THE POSITION OF F. H. A. Scrivener on Textual Criticism - Glenn Conjurske

THE POSITION OF

F. H. A. Scrivener on Textual Criticism

by Glenn Conjurske

Both sides in the debate over the true principles of textual criticism have been anxious to claim Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener. By “both sides” I refer to J. W. Burgon and his few disciples on the one side, and Westcott and Hort and their innumerable disciples on the other side. Edward Miller, a disciple of Burgon, and the editor of his posthumous works, unhesitatingly claims Scrivener, though with a little qualification. Miller says, “The leaders in the advocacy of this system have been Dr. Scrivener in a modified degree, and especially Dean Burgon.” The “modified degree” of Scrivener’s views probably consisted in the sole fact that he gave more weight to the ancient uncials than Burgon did, though this may generally have made little practical difference. But in the rare instances where the more ancient evidence in general stands united against the more modern manuscripts in general, Scrivener would likely adopt the ancient reading, while Burgon’s bias would probably lead him to favor the modern. The bias of Westcott and Hort, on the other hand, and most of the modern editors with them, led them to prefer almost any scrap of ancient evidence, against the majority of ancient and modern manuscripts alike, so long as it overturned the traditional text. Thus, for example, as I have pointed out in these pages before, in Rev. 5:9 the modern editors take A virtually alone, against everything else (including a). This is the kind of thing which Philip Schaff naively calls “the older uncial text” (see below).

The side of the modern editors has also done its best to claim Scrivener, and has in fact done a little better at it than the facts will allow. Philip Schaff, professor in Union Theological Seminary, and member of the New Testament company of (American) revisers, which produced the old American Standard Version, says of Scrivener, “He is the most learned representative of the conservative school of textual criticism, but is gradually and steadily approaching the position of the modern critics in exchanging the textus receptus for the older uncial text. He frankly confesses `that there was a time when he believed that the inconveniences and dangers attending a formal revision of the Bible of 16ll exceeded in weight any advantages which might accrue from it;’ that `his judgment has been influenced, though slowly and with some reluctance, by the growing necessity for a change imposed by the rapid enlargement of the field of biblical knowledge within the last forty years;’ and that `his new opinion has been not a little confirmed by the experience he has gained while actually engaged upon the execution of the work.’ And as regards the text, he says, after enumerating the recent discoveries of MSS.: `When these and a flood of other documents, including the more ancient Syriac, Latin, and Coptic versions, are taken into account, many alterations in the Greek text cannot but be made, unless we please to close our eyes to the manifest truth.”’

Concerning this I observe first of all that the question of the revision of the English Bible has nothing to do with the subject, and for Schaff to introduce this with the words “he frankly confesses,” immediately after asserting that his views on textual criticism were changing, can only indicate that Schaff was either confused himself, or designed to confuse others. The two issues are not the same, and to use Scrivener’s avowal of a change of views regarding the revision of the English Bible to support his own opinion concerning Scrivener’s change of views on textual criticism is hardly fair.

Neither is it fair to make it an issue of “exchanging the textus receptus for the older uncial text.” Sometimes, indeed, the textus receptus stands with the old uncials, when they are both wrong.

Neither is it fair to make it an issue of “exchanging the textus receptus” for anything whatsoever. Neither Burgon nor Scrivener ever contended for retaining the textus receptus without revision. No change was needed in Scrivener’s views, therefore, in order for him to part with the errors of the textus receptus. The only question is, What did he wish to “exchange” it for? Not the “old uncial text,” as Schaff would have it, but the text which is best supported, by all the evidence—-uncial and cursive manuscripts, ancient versions, and quotations in the fathers. Scrivener’s own statement on this shall be given further along.

