■:e.s 
 
 DEBATE 
 
 MO 
 
 
 i*^^i>h^ie2'' 
 
 w 
 
 M 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 J 
 

 CORNELL 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 Alfred C. Barnes 
 
/S 
 
 4»KA<J 
 
 
 Date Due 
 
 
 :r 
 
 FUPflr*^ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 ..*--* 
 
 
 
 WaB^^ 
 
 ri§?Br 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN 
 
 U. S. A, 
 
 (Sf 
 
 NO. 23233 
 
 
 
 
 ■■t.«»^. 
 
 BS2385 .Om" """""'•* '■"'"^ 
 
 °*' ™Si«iM,?fili?.'',S, .S,';.„.'.!]IS.,.*extyal. criticism o 
 
 olin 
 
 3 1924 029 304 940 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029304940 
 
THE OXFORD DEBATE 
 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY 
 
THE OXFORD DEBATE 
 
 ON THK 
 
 TEXTUAL CRITICISM OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 HELD AT NEW COLLEGE 
 ON MAY 6, 1897 
 
 WITH A PREFACE EXPLANATORY OF THE 
 RIVAL SYSTEMS 
 
 LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS 
 
 OXFORD : JAMES PARKER & CO. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : DEIGHTON BELL 8c CO. 
 
 1897 
 
B- ^ \% 
 
 
PREFACE 
 
 The debate, of which the following pages contain 
 a report, was the result of an offer courteously made by 
 the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, 
 when I asked him whether those who are devoted to the 
 study of Theology in Oxford would be ready to hear an 
 explanation from me of the system of Textual Criticism 
 advocated by the late Dean ^urgon and myself, in order 
 to the removal of misconceptions of it. 
 
 The speeches made in the debate have been referred both 
 in manuscript and in type to the several speakers for their 
 approval and corrections. 
 
 In compliance with a thoughtful suggestion, th6 ensuing 
 descriptions of the two present systems have been prefixed 
 to the Report of the discussion, for the purpose of reference 
 in the case of readers who have not a familiar acquaintance 
 with them ready for use. And it is hoped that, taken 
 together with the debate, they may form an easy means to 
 many students of the Bible of learning some of the chief 
 points in a very important study and controversy. The 
 former of these two descriptions, according to Dr. Sanday's 
 suggestion, has been taken with the kind leave of the 
 author from Our Bible and the Ancient Monuments, by 
 Frederick G. Kenyon, M.A., D.Litt., of the British Museum. 
 
vi PREFACE 
 
 Dr. Kenyon's description has received special praise from 
 Mr. Hort in the Life of his illustrious father. The second 
 I have prepared especially for this little book. 
 
 I. Dr. Hort's System. 
 
 ' Westcott and Hort's Theory. 
 
 ' One critic of earlier days, Griesbach by name, at the end 
 of the last century, essayed the task of grouping, and two 
 distinguished Cambridge scholars of our own day. Bishop 
 Westcott and the late Professor Hort, have renewed the 
 attempt with much greater success. They believe that by 
 far the larger number of our extant MSS. can be shown to 
 contain a revised (and less original) text ; that a compara- 
 tively small group has texts derived from manuscripts 
 which escaped, or were previous to, this revision ; and 
 that, consequently, the evidence of this small group is 
 almost always to be preferred to that of the great mass 
 of MSS. and versions. It is this theory, which has been 
 set out with conspicuous learning and conviction by 
 Dr. Hort, that we propose now to sketch in brief ; for it 
 appears to mark an epoch in the history of New Testa- 
 ment criticism. 
 
 ' Groups of MSS. in New Testament. 
 
 ■An examination of passages in which two or more 
 different readings exist shows that one small group of 
 authorities, consisting of the uncial manuscripts B, N, L, 
 a few cursives such as Evan. 33, Act. 61, and the Memphi- 
 tic and Thebaic versions, is generally found in agreement ; 
 another equally clearly marked group consists of D, the 
 Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and cursives 13, 69, 81 
 of the Gospels, 44, 137, apd 180 of the Acts, and Evst. 39, 
 with a few others more intermittently ; while A, C (gener- 
 ally), the later uncials, and the great mass of cursives and 
 
PREFACE 
 
 vu 
 
 the later versions form another group, numerically over- 
 whelming. Sometimes each of these groups will have 
 a distinct reading of its own ; sometimes two of them will 
 be combined against the third; sometimes an authority 
 which usually supports one group will be found with one 
 of the others. But the general division into groups remains 
 constant and is the basis of the present theory. 
 
 'Combined or "Conflate" Readings. 
 
 ' Next, it is possible to distinguish the origins and relative 
 priority of the groups. In the first place, many passages 
 occur in which the first group described above has one 
 reading, the second has another, and the third combines 
 the two. Thus in the last words of St. Luke's Gospel (as 
 the Variorum Bible shows), K, B, C, L, with the Memphitic 
 and one Syriac version, have " blessing God " ; D and the 
 Old Latin have " praising God " ; but A and twelve other 
 uncials, all the cursives, the Vulgate and other versions, 
 have " praising and blessing God." Instances like this occur, 
 not once nor twice, but repeatedly.. Now it is in itself 
 more probable that the combined reading in such cases 
 is later than, and is the result of, two separate readings. 
 It is more likely that a copyist, finding two different words 
 in two or more manuscripts before him, would put down 
 both in his copy, than that two scribes, finding a combined 
 phrase in their originals, would each select one part of it 
 alone to copy, and would each select a different one. The 
 motive for combining would be praiseworthy — the desire 
 to make sure of keeping the right word by retaining both ; 
 but the motive for separating would be vicious, since it 
 involves the deliberate rejection of some words of the 
 sacred text. Moreover we know that such combination 
 was actually practised; for, as has been stated above, 
 it is a marked characteristic of Lucian's edition of the 
 Septuagint. 
 
viii PREFACE 
 
 ' Localisation of Groups by aid of the Fathers. 
 
 ^Kt this point the evidence of the Fathers becomes 
 important as to both the time and the place of origin 
 of these combined (or as Dr. Hort technically calls them 
 " conflate ") readings. They are found to be characteristic 
 of the Scripture quotations in the works of Chrysostom, 
 who was bishop of Antioch in Syria at the end of the 
 fourth century, and of other writers in or about Antioch 
 at the same time ; and thenceforward it is the predominant 
 text in manuscripts, versions, and quotations. Hence this 
 type of text, the text of our later uncials, cursives, early 
 printed editions, and Authorised Version, is believed to 
 have taken its rise in or near Antioch, and is known as the 
 " Syrian " text. The type found in the second of the groups 
 above described, that headed by D, the Old Latin and Old 
 Syriac, is called the " Western " text, as being especially 
 found in Latin manuscripts and in those which (like D) 
 have both Greek and Latin texts, though it is certain that 
 it had its origin in the East, probably in or near Asia 
 Minor. There is another small group, earlier than the 
 Syrian, but not represented continuously by any one MS. 
 (mainly by C in the Gospels, A, C, in Acts and Epistles, 
 with certain cursives and occasionally K and L), to which 
 Dr. Hort gives the name of" Alexandrian." The remaining 
 group, headed by B, may be best described as the " Neutral " 
 text, 
 
 ' The^ " Syrian " Readings latest. 
 
 'Now among all the Fathers whose writings are left to 
 us from before the middle of the third century (notably 
 Irenteus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, and 
 Cyprian), we find readings belonging to the groups de- 
 scribed as Western, Alexandrian, and Neutral, but no 
 distinctly Syrian readings'^. On the other hand, we have 
 
 ' jrhe italics are Mr. Kenyon's. 
 
PREFACE ix 
 
 seen that in the latter part of the fourth century, especially 
 in the region of Antioch, Syrian readings are found plenti- 
 fully. Add to this the fact that, as stated above, the 
 Syrian readings often show signs of having been derived 
 from a combination of non-Syrian readings, and we have 
 strong confirmation of the belief, which is the corner-stone 
 of Dr. Hort's theory, that the Syrian type of text originated 
 in a revision of the then existing texts, made about the 
 end of the third century in or near Antioch. The result 
 of accepting this conclusion obviously is, that where the 
 Syrian text differs from that of the other groups, it must 
 be rejected as being of later origin, and therefore less 
 authentic; and when it is remembered that by far the 
 greater number of our authorities contain a Syrian text, 
 the importance of this conclusion is manifest. In spite of 
 their numerical preponderance, the Syrian authorities must 
 be relegated to the lowest place. 
 
 ' Tke " Western " Group. 
 
 'Of the remaining groups, the Western text is character- 
 ised by considerable freedom of addition, and sometimes of 
 omission. Whole verses, or even longer passages, are found 
 in manuscripts of this family, which are entirely absent from 
 all other copies. Some of them will be found enumerated 
 in the following chapter in the description of D, the 
 leading manuscript of this class. It is evident that this 
 type of text must have had its origin in a time when 
 strict exactitude in copying the books of the New Testa- 
 ment was not regarded as a necessary virtue. In early 
 days the copies of the New Testament books were made for 
 immediate edification, without any idea that they would be 
 links in a chain for the transmission of the sacred texts to 
 a distant future ; and a scribe might innocently, insert in 
 the narrative additional details which he believed to be 
 true and valuable. Fortunately the literary conscience of 
 
X PREFACE 
 
 Antioch and Alexandria was more sensitive, and so this 
 tendency did not spread very far, and was checked before 
 it had greatly contaminated the Bible text. Western 
 manuscripts often contain old and valuable readings, but any 
 variety which shows traces of the characteristic Western 
 vice of amplification or explanatory addition must be 
 rejected, unless it has strong support outside the purely 
 Western group of authorities. 
 
 -The "Alexandrian" Group. 
 
 ' There remain the Alexandrian and the Neutral groups. 
 The Alexandrian text is represented, not so much by any 
 individual MS. or version, as by certain readings found 
 scattered about in manuscripts which elsewhere belong to 
 one of the other groups. They are readings which have 
 neither Western nor Syrian characteristics, and yet differ 
 from what appears to be the earliest form of the text ; and 
 being found most regularly in the quotations of Origen, 
 Cyril of Alexandria, and other Alexandrian Fathers, as 
 well as in the Memphitic version, they are reasonably 
 named Alexandrian. Their characteristics are such as 
 might naturally be due to such a centre of Greek scholar- 
 ship, since they affect the style rather than the matter, and 
 appear to rise mainly from a desire for correctness of lan- 
 guage. They are consequently of minor importance, and 
 are not always distinctly recognisable. 
 
 ' TAe "Neutral " Group. 
 
 ' The Neutral text, which we believe to represent most 
 nearly the original text of the New Testament, is chiefly, 
 recognisable by the absence of the various forms of aber- 
 ration noticed in the other groups. Its main centre is at 
 Alexandria, but it also appears in places widely removed 
 from that centre. Sometimes single authorities of the 
 Western group will part company with the rest of their 
 
PREFACE xi 
 
 family and exhibit readings which are plainly both ancient 
 and non-Western, showing the existence of a text preceding 
 the Western, and on which the Western variations have 
 been grafted. This text must therefore not be assigned to 
 any local centre. It belonged originally to all the Eastern 
 world. In many parts of the East, notably in Asia Minor, 
 it was superseded by the text which, from its transference 
 ■ to the Latin churches, we call Western. It remained pure 
 longest in Alexandria, and is found in the writings of the 
 Alexandrian Fathers, though even here slight changes of 
 language were introduced, to which we have given the 
 name of Alexandrian. Our main authority for it at 
 the present day is the great Vatican manuscript known 
 as B, and this is often supported by the equally ancient 
 Sinaitic manuscript (N), and by the other manuscripts and 
 versions named above (p. vi). Where the readings of this 
 Neutral text can be plainly discerned, as by the concur- 
 rence of all or most of these authorities, they may be 
 accepted with confidence in the face of all the numerical 
 preponderance of other texts ; and in so doing lies our best 
 hope of recovering the true words of the New Testament.' 
 
 Reference may also be made, for a short account, to the 
 Life and Letters of Fenton jfohn Anthony Hort, by his Son 
 (Macmillan & Co.), vol. ii. pp. 344-353 ; and for more 
 information, to Dr. Hort's celebrated Introdtiction (Macmillan 
 & Co.) published in 1881. 
 
 II. BURGON AND MILLER'S SYSTEM. 
 
 § 1. The True Text. 
 
 The great object of the Textual Criticism of the New 
 Testament is the ascertainment of the actual or genuine 
 words of the original autographs of the writers. Such an 
 ascertainment can only be made with soundness and rest 
 
xii PREFACE 
 
 upon a broad basis, if all the evidence that can be collected 
 be sifted and taken into account, and in the case of 
 readings where the evidence is not consistent a balance be 
 struck with all impartiality and justice. The words thus 
 ascertained must constitute the True Text, of which the 
 following must be the essential characteristics : — 
 
 I. It must be grounded upon an exhaustive view of the 
 evidence of Greek copies in manuscript in the first place ; 
 and in all cases where they differ so as to afford doubt, 
 of Versions or Translations into other languages, and of 
 Quotations from the New Testament made by Fathers 
 and other early writers. 
 
