How are we to sift and judge the evidence? That it is not allowable to count the witnesses is now generally acknowledged ; in theory, too, it is acknowledged th.at we have to distinguish between the age of the MS and that of its text ; but in practice too great weight is still allowed to the oldest of our MSS. Neither is it sufficient to follow an eclectic course,i to decide each case by itself, to stop at the comparison of single readings. This is only the first step ; and for this it is suffi- cient to take the most significant variations, i.e. (a) such as otter a considerable divergence of meaning with a small variation of form, whether it be brought about (a) accidentally or (/3) by pur- pose; or {h) such as otier identity of meaning with great variation of form ; or, finally (c), additions, omissions, and transjjositions.
Such passages are, for instance, for (a) from Revelation J —
1» Xiaavri, NAC . . .
XovaavTi^ QP , , , 8" dfToC, XAQ . . .
dyyAof, P , , •
13" ' 666,' almost all.
'616,' C 11 (MSS qnoted by Irensens).
• Cf. further : ' id verixis, fjuod prius,' called by Dean Burgon an axiom wliic-h holds every bit as true in Textual Criticism aa in DoK'iiiatic Truth {Last Verseg, 70).
t How dan^'eroMs an eclectic course is maybe seen from the latest recension of the NT, that of B. Weiss, who reads in Lk 52 wKoiKfiiei 2^ (diminutive, and iv4 as Becond wordX ft reading which none of our witnesses o£fen —
KD . . . iut rA<7a.
B . . . wKt7m iU.
AC* . . . ii* s-A^fdc^fa,
t In the first line is put the reading adopted In the text by WH. Only a selection of the witnesses is given, chiefly uncial MSS.
22'"* TrXOyoi^res tAs trroXas at-ru;*', XA . . ,
TTOLOUVT^i Tas ivToXas avToC-, Q . . , But as in Rev. the documents are rare, it is oi greater importance to quote from other books —
Mk 6^ w6p€i, NBL.
^TTo/ei, almost alL Lk 3^ 'lu/S^X, {<*BD*(w(3i;\).
'Iw;3i)5, the rest. 1 Co 13' Kavxhauiiioj., NAB 17.*
Kav6r]<jo^ai (-W-), the rest. He 2* xi^/jiTi, almost all.
xupis, M 67'', mentioned by Origea
1 Ti 4>» 6.yuvi^ap.eea, N*AC.
6vu5iil>y.eBa., N'DL. IP V (TTopas, BKL.
{pBopas, HAG,
2 P 2.^ ddiKoi/ifvoi, N*BP.
KOfuovfieyoij X^AC • • • „ d;rdTats, NA*C.
dyaTcu^, A'B. Jude " iyoLTrais, NBKL. dirdrac^ ACt „ ^- -^ oOs iiiv iXedre . . . oBs Si Aeare, NB (will minor variations), oils Si iXiyxere . . . oBs Si iXeari, A.J
(h) Of the second class compare —
Mk 3* TTwpwffeif almost all.
venpuau, D, old lat. syi**".
• WH adduce for this reading also Clement of Alexandria 614 : w-Tj ykp KtLi 0 >.ttii o Tot; ;)^f.Ai0-ii' ityavMy (see above, p. 735),
itf*Ti zsi StXXot ^tcpacitiei^ ri ffMLUt, I'tat xttuXKrr.Toti ^ * for 80 the
parallelism to rtjijcuxtciii makes it necessary to read ; the only
extant MS has xxudKrtTeti.' As the passage ia of primary import.
ance, the present writer consulted the future editor of the works of Clement (for the Berlin edition), Dr. Stahlin, who does not think this chauf^e justified, pointing to the preceding ^e$*
31, which refers to a violent martyrdom. We may refer further
to Clement, 588 Cf., where Clement, after several references to 1 Co 13, mentions examples of heathen who endured the fire (Postumus, Anaxarches), and goes on to say : fju>u ii i>>.iuBipm xHv . . , iu wy^ay^ uvovirri at/pi . . . tclU Ot.ms KV^prmf/unwi
ixis-liai hu>xu,iinni. Here there seems to be a reference to 1 Co 133 as well as to Mt 10-a.
t Here, as in Lk 3-^, 1 Co 133, the decision of WH seems influenced by their predilection for nB. To what is remarked (Introd. p. 324 ff.) on these two passages add the following: Svhatever \-iew may be taken of the relation of 2 Peter to Jude, it seems clear (1) that tlie reading must be the same in both Epistles, either airaTawf or a-yatireu! ; the one Epistle quoting from the other — Peter from Jude, or Jude from Peter. (2) To the present writer, at least, it is clear that xTaisut ia the true reading. The apparatus of Tischendorf is very misleading, as the translation of Jerome (cunvivia in Peter, epxUtjB in Jude) testifies in both cases for aT«T<rj = diversions, pastimes. Cf. in rlude the reading iv4»x-«' in cod. G&^; Protev. Jacobi, 6. I: inirXatvv* xuTr,v ; 7. 2 (cod. L) : faV rX<c*t:i>«t^r>i; = pseudo-Matthias 8. 4 o^ solatium ; Sir 141* iraLrr,nr T^» ^fxn» fou = * let thy soul fare delicately ' (Taylor, Heb. pJS) ; Syriac 'j"i3 Git. = ripwut) for lj«!rXaev«» iu the I'rotevangelium. Bigg (Commentarp^ 1901, pp. 212, 2S2, 833) declares iyawmt In both places to be the right reading.
J Here WH remark ; * The smooth reading of A, etc, has every appearance of being a correction of the ditlicult double ixiin ol K and B. . . . Some primitive error evidently affecta the pas- sage. Perhaps the first ixiin ... is intnisive.' Cf., on this verse, the elaborate paper by U. A. Falconer in the Exf-ositor, Sept. 1901 ; hut note that the Didnche. or, rather, the still older writing which forms the basis of the first part of the Didactic, clearly testifies for 'iKiyxf^^ In the only extant MS of tlie Diilachf, it is true, «U f^t ixnetit has fallen out, in its Latin text also ccXXtt tZe ui* ixtylur before it and rtpi oi Zr Twrc/fr after it : but after the Apostolic Canons (Greek and Syriac) w-e must read in the Uidache cu fAter^ffut Tat-ret itdp^rrtt, «AAa tli