EXTRA VOL.—I5
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NI) 225
of Sinai. Here the reading is certainly év’Ho. rw mpop. ‘The only recorded variant is év piBdyw Abywr "Ho. rod mpod. in a Florentine MS containing an extract from Anastasius. This independent con- firmation of the reading of the Latin version makes the fact that Irenzeus in this passage wrote év Ho, 7@ mpop. practically certain. Nor does it stand alone. The same passage of Irenzeus is quoted in an anonymous scholion preserved in Evv. 237, 238, 259 (Matthiii’s d, e, a). And in each case, according to Matthii, the reading is é "Ho. r@ mpop. It is therefore not a little difficult to understand how Dean Burgon, in a note expressly based on a reference to the scholion in Ey. 238, should print ‘in the prophets.’ If his translation is based on an independent examination of the MS, it was unkind of him not to give a hint that Matthii’s transcript was in error. If not, we have another illustration of the danger of trusting to printed texts when they agree with TR.
Mk 1’ is quoted also in a short introduction to St. Mark, attributed in some MSS to Cyril Alex. and in others to Victor of Antioch, in the same form év "Ho. 7@ pod. printed in Combefis, i. p. 436. It is true that Germanus (Patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 715), who has drawn on this same passage of Trenzeus, writes é¢v rots mpod. But the natural suspicion that he has in this case assimilated the text of his author to the text with which he was himself familiar, is confirmed by the ob- servation that this same Germanus, a few lines earlier, in his extract, writes rod 6¢ Inood Xpucrod ] yévvnows in a quotation by Ireneus of Mt 18 in accordance with TR, though, in view of the special stress laid by Irenzeus on the point in a well-known passage (p. 204), there can be no doubt that the Latin version ‘Christi autem generatio’ preserves the text as Irenzeus wrote it.
We may fairly, therefore, claim Ireneus as a witness to both readings in Mk 1°. It is, no doubt, strange that he should have gone from one codex to another and back again in less than 20 pages, but a similar phenomenon with regard to the read- ing in v.! shows that something of the kind must have happened. The ditficulty, such as. it is, would disappear if we might accept Dr. Hort’s suggestion (App. im loc.) that the whole of the peculiar passage (p. 191) was derived by Irenzeus from an earlier writer. As the passage contains the well-known argument proving from ‘the nature of things’ that the number of Gospels cannot be more or less than four, the conclusion has con- sequences of wider interest than can attach to the solution of any merely textual problem. If this strange arguinent was already traditional in the time of Irenzeus, it throws back the evidence as to the closing of the Gospel Canon, which is rightly felt to be involved in its very strangeness, into the generation that preceded hin.
46. The next authority in point of date is Origen. Tischendorf gives 4 references. Mr. Miller’s sum- mary is content with 2. In one passage Origen deals expressly with the problem of the composite quotation. He does not regard the difficulty as serious. He writes (4!) : dv0 rpopnrelas ev Siapdpors elonuévas romos vrd dvo mpopyntey els év cuvdywv memolnke’ Kabws yéyp. év Ho. His evidence is dis- counted by Dean Burgon on the ground that his codices were bad. As this condemnation is based mainly on the fact that his quotations constantly support ‘the few’ against ‘the many,’ it need not delay us at this stage. The significant fact for us is that the MSS used by Origen at different periods during the long course of his literary activity (d. 248) in different centres of Church life read uniformly "Ho. 7@ pod.
47. The next witness is Porphyry, the Neo- Platonist philosopher, a leading opponent of Chris-
{
226 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
tianity from the standpoint of philosophic paganism, who endeavoured, among other things, to confute Christians out of their own Gospels. These facts must, of course, be taken into consideration in estimating his evidence, and no doubt they would make him ‘scarcely a trustworthy witness’ on a question of Christian doctrine. But it is dif- ficult to see that they invalidate his testimony on a simple question of fact. Indeed the char- acter of the work in which the quotation occurs offers the strongest possible guarantee that he found ¢v "Ho. 7@ mpod. in his copy of the Gospels. It is impossible to suppose that he invented it in order to create a difficulty. The retort to which he would have exposed himself would have been too obvious and too crushing. As it is, it is not easy to see how, if his opponents were familiar with the existence of the alternative reading, they should not have mentioned it in reply. Controversialists find it difficult to resist the temptation to accuse an opponent of corrupting the text, when he follows a reading to which they are unaccustomed. However easy, therefore, it may be, after the approved style of forensic ora- tory, to discredit the character of this witness, if one find his evidence inconvenient, we have in this instance a strong guarantee that he gives a true report of what he has seen, and the most venerated names in Church history can do no more. Dean Burgon himself has no scruples about appealing to this same extract from Porphyry for evidence in support of a Traditional reading (7’rad. Text, p. 286). It would not be easy to find a better illustration of the fact that the help to be derived from Patristic quotations in elucidating the course of Textual History has nothing whatever to do with the personal ‘respectability’ of the writer from whom itis taken. It is determined entirely by the more tangible considerations of his locality and his date. 48. The other authorities quoted on this text are not included in the chronological limits within which our examination is at present confined. So we must not delay upon them, except to notice that, when a later writer embodies in his own work thoughts derived from one of his predecessors, his evidence is not necessarily worthless. If he re- peats an argument which deals directly with the difficulty inherent in a particular reading, the adoption of the argument will be evidence of the continued prevalence of the reading. In any case, we shall have a fresh assurance that the text of his predecessor has been accurately preserved. For instance, Victor of Antioch, as preserved in the catena edited by Possinus, adopts Origen’s explanation of the difficulty caused by the reading &y’Ho. TH mpop. ‘€mrireudsuevos oby 6 evaryyeduoriys ws Hrd ‘Hoalov elpnuévas ras S00 xphoes rapéOnxer.’ The fact that in the same catena the text of Victor’s quota- tion from St. Mark contains the reading éy rots mpopyras (Trad. Text, p. 285), is therefore only a fresh instance of the necessity for caution’ in accepting any reading which reproduces the Tradi- tional Text. Again, Basil’s words seem to Dean Burgon to reflect Origen. They present also re- markable affinities with Ireneus. In either case, and especially in the latter, the confirmation of his predecessor’s text should not be overlooked.* 49. The next point of reading that we have to consider is the presence or absence of éumpoabév gov. The omission is supported by Ireneus. The