The simplest solution is to regard (a) as the original reading ; it is vigorous and vivid, and its abruptness might easily offend. (6) would then be a ‘Western’ paraphrase, (c) a ‘Syrian’ conflation of (a), with one or other of the various forms of (8).
V8 (1) kat €&#AGer, NBCDLAM 33 al.
éfAGev dé, A rel.
See on v.°.
(2) evOvs, om. N* 1 28 33 131 al? bce tf? (g) q Boh Syr-sin Arm Aith.
See on v.2.
(8) mavraxod, ante els 6\., NCBCL 69 124 beq Boh.
Om. 8* ADA rell cf ff: 2 g! ? Lat-vg Syr-
sin-vg-hel.
A characteristic pleonasm, part of which is repre- sented in Mt 4*4 eis é\nv, part in Lk 4°" els wavra Tromov. See on v.¥,
(4) (a) ris TadvAadas, NCA BCD rell.
(6) ris “lovdatas, N*, cf. Lk 4%; but there is no indication in Mk., as there is in Lk., of a use of ’Iovdaia to include the whole of Palestine.
(c) rod Iopddvov, 28; ef. Mt 3°, Lk 3%.
(d) éxelvnv, 8"; cf. Mt 14°, v.d. Mk 6”.
24, The facts are now beforeus. Wecan judge for ourselves the kind of variations that are to be met with on every page of the Gospels, and the kind of considerations by which we can attempt to dis- criminate between alternative readings, before we are in a position to assign a special value to any particular authority, or group of authorities, over the rest. It is true that we have in one or two particulars anticipated results that must be verified by further examination. We have treated certain groups of authorities, which even within the limits of this passage can be seen to mark themselves off from time to time from all the rest, as approx1- mately constant units, and we have given distinctive names to the particular sets of readings which they attest. The fact that the authorities do exhibit this tendency to fall into groups is now generally admitted, and even the Traditionalists are beginning to see that a careful study of these groups is the first step towards the understanding of the history of the changes through which the text, taken as a whole, has passed. They point out, however, quite rightly, that the term ‘text’ as applied to these groups must be used with caution. It does not necessarily imply, e¢.g., that there ever existed an edition of the ‘ Western Text,’ including all the variants that we should be prepared to class as ‘ Western,’ and excluding all their rivals, in the sense in which Westcott and Hort include, with a few exceptions, all the ‘Neutral’ readings ; or, again, in which Mr. Miller prints the Traditional Text. No critic is likely to take serious exception to the definition which Mr. Miller puts forward of the sense in which he is him- self prepared to use the word. ‘ What is properly meant,’ he writes,” ‘is that of the variant readings of the words of the Gospels which, from whatever cause, grew up more or less all over the Christian Church, so far as we know some have family like- nesses of one kind or another, and may be traced to a kindred source.’
25, More serious exception has been taken by Dr. Salmon to the names which Dr. Hort gave to. the different groups. He calls them ‘ question-begging. But it is by no means easy to see the exact point
* Trad. Teat, p. 118. The light thrown on the extent to which Mr. Miller is prepared to believe in the existence of ‘editions’ in very early times by his note (Lc. p. 22) should not le overlooked.
of his criticism. The names are as free as possible from any invidious connotation, differing in this respect toto clo from the name ‘ Neologian,’ which Mr. Miller regards as a fair description of the text of any editor who rejects a ‘Traditional’ reading. They are all descriptive of certain clearly marked and carefully defined characteristics of the groups to which they are applied. The ‘Syrian ’ Textis so called because its most constant support is found, as we have seen, in the writings of Fathers connected directly with the Church of Antioch. An objection may no doubt lie against it, because it must suggest to an uninstructed reader that the chief support for these readings is to be found in the Syriac versions ; but in itself it is purely descriptive, and implies no judgment on the genuineness of the readings connoted by it.
26. ‘Western’ again, as Dr. Hort himself pointed out, is an inadequate title for readings which have early Greek, Syriac, and Egyptian support, as well as Latin. But he retained it because it was established by long usage, and there seemed no sufficient reason for obscuring the continuity of the development of the science of Textual Criticisin by any unnecessary change in the accepted termin- ology. The name as he defined it connoted nothing more than the fact that this group of readings had first attracted the attention of scholars by the support that it receives in the great Greeco-Latin MSS and in the Latin versions. There was nothing in the name to imply that no readings in this group could be regarded as genuine.
27. The name ‘ Alexandrian’ was chosen simply because the authorities supporting it are, so far as we can judge, exclusively confined to Alexandria. Tt had, no doubt, already been applied to all non- Western pre-Syrian readings byGriesbach. Neither S nor B was, however, accessible to Griesbach when he made his classification. And, now that in the light of the new evidence a further sub- division of Griesbach’s Alexandrian family has become possible, no serious difficulty is likely to arise from appropriating to one division the name which belonged to the whole class before its elements were fully differentiated.