It will be observed further that in spite of all that he says here, Schaff yet acknowledges Scrivener as a representative of the conservative school of textual criticism. But he follows the above with a footnote, in which he says, “His [Scrivener’s] Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament, published in 1875, mark a little progress beyond the second edition of his Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 1874, and the third edition published in 1883, occupies substantially the same position. He gives up the spurious interpolation of the three witnesses as hopelessly untenable, and on the disputed reading in 1 Tim. iii.16, where his friend, Dean Burgon, so strenuously insists on qeov”, Scrivener, in his Lectures, p. 192 sq., makes the following admission: `On the whole, if Codd. A, C, be kept out of sight (and we know not how more light can be thrown on their testimony), this is one of the controversies which the discovery of Cod. a ought to have closed, since it adds a first-rate uncial witness to a case already very strong through the support of versions. Slowly and deliberately, yet in full confidence that God in other passages of his written word has sufficiently assured us of the Proper Divinity of his Incarnate Son, we have yielded up this clause as no longer tenable against the accumulated force of external evidence which has been brought against it.’ In his Introd. ed. iii. p. 637-642, he speaks hesitatingly. In his last ed. of the Stephanic text (1887) he records the readings of Westcott and Hort, but calls their ed. a `splendidum peccatum, non kth’ma eij” ajeiv!”’

A number of things must be noted on this. First, Scrivener’s giving up of the three heavenly witnesses indicates no change of principle whatever, but only the application of his own principles, and Burgon’s. Schaff’s using such an example to prove his case can only indicate that he little understood what he was talking about.

Next, his giving up of qeov” in I Tim. 3:16 does not necessarily bespeak a change of principles, but only a conclusion to which his principles led him—-“gradually and deliberately”—-on a confessedly difficult question. Nevertheless, it is possible that there was some change of principle here, probably due to the powerful pleading of Hort, with whom Scrivener was then working on the Revised Version. But if so, the change was evidently a temporary one. After quoting the unequivocal capitulation on this verse which Scrivener made in 1875, Schaff goes on to inform us that Scrivener “speaks hesitatingly” in 1883 (in the 3rd edition of his Introduction). There was no hesitation, but the very reverse, in his Six Lectures, in 1875. Why did he “speak hesitatingly” eight years later? And why did not Schaff tell us what he said in 1883? Scrivener’s last word on I Tim. 3:16 was “I dare not pronounce qeov” a corruption.” Though I have only the second and fourth editions of Scrivener’s Introduction, this must have been written in his third edition, the last which he prepared himself, for the editor of his fourth edition tells us that Scrivener wrote this statement before the appearance of Burgon’s lengthy treatise on the passage (in The Revision Revised, 1883). Since Schaff had Scrivener’s third edition in his hand, and could tell us he “spoke hesitatingly” in it, it was hardly fair not to tell us what he said, for what he said in 1883 is hardly consistent with Schaff’s thesis that Scrivener was gradually moving away from his former principles—-or gradually abandoning the common text for that of the old uncials. If we compare his statements on I Tim. 3:16, made in 1875 and 1883, it will appear that during that interval he was actually moving in the opposite direction from that which Schaff supposes. But all of this probably indicates nothing more than a temporary wavering on Scrivener’s part, in 1875, but no permanent change of principles.

In his book published in 1875, Scrivener does make some rather remarkable statements, which might certainly have given the appearance that he was drifting towards the position occupied by Westcott and Hort. For example, “Where the five great codices are unanimous, as here, there can be no doubt that we are bound to follow them.” This certainly looks like pleading for “the older uncial text”—-though in fact it is not saying anything much different from what he had previously said in his Introduction, and in reality it is not saying much at all, since those old uncials so seldom agree, excepting, of course, when they all agree with the bulk of the later manuscripts. On this Scrivener had said in his Introduction:

