§ 1.

CONFLATION.

Dr. Hort's theory of 'Conflation' may be discovered on pp. 93-107. The want of an index to his Introduction, notwithstanding his ample 'Contents,' makes it difficult to collect illustrations of his meaning from the rest of his treatise. Nevertheless, the effect of Conflation appears to be well described in his words on p. 133:—'Now however the three great lines were brought together, and made to contribute to a text different from all.' In other words, by means of a combination of the Western, Alexandrian, and 'Neutral' Texts—'the great lines of transmission ... to all appearance exclusively divergent,'—the 'Syrian' text was constructed in a form different from any one and all of the other three. Not that all these three were made to contribute on every occasion. We find (p. 93) Conflation, or Conflate Readings, introduced as proving the 'posteriority of Syrian to Western ... and other ... readings.' And in the analysis of eight passages, which is added, only in one case (St. Mark viii. 26) are more than two elements represented, and in that the third class consists of 'different conflations' of the first and second [618].

Our theory is the converse in main features to this. We utterly repudiate the term 'Syrian' as being a most inadequate and untrue title for the Text adopted and maintained by the Catholic Church with all her intelligence and learning, during nearly fifteen centuries according to Dr. Hort's admission: and we claim from the evidence that the Traditional Text of the Gospels, under the true name, is that which came fresh from the pens of the Evangelists; and that all variations from it, however they have been entitled, are nothing else than corrupt forms of the original readings.

The question is, which is the true theory, Dr. Hort's or ours?

The general points that strike us with reference to Dr. Hort's theory are:—

(1) That it is very vague and indeterminate in nature. Given three things, of which X includes what is in Y and Z, upon the face of the theory either X may have arisen by synthesis from Y and Z, or X and Z may owe their origin by analysis to X.

(2) Upon examination it is found that Dr. Hort's arguments for the posteriority of D are mainly of an internal character, and are loose and imaginative, depending largely upon personal or literary predilections.

(3) That it is exceedingly improbable that the Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, which in a most able period had been occupied with discussions on verbal accuracy, should have made the gross mistake of adopting (what was then) a modern concoction from the original text of the Gospels, which had been written less than three or four centuries before; and that their error should have been acknowledged as truth, and perpetuated by the ages that succeeded them down to the present time.

But we must draw nearer to Dr. Hort's argument.

He founds it upon a detailed examination of eight passages, viz. St. Mark vi. 33; viii. 26; ix. 38; ix. 49; St. Luke ix. 10; xi. 54; xii. 18; xxiv. 53.

1. Remark that eight is a round and divisible number. Did the author decide upon it with a view of presenting two specimens from each Gospel? To be sure, he gives four from the first two, and four from the two last, only that he confines the batches severally to St. Mark and St. Luke. Did the strong style of St. Matthew, with distinct meaning in every word, yield no suitable example for treatment? Could no passage be found in St. John's Gospel, where not without parallel, but to a remarkable degree, extreme simplicity of language, even expressed in alternative clauses, clothes soaring thought and philosophical acuteness? True, that he quotes St. John v. 37 as an instance of Conflation by the Codex Bezae which is anything but an embodiment of the Traditional or 'Syrian' Text, and xiii. 24 which is similarly irrelevant. Neither of these instances therefore fill up the gap, and are accordingly not included in the selected eight. What can we infer from this presentment, but that 'Conflation' is probably not of frequent occurrence as has been imagined, but may indeed be—to admit for a moment its existence—nothing more than an occasional incident? For surely, if specimens in St. Matthew and St. John had abounded to his hand, and accordingly 'Conflation' had been largely employed throughout the Gospels, Dr. Hort would not have exercised so restricted, and yet so round a choice.

