possible to attribute the readings to a revision by the author himself.
This case, we may notice in passing, is a good example of the importance of attending to what Dr. Hort called the ‘Internal Evidence of Docu- ments,’ before deciding finally on particular read- ings. No conclusion can safely be built on a mere selection of readings, however striking in them- selves, *
62. The general character of these readings, then, is not such as to inspire confidence. It is not likely that any editor will be found to accept them as 2 whole, and construct his text throughout from the documents that contain them. Editions, indeed, like Professor Blass’s edition of the Acts and St. Luke, which enable the two recensions to be studied side by side, supply a real need. At the same time, the character of these readings, and the very early date at which they must all have originated, will ensure for them a large share of attention. Certainly, the most fruitful work that has been done in this department of Textual Criticism in recent years, if we except the closely kindred work done ies Professor Sanday and Mr. Burkitt on the early history of the Latin Version, is work that has been devoted to the investigation of their origin. The first step was taken by Mr. Rendel Harris in the ‘Study of the Codex Beze,’ printed in the series of Cambridge Texts and Studies in 1891. The thesis of this stimulating but inconclusive essay was that the origin of the peculiar readings in the Greek text of Codex Bezze, the primary authority for the Western Text in its Greek dress, can be traced to the influence of the Latin version that accompanied it in various stages of its history. At the same time, he claimed to trace the Latin version, in the form in which it has accompanied D, back to Carthage early in the 2nd century. One direct result of his work was the publication of two vols. by Dr. Chase on ‘The Old Syriac element in Codex Beze’ and ‘The Syro- Latin Text of the Gospels,’ in which he collects the evidence in support of the thesis that the true source of the peculiar elements in the Bezan text is to be found, not in Latin but in Syriac. And he emphasized, following a suggestion thrown out by Dr. Sanday in a review of Rendel Harris, the claims of Antioch as the centre from which this influence had spread. It is difficult to doubt that the swing of the pendulum will ultimately bring us back to a simpler, if more commonplace, solution, and we shall be content to believe that the bulk of the Western readings originated in Greek, excepting those which may fairly be re- garded as individualisms of D. The influence of Syriac can hardly have been more than occasional and spasmodic. If the suggestion with regard to Antioch can be established, important consequences will flow from it. It would be rash, perhaps, to say more at present.| In any case, it is in striking agreement with the opinion expressed by WH (§ 153): ‘On the whole, we are disposed to suspect that the ‘‘ Western” Text took its rise in North- Western Syria or Asia Minor, and that it was soon carried to Rome, and thence spread in dif- ferent directions to North Africa ee most of the countries of Europe. From North-Western Syria it would easily pass through Palestine and Egypt to Ethiopia. But this is at present hardly more than a speculation; nor do any critical results depend upon it.’ It is interesting, however, to notice that, as Mr. Lake has pointed out in his little book on the Text of NZ’ (p. 89), this view
* This caution is specially necessary in judging of any list of readings which from the nature of the case can consist only of specimens: ¢.g. in Blass’s article on ‘The Western Text of St. Mark,’ and in Nestle’s ‘ Critical Notes on various Passages.’
+ See esp. Chase, Syvo-Latin Teat, p. 141.
230 TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
would at the same time satisfactorily account for most of the phenomena in the remarkable series of interpolations in Acts which Prof. Ramsay has sought to elucidate. :
63. A further question, of some importance with regard to this class of readings, still remains. Even if it be granted that, as a whole, the ‘Western’ represents an aberrant type of text, ‘it does not follow,’ as WH themselves point out, (§ 237), ‘that none of its distinctive readings are original.’ The special class of ‘Western non- Interpolations’ to which they called attention may or may not be regarded as favourable specimens. * At any rate they show that WH did not start, as Dr. Salmon’s humorous illustration might lead the unwary to conclude, with an invincible prejudice against any reading that might be called ‘ Western.’ The fact is that their uniform habit, in their pre- liminary examination of the text of each book of NT, was to make a list of all the Western read- ings that were not obvious corruptions. In. Mk. more than 200 such readings were tabulated. The list so made was then subjected to repeated re- visions, and no reading of any interest was passed over without full consideration. In Mk. more than 60 of these readings were recorded in their first edition under one form of notation or other on the same page as the text. In the smaller edition 12 rank as strictly alternative readings, 51 are