THE SYRIAN "Textus Receptus."

It remains to examine the account which WH give of the origin of the text that actually obtained ascendence before the end of the fourth century. I can readily assent to WH's dictum that we cannot pronounce on the goodness of documents without knowing their history; but the. difficulty is that in scarcely any case is there any record of the history, which therefore has to be obtained by scientific divination. That is a method of writing history, of which Renan gives an ingenious defence in his Life of Christ; yet most people prefer to trust the documents even when they contradict his divinations. On the other hand, when there are no documentary records, we are obliged to trust to scientific inference, which, if it does not attempt to go too much into details, can yield results deserving of great confidence. A geologist can feel perfectly sure that once on a time there were volcanoes in one district, glaciers in another, though there is no historic record of these facts. On this account, when experts such as Westcott and Hort report that what they call the Syrian text, which may be described as the Textus Receptus of the MSS., gives them an impression of lateness, I do not refuse to accept their decision, even though the proofs which they offer seem to me to come short of demonstration.

The proof on which they seem most to rely is the existence of " conflations " in the Syrian text. It is an obvious principle that if a MS. is known to be a copy of an existing MS., the testimony of the copy adds nothing to that of the original, and, in making our list of witnesses, the two count only as one. There are extremely few instances in which we have such clear evidence of the parentage of MSS. as to realize the case supposed; and, indeed, we have reason to think that in most cases the parentage of MSS. is not so simple. The scribe may have had two MSS. before him; or he may have used a MS. in the margin of which had been written readings derived from another authority, all of which he may have incorporated in his text. If the margin had suggested a word as an alternative for one in the text, the scribe may have faithfully copied both; and hence arises what Hort calls a conflation. To take one of his own examples: Stephen is described in Acts vi. 8 as πλήρης πίστεως according to some authorities, as πλήρης χάριτος according to others; one MS. combines the two, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ πίστεως.

Now Hort's verdict on what he calls the Syrian text is that it exhibits signs of modernness, both in other ways, and especially by repeated conflations of readings given in the earlier forms of text. Of these conflations he gives in his Introduction eight examples, of which it will be enough here to quote the simplest. The last verse of St. Luke's Gospel, " They were continually in the Temple, praising and blessing God," expresses the reading of the vast majority of extant MSS.; but the Vatican and Sinaitic read εὐλογοῦντες τὸν Θεόν, while Codex D and the early Latin versions have αἰνοῦντες τὸν Θεόν. Hence Hort infers that the current reading is but a conflation of two earlier readings; and, in choosing between them, he gives the preference to the authority א B, which on other occasions he has found the most trustworthy, and edits εὐλογοῦντες. But it is evident that another explanation may be given of these so-called conflations. It may be held that the fullest form was the original; and that the two simpler took their origin from one transcriber having omitted one of the participles, and a different transcriber having left out the other. Canon Cook elaborately discussed Hort's eight cases, contending that in every one of them the conflation hypothesis gives the less probable account of the facts. In each of these cases I did not myself follow Hort altogether without misgivings. For instance, before we attribute "mixture" to the Syrian text, we ought to have evidence that the supposed reviser had the materials to mix; and, in the case last cited, there is no evidence that the reading αἰνοῦντες by itself was ever known in the East, the witnesses to it all being Latin. But no doubt it may be said that these Western witnesses bear testimony to the fact that the original contained but one participle; and, if so, we need not hesitate to accept the Greek testimony as to what the participle was. But, as I have already said, I do not care to examine minutely into those eight examples. It would be necessary to do so if Hort's case rested on these examples only; but I am quite ready to believe that these were but specimens of a much larger number on which Hort's induction was founded.

One general remark, however, must be made. It is a maxim in criticism that, when we have to choose between different readings, the true solution is that which will account for all the variations. In the case of a supposed conflation, if the full reading be the right one, the two defective forms are at once explained. Thus, if αἰνοῦντες καὶ εὐλογοῦντες be right, the separate readings εὐλογοῦντες and αἰνοῦντες are explained as due to accidental omissions by different scribes. But if εὐλογοῦντες be right, how came any one to write αἰνοῦντες? Until some satisfactory account of this has been given, the problem is only half solved. One can scarcely be contented with Hort's explanation—viz. that the cause was mere perversity on the part of Western scribes, who were apt to think one word as good as another, provided the sense was not affected.

