B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. The
New Testament in the Original Greek: Introduction, Appendix. Cambridge
and London: Macmillan and Co., 1882, pp. xxxi + 324 +173.
Review of pp. 163–324 [Part II]
Pp. 1-162 deals with the necessity,
methods, and application of textual criticism. The following pages 163-324 deal
with the application of the principles of textual criticism and the nature and
details of this edition [Volume I & II]. Page
163 begins with section V of chapter 2 of Part III with the title
“Identification and estimation of readings as belonging to the chief ancient
texts.” Genealogical evidence method is widely considered for the determination
of the readings (p. 162.) Pre-Syrian readings are identified, and Syrian
readings are rejected. Hort wrote “Readings having only characteristic Western
and characteristic Syrian attestation must have belonged to the Western text:
readings having only characteristic Alexandrian and characteristic Syrian
attestation must have belonged to the Alexandrian text” (p. 167). Pre-Syrian
readings which are neither Western nor Alexandrian are considered “Neutral” (p.
170). Hort commented that B is more neutral than other documents (p. 171).
Omission of words in Alexandrian and Syrian are rare but not in the Western
text (p. 175). Section VI is the review of previous criticisms with reference
to the ancient texts. Textual Criticism gained momentum in 1707 with Mill’s
collection of documentary evidence (p. 181), followed by the work of Bentley
and Bengel. Griesbach further developed historical criticism in contrast with
Hug’s theory of recensions (p. 182). However, Hort said that Griesbach was confused
between the classification of ancient texts and the classification of documents
derived from them (p. 183).
Chapter 3, Result of Internal Evidence
of Groups and Documents (pp. 187–271), has two sections. The first section
deals generally, and the second section deals specifically (B and א). The
homogeneousness of the
fundamental texts of all important groups may be safely trusted (p. 189). On
page 191, Hort said that the Syrian text as a whole must be condemned.
According to Hort, אBCDL 33 in the Gospels, אABCDE, I3 6I in Acts, אABC I3 in the Catholic Epistles, and אABCD8G8 I7 in the
Pauline Epistle are uncontestably the primary documents (p. 192). Hort
contended that the Versions are excluded from the primary category even if they
were non-Western and pre-Syrian for they cannot outweigh “trustworthy
attestation” (p. 198). The authors observed that one of the most common forms
of paraphrase in the Versions is the change of word order (p. 200). Hort also
considered patristic sources to be doubtful of their accuracy; and when they
are accurate, he said it is nothing more than an accidental coincidence (p.
203-4).
Section 2 deals specifically with
reference to B and א (p. 207–271). Westcott and Hort considered
these documents to be more trustworthy (paragraph 285). Comparison of
manuscripts against these documents must either be Alexandrian or Western and
cannot be mixed of both to be trustworthy (p. 208). They reported their
findings on page 210: “Every group containing both א and Β is found, where Internal
Evidence is tolerably unambiguous, to have an apparently more original text
than every opposed group containing neither; and every group containing B, with
the exception of such Western groups as include Β in the Pauline Epistles, is
found in a large preponderance of cases, though by no means universally, to
have an apparently more original text than every opposed group containing א.”
They also compared B to א to seek its independent nature, and
they stand alone in numerous readings (p. 213). They presumed that the scribe
of B was a corrector of א (p. 214), but remarkable differences
were observed in their divisions into sections and other externals. They also
adopted the strategy to exclude any manuscript which has no other attestation
(p. 216). They proposed that the readings of א B should be accepted until strong
internal evidence is against its readings, and if it has no support from
Versions or Fathers, it cannot be rejected absolutely but must be on an
alternative footing (p. 225); examples are listed on paragraph 304. Regarding
the reliability of scribes, Hort wrote that no scribe can make the text better
than he found it, and his best is to not make it worse (p. 232). He also
suggested that the manuscript which is closer to the original will have more
omissions than the Textus Receptus (p. 235).
Westcott and Hort argued that that B
preserved a very pure line of a very ancient text, and that there is a greater
integrity of text in B than in א (p. 251), however, the book of
Revelation is missing in B. Hort admitted that it is “by no means sure” but
they are convinced that “such relative insecurity” are removed through
examination of the genealogical relations of the documents (p. 262). The most
reliable documents for the Book of Revelation are A and C (p. 272). Regarding
the birthplace of א and B, Westcott and Hort suggested
that it must be in the West (p. 266), probably at Rome; ancestors of B were
wholly Western, and ancestors of א were Alexandrian in a geographical
sense (p. 267). On pages 270–1, Hort discussed
briefly the nature of scribes and correctors with reference to א and B.
Chapter 4 attempts to present the
transmitted text as trustworthy copies of the original text (pp. 271–287).
Variations of text must have existed in the early centuries and were forgotten through
eclectic texts (p. 274). Regarding the immunity of the New Testament, Hort
wrote, “If among the very ancient evidence now extant, collected from various
quarters, so little can be found that approves itself as true in opposition both
to Β and א, there is good reason at the outset to doubt whether any
better readings have perished with the multitudes of documents that have been
lost” (p. 277–8). Hort believed one does not need to lose confidence just
because there were some instances of tampering with the text by dogmatic
theologians like Tatian (p. 283).
Part IV is about the nature and details
of this edition [Volume I & II] (pp. 288–324). The aim of this edition is
“to obtain the closest approximation to the apostolic text itself” (p. 288).
Hort assured that the “text” was based on “direct ancient authority of the
highest kind” (p.290); when they weren’t certain, alternate readings were
supplied. Precedence of documentary authority over internal evidence was
employed. Notations were used to express probabilities of variant readings, and
they hope that future textual criticism will reduce them to very few. Different
markings like ⸂ ⸃, [[ ]], [ ], etc. were employed in
this edition [Volume I & II]. Hort also admitted that a considerable number
of readings that deserved to be mentioned are excluded because of no sufficient
claim (p. 298) but are catalogued in the Appendix.
Hort devoted a section on orthography
expressing the importance of it, and attempting to present the spelling as
nearly as to the autographs by means of documentary evidence (p. 303). To Hort,
“orthography deals with elements of text transmitted uninterruptedly, with more
or less of purity, from the autographs to the extant MSS” (p. 311). Careful
attention was given to breathing, accents, and other accessories of printing
(pp. 311–318). The last section of this book concludes with a discussion on
Punctuation—Division of Text, and Titles of Books—and Acknowledgement (pp.
318–324).
The strength of this book lies in the
detailed explanation of their methods of textual criticism with some examples.
The book is properly outlined, and each paragraph is numbered making the
reading easy to trace. There is even a change in font size when certain
paragraph deals with specific issues. I wish some of the paragraphs were
shorter. And I get lost in some of his continuous descriptions; it would have
been better if they had included some more examples or illustrations of what
they are writing about. I am quite aware
this was their first edition of (Volume II), perhaps, subsequent editions were
much better and easier to read and comprehend.
Westcott Hort considered א and B to be the most reliable
Manuscripts of the New Testament. Even among the two, they prefer א though the book of Revelation is
missing. They appealed to manuscripts that are Pre-Syrian Non-Western Non-Alexandrian
to be the reliable sources, calling “Neutral,” represented by א and B. They accused Textus Receptus of
an eclectic text, however, their method of constructing the text is also eclectic.
However, the way the book concluded with an attempt to make the readers feel
confident of the retention of the original writings of the sacred writer is
commendable (which Metzer and Ehrman failed to do in their book).