Syr-sin, ‘For that which she hath done, behold as if for my burying she hath done it, and hath anointed my body beforehand.’
149 +6€, 144 wou after 76 KardAvua. 141° —avrof after of uabyrat. 14 — oj 6é. 14°77) — éy éuol, 14 + ev6us. — ToNUs. 1451 4+ émi yuuvod,
80. List I. contains 44 passages in which all four authorities are agreed. Generally (not always) they form the nucleus of a small group of autho- rities in opposition to the bulk of later evidence. In no case do they stand quite alone. Of course this list represents only a small part of the total amount of agreement between the four texts. The most noteworthy reading in the list is the omission of Mk 16%-*°—yerses which must on in- ternal grounds, as even their most strenuous sup- porters are now prepared to admit, have had an origin in some respects different from that of the rest of the Gospel. See, e.g., Trad. Text, p. 305.
Lists II.-V. contain passages in which each of the four stands in turn unsupported by any of the rest. Lists VI.-VIII. represent the various com- binations of the authorities taken two together.
B stands alone in 5 places.
® stands alone in 14. In 4 of these Syr-sin has a reading of its own differing both from & and Bk.
Syr-sin stands alone in 44 places.
k stands alone in 56. In 15 of these Syr-sin pre- sents a third alternative, X in 2.
B and Syr-sin range against & k in 7 places (besides the 4 closely connected readings referring to the cock-crowings in Mk.).
B and k oppose 8 Syr-sin in 6 places.
NB oppose k Syr-sin combined in 31 cases, besides 4 cases in which k and Syr-sin offer divergent alter- natives,
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT)
TEXTUAL CRITICISM (OF NT) 235
210 passages in all come before us. In five-sixths B is supported by &, in three-fourths it has the support either of k or Syr-sin. And, what is even more remarkable, B (and in a less degree N) is de- cidedly more nearly allied to both k and Syr-sin than k and Syr-sin are to one another.
81. What, then, shall we say of the significance of these facts ?
First, surely, that they amply contention that the ‘ Neutral means confined to Alexandria.
Next, that they demonstrate the absurdity of supposing that the text of NB was in any sense the result of a ‘recension’ by Origen.* At least five-sixths of their characteristic readings are demonstrably at least a century older than his time. Even if, as must no doubt have been the case, his judgment on a reading, as expressed in his commentaries, affected the opinions of some of the scholars and scribes—notably, ¢.g., Pamphilus —who came after him, his influence in the case of the readings where NB are opposed by k Syr-sin pauls as often have led away from as towards
Thirdly, since both B and §, as we have already seen, are more nearly allied to k than Syr-sz is, judging by the standard of k, B and N are better than Syr-sin. Similarly, judging by the standard of Syr-sin, Band 8 are both better thank. Soit would seem that, on the evidence of the Versions them- selves, the value either of & or of B, and a fortiori the value of the two combined, is distinctly higher than that of either version separately.
82. It only remains to consider the problem which arises when the two versions combine against the two MSS. Their very divergences would seem to reinforce Mr. Burkitt’s argument from geo- graphy, and to lend a peculiar weight to their evidence in the readings in which they are found to agree. As we have already seen, even if these readings are to be regarded as distinctively ‘Western,’ genealogical considerations offer no insuperable objection in the way of their _accept- ance (WH, Jntr. § 237). It is true that Hort had had to examine a closely kindred group, k Syr-cw in Mt., and had not found reason to reject outright any of the readings of NB in their favour. Still he would have been the first to insist on a careful re-examination of the whole evidence in the light of any new discovery, not to speak of a discovery of such primary importance as Syr-sin. He would, however, have approached the question from a point of view different in many important respects from Mr. Burkitt’s. It would clearly have been no surprise to him to learn that fuller knowledge brought into clearer light the funda- mentally ‘ Western’ character of Clement’s bibli- cal text (Intr. § 159). He would have needed no special exhortation to come out of ‘the land of Egypt,’ because he had said from the first that the ‘Neutral’ text in remote times was not confined to Alexandria (§ 178) ; and the fresh evidence that has come to light since he wrote, esp. the dis- covery of Syr-sin, has brought abundant fresh confirmation in support of his original contention. On the other hand, he would no doubt have been inclined to question very seriously the assumed independence of ‘ East’ and ‘ West,’ of ‘ Carthage’ and ‘Edessa,’ on which so much of the force of Mr. Burkitt’s appeal depends.+ Mr. Turner may no doubt be quite justified in contending (Journal