35. We can now pass on to consider what light is thrown by our examination of the variants in Mk 11-8 on the character of the witnesses by which they are supported. We must begin with those variants that are the exclusive property of the Traditional Text, and by which in consequence the value of the authorities supporting it can be most effectively tested. We have included pro- visionally as belonging to it all the readings which are attested by none of the five MSS, XBCD or L. Further examination will show which, if any, of these readings have a claim to be regarded as belonging also to one or other of the alternative texts. Sixteen examples occur. The points affected are in almost every case extremely trivial, but they are none the less significant as indi- cations of documentary relationship.
(1) V.1 om. 70d before deod. (2) V.2 rots rpopyjrats for Ho. r. pod. (3) V.2 add gumpoober cov. (4) V.4 Bamrigwr ev ry épnum Kal Kyptoowr. flate. (5) V.® transpose wdvres. * See Trad. Teat, p. 233.
Con-
V.® transpose td "Iwdvvov. V.10 dié for éx.
V. exe? é€v rH Epijuw. Conflate.
V.16 repuraréy dé for kat wapdywr.
(11) V.26 avrod rod Yiuwvos. Conflate.
(12) V.16 Barrovras dudlBrnoTpov for dovras.
(13) V.8 add atrév.
(14) V.!9 éxeiOev édlyor. Conflate.
(15) V."" ré éorw roiro; ris 4 didaxh H Kawh atry
drt kar é€ovciay. Conflate.
(16) V.?8 6é for Kal.
36. Now, it is surely remarkable that in no single one of these cases does the internal evidence, taken as a whole, point unequivocally in favour of the Traditional reading. In many cases it seems to be definitely adverse. Again, it is surely remark- able that even in this short passage five of the readings, vv.* 1% 16.19.27, admit of a ready explana- tion on the supposition that they were produced by combining, with more or less modification, two alternative readings which were at one time current independently. In other words, they suggest the presence of Conflation as a factor in the production of the Traditional Text. This hypothesis is rendered distinctly more probable by the observation which rests on a wide induction of undisputed facts, that the normal tendency of scribes in all ages is towards addition and not subtraction.* The exceptions to this rule, which spring from purely accidental causes, e.g. ‘ Homoeo- teleuton,’ are clearly not in point here. Nor, again, can we logically give any weight here to the charge of a deep-seated tendency to omission brought against ie scribes of all our oldest authorities : because again and again the only evidence adduced in support of it is that the text they attest is habitually shorter than the Traditional, and we are looking for an assurance that the Traditional Text itself is free from addition.
It is true that there is evidence that some scribes, the originators of the ‘ Western’ read- ings, did in the course of their extraordinarily rash recasting of the text omit a word here and there without introducing an equivalent. But there is no evidence to show that a tendency to omit affected a large proportion of their work. And the common ancestor of 8 and B was, so far as we can judge, entirely unaffected by ‘ Western’ influence.
37. The suspicion of Conflation is deepened when we indicate to the eye, as has been done in the passage as printed above, the relation in which the Traditional Text stands to the earlier texts out of which on this hypothesis it must have been constructed. The passage certainly illustrates with remarkable vividness the phenomena which Dr. Hort’s description would have led us to expect. His words run as follows :—
“To state in a few words the results of examina- tion of the whole body of Syrian readings, dis- tinctive and non-distinctive, the authors of the Syrian Text had before them documents repre- senting at least three earlier forms of text, Western, Alexandrian, and a third. Where they found variation, they followed different procedures in different places. Sometimes they transcribed un- changed the reading of one of the earlier texts, now of this, now of that. Sometimes they in like
(6) (7) (8) (9) 10) 11) 12)
dppiBar-
‘| manner adopted exclusively one of the readings,
but modified its form. Sometimes they combined
the readings of more than one text in various
ways, pruning or modifying them if necessary.
Lastly, they introduced many changes of their
own where, so far as appears, there was no pre-
vious variation. When the circumstances are * See Tregelles, The Printed Text of the NT, p. 184.
224 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
fully considered, all these processes must be recog- nized as natural’ (§ 165).
When the whole text has the appearance of being conflate, individual readings combining ele- ments which can be proved to have existed inde- pendently are more naturally accounted for on the hypothesis of Conflation than on any other. It would seem impossible to determine @ priori what proportion of such readings we should ex- pect to find in a passage of any given length.
Ir. Miller is probably right when he says, ‘I venture to think that, supposing for a moment the theory to be sound, it would 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.’* This is exactly the impression that an attentive reader would receive from Dr. Hort’s carefully measured language in reference to them.*+