CODEX VATICANUS AND ITS ALLIES

Herman C. Hoskier

Introduction by David Otis Fuller

The following extracts were taken from a book entitled Codex B and Its Allies — A Study and an Indictment, by Herman C. Hoskier. This distinguished scholar marshalled a vast amount of convincing documentary evidence in a volume of nearly 500 pages demonstrating the unreliability of the group of manuscripts headed by the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, which were held in such high esteem by Professors Westcott and Hort, and other nineteenth century textual critics and revisers.

It is high time that the bubble of Codex B should be pricked. It had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently. I had thought that time would cure the extraordinary Hortian heresy, but when I found that after a silence of twenty years my suggestion that Hort’s theories were disallowed today only provoked a denial from a scholar and a critic who has himself disavowed a considerable part of the readings favored by Hort, it seemed time to write a consecutive account of the crooked path pursued by the manuscript B, which — from ignorance I know — most people still confuse with purity and “neutrality.”

I proceed to “name” the aforesaid scholar, since he has challenged me. Dr. A. Souter began a review of my “Genesis of the Versions” by saying that — “It is the business of a critic first to destroy his enemy’s position before he seeks to build up his own.”

He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of manuscripts as such, but added some very strong advice to hold my tongue as regarded commenting on the evidence so painfully accumulated, which he and others would use — but which I must not use or discuss. He said: “We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime.”

I refuse to be bound by such advice. I demand a fair hearing on a subject very near to my heart, and with which by close attention for many years I have tried to make myself sufficiently acquainted to be able and qualified to discuss it with those few who have pursued a parallel course of study.

I present therefore an indictment against the manuscript B (Vaticanus) and against Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts. I do not believe that the jurymen who will ultimately render a verdict have ever had the matter presented to them formally, legally, and in proper detail.

Dr. Souter has said that “it is the business of a critic first to destroy his enemy’s position,” but I beg to observe that the enemy, under deepest cover of night, has already abandoned several important positions. And there is such a thing as a flanking movement which compels retirement or surrender without striking a more direct blow in front. Thirty years and more have been allowed for them to retire in good order. If the finale is to be a rout it is not owing to lack of patience on the part of the other side. But it will be owing to apathy, to unfaithfulness, to pride, to incomplete examination of documentary evidence, and to an overweening haste to establish the “true” text without due regard to scientific foundations.

My thesis is then that it was B (Vaticanus) and Aleph (Sinaiticus) and their forerunners with Origen who revised the “Antioch” text.¹ And that, although there is an older base than either of these groups, the “Antioch” text is purer in many respects, if not “better,” and is nearer the original base than much of that in vogue in Egypt.

¹ Westcott and Hort accounted for the prevalence of the Traditional Text by assuming that there must have been a revision, probably at Antioch, which resulted in the rejection of the form of the text represented by B. Hoskier suggests that B and Aleph were revisions of the text underlying the Majority Text.

The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of Aleph and B. The Old Syriac sometimes supports the true text of the Aleph and B family, where Aleph singly or B singly deserts the family to side with a later variation; is it not therefore possible, and indeed likely, that in some instances Aleph and B may both have deserted the reading which they ought to have followed, and that they and not the Old Syriac are inconsistent? That Aleph and B occasionally (over 3,000 real differences between Aleph and B are recorded in the Gospels alone!) are inconsistent with themselves appears certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be the fragment of a rival variant.

I suppose that it will readily be conceded that C. H. Turner is without question the most brilliant writer on Textual Criticism today. It is always a pleasure to read him, and to be carried along in his racy and well-balanced style, which shows large mastery of the historical side of the problem as far as we have gathered it today. But there are certain weak points in his argument.

On pages 183 and 184 he says: “Hort was the last and perhaps the ablest of a long line of editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the eighteenth century, who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly in the end, threw over the later in favor of the earlier Greek manuscripts: and that issue will never have to be tried again. In Hort’s hands this preference for the earlier manuscripts was pushed to its most extreme form.”

This sentence seems to me to lack a grasp of what the testimony of the later documents is (as evidenced by the contents of those which we know) and what the testimony may be of those which are yet unexamined, of which of course there are hundreds and hundreds.

Dr. Hoskier quotes the following from Dr. Salmon in his book Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. “Yet, great as has been my veneration for Hort and my admiration of the good work that he has done, I have never been able to feel that his work was final, and I have disliked the servility with which his history of the text has been accepted, and even his nomenclature adopted, as if now the last word had been said on the subject of New Testament criticism” (p. 33).

“That which gained Hort so many adherents had some adverse influence with myself — I mean his extreme cleverness as an advocate; for I have felt as if there were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for thinking it to be the only genuine” (pp. 33, 34).

“On this account I am not deterred by the general adoption of Westcott and Hort’s decisions from expressing my opinion that their work has too readily been accepted as final, and that students have been too willing to accept as their motto ‘Rest and be thankful.’ There is no such enemy to progress as the belief that perfection has been already attained” (p. 38).

“In Hort’s exposition the student is not taken with him along the path that he himself had followed; he must start with the acceptance of the final result. Consequently one of the first things at which I took umbrage in Westcott and Hort’s exposition was the question begging nomenclature” (p. 43).

“I strongly feel that Hort would have done better if he had left the old nomenclature undisturbed, and distinguished his neutral text from that which he calls ‘Alexandrian’ by the names ‘early Alexandrian’ and ‘later Alexandrian.’ Names will not alter facts, though they may enable us to shut our eyes to them” (p. 52).

“Naturally Hort regarded those manuscripts as most trustworthy which give the readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in the third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort’s method inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text” (p. 53).

“To sum up in conclusion, I have but to express my belief that what Westcott and Hort have restored is the text which had the highest authority in Alexandria in the third century, and may have reached that city in the preceding one. It would need but to strike out the double brackets from the so-called non-Western interpolations, and to remove altogether the few passages which W & H reluctantly admitted into their pages with marks of doubt when we should have a pure Alexandrian text. Their success is due to the fact that W & H investigated the subject as a merely literary problem; and the careful preservation at Alexandria of a text which had reached that city was but a literary problem” (p. 155).

“That Westcott and Hort should employ the Alexandrian ‘use’ as their chief guide to the recovery of the original text may be quite right; but that they should refuse a place on their page to anything that has not that authority is an extreme which makes me glad that the Revised New Testament, which so closely follows their authority, has not superseded the Authorized version in our Churches. For, if it had, the result might be that things would be accounted unfit to be read in the churches of the nineteenth century which were read at Rome in the second century, during the lifetime of men who had been members of the apostolic company who had visited their city” (pp. 157, 158).

After these quotations from Dr. Salmon, Hoskier continues — I charge Westcott and Hort with having utterly failed to produce any semblance of a “neutral” text. I charge them with the offense of repeated additions to the narrative on most insufficient evidence.

I charge the Oxford edition of 1910 with continual errors in accepting Westcott and Hort’s text for many verses together where the absence of footnotes shows that the editors consider their text as settled. I acknowledge and make confession freely that the Revisers have retraced steps in a number of places and ejected Hort’s readings sometimes even without the pro and con in a footnote, where Hort blindly followed a phantasma of evidence. But this text is still founded on too high a regard for B, and I pray for an entire reconsideration of the matter in the light of what follows.