 3. It must have descended from the actual composition 
 of Books of the New Testament, and must thus possess the 
 highest possible antiquity. 
 
 3. It must be the outcome, not of one stem of descent, 
 but of many. Consentient copies, made by successive 
 transcription in the different countries where the Holy 
 Scriptures were used, revered, and jealously watched, must 
 confirm and check one another. 
 
 4. The descent must be continuous, without break or 
 failure, or it would be no real descent, but a fragmentary 
 or stunted line of genealogy, broken up or prematurely 
 closed. 
 
 5. The Readings, or Text, must be such as to commend 
 themselves to the enlightened judgement of Christendom. 
 
 ' A. The Neutral Text. 
 
 Judged by these canons, the ' Neutral ' Text of Dr. Hort 
 must be rejected : — 
 
 (i) It rests upon a very few documents arbitrarily 
 selected, and is hopelessly condemned by the vast majority. 
 It cannot reckon, therefore, number or variety. Aspiring 
 to be the expression of the standard work of the Catholic 
 Church, it fails in catholicity. 
 
PREFACE xiii 
 
 (a) As a collection of readings, apart from separate 
 readings of early date, we maintain that it does not go further 
 back than the School of Caesarea, and that in consequence 
 it does not as a Text possess the highest antiquity. 
 
 (3) It has only one stem by hypothesis, — the probable 
 archetype of B and K (the Vatican and Sinaitic), which 
 Dr. Hort — gratuitously in our contention — thrusts back 
 into the second century. 
 
 (4) It fails in continuity, because {a) there is thus a break 
 or chasm in the earliest period, and [b) because by the 
 admission of Dr. Hort himself it was superseded by 
 the Traditional Text, by him termed ' Syrian,' before the 
 end of the century (fourth) in which the latter Text acquired 
 permanent expression. 
 
 (5) We contend that the Text itself is strangely blurred 
 by numerous omissions of more or less length, including in 
 feomie instances passages held by its supporters to be 
 genuine extracts from the words of life of our Lord, and 
 by other blemishes. 
 
 B. The keceived Text. 
 
 The Textus Receptus, which was adopted in the revival 
 of Greek learning, though it agrees substantially with our 
 Canons, fails under the first, which is the virtual embodiment 
 of them all ; because some of its readings are condemned by 
 the balance struck upon all the evidence which has been 
 assembled under the unprecedented advantages afforded 
 in this century. There remains therefore, in accordance 
 with the Canons already laid down, only 
 
 C. The Traditional Text. 
 
 We maintain, then, that the Traditional Text, duly 
 
 ascertained according to all the evidence with all fairness 
 
 of judgement, will represent the Texi •vi)hich issued from 
 
 the pens of the writers of the New Testament and was used 
 
xiv PREFACE 
 
 all over the Church; and which after contracting cofruption 
 to a large extent, perhaps in most places, was gradually 
 purged in the main as years went on, though something is 
 left still to be done. 
 
 In the ascertainment of this Text or these Readings, 
 guidance is to be sought under seven Notes of Truth, viz. 
 
 I. Antiquity of witnesses 
 
 a. Number „ 
 
 3. Variety 
 
 4. Weight 
 
 5. Continuity „ 
 
 6. The Context of Passages 
 
 7. Internal Evidence. 
 
 These Seven Notes of Truth, which are essential to the 
 Traditional Text, sufficiently exhibit the agreement of it 
 with the Canons laid down. In fact, coincidence with 
 the first Canon implies coincidence with all the rest. But 
 the age and the uninterrupted existence of the Traditional 
 Text must be further proved. 
 
 Now Dr. Hort has admitted that the Traditional Text 
 has existed ever since the later years of the fourth century. 
 The question remains only as to the period between that 
 date and the issue of the autographs. 
 
 That the Traditional Text existed in that period is 
 proved, in the absence of contemporaneous MSS. (except 
 B and Aleph in the same century), 
 
 (i) By its undeniable prevalence afterwards. Such an 
 almost universal prevalence implies a previous existence 
 widely disseminated, and carried down in numerous stems 
 of descent. 
 
 (a) The verdict of contemporaneous Fathers proves this 
 position amply. 
 
 (3) The witness of the Peshitto and Old Latin Versions 
 confirm it, to say nothing of occasional witness to separate 
 readings found in the Egyptian Versions. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 XV 
 
 § 2, Origin and Prevalence of Corruption. 
 
 We hold that Corruption arose at the very first propa- 
 gation of stories or accounts, of our Lord's Life, probably 
 even before the Gospels were written. It must have 
 infected teaching spread from mouth to mouth, as well as 
 writings more or less orderly, and more or less authorized. 
 From this source mistakes must have crept in course of 
 time, and in constant process of copying, into the author- 
 ized copies. In early though in later days as well, when 
 or where education was not universal in the Church, and 
 Christians had not yet imbibed farniliarity with the words 
 of Holy Scripture, Corruption spread further. A great 
 deal of such Corruption, as we believe, found its way into 
 the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. It was persistent 
 and multiform ; and has been analyzed and explained in 
 our second volume. 
 
 § 3. Dr. Hori's disagreement with us. 
 
 (i) We entirely traverse the assertion, that * no distinctly 
 Syrian (i. e. Traditional) readings ' are found amongst the 
 earliest Fathers. Very many of the readings in the Tra- 
 ditional Text which are rejected by the other school are 
 supported by those Fathers : and there is no evidence, as 
 we maintain, to show that th^y pertain to the other side 
 or to any other Text rather than to us, or that readings 
 confessedly old and found in the Traditional Text did not 
 belong to that Text. 
 
 (z) We deny the existence of any Neutral Text, except 
 as a collection, chiefly in B and Aleph, of corrupt readings, 
 though we admit that many of those readings, if not most 
 of them, are of very high antiquity. Considerable danger 
 must attend all systems founded upon Texts or Groups, 
 — valuable as these classifications are for subsidiary em- 
 ployment, — because they open the way more or less to 
 
Xvi PREFACE 
 
 speculation and are apt to foster a shallow and delusive 
 sciolism instead of a judicial view of evidence. Readings 
 depending upon actual evidence afford the only true basis, 
 though study of the causes of corruption, as well ias other 
 investigations, sheds light upon the matter. 
 
 (3) Important points of contention exist with reference 
 to the age of the Peshitto or great Syriac Version (as to 
 which the age of the Curetonian or Lewis is mainly A 
 distinct question), the Theory of the Western Texts and 
 the Latin Versions (or Version), and of Texts in general, 
 as will be seen in the Report of the debate. 
 
 For more information, reference may be made to The 
 
 Traditional Text, Burgon and Miller (George Bell St 
 
 Sons), 1896, and The Causes of Corruption (Bells), 1896. 
 
 Also to Burgon's The Revision Revised, 18 83 (John Murray), 
 
 and to Miller's Textual Guide (Bells), 1885, and upon the 
 
 question of the Peshitto, to an article in the Ckurch 
 
 Quarterly Reviei^ for April, 1895, 
 
 E. M. 
 9, Bradmore R6ad, Oxford, 
 May 24, 1897. 
 
DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 
 
 Dr. Ince : — Gentlemen, I have accepted the invitation 
 of Mr. Miller to preside on this occasion, coming rather 
 as a learner. In some . respects it looks as if the old 
 custom of the Divinity Schools was being revived when 
 there was going to be an opponent and respondent on 
 each side, and then it was the duty of the Professor to 
 act as moderator and sum up at the end the results of the 
 debate. Such a moderator ought to be an expert in 
 the subject. I cannot in the least pretend to be an 
 expert. The exigencies of a long life in connexion with 
 a great college which demanded so very, much time, both 
 for the tutorial work and for general superintendence, 
 made it impossible for me to devote myself to any special 
 research in such matters as the Textual Criticism of the 
 Text of the Bible, even if one's own special tastes led 
 one in that direction. Therefore that aspect of the old 
 Divinity disputations will be wanting to-day. As I under- 
 stand, the object of our meeting how is to hear a statement 
 and have a discussion on the two great rival theories, as 
 to what the true text and the original text of the New 
 Testament is. It is hardly necessary to say that there 
 is a strong division of opinion between the maintainers 
 of that which for a long time has been the received text 
 and known as such, and the later theories of the revised 
 
 B 
 
2 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM ' 
 
 text which have received exposition in the celebrated work 
 of Bishop Westcott and Dr. Hort. Those who maintain 
 either of these two views are to have the opportunity 
 of expressing arguments in favour of it, and especially, 
 I think, it is designed that Mr. Miller, who has taken an 
 enormous amount of trouble and devoted an enormous 
 amount of diligence and labour to the investigation of 
 these subjects, and who stands before the world as the 
 representative of Dean Burgon, may remove some mis- 
 apprehensions which he thinks have existed in the 
 criticisms which have been directed to the two books 
 which he has brought out in connexion with this great 
 question. I would only like to say that I trust the 
 whole discussion will be conducted in a spirit of absolute 
 judicial impartiality. The question to be determined is, 
 what are the scientific principles to be applied ire the 
 definition of the true text of the Bible ? Many of us knew 
 the late Dean Burgon ; I knew him myself very well. 
 Nobody could be more delighted than I was to meet him 
 in private society, or to, hear his admirable expositions 
 in the pulpit of St. Mary's. At the same time, I must 
 confess that the vehement tone in which he conducted 
 some of his controversies, and his occasional imputation 
 of motives to those who did not agree with him, rather 
 repelled one. That was an error of a great mind, I think ; 
 and we ought to feel quite sure that an utter absence of 
 any imputation of motives, theological or literary, should 
 distinguish our discussion to-day. I have to say that it 
 is not intended that any resolution whatever should be 
 put; that is not really the natural sequel to such a dis- 
 cussion. The object is rather, I think, to direct attention, 
 specially in Oxford, to this great question, with the hope 
 that it will be taken up and prosecuted by scholars who 
 have the time to devote to it, because it affects not only 
 Greek and Syriac scholars, but all the early versions must 
 be brought into consideration. Several gentlemen familiar 
 with the question are going to speak, and I am instructed 
 to call upon them in order. If the discussion should be 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 3 
 
 protracted, it may be necessary to limit some of the 
 speeches ; |)ossibly no such necessity will arise. I will 
 begin by asking Mr. Miller to open the discussion and 
 state his views on the subject. 
 
 Prebendary Miller: — Dr. Ince and Gentlemen, 
 I. think that the attempt to combine scholars upon a 
 general study of the text of Holy Scripture has been 
 rather lost sight of during late years, although it cannot 
 be doubted for a moment that the study is very important, 
 and indeed the interest of it is as wide as Christendom. 
 The system which is now in vogue^ — I allude of course 
 to that of Dr. Hort — is, I find," looked upon with invincible 
 repugnance by a very large number of scholars, and, 
 speaking very briefly, I have reason to suppose that even 
 those who hold and teach it feel some misgivings, and 
 are not inclined to press it to the extreme extent that 
 Dr. Hort did. Turning, therefore, to the other system, 
 which I have had the honour of presenting recently to 
 the learned world, I wish to point out in general terms 
 the chief characteristics of it. Dean Burgon's principles, 
 which I advocate, have been, I think, very much mis- 
 understood, and, as the Chairman has just said, I think 
 there were reasons certainly of a personal character which 
 led people to attribute undue importance to some parts 
 of them, and generally not to understand them in their 
 proper proportions. This, however, should be borne in 
 mind, that Dean Burgon threw his whole intellect and 
 powers, and devoted a very great number of years in the 
 latter part of his life, to this work ; and in order to do so, 
 he looked at the question all round. He took the advice 
 of some of the ablest men in the country, and then 
 produced a system which at any rate must be said to 
 be large-minded, even if unsound, but the large-mindedness 
 and the soundness of it, perhaps I may be permitted to 
 say, was, as far as I was able to judge, that which attracted 
 myself. 
 
