PART III PART III
II. THE·METHOD AND PRINCIPLES OF HORT
1. The Genealogical Method of Hort. The virtue of Hort's method does not lie in his masterful handling of in- ternal evidence per g ,18 which leaves an "amormt of latent uncertaintyn19 and "carries us but a little way towards the recovery of an ancient text, n20 but in his family or genea- logical approach. His investigations justified Griesbach's general conclusions and so added to and elucidated them as to
16 Hort, ££• cit., p. 323, sec. 425
17 The fact that some feel that this servitude has seized some scholars and many of the generality of Greek students gives proof of the timeliness of Hort's warning.
However, this chapter designs chiefly an exposition of Hort's method; the final part of this investigation will discuss the modifications of Hort in the light of the present research.
18 Hort, ££· cit., pp. 19-30 19 Ibid., p. 286c
20 Ibid., p. 25a
"develop a usable system of textual.criticism by the genea- logical methoa.n 21 nThe most rudimentary form of criticism consists in dealing with each variation independently, and adopting at once in each case out of two or more variants that which looks most probable,n 22 but Hort•s method is rather the most refined.
This technique is founded on the fact that manu-
scripts are copied one from another and are not independent.
"BY the nature of the case they are all. fragments, usually casual and scattered fragments, of a genealogical tree of transmission, sometimes of vast extent and intricacy.n23 External facts may point to an affinity, as the repetition of physical defects such as the loss of one or more leaves, but for scientific proof it is necessary to investigate the character of each manuscript comparatively. 24 "Coincidence of reading infallibly implies identity of ancestry wherever accidental. coincidence is out of the question .. n25
Affinity of reading thus reduces the problem of number to some simplicity. 26 Ten given manuscripts may have descended
21 warfield, .QI1.. cit., p • 22l.b 22 Hort, .Q],. cit., p • 19c
23 Ibid., p. 39b
24 Ibid.,. pp. 46, 53b
25 Ibid., p. 287b; cf. pp. 46, 231c 26 Ibid., pp. 41, 43
from one ancestor, or from two, and so on to ten. The fewer the ancestors, the simpler the problem of transmission. 27 Herein numerical preponderance yields to qualitative prepon- derance28 as number is interpreted by descent. 29
Yet this method has its limitation. If mixture were not a widespread and integral part of the intricate line of transmission, the family method would solve the difficulties almost perfectly. That is, when by the family method certain groups of witnesses have been discovered, some authorities
join themselves now to one group and now to another because they possess mixed texts. The inconstancy of the groupings constitutes the most serious obstacle in analyzing the textual situation. Hort himself pointed out that "where the tviO ul-
timate witnesses differ, the genealogical method ceases to be applicable, and a comparison of the intrinsic general character of the two texts becomes the only resource.n3°
2. Hart's Handling of Mixture. The invasion of mixture into the stream of transmission introduces ~!certainties
27 Ibid., p. 43 28 Ibid., p. 44a
29 Ibid., p. 44b. We may presume that the concurrence of the plurality is more probable than one single document since one scribe is more likely to err than several, but Hort correctly observed that this single exception does not touch the principle itself (Loc. cit.).
30 Ibid., p. 42a
into the process of internal evidence of d.ocuments, 31 weakens the homogeneousness of the witness32 by making the community of origin partia1, 33 and produces convergence in descent instead of divergence. 34 The New Testament, therefore, even more than classical literature,
needs peculi&rly vigilant and patient handling on account of t~e intricacy of evidence due to the unexampled amount and antiquity of mixture of different texts,. from which few even of the better documents are free.no5
It is relevant here to recall that Griesbach recognized and sought ineffectively to deal with this difficulty of
descent36 and that Tregelles' Comparative Criticism failed before this phenomenon. 37 It is generally thought that Hort was a master on just this point. Now what expedients did he employ in attacking this knotty situation? With some clearness three lines of approach call for mention:
(l.). Conflate Readings. In such a case, three principal forms of reading appear, two short and one longer.
31 Ibid., p. 35b 32 Ibid., p. 38a
33 Ibid., p. 46c; cf. Warfield., .2.2· cit., pp. 1.5la, 154a, 156c
34 Ibid., p. 48c; cf. Warfield, ibid., p. 155a
35 Ibid., p. 73b; cf. Robertson, QQ. cit., pp. 192-94 36 Supra, pp. lq
"''
15 fn. 6037 Ibid., p. 26
The theory of confl.ation is that the longer is a combination of the two shorter variants. The fact that in such instances the longer variants are not found in the earl.ier writers con- firms that conjecture. This seems to show that the two
shorter are not partial omissions of the l.onger or a 'double simplification.' Hort cited eight instances but thought
there were others and classed this phenomenon as "the clearest evidence for tracing antecedent factors of mixture in texts.n38 This estimate is just because "conflate readings show mixture in its simplest form.n39
From these eight instances Hort made these inferences-- If a reading is conflate, every document supporting it is thereby shown to have a more or less mixed text among its ancestry • • • • We learn to set an especial value on those documents which rarely or never support conflate readings
• • • • It is incredible that mixed texts should be mixed only where there are confl.ate readings.4U
(2). External Evidence •. The process of dis- entangling admixture by confl.ation "is independent of any external evidence as to dates, being founded solely on the analysis and comparison of extant texts: but of course its value for purposes of criticism is much enhanced by any chronological evidence which may exist.n41 Chronological
38 Hort, 2£• cit., p. 49b
39 Robertson,
££·
cit., p. 192b 40 Hort, QQ. cit., p. 50f41 Ibid., p. 52c, section 64
and geographical information may interpret obscure genea- logical phenomena by "marking the relative date and relative independence of the several early documents or early lost ancestors of later documents or sets of documents." 42
(3). Internal Evidence of Groups. When the extant documentary evidence antecedent to mixture yielded too small or uncertain materials for clearing the &mbiguities - of mixture, Hort fell back on the Internal Evidence of Groups, which can be applied to mixed and unmixed texts alike. 43 "The value of Internal Evidence of Groups in cases of mixture
depends, it will be seen, on the fact that by its very nature it enables us to deal separately with the different elements of a document of mixed ancestr)'.n44 Referring to Westcott and Hort's showing how to a~ply internal evidence (transcri~tional
and intrinsic) to the external evidence of documents,Robertson pointed out that "by means of this powerful agent they have been able to attack the most difficult problems that had baffled Lachmann and Tregelles.n45
42 Ibid., p. 58b
43 Ibid., p. 52c; cf. p. 57 a 44 Ibid., p. 6lb
45 Robertson, QQ. cit., p. 38b