The claim of W & H to have resurrected the texts of Origen certainly holds good except in certain places. But in doing so they far exceed Origen’s own claim. Origen’s citations are full of conflations, where he knew two recensions and incorporated both. If he was not able to judge which of these was original, why should he be a perfect judge of other double readings similarly situated but of which he chose one? Now W 8c H profess that they have not only restored the text of Origen but that they know that this is “Pre-Syrian”² and “Pre-Alexandrian” and, as represented by B, is “neutral” and fundamentally correct as opposed to all others. Their “selected readings,” few and far between, can certainly not be considered proof of their contention, and we are prepared to challenge their assumption as to the supremacy of B. Meanwhile we would like to place on record again what Canon Cook had to say about the personality of Origen in connection with these matters, for that feature is of vital importance. The Church at large disagreed with Origen’s conclusions. W 8c H after nearly 1700 years merely wished to replace us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after A.D. 450 or thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse. For Dr. Salmon says, “Giving to the common parent of B and Aleph as high antiquity as is claimed for it, still it will be distant by more than a century from the original autographs, and the attempts to recover the text of manuscripts which came to Alexandria in the second century may be but an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen.”

² This refers to Westcott and Hort’s theory that there was a revision at Antioch in Syria which gave rise to the Traditional, Received, or Majority Text.

And now hear what Canon Cook has to say about Origen: — “We go back one step further, a most critical and important step, for it brings us at once into contact with the greatest name, the highest genius, the most influential person of all Christian antiquity. We come to Origen. And it is not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains upon every department of Biblical criticism and exegesis. His ‘Hexapla’ is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discernment; but his labors on the Old Testament were thwarted by his very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency to mystic interpretations common in his own language, but in no other writer so fully developed or pushed to the same extremes.

“In his criticism of the New Testament Origen had greater advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and versions were before him; both manuscripts and versions he examined, and brought out the results of his researches with unrivaled power. But no one who considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions.”

Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject (Lecture 11, edition 1838, page 482): “Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a sense which in Origen’s opinion was irrational or impossible, in other words irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen had learnt at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense.”

This sums up many other matters connected with Origen’s treatment of textual matters, so that we do not necessarily recover Origen’s manuscripts when we are inclined to follow Aleph and B, but very likely only Origen himself.

As to whether the Alexandrian School preserved the true text, or modified it by attempted improvement, is what we are to inquire into.

Hort’s system involves dragging in readings of B whenever support can be found from another manuscript. Since Hort’s day his true system thus demands and compels the acceptance of further “monstra” exhibited by B owing to support forthcoming since from other manuscripts or versions. I make free to prophesy that other documents so far unknown³ will add to this list a further crop of vicious survivals which might give us eventually all of B’s misreadings. The system is thus demonstrated to be unscientific in the extreme, notwithstanding the praise so fulsomely lavished on it by a certain school.

³ Hoskier shrewdly anticipated the discovery of some of the papyrus fragments which exhibit the same kind of defective text as B, and showed that this imperfect form of the text must have been in use in Egypt in the 4th century.

Toward the end of his great volume Hoskier wrote — In closing let me say that Burgon’s position remains absolutely unshaken. He did not contend for acceptance of the “Textus Receptus,” as has so often been scurrilously stated. He maintained that Aleph and B had been tampered with and revised and proved it in his Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text. He sought the truth wherever it might be recovered and did not stop at Origen’s time. The material discovered since his day has not shaken his position at all. We seek the truth among all our witnesses, with unnecessary subservience to no one document or congeries of documents, deriving patently from a single recension. Nearly all revision appears to center in Egypt, and to suppose all the other documents wrong when opposed to these Egyptian documents is unsound and unscientific; for we must presuppose not only “Syrian” revision but a most foolish revision which did away with these “improvements” of the Egyptians and Alexandrians, or which destroyed the “neutral” text without rhyme or reason.

What Dean Burgon was chiefly concerned about was the lack of a scientific basis for our textual criticism. It is absolutely necessary to grasp this fact for a proper understanding of the whole matter. A scientific basis can only be obtained after we have made ourselves masters of a scientific knowledge of the real history of transmission, and of the interaction of the versions upon each other and of the versions upon the Greek texts.

It is now 25 years since Dean Burgon passed away,⁴ and I ask myself what progress his opponents have made. The answer is that after 25 years they have discovered some flaws in the Hort textual theory and have partially dethroned B from the paramount position it occupied in the Hort text. There are further steps to be taken in this process, if I mistake not, and I hope that what I have written will tend further to clear the ground for a more intelligent view of the situation. The weight assigned by Burgon to Patristic testimony has been disallowed, but his indictment of B as a false witness is abundantly proved.

⁴ Dean Burgon passed away on August 4, 1888.

Reiteration of Hort’s dicta by his followers is not proof. Let someone take the dozen “Alexandrian” readings of B which I have adduced — the existence of which in B was denied by Hort — and prove that they are in no wise Alexandrian. Then we can discuss the matter further. Let somebody explain how B comes to oppose the sub-apostolic Fathers, deliberately in places, if we are to accept Hort’s assurance about B being “neutral.” Until that is done, let us away with “dicta” and go by proof.

We have now completed the arraignment of Codex B in the gospels referring to a similar condition of the B text elsewhere and have presented the facts upon which the jury should base their verdict. My arguments have been cumulative rather than exhaustively elaborate. I could have elaborated and gone into much greater detail as to many matters simply mentioned or only sketched. I have preferred to write for those who can appreciate accumulative arguments which I hope I have at least outlined to their satisfaction. The verdict asked is whether B represents a “neutral” text or not. The claims put forward by us are that B does not exhibit a “neutral” text but is found to be tinged, as are other documents, with Coptic, Latin and Syriac colors and its testimony therefore is not of the paramount importance pre-supposed and claimed by Hort and by his followers. That B is guilty of laches, of a tendency to “improve,” and of “sunstroke” amounting to doctrinal bias. That the maligned Textus Receptus served in large measure as the base which B tampered with and changed, and that the Church at large recognized all this until the year 1881 — when Hortism (in other words Alexandrianism) was allowed free play — and has not since retraced the path to sound traditions.

Upon the first page of this book I spoke of the “Hortian heresy.” Upon this last page I would fain explain what it is that I accuse of being a heresy. The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as “the true text,” and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others, have been grounded on this text. If the Hort text makes the evangelists appear inconsistent, then such and such an evangelist errs. Those who accept the W & H text are basing their accusations of untruth as to the Gospellists upon an Egyptian revision current 200 to 450 A.D. and abandoned between 500 to 1881, merely revived in our day and stamped as genuine.

A CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE WESTCOTT-HORT TEXTUAL THEORY

Alfred Martin

Dr. Martin presented this dissertation to the faculty of the Graduate School of Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Theology in May of 1951. Your editor has used significant and pertinent parts of this dissertation to compose this chapter. At present, Dr. Martin is Vice President of Moody Bible Institute in Chicago. In this compiler’s humble opinion Dr. Martin has administered the coup de grace to the Westcott and Hort textual theory.

In the year 1881 there appeared in England two volumes called The New Testament in the Original Greek, the product of almost thirty years of work by two professors at Cambridge, Brooke Foss Westcott (later Bishop of Durham) and Fenton John Anthony Hort. The earlier of these volumes contained the text of the New Testament as constructed by the two editors according to their critical principles; the other contained a detailed statement of those principles from the pen of Hort.

This latter remarkable volume, called Introduction— Appendix, although permeated by an oracular tone, does not claim to present the final word on the subject. The conclusion expresses this well:

“Others assuredly in due time will prosecute the task with better resources of knowledge and skill, and amend the faults and defects of our processes and results. To be faithful to such light as could be enjoyed in our own day was the utmost that we could desire. How far we have fallen short of this standard, we are well aware: yet we are bold to say that none of the shortcomings are due to lack of anxious and watchful sincerity.”⁵

⁵ Introduction, p. 323. The second edition of 1896 is referred to, but it does not differ from the first except in the addition of some supplementary notes.

