to 362.)—Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ νοῦς ὁ παρὰ τῷ Μάρκῳ τοιοῦτος; Περὶ δὲ τῆς
ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ ὥρας, οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὔτε οἱ ἄγγελοι τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἀλλ᾽
οὐδ᾽ ἄν ὁ Υἱὸς ἔγνω, εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατέρ; ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτῷ ὑπῆρχε
δεδομένη ἡ γνῶσις ... τουτέστιν, ἡ αἰτία τοῦ εἰδέναι τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ
τοῦ Πατρός; καὶ ἀβίαστός ἐστι τῷ εὐγνωμόνως ἀκούοντι ἡ ἐξήγησις
αὕτη. ἐπειδὴ οὐ πρόσκειται τὸ μόνος; ὡς καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ματθαίῳ.—(p. 362
c.) Basil says of this interpretation—ἂ τοίνυν ἐκ παιδὸς παρὰ τῶν
πατέρων ἠκούσαμεν.
_ 604 Notes_, p. 109.
_ 605 Celebre effugium_, (as Dr. Routh calls it,) _quod ex falsâ verborum
constructione Critici quidam hæreticis pararunt._ _Reliqq._ iii.
322-3.
606 C alone has a point between ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων and Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς
τους αἰῶνας. But this is an entirely different thing from what is
noted in the margin.
607 MS. communication from the Rev. S. C. Malan.
608 i. 506.
_ 609 Opusc._ i. 52, 58; _Phil._ 339.
610 iv. 612.
611 Routh, _Reliqq. Sac._ iii. 292, and 287. (_Concil._ i. 845 b. c.)
_ 612 Concilia_, i. 873 d: 876 a.
613 vi. c. 26.
614 i. 414, 415, 429, 617, 684, 908.
615 i. 282. And in _Cat._ 317.
_ 616 Trin._ 21, 29, 327, 392. Mai, vii. 303.
617 ii. 596 a, (quoted by the Emp. Justinian [_Concil._ v. 697] and the
_Chronicon Paschale_, 355), 693, 697; iii. 287. Galland. vi. 575.
618 i. 481, 487, 894, 978; ii. 74.
619 Ap. Cyril (ed. Pusey), v. 534.
620 Ap. Gall. iii. 805.
621 Ap. Gall. iv. 576.
622 Ap. Phot. col. 761, 853.
623 Ap. Gall. vi. 8, 9, 80.
624 Ap. Gall. vii. 618, and ap. Hieron. i. 560.
_ 625 Concilia_, iii. 522 e ( = iv. 297 d = ap. Gall. viii. 667). Also,
_Concilia_ (Harduin), i. 1413 a.
626 Ap. Gall. ix. 474.
627 Ap. Gall. ix. 690, 691 ( = _Concil._ iii. 1230, 1231).
_ 628 Homilia_ (Arm.), p. 165 and 249.
629 i. 464, 483; vi. 534; vii. 51; viii. 191; ix. 604, 653; x. 172.
630 v.1 20, 503, 765, 792; v.2 58, 105, 118, 148; vi. 328. Ap. Mai, ii.
70, 86, 96, 104; iii. 84 _in Luc._ 26.
_ 631 Concilia_, iii. 1099 b.
632 i. 103; ii. 1355; iii. 215, 470; iv. 17, 433, 1148, 1264, 1295,
1309; v. 67, 1093.
633 Cramer’s _Cat._ 160.
_ 634 Ibid. in Act._ 40.
635 P. 166.
_ 636 Concilia_, ii. 195.
637 Ap. Gall. xii. 251.
638 Ap. Gall. xii. 682.
639 ii. 64.
640 i. 557; ii. 35, 88.
641 Prax. 13, 15—“Christum autem et ipse Deum cognominavit, _Quorum
patres, et ex quibus Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia
Deus benedictus in ævum_.”
642 P. 287.
643 Ap. Gall. iii. 296, 313.
644 i. 1470; ii. 457, 546, 609, 790.