 The chief principle of it is this, which I will state in 
 the words of Dr. Scrivener, whose caution and care 
 
 B 2 
 
4 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 I think can hardly be doubted. He says, 'One thing 
 would appear at first sight almost too clear for argument, 
 too self-evident to be disputed, that it is both our wisdom 
 and our duty to weigh the moinentous subject at issue 
 in all its parts, shutting out from the mind no source of 
 information which can reasonably be supposed capable 
 of influencing our decision/ The plain English of which 
 is this, that Dr. Scrivener advocated a view which was 
 supported by the large mass of MSS., against the few. 
 He estimated the vast mass of those MSS. and other 
 evidence which have been discovered and are known, as 
 nineteen-twentieths, and he asks how it can be that one- 
 twentieth shall be supposed to override the verdict of all 
 the rest. Now it is just possible there may be some 
 here who would like to have this exhibited in, say, two 
 instances. Perhaps those of the rest who are familiar with 
 them will pardon me if I bring them before the meeting. 
 I will take first the case of the one, in the first chapter 
 of St. Matthew, verse 25, the question of the word 
 ■npa^ToroKov. You remember it is rejected, by some, but 
 it is maintained in what we call the Traditional Text. With 
 regard to the evidence for the maintenance of it, I should 
 like to say that I do not quote Tischendorf entirely by 
 himself. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I am 
 engaged in preparing a commentary which is intended 
 to go on all the main passages considerably beyond 
 Tischendorf, and I have finished the first ten chapters of 
 St. Matthew, from which both these instances have been 
 taken. The evidence then is as follows : — 
 
 For the word irpairoVo/coy (firstborn), the following Uncial 
 MSS.:— CSDEKLMSUVrAn,— thirteen; — all collated 
 Cursives except two ; — the Old Latin MSS. f ff ^ g^ q, Vul- 
 gate, Peshitto, Harkleian, Ethiopic, Armenian, Georgian, 
 Slavonic; — Tatian, Athanasius (2), Pseudo-Athanasius, 
 Didymus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil (3), Gregory of Nyssa, 
 Ephraem Syrus, Epiphanius (3), Chrysostom, Proclus, 
 Isidore of Pelusium, John Damascene, Photius, Nicetas, 
 Anibrose, Opus Imperfectum, Augustine (I believe), Jerome. 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 5 
 
 For the omission of this word we have only K (the 
 Sinaitic), B (the Vatican), Z (the ,Dublin Palimpsest— 
 i. e. three Uncials ;^the two Cursives (i, 33):^'the Old 
 Latin abcg^k, Bohairic, Curetonian, Lewis; — of the 
 Fathers, Ambrose (3). 
 
 Now it is quite possible that there may be more of the 
 Fathers for this omission, which I think is very probable. 
 Perhaps I may say that I am only beginning my work. 
 Some weeks ago I went into the Bodleian with a number 
 of -passages, 1800, which I had taken from Dean Burgon's 
 Indexes to the Quotations in the Fathers, to search out 
 These did not by any means exhaust the whole of the 
 quotations occurring in the ten chapters, and as I have 
 not been able to finish the investigation I cannot say 
 whether there any more on the other side. It is very 
 probable there are some, but I think only a few. Accord- 
 ingly, this instance will illustrate what is very commonly 
 the case, the difference between the mass of MSS. on the 
 one side and the very few on the other. My second 
 instance is, I think, a very interesting one. We all 
 remember Professor Huxley's paper in the Nineteenth 
 Century about the devils going into the swine, in which 
 he quoted St. Matthew viii. 31, as a-notneiXov fjiMas (send 
 us into the herd of swine). It is a pity that he did not 
 prefer the reading iitirpe^ov fifuv aiteXOeiv (suffer us to go), 
 which is much the softer of the two and takes off from 
 the harshness of the other. But of course we must 
 proceed upon evidence. Dean Burgon always maintained 
 that it was not a question of opinion, but a question of 
 actual evidence, which should rule us. Now eirLTpeyjfov rudv 
 airekdeiv is witnessed to by C4> (at the end of the fifth century) 
 EKLMSUVXAII, twelve Uncials, — nearly all collated 
 Cursives, the Old Latin fhq, Peshitto, Harkleian, — whilst 
 2 (at the beginning of the ninth century) reads iTrfrpei/row 
 fiiuv €i<reX0eiv, which is practically the same, and the 
 variations of one Cursive which reads fjixas, and of six 
 which omit ^fuv altogether, do not prevent them from 
 being reckoned as supporters of the rest. On the other 
 
6 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hand, for a-noaTuXov ^juas only two Uncial MSS., B K, can 
 be reckoned, — only four Cursives (to follow Tischendorf, 
 for my work here is not complete), i, %%, 33, 118, — with 
 the Versions abcdfT^g^kl, Vulgate, Bohairic, Sahidic, 
 Ethiopic, Arabic. 
 
 That will show, what will be perfectly familiar to those 
 who have looked thoroughly into these questions, the 
 extreme difference there is between the two contentions. 
 The remarkable thing is, that that extreme difference is 
 kept up to a very great extent indeed throughout the 
 Gospels. In almost all controverted cases you will find, 
 and this is a misfortune, Aleph and B or one of them, 
 with a very small body on one side and a large body 
 of other MSS. on the other. I say that is a misfortune, , 
 because I think it is that which divides us into two camps, 
 a thing I very much regret. This being so, if you have 
 a very small body of MSS. against all the others, how can 
 it possibly be right to say that the small body should 
 dominate all the rest? Just look at the matter for an 
 instant in this way : — Suppose you are sitting at the elbow 
 of an editor of Agamemnon, or the Trachiniae, or what- 
 ever it may be of Sophocles, you would see that in his 
 very wildest dreams he would never conceive on any 
 difficult passage of such , an immense mass of evidence 
 being at hand, as we have in this case on the one side 
 set aside by those few. And yet when one looks at 
 Dr. Hort's system, one finds a large body of evidence 
 frequently thrown entirely aside and virtually cast into 
 the waste-paper basket. I will ask, is that a logical or 
 a proper way of proceeding? Can it be justified intel- 
 lectually, and can it be right, in dealing with Holy 
 Scripture ? The explanation is what has frequently 
 been called by other men the extreme adulation paid to 
 B, especially by Dr. Hort ,and men of that side. I think 
 some of it is very natural, and that history quite accounts 
 for it. They are the two oldest MSS. ; and in early times, 
 when people had in their view only a small amount of 
 evidence, it was very natural that tHey should say that these 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 7 
 
 two MSS. which come to us as the earliest, and were 
 therefore nearest to the original autographs, should be right 
 A great deal of interest was also felt because ' B ' in the 
 Vatican was invested with a certain amount of mystery. 
 People were in the habit of looking for great things to 
 come from Rome, and being unable to learn what it was 
 which was so zealously guarded, they thought it would 
 prove to be the key to all the difficulties when it was 
 discovered. Thus, when another MS. like Aleph was 
 found by Tischendorf, it was only reasonable that great 
 attention should be paid to it. 
 
 Yet when we look on the" other side, there are certain 
 points which cast discredit upon those two documents. 
 In the first place, according to all the critics they were 
 produced in those times after the Council of Nicea when 
 Semi-Arianism or one of those kinds of belief which were 
 associated with it were in the ascendent ; and it was very 
 remarkable that just at the time when the Nicene Creed 
 was finally accepted, towards the end of the century, these 
 MSS. seem to have slipped out of repute. Then also they 
 bear I think upon them traces of a somewhat sceptical 
 tone, sometimes almost going into heresy, which would 
 enable one, as I think, to connect them with the period 
 in which they were produced. They are too incomplete 
 MSS. There are no breathings or accents and scarcely 
 any stops in B, and there are no breathings or accents 
 except in two passages in Aleph, and the stops are very 
 fitful and uncertain. These MSS. were also, as I have 
 pointed out, condemned within fifty years. There was, 
 I think, a great deal involved in that circumstance. And 
 lastly, they are rejected by evidence virtually older than 
 themselves. Objection was made to Dean Burgon that 
 he did not care for the value of MSS. This is quite 
 untrue as far as feelings were concerned, although 
 of course you must not simply depend upon what a 
 man's feelings are to maintain anything respecting his 
 actions. 
 
 But Dean Burgon did not neglect the special yalue of 
 
8 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 separate MSS. At least it will be admitted that he enter- 
 tained and expressed very strong objection, in which many- 
 others concurred, to the very high estimate formed by 
 many critics of B and Aleph. If there is on one side 
 a very high admiration for these MSS., there is also on 
 the other side a large number of scholars who have a great 
 objection to them. There are many eminent men on our 
 side, and I think if you set store by the admiration for 
 Aleph and B on the one side you ought to put the. 
 objections to them in the other scale. It was said that 
 Dean Burgon merely counted heads, and that the character 
 or weight of MSS. was therefore virtually nothing, it 
 being supposed that he imagined one to be equal to 
 another. But Dean Burgon never adopted this line of 
 argument. Some people are of opinion that he thought 
 a late Cursive was as good as an early Uncial, but this 
 was not the case, and he and those who agree with him 
 have never dreamt of maintaining such a thesis. What 
 we have always said is, that when the mass of the later 
 MSS. go together they outweigh one or two other ones. 
 We never take the Cursives separately. 
 
 In order to controvert the erroneous impression regarding 
 his views that he cared for numbers only and not for 
 weight. Dean Burgon constructed and worked out to a 
 considerable extent his theory about the seven notes of 
 truth, which he maintained were: — Antiquity, number, 
 variety of kinds and countries, weight, continuity, context, 
 and internal evidence. He laid great stress upon antiquity. 
 Of course number is something, for if you multiply 
 evidence by any figure it is surely of more value when 
 it is numerous than when it was single, although one 
 would be almost inclined to suppose that some people 
 imagine that number derogates from the value. 
 
 There is no time now to dwell upon the remaining notes 
 of truth. But there is one other point which I should like 
 to notice before I go further, and that is this. There are 
 three classes of evidence: — Greek MSS., Versions into 
 different languages, and Quotations of the New Testament 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 9 
 
 by the Fathers. Some people suppose that we lay more 
 stress upon the Quotations of the Fathers than upon 
 anything else. That is quite an error ; we lay most stress 
 upon MSS., and anybody who goes carefully into the 
 evidence and into the different passages must I think do 
 the same. Suppose we come to a passage which is not 
 a very important one perhaps, and which is perfectly 
 decided by the copies, we say that there is no necessity 
 to go further and to call in the Versions and the Fathers. 
 The MSS. themselves decide the question, and great care 
 ought to be exercised in applying the other two classes 
 of evidence. I think on some occasions Tischendorf has 
 wrongly quoted Latin MSS. when there is not sufficient 
 evidence to justify such a course, the difference of reading 
 being capable of explanation by the difference of idiom 
 and not necessarily by any question connected with special 
 words. And then again with regard to the Fathers, it is 
 evident that great caution must be employed in dealing 
 with them. You must be cautious how far they are used, 
 but in many respects they are most valuable, especially 
 perhaps in regard to such matters as omissions. For 
 instance in the case, say, of the word irpmroTOKov (where 
 the mention shows that it was in the Fathers' copy), or 
 especially when a reference is made not in exact quotation 
 but as an explanation of a passage — then the Fathers 
 become extremely valuable. Another caution is to be urged 
 with respect to Texts of the Fathers, some scholars holding 
 the objection that the words may have been altered. My 
 impression is that if those Texts were looked through 
 thoroughly, these critics would withdraw a great part of 
 their objection. Of course, we wait for the editing of the 
 Fathers, but if we take editions like Stieren's Irenaeus, 
 or Otto's Justin Martyr, we find the changes are very few 
 and small. The principle I venture to lay down therefore 
 is that of the many against the few, and the necessity for 
 a careful consideration and weighing of the evidence. 
 
 Passing, from that, I want to draw your attention to 
 another point upon which there has been some misappre- 
 
10 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hension, and that is the claim we make for the acceptance 
 of fifteen centuries impressed upon the Traditional Text. 
 People have thought when we spoke of the Church doing 
 this, that we had in our minds some arbitrary decision 
 to which all people were bound to pay attention. Instead 
 of that, we urge it as a proof of reasonableness. It is well 
 known by those who study the history of the Church, that 
 even the clear and plain decisions of Councils were not 
 taken to be final or to have the authority of General 
 Councils until they were subsequently ratified by the 
 Universal Church. They were examined on all sides, and 
 when they were approved, respect gathered round the 
 Council in question, and the decisions of it became valid 
 and fixed. There was, of course, in the present case, no 
 public controversy ; so far as we know, any such must have 
 been between man and man, and not, at any rate, so public , 
 as to descend to us. That I think renders the decision 
 even more strong. Then I wish to remind you that the 
 period to which we refer was the fourth century, which 
 was the great verifying age of the Church. Soon after 
 the time when the Roman Empire became Christian, all 
 the finest intellects in the world were turned towards these 
 subjects, upon which people felt and thought more than 
 upon anything else. As an illustration of this, I may refer 
 you to the great respect paid to-day to the Nicene Creed, 
 or again the respect felt for the Canon of Holy Scripture* 
 When they had decided upon the Canon of the New 
 Testament, surely they must go on to settle the words of 
 the New Testament, and they so seem to have done. But 
 this became a much longer process, because there were 
 but a few books upon each of which the Canon would 
 have to be settled, but innumerable readings. Accordingly, , 
 a long period of years would be taken up in the settle- 
 ment of the vast numbers of questions involved. The 
 fortunes of the Roman Empire delayed it very much, and 
 the consequence is that the final settlement has not been 
 made, as we maintain, up to the present time, when our 
 immense collection of evidence puts us in a much better 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER ii 
 
 position to form our conclusions than at any previous time. 
 The process of settlement went on until the end of the 
 seventh century, and in saying this I have the agreement 
 ■ also of Dr. Hort. After that time the Traditional Text, 
 which had been mainly received before, was finally settled 
 and accepted. The fact that this was the great verifying 
 age of the Church did not mean that there were any new 
 decisions made : — they made no fresh departure, but they 
 simply ratified what had been in practice in the Church 
 before. This ratification was expressed in the words uttered 
 at the Council of Nicea by all the bishops, to. apyoXa ^drj 
 Kpareirca, ' Let ancient customs prevail.' Therefore when 
 the question of the Text was settled, it is reasonable to 
 suppose that it was decided that the Traditional Text 
 was the Text which had been mainly read and used from 
 very earliest times, and that it was a part of ancient custom; 
 So that leads us, I think, to see that in Dr. Hort's system, 
 and in other systems before his, there was a narrow view 
 of estimating tradition. I think the authors did not see 
 the vast volume of tradition which descended all over the 
 Church, but were inclined to trace everything through 
 a small body, such as the school at Caesarea. I think 
 we hardly understand the extraordinary attention paid to 
 Holy Scriptures in the earliest times. It is very remark- 
 able that many more quotations were found from the Old 
 Testament in the works of the early Fathers, than from 
 the New. And the reason is clear. People outside the 
 Church first had to understand the nature of the One 
 True Crod, and then to come to Him. They learnt that 
 in the Old Testament, and that was what struck them 
 more than all, and when they had been taught that, they 
 could go on to the teaching of the New. In this way 
 the Holy Scriptures, Old and New, were a most powerful 
 engine, first of all in the conversion of the people and 
 then in teaching them ; and so for their own study they 
 must have had copies all over the Church. They read 
 them also in their services, and wherever there was a 
 church there must have been MSS. of Holy Scriptures in 
 
