But again we are "_shown_" absolutely nothing: although we are treated to the a.s.surance that we have been shown many wonders. Thus, "the Syrian conflate Readings _have shown_ the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms still extant" (p. 115): which is the very thing they have signally failed to do. Next,

"Patristic evidence _has shown_ that these two ancient Texts, and also a third, must have already existed early in the third century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in the middle of the century the Syrian Text had not yet been formed."

Whereas _no single appeal_ has been made to the evidence supplied by _one single ancient Father_!-

"Another step is gained by a close examination of all Readings distinctively Syrian."-(_Ibid._)

And yet we are never told which the "Readings distinctively Syrian"

_are_,-although they are henceforth referred to in every page. Neither are we instructed how to recognize them when we see them; which is unfortunate, since "it follows,"-(though we entirely fail to see from _what_,)-"that all distinctively Syrian Readings may be set aside at once as certainly originating after the middle of the third century." (p. 117) ... Let us hear a little more on the subject:-

"The same _Facts_"-(though Dr. Hort has not hitherto favoured us with _any_)-"lead to another conclusion of equal or even greater importance respecting non-distinctive Syrian Readings ... Since the Syrian Text is only a modified eclectic combination of earlier Texts independently attested,"-

(for it is in this confident style that these eminent Scholars handle the problem they undertook to solve, but as yet have failed even _to touch_),-

"existing doc.u.ments descended from it can attest nothing but itself."-(p. 118.)

Presently, we are informed that "it follows from what has been said above,"-(though _how_ it follows, we fail to see,)-"that all Readings in which the Pre-Syrian texts concur, _must be accepted at once as the Apostolic Readings_:" and that "all distinctively Syrian Readings _must be at once rejected_."-(p. 119.)

Trenchant decrees of this kind at last arrest attention. It becomes apparent that we have to do with a Writer who has discovered a summary way of dealing with the Text of Scripture, and who is prepared to impart his secret to any who care to accept-without questioning-his views. We look back to see where this accession of confidence began, and are reminded that at p. 108 Dr. Hort announced that for convenience he should henceforth speak of certain "groups of doc.u.ments," by the conventional names "Western"-"Pre-Syrian"-"Alexandrian"-and so forth. Accordingly, ever since, (sometimes eight or ten times in the course of a single page,(719)) we have encountered this arbitrary terminology: have been required to accept it as the expression of ascertained facts in Textual Science. Not till we find ourselves floundering in the deep mire, do we become fully aware of the absurdity of our position. Then at last, (and high time too!), we insist on knowing what on earth our Guide is about, and whither he is proposing to lead us?... More considerate to our Readers than he has been to us, we propose before going any further, (instead of mystifying the subject as Dr. Hort has done,) to state in a few plain words what the present Theory, divested of pedantry and circ.u.mlocution, proves to be; and what is Dr. Hort's actual contention.

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor,(720)-(as well it may)-is _The Traditional Greek Text_ of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,-the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,-call it the "Received," or the _Traditional Greek Text_, or whatever other name you please;-the fact remains, that a Text _has_ come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,-_Beyond all question the Textus Receptus_ is _the dominant Graeco-Syrian Text of_ A.D. 350 _to_ A.D.

400.(721)

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially _the same_ in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray,-which is what no one will venture to predicate concerning any single Critical Edition of the N. T.

which has been published since the days of Griesbach, by the disciples of Griesbach's school.

XIV. In marked contrast to the Text we speak of,-(which is identical with the Text of every extant Lectionary of the Greek Church, and may therefore reasonably claim to be spoken of as the _Traditional_ Text,)-is _that_ contained in a little handful of doc.u.ments of which the most famous are codices B ?, and the Coptic Version (as far as it is known), on the one hand,-cod. D and the old Latin copies, on the other. To magnify the merits of these, as helps and guides, and to ignore their many patent and scandalous defects and blemishes:-_per fas et nefas_ to vindicate their paramount authority wherever it is in any way possible to do so; and when _that_ is clearly impossible, then to treat their errors as the ancient Egyptians treated their cats, dogs, monkeys, and other vermin,-namely, to embalm them, and pay them Divine honours:-_such_ for the last 50 years has been the practice of the dominant school of Textual Criticism among ourselves. The natural and even necessary correlative of this, has been the disparagement of the merits of the commonly Received Text: which has come to be spoken of, (we know not why,) as contemptuously, almost as bitterly, as if it had been at last ascertained to be untrustworthy in every respect: a thing undeserving alike of a place and of a name among the monuments of the Past. Even to have "used the Received Text _as a basis for correction_" (p. 184) is stigmatized by Dr. Hort as one "great cause" why Griesbach went astray.