_ 645 Concilia_, ii. 982 c.
646 78, 155, 393, 850, 970, 1125, 1232.
647 i. 870, 872.
648 Ap. Gall. viii. 157.
649 Ap. Gall. vii. 589, 590.
650 Ap. Gall. viii. 627.
651 709, 711.
652 Ap. Gall. x. 722.
653 Ap. Gall. xi. 233, 237.
_ 654 Concilia_, iii. 1364, 1382.
655 Ap. Gall. 352, 357.
_ 656 Ibid._ 674.
657 ii. 16, 215, 413.
658 i. 839; v. 769; xii. 421.
659 Those of our readers who wish to pursue this subject further may
consult with advantage Dr. Gifford’s learned note on the passage in
the _Speaker’s Commentary_. Dr. Gifford justly remarks that “it is
the natural and simple construction, which every Greek scholar would
adopt without hesitation, if no question of doctrine were involved.”
660 Note, that this has been the language of the Church from the
beginning. Thus Tertullian,—“Aquam adituri ... contestamur nos
renuntiare diabolo, _et pompæ et angelis ejus_” (i. 421): and
Ambrose,—“Quando te interrogavit, Abrenuntias diabolo _et operibus
ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio. Abrenuntias _sæculo et
voluptatibus ejus_, quid respondisti? Abrenuntio” (ii. 350 c): and
Ephraem Syrus,—Ἀποτάσσομαι τῷ Σατανᾷ καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ
(ii. 195 and iii. 399). And Cæsarius of Arles,—“Abrenuntias diabolo,
_pompis et operibus ejus_ ... Abrenuntio” (Galland. xi. 18 e).
661 2 Tim. iv. 18.
662 S. John xvii. 24.
663 P. 140.
664 Marcell. p. 192.
_ 665 In loc. diserte._
_ 666 Eth._ ii. 297.
667 viii. 485.
_ 668 Text_, iv. 1003; _Comm._ 1007, which are _two distinct
authorities_, as learned readers of Cyril are aware.
_ 669 Concilia_, iii. 356 d.
670 iv. 450.
671 Pp. 235, 321.
672 i. 412; ii. 566, 649.
673 Pp. 1017, 1033.
674 Victricius ap. Gall. viii. 230. Also ps.-Chrys. v. 680.
675 iii. 966 _dis._
_ 676 Dem._ 92.
677 i. 319.
_ 678 Trin._ 190.
679 v. 1039, 1069.
680 ii. 460.
681 v. 615.
682 ii. 584. Cyril read the place both ways:—v.2 156, and _in Luc._ p.
52.
683 i. 720.
684 ii. 381; iii. 962; iv. 601.
685 Ap. Galland. vii. 183.
686 Ap. Montf. ii. 67.
687 iii. 333; v. 444; x. 498, 620; xii. 329.
688 ii. 77; iii. 349.
689 ii. 252.
690 “Deseruimus fere quos sequi solemus codices.”
691 P. 38 ( = Gall. vii. 26).
692 i. 298, 613.
693 viii. 351, 352.
694 iv. 652 c, 653 a, 654 d.
695 i. 748; iv. 274, 550.
_ 696 In Dionys. Ar._ ii. 192.
697 As these sheets are passing through the press, we have received a
book by Sir Edmund Beckett, entitled, _Should the Revised New
Testament be Authorized?_ In four Chapters, the author discusses
with characteristic vigour, first, the principles and method of the
Revisers, and then the Gospel of S. Matthew, the Epistle to the
Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, as fair samples of their work, with a
union of sound sense, forensic skill, and scholarship more skilful
than to deserve his cautious disclaimer. Amidst details open, of
course, to discussion, abundant proofs are set forth, in a most
telling style, that the plea of “necessity” and “faithfulness”
utterly fails, in justification of a mass of alterations, which, in
point of English composition, carry their condemnation on their
face, and, to sum up the great distinction between the two Versions,
illustrate “the difference between working by _discretion_ and by
_rules_—by which no great thing was ever done or ever will be.” Sir
Edmund Beckett is very happy in his exposure of the abuse of the
famous canon of preferring the stranger reading to the more obvious,
as if copyists never made stupid blunders or perpetrated wilful
absurdities. The work deserves the notice of all English readers.