“The point on which we insist is briefly this:—-that the evidence of ancient authorities is anything but unanimous; that they are perpetually at variance with each other, even if we limit the term ancient within the narrowest bounds. Shall it include, among the manuscripts of the Gospels, none but the five oldest copies Codd. aABCD? The reader has but to open the first recent critical work he shall meet with, to see them scarcely ever in unison; perpetually divided two against three, or perhaps four against one. … If the question be fairly proposed, `What right have we to set virtually aside the agreement in the main of our oldest uncials…with the citations of the primitive fathers, and with the earliest versions?’: the answer must be rendered without hesitation, no right whatever. Where the oldest of these authorities really agree, we accept their united testimony as practically conclusive. It is not at all our design to seek our readings from the later uncials, supported as they usually are by the mass of cursive manuscripts; but to employ their confessedly secondary evidence in those numberless instances wherein their elder brethren are hopelessly at variance. We do not claim for the recent documents the high consideration and deference fitly reserved for a few of the oldest; just as little do we think it right to pass them by in silence, and allow to them no more weight or importance than if they had never been written.” There really does not appear to be any material change between the principles of the Introduction and those of the Six Lectures.

But Scrivener says further “however jealous we may be of admitting any variation into the text on its [Codex B’s] solitary evidence, we shall meet with not a few cases wherein, seconded by the Sinai copy [a] and by that copy almost alone, the intrinsic goodness of the reading it exhibits will hardly lead us to hesitate to receive it as true.”

Here we are almost ready to exclaim, This is not Scrivener speaking, but Hort!—-even down to the very terminology. That it is Hort’s influence we need not doubt. More on that in the next paragraph, but first let us point out that while Scrivener proposes such a thing in theory in 1875, in practice he continually rejects the testimony of a & B. Their reading in John 1:18 (“only-begotten God”) he very rightly calls “a term that reverential minds instinctively shrink from”—-a term “which one hardly likes to utter with the voice”—-and says further, “Every one must feel the new reading to be false, even though for the sake of consistency he may be forced to uphold it. We are bound by no such stern law, and note the present as a case wherein Cod. A and the mass of copies, well supported by versions, affords us a purer text than Codd. aBCL 33.” (D is defective at John 1:18, but W, unknown while Scrivener lived, supports the common reading.) a & B also omit Matt. 16:2 & 3, and of this Scrivener says, “It really seems impossible for any one possessed of the slightest tincture of critical instinct to read the verses thoughtfully, without feeling sure that they were actually spoken by the Lord; so that, internal evidence in their favour being clear and well-nigh irresistible, the opposing witnesses rather damage their own authority than impair our confidence in our conclusion.” This is certainly plain enough speaking, and it certainly does not indicate any acquiescence in the position of Hort and his disciples.

But that Scrivener did waver a little about the time of the deliverance of his Six Lectures, we will not deny. That temporary wavering is easily accounted for. He was then working on the revision of the New Testament, spending many days in the Jerusalem Chamber listening to the powerful pleading and adroit argumentation of Hort. Scrivener was very diffident—-so in his very nature, and the more so because of the real learning which he possessed. Hort was just the reverse. One of his great admirers (George Salmon) says of him, “Dr. Hort was a man…who held his opinions with an intensity of conviction which he could not fail to communicate to those who came in contact with him, while his singular skill as an advocate enabled him with small difficulty to dissipate all objections to his own views.” Salmon speaks further of “knowing, as I do, how difficult it was for any one to come within the sphere of his influence (not to say to carry on work in conjunction with him) without being made to adopt all his conclusions.”

Salmon speaks elsewhere on this wise: “That which gained Hort so many adherents had some adverse influence with myself—-I mean his extreme cleverness as an advocate; for I have felt as if there were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for thinking it to be the only genuine.” It were not surprising, then, if so diffident a man as Scrivener felt to some degree the spell of Hort in 1875, when he was working with him day by day. But that any influence Hort had with him was neither deep nor permanent is evident enough from Scrivener’s characterization (in 1887) of Westcott and Hort’s text as “a splendid mistake, not an attainment to endure”—-as his Latin and Greek (cited above) may be rendered. Such a statement hardly puts him in the vicinity of Schaff and the rest of Hort’s disciples.