It is hard to understand how, in spite of this modest disclaimer and of the assurances throughout the work that many conclusions are only tentative, the Westcott-Hort publication became almost immediately the standard of New Testament textual criticism. A writer in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, discussing the Westcott-Hort theory in 1908, said: “Conscious agreement with it or conscious disagreement and qualification mark all work in this field since 1881.” ⁶ After this long time, that is still almost literally true. The theory was hailed by many when it came forth as practically final, certainly definitive. It has been considered by some the acme in the textual criticism of the New Testament. Some of the followers of Westcott and Hort have been almost unreasoning in their devotion to the theory; and many people, even today, who have no idea what the Westcott-Hort theory is, or at best only a vague notion, accept the labors of those two scholars without question. During the past seventy years it has often been considered textual heresy to deviate from their position or to intimate that, sincere as they undoubtedly were, they may have been mistaken.

⁶ “Bible Text, II. The New Testament.” The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. II, p. 111.

Most work in textual criticism today has at least a Hortian foundation; nevertheless there are fashions in criticism as in women’s clothing, and the trend of scholars in more recent years has been away from the original Westcott-Hort position, as will be shown in a later chapter of this work. An amusing and amazing spectacle presents itself: many of the textbooks, books of Bible interpretation, and innumerable secondary works go on repeating the Westcott-Hort dicta although the foundations have been seriously shaken even in the opinion of former Hortians and those who would logically be expected to be Hortians.

In spite of the notable work of Burgon, Hoskier, and others who supported them, the opponents of the Westcott-Hort theory have never had the hearing which they deserve. How many present-day students of the Greek New Testament ever heard of the two men just mentioned, and how many ever saw a copy of The Revision Revised or Codex B and Its Allies, to say nothing of actually reading these works? Hoskier says:

“Burgon tried to indicate a scientific method, and has barely had a hearing. Westcott and Hort indicated a less scientific method, because they seem to have imagined standards — which do not exist — and, marry! they have had a full hearing and a large following. Why? The reason is sadly obvious. The latter method is taking, easy, and at first sight plausible to the beginner. The former is horribly laborious, although precious in results.”⁷

⁷ Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, Vol. I, p. xlvii.

Consequently it will not be amiss after this interval to bring the controversy again into the light of day. It is a controversy; there can be no mistake about that. It will be seen in the subsequent discussion that the disagreement raged long before 1881 and that it is still raging. For it cannot be denied that the controversy is still alive; no amount of pontificating of present-day writers can obscure that fact. The reason for dwelling on this point is that today most writers, even though they differ from Westcott and Hort in conclusions, insist upon a Westcott-Hort point of departure and milieu. It is commonly said that the older controversy around the Textus Receptus is dead, but this cannot be true; for if it can be shown that Westcott and Hort were wrong in their basic premises, then it will be necessary to go back before Westcott and Hort and to take up the study afresh. If the direction is wrong, further supposed progress only leads farther from the truth.

The thesis of this work is, then, that the Westcott-Hort theory is based upon false principles, follows fallacious methods, and is not worthy of the credence given to it by so many. This is a strong statement, but proof will follow.

Before the Westcott-Hort theory can be examined critically, there must be a clear understanding of what the theory is. A theory is usually propounded to account for some fact. The fact in this connection is that, of the more than four thousand manuscripts of the New Testament now extant (in a fragmentary, partial, or complete state), the great majority, perhaps as many as ninety or ninety-five per cent, are in substantial textual agreement. Nevertheless some of the oldest manuscripts known will differ markedly from the majority. The problem is to account not only for the agreement of the majority, but also for the deviations in other manuscripts as well as in versions and Fathers.

The Syrian text insisted upon by Westcott and Hort is said to be a full, smooth text, containing many “conflate” readings, that is, combinations of readings of two or more earlier texts. Westcott and Hort consider it to be worthless unless supported by “pre-Syrian” readings. Even if one did not know anything about New Testament textual criticism, one could see that this hypothesis eliminates at one stroke between ninety and ninety-five per cent of the evidence! Of course, if the theory is correct, and all the later manuscripts are copied from an “official” text, then they do lose their value as evidence. It will be shown, however, that there is no proof of the recensions which Westcott and Hort allege.

The paragraphs in the Introduction on “The neutral text and its preservation” are a model of obscurity and of theorizing but nonetheless of dogmatizing. There is absolutely no proof of the neutrality of this so-called Neutral Text. It is best represented by two uncial manuscripts of the fourth century, Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph). The practical result of this classification is that Westcott and Hort relied most heavily on these two manuscripts, especially on B, as the foundation of their own text.

If the Westcott-Hort theory can be disproved, it can be seen that the traditional text is closer to the original autographs than any other. The traditional text is not synonymous with the Received Text, but the latter does embody it in a rather corrupt form.

If it be objected that strong feeling obtrudes itself at times into the discussion, it can only be replied in extenuation that this is the kind of subject which engenders strong feeling. There are tremendous issues involved; the text of the Word of God is in question! How can one hold oneself mentally aloof? One is reminded of Burgon’s statement in the preface to The Revision Revised:

“Earnestly have I desired, for many years past, to produce a systematic Treatise on this great subject. My aspiration all along has been, and still is, in place of the absolute Empiricism which has hitherto prevailed in Textual inquiry, to exhibit the logical outlines of what, I am persuaded, is destined to become a truly delightful Science. But I more than long — I fairly ache to have done with Controversy, and to be free to devote myself to the work of Interpretation. My apology for bestowing so large a portion of my time on Textual Criticism, is David’s when he was reproached by his brethren for appearing on the field of battle, ‘Is there not a cause?’ ”⁸ Yes, there is a cause and it is a more important cause than many Bible students have yet realized. The writer is soundly convinced from years of reading and thinking upon this question that the Westcott-Hort theory is false and misleading!

⁸ The Revision Revised, p. xxix.

If Origen’s theology is any guide to his textual criticism, one would not be inclined to follow him very closely. His many deviations are well known, and his influence in promoting the “spiritualizing” method of Bible interpretation has done untold damage in the study of the Scriptures. Hort relied on him perhaps more than any Father, but that may have been because of the similarities between some of his readings and those of B and Aleph. A rather different estimate of him (Origen) was made by Burgon and Miller:

“The influence which the writings of Origen exercised on the ancient Church is indeed extraordinary. The fame of his learning added to the splendour of his genius, his vast Biblical achievements and his real insight into the depth of Scripture, conciliated for him the admiration and regard of early Christendom. Let him be freely allowed the highest praise for the profundity of many of his utterances, the ingenuity of almost all. It must at the same time be admitted that he is bold in his speculations to the verge, and beyond the verge, of rashness; unwarrantedly confident in his assertions; deficient in sobriety; in his critical remarks even foolish. A prodigious reader as well as a prodigious writer, his words would have been of incalculable value, but that he seems to have been so saturated with the strange speculations of the early heretics, that he sometimes adopts their wild method; and in fact has not been reckoned among the orthodox Fathers of the Church.”⁹ It is manifest that Origen is not a safe guide in textual criticism any more than in theology.

⁹ The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, p. 162.

One cannot say that the Textus Receptus, for example, is verbally inspired. It contains many plain and clear errors, as all schools of textual critics agree. But it embodies substantially the text which even Westcott and Hort admit was dominant in the church from the middle of the fourth century on. The text used by the Church Fathers from Chrysostom’s time on was not materially different from the text of Erasmus and Stephanus. This is not a conclusive proof of the superiority of that text — far from it, but, taken in connection with other factors discussed in this dissertation, does it not present a strong presumption in favor of the reliability of this text? namely the Textus Receptus. It is hard to see how God would allow the true text to sink into virtual oblivion for fifteen hundred years only to have it brought to light again by two Cambridge professors who did not even believe it to be verbally inspired.

