case it cannot be denied that, in the introductory volume,
Dr. Hort has shown too distinct a tendency to elevate probable hypotheses
into the realm of established facts. Dr. Salmon specifies one, and that
a very far-reaching instance, in which, in the debatable question whether
there really was an authoritative revision of the so-called Syrian text
at about A.D. 350, Dr. Hort speaks of this Syrian revision as a _vera
causa_, as opposed to a hypothetical possibility. This tendency in a
subject so complicated as that of textual criticism must be taken note of
by the student, and must introduce some element of hesitation in the
acceptance of confidently expressed decisions when the subject-matter may
still be very plainly debatable.
In the second place, in the really important matter of the nomenclature
of the ancient types of text which, since the days of Griesbach, and to
some extent before him, have been recognized by all critical scholars, it
does not seem possible to accept the titles of the fourfold division of
these families of manuscripts which have been adopted by Westcott and
Hort. Griesbach, as is well known, adopted the terms Western,
Alexandrian, and Constantinopolitan, for which there is much to be said.
Westcott and Hort recognize four groups. To the first and considerably
the largest they give the title of Syrian, answering to some extent to
the Constantinopolitan of Griesbach; to the second they continue the
title of Western; to the third they give the title of Alexandrian, though
of a numerically more restricted character than the Alexandrian of
Griesbach; to the fourth, an exceedingly small group, apparently
consisting of practically not more than two members, they give the title
of Neutral, as being free alike from Syrian, Western, and Alexandrian
characteristics. On this Neutral family or group Westcott and Hort lay
the greatest critical stress, and in it they place the greatest reliance.
Such is their distribution, and such the names they give to the families
into which manuscripts are to be divided and grouped.
The objections to this arrangement and to this nomenclature are, as Dr.
Salmon very clearly shows, both reasonable and serious. In the first
place, the title Syrian, though Dr. Salmon allows it to pass, is very
misleading, especially to the student. It is liable to be confounded
with the term Syriac, with which it has not and is not intended to have
any special connexion, and it fails
|