This much every thinking Christian will surely grant. But it is a diii'erent thing to go on to say : ' therefore this text must be the original authentic text.' It would be as logical to argue that because the gospel was given to the world in the Greek language, therefore Jesus must have spoken in the same language. It is quite in accordance with our experience of God's methods of working that He should employ an instrument fashioned and con- ditioned not only by the circumstances under which it took its rise, but also by those through which it has passed in the course of its history.
It is an unfortunate thing that Burgon and Miller's writings seem to imply (we believe, in- deed, that the Dean stated it in so many words) that of necessity God must have provided for the accurate preservation of the text of the book which He had given to man. It appears to have been inconceivable to Burgon that the true text should be any other than that commonly ac- cepted by the Church : to him the Church was the guardian of Holy Writ in the same sense as some people believe her to be the guardian of doctrine. If this view, even though not expressly stated, is felt to underlie the student's conclusions, then those conclusions are removed from the do- main of matters with which the critic can deal. They may, as in the case of views as to the author- ity of the Church in matters of faith, or of theories as to the inspiration of the Bible, con- ceivably rest on a true spiritual perception, but they do not rest on evidence, Mith which alone the critic is competent to deal. We have pointed out above that a large, and the most enlightened, por- tion of the Christian Church read the Scriptures in the Vulgate, or Latin translation of Jerome, and regarded it as the only authoritative exponent of the true text and sense of the original. There never has been a unanimous tradition as to the text of Scripture : only for the three centuries that followed the first printing of the Greek NT has there been even an appearance of such unanimity. But though the writings of Burgon and Miller force one to the conclusion that for them per- sonally their theory rested on a priori grounds, yet they have with great labour, assiduity, and learning collected a vast amount of evidence in support of the 'Traditional Text.' Unfortu- nately, Burgon wrote in such a contemptuous manner of the leading textual critics and of the most ancient MSS of the NT that most of his work has the appearance of an ex parte .statement rather than of a solid contribution to the investigation of a difficult problem. Miller, who edited and com- pleted many of Burgon's papers after his death, adopted a more temperate tone ; but so much of Burgon's language is incorporated, tliat the sub- ject is still treated rather after the fashion of a polemical controversy than of a critical investiga-
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
719
tion. Moreover, Burgon's contention was that the ' Traditional Text ' is the only one that has any claim to be regarded as the true text ; all docu- ments that diller from it are treated as of prac- tically no value. Hort, on the other liand, con- sidered the ' Traditional ' or ' Antiochian ' text to be valueless as evidence. Thus the subject has been treated at its extreme points, and neither side lias taken sufficient trouble to discover how much truth is contained in the views of the other side. We lay a good deal of stress on this matter, be- cause we think there has been a strong disiDosition to regard the ' Traditional Text ' as a hobby of Burgon's, and to treat his defence of it with the same contempt that he poured so freely on others.
3. Hort's ' Syrian ' or ' Antiochian ' Text. — In part iii. of Hort's Introduction, chapter ii. bears the heading, ' Results of Genealogical Evidence proper.' Section i. (§§ 130-168) is devoted to proving the posteriority of Antiochian to other known types of readings. We hope to show later on that the evi- dence here adduced is not entitled to be called ' genealogical ' in a strict sense, but with this we are not for the moment concerned. Hort begins (§ 130) by stating the incontrovertible fact that all great variations of text were prior to the 5th cent., since the text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of the 4th cent, is substantially identical with the common late text; and (§ 131) the text of every other considerable group of docu- ments is shown by analogous evidence of Fathers and Versions to be of equal or greater antiquity. If we were living in the age of Chrysostom, the problem to be solved would in all essential points be the same as it is now. Hort then adduces three lines of evidence to prove the posteriority of Antiochian readings: (i.) by analysis of connate readings (§§ 132-151), (ii.) by An te-Nicene Patristic evidence (§§ 152-162), (iii.) by internal evidence of Syrian {i.e. Antiochian) readmgs (§§ 163-168). We must deal with each of these divisions separately.
(i.) When one reading is found in one group of documents, another in a second group, and the two diiierent readings are found combined in a third group, this reading is said to be 'conflate.' Of course it has to be assumed that the first two readings are prior to the conflate reading, or else it is not a connate reading at all. Thus the argu- ment goes in a circle, unless either it can be proved that the two separate readings existed at <a time Avhen it can be shown that the conflate reading did not, or the conflate reading is .so obviously wrong that it cannot conceivably be the original reading. If neither of these conditions is fulfilled, then con- clusions based on the so-called conflate readings are matters of judgment, not of evidence. Hort adduces and examines eight cases of readings which he believes to be conflate : in each case, according to his view, the Antiochian text has combined two separate readings found in earlier texts. Obviously eight examples, taken four from Mark and four from Luke, afford but a slender foundation on which to build : it may be, and has been, urged that these eight examples are only specimens taken from a large number available, but until further examples are collected and pub- lished the case must be judged by the eight given.