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. 1-163 [Part I]
This book has been in different
editions and prints over the years. It was the second volume that appeared in
1882, after the publication of the first Volume in 1881 which contained the
Text of the New Testament and shorter introduction. It was perhaps the most
significant work of textual criticism in the New Testament at the time of its
publication and has a lasting influence even at present. It was known for
differing from the Majority Text, especially the Textus Receptus.
Wescott and Hort were professors at Cambridge, and this work was a result of
their 28 years of partnership. This edition (Volume II) has 324 pages of
introduction and 173 pages of Appendix. It was prepared mainly by J.J.A. Hort
(p. 18) in the last two to three years of their 28 years of partnership. This
book has versification for each paragraph, having 425 verses or paragraphs in
the section Introduction (pp. 1–324).
The Introduction has four parts: 1. The
need for criticism of the text of the New Testament (pp. 4–18), 2. The methods
of textual criticism (pp. 19–72), 3. Application of principles of criticism to
the text of the New Testament (pp. 73–287), 4. Nature and details of this
edition [Volume I & II] (pp. 288–324). The title of the book “… in the
original Greek” must mean that the original language is in Greek and should not
be confused with the supposition that what Westcott-Hort had come up with was
the original Greek the sacred writers employed. This can be seen from the
acknowledgment they made regarding the doubts they had for some variant
readings (p. 2), however “attempt to determine the original words of the
Apostles and writers of the New Testament” (p. 16) seems to indicate otherwise.
Hort presented textual criticism as the detection and rejection of error (p.
3).
Part 1 discusses transmission by
writing and printed edition, and the history of this edition [Volume I &
II] (4–18). Manuscripts [handwritten] were destroyed by various means even
through war and invasions (p.9). No uncial manuscripts earlier than the time of
Constantine were discovered (p.11). Ximenes’s polyglot version of the Greek New
Testament was printed in 1514, and Erasmus’s version in 1516 (p. 11). The
second Elzevir edition of 1633 (p. 12) became widely known as “Received Text”
(which by the way is 22 years later than the 1611 King James Version Bible).
Lachmann in 1831 attempted to carry out the wishes of Bentley in advancing
textual criticism which was further developed by his successors Tischendorf and
Trigelles (p. 13). Westcott-Hort considered Textus Receptus unworthy of trust
and since there were no critical editions available other than those of
Lachmann and Tischendorf, they decided to come up with this edition [Volume I
& II] (p. 16). They worked independently and discussed their results with “free
and full criticism” if they happened to have disagreements (p.18).
Part 2 has six sections on methods of
textual criticism. 1. Internal Evidence of Reading, which is determined by
Intrinsic probability and Transcriptional probability. In p.25, Wescott and
Hort wrote that scribes were “moved by different impulses” “of a much greater
variety,” and could be accounted for the variant readings. 2. Internal Evidence
of Documents. One of the consistent principles to employ is “Knowledge of
documents should precede final judgment upon readings” (p.31). [I need more
reading regarding Internal Evidence of documents. How scholars identify what
document is more reliable than others is still puzzling to me. Paragraph 40
discusses it to some extent.] 3. Genealogical Evidence. The principle involved
here is that “all trustworthy restoration of corrupted texts is founded on the
study of their history” (p. 40). In this section, the theory of common ancestor
which was lost is taken into consideration (p. 54). 4. Internal Evidence of
Groups. This comes between internal evidence of documents and genealogical
evidence (p. 60). Here, Hort explained that internal evidence of a document
concerns a single document, whereas its method is applicable to groups of
documents (p. 60).
Section 5 is a recapitulation of the
four methods in relation to each other. Here, Hort explained that the Genealogy
method is similar to the method of internal evidence of documents. It involves
three processes: analysis and comparison for a succession of individual
variations, investigation of genealogical relation between the documents and
their ancestors, and application of these relations to the interpretation of
documentary evidence for each variation (p. 62). Paragraph 82 states the
preference of methods in various cases. Genealogical evidence is of higher
value (p. 64). Section 6 is criticism as dealing with errors antecedent to
existing texts. On p. 67, Intrinsic evidence is presented as dealing with
absolute originality, whereas all other kinds of evidence deal with relative
originality. Paragraphs 93–95 are about Conjectural Emendation; however, the
scholars did not believe in its worth in textual criticism of the New Testament
(p. 72).
