deciding between them, even though we say nothing of difficulties of interpretation: on any view many important churches for long ages have had only an approximately pure New Testament, so that we have no right to treat it as antecedently incredible that only an approximately pure New Testament should be attainable now, or even in all future time. For ourselves we dare not introduce considerations which could not reasonably be applied to other ancient texts, supposing them to have documentary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity. Secondly, the folly and frivolity of once popular conjectures have led to a wholesome reaction against looking beyond documentary tradition. Some of them are attempts to deal textually with what are really difficulties of interpretation only; the authors of others, though they propose remedies which cannot possibly avail, are not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposition that remedies were needed; and a few have been perhaps too quickly forgotten. Though it cannot be said that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural criticism for the New Testament have shown much felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned on the ground of principle. The caution imposed by the numerous failures of the earlier critics has on the whole worked well; but it has no bearing on the question at issue.
362. On the other hand a strong presumption in favour of the immunity of the text of the New Testament from errors antecedent to existing documents is afforded by the facts mentioned under the last head (§§ 357—360). If among the very ancient evidence now extant, collected from various quarters, so little can be found that approves itself as true in opposition both to Β and א,