698 It has been objected by certain of the Revisionists that it is not
fair to say that “they were appointed to do one thing, and have done
another.” We are glad of this opportunity to explain.
That _some_ corrections of the Text were necessary, we are well
aware: and had those _necessary_ changes been made, we should only
have had words of commendation and thanks to offer. But it is found
that by Dr. Hort’s eager advocacy two-thirds of the Revisionists
have made a vast number of _perfectly needless changes_:—(1) Changes
which _are incapable of being represented in a Translation_: as ἐμοῦ
for μου,—πάντες for ἅπαντες,—ὅτε for ὁπότε. Again, since γέννησις,
at least as much as γένεσις, means “_birth_,” _why_ γένεσις in S.
Matth. i. 18? Why, also, inform us that instead of ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι
αὐτοῦ πεφυτευμένην, they prefer πεφυτευμένην ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι αὐτοῦ?
and instead of καρπὸν ζητῶν,—ζητῶν καρπόν? Now this they have done
_throughout_,—at least 341 times in S. Luke alone. But (what is far
worse), (2) They suggest in the margin changes which yet they _do
not adopt_. These numerous changes are, _by their own confession_,
not “necessary:” and yet they are of a most serious character. In
fact, it is of these we chiefly complain.—But, indeed (3), _How
many_ of their _other_ alterations of the Text will the Revisionists
undertake to defend publicly on the plea of “_Necessity_”?
[A vast deal more will be found on this subject towards the close of
the present volume. In the meantime, see above, pages 87-88.]
699 “We meet in every page” (says Dr. Wordsworth, the learned Bishop of
Lincoln,) “with small changes which are vexatious, teasing, and
irritating; even the more so because they are small (as small
insects sting most sharply), _which seem almost to be made merely
for the sake of change_.”—p. 25.
_ 700 On the Revision of the English Version_, &c. (1870), p. 99.
701 Bp. Ellicott, _Diocesan Progress_, Jan. 1882,—p. 19.
702 Bp. Ellicott, _On Revision_,—p. 49.
703 “_Qui_ LXX _interpretes non legit, aut minus legit accurate, is
sciat se non adeo idoneum, qui Scripta Evangelica Apostolica de
Græco in Latinum, aut alium aliquem sermonem transferat, ut ut in
aliis Græcis scriptoribus multum diuque fuerit versatus_.” (John
Bois, 1619.)—“_Græcum N. T. contextum rite intellecturo nihil est
utilius quam diligenter versasse Alexandrinam antiqui Fœderis
interpretationem_, E QUÂ UNÂ PLUS PETI POTERIT AUXILII, QUAM EX
VETERIBUS SCRIPTORIBUS GRÆCIS SIMUL SUMTIS. _Centena reperientur in
N. T. nusquam obvia in scriptis Græcorum veterum, sed frequentata in
Alexandrinâ versione._” (Valcknaer, 1715-85.)
_ 704 On the Authorized Version_,—p. 3.
_ 705 Preface_, p. xiv.
_ 706 Quarterly Review_, No. 304.
_ 707 Quarterly Review_, No. 305.
