x The passage in Basil runs as follows: 6 “iv MatBoios ris zorde whpum yevires tenynris yiyovey ds adrds Guat" BiGAos yEevecews “Iyvod Xpioro view AuBid, viot ABpadmw. ‘O dt Mé&pzos pray rou eLayysrion 7d Iwcevvod reroinne xhpuymun eiray: *Apyy Tod elayyerlov “Iyvod Xpiorot nals yéypomros ty "Ho. ri wpog. Dav Bodivros z7.A4, In Ireneus we read: Marbuios 52 chy xard &vOpwnoy meron yevynoty xnpurres iyo’ BiBaos yevérews ’Iycod Xpiorov viod AaBsid, ulod "ABpucw, xol Tot 02 [Ino] Xpirrod 4 yévvyois obras Fy avOpurouopgoy ody Tb EVayyéAsoy colTo. . , Mepuos dt ard rou
passage (p. 187) is known only in Latin. But there is evidence in the context to show that the translator is at any rate not mechanically substi- tuting the Latin version, with which he must have been familiar, for the Greek text in front of him. For this is the first of the two passages in which he gives ‘in prophetis,’ when the uniform reading of the Latin versions is ‘im Esaia propheta.’ We may fairly therefore assume that éumrpocbév cov was wanting also in the Greek of Ireneus. Origen in one place (41°) calls special attention to the absence of the words from the quotation as given by St. Mark. We are quite justified, therefore, in refusing to accept the reference to St. Mark as printed on the preceding page (4!*°) in support of the inclusion of the words. Of the 2 other passages in Origen quoted in favour of the words, one (37) is really a direct quotation from the prophet, in the other (1°*°) there is nothing in the context to decide whether the words did or did not stand as part of the quotation as Origen made it. The passage in Eus, 4 #°, which is also quoted on the same side, is really indecisive. He gives the quotation at length from the prophet, and then tells us that Mk. makes use of it. He does not write out Mk.’s text at length.
50. In no other case is any ante-Nicene evidence alleged in favour of the Traditional side of any of our 16 readings. In v.* the ‘ Western’ Text is sup- ported by Eus?™. In v.5 Origen 419-126 Eys dem are quoted against the TR, and in y.® Origen and in v.” Origen and Eus%™ reappear against it. In 8 out of the 16 no ante-Nicene evidence is alleged on either side.
To sum up our results. The comparative weak- ness of the Trad. Text in ante-Nicene support is obvious at the first glance. The only support it can muster that will stand examination is Irenzeus in 2 places out of 3 on v.?, and possibly one passage in Origen on v.°.
51. Before we can decide whether this support is wholly lacking to the ‘distinctively Syrian’ read- ings, we shall have to consider more closely the attestation and the internal characteristics of the readings in v.? and v.°. In regard to v.%, it is certainly remarkable that the reading év rots rpod., if not genuine, must be a deliberate emendation of the text, of a bolder type than the other readings of the group, and quite in the ‘ Western’ spirit. When we add to this that Irenzeus is one of the most constant supporters of the ‘ Western’ Text, it will not seem unreasonable to class this reading provisionally as an early ‘ Western’ reading of exceptionally limited circulation, which was after- wards taken up into the ‘Syrian’ Text. We shall thus cease to regard it as ‘distinctively Syrian.’ In v.*, if the reading in Orig. 1° be accepted, there would be nothing unnatural in classing it as Alexandrian. It is attested by A, one of the small group which, as we shall see, have a large Alex- andrian element in this Gospel. It also may dis- appear from the ‘ distinctively Syrian’ list.
So much then for the ante-Nicene evidence. The passages clearly do not afford sufficient ground for any wide generalization. But enough has been said to illlustrate the method of investigation which has to be followed, and the results as far as they go are in general agreement with what Dr. Hort’s words would lead us to expect.
52. We have now completed our examination of
Tpognrizey aveiuoros Tov ek Ivous Exidveos ros evOpdmos Thy puny eronrure Aéyow' "Apyh rod eveyyeriov Incot Xpiorod dis viv por ros ev’ Ho. +a xpog.
Tt should be noticed that Basil here passes straight from the mention of the prophet’s name to the quotation which is taken from him—omitting the intervening quotation from Malachi. In this he is supported by Epiphanius and Victorinus. It seems nee epee that this represents another attempt to escape the difficulty.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 297
the distinctively Syrian readings under the different heads suggested by Dr. Hort’s analysis, §§ 132-168. And we have before us examples which will help to give ‘actuality’ to most of the different classes of phenomena to which he calls attention. We are therefore in a position to estimate to some extent the strength of the case against the Traditional Text. If this passage be, as there is no reason to doubt, a fair specimen of the general character of that text, as indicated by the internal evidence of its ‘ distinctive readings,’ if some of those readings are ‘conflate,’ if they prove on careful examination to be destitute of ‘ante-Nicene support, we can understand why critics should be driven to the conclusion that, in spite of the vast number of witnesses that support Traditional readings, the true text must be sought elsewhere. We can see also in its true proportions the nature of the issues at_ stake between the rival schools. In the vast majority of cases the differences relate to points in themselves exceedingly minute and trivial—the loss or the preservation of delicate distinctions in style and phraseology between different Evangelists, the question whether a par- ticular saying of our Lord is recorded by one witness or by two; at the highest, whether narratives of incidents or recorded words which admittedly embody traditions of the Apostolic period, and have the sanction of centuries of ecclesiastical use, were or were not actually in- corporated by the Evangelists themselves in the Gospels that they wrote.*