On this reading see Hort, Appendix, p. 132 ff.
Note especially the evidence of theVersions,
(12) 1 Ti 4? &v dydary a év ricrer, SACD,G, cu? verss: Clem Chr.
év ay. é&v mvetuare ev 1., +c. Yell.
Insertion awkward; 1 Co 47, 2 Co 68 no parallels. Prob, from Col 18.
(13) 1 Ti 4% davepa 7 raow, NACD,*G, cu? verss. gay. 7 &v w., 5 c. rell: Chr.
Cf. Ac 418,
(14*) 1 Ti 54 drodexrév, NACD,G,KLP cu?! Lat-vg Syzrr Aith : Chr.
Kadov kal d., = c. rell. incl. Boh Go Arm.
Insertion from 2°. The only other instance of dod. in NT.
(15) 1 Ti 574 Xpicrod Inco, NAD,*G, cu® Lat-vg Boh Sah Arm Aith: Clem Ath.
kuptov "I. X., s ¢. rell. Syrr Go: Chr.
Cf. 2 Ti4'. Fuller titles characteristic of later MSS.
(16) 1 Ti 5% ra epya 7a add, NAD,G.P. cn®.
Ta Kara épya, s ce. rell: Chr.
Perhaps from Mt 5%, note od dtvarat KpuBAvae v.44,
(17) 1 Ti 5® (a) rpddnda, NA 67**,
(6) mp. eior, D,G,P, cu’.
(c) mp. éort., = c. rell: Chr.
Here (6) and (c) are insertions of a com- mon type. (c) apparently a correction of (d) to bring it into agreement with classical rules ; cf. 2 Ti 427,
The plural is by no means uncommon in later Greek.
(18*) 1 Ti 6® diaraparpiBat, SAD,G;LoP., ete.: Clem Chr.
mapadiarpeBat, + ‘not many cursives.’
diamapa—in itself a rarer form of com- pound—is much more vigorous, con- noting an intensified form of raparp.8%, ‘friction’ or ‘ collision.’
{19} 1 Ti 6° — dgloraco awd Trav rTovodtrwr, SAD.G, cu® Lat-ve Boh Sah Go Atth. +¢ ¢. rell. incl. Syrr Arm: Chr; ef.
Cypr.
An insertion, of an unusually bold type for this form of text, to complete a misunderstood construction. The evi- dence of Cyprian shows that it is not purely ‘Syrian.’ It isof a Western type.
(20) 1 Ti 67 (a) dre odde €&., N* AG, 17 (Lat-vg-codd) r Sah Boh Arm; Ath.
() adnbés bru o. &, D* m Go: Cypr ak aliter.
(c) dfroy bru 0. 6, ¢ eC. N°D.°K,L,P,: Chr.
(0) and (c) are independent attempts to mend (@),
See Hort, Appendix, p. 134. He con- jectures that the true reading is simply ovdé €€. This is found in Arm Cyr. Cyprian also seems to omit ru.
(21*) 1 Ti 6” eis qv éxAnOns. All uncials, many cursives, all versions (exe. Syr-hel): Chr. els iy kal é., sc. rell,
An echo of Col 3",
(22) 1 Ti 67 ad emt eG (or Tw Oecd), SAD,*G.P, eu® ; Orig Chr,
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 215
aN év TH O., = c. Yell. It seems difficult to find a clear case of ékr. €v in NT. Certainly not Ph 2%, and 1 Co 15 is more than doubtful. ért is found regularly, eg. 1 Jn 3,1 Ti 4, and in this verse. _ (23*) 1 Ti 6" mdvra mdovelws, all uncials exe. G, most cursives, all versions (exc. Atth): Orig Chr. trovolws mdvra, ¢ Ath, not many cur- sives. Gz omits rdyra. (24) 1 Ti 6 dy7ws, SAD,*G, cu!” verss. aiwvlov, + c. rell. (387 ‘conflates’ alwvlov évTws): Chr. aiwvtov is habitual with fwis; ef. v.22. dvrws is striking, and characteristic of this py saci y oss: (25*) 1 Ti 6° rapabjxny, all uncials, most cursives: Clem Jen. TapakaTabnkyy, Hipp Chr. mapaxkarad, is said to be the Attic form.
19. Here, then, are 25 readings which have a prima facie claim to be regarded as ‘Syrian’ or ‘post-Syrian.’ The criterion, as Dr. Hort warns us (§§ 324f., 343), is not an infallible one. We need not be surprised, therefore, to find among them 2 readings (7 and 19) which are proved by Old Latin evidence to be pre-Syrian; we may therefore strike them out of our list. The whole 25 belong to the Received Text. How many of them Mr. Miller would assign to the Traditional Text it is impossible to say. No. 2, the support for which is infinitesimal, may be assumed to disappear. We shall therefore exclude it also from consideration. Nos. 10, 14, 18, 21, 23, 25 (which are distinguished above by an asterisk), when there is serious divi- sion among the cursives, must be regarded as at best uncertain. Dr. Hort would call them post-Syrian ; it would be interesting to know how many of them Mr. Miller would class as ‘ post- Traditional.’ In any case, they witness to a pro- gressive deterioration in the text of the Epistle. We shall not, however, strike them out of the list, as their internal characteristics show a striking ‘family likeness’ to their predecessors. They may well be regarded as later results of the work- ing of one and the same tendency. We shall, how- ever, where possible, mark a distinction between them and the other readings. We have no wish to take an unfair advantage of the Traditional Text.
20. The first point that strikes us on a survey of the list as a whole is the triviality of by far the greater number of the examples. One (3) is a mere mnatter of spelling, (4, 6, 16) affect only an article, 3 (8, 16, 23*) relate to the order of words, 2 (13, 22) to prepositions, 3 (9, 18*, 25*) to different compounds of the same root, 4 (1, 17, 20, 21*) are quite trivial insertions; there are only 7—2 changes of words (11, 24) and 5 insertions (5, 10*, 12, 14*, 15)—which can be regarded as at all important. Of these, only 1 (11) can be supposed to affect any point of doctrine, and, as the Nicene Fathers managed to make shift without the reading of the Traditional Text, we need not be afraid to keep the demonstre bly older reading. ‘aes -4