12 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 daily use. When one decayed, it was replaced by another. 
 So there was not a country where there was not some 
 stream or streams of descent, like the Western Text and the 
 Alexandrian. I quite agree that those texts existed ; but 
 besides them there was not a place that did not hand on 
 the tradition, which was carried down as if in rivulets 
 extending over the whole surface of the Church. If this 
 was the case, it shows the reason why two MSS. of the 
 same text, issuing probably from the school at Caesarea, 
 should not have been accepted all over the Church. There 
 was an immense volume of tradition at variance with them, 
 and that was the reason why their text fell out of general 
 vogue within fifty years after those MSS. were made. 
 
 You require some proof. I think I have some as far as 
 it goes. You remember that some of the chief men who 
 established the Nicene Creed finally in universal acceptance 
 were St. Basil and the two St. Gregories. It is remarkable, 
 that these three Fathers witness very largely, more than 
 almost any others of their time, to the Traditional Text, 
 or rather the traditional readings, and you will remember 
 that all these, three came from Cappadocia, two from 
 Neo-Caesarea, and one of the Gregories from Nazianzus, 
 not very far from Caesarea. Does not that seem to show 
 there was a descent genealogically of MSS. in favour of 
 the Traditional Text which taught them to witness so much 
 to it ? There is even a little more proof that such a tra- 
 dition was carried on in those parts. In the early centuries 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, a pupil of Origen, witnessed to 
 the Traditional Text just about in the same way, cind he 
 also lived at Neo-Caesarea. 
 
 This brings us back to the very difficult time before we 
 have any MSS. existing which reaches back to the delivery 
 of the autographs. With respect to that you will re- 
 member, in the first place, that it is now generally 
 understood that the reason why we have no MSS. is, 
 because the New Testament was in early days written 
 upon papyrus, which was of a perishable character, and 
 therefore they have not descended to us. Many of you 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 13 
 
 will remember that last year, by the kindness of the 
 Margaret Professor, we had in a lecture given by 
 Mr. Kenyon some specimens of papyrus shown us ; and, 
 as a matter of fact, he went rather farther than I am 
 myself disposed to go. But there is no doubt, I fancy, 
 that in the first days they used papyrus, and that is the 
 reason why we have no MSS. in our hands representing 
 those times. Before I go into that subject I think there 
 is a point which is very much deserving of consideration; 
 an.d I find that it has not only struck myself, but it has 
 struck at any rate one of my learned friends. It is that 
 Dr. Hort has strained the theory of Texts, and that 
 generally among critics the, theory of Texts has been 
 strained in its consideration. I am not going to say 
 anything against the theory of Texts generally within 
 due limitations. It was introduced by Bengel, who was 
 followed by Semler and Griesbach and Hug, and it was 
 adopted in this century by others, and especially by 
 Dr. Hort. He slightly altered it by the introduction of 
 what he called the Neutral Text. He considered that in 
 the early times there were three texts: the Western, the 
 Alexandrian, and the Neutral. I should say we doubt 
 very much indeed the existence of the Neutral Text, except 
 in a very particular way which I will describe directly, 
 and upon which I maintain that the evidence is satisfactorily 
 strong. When people read about a Text they are apt to 
 consider that it must be some complete setting of words 
 and expressions. And indeed, what is said and written 
 about it sometimes leads me to suppose that they consider 
 everything written in the West belonged to the Western 
 Text, whereas of course Text is merely a collective word 
 denoting a number of readings in the particular part of 
 the world to which it refers. Besides these, it includes 
 also other readings which belong to the true Text, what- 
 ever that may be. In early times people took the general 
 readings of the New Testament and added some peculiar 
 ones of their own which prevailed especially in the locality, 
 and that was the way in which they made a composite 
 
14 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 kind of Text, partly belonging to the true Text, and 
 partly coloured with readings of their own. Now what we 
 ought to call them is, I maintain, not Texts but Readings. 
 When you once begin to speak of Texts, and consequently 
 a beginner comes to consider Texts, he naturally clothes 
 the word so to speak with flesh and bones and makes 
 it into something ; whereas if it is merely collective, it is 
 a very different matter. This, I maintain, is the only way 
 of safeguarding them^ viz., to call them Readings instead 
 of Texts. It comes to this. Supposing we were to take 
 in the early days a map of the Church, instead of having 
 red or whatever colour it may be in the West, and yellow 
 for Alexandria and so forth, we should dot the world all 
 over. There were everywhere reasons for corruption which 
 must have been produced in early times. It was so pro- 
 duced all about the Christian world, but in certain particular 
 regions you would have more marks, as I maintain, of 
 corruption, and perhaps also slightly different in character- 
 istics. I think that is a very important point, and must 
 lead, if it is not attended to, to mistakes. Dolus latet sub 
 verbo Text. 
 
 There are also difficulties in this way. Alexandrian is 
 a very perplexing Text to make out, and with respect to 
 the Western there is a very considerable difficulty there too, 
 because the Old Latin Versions differ so very much among 
 themselves. Beginning with the Brixianus (f) on the one 
 hand and ending with the Bobiensis (k) there is an immense 
 amount of variety, so that on very many passages you are 
 able to use on both sides Old Latin Texts. I think it is 
 much safer to follow to a great extent Dean Burgon's 
 theory, which is worked out very ingeniously upon the 
 variotis Kinds of Corruption. 
 
 With respect to the origin of B and Aleph, which will 
 be of course Neutral documents, I believe both came from 
 Origen, who was the first textual critic. I think Dean 
 Burgon has been hard upon him sometimes^ He was 
 a man of wide observation, and had travelled very largely. 
 He went to Rome, besides living at Alexandria, to Arabia 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 
 
 15 
 
 Petraea thrice, to Caesarea several times, besides spending 
 there the latter part of his life. He also went to Greece, 
 and sojourned in Neo-Caesarea. As you know, he edited 
 the Old Testament, and prepared an apparatus of MSS. 
 for editing the New. He can frequently be quoted on both 
 sides, for he used MSS. of a different character ; and it 
 seems therefore that he laid his foundations as widely as 
 he could with a view to a future revision or settlement of 
 the Text. Moving from Alexandria he went to live at 
 Caesarea, where he laid the foundation of the school at 
 that place, in which he was followed by those who were 
 successively bishops of that city, Pamphilus, Eusebius, 
 Acacius, and Euzoius. The two latter were engaged, as 
 we are told in a colophon, in copying from papyrus on to 
 vellum. There are various reasons for concluding, and 
 I think it is generally admitted now, thaf the probability 
 is, at least as far as the evidence goes, that the fifty MSS. 
 produced by Eusebius in compliance with the letter from 
 Constantine included the Sinaitic and the Vatican. Now 
 taking into consideration these fifty MSS., seeing there 
 were forty-eight others, my impression is, that they were 
 according to the school of Origen of different characters. 
 Supposing they were not, but that, as Dr. Hort inight say, 
 all the fifty were B's and Alephs, how would he explain 
 this? They went to Constantinople, and were used in 
 the Churches there. Supposing they embodied in them the 
 true Text, they must have had an almost untold influence. 
 .They came from the highest school, were exceedingly 
 handsome, and if they all agreed must have impressed 
 their character upon the Church at Constantinople. Yet 
 so soon was the Traditional Text accepted at Constanti- 
 nople, that those in the last century who treated of the- 
 earliest Texts styled that Text Constantinopolitan or By- 
 zantine, which Dr. Hort calls Syrian, and which we call 
 the Traditional. How then can this be explained ? I con- 
 clude therefore that these MSS. were not of the same, 
 but of various kinds. 
 
 I have very little more time, and I must very rapidly say 
 
i6 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 what I have to say. The evidence in the early centuries is 
 this. It is first of the MSS., because the Traditional Text 
 from the later part of the fourth century prevailed almost 
 everywhere, and there were after that time hardly any of 
 the others. Supposing it was general, almost universal, 
 everywhere found to prevail, it must have been the 
 successor of copies of the same character which went before 
 it. Therefore the MSS. throw back their character to the 
 earliest age. Secondly, there is the evidence of the Fathers, 
 which I have in our first volume gone through and have 
 shown that by a very large majority they witness to the 
 Traditional Text. With respect to this subject I must 
 point out that those who maintain B and Aleph have 
 a very much more difficult task to perform than we have. 
 We admit that readings of their character go back to the 
 first, but we call them corruptions. We admit they were 
 quite as early and came out immediately after — perhaps 
 even before — the Gospels were written ; but our opponents 
 say that our readings do not go back at all. Therefore we 
 have simply to prove that our readings go back to that 
 time, in order to show that those who are opposed to us 
 are wrong in giving a late date to the Traditional Text. 
 Then, thirdly, there are the Versions, and of those first 
 comes the Peshitto. With respect to the controversy about 
 the Peshitto, whether that or the Curetonian was the old 
 Syriac Version or not, a great deal of evidence will be 
 gi^en to you by those who have expressly studied the 
 subject. One point I notice which has for me a good deal 
 of interest. By the end of the sixth century the apparatus 
 of MSS. of the Peshitto exceeded the apparatus of the 
 Greek MSS. of the Gospels. Does not that show how 
 very firmly the Peshitto must have been settled ? What is 
 settled in the unchangeable East goes on ; and accordingly 
 that seems to be a strong argument, as well as the others, 
 in favour of the early existence of the Peshitto. Next 
 I take the question relating to the revision of the Tradi- 
 tional Text. The Latin Versions, according to my figures, 
 witness in favour of the Traditional Text in the proportion 
 
PREBENDARY MILLER 17 
 
 of five to four. You will see here the exclusiveness of 
 Dr. Hort, and I venture to hope the greater broadness 
 of our school. 
 
 There is one point which perhaps I may be allowed to 
 enter upon before I end. It is this. Dr. Hort's system 
 stands of course in our way, and I think there are very 
 great objections to it. The first perhaps that one might 
 notice, which is felt by many people very strongly, is that in 
 order to support it he is obliged to suppose that certain 
 revisions took place of which there is no trace whatever in 
 history. I do not wish to dilate upon that now; but 
 I know there are some, and perhaps several here, who feel 
 that that is a very strong point. Possibly I may mention 
 a little private instance of this. A few years ago at 
 Bournemouth a friend of mine introduced me to the late 
 Dr. Scott, Head Master of Westminster School, who divided 
 the honours at Cambridge in his year with the present 
 distinguished Bishop of Durham. He said, 'If you get 
 Scott upon the "phantom revisions," as we call them, it 
 will delight your soul.' He called upon me : and I intro- 
 duced the subject. It was like turning on a tap ; he was 
 thoroughly indignant at the liberty taken with history by 
 Dr. Hort. I only mention this to show you what is 
 thought by very able men, who are quite capable of 
 judging of history, if they are not actually experts upon 
 this subject. 
 