A Bible-believing Christian had better be careful what he says about the Textus Receptus, for the question is not at all the precise wording of that text, but rather a choice between two different kinds of texts, a fuller one and a shorter one. One need not believe in the infallibility of Erasmus, or his sanctity, or even his honesty; because he merely followed the type of text which was dominant in the manuscripts, although he probably was not aware of all the implications involved. He undoubtedly could have done much better than he did, but he also could have done a great deal worse. If some regret that the Vatican manuscript was not available to, or was not used by him, one may reply that it may yet be proved that the mercy of God kept him in his ignorance from following a depraved text that had been rejected by the church at large for at least a thousand years before his time.

The event for which Tischendorf is best known is his discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript at the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai in 1859. He published his edition of this manuscript in 1862. Perhaps naturally, because of his discovery of it, he deferred too much to Aleph (the Sinaitic Manuscript). His eighth edition, published after the discovery of that manuscript, differs from his seventh in as many as 3369 places, to the scandal of the science of Comparative Criticism, as well as to his own grave discredit for discernment and consistency. Tregelles was a true believer in Christ who accepted without question the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures. He sincerely believed that in building a text on the fewer oldest authorities he was recovering the very words of inspiration. Burgon thus writes of him:

“Of the scrupulous accuracy, the indefatigable industry, the pious zeal of that estimable and devoted scholar, we speak not. All honour to his memory! As a specimen of conscientious labour, his edition of the New Testament (185772־) passes praise, and will never lose its value. But it has only to be stated, that Tregelles effectually persuaded himself that ‘eighty-nine ninethieths’ of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity — to make it plain that in Textual Criticism he must needs be regarded as an untrustworthy teacher.”¹⁰ Tregelles’s influence was very great in leading British scholars of his time away from the Textus Receptus.

¹⁰ The Revision Revised, p. 22.

The Westcott-Hort theory, advanced somewhat tentatively by its original proponents, has been dominant in the field of New Testament textual criticism for almost the entire seventy years of its existence. There were, of course, able and powerful opponents of the theory, and it was not universally accepted all at once, but most of the opposing voices were still after a few years and the theory has prevailed. Because of this the earnest and scholarly men who wrote against it have almost been forgotten and their books are now difficult to find. Popular thinking scarcely recognizes the fact that there were opponents, so gigantic in stature have Westcott and Hort become.

The present generation of Bible students, having been reared on Westcott and Hort, have for the most part accepted the theory without independent or critical examination. To the average student of the Greek New Testament today it is unthinkable to question the theory at least in its basic premises. Even to imply that one believes the Textus Receptus to be nearer the original text than the Westcott-Hort text is, lays one open to the suspicion of gross ignorance or unmitigated bigotry. That is why this controversy needs to be aired again among Bible-believing Christians. There is little hope of convincing those who are unbelieving textual critics, but if believing Bible students had the evidence of both sides put before them, instead of one side only, there would not be so much blind following of Westcott and Hort.

Burgon was one of the greatest Greek scholars of his day and undoubtedly the greatest authority of the time on patristic quotations of the New Testament. His sixteen large manuscript volumes of an index to these quotations have never been published, but are in the British Museum. When the English Revised Version of the New Testament appeared in 1881, based to a considerable extent on the Westcott-Hort theory, he (Burgon) criticized it in a series of three devastating articles in the Quarterly Review. Burgon’s method has been largely misunderstood and sometimes misrepresented. He is often caricatured as a bigoted, ignorant upholder of the Textus Receptus who was blind to the niceties of scholarship. Westcott and Hort never took him seriously, but he was nevertheless an opponent to be reckoned with. Burgon held that there is absolutely no place for conjecture in the textual criticism of the New Testament.

Burgon’s own statement of his system and method, as given in the preface to The Revision Revised, is to the point and worth quoting:

“What compels me to repeat this so often, is the impatient selfsufficiency of these last days, which is for breaking away from the old restraints; and for erecting the individual conscience into an authority from which there shall be no appeal. I know but too well how labourious is the scientific method which I advocate. . . . And yet it is the indispensable condition of progress in an unexplored region, that a few should thus labour, until a path has been cut through the forest — a road laid down — huts built — a modus vivendi established. In this department of sacred Science, men have been going on too long inventing their facts, and delivering themselves of oracular decrees, on the sole responsibility of their own inner consciousness. There is a great convenience in such a method certainly — a charming simplicity which is in a high degree attractive to flesh and blood. It dispenses with proof. It furnishes no evidence. It asserts when it ought to argue. It reiterates when it is called upon to explain. T am sir Oracle.’ . . . This — which I venture to style the unscientific method — reached its culminating point when Professors Westcott and Hort recently put forth their Recension of the Greek Text. Their work is indeed quite a psychological curiosity. Incomprehensible to me is it how two able men of disciplined understanding can have seriously put forth the volume which they call Introduction—Appendix. It is the very Reductio ad absurdum of the uncritical method of the last fifty years.

“The method I persistently advocate in every case of a supposed doubtful Reading (I say it for the last time, and request that I may be no more misrepresented), is, that an appeal should be unreservedly made to Catholic Antiquity; and that the combined verdict of Manuscripts, Versions, Fathers, shall be regarded as decisive.”¹¹

¹¹ Ibid., pp. xxix-xxxvii.

Hoskier writes of Burgon in 1914 these words:

“Burgon’s position remains absolutely unshaken. He did not contend for the acceptance of the Textus Receptus, as has so often been scurrilously stated. He maintained that Aleph and B had been tampered with and revised, and he proved it in his Causes of Corruption. He sought the truth wherever it might be recovered, and did not stop at Origen’s time. The material discovered since his day has not shaken his position at all.”¹²

¹² Codex B and Its Allies, Vol. I, p. 415.

This is a glimpse of the life and work of a man who opposed the Westcott-Hort theory and text with all his might. While his arguments were not generally accepted by his contemporaries, he was supremely confident of the rightness of his cause. Hoskier gives this interesting glimpse of him:

“Three and a half years ago [this was written in 1890] I was in Dean Burgon’s study at Chichester. It was midnight, dark and cold without; he had just extinguished the lights, and it was dark, and getting cold within. We mounted the stairs to retire to rest, and his last words of the night have often rung in my ears since: ‘As surely as it is dark now, and as certainly as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, so surely will the traditional text be vindicated and the views I have striven to express be accepted. I may not live to see it. Most likely I shall not. But it will come.’ ”¹³

¹³ H. C. Hoskier, Collation of 604, p. v.

Westcott and Hort had been working together on their text since 1853; in 1870 they printed a tentative edition for private distribution only. This they circulated under pledge of secrecy within the company of New Testament revisers, of which they were members (of which came the Revised Version of 1881). It soon became evident that the New Testament committee was not going to be content merely to revise the Authorized Version, but was determined to revise the underlying Greek text radically. (Scrivener counted the number of changes in the underlying Greek text of the Revised Version from the Authorized Version as 5,788.) Hort became the leading spokesman for the views which he and Westcott advocated; Scrivener usually spoke for the other side. Most of the members of the committee were not textual critics, and were not at home in this area of discussion.

When the Revised Version of the New Testament was published in May, 1881, after more than ten years of revising sessions, there was intense interest in both England and America. It is difficult now to realize the enthusiasm of that day. A recent edition of a standard work describes the reception of the volume as unprecedented. Within four days after publication about two million copies are said to have been sold in England. On the morning of the American publication date (May 20) people were clamoring for copies before daybreak in New York and Philadelphia. On May 22 the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Times published the entire New Testament in their issues. The Revision began with a tremendous popularity, but this popularity apparently did not spread to the masses and was not of long continuance. Scholars everywhere acclaimed it.

