Tert. +RAPLA ete. Syr-hel: Orig ¢ Eus. dmocTé\hw, Bete. drocredG, X Boh. éyévero, B etc. at éyévero, N* (Boh). knptoow, B33. Kal xnpioowv, NLA Boh. kal €Bamrifovro, B ete. ¢Barr., N* 69 a. éricw, B: Origd. élcw pov, & ete. mrevuart ayly, BLbLat-vg. ev mv. dy., 8
ete. éyévero, B (a).
ete. els, BD 69 a (g"),
Boh. porn éyévero, Bete. wv), &*D ff? mt. kati werd, BD& a (ce) Boh ?. mera 6¢, NALA etc. Latt Syrr: Orig
Eus. kal Aéywv, BELA une? ab ff} g° Lat-ve
Boh Syr-ve.
—N* cmt Syr-sin: Orig, (14) V."8 jxodovOovr, B. jxodovdnoar, N ete,
ee
(2) avid
kat éyévero, X (ff? mt Boh) (LO) RV 2° kal pévov er, & 33 Latt
(UD) RVaet (G4) Aes
(13) V.25
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) (15), V2 (16) V.7! (V7) Vas
édltyov, BDL 1 a b ft? Syr-vg (sin) Boh.
éxeidev, N* (33).
elcehOdév, ABD ete.
—&(C) L (A) (3369) (c) (Syr-sin-vg) (Boh).
ov’, ABAT (a curious instance of acci- dental coincidence in an ttacism). col, & ete.
otéa, ABCD ete.
(18) V.%4 Orig Eus Tert.
oldauev, NLA: Ireniv*
(19) V.% +réywr, Bete. om. &* (A**); Dam.
(20) V.5 —2va 76, B by homeeoteleuton. +N ete.
(21) V.78 +ev6vs, B ete.
—* 133 bce ff!-? (g!) Boh Syr-sin. (22) V.2 TadiAalas, ABCD etc. “Iovdalas, 8* (cf. 28)
76. From this list we may at once eliminate (17) and (20), which are clearly only slips of the pen; and (4), (14), (22), as possibly individualisms. In a certain number of the cases that remain—(2), (5), (12), (16), (18), where, as we have seen, the readings may be classed as either Alexandrian, or Alexandrian and Syrian—it is possible that the variants might have come in together, if the archetype of ® had been collated with a MS containing a strongly-marked Alexandrian text. There remain, however, 12 variants, even in these 28 verses, supported on both sides by early evidence, and by no means the same evidence in the different cases, which can only have come into the aberrant text, whichever it is, at different times in the course of an eventful history. We can see, then, what kind of evidence is available in support of Dr. Hort’s ‘various considerations.’ Further evidence will be forthcoming from the investigation which we have yet to make, into the relation in which these two primary MSS of the Greek text stand to the two earliest Versions—the Latin and the Syrian.
77. A complete examination of this, the most important problem that still awaits solution in Textual Criticism, is not as yet possible. Mr. Turner has recently reminded us (J7'S vol. ii. p. 602) that the ‘ African Latin’ had a history before Cyprian. The evidence of k, priceless as it is, is only part of the evidence that will become available in due course as the result of the work at present being carried on at Oxford under the direction of Prof. Sanday on the text of Irenzeus and kindred subjects. Similarly, we must not forget that the history of the ‘Old Syriac’ did not begin with Syr-se. The total amount of evidence for enucleating this history is still lamentably small, and inaccessible to those who are not themselves good Syriac scholars. Students, however, have long been cheered by the announce- ment that Mr. Burkitt has in hand an edition of the Syriac Gospels which, they have good reason to know, will leave nothing to be desired that wide reading, accurate scholarship, and brilliant genius can supply.
78. Meanwhile something can be done with the evidence already accessible. Dr. Sanday con- tributed a valuable essay on the Greek text underlying k to the Oxford edition of that MS.* The various lists are, unfortunately for our present purpose, admittedly incomplete. Still they afford a sufficiently wide basis for the experimental in- vestigation, which is all that can be attempted here. A collation of Syr-sin with the readings tabulated by Dr. Sanday supplies a list of upwards of 200 cases in which the evidence of the 4 autho- rities is simultaneously available for comparison. These may well be taken as samples of the ore which this mine will supply.
It is worth while to tabulate and print these
* Old Latin Biblical Teats, No. II. pp. 95-122.
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
examples in full, as the tables will need to be carefully checked and supplemented by better equipped scholars ; and no merely numerical sum- mary of results can give even an approximately true impression of the facts.
79. List I. 8B k Syr-sin in combination against
later ‘Western’ or ‘Syrian’ readings.
Mt 4° —-6’Is. 5 pijua. 577 —rois dpxatous. 5 3 omissions. 64 —airds. 87 = —6’ls. 822 — airfs. 88 — Kal. —€y TH Opa éxelvy. 8 —’Tov. 831 dmborethov Huas. 82 eis rods xolpous. 9° ddleyra. 92 — adtrois. 9 rev Oeiv. 108 + vexpods é-yetpere. 11”) —+ydp. 121 _ ap. 12 = —éyda (Syr-sin ut vid.). 120. 1s: 13° = —dxoveuv. 13% —67Is, 13 —rovrov. 1384 —dhrw. 13% evdpdy oé. 135 —)éyer atrots 6’Is. 142) raya (Syr-sin ut vid.). 15 adrod for rod ’Iov. Mk 8” )éyovor for of 6é efror. 8% GiéBreWev (Syr-sin e lacuna) for: érolncev avrov avaBréwat, 8% elray for dmexplOnoar. 97 = =—)éyoucu. 94 édOdvres . . . eldov for éMOdv . . . elder. 916 avrovs for Tovs ypaymarets. 9% — wera Saxpiwv. 944 om. verse. 9*f — eis 7d rp, K.T.A. 2 10 = —# yuvatka. 11% om. verse. 13% d&oover (onueta) for ranoove, 1496 — 6éders (Syr-sin ut vid.). 14 —xal } Aaded cov opordger. 154% =— Kal darfdOev. 16°-*° omit. List II. Bv. 8 k Syr-sin. Mt 9% +’Is. 133°) — dpa. 1416) +’Is, Mk 87 és od for ovrw. 15" é@avuacey for ébatvpafer. List III. 8 v. Bk Syr-sin. Mt 5° ~~ --avroi. ovdé ev r@ “lap. Too rior. : gi0 ae ovdéme Too. wloTw, KT. (Syr-sin l aliter). 928 + dvo. 9 + éy T@ daw. 11 —dxovew. 13% —-ydp. 138 +’Hoatov. + Kéomov.