On the other hand, we are bound to make allow- ance for an undeniable tendency towards the assi- milation of parallel passages—a tendency which must have acted with growing intensity as the comparative study of the Gospels developed (as it did very early), and especially in a country which possessed a popular ‘Harmony’ (cf. Chase, Syro-Latin Text of the Gospels, p. 76 tt.). It is un- likely, therefore, that Mr. Miller’s suggestion will
212 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
obtain any wide acceptance as an explanation of
the characteristic readings of SB.*
11. In treating of the problems raised by the felt necessity of offering an explanation of the oe of variant readings, we have reached what is really the starting-point of the labours of the ‘ Critical’ school. Ever since the collection of the evidence for the text of NT began in earnest, in the great edition published by Mill in 1707, the attention of critics was attracted by the nature of the variants from the ‘Traditional’ text contained in_ the writings of the earliest Fathers, in the Versions, and in a few of the oldest MSS.+
* This seems the most convenient place to notice Dr. Salmon’s criticism of Westcott and Hort for their lack of interest ‘in the question of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels; that is to say, in inquiries whether the narratives of the three have any common basis, oral or written’ (Some Criticism of the Teat of NT, ch. y.). It is strange that in making this criticism Dr. Salmon should have forgotten Dr. Westcott’s Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, the most powerful statement in any language of the case on behalf of the old ‘oral’ hypothesis, and the share Dr. Hort took in the formation of the plan of (Abbott and) Rushbrooke’s Synopticon, which was designed as an instru- ment for testing any ‘Documentary Theory’ that might be started. Otherwise, he might have looked for some other reason than ‘lack of interest’ to account for the silence of their Intro- duction to the NT in regard to the Synoptic Problem. The fact is, that to have called in one out of many possible solutions of the Synoptic Problem to fix the weight to be attached to MSS of the Gospels, would have been to explain obscurum per obscurius.
It is strange also that so close a reasoner should have failed to notice that his application to the Synoptic Problem of Dr. Hort’s method for ‘the recovery of the text of a single lost original, assuming the fact of exclusive descent from it to have been sufficiently established,’ must fail from the neglect of two vital considerations. He has failed to allow (see Hort, p. 55, 1. 6) for the possibility of ‘mixture’ between the representatives of his different groups. But, what is even more serious, he has over- looked the primary condition of ‘ exclusive descent.’ For, while we may well believe that the three Synoptics take us back to a common original, whether that original be our St. Mark or an Ur-Marcus, no one, least of all Dr. Salmon, has ventured to suggest that St. Matthew and St. Luke had no independent information. In fact, if St. Matthew had anything to do with the Gospel that bears his name, it may well preserve genuine elements in certain incidents that had failed to attract St. Peter’s attention. From this point of view, the story of the *Canaanitish woman’ (Mt1521f, Mk 724f-), where there is no serious question of reading, affords an instructive parallel to ‘the rich young man’ (Mt 1916, Mk 1017, Lk 1818), In each case Matthew follows a distinct but by no means necessarily inconsistent tradition. (On ‘the rich young man’ see G. Macdonald, Un- spoken Sermons, 2nd series).
It is clear that in settling the text of the Gospels we have to allow for the operation of forces acting in opposite directions : (1) a constant tendency to assimilation, affecting all the Gospels alike, complicated by (2) a tendency to dissimilation, produced by various accidents in the special history of the transmission of each Gospel.
No mechanical rule can therefore be laid down, and we may be thankful that in this, as in other cases, the editors were content to follow consistently the evidence of the MSS which, taking everything into account, they found most reason to trust, whether it made for likeness (¢.g. Mt 89 1526) or for differ- ence (as in Mt 1916) between the Evangelists, instead of revising their decision in each case with an eye to the Synoptic Problem. No doubt, the questions cannot be ultimately dissociated. But, after all, we must provisionally settle our text of the Gospels before we can solve the problem of their inter-relation,
+ A few dates may with advantage be noted here. In the time of Mill (1707) the only ‘primary uncials’ of the Gospels of which full collations were available were A and D. Bengel (1734) had access as well to ‘select readings’ of C. Griesbach, in his first edition, used full collations of ACDL. No collation of B was published till 1788. & was discovered in 1859.
In the light of these facts, Mr. Miller’s method of accounting for the preference shown by the ‘ Critical’ school for the small over the large group of authorities needs correction. ‘The explanation,’ he says (Oaford Debate, p. 6), ‘is what has fre- quently been called by other men the extreme adulation paid to B, especially by Dr. Hort and men of that side. I think some of it is very natural, and that history quite accounts for it. They [X and B] are the two oldest MSS ; and in early times, when people had in their view only a small amount of evidence, it was very natural that they should say that these two MSS which come to us as the earliest, and were therefore nearest to the original autographs, should be right.’