THE RECENT HISTORY OF NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM
- Miller's Traditional
Text of the Gospels
- Miller and Burgon I
- The ruling idea
dominating Burgon's work
- His criterion of the
goodness of MSS
- His explanation of the
badness of the oldest MSS
- Westcott and Hort's
Greek Testament Their
predecessors in rejecting
the authority of the
Textus Receptus
- Lachmann and Tregelles
- Tischendorf
- The Cambridge
theological school
- The Church's obligations
to it
- The revolutionary aspect
of WH's edition
- The Revised English New
Testament
- Dr Hort's great merits
and deserved authority
- WH's decisions first
made known without
explanation of the reasons
for them
- Consequent ignoratio
elenchi in Burgon's
arguments
- And also in those of
Burgon's critics
- Contrast between the
value assigned to early
authorities by Burgon and by
WH ,
- Yet it is a mistake to
suppose that the difference
is that WH build their text
on the earliest authorities
Burgon on the latest
- WH also have no scruple
in rejecting ancient
testimony Incompetency of
one who dips into textual
criticism unsystematically,
to criticise the decisions
of an expert
- Experts, however, are
ranged on opposite sides
- Similar cases constantly
occur in courts of justice
- The omissions of WH's
edition at first an obstacle
to its acceptance
- It seemed as if the
editors thought
any evidence
sufficient to justify an
omission
- Their edition also
unpopular because of its
making the sacred writers
responsible for certain
erroneous statements
- We have no right to
assume it to be
a priori impossible
that a sacred writer should
make an erroneous statement
- Yet some of the errors
imputed to them by WH must
be called bad
mistakes
- These grounds for
hesitation were, however,
outweighed by the confidence
inspired by the character of
the editors
- And still more by the
scientific aspect of their
methods
- And by practical
acquaintance with their
working
- Yet an outsider may
without immodesty form some
judgment of his own between
the views of opposing
experts
- Some grounds for
hesitation in accepting
Hort's rulings with
unquestioning submission
- In particular, a want of
moderation in his judgments,
and a tendency to overrate
the certainty of his
decisions
- Yet one who is not an
expert cannot safely reject
Hort's decisions; if for no
other reason, because the
evidence on which they rest
is not accessible to him
- Nevertheless, outsiders
are warranted in asking for
further investigation of
points as to which, on the
evidence now accessible,
their judgment is not
satisfied
WESTCOTT AND HORT'S NOMENCLATURE
- Rejection of
Burgon's explanation of
the omissions of the
Vatican MS
- Yet it does not
follow that this MS
represents the evangelic
autographs
- The project of
getting back to these
autographs too ambitious
- Hort's method of
determining the value of
authorities
- The results,
however, no more than
probable
- Hort offers his
readers instruction, not
guidance His
nomenclature
question-begging
- Notation for Syriac
versions
- Probable influence
of Tatian on Syriac
texts
- No evidence as to
type of text earlier
than Tatian
- Griesbach's three
types of text
- The name "Syrian"
- The name "Western "
not accurate Objection
to the name "neutral" -
Hort's use of the name
"Alexandrian"
unprecedented and
confusing
- Hort's neutral text
better called " early
Alexandrian " His method
necessarily led him to
an Alexandrian text No
note of disparagement in
the name " Alexandrian "
Bad result of refusal to
use a local name -
- Hort's attitude
towards Western readings
- The Western reading
not accepted even when
the
- Alexandrian is
clearly wrong Example in
Acts xii
- Hort attempts
conjectural emendation
- Divergent
aberrations from early
Alexandrian text how to
be explained
- Hort prefers later
Alexandrian authority to
Western
- The longer
conclusion of St Mark
Hort's guess as to the
birthplace of B
- The question not
important
- B and
א issued from the
same workshop
- And not improbably
from Caesarea
- Striving after
minute accuracy quite
modern
- The Caesarean
library likely to have
contained an Alexandrian
text
THE SYRIAN "TEXTUS RECEPTUS"
- WH find marks of
lateness in the
Syrian text, and
chiefly on account
of its conflations
- What meant by
the word
"conflation"
- Hort's eight
examples discussed
by Canon Cook
- The last verse
of St Luke
- Except by way of
illustration, it is
needless to discuss
particular cases
- Yet the
conflation
hypothesis fails to
account for all the
various readings
- Whether any of
the neutral readings
are conflate
- The "one thing
needful " (Luke x.
