgotten that the "Rule" which you quote formed no part of the "_Instructions_" which were imposed upon you by Convocation.

It was one of the "Principles _agreed to by the Committee_" (25 May, 1870),-a Rule _of your own making_ therefore,-for which Convocation neither was nor is responsible. The "fundamental Resolutions adopted by the Convocation of Canterbury" (3rd and 5th May, 1870), five in number, contain no authorization whatever for making changes in the Greek Text.

They have reference only to the work of revising "_the Authorized Version_:" an undertaking which the first Resolution declares to be "desirable." "In order to ascertain what were the Revisers' _Instructions_ with regard to the Greek Text," we must refer to the original Resolution of Feb. 10th, 1870: in which the removal of "_plain and clear errors_, whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same,"-is for the first and last time mentioned.

That you yourself accepted this as the limit of your authority, is proved by your Speech in Convocation. "We may be satisfied" (you said) "with the attempt to correct _plain and clear errors_: but _there, it is our duty to stop_."(894)

Now I venture to a.s.sert that not one in a hundred of the alterations you have actually made, "whether in the Greek Text originally adopted by the Translators, or in the Translation made from the same," are corrections of "_plain and clear errors_." Rather,-(to adopt the words of the learned Bishop of Lincoln,)-"I fear we must say in candour that in the Revised Version we meet in every page with changes _which seem almost to be made for the sake of change_."(895) May I trouble you to refer back to p. 112 of the present volume for a few words more on this subject from the pen of the same judicious Prelate?

(_a_) _And first_,-_In respect of the New English Version_.

For my own part, (see above, pp. 171-2,) I thought the best thing I could do would be to ill.u.s.trate the nature of my complaint, by citing and commenting on an actual instance of your method. I showed how, in revising eight-and-thirty words (2 Pet. i. 5-7), you had contrived to introduce no fewer than _thirty changes_,-every one of them being clearly a change for the worse. You will perhaps say,-Find me another such case! I find it, my lord Bishop, in S. Luke viii. 45, 46,-where you have made _nineteen changes_ in revising the translation of four-and-thirty words. I proceed to transcribe the pa.s.sage; requesting you to bear in mind your own emphatic protestation,-"We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase before us."

A.V. R.V.

"Peter and they that were "Peter said [1], and they with him said, Master, that were with him, the mult.i.tude throng thee Master the mult.i.tudes [2]

and press thee, and press [3] thee and crush sayest thou, Who touched thee [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.]