I know too little to venture to contest Hort's statement (p. 106) that there are no cases of " neutral " readings apparently conflated from Western and Syrian; though I cannot help thinking that if there was any case of the kind it would be hard to get Hort to admit that it was a conflation. There is one notable case which I think he would have set down as one of conflation if the "neutral" and "Syrian" readings had been interchanged. I refer to the case of the "one thing needful" —ἑνὸς δέ ἐστιν χρεία (Luke x. 42). So it is read in the Syrian text, but the saying is one which has not always been given the high spiritual meaning which so many preachers have found in it. It has been understood to mean that, whereas Martha had troubled herself in the preparation of many dishes, one was all that was really necessary. It would seem that Western scribes thought this limitation somewhat too ascetic, and read ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία. B combines the two readings, ὀλίγων δέ ἐστιν χρεία ἢἐνός, which, I suppose, one may translate, " a few dishes are all that is necessary, or perhaps even one would do." If this be the original reading of the autograph, I think this case is an exception to Hort's canon (p. 27): "In literature of high quality it is, as a rule, improbable that a change made by transcribers should improve an author's sense."

Admitting, however, as I am willing to do, the posteriority of the Syrian text, we are still only at the beginning of Hort's account of its origin. Of those who have attempted to form a geological history of the world, there have been two schools: those who suppose our earth to have arrived at its present state by a process of silent and gradual change, and those who have imagined a series of convulsions or abrupt transitions. WH, in their history of the text, belong to the latter school. They hold that the form of text which we find predominant in the East at the close of the fourth century took its origin from an authoritative revision made about the middle of that century (say A.D. 350) by some leading Antiochian critic.

Although I accepted this ruling on Hort's authority, I felt some difficulties, which I think it well to state at length, because they may be felt by others; and therefore I use the opportunity for stating also some considerations which a good deal mitigate the force of these difficulties.

I felt it as a difficulty that history has preserved no record of this reviser's name, nor indeed of the fact that this revision took place at all. There is no difficulty in conceiving that one form of text may have obtained predominance through a process of silent and gradual change. For instance, it would not be easy to name the person through whose influence the great laxity in English spelling which existed three hundred years ago passed into the practical uniformity which prevails now. However, that the revision makes on such a critic as Hort the impression that it is all the work of a single hand is a fact entitled to great weight, which I felt that I could not lightly set aside. Still, I could not but think that if so it could not have been so late as 350. In the first place, the time is too short to account for the ascendence it obtained in the last quarter of the fourth century. If this ascendence was obtained through the interference of ecclesiastical or state authority, the period is in the full light of history, and it seemed surprising we should hear nothing of any such interference. If authority could succeed in establishing the views of a distinguished critic, it must have done so when Eusebius enjoyed the favour of Constantine, and we should not have expected the preference of Eusebius for the Alexandrian form of text to have had so short-lived an influence. Surely the critic who made such a revolution in received opinion must have been a man of mark whose name and work would not be likely to be immediately forgotten. In my opinion, far the most probable explanation we can give why the text of B did not become the Textus Receptus is that the form which actually did gain predominance had obtained ascendence in Antioch so early in the fourth century and was then so widely circulated that the Alexandrian form never superseded it. And this view is not inconsistent with WH's final conclusions.

In fact, my quarrel with Hort is seldom because I am unwilling to accept his hypotheses as probable: I only rebel when he puts them on the level of ascertained facts. For example (p. 163), he speaks of the Syrian revision as a vera causa as opposed to a hypothetical possibility. I cannot count it as more than a probable hypothesis, and it is a great deduction from the probability of a hypothesis if it requires, like the Ptolemaic theory of old, to be constantly shored up by new hypotheses. For example, the first great difficulty in the way of the acceptance of the doctrine of the modernness of that which had become the Textus Receptus so early as Chrysostom's time was that the Syriac Peshitto, which had been believed to be as early as the second century, agreed in the main far more with the Syrian than with the Alexandrian type of text. The solution then was: " So much the worse for the Peshitto; it cannot be so old as it has been imagined to be; there must have been an earlier form of the Syriac text." Now it is a real test of the goodness of a scientific theory if it enables one to make predictions, and this scientific prediction was verified by Cureton's discovery of a Syriac version of a pre-Syrian type. Then it had to be owned that, on account of the dearth of very early Syriac literature, when a question arises as to the exact form of the text of Syriac translations, very few of our proofs go behind the fourth century. And therefore the Peshitto cannot be relied on as sufficient proof of the antiquity of the " Syrian " form of text. On the other hand, proof of the existence of another early form of Syriac version does not disprove the antiquity of the Peshitto, nor does it even prove that any one Syriac version is entitled to be called the old Syriac Version; for it may be that from an early date versions differed, according to differences in the Greek copies which different teachers used. In particular it is very likely that, as I already remarked, the Greek MSS. which Tatian brought with him from Rome were of the Western type. However, Hort finds it necessary to add to his hypothesis of an authoritative revision of the Greek text about 350, the hypothesis of a corresponding revision of the Syriac text in which the " Syriaca Vetus " was supplanted by the Peshitto.