Part 3 has four chapters. Chapter 1 is
a preliminary chronological survey of documents. The Greek manuscripts: Only 4
Uncials New Testament copies are extant of which only Codex Sinaiticus has the
entire books of the New Testament (p. 75). Paragraphs 98–106 provide a helpful
reference. While manuscripts of earlier centuries are not many, the manuscripts
of the ninth and the tenth centuries are numerous (p. 76). About 30 Cursive
manuscripts of New Testament copies between the ninth to sixteenth centuries
are extant (p. 76). Cursive manuscripts are largely ignored by most people
(p.77). Other versions include Latin, Syriac, and the Egyptians: Latin versions
were in circulation by the beginning of the third century (p. 78). Syriac has
three versions, the most popular being Peshito (p. 84); it must be as old as
the Latin version. Egyptian versions are also known as the Coptic versions,
they must not be later than the second century (p. 85). The third class of
documents are the writings of the Fathers (pp. 87–89). Hort acknowledged the
fresh evidence they have was from the writing of the Fathers (p. 89).
Chapter 2 is titled “Results of
genealogical evidence proper.” It has
six sections. Section 1 deals with the determination of genealogical relations
of the chief ancient texts. Some principles include— the priority of variation
over conflated reading and the posteriority of Syrian reading to Western,
Neutral, and Alexandrian readings. Examples of conflated reading are given on
pp. 94–95, 99–104. Three matters of evidence show the posteriority of Syrian
readings: Conflated reading, ante-Nicene Patristic evidence, and internal
evidence of Syrian readings. On p. 116, Horts suggested that the authors of
Syrian text must have had the knowledge of three earlier forms of text, which
are Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral. On p. 118, Syrian text is presented as
“a modified eclectic combination of earlier text” whose authority lies only in
itself.
Section 2 deals with the
characteristics of the chief ancient texts: Western readings love paraphrasing
(p. 122); Neutral Text is non-western and pre-Syrian, and is generally
Alexandrian (p. 129); Alexandrian readings are not corrupt like Western
readings, they were the work of careful scribes (p. 131); and Syrian text,
which must be the result of ‘recension’ (p. 133), and is known for lucidity and
completeness (p. 134). Section 3 gives the sketch of post-Nicene textual
history; it is about the Syrian text. Two stages of Syrian text are proposed
(p. 137); followed by a mixture in the fourth century (p. 139), perhaps made
possible by circumstances under the persecution of Diocletian; eventually
leading to the multiplicity of Syrian text (p. 141). Horts observed that the
text recognized at Constantinople became the standard New Testament of the East
(p. 143).
Section 4 deals with the relation of the
principal extant document to the chief ancient texts (pp. 146–162). The extant
documents are those found in Greek MSS, Versions, and Greek Fathers. This
comparison gave “moral certainty” to assign the documents to various groups (p.
147). B is found to be pre-Syrian and unique (p. 150). Codex Sinaiticus is free
from Western and Alexandrian corruption and is also pre-Syrian (p. 151). Other
MSS aren’t as good as B and Sinaiticus (paragraph 206). A is mixed with Syrian
text in the Gospels (p. 152). Versions (Latin, Syriac, Egyptians, Armenians)
were found to have Syrian readings as well especially those of the fourth
century or later (p. 159). Quotations found in the Fathers are variously
blended and need further examination (p. 159).
Wescott and Hort have a deplorable view
of Syrian Text in comparison to other types of text. Many times, the basis of
rejection is weighed upon the presence or influence of Syrian text. They argued
that Syrian text is relatively younger and therefore is farther from the original.
Other reasons include the presence of conflations and the attempts to make the
text more lucid than the original.
I am not sure how they date the
manuscripts, but much of the arguments will only stand or fall if the dating of
the manuscripts is correct. I wonder why scholars aren’t paying much attention
to the cursive (minuscules) and the quotations of the Fathers.