42 )
- Whether the
Syrian revision was
the work of a single
critic
- The difficulty
that history has
preserved no record
of this revision,
nor of its author
- It could
scarcely have been
so late as A.D.350
- For the support
given by Eusebius to
the Alexandrian text
must have gained for
it a longer
preeminence
- The Alexandrian
text had probably
never superseded the
Western text in
Antioch
- Hort regards the
Syrian revision as
an ascertained fact,
and not a mere
hypothetical
probability
- An addition to
the hypothesis of a
Syrian revision made
necessary by the
phenomena of the
Syriac versions
- Cureton's
discovery of a new
Syriac version
fulfilled a
scientific
prediction
- It does not
necessarily follow
that Cureton's is
the oldest type of
text
- Hort is obliged
to add to his
hypothesis of a
revision of the
Greek text about 350
that of an earlier
revision of the
Greek as well as
that of an
authoritative
revision of the
Syriac
- Silent changes
of text possible, as
each bishop had to
choose the text to
be read in his
church
- A change in the
Greek text would
naturally produce
corresponding
changes in versions
- Great changes,
however, not easily
made
- Changes
notoriously took
place in Church use
even as to the
reading of whole
books
- The superseding
of the LXX version
of Daniel by
Theodotion
- Probable time
when the change was
made at Carthage
- There is
possibly another
trace of Cyprian's
intercourse with the
East
- No evidence that
the Alexandrian text
had gained a
- footing in
Africa before
Cyprian's time
- Apparent
conflation may arise
from a simple
difference of taste
- Whether, because
the taste of the
Syrian reviser was
different from ours,
his rulings may be
disregarded
altogether
- He had at least
one important
advantage over us
THE OMISSIONS OF THE WESTERN TEXT
- Hort's
successive
elimination of
witnesses
- Something
paradoxical in
his opinion of
the
worthlessness of
Western
testimony
- His
limitation of
admissible
testimony makes
him less
inclined to
regard
conjectural
emendation with
disfavour
- And also to
expect little
from enlarged
acquaintance
with MSS
- No new MS
likely to be
treated with
more respect
than those we
have got already
- Except in
the case of an
omission, which
Hort is willing
to accept in the
teeth of the
strongest
documentary
evidence
- His
inconsistency in
dealing with
Luke xxiv
- His reasons
for thinking
that a
transcriber was
much more likely
to add to the
text than to
omit
- How far this
dictum may be
accepted as true
- In the
present case the
omitted words
are necessary to
the context
- The
rejection of the
longer
conclusion of St
Mark influential
in causing a
rejection of the
mention of the
Ascension in St
Luke's Gospel
- Yet Luke
himself
recognizes this
mention in the
beginning of the
Acts
- The Western
authorities
which reject the
clause in St
Luke are forced
also to modify
the opening of
the Acts
- Probable
reasons for
their
inclination to
do so
- If the
discussion of
the two passages
is separated, a
hybrid text is
produced
- The Gnostic
lengthening of
the interval
between our
Lord's death and
His ascension
gives indirect
evidence of the
antiquity of the
history as
recorded in our
Gospels
- Some doubt
cast on the
decisions made
by Hort in his
preliminary
testing of
authorities by
our knowledge of
the influence
with him of the
rule always to
prefer the
shorter reading
- Speculation
to account for
signs of
compression at
the end both of
Gospel and Acts
THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
- WH take
little
interest in
the question
of the
origin of
the Synoptic
Gospels
-
Assumption
common to
Burgon and
Hort
- Whether
the value of
the Gospels
to us is
that they
contain the
" individual
words of an
individual
author "
- Does the
first Gospel
give us the
individual
words of St
Matthew?