But it was found impossible to stop here. The Peshitto does not follow the Greek text of the latter half of the fourth century, but stands intermediate between that and the pre-Syrian texts. Hence we cannot assign to it as late a date as 350; and therefore Hort is obliged to postulate two authoritative revisions of the Greek text, the first of which might possibly have been as early as A.D. 250. The hypothesis of three authoritative revisions, two of the Greek text, and one of the Syriac, not one of which has left any trace in history, has become so complicated that it seems simpler to fall back on the belief that whatever changes took place in the text were silent and gradual. A change that is considered an improvement is rapidly followed, and though probably the most important changes were first made by individuals of some repute as critics, yet we need not wonder if we are not more able to give an account of their history than we are to name the originators of the changing fashions of dress, each of which, by whomsoever started, rapidly becomes general.

I have stated at length the difficulties I felt in accepting Hort's hypothesis of a formal revision; but it is only fair that I should add that on consideration I do not think it incredible that some such thing should take place without leaving any mark on history. We must bear in mind that the most important copies of the New Testament books were not made for the closet use of students, but for the purpose of being read publicly with the official sanction of the Church. And in any place copies made for private use would naturally conform to the text with which public use had familiarized the ears of the people. No doubt it was the general use of King James's translation in public church reading which caused it before very long to supersede all other versions in the private use of the English people. Now in each Church the bishop had complete authority over the church reading; and unless in his innovations he introduced something that offensively grated on the ears of the people, even considerable changes might only excite a passing remark, and in a little time would become as familiar to the congregation as the old readings. The changes which Hort ascribes to his " Syrian Revision " tending all in the direction of clearness and fulness, so far from being likely to excite repulsion, would be apt to be cheerfully adopted. If then a scholar who possessed the confidence of his bishop produced a revised text, it needed only that it should obtain the sanction of the bishop, when it would come into ecclesiastical use and become in that place the authorized text; and yet without any public mention of the name of the reviser.¹ If this took place in a great see such as Antioch, the example of the leading bishop would soon be followed, and the text of the chief city would become the text of the district. And changes in the Greek text would tend to produce corresponding changes in versions. For if the bishop of a Church which used a Latin or a Syriac translation came to know that the Gospel as read in his Church did not correspond with that which was then believed to be the Greek original, he would be constantly pressed with the desire to make the use of his Church agree with the current Greek use of his time.

The occurrence of a silent change in the text publicly read in church is not a mere possibility, for such a change actually occurred. Whole books which at one time were admitted into the public reading of different churches gradually dropped out of ecclesiastical use, doubtless owing to the rulings of different bishops anxious to maintain the exclusive authority of our canonical books; but of the details of the process there is no historic record. Jerome states (and we need not doubt his evidence) that the Church in earlier times had used the LXX. Version of the Book of Daniel, but in his time employed Theodotion's translation; but professes himself unable to tell how or when the change occurred.² I therefore think that Hort's hypothesis of a formal revision cannot be summarily rejected on the ground that there is no historic record of such an event; but the hypothesis becomes much more credible if it is simplified, and limited to one such revision about 250. And if we imagine that a revision then took place with the object of arbitrating between the competing claims of an Alexandrian and a Western text, we are not entitled to assume that the former had been in possession in Syria and that the latter was the intruder. It seems to me more likely that the case was the other way. And when we speak confidently of a revision in 250, we are bound to remember how very scanty is our information as to readings before that date, unless we adopt WH's other hypothesis that this antiquity can be ascribed to readings in which B and א agree.