708 At the head of the present Article, as it originally appeared, will
be found enumerated Dr. Scrivener’s principal works. It shall but be
said of them, that they are wholly unrivalled, or rather
unapproached, in their particular department. Himself an exact and
elegant Scholar,—a most patient and accurate observer of Textual
phenomena, as well as an interesting and judicious expositor of
their significance and value;—guarded in his statements, temperate
in his language, fair and impartial (even kind) to all who come in
his way:—Dr. Scrivener is the very best teacher and guide to whom a
beginner can resort, who desires to be led by the hand, as it were,
through the intricate mazes of Textual Criticism. His _Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the use of
Biblical Students_, (of which a third edition is now in the press,)
is perforce the most generally useful, because the most
comprehensive, of his works; but we strenuously recommend the three
prefatory chapters of his _Full and Exact Collation of about twenty
Greek Manuscripts of the Gospels_ [pp. lxxiv. and 178,—1853], and
the two prefatory chapters of his _Exact Transcript of the Codex
Augiensis_, &c., to which is added a full Collation of Fifty
Manuscripts, [pp. lxxx. and 563,—1859,] to the attention of
students. His Collation of _Codex Bezæ_ (D) is perhaps the greatest
of his works: but whatever he has done, he has done best. It is
instructive to compare his collation of Cod. א with Tischendorf’s.
No reader of the Greek Testament can afford to be without his
reprint of Stephens’ ed. of 1550: and English readers are reminded
that Dr. Scrivener’s is the only _classical_ edition of the English
Bible,—_The Cambridge Paragraph Bible_, &c., 1870-3. His Preface or
“Introduction” (pp. ix.-cxx.) passes praise. Ordinary English
readers should enquire for his _Six Lectures on the Text of the N.
T._, &c., 1875,—which is in fact an attempt to popularize the _Plain
Introduction_. The reader is referred to note 1 at the foot of page
243.
709 “Agmen ducit Carolus Lachmannus (_N. T. Berolini_ 1842-50), ingenii
viribus et elegantiâ doctrinæ haud pluribus impar; editor N. T.
audacior quam limatior: cujus textum, a recepto longè decedentem,
tantopere judicibus quibusdam subtilioribus placuisse jamdudum
miramur: quippe qui, abjectâ tot cæterorum codicum Græcorum ope,
perpaucis antiquissimis (nec iis integris, nec per eum satis
accuratè collatis) innixus, libros sacros ad sæculi post Christum
quarti normam restituisse sibi videatur; versionum porrò (cujuslibet
codicis ætatem facilè superantium) Syriacæ atque Ægyptiacarum
contemptor, neutrius linguæ peritus; Latinarum contrà nimius fautor,
præ Bentleio ipso Bentleianus.”—Scrivener’s Preface to _Nov. Test,
textûs Stephanici_, &c. See above, p. 238, _note_.
710 Scrivener’s _Introduction_, p. 429.
711 N. T. Part II. p. 2.
712 No one who attends ever so little to the subject can require to be
assured that “_The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to
the text followed in the Authorized Version, together with the
variations adopted in the Revised Version_,” edited by Dr. Scrivener
for the Syndics of the Cambridge University Press, 1881, does not by
any means represent his own views. The learned Prebendary merely
edited the decisions of the two-thirds majority of the
Revisionists,—_which were not his own_.
713 Those who have never tried the experiment, can have no idea of the
strain on the attention which such works as those enumerated in p.
238 (_note_) occasion. At the same time, it cannot be too clearly
understood that it is chiefly by the multiplication of _exact_
collations of MSS. that an abiding foundation will some day be laid
on which to build up the _Science_ of Textual Criticism. We may
safely keep our “_Theories_” back till we have collated our
MSS.,—re-edited our Versions,—indexed our Fathers. They will be
abundantly in time _then_.
_ 714 Introduction_, p. 18.
715 See lower part of page 17. Also note at p. 75 and middle of p. 262.
716 P. 13, cf. p. viii.
717 They are as follows:—
[1st] S. Mark (vi. 33) relates that on a certain occasion the
multitude, when they beheld our SAVIOUR and His Disciples departing
in order to cross over unto the other side of the lake, ran on foot
thither,—(α) “_and outwent them_—(β) _and came together unto Him_”
(_i.e._ on His stepping out of the boat: not, as Dr. Hort strangely
imagines [p. 99], on His emerging from the scene of His “retirement”
in “some sequestered nook”).