 There is another point, that of Conflation: I want 
 particularly to mention this. It has been said in the 
 Life of Dr. Hort, that he would not reply to Dean Burgon 
 because he thought that Dean Burgon did not know 
 enough to grapple with and estimate his Inductive Theory. 
 I have my doubts, but I will not say anything about 
 whether Dean Burgon had not examined more Greek MSS. 
 and had a greater command of Patristic quotations than 
 Dr. Hort ; our contention is that Dr. Hort's theory is an 
 Inductive Theory without induction. As a matter of fact, 
 there has been no inductive foundation published.' It now 
 remains in pigeon-holes or MS. books, and the world has 
 
 C 
 
i8 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 not seen it. But I also hold, that it is not supported by 
 any induction adequate to the maintenance of it. Now 
 conflation supplies a field small enough to test this in. 
 Dr. Hort — I speak very briefly (having no time to pay 
 tribute to his many admirable qualities) — only brings 
 forward eight instances, — unless perhaps there is one more 
 mentioned just on his way, — eight instances to establish 
 a system which is supposed to operate throughout the 
 whole of the Gospels. I say that that is an absurd 
 induction, but I have answered his eight pleas, and in the 
 opinion of one of my critics have had the best of the 
 argument. That however may pass. Eight instances 
 — four from St. Mark, four from St. Luke, none from 
 St. Matthew unless it is the one I have just noticed, and 
 none from St. John ! Yet St. John especially is just the 
 writer whom you would have thought would have supplied 
 several such, his writings being quite of the character 
 required. I say that this is an absurd foundation upon 
 which to build up a large doctrine. I tried my best to 
 increase Dr. Hort's number, and I added twenty-four to it, 
 so as to make eight for each Gospel. All these but one 
 answered the conditions at first, but failed in meeting the 
 requirements afterwards. It is quite possible that I have 
 made a mistake, and have been unable to discover what 
 really exists. I am quite prepared to suppose that there 
 may be several. A friend of mine showed me seven which 
 he had found out, where curiously enough, whilst five of 
 the conflations were towards the Traditional Text, the 
 others were towards B or Aleph, and therefore in the 
 wrong direction. In order to satisfy the conditions of this 
 problem, it would be necessary to have at least thirty 
 instances, and these should be typical instances. I give 
 a challenge here to the followers of Dr. Hort either to 
 produce thirty typical instances or to reject the system 
 altogether. 
 
 Just in conclusion, let me say that although in principle 
 there can be no compromise between idolatry of B and 
 Aleph and an adherence to a broad view of evidence, never- 
 
PROFESSOR SAND AY 19 
 
 theless, although no theoretical compromise is possible, 
 I should hope that there may be a practical meeting in 
 many ways : and what I should hope very much is, that 
 some plan may be set on foot from this time by which 
 those who are on different sides on this question may find 
 some sort of agreement and may co-operate one with 
 another in threshing out. this great question. It is with 
 that wish that I have done what I could in this debate, 
 proposed to me kindly by the Margaret Professor. I have 
 to thank you all for the attention you have given me, and 
 I only hope some good result may come of our meeting 
 together to-day. 
 
 Professor Sanday : — I very gladly acknowledge, and 
 I am sure every one here will acknowledge, the chivalrous 
 spirit in which Mr. Miller has prosecuted this controversy, 
 and the chivalrous character of the proposals which he has 
 made to us ; I refer in particular to those for co-operation. 
 But I think that there will be practical difficulties in the 
 way of carrying out these suggestions to any large extent. 
 I think it would be better for each side to prosecute its own 
 studies on its own methods, but I do not see any reason 
 whatever why we should not meet from time to time in 
 a friendly way as we have done this afternoon, and discuss 
 particular points, perhaps .somewhat more limited in 
 character than the very broad issue which is put before us 
 to-day. I must try to be as concise as possible, and I will 
 begin by meeting Mr. Miller as far as I can by saying how 
 far I think we can go with him. I think we can go with 
 him first as to the palaeographical conditions of textual 
 criticism. It happens that that side of the subject is one 
 to which I have paid a good deal of attention from time to 
 time myself, and I very gladly bear testimony to what 
 Mr. Miller has said in his books on this subject. He 
 carries me entirely with him as to, for instance, the point 
 he mentions regarding the supersession of papyrus by 
 vellum. This was an important epoch in the history of 
 MSS. There are a number of other points into which 
 I need not at present enter. The second point upon which 
 
 C 3 
 
20 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 I agree with him is the general enumeration of the causes 
 of corruption. I willingly recognize all the causes that he 
 mentions in his book which goes under that title. The 
 only question is as to their application. Unfortunately, 
 this is practically a question of internal evidence, and this 
 internal evidence is constantly ambiguous. One reading 
 may be due to one kind of corruption, and an opposite 
 reading may be due to another kind of corruption, so that 
 the one very often cancels the other. The difference 
 between us is not as to the causes of corruption which are 
 in operation, but as to the application of those causes. 
 Thirdly, there is a point in his books on which Mr. Miller 
 has laid some stress, and that is the influence of the great 
 libraries. There again I agree with him, and in particular 
 regarding that one great library upon which one naturally 
 has one's eye — I mean the library founded by Pamphilus at 
 Caesarea. The reference to this would.be specially impor- 
 tant if it were true, as Mr. Miller and many others contend, 
 that the great MSS., the Vatican and the Sinaitic, both 
 came from that library. I confess I think myself that 
 there is a great deal to be said for that view. But it is 
 not quite proved. Dr. Hort thought they were written in 
 Italy, or rather that the Vatican MS. was written in Italy 
 and the Sinaitic probably in Egypt. There are some 
 arguments to be adduced in favour of this view. There is 
 a little peculiarity found in B which is characteristic of the 
 Latin MSS. — a tendency to represent the form ' Israel ' by 
 ' Istrael,' the insertion of a ' t.' It is confined to the Acts 
 in B, and' there are certain capitulations or chapters, marked 
 in the margin, which are also found in a Latin form. 
 These are, of course, arguments, and we must remember 
 that the great palaeographer, Dr. Ceriani of Milan, was 
 also of opinion that B was written in Italy. There is 
 a great deal to be said on the other side ; the question 
 is still under discussion. Then, fourthly, Lean for myself 
 go with Mr. Miller to a certain extent in thinking that 
 Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have pressed their preference 
 for these MSS. rather too far. One can make that con- 
 
PROFESSOR SANDAY 21 
 
 fession without any breach of pi-inciple, without any real 
 inconsistency, because there are other texts almost, if not 
 quite, as early as they are. The Western text and those 
 texts represented by these two MSS. branched off in the 
 second century, and so the true reading may be found in 
 either of those two branches, and occasionally I think it 
 quite possible — as indeed Westcott and Hort themselves 
 thought in the case of certain omissions in the Western 
 authorities — that the right reading may be preserved in 
 the Western branch and not in the branch represented by 
 Aleph and B. After all, they are fallible MSS. You find, 
 but only very occasionally, the same kind of mistakes as in 
 other MSS., and it is, I think, not a safe, inference that 
 because a MS. is right, in nine cases out of ten, therefore it 
 will be right in the tenth. On this fourth point I can agree 
 with Mr. Miller ; but I am afraid, on the other hand, there 
 is a fundamental difference between us, and that difference 
 is so grave that it would not be easy for us actually to 
 work together at present. We start from opposite ends- 
 Mr. Miller and Dean Burgon started from the Received Text, 
 and I cannot help thinking that the Received Text has so 
 impressed itself upon their minds that it is the standard to 
 which, unconsciously, everything is referred. One can see 
 it in their books ; one almost seems to read the Received 
 Text between the lines. That is one thing, and the other 
 thing is, I think, that one can also read between the lines 
 that strong preference which Mr., Miller has expressed for 
 numbers, for the numerical majority, the mass of MSS. 
 Whether this view is correct is exceedingly doubtful, but 
 one cannot be surprised at finding it advocated. The other 
 view seems a paradox, but it is much less of a paradox 
 than it seems. Take this simple illustration. Suppose you 
 have a MS. from which, from time to time, fifty copies are 
 made. On Mr. Miller's theory those fifty copies would 
 entirely outweigh the MS. itself, whereas all of them 
 would contain such corruptions as are to be found in the 
 original MS., and each of them would have its own cor-, 
 ruptions as well. Clearly, the single MS. is of more value 
 
22 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 than the whole fifty. That is the principle upon which we 
 go, and I submit, with all deference, that Mr. Miller presents 
 the problem in a wrong way. The real problem is to get 
 at the original archetype, to get as near the autograph as 
 you possibly can. MSS. fall into groups or families, each 
 of which has an archetype. , You begin with small families, 
 and try to find what were the readings contained in 
 this small archetype. A group of small families will make 
 a large family, which also has its archetype. The true 
 method of criticism is to work your way backwards, starting 
 from the outside and working your way gradually to the 
 root. I submit that that is the right method of approaching 
 the subject. Another thing which I am glad to see in 
 Mr. Miller's recent book is the prominence which he has 
 given to the history of the text. Hitherto, in Dean Burgon's 
 earlier works that side of the question was certainly not pro- 
 minently put forward. But Dr. Hort lays it down as a prin- 
 ciple that in order to get at the original text you must first 
 have some conception of its history. That is a perfectly 
 sound principle, not confined to the New Testament, but 
 applicable to any text, for which there are a great number 
 of excellent authorities. Of course,' if you have only 
 a single MS., and if you have a MS. from which others 
 are copied, as in the case of Sophocles, the problem is 
 a perfectly simple one. The text practically has no history, 
 at least it is only guess-work to decide regarding it. But 
 where you have so many authorities as we have for the 
 Greek Testament, it is possible to a very considerable 
 extent to reconstruct that history. That was the problem 
 which Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort set before themselves, 
 and worked out with extraordinary skill and patience. 
 And perhaps I may be allowed to say that my own 
 experience, so far as it goes, very much confirms their 
 results. To a certain extent that experience is inde- 
 pendent, because I was working on the subject of text 
 before their book came out. The first-fruits of such work 
 as I did upon the subject may be seen in my book on the 
 Gospels in the Second Century, and I have by me at home 
 
PROFESSOR SAND AY 
 
 23 
 
 numbers of tables which I drew out for myself at that time. , 
 They were constructed on the principle of beginning with 
 what was easy, and going from easy readings to difficult 
 ones. This is another mistake which it seems to me has 
 been made by the supporters of the Received Text. They 
 pick out the salient points, and give you all the striking 
 readings. You are not led up to those readings, you are 
 led down to them from the Received Text, and I confess 
 I think that the other method is preferable. When you 
 have examined a number of easy readings you will find 
 principles will gradually form themselves in your mind. 
 Of course I have learnt more than 1 can say from Westcott 
 and Hort, and I should be only too glad to be allowed to 
 consider myself one of their disciples. But now in view of 
 Mr. Miller's recent books I think we may say that we have 
 two theories of the history of the text confronting each 
 other, this theory of Dr. Hort, and that presented by 
 Mr. Miller. Well, .1 confess that for myself I have no 
 doubt as to which deserves the preference. Mr. Miller will 
 forgive me if I say that history as it is presented by him 
 makes upon me the impression of an afterthought, whereas 
 in the case of Dr. Hort it was the very foundation of the 
 whole system. He had to work out the history as an 
 essential and integral part of the theory. I must just say 
 a few words in reply to the points raised by Mr. Miller, 
 and in support of that general view. Mr. Miller objects to 
 Dr. Hort's use of the term 'Texts.' I quite agree with 
 him that it is only a collective name for a number of 
 readings, but it does correspond to certain facts, certain 
 phenomena in the MSS, There is a tendency for MSS. 
 and for other authorities to form into groups, and. when 
 you come to examine the readings of those groups you 
 find certain common characteristics running through them. 
 That is all that it means. You may sit lightly to them, 
 especially in the matter of geography, as Mr. Miller 
 pointed out. That is one point. Then I understand that 
 Mr. Miller now lays stress on the authority of the Church 
 from the end of the fourth century onwards. I am not 
 
24 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 sure that I know exactly what he means. Does he think 
 there was an authorized edition? If so, it seems to me 
 hardly consistent with his criticism of what he calls the 
 ' phantom revisions,' because there is no trace of any such 
 authoritative revision. On the contrary, I should say you 
 find writers of that age occasionally referring to differences 
 of reading, and referring to them in the same way that 
 they had done before. They do not appeal to authority. 
 You may occasionally find the statement that the Church 
 reads so and so ; you may find that the ecclesiastical 
 copies have such and such a reading, but more often you 
 find the statement that the ancient copies read so and so. 
 I should like to give Mr. Miller one example. There is 
 a conspicuous reading in which St. Basil who was one of the 
 persons mentioned as supporting .this authoritative text — 
 
 Mr. Miller : — Yes, perhaps I may explain. I meant 
 merely the action going through the Church. 
 
 Professor Sandav : — You mean a gradual tendency ? 
 
 Mr. Miller: — I quite agree. I think it merely grew 
 up, so to speak. I ought to have guarded myself. 
 