2. But we must advance a step further. Dean Burgon as we have seen has calculated the differences between B and the Received Text at 7,578, and those which divide [Symbol: Aleph] and the Received Text as reaching 8,972. He divided these totals respectively under 2,877 and 3,455 omissions, 556 and 839 additions, 2,098 and 2,299 transpositions, and 2,067 and 2,379 substitutions and modifications combined. Of these classes, it is evident that Conflation has nothing to do with Additions or Transpositions. Nor indeed with Substitutions, although one of Dr. Hort's instances appears to prove that it has. Conflation is the combination of two (or more) different expressions into one. If therefore both expressions occur in one of the elements, the Conflation has been made beforehand, and a substitution then occurs instead of a conflation. So in St. Luke xii. 18, B, &c., read τον σιτον και τα αγαθα μου which Dr. Hort [619] considers to be made by Conflation into τα γενηματα μου και τα αγαθα μου, because τα γενηματα μου is found in Western documents. The logic is strange, but as Dr. Hort has claimed it, we must perhaps allow him to have intended to include with this strange incongruity some though not many Substitutions in his class of instances, only that we should like to know definitely what substitutions were to be comprised in this class. For I shrewdly suspect that there were actually none. Omissions are now left to us, of which the greater specimens can hardly have been produced by Conflation. How, for instance, could you get the last Twelve Verses of St. Mark's Gospel, or the Pericope de Adultera, or St. Luke xxii. 43-44, or any of the rest of the forty-five whole verses in the Gospels upon which a slur is cast by the Neologian school? Consequently, the area of Conflation is greatly reduced. And I venture to think, that supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it could not account for any large number of variations, but would at the best only be a sign or symptom found every now and then of the derivation attributed to the Received Text.

3. But we must go on towards the heart of the question. And first to examine Dr. Hort's eight instances. Unfortunately, the early patristic evidence on these verses is scanty. We have little evidence of a direct character to light up the dark sea of conjecture.

(1) St. Mark (vi. 22) relates that on a certain occasion the multitude, when they beheld our Saviour and his disciples on their way in a ship crossing to the other side of the lake, ran together (συνεδραμον) from all their cities to the point which He was making for (εκει), and arrived there before the Lord and His followers (προηλθον αυτους), and on His approach came in a body to Him (συνηλθον προς αυτον). And on disembarking (και εξελθων), i.e. (εκ του πλοιου, ver. 32), &c. It should be observed, that it was only the Apostles who knew that His ultimate object was 'a desert place' (ver. 31, 30): the indiscriminate multitude could only discern the bay or cape towards which the boat was going: and up to what I have described as the disembarkation (ver. 34), nothing has been said of His movements, except that He was in the boat upon the lake. The account is pictorial. We see the little craft toiling on the lake, the people on the shores running all in one direction, and on their reaching the heights above the place of landing watching His approach, and then descending together to Him to the point where He is going to land. There is nothing weak or superfluous in the description. Though condensed (what would a modern history have made of it?), it is all natural and in due place.

Now for Dr. Hort. He observes that one clause (και προηλθον αυτους) is attested by B[Symbol: Aleph] and their followers; another (και συνηλθον αυτου or ηλθον αυτου, which is very different from the 'Syrian' συνηλθον προς αυτον) by some Western documents; and he argues that the entire form in the Received Text, και προηλθον αυτους, και συνηλθον προς αυτον, was formed by Conflation from the other two. I cannot help observing that it is a suspicious mark, that even in the case of the most favoured of his chosen examples he is obliged to take such a liberty with one of his elements of Conflation as virtually to doctor it in order to bring it strictly to the prescribed pattern. When we come to his arguments he candidly admits, that 'it is evident that either Δ (the Received Text) is conflate from [Symbol: alpha] (B[Symbol: Aleph]) and β (Western), or α and β are independent simplifications of Δ'; and that 'there is nothing in the sense of Δ that would tempt to alteration,' and that 'accidental' omission of one or other clause would 'be easy.' But he argues with an ingenuity that denotes a bad cause that the difference between αυτου and προς αυτον is really in his favour, chiefly because αυτου would very likely if it had previously existed been changed into προς αυτον—which no one can doubt; and that 'συνηλθον προς αυτον is certainly otiose after συνεδραμον εκει,' which shews that he did not understand the whole meaning of the passage. His argument upon what he terms 'Intrinsic Probability' leads to a similar inference. For simply εξελθων cannot mean that 'He "came out" of His retirement in some sequestered nook to meet them,' such a nook being not mentioned by St. Mark, whereas πλοιον is; nor can εκει denote 'the desert region.' Indeed the position of that region or nook was known before it was reached solely to our Lord and His Apostles: the multitude was guided only by what they saw, or at least by vague surmise.

