_ The fact to which we allude is in itself so strik- ing an evidence both of the phenomenon to which we wish to call attention, and of the insight of the scholar who alone in our generation seems to have mastered the textual problems presented by Patristic citations, that we venture to transcribe in full the account which Dr. Hort gave of the steps by which he was led to the discovery of the lost commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia. He is referring to commentaries in Latin on ten of
St. Paul’s Epistles contained in a Corbey MS to which Pitra had recently called attention, claim- ing their authorship for Hilary of Poitiers. He writes (Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. xii., Feb. 1860, p. 303 f.) as follows :—
‘What led me to the true authorship was, first, the character of the text used in the quotations ; and, secondly, two passages on Gal 424.29, referred to by Pitra among the ‘‘splendidiora, quibus sibi haud impar identidem Hilarius emicat.” St. Hilary employs, as is well known, a tolerably pure form of the Old Latin version of the NT; the text of the commentary is distinct- ively Greek of a late and bad type. No Father using any known Latin text could have so written; it contains many corruptions not found in the very worst copies of the Vulgate, much less in earlier versions. It is too corrupt in its character for any considerable Greek Father even of cent. iv, except those connected with the Syrian school, and, among them, a shade too bad for St. Chrysostom or Theodoret. These facts considerably narrowed the question of authorship. And when, in commenting on the passages of Galatians, the author showed himself a vehement opponent of allegorical interpretation, it was easy to see that he must have been a literalist of too decided a character to be unknown,—in fact could not well be any other than Theodore himself, the chief of the literalists, or his brother Polychronius. Reference to a catena at once put an end to all speculation; the Greek fragments of Theodore appeared in the Latin along with their lost context.’
15. Now, if Alexandria persistently rejected the Traditional Text, if Jerome came back from the East convinced of the excellence of the MSS that least resembled it, if there are marked differences during this period even between individual mem- bers of the Antiochene-Constantinopolitan school, it is difficult to know where to look for evidence of the universal, not to say exclusive, predomin- ance of the Traditional Text in cent. v. Even the Peshitta, which Mr. Gwilliam + believes, and no doubt rightly (Ozford Debate, p. 32), that he can trace back with minute accuracy to the shape which it possessed in this same cent. v, is very far from affording that undivided support which Mr. Miller desiderates ; a fact which perhaps accounts for the coldness with which he receives a statement that used to be regarded almost as a commonplace —to wit, that ‘the Syriac Version is the sheet- anchor of the Traditionalist position.’ We are not sure that he would have been pleased with the suggestion, for which nevertheless there is some- thing to be said, that Theodore of Mopsuestia should be promoted to the place left vacant by the Peshitta.
16. These, however, are matters of minor import-
* Wordsworth and White, N.7. Latine Epilogus, cap. vi. ‘De regulis a nobis in Textu constituendo adhibitis.’
+ Mr. Burkitt’s essay (Teats and Studies, vii. 2) goes far to prove that the Peshitta is in fact a revision made in this century,
ance. It has all along been admitted that the Traditional Text was in existence in substantially its present form by the middle of the fourth century. The really vital point is to determine whether there is any evidence of its existence in the preceding period. On this point Dr. Hort 20 years ago made a statement, which was precise and definite enough, one might have thought, to ensure patient and attentive consideration on the part of those whose whole system must fall to the ground if the position laid down in it should prove to be well founded. His words are these (Introduction, p. 114, § 162) : ‘ Before the middle of the third century, at the very earliest, we have no historical signs of the existence of readings, conflate or other, that are marked as distinctively Syrian by the want of attestation from groups of documents which have preserved the other ancient forms of text.’ For the identification of the readings referred to, full directions are given in §§ 225 f., 343. And any one who chose to take the trouble could make out lists of them for himself and test the accuracy of the contention. Mr. Miller refuses to take this method of attempting to understand the position of his opponent. He prefers a method which is not a little surprising in a writer who lays such stress on the importance of sound logic. His words (p. xv, Preface to Oxford Debate) are as follows :—
‘ We entirely traverse the assertion, that ‘no distinctly (sic) Syrian (¢.e. Traditional) readings” are found amongst the earliest Fathers. Very many of the readings in the Traditional Text which are rejected by the other school are supported by those Fathers: and there is no evidence, as we maintain, to show that they pertain to the other side or to any other Text rather than to us, or that readings confessedly old and found in the Traditional Text did not belong to that Text.’