Your strangest mistakes and misrepresentations however are connected with the “Textus Receptus.” It evidently exercises you sorely that “with the Quarterly Reviewer, the Received Text is a standard, by comparison with which all extant documents, however indisputable their antiquity, are measured.”871 But pray,—
(1) By comparison with what other standard, if not by the Received Text, would you yourself obtain the measure [pg 384] of “all extant documents,” however ancient?... This first. And next,
(2) Why should the “indisputable antiquity” of a document be supposed to disqualify it from being measured by the same standard to which (but only for convenience) documents of whatever date,—by common consent of scholars, at home and abroad,—are invariably referred? And next,
(3) Surely, you cannot require to have it explained to you that a standard of comparison, is not therefore of necessity a standard of excellence. Did you ever take the trouble to collate a sacred manuscript? If you ever did, pray with what did you make your collation? In other words, what “standard” did you employ?... Like Walton and Ussher,—like Fell and Mill,—like Bentley, and Bengel, and Wetstein,—like Birch, and Matthæi, and Griesbach, and Scholz,—like Lachmann, and Tregelles, and Tischendorf, and Scrivener,—I venture to assume that you collated your manuscript,—whether it was of “disputable” or of “indisputable antiquity,”—with an ordinary copy of the Received Text. If you did not, your collation is of no manner of use. But, above all,
(4) How does it come to pass that you speak so scornfully of the Received Text, seeing that (at p. 12 of your pamphlet) you assure your readers that its pedigree may be traced back to a period perhaps antecedent to the oldest of our extant manuscripts? Surely, a traditional Text which (according to you) dates from about a.d. 300, is good enough for the purpose of Collation!
(5) At last you say,—
Really, my lord Bishop, you must excuse me if I declare plainly that the more I attend to your critical utterances, the more I am astonished. From the confident style in which you deliver yourself upon such matters, and especially from your having undertaken to preside over a Revision of the Sacred Text, one would suppose that at some period of your life you must have given the subject a considerable amount of time and attention. But indeed the foregoing sentence virtually contains two propositions neither of which could possibly have been penned by one even moderately acquainted with the facts of Textual Criticism. For first,
(a) You speak of “representing verbatim et literatim the Text which was current at Antioch in the days of Chrysostom.” Do you then really suppose that there existed at Antioch, at any period between a.d. 354 and a.d. 407, some one definite Text of the N. T. capable of being so represented?—If you do, pray will you indulge us with the grounds for such an extraordinary supposition? Your “acquaintance” (Dr. Tregelles) will tell you that such a fancy has long since been swept away “at once and for ever.” And secondly,
(b) You say that, even if there were reason to suppose that the “Received Text” were such-and-such a thing,—“it would still be impossible to regard it as a standard from which there was no appeal.”
But pray, who in his senses,—what sane man in Great Britain,—ever dreamed of regarding the “Received,”—aye, or any other known “Text,”—as “a standard from which there shall be no appeal”? Have I ever done so? Have I ever implied as much? If I have, show me where. You refer your readers to the following passage in my first Article:—
But, do you really require to have it explained to you that it is entirely to misunderstand the question to object to such a comparison of codices as is found above, (viz. in pages 14 and 17,) on the ground that it was made with the text of Stephanus lying open before me? Would not the self-same phenomenon have been evolved by collation with any other text? If you doubt it, sit down and try the experiment for yourself. Believe me, Robert Etienne in the XVIth century was not the cause why cod. b in the IVth and cod. d in the VIth are so widely discordant and divergent from one another: a and c so utterly at variance with both.873 We must have some standard whereby to test,—wherewith to compare,—Manuscripts. What is more, (give me leave to assure you,) to the end of time it will probably be the practice of scholars to compare MSS. of the N. T. with the “Received Text.” The hopeless discrepancies between our five “old uncials,” can in no more convenient way be exhibited, than by referring each of them in turn to one and the same common standard. And,—What standard more reasonable and more convenient than the Text which, by the good Providence of God, was universally employed throughout Europe for the first 300 years after the invention of printing? being practically identical with the Text which (as you yourself admit) was in popular use at the end of three centuries from the date of the sacred autographs themselves: in other word, being more than 1500 years old.
But you are quite determined that I shall mean something essentially different. The Quarterly Reviewer, (you say,) is one who “contends that the Received Text needs but little emendation; and may be used without emendation as a standard.”874 I am, (you say,) one of “those who adopt the easy method of making the Received Text a standard.”875 My “Criticism,” (it seems,) “often rests ultimately upon the notion that it is little else but sacrilege to impugn the tradition of the last three hundred years.”876 (“The last three hundred years:” as if the Traditional Text of the N. Testament dated from the 25th of Queen Elizabeth!)—I regard the “Textus Receptus” therefore, according to you, as the Ephesians regarded the image of the great goddess Diana; namely, as a thing which, one fine morning, “fell down from Jupiter.”877 I mistake the Received Text, (you imply,) for the Divine Original, the Sacred Autographs,—and erect it into “a standard from which there shall be no appeal,”—“a tradition which it is little else but sacrilege to impugn.” That is how you state my case and condition: hopelessly confusing the standard of Comparison with the standard of Excellence.