The fact that the Revised New Testament used a different underlying Greek text from that of the Authorized Version could be easily perceived, and the further fact became generally known through the subsequent controversy that Westcott and Hort had been extremely influential in effecting many of the changes. The two Cambridge professors had gone into the project of revision with the object of pressing for a revision of the accepted Greek text, and it was only natural that they should press their views with all their power in the sessions of the committee.

There is no intention in this work to disparage the intellect or the scholarship of Westcott and Hort. Their names are well known to all students of the Greek New

Testament, not only for their textual studies, but also for their exegetical work. No attempt will be made to list or discuss their voluminous writings, since there is no necessity of establishing this fact. Both men served for many years as professors at the University of Cambridge.

Hort was a man of great intellect, and his Introduction, if nothing else, would attest that fact. His involved development of the textual theory had plausibility and persuasiveness, and carries the reader along in his reasoning so that oftentimes the precarious nature of the factual basis of the theory is scarcely noticed. One can believe the premises to be utterly false and hence the conclusions invalid, and yet not fail to feel the force of Hort’s powerful mind. There was, furthermore, the scholarship of at least fifty years behind the two Cambridge editors. The great and well-known names of Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, to say nothing of the earlier Griesbach, stood back of the line of research that was continued by Westcott and Hort. Added to this was the fact that they were possessed with supreme self-confidence. If Hort was inclined at times to be timid and retiring, Westcott bolstered him up. They took little account of the views of those who opposed them. The Westcott-Hort method is certainly basically rationalistic, for it exalts the judgment of the individual critic. They were influenced either consciously or unconsciously by the liberal tendencies of their time. It was a period when the theory of evolution had been thrust before the popular attention with the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species in 1859. This theory had tremendous repercussions in every area of life. Both Westcott and Hort seem to have been theistic evolutionists.

It is clear, from Westcott’s own statement, that he was what may be called a middle-of-the-road man. Via media was his watchword. Apparently Hort shared these views with him. Today they would be called probably moderate liberals. Westcott’s son mentions more than once that his father was often considered “unorthodox,” “unsound,” or “unsafe.”

When the company of New Testament revisers (for the Revised Version) were ready to begin their work, a communion service was held in Westminster Abbey. A Unitarian member of the committee partook along with the others. There was serious criticism of this, and, in the words of Arthur Westcott, “The Revision was almost wrecked at the very outset.” The upper house of the Convocation of Canterbury passed a resolution that no person who denied the deity of Christ should take part in the work. Westcott threatened to sever his connections with the project in these words to Hort: “If the Company accept the dictation of Convocation, my work must end.” It may be argued that it is unfair and irrelevant to urge the liberal theological views of Westcott and Hort against their textual theory; but in reply it can be said that those views must inevitably have had some bearing upon their attitude toward the sacred text. One cannot help noticing parallels between the brilliant Westcott and Hort of the nineteenth century and the brilliant Origen, their favorite patristic authority, of the third century.

Hoskier has alluded to this situation in his Codex B and Its Allies:

“Finally observe that up to the time of Westcott and Hort the ‘lower criticism’ had kept itself quite apart from the so-called ‘higher criticism.’ Since the publication of Hort’s text, however, and that of the Revisers, much of the heresy of our time has fallen back upon the supposed results acquired by the ‘lower criticism’ to bolster up their views.”

Men who had long denied the infallibility of the Bible — and there were many such in the Church of England and in the independent churches — eagerly acclaimed a theory which they thought to be in harmony with their position. One cannot agree with all of Burgon’s views, nor can one condone the erascibility and smugness, but one who believes the Bible cannot but rejoice in his love for God’s Book and admire his masterly defense of verbal inspiration.

This is not to say that Burgon’s theological views automatically make him right in textual criticism and that Westcott and Hort’s theological views automatically make them wrong. In face of the fact, however, that they were all recognized and accomplished scholars, it ought to create a presumption of right on the side of one who fully upheld the Word of God. Not proof in itself, it nevertheless ought to make one cautious in examining the evidence. Those gigantic personalities merely crystallize the issue. It would be wrong and foolish to say that everyone who holds the Westcott-Hort textual theory is liberal in theology.

At precisely the time when liberalism was carrying the field in the English churches the theory of Westcott and Hort received wide acclaim. These are not isolated facts. Recent contributions on the subject — that is, in the present century — following mainly the Westcott-Hort principles and method, have been made largely by men who deny the inspiration of the Bible. Canon Streeter and Kirsopp Lake can be cited as only two outstanding examples in a list that could be greatly extended.

Textual criticism cannot be divorced entirely from theology. No matter how great a Greek scholar a man may be, or no matter how great an authority on the textual evidence, his conclusions must always be open to suspicion if he does not accept the Bible as the very Word of God.

As quoted previously, Burgon has shown the laborious nature of the method which he advocated. It involves exact collation of documents, minute examination of the evidence of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers on every disputed passage. Hoskier has expressed it in these words:

“I rise from my complete examination [of 46 of the Apocalypse] with different feelings, and I record this merely to show how untrustworthy is partial examination. We read in Scrivener ‘Hort collated the first five chapters’ (of some manuscript) ‘and sent his results to------. It is similar in text to B.’ Such deductions are as stupid for our purpose as indeterminate. As a matter of fact the recension of the first five chapters of the Apocalypse itself frequently differs from that used for the remainder of the book in many manuscripts.”¹⁴

¹⁴ Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse, Vol. I, p. 128.

In contrast to Westcott and Hort’s theorizing method, Scrivener in his Plain Introduction and Burgon and Miller in their Traditional Text and Causes of Corruption have outlined their inductive method. Hoskier advocated this method in all his works and demonstrated it in his monumental Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse.

Men are always seeking some self-evident principle that will explain everything. The Westcott-Hort theory is an attempt to find such a principle in New Testament textual criticism. This theory enabled the two editors to reject as of no value about ninety-five per cent of the available evidence, and, in effect, to make the text of Vaticanus the magic touchstone. If this is doubted, hear Hort’s own words on the subject:

“Tried by the same tests as those just applied, B is found to hold a unique position. Its text is throughout Pre-Syrian, perhaps purely Pre-Syrian, at all events with hardly any, if any, quite clear exceptions. . . . The highest interest must already be seen to belong to a document of which thus far we know only that its text is not only Pre-Syrian but substantially free from Western and Alexandrian adulteration.”¹⁵

¹⁵ Introduction, pp. 150-51.

No other writings were like the New Testament in the frequency of copyings made within a short time after their first appearing. This very multiplication of copies almost inevitably gave rise to a large number of corruptions of the text, most of them unintentional and most of them insignificant. It must be insisted, however, that intentional causes cannot safely be disregarded. The New Testament is different from other documents (it goes without saying that the Old Testament is also, but that is not now being considered) in that it is the infallible Word of God. This entails the fact that God will preserve the text against permanent or destructive error, although He does not guarantee the accuracy of any one manuscript. It means also that Satan will do everything in his power to corrupt the text; he put forth a series of mighty efforts almost at the very beginning through Marcion, Basilides, the Ebionites, the Valentinians, and many others. Burgon’s word of caution about this is a wise one:

“I say it for the last time — of all such [intentional] causes of depravation the Greek Poets, Tragedians, Philosophers, Historians, neither knew nor could know anything. And it thus plainly appears that the Textual Criticism of the New Testament is to be handled by ourselves in an entirely different spirit from that of any other book.”

Over and over again this same writer appeals for a realization that the New Testament is the Word of God and therefore must be handled in a different way from any other document. Decrying the tendency to look at New Testament textual criticism as a literary problem merely, Burgon stoutly avers, “The Holy Scriptures are not an arena for the exercise or display of the ingenuity of critics.”¹⁶

¹⁶ Traditional Text, p. 27.

