38. The last point to be examined in regard to these readings is the presence or absence of ante- Nicene Patristic support. What has already been said on the principle of Genealogy will put us at the right point of view for appreciating the significance of this part of our investigation. For it is clear that, unless we can discover some evidence external to the MSS for locating and dating the readings contained in them, we shall find it difficult, if not impossible, to make sure of the direction actually taken by the different streams of textual change. The primary source of such evidence is provided by fully verified and tested Patristic quotations.
39. We must not, however, hide from ourselves the difficulty of the task. Even at the risk of some repetition, we must remind ourselves that it is always necessary, in cases where the text of a Father appears to agree with the Traditional Text, to make allowance for the possibility that that agreement would disappear if we had access to his autograph, even though there is no variation in the printed editions or in any of the extant MSS of his work. No conclusions can be based on such evidence unless the correctness of the read- ing is guaranteed by the context.
40. Again, in a passage like the one before us (Mk 1**8), which has parallels throughout either in one or in both of the other Synoptics, and in which a considerable proportion of the variants suggest the influence of assimilation, it is clearly unwise to build any conclusions on a Patristic reference to the text in its assimilated form, unless the writer gives us independent means of determining the particular Gospel from which he is quoting.
41. Again, in applying the knowledge derived from such evidence, after it has passed all our tests, to the interpretation of the facts of textual history as indicated by the groups into which the MSS are observed to fall, we have to bear in mind that it is
* Causes of Corruption, p. 270.
t As curious misapprehensions are current on this point, it may be well to quote the sentences in full, italicizing the significant, phrases. The reff. are to paragraphs in the Jntyo- duction. § 133, ‘The clearest evidence . . , is furnished by conflate readings, where they exist ; and in the case of some of the primary groupings of the textual documents of the New Testament they are fortunately not wanting.’ In § 165, already quoted, notice the words, ‘ Sometimes they combined the read- ings of more than one Text in various ways, pruning or modifying them, if necessary.’ In § 185; ‘ Occasionally also the readings of two of the antecedent Texts were combined by simple or complex adaptations.’ We may also compare the language used in the short statement of the principles of Textual Criti- cism printed at the end of the volume containing the text (p. 548, ed. minor). ‘The priority of two at least of the three Texts just noticed to the Syrian Text is further brought to light by the existence of a certain number of distinctively Syrian readings, which prove on close examination to be due to a combination of the Western with the Neutral readings.’ The number of readings in Mk 11-28 that have a claim to be considered as ‘conflate’ is distinctly larger than this language would have led us to anticipate. “But we must not forget that the genealogical antecedents of the component elements are in some cases obscure.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
impossible on MS§ evidence alone to determine precisely what readings, other than ‘conflate,’ are to be classed as distinctively Traditional—i.e. are to be regarded on the Critical hypothesis as having originated with the ‘Syrian’ revisers, and not merely been adopted by them from some pre- existent text. For, as the evidence of the Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian versions shows, the preserva- tion of at least the ‘Western’ types of text in Greek MSS is incomplete and fragmentary. So that it is practically certain that some of the readings which are at present attested only by MSS of a markedly Traditional type are not really the exclusive property of the Traditional Text. They must have belonged also, at one time, to one or other of its rivals. We must be ready, there- fore, to make allowance for the possibility that some of the readings in our provisional list, and in any other list drawn up on the same rough-and- ready principle, may be ‘ Western,’ ‘ Alexandrian,’ or even ‘ Neutral,’ as well as ‘Syrian.’
42, Ante-Nicene evidence is quoted by Tischen- dorf or Tregelles on one side or the other in 7 out of the 15 readings in our list. In the first case (v.1), the insertion of rod before Oeod, the ante-Nicene evidence disappears on close examination. The passages in Irenzeus which contain the clause are extant only in Latin, and are therefore indecisive. The clause is wanting in the one passage where we have access to the Greek of Ivenzeus, and in Origen. We may note, however, that Severianus (f. 400) and Victor of Antioch (d. 430) both omit the article. Cyril Alex. (d. 444) is the earliest authority quoted in support of it. The second reading rots rpog¢yras for "Ho. 76 mpod. finds a place as No. 14 in Mr. Miller’s select 30 (Zrad. Text, p. 108), and is also discussed at leneth by Dean Burgon (Causes of Corruption, p. 111 ft., ef. Trad. Lext, App. iv.). So in this case we have the advantage of a full statement of the evidence that can be put forward on behalf of the Traditional reading. It will be instructive to examine this statement in detail.