It is just possible that there may be another trace of Cyprian's intercourse with the East. The Codex Bobbiensis (known in critical editions as k) contains fragments of Latin Gospels which, as far as they go, agree with the quotations of Cyprian. But they contain also the later Alexandrian conclusion of St. Mark, which is found in no other early Latin MS. If a MS. came from the East to Carthage differing in some respects from the text approved at Rome, Cyprian was likely at the time to have given the preference to the non-Roman authority. If the course of public affairs had been peaceful, there might have ensued a permanent divergence in several respects between Roman and African use. But persecution enabled the two rival bishops by their glorious deaths to win equal veneration from the whole Church, and their points of difference fell into the background. Thus while k is valuable as making it very probable that the later Alexandrian supplement had been added before the year A.D. 250, its solitary testimony cannot be relied on as proving anything as to earlier African usage.

Supposing now we agree to accept as established the fact of an authoritative revision of the Greek text in the third or fourth century. I hesitate a good deal about WH's next step. They argue, that if the Syrian text was formed out of earlier texts, we have no reason to suppose that the editor was a person of such skill and judgment that we are bound to acquiesce in his decisions. On the contrary, there is good reason to think that his tastes and preferences were different from ours. He liked a text that was full and smooth; and he did not recognize in ruggedness a mark of antiquity and originality.³ Shall we not then do best if we disregard his decisions altogether; if we take the texts that lay before him and choose between them for ourselves?

Now, if we disregard his decisions we must disregard the authority of the great bulk of our existing MSS., almost all of which do nothing but reproduce for us the Syrian revised text. And this is what we are recommended to do—viz. to attend only to pre-Syrian authorities. If we have to choose between two readings having such attestation, the fact that one of them was preferred by the Syrian reviser ought not to influence our judgment in the least, though the result of his preference may be that the one reading is now that of only a couple of MSS., while the other is read in every other extant MS.

But before we dismiss the rulings of the Syrian reviser as absolutely undeserving of consideration, it ought not to be left out of sight that he had one important advantage over us in his better knowledge of the current texts of the fourth century. We are not entitled to assume that his decisions must always be ascribed to the bad taste that led him to prefer a fuller and smoother reading to the concise and rugged one in which our better judgment recognizes marks of antiquity. It may be that he merely followed the current reading of the MSS. of his time; and though we can now with great equanimity reject the text of the great bulk of our MSS., and follow the two oldest, yet we might be less confident in our decision, if we knew that at the beginning of the fourth century there was an equal preponderance of authorities against us.  

1) It is difficult, however, to make any great change in a long-established version. The attempt made in 508 by Bishop Philoxenus to introduce a Syriac version more in accordance with the then approved Greek than the Peshitto failed to supersede the latter version. So also I see no sign that the Revised English New Testament is likely to supersede the Authorized Version, though I dare say it might have succeeded if the changes had been much fewer and more moderate.

2) As far as Carthage is concerned, we can specify within narrow limits the time when the change occurred, and can even make a fair guess at the author. Tertullian, in his quotations from Daniel, uses the LXX. Version; but, though not more than twenty-five years later, Cyprian employs Theodotion's. Cyprian excelled his immediate predecessors in culture, in energy, in independence of judgment, and none of them was so likely as he to have authorized the change. One who passes rapidly, as Cyprian did, from a lay position to the episcopate is the most likely to step out of the beaten track and to take a new departure, whether in doctrine or in ritual. Now we find Cyprian in his controversy with Stephen in active communication with Eastern bishops; and probably this intercourse did not then take place for the first time. So that we can easily imagine his deacon Rogatianus, or some previous emissary, bringing back with him from the East a copy of Theodotion's version, with the report that it was there in ecclesiastical use, and was regarded as more faithful to the Hebrew original.

3) How much the taste of one age differs from that of another we have an excellent example in an apparently conflate text the exhortation at the beginning of the Daily Service in the English Book of Common Prayer. There we are told that we ought to " acknowledge and confess " our manifold " sins and wickedness," that we ought not to "dissemble and cloke them" when we "assemble and meet together" to ask of Almighty God the things that are "requisite and necessary," etc. We have no reason to think that the author put together two older forms, one exhorting people to confess their sins and another to acknowledge their wickedness; but simply that his taste regarded the fuller form as the more impressive.