 Professor Sanday : — I think you will find, when you 
 come to examine the matter, that Dr. Hort did not mean 
 anything more. I was just going to quote this particular 
 reading of St. Basil. I quite allow that St. Basil has a 
 good many readings which correspond with the Received 
 Text, but he also has a fair proportion of others, and you 
 remember the reading of the first verse of the Epistle 
 to the Ephesians, in which there is an omission of the 
 words kv 'E<f>4<Tf. The authorities for that omission are 
 Aleph and B, alone among the MSS., Origen and Basil, 
 the latter of whom also quotes ancient MSS. If you take 
 St. Jerome you will find the same appeal to MSS., and 
 in particular to the MSS. of Origen, Codices Adamantii et 
 Pierii. There is a special appeal made to them. I am 
 afraid that the view will not hold water that Aleph and B 
 represent the text of Origen. The text they really 
 represent is older than Origen, because there are a great 
 many examples of readings which Origen advocates 
 
PROFESSOR SAND AY 25 
 
 strongly, but which are not to be found in Aleph and B, 
 Origen reads ' Bethabara beyond Jordan ' ; Aleph and B 
 have 'Bethany.' In the case of the miracle of the 
 demoniac Origen reads ' Gergesenes,' and defends the 
 reading at considerable length, whereas Aleph and B have 
 ' Gadarenes.' It is true there is a large element of Aleph 
 and B which is attested by Origen. Then it is true there 
 is a tendency for the Text which is ultimately represented 
 in the Received Text, for the Traditional Text as it is 
 called, to gain ground in the latter part of the fourth 
 century, and you would no doubt find it to a considerable 
 extent in Gregory Nazianzen and Gregory of Nyssa. Of 
 course, according to Dr. Hort, the home of this Text 
 really is Antioch, whence it spread. The way in which 
 Dr. Hort accounts for its prevalence in later ages is not 
 by the fact that it was regarded as in any way authori- 
 tative, but simply because of the great influence which 
 Antioch exercised upon Constantinople at the end of the 
 century. You have St. Chrysostom transferred from 
 Antioch to Constantinople as Patriarch, and there are 
 a good many other points tending in the same direction. 
 Its prevalence, therefore, is accounted for partly in that 
 way, and partly also by the fact that the Church very 
 soon afterwards lost its other great provinces. You have 
 the wave of the Mahommedan invasion in the seventh 
 century. First Syria and Palestine were lost, and then 
 Egypt and Africa. Almost all the Christian provinces 
 were blotted out from the map, not entirely or absolutely, 
 but still to a very large extent. Constantinople became 
 the centre of the Christian world, and the Text which 
 prevailed there prevailed all over the Greek-speaking 
 world, because by that time, you will see, the West was 
 purely Latin, and Constantinople was I have no doubt 
 a great centre for the manufacture of MSS. That is the 
 way in which Dr. Hort would account for this set of facts. 
 To the prevalence of the Antiochene Text towards the 
 end of the century there are very large and important 
 fexceptions. The greatest critic of the age, St. Jerome, 
 
26 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 does not take that Text. Mr. White and Bishop Words- 
 worth have been investigating the character of the Greek 
 MSS. used by St. Jerome in his revision of the Greek Tes- 
 tament. I will not anticipate Mr. White's answer to this 
 question, but I do not think you will find it is Antiochene. 
 Then also I think it would be wrong to identify this Text 
 with the cause of orthodoxy. What greater champion 
 of orthodoxy have you than St. Cyril of Alexandria, and 
 yet you will find he very frequently sides with the two 
 condemned MSS., Aleph and B. Mr. Miller will, perhaps, 
 rather allow me to question that point among the 
 accusations he brought against those two MSS. The 
 number of readings which might be supposed to have 
 any taint of scepticism or heresy about them is exceed- 
 ingly small in these two MSS. They extend over the 
 whole of the New Testament, and readings which have 
 that kind of tendency are very few. To set against them 
 you have very striking examples which tell exactly the 
 other way ; for instance, the great reading, ixovoyev7]s &eos, 
 in the first chapter of John. Perhaps some day Mr. Miller 
 will collect and print a few examples, because, although he 
 refers to them in his book, he quotes exceedingly few, and 
 they are not really heresy, as heresy goes. Then, just to 
 bring things to an issue, as I say, Mr. Miller offers us 
 a reconstruction of the history of the Text, and Dr. Hort 
 offers the same. I admit that it is very largely hypo- 
 thetical ; but if Dr. Hort's view is correct, there is no 
 evidence at all of the existence of the particular kind of 
 Text which Mr. Miller prefers further back than the latter 
 part of the third or the beginning of the fourth century. 
 That is his contention — I know Mr. Miller would not allow 
 it for a moment — but he quotes examples of earlier readings, 
 of traditional readings, which are supported by earlier 
 authorities. All that is perfectly allowed for in Dr. Hort's 
 theory. His theory is simply based upon the phenomena 
 of MSS. You have three groups of authorities supporting 
 characteristic readings. There is a group represented by 
 Aleph and B, a group commonly known as the Western 
 
PROFESSOR SANDAY 27 
 
 Text, represented by Latin authorities, and primarily also 
 by Syriac authorities. There is no question at all that this 
 group is an exceedingly early one ; in any case it goes 
 back to the second pentury. You will find readings of that 
 character in writers of the second and third centuries in 
 great abundance. There is also a smaller group, more 
 difficult to distinguish, and yet which is a substantial group, 
 of what are called Alexandrian readings. There is no 
 question that these types of Text were all current in the 
 second and third centuries ; but when you come to look for 
 characteristic readings of what is called the Traditional 
 Text, you do not. find them before the fourth century, and 
 Dr. Hort's theory is that that Text was an eclectic Text, 
 produced by a comparison between and a combination of 
 those previously existing Texts. So if you get a tra- 
 ditional reading supported by early authorities, early MSS., 
 early Fathers, and so on. Dr. Hort would say at once, 
 ' That is a Western reading adopted in the Traditional Text.' 
 There are a great many Western readings which ,are not 
 adopted, but a certain proportion of them are. So that 
 what I say is, that it is all allowed for ; you may be quite 
 sure that all these phenomena are allowed for in Dr. Hort's 
 theory. And when I have said that my own experience 
 went to confirm that, all I mean is this : not that there are 
 not a great number of open questions and many doubtful 
 readings, in regard to which it is difficult to make up one's 
 mind, but one has very little difficulty indeed in putting 
 all the phenomena which come before one into their place 
 in the theory. Thus the Lewis MS., which was discovered 
 the other day, and which is of extreme importance, takes 
 its place at once in the scheme of Texts, and its discovery 
 would not have affected Dr. Hort's conclusions, except to 
 a very infinitesimal degree, because it had all been allowed 
 for beforehand. I am afraid I must say that Mr. Miller's 
 presentation of the history of Texts is not one which we can 
 accept just as it stands. Those readings require a great 
 deal of scrutiny ; it is a delicate and a difficult matter to 
 decide regarding them, especially the further back you go. 
 
28 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 An instance has just come before me. I have had occasion 
 to work at Hilary, who is one of the authorities for reading 
 6 fiovoyevris uto's in St. John i. i8. It is perfectly true he 
 quotes the passage two or three times, and always in that 
 way, and no doubt that was the reading of the Western MS. 
 But repeatedly — you may count the examples by the score 
 — he has that remarkable phrase Unigenitus Deus. One 
 reading he got from the Latin MSS., and the other from 
 some other source ; probably during his travels in the East 
 he may have heard it pass from mouth to mouth. There 
 is one question Mr. Miller has raised which is of consider- 
 able importance, viz. the character of the Peshitto, which is 
 the sheet anchor of Mr. Miller's theory. It is the oldest 
 text in any case which is of that particular type. So you 
 see it is a question of considerable importance when this 
 version was made. Was it made towards the end of the 
 third century, or was it made in the second ? No doubt it 
 is an argument, cind an argument of considerable weight, 
 which impresses the imagination, to quote the fact that 
 there were so many MSS. of the Peshitto in existence as 
 early as the sixth century, and even one or two I think in 
 the fifth century. Still this is not supported by the evidence 
 of ecclesiastical writers, and in any case there is no proof 
 that the Peshitto goes back to anything like the second 
 century. I have only two other short points with which to 
 deal. One is the question of conflation. Mr. Miller threw 
 out a challenge to the followers of Dr. Hort to produce at 
 least thirty typical instances of his theory of conflation. 
 I think the number is a very good estimate ; I do not 
 suppose there are many more than thirty. I am speaking 
 at a guess. I dare say there may not be more than that 
 number ; but what of that ? If Mr. Miller will allow me 
 to say so, he did not represent Dr. Hort quite justly when 
 he said this wag a phenomenon running all through the 
 Gospels. Dr. Hort would not profess that it ran all through 
 the Gospels. What he says is that occasionally you do 
 find these combined readings — a double reading, repre-: 
 senting, say, one the Western Text and the other the reading 
 
MR. GWILLIAM. 29 
 
 of Aleph and B, or what might be called the Alexandrian 
 reading. It is not by any means a constant phenomenon. 
 Whatever person or whatever school produced the Tradi- 
 tional Text, did not systematically combine the Texts. They 
 were combined occasionally, and that is all one can say. 
 Also I am prepared to admit for myself that the conflations 
 are not conclusive proof of the rightness of Dr. Hort's 
 theory ; they could only belong to the region of hypothesis. 
 It is all hypothesis. I confess I feel strongly for myself 
 that Dr. Hort's view represents the more probable side of 
 the hypothesis, but at the same time I do not regard them 
 standing alone as conclusive. I will end by venturing to 
 do what Dr. Hort, with his great care and circumspection, 
 has never done. It constantly seems as if his argument was 
 leading up to it, but he never lets the name pass his lips. 
 He thinks there was a revision of some kind ; that is simply 
 a way of describing the phenomena of the MSS. on what 
 appears to be the easiest hypothesis as to their origin. He 
 thinks that a kind of revision took place at that time, and 
 was a more or less continuous revision. I confess it has 
 always seemed to me that that revision was probably' 
 connected with Lucian of Antioch and his school, which 
 exercised great influence all through the fourth century. 
 This type of text is prominent in his disciples, most promi- 
 nent indeed in Theodore of Mopsuestia, where it reaches its 
 culmination. The school was in close contact with the 
 Syriac-speaking Churches and writers, and I have always 
 suspected, although I cannot prove it, that this Traditional 
 Text, of which Mr. Miller is so fond, owes its. origin 
 ultimately to Lucian of Antioch. 
 
 The Rev. G. H, Gwilliam (Fellow of Hertford) said : — 
 I suppose I may as well, in the first place, declare on what 
 side I am going to speak, although I shall not trouble you 
 by entering very much into the question, as it has hitherto 
 been discussed by Mr. Miller and the Margaret Professor. 
 But I have not the least hesitation in standing up in 
 support of Dean Burgon and Mr. Miller. It is very 
 pleasant to cast aside labour and to disregard a number 
 
30 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 of MSS., confining oneself to a few. That is the principle 
 of Lachmann, and is in fact what we are invited to do 
 by the school of Dr. Hort. I shall not attempt to comment 
 upon anything which has been said by the Margaret Pro- 
 fessor, but I will express my surprise at one remark which 
 fell constantly from his lips. Dr. Sanday constantly spoke 
 of Aleph and B as if they agreed in text. I thought 
 everybody knew they do not always agree, and therefore 
 must not be brought as one authority. They are two 
 discordant witnesses. 
 
 Professor Sanday (intervening): — May I be allowed 
 to explain ? What Mr. Gwilliam says is perfectly true, in 
 regard to the agreement of Aleph and B. Dr. Hort laid 
 stress upon their differences and quoted them as two 
 authorities, but Mr. Miller is glad to quote them as only 
 one. No doubt 'at a certain point Aleph and B had a 
 common ancestor, and it is a question how near that 
 ancestor was to the Autograph on the one hand and the 
 actual MSS. on the other. I perfectly allow that there 
 is a considerable amount of difference as well, but that 
 tells in favour of Dr. Hort rather than against him. 
 
