It would indeed be strange if, in the stress of the battles which they had to fight for the defence and elucidation of the fundamental verities of the Christian faith, the great protagonists of the Nicene period and of that which immediately suc- ceeded it, had had time to spare for such compara- tive minutiz. And, unless it can be proved that they ever took more than an occasional and passing interest in the question, what is it but a gross abuse of a great principle to appeal to their autho- rity in a matter like this, as if it stood on the same level as their authority on the great problems which we may well believe they were raised up by God to solve for the guidance, not of their own genera- tion only but of all the generations that were to come after them ?
60. We must pass on now to examine such speci- mens as the same passage (Mk 1)*8) provides of characteristic readings belonging to the other, and, if the conclusion we have reached with regard to the Traditional Text be right, presumably earlier types of text.
The first of these to attract attention is the ‘Western.’ It will be worth while to print the list in extenso, marking the readings which it shares with other types.
(1) V.? ws for cads, also Syrian.
(2) om. é¢y#, also Neutral. Alex.
(3) V.° rod Geot qusy or sudv for adrod, with further addition from the prophet in ¢.
(4) V.4 ev rq épjum Barrifwr kal cnptoowr for 6 B, €v TG Ep. Knp.
* The prima facie grounds for this assertion are strong enough to justify its being putforward for examination. Unfortunately, no systematic collection has yet been made of the materials by which it could be tested. The list of reff. to passages in the Fathers in which express reference is made to éyr/ype¢a, which Nestle has compiled (Intv., Appendix ii.) from Tischendort’s Apparatus Criticus, is a preliminary step of great importance.
It is much to be hoped that the matter will not be allowed to rest there.
Ins. Syr. and
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 229
(5) V.° & "Topddvy for év r@ ’I, morduw with transp. of i’ airod.
(6) V.° 6 for cal, also Syrian.
(7) Vv.&8 completely recast (see above). assimilation to parallels in other Gospels. Note, however, déppnvy (= d€pp.v) for rpixas.
Chiefly
(8) V.9 rats yudpars éxeivacs for ex. 7. Tle (9) V.% om. evdds. (10) V.2° qwuyuévous for cxrKouevous. (11) V." eis for éx’, also Neutral. Against Syr. and Alex. (12) V." om. éyévero. (13) V.? add 76 yor. (14) V.! éxBddrec adréy for air. eKB. (15) “V8 eaees TecoapdKovra for reco. Hu. Assimi- ation. (16) V.14 xaé for 6é, also Neutral. Against Syr. and Alex. (17) V.14 add rs Bactdelas, also Syr. Assimila- tion. (18) V. déyw» perhaps for cad \éywr. (19) V.! memdijpwrrac of Kacpot for rem, 5 kaxpds. (20) V.16 atrot for Ztuwvos. (21) V.'8 rdpyra for 7a Sikrva. Assimilation. (22) V.?° nxorovencay aire for drFdOov éricw adrod. (23) V.*! eicemopevorro for elomopevovrat. (24) add atrovs after édtéacker. (25) V.22 om. kat. (26) a a om. ev@us. (27) V.%2 om, a’rép. (28) V.2> om. 6 Iycobs. (29) V.*> rod avOpérov for airod. V.” add rvefua axdéOaprov. (30) V.°° Recast (see above). Note xpdéas (cf. Syrian) for dwvfcav, and dé for éé. (31) V.27 Hane avrovs, with Syrian and perhaps ex. (32) V.77 ris 4 didaxh éxelvn } Kawh atrn f eLovola
for ri éorw Totro; didaxh Kawh Kar’ €£ouciav.
(33) V.°8 om. ravraxod, with Syrian.
To these we should probably add, as we have seen—
(1>) V.?2 &v rots rpogpiyjras for év’Ho. 7G mpod.
61. The difference in general character between these readings and the ‘ distinctively Syrian’ series is obvious. Without for the most yar seriously affecting the sense, they yet show, if we take the Neutral text as our standard, a remarkable freedom in altering the form of expression, ‘the love of paraphrase,’ which Dr. Hort’s description (§ 173 f.) would have led us to anticipate. And in most cases, as we have seen, there is little doubt that the change was made by the ‘ Western’ scribe. This fact will help us to realize the true character of a reading such as déppyv in (7), which, if it stood alone, or was supported only by one or two carefully chosen examples, might quite easily appear un- questionably original, or, at least, a correction due to the author himself. It is in itself remarkably vigorous and appropriate. And, if we were deal- ing with the work of scribes of a normal type, we should say at once that they could not have had either the inclination or the capacity to invent it. But the matter presents a different aspect where we find in the same company readings like (29) roo dvOpémrov for abrod, (20) avrod for Zluwvos, (21) mdvra for rd dixrva, (22) jrodovOncay for drHOov drlow, (30) kpdéas for dwvqcav, (10) Avuypuévous for oxLfouevous. There is no such ground for attributing these to the hand of the author. And a scribe capable of introducing them may well have been capable of changing rpixas to dépp if the word occurred to him. This assumption is strengthened when we note that this spirit of licence has affected not single words only but whole sentences, e.g. (7) (30) (82); where, in like manner, it would seem im-