By this time, however, enough has been said to convince any fair person that you are without warrant in your present contention. Let any candid scholar cast an impartial eye over the preceding three hundred and fifty pages,—open the volume where he will, and read steadily on to the end of any textual discussion,—and then say whether, on the contrary, my criticism does not invariably rest on the principle that the Truth of Scripture is to be sought in that form of the Sacred Text which has the fullest, the widest, and the most varied attestation.878 Do I not invariably make the consentient [pg 388] voice of Antiquity my standard? If I do not,—if, on the contrary, I have ever once appealed to the “Received Text,” and made it my standard,—why do you not prove the truth of your allegation by adducing in evidence that one particular instance? instead of bringing against me a charge which is utterly without foundation, and which can have no other effect but to impose upon the ignorant; to mislead the unwary; and to prejudice the great Textual question which hopelessly divides you and me?... I trust that at least you will not again confound the standard of Comparison with the standard of Truth.
You state at page 6, that what you propose to yourself by your pamphlet, is,—
“First, to supply accurate information, in a popular form, concerning the Greek text of the Now Testament:
“Secondly, to establish, by means of the information so supplied, the soundness of the principles on which the Revisers have acted in their choice of readings; and by consequence, the importance of the ‘New Greek Text:’ ”—[or, as you phrase it at p. 29,]—“to enable the reader to form a fair judgment on the question of the trustworthiness of the readings adopted by the Revisers.”
To the former of these endeavours you devote twenty-three pages: (viz. p. 7 to p. 29):—to the latter, you devote forty-two; (viz. p. 37 to p. 78). The intervening eight pages are dedicated,—(a) To the constitution of the Revisionist body: and next, (b) To the amount of good faith with which you and your colleagues observed the conditions imposed upon you by the Southern Houses of Convocation. I propose to follow you over the ground in which you have thus entrenched yourself, and to drive you out of every position in turn.
First then, for your strenuous endeavour (pp. 7-10) to [pg 389] prejudice the question by pouring contempt on the humblest ancestor of the Textus Receptus—namely, the first edition of Erasmus. You know very well that the “Textus Receptus” is not the first edition of Erasmus. Why then do you so describe its origin as to imply that it is? You ridicule the circumstances under which a certain ancestor of the family first saw the light. You reproduce with evident satisfaction a silly witticism of Michaelis, viz. that, in his judgment, the Evangelium on which Erasmus chiefly relied was not worth the two florins which the monks of Basle gave for it. Equally contemptible (according to you) were the copies of the Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse which the same scholar employed for the rest of his first edition. Having in this way done your best to blacken a noble house by dilating on the low ebb to which its fortunes were reduced at a critical period of its history, some three centuries and a half ago,—you pause to make your own comment on the spectacle thus exhibited to the eyes of unlearned readers, lest any should fail to draw therefrom the injurious inference which is indispensable for your argument:—
Now, your account of the origin of the “Textus Receptus” shall be suffered to stand uncontradicted. But the important inference, which you intend that inattentive or incompetent readers should draw therefrom, shall be scattered to the winds by the unequivocal testimony of no less distinguished a witness than yourself. Notwithstanding all that has gone [pg 390] before, you are constrained to confess in the very next page that:—
By your own showing therefore, the Textus Receptus is, “at least,” 1550 years old. Nay, we will have the fact over again, in words which you adopt from p. 92 of Westcott and Hort's Introduction [see above, p. 257], and clearly make your own:—
But, if this be so,—(and I am not concerned to dispute your statement in a single particular,)—of what possible significancy can it be to your present contention, that the ancestry of the written Word (like the ancestors of the Word incarnate) had at one time declined to the wondrous low estate on which you enlarged at first with such evident satisfaction? Though the fact be admitted that Joseph “the carpenter” was “the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ,”—what possible inconvenience results from that circumstance so long as the only thing contended for be loyally conceded,—namely, that the descent of Messiah is lineally traceable back to the patriarch Abraham, through David the King? And the genealogy of the written, no less than the genealogy of the Incarnate Word, [pg 391] is traceable back by two distinct lines of descent, remember: for the “Complutensian,” which was printed in 1514, exhibits the “Traditional Text” with the same general fidelity as the “Erasmian,” which did not see the light till two years later.
Let us hear what comes next:—
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:—
“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 assure us that,—
(a) “A rigorous examination of extant documents,”—“shows” Dr. Hort—“that the Syrian text”—[which for all [pg 393] 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 analysis of herbs ‘shows’ Dr. Short that the only safe diet for Man is a particular kind of rank grass 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 documents shows” Dr. Hort—such and such things. “A rigorous examination of the” same “documents 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 assign a date to this creature of his own imagination; of which he has hitherto 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,—assertions for arguments,—and reiterated [pg 394] asseveration for accumulated proof. He deserves sympathy, certainly: for,—(like the man who passed 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 inaptitude for a province of study which, beyond all others, demands a clear head and a calm, dispassionate judgment,—creates distress.
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 réchauffé 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 assumed—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 [pg 395] “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 manuscripts in the uncial class:”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 accumulation 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,—passed 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 [pg 396] 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 documents 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 documents 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 elsewhere890 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 substitute 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 [pg 397] 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 assertions: 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.