In other words, ‘we entirely traverse’ a state- ment, which has express reference to one element in the Traditional Text, by asserting propositions which have never been denied with regard to the other elements which on any hypothesis are recog- nizable in its composition. It would have been simpler to deny altogether the existence of ‘dis- tinctively Syrian readings’ as defined by Dr. Hort. That at least is a question which can be brought to a definite issue. On that point the Apparatus Criticus will be recognized as an impartial arbiter.
17. Let us, then, examine the facts for ourselves. It is clear that in this article we shall have to limit ourselves to illustrative specimens, as an example of a method which any one can learn to apply for himself to any part of the NT that he chooses. At the same time it is important for the right under- standing of the method, that it should be seen in application to continuous portions of the text— and not in isolated examples chosen because they possess special features of interest or importance. The weight of authorities in cases of primary im- portance can be learnt only by patient attention to details which in themselves may seem absurdly trivial and insignificant.
We propose therefore to set forth and to ex- amine first a list of all the readings which have a claim to be regarded as distinctively Syrian in 1 Timothy, and then to attempt a more compre- hensive analysis of all the variants in Mk 1**, It is true that the ultimate decision of the true text in the Pastoral Epistles is less secure than it is in the case of most of the books of the NT, owing to the absence not only of B, but also of any demon- strably early Latin or Syriac evidence—apart from the isolated quotations in Cyprian; but these considerations will not seriously affect the identi- fication of ‘distinctively Syrian readings,’ and the specimen chosen has the advantage of enabling us to study the influence of similar but not identical contexts on one another in a way that may throw light on a class of readings that meet us constantly in the Synoptic Gospels.
214 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
18. The first step is to collect all the readings supported by the mass of later documents without the support of any of the five leading uncials
NACD,G;.
(1) 1 Ti 1?—nyéy (after rarpds) N*AD,*G, eu® Lat-ve Boh Go Arm: Orig,
+¢c¢. rell. Syrr Sah Ath : Chr, ete.
See v.1, and note similar addition in 2 Ti VER Sy es al Sablon aie
It forms part of the true text in all the other Pauline salutations except Gala- tians.
(2) 1 Ti 14 (a) olkovoutay, NAG;K,L,P, most cur- sives Arm Boh: Chr, ete.
(0) otkodouny, D,* Iren Lat-vg Go Syr.
(c) ofxodoulay, s* D.¢ and a few cursives.
Note characteristic Pauline use of olko- voulay ; cf. Eph 3°.
olkodoulay (not found elsewhere in Gr. Bible) combines the sound of (a) with the sense of (6).
(3) 1 Ti 1° rarpo- unrporgas, NADGs (P,) (K3) 17 37 137.
TATpa- unTparwors, = c. rell.
The spelling rarpo- is due to a false analogy ; but the question we have to settle 1s not which spelling is right in itself, but which St. Paul is most likely to have used.
(4) 1Ti 1% 70 mpérepoy svra, NAD,*G5P, cu’: Chr mose 1 Cyr.
Tov mpérepov dvra, = ¢. rell. Lat-vg : Chr, ete.
Here the neuter is clearly the more idiom- atic,
(5) 1 Ti D7 pdr 668, S*AD,*Gy cu? Lat-vg Syr-hr Boh Sah Arm Ath: Eus Cyr Chr ™ Tert.
Mov cob@ eG, ¢ c rell. Go Syr-hcel: Chr *x* not Come ete.
Cf. Ro 16?” where oo¢6 has point, cf. 11% ; and note similar insertion in Jude ™.
(6) 1 Ti 2’ dcatrws yuvatkas, S*AP.(D,*G, add cal): (Clem) (Orig),
woatrws kal ras yuv., ¢ c. Da rel: Chr.
Cf. v.2. in 1 P 31, and note neighbourhood of rods dvdpas.
(7) 1 Ti2? ey mréypaow Kat xpvod # wap., NAD,*G Syr-vg Boh: Orig 4 ies math ey TAEyuaow 7} XpvTe 7) bap., « @. Tell. (exe. Pal’) f m Lat-vg Syr-hel Go Sah: Clem
Orig 4 Cypr Chr.
The combined evidence of Versions and Fathers, if the details may be trusted, pers that this variant is pre-Syrian.
t is possibly Alexandrian.
Cf. v2. in 1 P 33. There seems to be a point in the distinction between the treatment of the hair and of the jewels.
(8) 1 Ti 2” Siddonew 5€ yuvauct, NAD,G,P eu? Lat-vg Arm: Orig Cypr. ys yurackl d€ ddoxew, ¢ c, rell. Syrr (Boh) Sah;
Chr.
The emphasis clearly lies on OddoKeww,
(9) 1 Ti gi efamarnbeioa., 8*AD.*G3P, cu": Chr 4.
amarnbetca, « c. rell: Chr 3,
éfar. Pauline, ef. 2 Co 113. come in from context,
(10*) 1 Ti 33—ypy alex poxepoy, SAD.G,;KLP ens? verss: Orig™t Tert Chr,
+s ¢. rell. Syr-hel-mg,
Insertion from y.8, Ti 17 3 cf. Ti 14, 1 P52
Here superfluous, see apiddpyupov, : (LD) eri 3r ds epavepwOn, N*A*C*F.G, cu? Boh Sah Syr-hel-mg ; Orig, 8 épavepdOn, D,* Lat-vg Syr-vg-hel Arm. Os épavephOn, se. X°C°D.°KLP rell.
amar. has
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
F, is quoted here, though the present writer does not believe that it has any autho- rity independent of G;, because it is sometimes quoted wrongly in support of Geds. ‘The line above o is not horizontal, and corresponds exactly to the line which elsewhere indicates a rough breathing in this MS. ‘There is no trace of a sagitta in the o, ;