Accordingly, Dr. Hort's conclusion must be reversed. 'The balance of Internal Evidence of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic Probability, is decidedly' not 'in favour of Δ from α and β,' but 'of α and β from Δ.' The reading of the Traditional Text is the superior both as regards the meaning, and as to the probability of its pre-existence. The derivation of the two others from that is explained by that besetting fault of transcribers which is termed Omission. Above all, the Traditional reading is proved by a largely over-balancing weight of evidence.

(2) 'To examine other passages equally in detail would occupy too much space.' So says Dr. Hort: but we must examine points that require attention.

St. Mark viii. 26. After curing the blind man outside Bethsaida, our Lord in that remarkable period of His career directed him, according to the Traditional reading, (α) neither to enter into that place, μηδε εις την κωμην εισελθης, nor (β) to tell what had happened to any inhabitant of Bethsaida (μηδε ειπης τινι εν τη κωμη). Either some one who did not understand the Greek, or some matter-of-fact and officious scholar, or both, thought or maintained that τινι εν τη κωμη must mean some one who was at the moment actually in the place. So the second clause got to be omitted from the text of B[Symbol: Aleph], who are followed only by one cursive and a half (the first reading of 1 being afterwards corrected), and the Bohairic version, and the Lewis MS. The Traditional reading is attested by ACNΣ and thirteen other Uncials, all Cursives except eight, of which six with Φ read a consolidation of both clauses, by several versions, and by Theophylact (i. 210) who is the only Father that quotes the place. This evidence ought amply to ensure the genuineness of this reading.

But what says Dr. Hort? 'Here α is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the New Testament: the peculiar Μηδε has the terse force of many sayings as given by St. Mark, but the softening into Μη by [Symbol: Aleph]* shews that it might trouble scribes.' It is surely not necessary to controvert this. It may be said however that α is bald as well as simple, and that the very difficulty in β makes it probable that that clause was not invented. To take τινι εν τη κωμη Hebraistically for τινι των εν τη κωμη, like the τις εν 'υμιν of St. James v. 19 [620], need not trouble scholars, I think. Otherwise they can follow Meyer, according to Winer's Grammar (II. 511), and translate the second μηδε nor even. At all events, this is a poor pillar to support a great theory.

(3) St. Mark ix. 38. 'Master, we saw one casting out devils in Thy name, (β) who doth not follow us, and we forbad him (α) because he followeth not us.'

Here the authority for α is [Symbol: Aleph]BCLΔ, four Cursives, f, Bohairic, Peshitto, Ethiopic, and the Lewis MS. For β there are D, two Cursives, all the Old Latin but f and the Vulgate. For the Traditional Text, i.e. the whole passage, AΦΣN + eleven Uncials, all the Cursives but six, the Harkleian (yet obelizes α) and Gothic versions, Basil (ii. 252), Victor of Antioch (Cramer, Cat. i. 365), Theophylact (i. 219): and Augustine quotes separately both omissions (α ix. 533, and β III. ii. 153). No other Fathers, so far as I can find, quote the passage.

Dr. Hort appears to advance no special arguments on his side, relying apparently upon the obvious repetition. In the first part of the verse, St. John describes the case of the man: in the second he reports for our Lord's judgement the grounds of the prohibition which the Apostles gave him. Is it so certain that the original text of the passage contained only the description, and omitted the reason of the prohibition as it was given to the non-follower of our Lord? To me it seems that the simplicity of St. Mark's style is best preserved by the inclusion of both. The Apostles did not curtly forbid the man: they treated him with reasonableness, and in the same spirit St. John reported to his Master all that occurred. Besides this, the evidence on the Traditional side is too strong to admit of it not being the genuine reading.

(4) St. Mark ix. 49. 'For (α) every one shall be salted with fire, (β) and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt.' The authorities are—

α. [Symbol: Aleph]BLΔ, fifteen Cursives, some MSS. of the Bohairic, some of the Armenian, and the Lewis.

β. D, six copies of the Old Latin, three MSS. of the Vulgate. Chromatius of Aquileia (Galland. viii. 338).