But Schaff speaks again concerning Scrivener in the same book, saying, “Dean Burgon and Canon Cook claim Dr. Scrivener on their side; but he is identified with the Revision as one of the members of the New Test. Company. In the second edition of his Introduction (1874), and still more in his later Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament (1875), he already departs in some very important cases from the textus receptus.” But again, this almost looks like writing on purpose to confuse the public. Where did Burgon ever contend for retaining the textus receptus without revision? Nay, he often contended for a revision of it. And to what end are we told that Scrivener is identified with the revisers as one of their company? It would have been much more to the purpose to inform us (as Burgon does): “It cannot be too plainly or too often stated that learned Prebendary Scrivener is wholly guiltless of the many spurious `Readings’ with which a majority of his co-Revisionists have corrupted the Word of GOD. He pleaded faithfully,—-but he pleaded in vain.”

Burgon records further, “As for Prebendary Scrivener,—-the only really competent Textual Critic of the whole party,—-it is well known that he found himself perpetually outvoted by two-thirds of those present. We look forward to the forthcoming new edition of his Plain Introduction, in the confident belief that he will there make it abundantly plain that he is in no degree responsible for the monstrous Text which it became his painful duty to conduct through the Press on behalf of the entire body, of which he continued to the last to be a member. It is no secret that, throughout, Dr. Scrivener pleaded in vain for the general view we have ourselves advocated in this and the preceding Article.”

The third edition of Scrivener’s Introduction appeared ere Burgon’s book was through the press, and on the reverse of his title page Burgon quoted several of Scrivener’s statements condemning Westcott and Hort’s text, closing with one which says, “the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.” This is clear enough, and it certainly does not sustain Schaff’s contention that Scrivener was gradually moving towards the position of Hort and his school. Yet Scrivener was to speak once more on the subject, shortly before his death. In a special postscript following the Introduction to his Adversaria Critica Sacra, he says,

“My lamented friend and fellow student, the late Very Reverend J. W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, very earnestly requested me, that if I lived to complete the present work, I would publickly testify that my latest labours had in no wise modified my previous critical convictions, namely, that the true text of the New Testament can best and most safely be gathered from a comprehensive acquaintance with every source of information yet open to us, whether they be Manuscripts of the original text, Versions, or Fathers; rather than from a partial representation of three or four authorities which, though in date the more ancient and akin in character, cannot be made even tolerably to agree together.

“I saw on my own part no need of such avowal, yet (neget quis carmina Gallo? [who would refuse a song to Gallus?]) I could not deny Dean Burgon’s request.”

Scrivener saw no need of such an avowal, evidently supposing that his published works made his position clear enough. Yet in the light of Schaff’s statements, there was evidently more need of it than he was aware. Observe also, he here explicitly disavows the “old uncial text,” unless it has a comprehensive basis of support from other sources—-for those “more ancient” authorities, which “cannot be made even tolerably to agree together,” are precisely those old uncials, before which Westcott and Hort and all their disciples are content to bow.

The real difference between the views of Scrivener and Burgon seems to lie in the weight which each attached to the ancient uncial manuscripts. Burgon held them, a, B, and D in particular, to be some of the most corrupt manuscripts in existence. Scrivener speaks more kindly of them, saying of Codex B, “Those who agree the most unreservedly respecting the age of the Codex Vaticanus, vary widely in their estimate of its critical value. By some it has been held in such undue esteem that its readings, if probable in themselves, and supported (or even though not supported) by two or three other copies and versions, have been accepted in preference to the united testimony of all authorities besides: while others have spoken of its text as one of the most vicious extant. Without anticipating what must be discussed hereafter…we may say at once, that neither of these views can commend itself to impartial judges: that while we accord to Cod. B at least as much weight as to any single document in existence, we ought never to forget that it is but one out of many.” He speaks elsewhere of “Codex Vaticanus, which in common with our opponents we regard as the most weighty single authority that we possess.” But though Burgon and Scrivener attached a different weight, or value, to certain of the oldest uncials, they were yet perfectly agreed in regarding those uncials as but one part of the evidence among many parts, and in insisting that the true text is to be arrived at by a consideration of all of the evidence. Those who ignored or set aside most of the evidence, in favor of the ancient uncials, Scrivener here refers to as “our opponents.” I have here quoted from his second edition, but both of these statements still stand in his last edition.

Glenn Conjurske