There are, Hort says, two different kinds of internal evidence of readings, which must be distinguished sharply from one another. These are “intrinsic probability” and “transcriptional probability.” The former inquires what the writer would most probably have written; the latter, which of two or more readings would most probably account for the origin of the other or others in successive stages of copying. Even such a cursory mention as this is sufficient to show that this kind of evidence is highly subjective. Hort freely admits this and concedes that “in dealing with this kind of evidence equally competent critics often arrive at contradictory conclusions as to the same variations.”

The discussion of intrinsic probability, nevertheless, is the entering wedge for the theory, which is subjective throughout. In practice Westcott and Hort attach considerable value to intrinsic probability, especially as corroborative evidence. But who can be the proper judge of what one of the New Testament writers would most probably have written? There must be some standard. Could not Hort, brilliant man that he was, see that his conclusions were entirely subjective and that the most that can be said for them is that they are possible? Hort says:

“The only safe order of procedure therefore is to start with the reading suggested by a strong genealogical presumption, if such there be: and then enquire whether the considerations suggested by other kinds of evidence agree with it, and if not, whether they are clear and strong enough to affect the prima facie claim of higher attestation.”¹⁷

¹⁷ Introduction, p. 63.

Note that word presumption and the phrase if such there be. All is speculation and uncertainty. Yet it is on this quicksand that Westcott and Hort erect their whole hypothesis of the posteriority of Syrian readings and the supremacy of the so-called Neutral Text.

Burgon’s criticism of Westcott and Hort’s conjectural emendations is apposite:

“For ourselves, what surprises us most is the fatal misapprehension they evince of the true office of Textual Criticism as applied to the New Testament. It never is to invent new Readings, but only to adjudicate between existing and conflicting ones. . . .

“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.” ¹⁸

¹⁸ The Revision Revised, p. 354.

No one assumes that this idea of conjectural emendation is basic to the Westcott-Hort theory; but it is an evidence of the subjective nature of the alleged proof. This vicious method has been carried to an absurd extreme by the modern followers of Westcott and Hort, some of whose work will be discussed in another chapter. Today it is taken for granted in most textual critical circles that the judgment of the critic is one of the main factors in textual criticism. That is to be expected from those who do not consider the Bible to be essentially different from any other book. The average textual critic starts with a prejudice against the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God. How can one have confidence in his results?

Some of the principles and methods of Westcott and Hort have now been seen. Their starting principle that the textual criticism of the New Testament is to be conducted in exactly the same way as that of any other book, is utterly false, because the New Testament is the Word of God, and as such is subject both to Satanic attack and to the protection of God. Their principal method, an extreme reliance upon the internal evidence of readings, is fallacious and dangerous, because it makes the mind of the critic the arbiter of the text of the Word of God. It cannot justifiably be urged that Westcott and Hort’s use of documentary evidence clears them of this charge of subjectivism, for they insist that documentary evidence is of no value unless it is genealogically interpreted.

The two central pillars of the Westcott-Hort temple are the Syrian recensions and the Neutral Text. If it can be shown that there were no such recensions (or, even if it cannot be shown that there were) and that the Neutral Text is not neutral, then the whole structure ought to topple as the temple of Dagon fell under the returning strength of Samson. It is generally acknowledged that the contribution of Westcott and Hort is in the realm of theory. That point is reiterated here, because so many have taken theory for fact. Is it any wonder that Hoskier exclaimed about the “most astonishing vogue” of this theory?

The main objection to be raised against the Westcott-Hort hypothesis of the Syrian recensions is that there is no record whatever in history of such occurrences. This is negative evidence, admittedly, and the argument from silence is often precarious; in a case like this, however, when the event was so momentous, the unbroken silence of history is disastrous to the theory. Many critics of Westcott and Hort, as well as many of their followers, have recognized this. Scrivener remarks:

“Dr. Hort’s system, therefore, is entirely destitute of historical foundation. He does not so much as make a show of pretending to it: but then he would persuade us, as he has persuaded himself, that its substantial truth is proved by results; and for results of themselves to establish so very much, they must needs be unequivocal, and admit of no logical escape from the conclusions they lead up to . . .

“ . . . With all our reverence for his [Hort’s] genius, and gratitude for much that we have learnt from him in the course of our studies, we are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many labourious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability resulting from the internal goodness of the text which its adoption would force upon us.”¹⁹

¹⁹ Scrivener, Plain Introduction, Vol. II, pp. 291296 ,92־.

This is a clear, unimpassioned criticism from a learned contemporary of Westcott and Hort. There is no more proof today for the Syrian recensions than there was when these words were written. A further sweeping, although not unimpassioned, refutation came from the pen of Dean Burgon, who with his superb sense of satire reduced the whole hypothesis to an absurdity.

No matter how many heretics there were in the church in the third and fourth centuries, and there were many, they would not have dared to handle the text of Scripture in the way that Hort supposes. Even if they had dared to do so, they could not have succeeded with impunity. There would have been some writers who would have raged against them as Burgon did against Westcott and Hort in the nineteenth century. If there is no Syrian text — and there could be none without some such recension as Hort imagines — there is no Westcott-Hort theory. There is a traditional text, but it is not Syrian. If the Westcott-Hort theory of Syrian recensions and an official text were true, there would not be so much variety in the cursive manuscripts. Their differences indicate that they have been copied from different ancestors, which in turn have come from different ancestors. They could not all have come down through a single line of transmission. Westcott and Hort did not give much attention to the cursives and later uncials because they considered them valueless in recovering the true text; if they had given them more study they could not have held their theory of an official Syrian text.

The opponents of Westcott and Hort have not hesitated to impeach B, or Codex Vaticanus, as a fallible or false witness. It is clear that the traditional text and B cannot both be right, and if the traditional text is at least as old as B — Hort admits this — why should the authority of one manuscript be acknowledged against the host of manuscripts, versions, and Fathers which support the traditional text? Age alone cannot prove that a manuscript is correct. B and Aleph probably owe their preservation to the fact that they were written on vellum, whereas most other documents of that period were written on papyrus. Many students, including Tischendorf and Hort, have thought them to be two of the fifty copies which Eusebius had prepared under the order of Constantine for use in the churches of Constantinople. They are no doubt beautiful manuscripts, but their texts show scribal carelessness. B exhibits numerous places where the scribe has written the same word or phrase twice in succession. Aleph shows the marks of ten different correctors down through the centuries. Burgon’s excoriation of Westcott and Hort’s method cannot be considered too strong in the light of the facts concerning the character of these two manuscripts:

“Take away this one codex, and Dr. Hort’s volume becomes absolutely without coherence, purpose, meaning. One-fifth of it is devoted to remarks on B and Aleph. The fable of ‘the Syrian text’ is invented solely for the glorification of B and Aleph — which are claimed, of course, to be ‘Pre-Syrian.’ This fills 40 pages more. And thus it would appear that the Truth of Scripture has run a very narrow risk of being lost for ever to mankind. Dr. Hort contends that it more than half lay perdu on a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; Dr. Tischendorf, that it had been deposited in a waste-paper basket in the convent of St. Catherine at the foot of Mount Sinai, from which he rescued it on the 4th February, 1859 — neither, we venture to think, a very likely circumstance. We incline to believe that the Author of Scripture hath not by any means shown Himself so unmindful of the safety of the Deposit, as these distinguished gentlemen imagine.”²⁰

²⁰ The Revision Revised, pp. 342-43.

Naturally everyone would like to have the readings of the oldest manuscripts, but the oldest manuscripts are no longer in existence; for no autograph of the New Testament survives. There is undoubtedly divine wisdom in that; if men will go to such lengths to reverence a manuscript of the fourth century, would they not have made an idol of an autograph? It is generally known that the text was corrupted in the earliest centuries, sometimes deliberately by heretics. Students should be on their guard against considering as infallible any manuscript, no matter how old it may be. The readings which have the widest, the oldest, the most varied, the most continuous, the weightiest and most respectable attestations are to be taken as the true ones, not the ipsissima verba of any one or two or a few manuscripts.

