ilt 1'" 'laKoj^ &i iyiffrjtrtr Toe 'Iiotrij'f) Toe av5pa Mapt'af , «"f ^?
iytvvrjQri 'I,)troOs o Ae-ytificeo? XpitrToc, t 'iii/tl. (rftrr. litif. ijiti
fxfitaiit 077}ji. vihni'<t:. qiKtuiphtr. I'trnn. {iitcl. f ffj, tft/. 1),
</. llial. Tim. et Aq. fol. 1 1:! r°. ^
'loKuijS 6e eyeVi'tjffe Toi' 'Iwatj'^, (J ^vijerTcuOeiira napQivov
Maptap. fy€vi'r)(Ttv 'I»j<TOue Toe Ktyop.evo'j Xpitrrdi', :l4()-'»'.i('^-
82S {anctore K. Lake, tl*\f. 1.3-tilil ; cui dosponsata virgo
(o7n. q) Maria genuit. .Je'siim qui dicitur (vocatur g, q),
Christus a g, i), cf. IJial. Tim. et Ai/. fol. O.S v".
Shnitifcr, cui desponsata vlrgo Maria genuit (peperit dl.Iesum
Christum (oin rbv AeyoM.. Christum .Tesmn d) d k Syr.-Cur.
Jacob aulem genuit Joseph, cui desponsata erat virgo .Maria;
virgo autem .Maria genuit Jesum p u:f- e). 'IaKu>^ eyeVe,j(ree Toy 'luo-iji^ toI' ai-5pa Mapia?, ff ^f eyevf ijAtj 'ItjuoO? o Acyo^Kro; XptaTOC ' kolI *litt(Tr)itt iytwrjiTfi' Toj* 'lr}iTovv Toe ^(yofiefof XpnTToe, Diitl. Tim. et A'J. fol. O'-i r^. 'IaKw0 eytvy. Tof 'Iwcrijt^ * 'Iwffiji^, <i ifiyijcTTcvdr} napdivoi Mapia^, iyifyrjafv ^lr}aouy Toe Afyd/ieeoi' XpiaToc, Syr.-Sin. The eccentric readings all occur within the range of the so- called Western text, and there is no doubt that they belong to a very early stage in tho history of that text. Two opposite teiulencies appear to have been at work, which are most con- spicuously represented in ancient forms of the Syriac Version, tlu.ugh the original in each case was probably (Jreek.
On the one hand there was a tendency to emphasize tlie virginity of Marv, and to remove expressions which seemed in any way to conflict with this. For the Iduiit [ihrase, ' .losejih hei- husband.' the Curetonlan Syriac witli the oldest Latin authorities sultstitutes. '.loseph to whom was espoused' — not only ' .Mary,' but 'the Virgin Mary.' A little lower down (with Tatlan's Diate>ixttroii). for '.Joseph her husband being a just man ' (o afijp ai/Try; SiKaioi iLf 1 It reads ' .Toseph being a just man' lat-Tjp Six. mv). In v.*> for 'thy '.vlfe ' it has 'thine espoused.' In v.^*, again with Tatian, It has some such softened
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
Gl.'i
phrase as ' lie- dwolt chastely with her,' and fur * took his wife ' ft has ' lotik Mary'; and lii \\-^ (l>ut here in aik'reeinent with KHZ rt/. t it has simply "brought forth a son,'— not 'her Ilrst- born sun.'
in suine of these readlups, or parts of them, the Sfnftl-Syriac a^frees, lull alunf; with them It has uthei-s which seem tu be of a dlreetlv opposite tendency. The most pr4)inlnent Is, of course, ' Josei'dl liet'at .lesiis,' In v.". We ml(.'ht have thought that this was an accident dire to the influence on the mind of the scribe of ttle repealed iytvvr)iT<y of the previous verses; but In v.'» tije same MS has * bear tlleo a son,' an<l in v."* ' she bore hlin a son ' ; and In Lk V there Is a counter change to that of the I nretonlan In v.*> Cwlth Mary his wife' for '.Mary his esi-uiix-d ') ; all which readings bang together, and appear to be distinctly anti-ascetic. And now the singular reaillng In v." has found a coincidence in the cutiHate text of one of the (iUutJitluns in the Ditilogue of Tiuiotluj and Af/uila.
it Is of course true that both these authorities— the 8lnal- Syrlae and the J)ialogut!—i\T<i very far from thuruughgolng, llie Syrlac text has nut tampered in any way with the ex[dlclt language of vv.i*-®*; and— what Is especially strange—In the very act of combining 'ivtu-i\<ii with iyevvriatv It inserts a large fVagrnent of the (.'uretunlan reading (J) «>ifTj<rT<uC»7 Trapfleco? Mapiiwl substituted for tok ai-Spa Mapi'at. On the other hand, the peculiar reading occurs In one urdy out of three quotutluns In the dialogue, and there In tho foriii of a contlatlon with the common text. Kut is it the case that these authorities jtolnt to sinne fttrm of reading older than any of those now extant, which made .loseph the father of .lesus? There would be a further questiun, wtiethor, su[»posing that such a reading existed, it formed any [tart of the text of our present Gospel ?
There would seem to be three main possibilities, (a) The geiie;ilof.'y may in the first instance have had an existence independently of the Gospel, and it may have been incorporated with it by the editor of the whole. In that case it is (|nite coni'civable that the penealogy may have ended 'lu<rii<p Si iy^iii/rj^cv Tbh''lTi<ToOf. Uiiles.s it were composed by someone very intimate indeed with the Holy J'amily, it mi^lit well reflect the current state of popular oiiinion in the fir.st half of the apostolic a^e. (6) The reading might be the result of text- ual corruption. There would always be a natural tendency in the minds of scrilx-s to assimilate mei'hanically the last links in the genealogy to pre- ceding link.s, A further confusion miglit easily arise from the amhigiioiis sense of the word 7en'a>', which wa.s used of the mother as well as of the father (cf. Gal 4-*). If we suppose that the original text ran, 'lwirr^<p rbv ivSpa. Maplas ri iyiv- vy)iT(f 'ItjaoOv t6v \€y6^ivov Xpiarbi/, that would per- hiips accotint for the two divergent lines of varianus belter than any other. A reading like this appears to lie behind the Coptic (Boliairic) Version, (c) It is conceivable that the reading (or grou]) of reading.s) in Syr-Sin. may be of definitely Kbionile origin. That which we call ' heresy ' existed in so many shades, and was often so little consistent with itself, that it would be no decisive argninent against this hypothesis that the sense of the readings is contnulicted by the immediate context. It would he enough for the scribe to liave had Ebionite leanings, and he may have thought of initural ami supernatural generation as not mutually exclusive. We can only note these possihilitit^s ; the data do not allow us to decide absolutely between them.