Trad. Text. ACΦΣN and twelve more Uncials, all Cursives except fifteen, two Old Latin, Vulgate, Peshitto, Harkleian, some MSS. of Ethiopic and Armenian, Gothic, Victor of Antioch (Cramer's Cat. i. 368), Theophylact (i. 221).

This evidence must surely be conclusive of the genuineness of the Traditional reading. But now for Dr. Hort.

'A reminiscence of Lev. vii. 13 ... has created β out of α.' But why should not the reminiscence have been our Lord's? The passage appears like a quotation, or an adaptation, of some authoritative saying. He positively advances no other argument than the one just quoted, beyond stating two points in which the alteration might be easily effected.

(5) St. Luke ix. 10. 'He took (His Apostles) and withdrew privately

α. Into a city called Bethsaida (εις πολιν καλουμενην B.).

β. Into a desert place (εις τοπον ερημον), or Into a desert place called Bethsaida, or of Bethsaida.

Trad. Text. Into a desert place belonging to a city called Bethsaida.'

The evidence for these readings respectively is—

α. BLXΞ, with one correction of [Symbol: Aleph] (C^a), one Cursive, the Bohairic and Sahidic. D reads κωμην.

β. The first and later readings (C^b) of [Symbol: Aleph], four Cursives?, Curetonian, some variant Old Latin (β²), Peshitto also variant (β³).

Trad. Text. A (with ερημον τοπον) C + twelve Uncials, all Cursives except three or five, Harkleian, Lewis (omits ερημον), Ethiopic, Armenian, Gothic, with Theophylact (i. 33).

Remark the curious character of α and β. In Dr. Hort's Neutral Text, which he maintains to have been the original text of the Gospels, our Lord is represented here as having withdrawn in private (κατ' ιδιαν, which the Revisers shirking the difficulty translate inaccurately 'apart') into the city called Bethsaida. How could there have been privacy of life in a city in those days? In fact, κατ' ιδιαν necessitates the adoption of τοπον ερημον, as to which the Peshitto (β³) is in substantial agreement with the Traditional Text. Bethsaida is represented as the capital of a district, which included, at sufficient distance from the city, a desert or retired spot. The group arranged under β is so weakly supported, and is evidently such a group of fragments, that it can come into no sort of competition with the Traditional reading. Dr. Hort confines himself to shewing how the process he advocates might have arisen, not that it did actually arise. Indeed, this position can only be held by assuming the conclusion to be established that it did so arise.

(6) St. Luke xi. 54. 'The Scribes and Pharisees began to urge Him vehemently and to provoke Him to speak of many things (ενεδρευοντες θηρευσαι),

α. Laying wait for Him to catch something out of His mouth.

β. Seeking to get some opportunity (αφορμην τινα) for finding out how to accuse Him ('ινα ευρωσιν κατηγορησαι); or, for accusing Him ('ινα κατηγορησωσιν αυτου).

Trad. Text. Laying wait for Him, and seeking to catch something (ζητουντες θηρευσαι τι) out of His mouth, that they might accuse Him.'

The evidence is—

α. [Symbol: Aleph]BL, Bohairic, Ethiopic, Cyril Alex. (Mai, Nov. Pp. Bibliotheca, ii. 87, iii. 249, not accurately).

β. D, Old Latin except f, Curetonian.

Trad. Text. AC + twelve Uncials, all Cursives (except five which omit ζητουντες), Peshitto, Lewis (with omission), Vulgate, Harkleian, Theophylact (i. 363).

As to genuineness, the evidence is decisive. The reading Α is Alexandrian, adopted by B[Symbol: Aleph], and is bad Greek into the bargain, ενεδρευοντες θηρευσαι being very rough, and being probably due to incompetent acquaintance with the Greek language. If α was the original, it is hard to see how β could have come from it. That the figurative language of α was replaced in β by a simply descriptive paraphrase, as Dr. Hort suggests, seems scarcely probable. On the other hand, the derivation of either α or β from the Traditional Text is much easier. A scribe would without difficulty pass over one of the participles lying contiguously with no connecting conjunction, and having a kind of Homoeoteleuton. And as to β, the distinguishing αφορμην τινα would be a very natural gloss, requiring for completeness of the phrase the accompanying λαβειν. This is surely a more probable solution of the question of the mutual relationship of the readings than the laboured account of Dr. Hort, which is too long to be produced here.