There is absolutely no evidence that the so-called Neutral Text is the closest to the apostolic text, merely the assertion that this is so. Hort’s veneration for the name of Origen does not carry weight with all scholars, for some would not trust that aberrant Father any more in textual criticism than they would in theology. One must not talk any longer about the “Neutral” Text unless one has studied Hoskier’s Codex B and Its Allies and answered his arguments. He summarizes one of these arguments in this way:

“Reiteration of Hort’s dicta by his followers is not proof. Let someone take the dozen ‘Alexandrian’ readings of B which I have adduced — the existence of which in B was denied by Hort — and prove that they are in no wise Alexandrian. Then we can discuss the matter further.”²¹

²¹ Codex B and Its Allies, p. 422.

The second volume of this significant work by Hoskier is concerned mainly with Sinaiticus and its divergences from Vaticanus. One’s faith in the “Neutral” Text ought to be shaken or strained if one would pore over the many pages which list in detail more than three thousand real differences between the texts of B and Aleph in the four Gospels alone! Hoskier says at the beginning of this volume, “In the light of the following huge lists let us never be told in future that either Aleph or B represents any form of ‘Neutral’ Text.” He lists 656 differences in Matthew, 567 in Mark, 791 in Luke, and 1,022 in John (a total of 3,036 in the Gospels), and then shows by further lists at the back of the book that even these are not exhaustive. These are not theories, but facts which can be traced through more than three hundred pages of Hoskier’s complicated collation.

Westcott and Hort’s “question-begging nomenclature” has been shown to be worthless. They themselves admit that Western is not a correct designation. They adduce no definite manuscript support for their so-called Alexandrian. Their Neutral is conceded by most today to be a misnomer. Their Syrian, depending upon the fictional Syrian recensions, is most improper. As was stated at the beginning of this chapter, if there were no Syrian recensions and if the Neutral Text is not neutral, then the theory falls to the ground. In his recapitulation of genealogical evidence proper, Hort considers that he has established his propositions and that they are “absolutely certain.”

In all of this discussion one is struck by that which has been mentioned earlier: the entire lack of consideration for the supernatural element in the Scripture. There is nothing of verbal inspiration; indeed there could not be, since Westcott and Hort disavowed that doctrine. There is no sense of the divine preservation of the text, which one ought to find in a discussion of this type by Christians.

Near the conclusion of this section occurs an amazing statement:

“It will not be out of place to add here a distinct expression of our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.”²² How Hort can make such a statement as this in the face of patristic testimony is simply impossible to see.

²² Introduction, p. 282.

The methods of Westcott and Hort sound plausible at first hearing, largely because of the persuasive and dogmatic presentation which Hort gives to them. Their application reveals their baselessness. “Conflation,” the “Syrian recensions,” the “Neutral Text,” all are seen to be figments of the imagination of the two distinguished Cambridge professors. The whole genealogical method which they built up so elaborately over a period of almost thirty years is now called in question and the Neutral Text is no longer believed to be neutral.

Herman C. Hoskier (18641938־) has been mentioned repeatedly. Bom in London, educated in England, France, and Germany, he was engaged in the banking and brokerage business in New York as a young man, but retired from the business at the age of thirty-nine to give his time to his literary work. He was one of the few men courageous enough to stand against the tide in the present century. While he has been little listened to, he could not be wholly ignored even by those who disagreed violently with him, for his knowledge of documents and his scholarship were beyond question.

The great difficulty in New Testament textual criticism today, which makes it impossible for Bible-believing Christians to be sanguine about the results of present research, is the almost universally held view among critics of the relative nature of truth. Textual criticism has become more and more subjective since Westcott and Hort opened the door of subjectivism wide.

Thus far consideration has been given almost wholly to the theory underlying the Westcott-Hort text. It is necessary now to turn attention to the text itself. This text was acclaimed by Souter as “the greatest edition ever published,”²³ and castigated by Burgon as “a Text vastly more remote from the inspired autographs of the Evangelists than any which has appeared since the invention of printing.”²⁴ This is in reality one of the best pieces of evidence for judging the theory. Here one finds the practical product of that involved ratiocination to which Hort devoted his Introduction—Appendix.

²³ Text and Canon of the New Testament, p. 103.

²⁴ The Revision Revised, p. 25.

One cause for caution in the acceptance of either the Westcott-Hort theory or the text is that so few believing Bible students, even when they profess acceptance of the theory in principle and believe the Westcott-Hort text to be very close to the original, are wholly willing in practice to follow that text. It is well known that the chief point in which the Westcott-Hort (“Neutral”) text differs from the traditional text is in the omission of certain passages, some rather lengthy and others quite brief. The two longest of these are Mark 16:9-20, which Westcott and Hort print in double brackets, and John 7:53—8:11, which they print in double brackets at the end of John. They do not consider either of these to be genuine Scripture. Now if one holds the Westcott-Hort theory and rejects these passages as spurious, one is at least consistent. But how many Christian Hortians do this? Such an approach to the problem as is being suggested may be called obscurantism or reaction or bigotry or any other name, but that does not alter the fact. Here is an interesting example from a respected, sound Bible teacher. Discussing the passage John 7:53—8:11, the so-called Pericope de Adultéra, he writes:

“It is well known that the section of the Gospel according to John from 7:53 to 8:11 must be treated differently from the remainder of the text. In the first place, the manuscript authority behind it is too weak to permit us to regard it as a part of the original text. Westcott summarizes the point by stating, ‘It is omitted by the oldest representatives of every kind of evidence (manuscripts, versions, Fathers).’ . . . The evidence of vocabulary and of connectives is opposed to Johannine authorship.”²⁵ Yet this same commentator writes nine printed pages upon the interpretation of the passage just as if he believed it to be Scripture. It either is Scripture or it is not. If it is not, then it ought to be cast out utterly and not expounded as if it were.

²⁵ E. F. Harrison, “Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery,’’ Bibliotheca Sacra, Number 412 (Oct.-Dec. 1946), p. 431.

What is it that causes Christian writers such as this to stop short of repudiating this passage and a number of similar ones? Is it tradition, or sentiment, as many would allege? Perhaps; one cannot say dogmatically. But is it not possibly the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit who bears testimony in this way to His Word?

The last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark forms the subject of Burgon’s formal entrance into the field of New Testament textual criticism, as mentioned earlier. Very few of the writers discuss his book or give more than passing attention to it, but as far as can be seen it has never been answered in detail. The scribe of B or Codex Vaticanus has given evidence that he was conscious of omission in that he has left an entire column blank immediately after Mark 16:8, a space large enough to contain the twelve verses.

Scrivener comments thus on Burgon’s defense of this passage:

“Dean Burgon’s brilliant monograph . . . has thrown a stream of light upon the controversy, nor does the joyous tone of his book misbecome one who is conscious of having triumphantly maintained a cause which is very precious to him. We may fairly say that his conclusions have in no essential point been shaken by the elaborate counter-plea of Dr. Hort. This whole paragraph is set apart by itself in the critical editions of Tischendorf and Tregelles. Besides this, it is placed within double brackets by Westcott and Hort, and followed by the wretched supplement derived from Codex L, annexed as an alternative reading. Out of all the great manuscripts, the two oldest (Aleph and B or Vaticanus) stand alone in omitting verses 9-20 altogether.”²⁶

²⁶ Scrivener, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 337.