Now here, A substitutes συνέδραμον [_sic_] for συνῆλθον.—א B with
the Coptic and the Vulg. omit clause (β).—D omits clause (α), but
substitutes “_there_” (αὐτοῦ) for “_unto Him_” in clause
(β),—exhibits therefore a fabricated text.—The Syriac condenses the
two clauses thus:—“_got there before Him_.”—L, Δ, 69, and 4 or 5 of
the old Latin copies, read diversely from all the rest and from one
another. The present is, in fact, one of those many places in S.
Mark’s Gospel where all is contradiction in those depraved witnesses
which Lachmann made it his business to bring into fashion. Of
_Confusion_ there is plenty. “Conflation”—as the Reader sees—there
is none.
[2nd] In S. Mark viii. 26, our SAVIOUR (after restoring sight to the
blind man of Bethsaida) is related to have said,—(α) “_Neither enter
into the village_”—(β) “_nor tell it to any one_—(γ) _in the
village_.” (And let it be noted that the trustworthiness of this way
of exhibiting the text is vouched for by A C N Δ and 12 other
uncials: by the whole body of the cursives: by the Peschito and
Harklensian, the Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions: and by the
only Father who quotes the place—Victor of Antioch. [Cramer’s _Cat._
p. 345, lines 3 and 8.])
But it is found that the “two false witnesses” (א B) omit clauses
(β) and (γ), retaining only clause (α). One of these two however
(א), aware that under such circumstances μηδέ is intolerable, [Dr.
Hort, on the contrary, (only because he finds it in B,) considers
μηδέ “_simple and vigorous_” as well as “unique” and “peculiar” (p.
100).] substitutes μή. As for D and the Vulg., they substitute and
paraphrase, importing from Matt. ix. 6 (or Mk. ii. 11), “_Depart
unto thine house_.” D proceeds,—“_and tell it to no one_ [μηδενὶ
εἴπῃς, from Matth. viii. 4,] _in the village_.” Six copies of the
old Latin (b f ff-2 g-1-2 l), with the Vulgate, exhibit the
following paraphrase of the entire place:—“_Depart unto thine house,
and if thou enterest into the village, tell it to no one._” The same
reading exactly is found in Evan. 13-69-346: 28, 61, 473, and i,
(except that 28, 61, 346 exhibit “_say nothing_ [from Mk. i. 44] _to
no one_.”) All six however add at the end,—“_not even in the
village_.” Evan. 124 and a stand alone in exhibiting,—“_Depart unto
thine house; and enter not into the village; neither tell it to any
one_,”—to which 124 [not a] adds,—“_in the village_.”... _Why_ all
this contradiction and confusion is now to be called
“Conflation,”—and what “clear evidence” is to be elicited therefrom
that “Syrian” are posterior alike to “Western” and to “neutral”
readings,—passes our powers of comprehension.
We shall be content to hasten forward when we have further informed
our Readers that while Lachmann and Tregelles abide by the Received
Text in this place; Tischendorf, _alone of Editors_, adopts the
reading of א (μη εις την κωμην εισελθης): while Westcott and Hort,
_alone of Editors_, adopt the reading of B (μηδε εις την κωμην
εισελθης),—so ending the sentence. What else however but calamitous
is it to find that Westcott and Hort have persuaded their fellow
Revisers to adopt the same mutilated exhibition of the Sacred Text?
The consequence is, that henceforth,—instead of “_Neither go into
the town, nor tell it to any in the town_,”—we are invited to read,
“_Do not even enter into the village_.”
[3rd] In S. Mk. ix. 38,—S. John, speaking of one who cast out devils
in CHRIST’S Name, says—(α) “_who followeth not us, and we forbad
him_—(β) _because he followeth not us_.”
Here, א B C L Δ the Syriac, Coptic, and Æthiopic, omit clause (α),
retaining (β). D with the old Latin and the Vulg. omit clause (β),
but retain (α).—Both clauses are found in A N with 11 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives, besides the Gothic, and the only
Father who quotes the place,—Basil [ii. 252].—Why should the
pretence be set up that there has been “Conflation” here? Two
Omissions do not make one Conflation.
