Part 37 (1/2)

The evidence is--

[Symbol: alpha]. [Symbol: Aleph]BC*L, Bohairic, Palestinian, Lewis.

[Symbol: beta]. D, seven Old Latin.

Trad. Text. AC^{2} + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Pes.h.i.+tto, Harkleian, Armenian, Ethiopic, Theophylact (i. 497).

Dr. Hort adds no remarks. He seems to have thought, that because he had got an instance which outwardly met all the requirements laid down, therefore it would prove the conclusion it was intended to prove. Now it is evidently an instance of the omission of either of two words from the complete account by different witnesses. The Evangelist employed both words in order to emphasize the grat.i.tude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. [Greek: Ainos] is the set praise of G.o.d, drawn out in more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him[621].

[Greek: Eulogia] includes all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of grat.i.tude exhibited unceasingly by the expectant and the infant Church. Continually in the temple they praised Him in devotion, and told the people of His glorious works.

4. Such are the eight weak pillars upon which Dr. Hort built his theory which was to account for the existence of his Neutral Text, and the relation of it towards other Texts or cla.s.ses of readings. If his eight picked examples can be thus demolished, then surely the theory of Conflation must be utterly unsound. Or if in the opinion of some of my readers my contention goes too far, then at any rate they must admit that it is far from being firm, if it does not actually reel and totter.

The opposite theory of omission appears to be much more easy and natural.

But the curious phenomenon that Dr. Hort has rested his case upon so small an induction as is supplied by only eight examples--if they are not in fact only seven--has not yet received due explanation. Why, he ought to have referred to twenty-five or thirty at least. If Conflation is so common, he might have produced a large number of references without working out more than was enough for ill.u.s.tration as patterns.

This question must be investigated further. And I do not know how to carry out such an investigation better, than to examine some instances which come naturally to hand from the earlier parts of each Gospel.

It must be borne in mind, that for Conflation two differently-attested phrases or words must be produced which are found in combination in some pa.s.sage of the Traditional Text. If there is only one which is omitted, it is clear that there can be no Conflation because there must be at least two elements to conflate: accordingly our instances must be cases, not of single omission, but of double or alternative omission. If again there is no Western reading, it is not a Conflation in Dr. Hort's sense.

And finally, if the remaining reading is not a 'Neutral' one, it is not to Dr. Hort's liking. I do not say that my instances will conform with these conditions. Indeed, after making a list of all the omissions in the Gospels, except those which are of too petty a character such as leaving out a p.r.o.noun, and having searched the list with all the care that I can command, I do not think that such instances can be found.

Nevertheless, I shall take eight, starting from the beginning of St.

Matthew, and choosing the most salient examples, being such also that, if Dr. Hort's theory be sound, they ought to conform to his requirements. Similarly, there will come then four from either of St.

Mark and St. Luke, and eight from St. John. This course of proceeding will extend operations from the eight which form Dr. Hort's total to thirty-two.

A. In St. Matthew we have (1) i. 25, [Greek: autes ton prototokon] and [Greek: ton Huion]; (2) v. 22, [Greek: eike] and [Greek: to adelpho autou]; (3) ix. 13, [Greek: eis metanoian]; (4) x. 3, [Greek: Lebbaios]

and [Greek: Thaddaios]; (5) xii. 22, [Greek: typhlon kai] and [Greek: kophon]; (6) xv. 5, [Greek: ton patera autou] and [Greek: (he) ten metera autou], (7) xviii. 35, [Greek: apo ton kardion hymon] and [Greek: ta paraptomata auton]; and (8) xxvi. 3, [Greek: hoi presbyteroi (kai) hoi Grammateis]. I have had some difficulty in making up the number. Of those selected as well as I could, seven are cases of single omission or of one pure omission apiece, though their structure presents a possibility of two members for Conflation; whilst the Western element comes in spa.r.s.ely or appears in favour of both the omission and the retention; and, thirdly, in some cases, as in (2) and (3), the support is not only Western, but universal. Consequently, all but (4) are excluded. Of (4) Dr. Hort remarks, (Notes on Select Readings, p. 11) that it is 'a case of Conflation of the true and the chief Western Texts,' and accordingly it does not come within the charmed circle.

B. From St. Mark we get, (1) i. 1, [Greek: Huiou tou Theou] and [Greek: Iesou Christou]; (2) i. 2, [Greek: emprosthen sou] and [Greek: pro prosopou sou] (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, [Greek: therapeuein tas nosous (kai)] and [Greek: ekballein ta daimonia]; (4) xiii. 33, [Greek: agrypneite] and [Greek: (kai) proseuchesthe]. All these instances turn out to be cases of the omission of only one of the parallel expressions.

The omission in the first is due mainly to Origen (_see_ Traditional Text, Appendix IV): in the three last there is Western evidence on both sides.

C. St. Luke yields us, (1) ii. 5, [Greek: gynaiki] and [Greek: memnesteumene]; (2) iv. 4, [Greek: epi panti rhemati Theou], or [Greek: ep' arto mono]; (3) viii. 54, [Greek: ekbalon exo pantas (kai)], or [Greek: kratesas tes cheiros autes]; xi. 4, [Greek: (alla) rhysai hemas apo tou ponerou], or [Greek: me eisenenkes hemas eis peirasmon]. In all these cases, examination discloses that they are examples of pure omission of only one of the alternatives. The only evidence against this is the solitary rejection of [Greek: memnesteumene] by the Lewis Codex.

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, [Greek: me apoletai], or [Greek: eche zoen aionion]; (2) iv. 14, [Greek: ou me dipsese eis ton aiona], or [Greek: to hydor ho doso auto genesetai en auto pege hydatos, k.t.l.]; (3) iv. 42, [Greek: ho Christos], or [Greek: ho soter tou kosmou]; (4) iv. 51, [Greek: kai apengeilan] and [Greek: legontes]; (5) v. 16, [Greek: kai ezetoun auton apokteinai] and [Greek: ediokon auton]; (6) vi. 51, [Greek: hen ego doso], or [Greek: hou ego doso]; (7) ix. 1, 25, [Greek: kai eipen] or [Greek: apekrithe]; (8) xiii. 31, 32, [Greek: ei ho Theos edoxasthe en auto], and [Greek: kai ho Theos edoxasthe en auto]. All these instances turn out to be single omissions:--a fact which is the more remarkable, because St. John's style so readily lends itself to parallel or ant.i.thetical expressions involving the same result in meaning, that we should expect conflations to shew themselves constantly if the Traditional Text had so coalesced.

How surprising a result:--almost too surprising. Does it not immensely strengthen my contention that Dr. Hort took wrongly Conflation for the reverse process? That in the earliest ages, when the Church did not include in her ranks so much learning as it has possessed ever since, the wear and tear of time, aided by unfaith and carelessness, made itself felt in many an instance of destructiveness which involved a temporary chipping of the Sacred Text all through the Holy Gospels? And, in fact, that Conflation at least as an extensive process, if not altogether, did not really exist.

-- 2.

THE NEUTRAL TEXT.

Here we are brought face to face with the question respecting the Neutral Text. What in fact is it, and does it deserve the name which Dr.

Hort and his followers have attempted to confer permanently upon it?

What is the relation that it bears to other so-called Texts?