XV. Drs. Westcott and Hort have in fact outstripped their predecessors in this singular race. Their absolute contempt for the Traditional Text,-their superst.i.tious veneration for a few ancient doc.u.ments; (which doc.u.ments however they freely confess _are not more ancient_ than the "Traditional Text" which they despise;)-knows no bounds. But the thing just now to be attended to is the argumentative process whereby they seek to justify their preference.-LACHMANN avowedly took his stand on a very few of the oldest known doc.u.ments: and though TREGELLES slightly enlarged the area of his predecessor's observations, his method was practically identical with that of Lachmann.-TISCHENDORF, appealing to every known authority, invariably shows himself regardless of the evidence he has himself acc.u.mulated. Where certain of the uncials are,-_there_ his verdict is sure also to be.... Anything more unscientific, more unphilosophical, more transparently _foolish_ than such a method, can scarcely be conceived: but it has prevailed for 50 years, and is now at last more hotly than ever advocated by Drs. WESTCOTT and HORT. Only, (to their credit be it recorded,) they have had the sense to perceive that it must needs be recommended by _Arguments_ of some sort, or else it will inevitably fall to pieces the first fine day any one is found to charge it, with the necessary knowledge of the subject, and with sufficient resoluteness of purpose, to make him a formidable foe.

XVI. Their expedient has been as follows.-Aware that the Received or Traditional Greek Text (to quote their own words,) "_is virtually identical with that used by Chrysostom and other Antiochian Fathers in the latter part of the IVth century_:" and fully alive to the fact that it "_must therefore have been represented by Ma.n.u.scripts as old as any which are now surviving_" (_Text_, p. 547),-they have invented an extraordinary Hypothesis in order to account for its existence:-

They a.s.sume that the writings of Origen "establish the prior existence of at least three types of Text:"-the most clearly marked of which, they call the "Western:"-another, less prominent, they designate as "Alexandrian:"-the third holds (they say) a middle or "Neutral" position.

(That all this is mere _moonshine_,-a day-dream and no more,-we shall insist, until some proofs have been produced that the respected Authors are moving amid material forms,-not discoursing with the creations of their own brain.) "The priority of two at least of these three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text," they are confident has been established by the eight "_conflate_" Syrian Readings which they flatter themselves they have already resolved into their "Western" and "Neutral" elements (_Text_, p. 547). This, however, is a part of the subject on which we venture to hope that our Readers by this time have formed a tolerably clear opinion for themselves. The ground has been cleared of the flimsy superstructure which these Critics have been 30 years in raising, ever since we blew away (pp. 258-65) the airy foundation on which it rested.

At the end of some confident yet singularly hazy statements concerning the characteristics of "Western" (pp. 120-6), of "Neutral" (126-30), and of "Alexandrian" Readings (130-2), Dr. Hort favours us with the a.s.surance that-

"The Syrian Text, to which the order of time now brings us," "is the chief monument of a new period of textual history."-(p. 132.)

"Now, the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to the formation of a new Text different from all."-(p.

133.)

Let it only be carefully remembered that it is of something virtually identical with the _Textus Receptus_ that we are just now reading an imaginary history, and it is presumed that the most careless will be made attentive.

"The Syrian Text must in fact be the result of a '_Recension_,'

... performed deliberately by Editors, and not merely by Scribes."-(_Ibid._)

But _why_ "must" it? Instead of "_must in fact_," we are disposed to read "_may-in fiction_." The learned Critic can but mean that, on comparing the Text of Fathers of the IVth century with the Text of cod. B, it becomes to himself self-evident that _one of the two_ has been fabricated. Granted.

Then,-Why should not _the solitary Codex_ be the offending party? For what imaginable reason should cod. B,-which comes to us without a character, and which, when tried by the test of primitive Antiquity, stands convicted of "_universa vitiositas_," (to use Tischendorf's expression);-_why_ (we ask) should _codex_ B be upheld "contra mundum"?... Dr. Hort proceeds-(still speaking of "_the_ [imaginary] _Syrian Text_"),-

"It was probably initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region."-(p. 133.)

Well but,-Would it not have been more methodical if "the currency of at least three conflicting Texts in the same region," had been first _demonstrated_? or, at least, shown to be a thing probable? Till this "distracting" phenomenon has been to some extent proved to have any existence in _fact_, what possible "probability" can be claimed for the history of a "Recension,"-which very Recension, up to this point, _has not been proved to have ever taken place at all_?