[4th] In Mk. ix. 49,—our SAVIOUR says,—“_For_ (α) _every one shall
be salted with fire_—_and_ (β) _every sacrifice shall be salted with
salt_.”
Here, clause (α) is omitted by D and a few copies of the old Latin;
clause (β) by א B L Δ.
But such an ordinary circumstance as the omission of half-a-dozen
words by Cod. D is so nearly without textual significancy, as
scarcely to merit commemoration. And do Drs. Westcott and Hort
really propose to build their huge and unwieldy hypothesis on so
flimsy a circumstance as the concurrence in error of א B L
Δ,—especially in S. Mark’s Gospel, which those codices exhibit more
unfaithfully than any other codices that can be named? Against them,
are to be set on the present occasion A C D N with 12 other uncials
and the whole body of the cursives: the Ital. and Vulgate; both
Syriac; the Coptic, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic Versions; besides
the only Father who quotes the place,—Victor of Antioch. [Also
“Anon.” p. 206: and see Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 368.]
[5th] S. Luke (ix. 10) relates how, on a certain occasion, our
SAVIOUR “_withdrew to a desert place belonging to the city called
Bethsaida_:” which S. Luke expresses in six words: viz. [1] εἰς [2]
τόπον [3] ἔρημον [4] πόλεως [5] καλουμένης [6] Βηθσαϊδά: of which
six words,—
(_a_)—א and Syrcu retain but three,—1, 2, 3.
(_b_)—The Peschito retains but four,—1, 2, 3, 6.
(_c_)—B L X Ξ D and the 2 Egyptian versions retain other four,—1, 4,
5, 6: but for πόλεως καλουμένης D exhibits κώμην λεγομένην.
(_d_)—The old Latin and Vulg. retain five,—1, 2, 3, 5, 6: but for
“_qui_ (or _quod_) _vocabatur_,” the Vulg. _b_ and _c_ exhibit
“_qui_ (or _quod_) est.”
(_e_)—3 cursives retain other five, viz. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6: while,
(_f_)—A C Δ E, with 9 more uncials and the great bulk of the
cursives,—the Harklensian, Gothic, Armenian, and Æthiopic
Versions,—retain _all the six words_.
In view of which facts, it probably never occurred to any one before
to suggest that the best attested reading of all is the result of
“conflation,” _i.e._ of _spurious mixture_. Note, that א and D have,
this time, changed sides.
[6th] S. Luke (xi. 54) speaks of the Scribes and Pharisees as (α)
“_lying in wait for Him_,” (β) _seeking_ (γ) _to catch something out
of His mouth_ (δ) “_that they might accuse Him_.” This is the
reading of 14 uncials headed by A C, and of the whole body of the
cursives: the reading of the Vulgate also and of the Syriac. What is
to be said against it?
It is found that א B L with the Coptic and Æthiopic Versions omit
clauses (β) and (δ), but retain clauses (α) and (γ).—Cod. D, in
conjunction with Cureton’s Syriac and the old Latin, retains clause
(β), and _paraphrases all the rest of the sentence_. How then can it
be pretended that there has been any “Conflation” here?
In the meantime, how unreasonable is the excision from the Revised
Text of clauses (β) and (δ)—(ζητοῦντες ... ἵνα κατηγορήσωσιν
αὐτόν)—which are attested by A C D and 12 other uncials, together
with the whole body of the cursives; by all the Syriac and by all
the Latin copies!... Are we then to understand that א B, and the
Coptic Version, outweigh every other authority which can be named?
[7th] The “rich fool” in the parable (S. Lu. xii. 18), speaks of (α)
πάντα τὰ γενήματά μου, καὶ (β) τὰ ἀγαθά μου. (So A Q and 13 other
uncials, besides the whole body of the cursives; the Vulgate, Basil,
and Cyril.)