 Mr. Gwilliam : — I do not care in whose favour the 
 difference tells ; I want to arrive at the truth. I maintain 
 that there is a difference between Aleph and B, and indeed 
 between all the oldest MSS. ; and I suppose it is in con- 
 sequence of these differences that an appeal is to be made 
 to the Versions. For if there were not these differences 
 between the MSS. I presume we might base our Text 
 upon the Greek MSS. only, and not appeal to translations 
 at all. I think the importance of the Versions may be 
 greatly exaggerated — I speak from my own point of view, 
 and the Margaret Professor will not agree with me. When 
 we have a mass of MSS. handing down to us the Text 
 of the New Testament, what occasion is there to go to 
 the Latin or Egyptian, or what Dr. Sanday was courteous 
 enough to call the sheet anchor of Mr. Miller's position, 
 the Peshitto ? This is a subject which demands consider- 
 able attention and is not one to be lightly treated in 
 
MR. GWILLIAM- 31 
 
 half an hour. Why should I speak ? I would venture to 
 remind you that I have already written upon the subject 
 in several different publications, and it is a very significant 
 circumstance that none has ever attempted to refute any- 
 thing I have said. The sensitiveness of some people about 
 the Peshitto is very remarkable. Having occasion to write 
 in the second volume of the Studia Biblica, which came 
 out in 1890, on a certain Syriac subject, I made some 
 remarks upon the value of the Peshitto. A certain mem- 
 ber of the University said he should be very sorry for 
 such remarks on the subject to issue from the Clarendon 
 Press. In spite of that the remarks did issue and are 
 extant to the present day. In the third volume of the 
 Studia Biblica I more fully discussed the question ; and 
 I may venture to refer those who are interested in the 
 subjected to an article which I wrote upon the same 
 subject in the Critical Review for June, 1896. Lachmann, 
 I believe, said he did not know Syriac, and did not mean 
 to study it. In that he was right, for the Greek MSS. 
 were quite enough for the settlement of the Text of the 
 Greek Testament. Tregelles made a great mistake when 
 he said the Syrians constantly revised their MSS. In 
 co-operation with the late Philip Pusey I set to work to 
 discover what the truth was, and found they did not so 
 revise them. But there is a mass of evidence carrying 
 the Syriac Text back to very early times, and supporting 
 what the Margaret Professor has been kind enough to call 
 the sheet anchor of the position. My friend, Mr. Crawford 
 Burkitt, read a paper before the Church Congress at Norwich, 
 and apologized in a private letter to me for being dog- 
 matic, on the ground that he had not time to argue the 
 question. I cannot allow dogmatism to be on one gide. 
 I accepted the apology, and in the same spirit I shall be 
 extremely dogmatic now, for I cannot argue the question 
 in five minutes, and I say that the Curetonian and Lewis 
 MSS. were not the origin of the Peshitto as we have it. 
 The Margaret Professor spoke of them together as if they 
 represented one kmd of translation. If he will be so kind 
 
32 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 as to study a book which has been published by a certain 
 gentleman I have the pleasure of seeing in this room, in 
 which the two are compared, he will see that the Lewis 
 and the Curetonian MSS. were not two MSS. of some 
 one version which necessarily preceded the Peshitto. The 
 Margaret Professor very pertinently referred to the prin- 
 ciple of Dr. Hort, that to understand a text we must 
 understand its history. We can know something of the 
 history of the Peshitto. We have these many MSS. and 
 can collate them, and trace out the history, as Pusey 
 and I have, done. May I ask those who do not agree with 
 me to remember that I have never said the Peshitto was 
 not preceded by some other form of text. All I say is 
 that we have not got it now, and that the Lewis and 
 Curetonian MSS. were not the origin of the Peshitto. 
 These things I state dogmatically, but I have stated the 
 reasons and argued the point on previous occasions. It 
 appears to me that the difference between my position 
 and those who disagree with the late Philip Pusey and 
 myself is this : They offer conjectures, while we offer argu- 
 ments ; they deal in surmises, while we collect and tabulate 
 and set before the world facts. 
 
 The Rev. A. C. Headlam : — May I ask what evidence 
 Mr. Gwilliam can produce of the early date of the Peshitto, 
 and how far back that evidence will carry it ? 
 
 Mr. Gwilliam : — At least it carries us back to the fifth 
 century, and it may be granted that the translation was 
 not made before the second century. Have you any MSS. 
 of Sophocles which carry you back to the date of his 
 original writings ? 
 
 Mr. Allen said: — In venturing to speak of the relation of 
 the Lewis Codex and the Curetonian Syriac to the Peshitto 
 I do so with the consciousness that I have not made that 
 thorough and systematic examination of the material which 
 alone can enable any one to speak with authority upon 
 a matter still under debate. But since, with hardly an 
 exception, almost every writer who has discussed the 
 question from the linguistic point of view has found reason 
 
MR. ALLEN 33 
 
 to assert with some emphasis, that the internal evidence in 
 favour of the priority of the Lewis and Curetonian MSS. 
 to the Peshitto is clear and unmistakable, I venture to 
 restate some of the reasons for a position which my own 
 slight acquaintance with the evidence persuades me is well 
 grounded. 
 
 There is one point which I shall assume as proved 
 because I do not know that any one (Hilgenfeld alone 
 excepted) has ever seriously disputed it. That is, that the 
 Lewis Codex, the Curetonian, and the Peshitto are three 
 recensions of one and . the same version. This I imagine 
 will hardly come within the scope of our consideration 
 to-day. The point that this afternoon may be considered as 
 still open, is the question whether the Lewis Codex and 
 the Curetonian represent prior stages in the development 
 of the Peshitto text, or whether they are corrupted 
 recensions dependent upon it. The following are reasons 
 for holding the former view. I have had occasion from 
 time to time to make use of Mr. Bonus' valuable collation 
 of the Lewis Codex with the Curetonian, and I have found 
 reason to believe that the order in which the three 
 recensions are placed upon his pages, the Lewis Codex 
 first, the Curetonian in the middle, and the Peshitto last, 
 can be justified as the historical order. The Curetonian 
 gives us a text intermediate between the other two. As 
 a test passage I have selected St. Matthew iv. 1-17, partly 
 because the first twelve verses are discussed in Holzhey's 
 monograph upon the subject, partly because I had 
 previously worked through the same passage in my own 
 note-books, and could therefore test my results by his. 
 
 I find that in these seventeen verses the Peshitto agrees 
 with the Curetonian against the Lewis Codex about 
 twenty-six times, with the Lewis against the Curetonian 
 about thirteen times. That is to say, the Curetonian stands 
 very much nearer to the Peshitto than does the Lewis 
 Codex. Now is it possible that the right order is Peshitto, 
 Curetonian, Lewis ? or that the Curetonian and Lewis are 
 two independent offshoots of the Peshitto? The latter 
 
 D 
 
34 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 hypothesis is precluded by the close verbal agreement of 
 the Lewis and Curetonian against the Peshitto, the former 
 by some cases where the Lewis Codex has a harsh or 
 unexpected rendering which cannot be explained as an 
 alteration of the Peshitto-Curetonian Text, but are intelli- 
 gible if the Lewis Codex formed the first stage in the 
 series. Such are verse 6, 'fall from hence,' altered by 
 the Curetonian into ' cast thyself down,' in agreement with 
 the Greek Text ; ' arms ' in the same verse, which in the 
 Peshitto become 'hands'; v. 9, 'these kingdoms and their 
 glory thou seest ' altered in the Curetonian into ' all these 
 things ' ; verse 16, 'in sadness and in the shadows of death,' 
 of which the first word is omitted in Curetonian, and is 
 changed in the Peshitto into an equivalent of the Greek x<i>pq. 
 It is of course difficult to prove much from a section of 
 seventeen verses only, and I do not mean to say that diffi- 
 culties do not sometimes arise which it is not easy to explain, 
 the cases e. g. where the Peshitto and Lewis combine 
 against the Curetonian. But every page of the Gospels 
 confirms the impression made as it seems to me by the 
 passage I have discussed that the Lewis Codex represents 
 a prior stage in the Version, that it has been subjected to 
 revision in the Curetonian, and that this again has been 
 revised to harmonize with the Greek Text. And this might 
 be supported by such considerations as that the Lewis 
 Codix gives a much shorter text than that of the Curetonian^ 
 and that cases occur where renderings in Lewis which seem 
 to be mistranslations of the. Greek have been corrected 
 either in the Curetonian and the Peshitto or in the latter 
 only: e.g. — 
 
 Matt. xii. 35 etSobs 
 John xviii. 4 „ 
 Matt, xviii. 30 oS 
 Mark x. 40 aW oh 
 Luke iv. 39 Kpr\y.vlaa\. 
 John vii. 35 biaenropAv 
 
 If I were discussing the question from a general point of 
 
 L. C. ' saw,' 
 
 P. 'knew.' 
 
 L. 
 
 P. „ 
 
 L. ' not ' 
 
 C. P. 'where.' 
 
 L. 'for others,' 
 
 P. = Gk 
 
 L. 'hang,' 
 
 P. 'cast.' 
 
 L. C. 'seed,' 
 
 P. 'places.' 
 
MR. BONUS 
 
 35 
 
 view I should of course endeavour to support what has 
 been said by the additional arguments, that the, type of 
 text found in the Lewis and Curetonian MSS. finds 
 analogies in such early witnesses as the Diatessaron of 
 Tatian and the quotations of Aphraates, further, that it 
 often finds support in the earliest Greek MSS. and in the 
 Old Latin Versions ; but arguments of this kind open up 
 questions which are for this afternoon debatable ground, 
 and which have been previously discussed. 
 
 In conclusion, I should like to say that the argument 
 against the possibility of the Lewis Codex being a direct 
 link in the development of the Peshitto Text, on the 
 ground of the supposed heretical tendencies of its writer, 
 seems to me unsound and dangerous. If it be true that 
 truth precedes error, it is equally true that inaccurate and 
 unguarded statement of truth has sometimes preceded the 
 scientific expression of it. In a Version of the Gospels so 
 accurate and careful as is the Lewis Codex, the few ex- 
 pressions with which fault has been found can at most have 
 a colour of heresy when detached from their context and 
 isolated. Until we have further evidence which will force 
 us to conclude that the scribe of this codex was heretically 
 inclined, it seems to be more reasonable to look upon these 
 expressions as primitive methods of expression which were 
 afterwards modified. Of course I do not mean that they 
 give us the true reading, but only that they represent 
 a very early stage in the history of the Syriac Text, and 
 that to urge that the Lewis Codex is a corrupted recension 
 of the Peshitto on dogmatic grounds is to misread the 
 evidence. Even if in such case it is certain that the 
 Peshitto retains the true reading and the Lewis Codex 
 a corrupted one, it may still be true that as far as the 
 Syriac Versions are concerned the Lewis Codex presents us 
 with an earlier form of text which has been modified in the 
 Peshitto to harmonize with the Greek Text. 
 
 The Rev. a. Bonus (Pembroke): — In the very short 
 time allowed me I can only make a few brief observations. 
 Referring for a moment to what has just been said, I should 
 
 D 3 
 
36 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 like to point out that in the places where the Lewis and 
 Curetonian MSS. differ, the latter agree or tend to agree 
 with the Peshitto in SS. Matthew and John many more 
 times than Lewis agrees or tends to agree with the Peshitto 
 in the same Gospels ; whereas in St. Luke th'e respective 
 agreements or tendencies to agreement between Cureton 
 and the Peshitto, and between Lewis and the Peshitto, are 
 fairly equal. This is a remarkable circumstance, which 
 demands careful attention. Connected with this there is 
 another point of interest. Lewis, as you are aware, 
 is characterized in parts by the use of the word 'Lord' 
 instead of the word 'Jesus.' This is the case in St. 
 Matthew, and especially in St. John — I am speaking of 
 course of those parts only of Lewis and Cureton which are 
 available for comparison — but in St. Luke the case seems 
 reversed. Thus, whilst in St. Matthew and St. John Lewis 
 inclined to the use of ' Lord ' and Cureton to the use of 
 ' Jesus,' in St. Luke Lewis inclined to the use of ' Jesus ' and 
 Cureton to the use of 'Lord.' These, and- some other 
 kindred facts which my collation of the Syriac Gospels 
 brought before me, are important. Do they not indicate 
 that the texts of Lewis and of Cureton are not homo- 
 geneous, or at least that they have been subjected to 
 a varying textual influence ? 
 
 Turning to the Peshitto problem, I should like to say in 
 a few words how the case seems to me to stand. It is 
 generally allowed — I believe by Dr. Sanday among others — 
 that MSS. and quotations carry back our knowledge of the 
 Peshitto roughly speaking to the beginning of the fourth 
 century, say for convenience A.D. 310; and the question is 
 how and when did it come into existence. It would appear 
 that there were, speaking broadly, only two alternatives 
 containing four possibilities — revision or translation. It 
 might then have been the result of the revision of previously 
 existing Syriac texts — a revision conducted gradually, 
 without any one authority; a revision extending over 
 a long period of time, until at last the Peshitto, as we know 
 it, was evolved. The objection to this theory seems to be 
 
MR. BONUS 37 
 
 that there are no traces of such a revision ; if such a process 
 has been gone through, it is next to certain that there will 
 be extensive traces of it in the Peshitto MSS. — traces of 
 irregular revision and of mixture. And if any one says, 
 ' Well, you have the antecedents of the Peshitto in Lewis 
 and Cureton,' that is not the point. The point is that no 
 Peshitto MS. shows any signs of mixture or of irregular 
 revision ; for Mr. Gwilliam and the late Mr. Pusey appear 
 to be quite correct in saying that the variations between 
 Peshitto MSS. are insignificant and are largely only slight 
 changes in grammatical forms. This appears to be the 
 place to remark that I cannot understand how any one can 
 suppose, in the language of Dr. Hort, that ' the Syriac 
 Version, like the Latin Version, underwent revision long 
 after its origin.' The facts seem scarcely at all parallel 
 In the case of the Latin there is historical evidence of 
 revision; in the case of the Peshitto none. In the case 
 of the Latin there are in existing MSS. abundant traces of 
 sporadic and casual mixture, and of irregular revision ; 
 there is nothing of the kind in the Peshitto MS. 
 ' Professor Sanday (intervening): — Nobody has ever 
 contended that the Peshitto itself was revised, except in the 
 later forms of the Version known as the Philoxenian and 
 Harclean, but that it was the product of a revision. An 
 analogous case is that of Codex Brixianus and a small 
 group of Latin authorities, which go far to show that there 
 was a revision of the Latin Version before the time of 
 Jerome, of which nothing is known historically ^- 
 
 Mr. Bonus: — Of course, where everything is in the 
 dark we can suppose anything. Turning to the second 
 possibility under the first alternative, the Peshitto may be 
 the outcome of an authoritative revision of the Syriac 
 Text. This appears to be Dr. Hort's view, and Dr. Hort 
 seems inclined to suppose that it may have taken place not 
 far from 300 A.D., that is soon after the supposed first 
 Syrian (Greek) revision. I have always felt that there 
 
 ' This explanation was not expressed quite accurately at the time, but is 
 given here in the form which it should have taken. 
 