- To
answer this
question we
must know
whether it
was first
written in
Greek or
Aramaic, and
whether St
Matthew's
composition
afterwards
received any
editorial
changes
- If such
changes had
taken place
before B was
written,
that MS will
not enable
us to
recover the
" individual
words " of
St Matthew
- Early
changes in
the text
likely to
have been of
a different
kind from
later ones
-
Assimilation
of the
Gospels
probable at
a later
stage, but
not so at
the earliest
- Whether
stories as
told by two
Evangelists
are more
likely to be
identical or
diverse
depends on
the decision
of the
question
whether the
Evangelists
drew from a
common
source
- The
story of the
rich young
man
- Why
those who
reject D's
additions to
the text can
- rely on
it as an
authority
for
omissions
- Origen
witnesses
that
Matthew's
account of
the story
differs from
that of the
other
Gospels
-
Testimony of
authorities
earlier than
Origen
- The
question as
to what
actually
were the
words that
our Lord
spoke
- A canon
of Hort's
applicable
to this
question
- On
transcriptional
grounds
Luke's
version
likely to be
correct
- And also
on grounds
of intrinsic
probability
- Two
explanations
of existing
state of the
text
- Signs of
conflation
in Matthew's
text as read
by Origen
- The
Syrian
reviser not
responsible
for the
assimilation
of the
Gospels
- The
second
explanation
- Spurious
addition to
the story of
the
Crucifixion
in the
Alexandrian
St Matthew
- Hort
willing to
accept this
as a genuine
part of the
"extant form
of St
Matthew"
- Is then
the "extant
form of St
Matthew"
older than
the longer
conclusion
of St Mark?
- And is
it earlier
than the
fourth
Gospel?
- What
Burgon means
by speaking
of
Pseudo-Tatian
- What
Miller means
by the same
phrase
-
Coincidences
between the
fourth
Gospel and
the
Alexandrian
text of the
last chapter
of St Luke
The text
Luke vii. 35
-
Differences
between St
Mark and the
other
Evangelists
in the story
of St
Peter's
denial
- In other
respects
Matthew's
account of
the
Crucifixion
is based on
St Mark's
- Luke
xviii. 14
- St
Mark's two
cock-crowings
may not
impossibly
have
originated
in an error
of an early
transcriber
- The
authorities
on which WH
rely are
distant from
the original
autographs
THE PROBLEM OF ACCOUNTING FOR WESTERN VARIATIONS
-
There
are
cases
where
rival
texts
can
equally
claim
antiquity
of
attestation
-
Origen's
testimony
only
useful
in
establishing
the
Alexandrian
reading
- God
has at
no time
given
His
Church a
text
absolutely
free
from
ambiguity
-
Hort's
simplification
of the
problem
- But
a
simplification
not a
solution
-
Presumption
that
Western
testimony
may
deserve
a
hearing
- WH
do not
account
for the
licentiousness
of
Western
scribes
-
Western
Christians
not
indifferent
to the
purity
of the
Scripture
text
-
Hypothesis
of a
double
edition
of
Luke's
Gospel
- The
hypothesis
rejected
by Hort,
but
accepted
by
Lightfoot
-
Mommsen
on Acts
xxviii.
16
- The
case for
a double
edition
of the
Acts
- The
Western
text of
the Acts
-
Blass's
account
of its
origin
- His
extension
of the
hypothesis
to
Luke's
Gospel
-
Alternative
explanation
- Oral
publication
credible
-
Early
Christians
ordinarily
learned
the
Gospel
story by
hearing
rather
than by
reading
- The
office
of
evangelist
-
Renan's
account
of the
genesis
of the
Gospels
-
Leaves
out the
influence
of
ecclesiastical
control
- The
conditions
of
learning
the
Gospel
story
different
at Rome
and at
Alexandria
- How
did
Apollos
learn
the
Gospel
story?
-
Blass's
answer
-
Information
independent
of the
written
text was
abundant
at Rome
- This
information
likely
to be
preserved
-
Authorized
and
unauthorized
commentary
- Luke
ix. 55
- The
Western
text
likely
to have
had
Church
authority
- The
Diatessaron
called
forth by
the
exigencies
of
missionary
labour
CONCLUSION
-
There
is
nothing
to
shock
us
if
Gospel
texts
were
read
differently
in
different
churches
-
The
conclusion
of
St
Mark's
Gospel
-
Hort's
restoration
of
the
Alexandrian
text
-
The
Alexandrian
form
of
text
not
necessarily
the
fittest
for
church
use
-
Burgon
and
Hort
at
opposite
extremes
in
their
estimate
of
the
value
of
Church
authority
-
Too
close
following
of
WH
makes
the
Revised
English
New
Testament
in
some
points
less
fit
for
church
reading
-
WH
agree
with
Burgon
in
adopting
the
older
doctrine
of
inspiration
-
The
doubt
that
hangs
over
a
few
determinations
does
not
affect
the
certainty
of
our
faith
|