But א D (with the old Latin and Cureton’s Syriac [which however
drops the πάντα]), retaining clause (α), omit clause (β).—On the
other hand, B T, (with the Egyptian Versions, the Syriac, the
Armenian, and Æthiopic,) retaining clause (β), substitute τὸν σῖτον
(a gloss) for τὰ γενήματα in clause (α). Lachmann, Tisch., and
Alford, accordingly retain the traditional text in this place. So
does Tregelles, and so do Westcott and Hort,—only substituting τὸν
σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα. Confessedly therefore there has been no
“Syrian conflation” _here_: for all that has happened has been _the
substitution_ by B of τὸν σῖτον for τὰ γενήματα; and the omission of
4 words by א D. This instance must therefore have been an
oversight.—Only once more.
[8th] S. Luke’s Gospel ends (xxiv. 53) with the record that the
Apostles were continually in the Temple, “(α) _praising and_ (β)
_blessing _GOD.” Such is the reading of 13 uncials headed by A and
every known cursive: a few copies of the old Lat., the Vulg.,
Syraic, Philox., Æthiopic, and Armenian Versions. But it is found
that א B C omit clause (α): while D and seven copies of the old
Latin omit clause (β).
And this completes the evidence for “Conflation.” We have displayed
it thus minutely, lest we should be suspected of unfairness towards
the esteemed writers on _the only occasion_ which they have
attempted argumentative proof. Their theory has at last _forced
them_ to make an appeal to Scripture, and to produce some actual
specimens of their meaning. After ransacking the Gospels for 30
years, they have at last fastened upon _eight_: of which (as we have
seen), several have really no business to be cited,—as not
fulfilling the necessary conditions of the problem. To prevent cavil
however, let _all but one_, the [7th], pass unchallenged.
718 The Reader is referred to pp. 17, 75, 249.
_ 719 E.g._ pp. 115, 116, 117, 118, &c.
720 Referred to below, p. 296.
721 See above, pages 257 (bottom) and 258 (top).
722 See above, pp. 37 to 38.
_ 723 Ibid._ p. 39.
724 To speak with entire accuracy, Drs. Westcott and Hort require us to
believe that the Authors of the [imaginary] Syrian Revisions of A.D.
250 and A.D. 350, interpolated the genuine Text of the Gospels, with
between 2877 (B) and 3455 (א) spurious words; mutilated the genuine
Text in respect of between 536 (B) and 839 (א) words:—substituted
for as many genuine words, between 935 (B) and 1114 (א) uninspired
words:—licentiously transposed between 2098 (B) and 2299 (א):—and in
respect of number, case, mood, tense, person, &c., altered without
authority between 1132 (*B*) and 1265 (א) words.
725 Quoted by Canon Cook, _Revised Version Considered_,—p. 202.
_ 726 i.e._ say from A.D. 90 to A.D. 250-350.
727 See above, p. 269.
728 “If,” says Dr. Hort, “an editor were for any purpose to make it his
aim to restore as completely as possible the New Testament of
Antioch in A.D. 350, he could not help taking the approximate
consent of the cursives as equivalent to _a primary documentary
witness_. And he would not be the less justified in so doing for
being unable to say precisely by what historical agencies THE ONE
ANTIOCHIAN ORIGINAL”—[note the fallacy!]—“_was multiplied into the
cursive hosts of the later ages_.”—Pp. 143-4.
729 Preface to the “limited and private issue” of 1870, p. xviii.:
reprinted in the _Introduction_ (1881), p. 66.
_ 730 Ibid._
731 P. 65 (§ 84). In the Table of Contents (p. xi.), “_Personal
instincts_” are substituted for “_Personal discernment_.”
_ 732 The Revisers and the Greek Text_,—p. 19.
_ 733 Introduction_,—p. xiii.
_ 734 Notes_, p. 22.
_ 735 Notes_, p. 88.
_ 736 Notes_,—p. 51.
737 Scrivener’s _Plain Introduction_,—pp. 507-8.