Burgon himself, addressing Bishop Ellicott, thus summarizes the evidence in favor of these twelve verses:

¹¹Your ground for thus disallowing the last 12 verses of the second Gospel is, that B or Vaticanus and Aleph omit them: — that a few late manuscripts exhibit a wretched alternative for them: — and that Eusebius says they were often awry. Now, my method on the contrary is to refer all such questions to ‘the consentient testimony of the most ancient authorities.’ And I invite you to note the result of such an appeal in the present instance. The verses in question I find are recognized,

“In the Ilnd century, — By the Old Latin — and Syriac Versions: — by Papias; Justin Martyr; — Irenaeus; — Tertullian.

“In the Hird century, — By the Coptic — and the Sahidic Versions: — by Hippolytus; — by Vincentius at the seventh council of Carthage; — by the ‘Acta Pilati’; — and by the ‘Apostolical Constitutions’ in two places.

“In the IVth century, — By Cureton’s Syriac and the Gothic Versions: — besides the Syriac Table of Canons; — Eusebius; — Marcarius Magnes; — Aphraates; — Didymus; — the Syriac ‘Acts of the Apostles’; — Epiphanius; — Leontius; — Ephraem; — Ambrose; — Chrysostom; — Jerome; — Augustine.”

This evidence is quoted at length from Burgon because he is the one who has made the most thorough study of this passage. Hort’s answer is obvious: that this passage is very old, but is clearly a Western interpolation. B or Vaticanus (which testifies against itself by the inclusion of the blank column) and Aleph, whose character has already been discussed at some length, along with a statement of the latitudinarian Eusebius, who testifies on both sides of the question, are puffed up to what is considered to be a great weight of testimony. By the theory all so-called Western readings are disallowed and, as usual, practically all the evidence is thrown away without being faced. Swete, in his commentary on Mark admits that “the documentary testimony for the longer ending is overwhelming,” but he rejects it nevertheless, partly if not ־nainly on internal grounds.

I Timothy 3:16. This famous passage has often been called the crux criticorum. It would be difficult to add to what Burgon has said in the seventy-six large pages which he devoted to it in The Revision Revised. Most people who talk about the “better reading” are totally unaware of this careful, closely reasoned argument.

These wise words of Burgon need to be taken to heart by more students of the New Testament:

“The one great Fact, which especially troubles him [Hort] and his joint Editor — (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 Versions, ancient Fathers. 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.”23

23 The Revision Revised, p. 269.

Since these dates go back to the time of the production of B and Aleph, why is their authority always flaunted by reason of their superior age? According to Westcott and Hort their mythical Syrian revisers were either so stupid that they did not recognize a good manuscript when they saw one, or so wicked that they deliberately fabricated a text which they well knew to be inferior.

The Westcott-Hort text has become a new Textus Receptus for the critically elite. Those who accuse the upholders of the traditional text of worshipping the old Textus Receptus had better look within themselves. The old Textus Receptus at least has a consensus of ancient testimony behind it, not just a few ancient authorities supported by a theory.

The Westcott-Hort theory has been examined and found wanting. The whole arrogant scheme of putting this study on a purely literary basis, without any acknowledgment of the corruption brought into the text in early days by willful and wicked men, and without any perception of God’s providential preservation of His Word down through the centuries, collapses when subjected to close scrutiny. Men would have seen this in the years immediately after 1881 if they had not been so committed to the liberal trends which were then gathering momentum. Burgon was a “voice crying in the wilderness” so far as most textual critics were concerned; yet there are those even today who attribute to his blast the quick drop in popularity of the English Revised Version, so closely identified with Westcott and Hort. Some did recognize the theory for what it is and would have none of it.

The Westcott-Hort theory holds the field in the opinions of so many people because it disposes of ninety-five per cent of the documentary evidence in such a clever way that they do not perceive the loss of it. “Good riddance,” they say to all manuscripts, versions, and Fathers except a little handful (a handful incidentally which do not agree among themselves).

In an earlier chapter the Westcott and Hort theory was compared to a temple, the two chief columns of which were the “Syrian recensions” and the “Neutral Text.” Certainly enough has been said to show that these columns were in reality made of air. Scarcely any scholar can be found today, even among those most favorable to Westcott and Hort, who will vouch for deliberate and authoritative Syrian recensions or who will call their Neutral Text neutral.

Is it possible to believe that a text actually fabricated in the fourth century rapidly became so dominant that practically no copies were made any longer of exemplars which contained the type of text found in B and Aleph, also of the fourth century? This is really asking too much. The subjective character of the evidence adduced by Westcott and Hort permeates their whole theory. Nowhere in their treatise have Westcott and Hort explained just what evidence there is to prove that the so-called Neutral Text is closest to the apostolic text. This colossal petitio principu has been set forth with such bold strokes that most people apparently never notice it. The mere fact that a little group of documents are found habitually to band themselves together in opposition to most of the rest does not in itself prove their superiority. Most people if faced with the issue in this way would say that common sense dictates otherwise. As Burgon repeatedly pointed out, Aleph and B are only two specimens of antiquity, not antiquity itself. When people insisted on having old readings, he was wont to reply that they ought to know that all readings are old.

In the light of what has been shown in the preceding chapters, Burgon’s statement of the case in his famous reply to Bishop Ellicott was hardly too strong:

“Such builders are Drs. Westcott and Hort, — with whom (by your own avowal) you stand completely identified. I repeat (for I wish it to be distinctly understood and remembered) that what I assert concerning those Critics is, — not that their superstructure rests upon an insecure foundation; but that it rests on no foundation at all. My complaint is, — not that they are somewhat and frequently mistaken; but that they are mistaken entirely, and that they are mistaken throughout. There is no possibility of approximation between their mere assumptions and the results of my humble and laborious method of dealing with the Text of Scripture. We shall only then be able to begin to reason together with the slightest prospect of coming to any agreement, when they have unconditionally abandoned all their preconceived imaginations, and unreservedly scattered every one of their postulates to the four winds.”²⁷

²⁷ Ibid., pp. 518-19.

It will not do to modify Westcott and Hort and to proceed from there. The only road to progress in New Testament textual criticism is repudiation of their theory and all its fruits. Most contemporary criticism is bankrupt and confused, the result of its liaison with liberal theology. A Bible-believing Christian can never be content to follow the leadership of those who do not recognize the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God. The Textus Receptus is the starting-point for future research, because it embodies substantially and in a convenient form the traditional text.

Admitted, it will have to undergo extensive revision. It needs to be revised according to sound principles which will take account of all the evidence. Burgon’s leading premise, in contrast to Westcott and Hort, is that textual criticism of the New Testament is not the same as that of any other work. Burgon says:

“That which distinguishes Sacred Science from every other Science which can be named is that it is Divine, and has to do with a Book which is inspired; that is, whose true Author is God. ... It is chiefly from inattention to this circumstance that misconception prevails in that department of Sacred Science known as ‘Textual Criticism.’ ”²⁸

²⁸ Burgon and Miller, The Traditional Text, p. 9.

Having established this basic principle he shows that the issue can be narrowed down to this:

“Does the truth of the Text of Scripture dwell with the vast multitude of copies, uncial and cursive, concerning which nothing is more remarkable than the marvellous agreement which subsists between them? Or is it rather to be supposed that the truth abides exclusively with a very little handful of manuscripts, which at once differ from the great bulk of the witnesses, and — strange to say — also amongst themselves?”²⁹

²⁹ Ibid., pp. 16-17.

All these notes of truth used together will result in a far more scientific and far better method than that of Westcott and Hort. Christian students who accept the Bible as the verbally inspired Word of God need to interest themselves in the questions of textual criticism. This is not merely an academic matter which is only of passing interest to a few scholarly recluses. Burgon has pointed the way. Hoskier, as has been mentioned a number of times in the course of this dissertation, has made a noble beginning in the inductive processes that are required in this kind of work.

The question now is: “Who follows in their train?”