May we be allowed to assure 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 [pg 355] [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 passages 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,”—
“ ‘Are there, as a matter of fact, places in which we are constrained by overwhelming evidence to recognize the existence of Textual error in all extant documents?’ To this question we have no hesitation in replying in the affirmative.”—(p. 279.)
Behold then the deliberate sentence of Drs. Westcott and Hort. They flatter themselves that they are able to produce “overwhelming evidence” in proof that there are places where every extant document is in error. The instance on which they both rely, is S. Peter's prophetic announcement (2 Pet. iii. 10), that in “the day of the Lord,” “the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (κατακαήσεται).
This statement is found to have been glossed or paraphrased in an age when men knew no better. Thus, Cod. c substitutes—“shall vanish away:”[794] the Syriac and one Egyptian version,—“shall not be found,” (apparently in imitation of Rev. xvi. 20). But, either because the “not” was accidentally omitted[795] in some very ancient exemplar;—or [pg 356] else because it was deemed a superfluity by some Occidental critic who in his simplicity supposed that εὑρεθήσεται might well represent the Latin urerentur,—(somewhat as Mrs. Quickly warranted “hang hog” to be Latin for “bacon,”)—codices א and b (with four others of later date) exhibit “shall be found,”[796]—which obviously makes utter nonsense of the place. (Εὑρεθήσεται appears, nevertheless, in Dr. Hort's text: in consequence of which, the margin of our “Revised Version” is disfigured with the statement that “The most ancient manuscripts read discovered.”) But what is there in all this to make one distrust the Traditional reading?—supported as it is by the whole mass of Copies: by the Latin,[797]—the Coptic,—the Harkleian,—and the Æthiopic Versions:—besides the only Fathers who quote the place; viz. Cyril seven times,[798] and John Damascene[799] once?... As for pretending, at the end of the foregoing enquiry, that “we are constrained by overwhelming evidence to recognize the existence of textual error in all extant documents,”—it is evidently a mistake. Nothing else is it but a misstatement of facts.
LXXVII. And thus, in the entire absence of proof, Dr. Hort's view of “the existence of corruptions” of the Text “antecedent to all existing authority,”[800]—falls to the ground. His confident prediction, that such corruptions “will sooner or later have to be acknowledged,” may be dismissed with a smile. So indifferent an interpreter of the Past may not presume to forecast the Future.
The one “matter of fact,” which at every step more and more impresses an attentive student of the Text of Scripture, is,—(1st), The utterly depraved character of Codices b and א: and (2nd), The singular infatuation of Drs. Westcott and Hort in insisting that those 2 Codices “stand alone in their almost complete immunity from error:”[801]—that “the fullest comparison does but increase the conviction that their pre-eminent relative purity is approximately absolute.”[802]
LXXVIII. Whence is it,—(we have often asked ourselves the question, while studying these laborious pages,)—How does it happen that a scholar like Dr. Hort, evidently accomplished and able, should habitually mistake the creations of his own brain for material forms? the echoes of his own voice while holding colloquy with himself, for oracular responses? We have not hitherto expressed our astonishment,—but must do so now before we make an end,—that a writer who desires to convince, can suppose that his own arbitrary use of such expressions as “Pre-Syrian” and “Neutral,”—“Western” and “Alexandrian,”—“Non-Western” and “Non-Alexandrian,”—“Non-Alexandrian Pre-Syrian” and “Pre-Syrian Non-Western,”—will produce any (except an irritating) effect on the mind of an intelligent reader.
The delusion of supposing that by the free use of such a vocabulary a Critic may dispense with the ordinary processes [pg 358] of logical proof, might possibly have its beginning in the retirement of the cloister, where there are few to listen and none to contradict: but it can only prove abiding if there has been no free ventilation of the individual fancy. Greatly is it to be regretted that instead of keeping his Text a profound secret for 30 years, Dr. Hort did not freely impart it to the public, and solicit the favour of candid criticism.