* Tt is interesting to notice that Koetschau (‘ Bibelcitate bei Origenes,’ Z. f. w. Theol. p. 321 ff.) has recently expressed his agreement with the opinion of Griesbach and Hort (Intr. § 249; cf. Nestle, Intr. p. 185 ff.) that Origen “never made any- thing like a recension of the New Testament.’
+ Intr. to Barnard’s Clement, etc. p. xvili: ‘ Let us come out
of the land of Egypt, which speaks (as Clement’s quotations show) with such doubtful authority, and let us see whether the
vindicate Hort’s text was by no
of Theol. Studies, vol. ii. p. 602) that ‘the agree- ment—when they do agree—of the two great pillars of the ‘‘ Western” text, the African Latin and the Sinai Syriac, can hardly be explained away as due to any identity of their immediate source. Both may have first seen the light, it is true, in some part of Northern Syria, and beth may have been produced within the limits of the same generation ; but that is the only extent to which a common origin can be ascribed to them, and it is not enough to qualify seriously the weight of their consentient testimony.’ It is, however, more than enough, if any part of Northern Syria is really to be regarded as the birthplace of the Latin Version, to weaken considerably the force of Mr. Burkitt’s argument. For the agree- ment of two parts, even allowing them to be different parts, of Northern Syria, is a very poor substitute for the agreement ‘of East and West, of Carthage and Edessa.’ We shall require at least some clear internal evidence to induce us to go to ‘some part of Northern Syria’ for a surer foundation than NB for the text of the Gospels. In fact the ultimate appeal must lie, as Dr. Hort’s words (§ 373) indicate, and Dr. Westcott’s words * (Intr.2 p. 828) state expressly, to the Internal Evidence of the Readings of the opposing groups. Judged by this standard, if the readings of List VIII. prove, as the present writer thinks they will, to be a fair sample of the whole, it is extremely unlikely that more than a very few of the readings of k Syr-sin will ultimately make good their claim to a place in the text. ZH.g. Mk 10? the omission of dapicato. may with considerable probability be regarded as genuine, but hardly any other in the whole list, least of all the insertion of efx7, Mt 5”.
83. On the whole, then, there seems no reason to anticipate that the present revival of interest in the early history of the ‘Western’ text will in the end be found to upset the estimates formed by WH of the relative importance of the differ- ent groups of textual authorities, or to modify in more than a mere handful of passages the judg- ments which they formed on individual readings.
84. As this article is drawing to its conclusion the news comes in rapid succession of the deaths of the two last surviving protagonists in the textual controversies of the nineteenth century. Funda- mentally as the present writer differs from the position taken up by Prebendary Miller in his pub- lished works on Textual Criticism, and strangely as he seems to him to have overlooked or failed to understand the plainest statements put forward on the other side, he must not close this article without a warm tribute of admiration for his un- wearied industry, his enthusiasm for his subject, and his profound conviction of the sacredness of the cause which he felt called to defend.
The loss of Dr. Westcott will naturally be felt most keenly in spheres of Christian thought and activity that are of deeper, broader, and more universal interest than Textual Criticism. But it may be permitted to call attention here to the witness borne to the intrinsic importance of the agreement of East and West, of Edessa and Carthage, will not give us a surer basis upon which to establish our text of the Gospels.’
* His words are: ‘The discovery of the Sinaitic MS of the Old Syriac raises the question whether the combination of the oldest types of the Syriac and Latin texts can outweigh the combination of the primary Greek texts. A careful examina- tion of the passages in which Syr-sin and k are arrayed against NB would point to this conclusion.’ The best comment on the last sentence is supplied by the specimens of Dr. Westcott’s habitual method of working, as shown in the introductions to his commentaries on the Gospel and Epistles of St. John, and on the Epistle to the Hebrews. It does not, as Nestle seems to think (Intr. p. 923), involve a surrender at discretion to the authority of Syr-sin and k. It simply calls for a systematic comparison of the distinctive readings of the rival groups before a final judgment is passed on their respective merits.
236 VERSIONS (ENGLISH) VERSIONS (ENGLISH) iy eee es Pt,
study by the fact that it occupied so large a share of the time and attention of such a man. The fact that the writing of the Introduction fell to Dr. Hort has prevented scholars generally from realiz- ing the nature and the extent of Dr. Westcott’s share in that wonderful monument of the labour of 28 years. The minds and methods of the two fellow- workers were remarkably distinct, and well fitted to check and complement each other. And their work is in the strictest sense the resultant of their combined forces, and not, as in weaker hands work on the same principle might tend to become, a mere compromise appreciably feebler and weaker than either scholar would have produced independ- ently.