(7) St. Luke xii. 18. 'I will pull down my barns, and build greater, and there will I bestow all

α. My corn and my goods.

β. My crops (τα γενηματα μου). My fruits (τους καρπους μου).

Trad. Text. My crops (τα γενηματα μου) and my goods.'

This is a faulty instance, because it is simply a substitution, as Dr. Hort admitted, in α of the more comprehensive word γενηματα for σιτον, and a simple omission of και τα αγαθα μου in β. And the admission of it into the selected eight shews the difficulty that Dr. Hort must have experienced in choosing his examples. The evidence is—

α. BTLX and a correction of [Symbol: Aleph](a^{c}), eight Cursives, Peshitto, Bohairic, Sahidic, Armenian, Ethiopic.

β. [Symbol: Aleph]*D, three Cursives, b ff i q, Curetonian and Lewis, St. Ambrose (i. 573).

Trad. Text. AQ + thirteen Uncials. All Cursives except twelve, f, Vulgate, Harkleian, Cyril Alex. (Mai, ii. 294-5) bis, Theophylact (i. 370), Peter Chrysologus (Migne 52, 490-1) bis.

No more need be said: substitutions and omissions are too common to require justification.

(8) St. Luke xxiv. 53. 'They were continually in the temple

α. Blessing God (ευλογουντες).

β. Praising God (αινουντες).

Trad. Text. Praising and blessing God.'

The evidence is—

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

β. D, seven Old Latin.

Trad. Text. AC² + twelve Uncials, all Cursives, c f q, Vulgate, Peshitto, 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 gratitude of the Apostles. The words are not tautological. Αινος is the set praise of God, drawn out in more or less length, properly as offered in addresses to Him [621]. Ευλογια includes all speaking well of Him, especially when uttered before other men. Thus the two expressions describe in combination the life of gratitude 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 classes 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 illustration 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 passage 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 pronoun, 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, αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον and τον 'Υιον; (2) v. 22, εικη and τω αδελφω αυτου; (3) ix. 13, εις μετανοιαν; (4) x. 3, Λεββαιος and Θαδδαιος; (5) xii. 22, τυφλον και and κωφον; (6) xv. 5, τον πατερα αυτου and ('η) την μητερα αυτου, (7) xviii. 35, απο των καρδιων 'υμων and τα παραπτωματα αυτων; and (8) xxvi. 3, 'οι πρεσβυτεροι (και) 'οι Γραμματεις. 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 sparsely 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, 'Υιου του Θεου and Ιησου Χριστου; (2) i. 2, εμπροσθεν σου and προ προσωπου σου (cp. ix. 38); (3) iii. 15, θεραπευειν τας νοσους (και) and εκβαλλειν τα δαιμονια; (4) xiii. 33, αγρυπνειτε and (και) προσευχεσθε. 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, γυναικι and μεμνηστευμενη; (2) iv. 4, επι παντι 'ρηματι Θεου, or επ' αρτω μονω; (3) viii. 54, εκβαλων εξω παντας (και), or κρατησας της χειρος αυτης; xi. 4, (αλλα) 'ρυσαι 'ημας απο του πονηρου, or μη εισενενκης 'ημας εις πειρασμον. 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 μεμνηστευμενη by the Lewis Codex.

D. We now come to St. John. See (1) iii. 15, μη αποληται, or εχη ζωην αιωνιον; (2) iv. 14, ου μη διψηση εις τον αιωνα, or το 'υδωρ 'ο δωσω αυτω γενησεται εν αυτω πηγη 'υδατος, κ.τ.λ.; (3) iv. 42, 'ο Χριστος, or 'ο σωτηρ του κοσμου; (4) iv. 51, και απηνγειλαν and λεγοντες; (5) v. 16, και εζητουν αυτον αποκτειναι and εδιωκον αυτον; (6) vi. 51, 'ην εγω δωσω, or 'ου εγω δωσω; (7) ix. 1, 25, και ειπεν or απεκριθη; (8) xiii. 31, 32, ει 'ο Θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω, and και 'ο Θεος εδοξασθη εν αυτω. 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 antithetical 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.