 »3 
 
38 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 were at least two formidable objections to this theory, for 
 while fully recognizing the precariousness of arguing from 
 silence, it is certainly hard to understand, if such an 
 authoritative revision had taken place at so comparatively 
 late a date, why no notice was taken of it by Syriac 
 writers. Nor is there merely the difficulty of accounting 
 for the silence of Syriac writers as to any such definite 
 revision, but there is the further difiSculty — supposing such 
 a revision had been made — of accounting for their silence 
 as to any authoritative removal of ' old Syriac ' Texts and 
 the imposition of the revised Text on the Syriac Churches, 
 and on the supposition of a definite authoritative revision 
 something of this kind must have taken place. We are 
 told of the removal of Tatian's work, and of the Philoxenian 
 revision. Why are we not told of this important change? 
 The argument from silence must no doubt be used with 
 caution, but under the circumstances a ' consensus of 
 silence,' as some one has phrased it, deserves serious con- 
 sideration. The first possibility of the second alternative 
 is that the Peshitto may be a direct translation made from 
 the Greek somewhere about 300 A.D., that is soon after 
 Dr. Hort's supposed first Syriac (Greek) revision, and 
 based upon that revision. But the objections to the 
 previous suppositions apply with equal force to this. 
 Lastly, there is the possibility that the Peshitto is a direct 
 translation from the Greek made at a time long anterior to 
 300 A.D., at a time that is to say when literary and 
 ecclesiastical activity in the Syriac Churches was, by com- 
 parison with that of a later age, feeble, when, in the 
 language of Canon Cook, ' such a transaction might have 
 escaped notice or have been passed over as of slight 
 historical importancie, not bearing upon the external or- 
 ganization of the Church, or upon controversies which 
 occupied almost exclusively the minds of its chief repre- 
 sentatives.' In conclusion, the only reasonable interpreta- 
 tion of the evidence — largely negative and inferential, no 
 doubt — seems to be that the Peshitto, whether it were the 
 result of revision or whether it were a direct translation 
 
MR. HEADLAM 39 
 
 from the Greek, must have come into existence long 
 before the beginning of the fourth century- -scarcely later 
 than the latter half of the second century. But if this 
 were so, the Greek text on which it was based must have 
 existed at or before that date. I may add that I quite 
 admit that Texts like those of Lewis or Cureton may have 
 existed in the second century, but even if it were beyond 
 doubt that Aphraates and Tatian used only such Texts that 
 would be no evidence that the Peshitto Text did not exist 
 when either of those writers lived. We could merely argue 
 that if the Peshitto then existed it was not in the proper 
 sense of the word a Vulgate. 
 
 The Rev, A. C. Headlam (All Souls) said :— I have 
 worked for a considerable time in some small portions 
 of the Bible on Textual Criticism, and I have always 
 done so, as far as I could, with my eyes open and with 
 a great desire not to be prejudiced in favour of any one 
 theory; but I have found the more I have tested them 
 the stronger the arguments of Westcott and Hort have 
 seemed to appear. There are certain definite scientific 
 arguments which they used, and I have read writers on 
 the other side, and have tried in vain to find them answered, » 
 but I have rarely found them even understood. That is 
 of course only giving my own impression. There is one 
 line upon which I am quite unable to follow the arguments, 
 and that is upon the relative dates of the Peshitto and 
 the Curetonian. Mr. Gwilliam and others constantly 
 asserted that all the arguments were against Westcott and 
 Hort. I have listened with great care to what has been 
 said to-day, and I particularly asked Mr. Gwilliam for the 
 evidence of the early date of the Peshittb. I saw at once 
 that the evidence he quoted was perfectly useless. He 
 told us his evidence dated back as far as the fifth century, 
 and argued that therefore it must go back to the second, 
 further saying that there was a clear Text without any 
 sign of mixture. Upon referring to the earliest Texts of 
 the Vulgate you will find those Texts possess hardly any 
 signs of mixture. Mixture means that a Text has grown 
 
40 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM . 
 
 up and had a long history. If in the fifth century there 
 were a considerable number of MSS. of the Peshitto which 
 agreed in a remarkable manner, that shows almost con- 
 clusively that the Texts must have been derived from one 
 source, which could not have been very remote. A common 
 argument used with regard to the Gospels is that the 
 extraoirdinary variety of Texts which confront us, oblige 
 us to throw back the composition of the documents to 
 a very early stage. Mr, Gwilliam's argument compels me 
 to think that the Peshitto must be of a comparatively 
 recent date, and must come from an authoritative edition. 
 I have also listened carefully to Mr. Bonus' argument. 
 It is admitted on both sides that we might go back to 
 the beginning of the fourth century. We want some 
 evidence to connect the Peshitto with an earlier period. 
 If you are going to make that document any evidence 
 at all to overthrow Dr. Hort's conclusions, you must show 
 conclusively that it existed at an earlier period. You 
 cannot overthrow a body of statements built up on a 
 groundwork of facts by mere surmises. That is exactly 
 the position in which we are with regard to the Syriac. 
 I have tried to find any arguments which would tell 
 against Westcott and Hort, and I find that practically 
 Mr. Gwilliam and Mr. Bonus repeat statements which 
 Westcott and Hort would be the very first to admit. I had 
 hoped that the discussion would turn upon further interest- 
 ing questions which have lately arisen. Dr. Salmon's book 
 on Textual Criticism brings us to this position — he criticizes 
 Westcott and Hort, but practically accepts the great con- 
 tention which separates him from Mr. Miller; he accepts 
 in some form or other the Antiochene revision, though, 
 like Professor Sanday and Dr. Hort himself, he does not 
 think it was quite such a formal revision as some of those 
 who attack the theory think. He then tries to find out 
 whether in certain points the authority of the Western 
 Text cannot be set up. That is really the point at issue 
 before scholars at the present day, whether the Western 
 Text does not really contain some considerable element 
 
MR. HEADLAM 41 
 
 of truth. Personally I cannot think it does. Various 
 attempts which have been put forward to set up that 
 Text have failed almost entirely in the main argument, 
 but this much is true, that Occasionally as it gives 
 independent tradition it will contain readings which 
 are possibly true, and may help us to correct in certain 
 points the readings of the other group. But it will 
 do so probably as against the Traditional Text, and 
 not in its favour. That is the conclusion I have 
 arrived at from a careful study of portions of St. Paul's 
 Epistles. Here I may add that Dr. Sanday did not refer 
 to the fact that the conclusion we came to with regard to 
 one MS., ' B,' was that we ought to be very careful in using 
 it, because it was found that from time to time the MS. 
 had been exposed, especially in the Epistles, to certain 
 corrupt influences. As a matter of fact, sometimes wheii 
 the MS. stands quite alone and is unsupported by any other 
 authorities, it gives a reading which in some small point, 
 where one would hardly expect it to occur, was that which 
 in all probability was an original reading. One has to be 
 very cautious indeed abodt taking a reading upon the 
 authority of a single MS., but sometimes we feel inclined 
 to do so. Mr. Miller has asked the question what the 
 classical scholar would do when face to face with the mass 
 of evidence contained in the New Testament. We happen 
 to know what a classical scholar has done. Dr. Blass 
 came as a classical scholar to the study of the New 
 Testament and of the Acts of the Apostles. The very 
 first thing, he did was to sweep away a whole mass of later 
 authorities, saying that to a classical student like himself, 
 coming to such good authorities as the New Testament 
 was preserved in, it seemed perfectly useless to consider 
 those later authorities which clearly contained a mixed 
 text. As a matter of fact, in the case of most classical 
 texts now, authorities have discovered that the mass of 
 MSS. are derived from one single authority, and it is 
 very rarely indeed that any attention is paid to the great 
 majority of them. 
 
42 DEBATE ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM 
 
 Prebendary Miller : — I have only a very few words 
 to say in reply. With respect to the last remark, I think 
 what Dr. Blass did can hardly be justified. It is quite* 
 true that that is what a classical scholar has done, but 
 it is surely throwing away evidence which he has no 
 right to do. You might easily go to another scholar, 
 Lachmann, who did the same. They have thought it 
 impossible to deal with so much evidence. It seems to 
 me that it is a very poor reason for casting away a great 
 quantity of evidence because it is beyond your powers 
 to deal with it in one age. Turning to the other point, 
 the Peshitto, it is very curious that there should be 
 such a difference between those who think the Peshitto 
 came from the first, and those who say they cannot find 
 any evidence to show that such was the case. We trace 
 it back in line of evidence. It occurs in the readings of 
 Aphraates, and Ephraem Syrus according to dccounts, but 
 there is no time to argue the question now. I would rather 
 refer to an article in the Church Quarterly at)d to a chapter 
 in my first volume. But there is one thing I think ought 
 to be borne in mind, that the Peshitto has not got the 
 diTiXeyo/^eya, or books once not universally received, and 
 that is a very strong reason for supposing that the transla- 
 tion from the Greek took place at a very early date — indeed, 
 before those books were generally in use. I think I said 
 we hold there was no authoritative revision of the Greek, 
 but that the revision merely grew by itself. With respect 
 to Movoyei/^s Qi^os, my views have been put forth in my 
 second volume, to which Dr. Sanday referred. That read- 
 ing we hold was introduced by Valentinus for heretical 
 purposes, and it is no credit to these MSS. to bring it 
 forward. Again, he said that history as it is presented by 
 us was an afterthought. Let me say, that as far as I am 
 concerned, that is in no wise the case^. There was another 
 
 • I made an ineffectual attempt in 1882 to review Westcott and Hort's 
 theory mainly from' an historical point of view, and the historical jiart of my 
 ' Textual Guide ' was singled out for special praise by Dean Burgon, whose 
 own arguments have much thatis historical in them. 
 
PREBkNDARY MILLER 43 
 
 difficulty, you will all remember, in our argument. We 
 were obliged to argue against a great number of scholars, 
 to whose eminence, ability, and knowledge I wish to pay 
 the greatest tribute. Both those volumes are necessarily 
 argumentative. That is not a case where you are so likely 
 to make limitations and look in a wider and more con- 
 ciliatory way. I hope therefore that this consideration 
 will be remembered when any attention is turned to that 
 point. I am very much surprised to find that Dr. Sanday 
 says that Conflation is not a process running through the 
 Gospels. It is quite true Westcott and Hort do not 
 actually say so, but there is great prominence given to 
 Conflation in their work. I expect Dr. Sanday has been 
 guided very much by his own experience of it, and has 
 come to the conclusion that it does not go very far. I am 
 quite sure anybody reading Dr. Hort's book will infer that 
 it holds a very integral place in his theory, and is very 
 important in that theory. I do not think it can be justified, 
 and I am delighted to feel that Dr. Sanday agrees with me 
 upon this point. I do not think it is necessary, after all the 
 argument we have had, to discuss further the subject^. 
 
 ' Mr. Miller intended to add more remarks, but was prevented by the 
 inexorable approach of the College dinner-hour, which indeed curtailed his 
 reply throughout. Inevitable limits of time hampered all the speakers. 
 
The 
 Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, 
 
 VINDICATED AND ESTABLISHED. 
 Demy 8vo, los. 6d. net. 
 
 Volume II. 
 
 The Causes of the Corruption 
 
 in the 
 
 Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. 
 
 Demy 8vo, los. 6d. net. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 JOHN WILLIAM BURGON, B.D., 
 
 Dean of Chichester 
 
 Arranged, Completed, and Edited by EDWARD MILLER, M.A., 
 
 Wykehamical Prebendary of Chichester Cathedral; Author of 
 
 'A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.' 
 
 TO BE HAD SEPARATELY. 
 
 LONDON: GEORGE BELL & SONS. 
 CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL & CO, 
 
y/f. ^^.A/frr'nmm