"Each Text may perhaps have found a Patron in some leading personage or see, and thus have seemed to call for a conciliation of rival claims."-(p. 134.)

Why yes, to be sure,-"each Text [_if it existed_] may perhaps [_or perhaps may not_] have found a Patron in some leading personage [as Dr. Hort or Dr. Scrivener in our own days]:" but then, be it remembered, this will only have been possible,-(_a_) If the Recension _ever took place_: and-(_b_) If it was conducted after the extraordinary fashion which prevailed in the Jerusalem Chamber from 1870 to 1881: for which we have the unimpeachable testimony of an eye-witness;(722) confirmed by the Chairman of the Revisionist body,-by whom in fact it was deliberately invented.(723)

But then, since not a shadow of proof is forthcoming that _any such Recension as Dr. Hort imagines ever took place at all_,-what else but a purely gratuitous exercise of the imaginative faculty is it, that Dr. Hort should proceed further to invent the method which might, or could, or would, or should have been pursued, if it _had_ taken place?

Having however in this way (1) a.s.sumed a "Syrian Recension,"-(2) Invented the cause of it,-and (3) Dreamed the process by which it was carried into execution,-the Critic hastens, _more suo_, to characterize _the historical result_ in the following terms:-

"The qualities which THE AUTHORS OF THE SYRIAN TEXT seem to have most desired to impress on it are lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without recourse to violent measures. They were apparently equally desirous that he should have the benefit of instructive matter contained in all the existing Texts, provided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming contradictions. New Omissions accordingly are rare, and where they occur are usually found to contribute to apparent simplicity. New Interpolations, on the other hand, are abundant, most of them being due to harmonistic or other a.s.similation, fortunately capricious and incomplete. Both in matter and in diction THE SYRIAN TEXT is conspicuously a full Text. It delights in p.r.o.nouns, Conjunctions, and Expletives and supplied links of all kinds, as well as in more considerable Additions. As distinguished from the _bold vigour_ of the 'Western' scribes, and _the refined scholarship_ of the 'Alexandrians,' the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and feeble. Entirely blameless, on either literary or religious grounds, as regards vulgarized or unworthy diction, yet _shewing no marks of either Critical or Spiritual insight, it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and force; more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than for repeated and diligent study_."-(pp. 134-5.)

XVII. We forbear to offer any remarks on this. We should be thought uncivil were we to declare our own candid estimate of "the critical and spiritual" perception of the man who could permit himself so to write. We prefer to proceed with our sketch of the Theory, (of _the Dream_ rather,) which is intended to account for the existence of the Traditional Text of the N. T.: only venturing again to submit that surely it would have been high time to discuss the characteristics which "the Authors of the Syrian Text" impressed upon their work, when it had been first established-or at least rendered probable-that the supposed Operators and that the a.s.sumed Operation have any existence except in the fertile brain of this distinguished and highly imaginative writer.

XVIII. Now, the first consideration which strikes us as fatal to Dr.

Hort's unsupported conjecture concerning the date of the Text he calls "Syrian" or "Antiochian," is the fact that what he so designates bears a most inconvenient resemblance to the Peschito or ancient Syriac Version; which, like the old Latin, is (by consent of the Critics) generally a.s.signed to the second century of our era. "It is at any rate no stretch of imagination," (according to Bp. Ellicott,) "to suppose that portions of it might have been in the hands of S. John." [p. 26.] Accordingly, these Editors a.s.sure us that-

"the only way of explaining the whole body of facts is _to suppose_ that the Syriac, like the Latin Version, underwent Revision long after its origin; and that our ordinary Syriac MSS.

represent not the primitive but the altered Syriac Text."-(p.

136.)

"A Revision of the old Syriac Version _appears_ to have taken place in the IVth century, or sooner; and _doubtless in some connexion with the Syrian Revision of the Greek Text_, the readings being to a very great extent coincident."-(_Text_, 552.)

"Till recently, the Peschito has been known only in the form which it finally received by _an evidently authoritative Revision_,"-_a Syriac _"Vulgate"_ answering to the Latin _"Vulgate."-(p. 84.)

"Historical antecedents render it _tolerably certain_ that the locality of such an authoritative Revision"-(which Revision however, be it observed, still rests wholly on unsupported conjecture)-"would be either Edessa or Nisibis."-(p. 136.)