21. The next point of interest is the distribution of support on the different sides on the part of Fathers and Versions.* :
In the Patristic evidence the result is remark- able. Taking the whole number of passages (25), ante-Nicene evidence is quoted against the ‘Syrian’
s with many cursives:
* We have taken the evidence from Tischendorf and Tregelles. We have not thought it worth while to subject the whole to an independent verification. The Patristic evidence includes, it will be noticed, all the ante-Nicene quotations, together with the quotations in Chrysostom.
Text 18 times, and only once (25*—a reading in Hippolytus incapable of verification) in support of it. If we leave out the 6 doubtful examples, the numbers are 12 against, 0 for. Chrysostom’s text shows a marked contrast. He is quoted in all on 20 of the passages. In the 6 doubtful cases he supports the ante-Nicene in 5. In the remaining 14 his authority is quoted on both sides in 3 cases (4, 5, 9). He supports the Traditional Text in 12 (or 9) cases, he opposes it in 2 (or 5). Among Versions the results are as follows :—
Latin Vulg. supports the Trad. Text 1, opposes it 13 (9) times. (7)
Bohairic . °¢) a 2) ems, 10 ” Sahidic . ” ” 1 ” 10 (7) ” Syriac Vulg. 6 5 3 59 9(5) ,, Harclean Syriac ,, 35 4 es 8(4) ,, Ethiopic . cs fn 1 ne 10(6) ,, Armenian . a LO) 12 ie ” Gothic : % > £2)" 5; 6(5) ,,
All the extant Versions are combined in 10*, 11, oe 13, 23*, 24, in each case against the Received
ext.
22. It remains to indicate briefly the character of the readings of the Traditional Text. Clearly, its most noteworthy feature isitsfulness. In one case (16) it errs by defect, it drops one article out of two, while it contains 9 (6) additions. The most potent factor in this expansion of the text is, without doubt, the tendency to assimilate cognate pas- sages. A second feature we may fairly describe as general weakness. In no single case has any of the editors collated by Nestle in his Stuttgart edition accepted any of those distinctively Tradi- tional readings.
The net result of our examination may, we think, be fairly stated as follows: There is a demonstrably late element in the Traditional Text of 1 Tim.; the readings, which may fairly be regarded as dis- tinctive of it, in which it is unsupported by any member of the numerically insignificant group SN ACD.G;, are both weak in themselves and can very rarely be traced back historically into ante- Nicene times, and then they seem to belong also to other types of text.
23. We pass* now to our second specimen passage, Mk 128,
This time—as we wish to study the whole structure of the Traditional Text, and not merely to sift out ‘distinctively Syrian’ readings—we must begin by printing the verses at length, marking as clearly as the typographical means at our disposal will allow, the relation in which this text stands to the other types of text out of which, on the Critical hypothesis, it was constructed. In one case (v.1*) where ‘the verdict of the MSS’ seemed decisive, we have ventured to print as ‘traditional’ a reading which is not found in the Received Text. Otherwise, the text printed here agrees with that which Scrivener edited for the Cambridge Uni- versity Press as representing the Greek Text that may be presumed to underlie the AV.
{In the form of the extract the following points should be noticed: Words in ordinary type, and undistinguished by any signs above or below them, are common to all forms of text alike; words in heavy type belong to readings which, either in particular words or in arrangement or combina- tion of words, may be regarded as ‘distinctively Syrian,’ because as they stand they agree exactly with no other form of text.
The relation in which the text as a whole stands to the ‘ Western’ Text is indicated by continuous lines. These lines are drawn under the word
* A careful collation of the readings of 1 and the MSS related to it in Mk 1 has just been published by Mr, Lake in Cambridge Teats and Studies. It contains a few variants which have not been noticed above, notably aive for d/zrve in v.18,
216 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
when the Traditional Text has accepted, above the word when it has rejected, a ‘ Western’ reading. Its relation to the Lae * Text is similarly indicated by spaced lines.
In a few cases, where it is desired to call attention to some evidence for or against a reading of the Traditional Text, though the authorities cannot be assigned with certainty to any of these types, the words affected are indicated on the same principle by _a row of dots.
The ‘Neutral’ Text may be assumed to be at variance with the Traditional Text in all cases where words are underscored ; all the other words in ordinary type are eupporved by it. Slight difter- ences in torm and spelling have in this case been neglected].
2 ds yéypamrrat év Tots wpodyrats’ *Id0d eyo drooré\hw
Tov dryyedbv prov mpd Tpocwmov gov, ds KaracKkevdcoer Thy Oddy cov Epmporbey cour * pwr} Bodvros ev TH epnuw, “Hroudoare rhv 6ddv Kuplov, evOeias moretre ras