(iii.) The judgment of such a scholar as Dr. Hort on the intrinsic value of the Antiochian readings must carry the greatest weight. It will be most satisfactory to quote his own words. ' Another step is gained by a close examination of all read- ings distinctively Syrian (Antiochian) in the sense explained above, comparing them on grounds of Internal Evidence, Transcriptional and Intrinsic,
with the other readings of the same passages. The result is entirely unfavourable to the hypothesis which was mentioned as not excluded by the phe- nomena of the conflate readings, namely that in other cases, where the Syrian text difl'ers from all other extant ancient texts, its authors may have copied some other equally ancient and perhaps purer text now otherwise lost' (§ 163). This de- cision may be regarded either as an expression of subjective judgment, in which case its value will vary according to the estimate formed of its author's ability as a critic ; or else it can be re- garded as the result of certain lines of argument, in which case it is the business of other critics to examine those arguments.
The conclusions which Hort reached in regard to the conflate readings discussed above rest on, and indeed may be fairly considered to assume the truth of, his views as to the genealogical relations of the different families into which he divides all extant NT documents. His whole text is indeed based on those views ; and therefore, if we are to discuss the problem before us intelligently, it is essential to have correct knowledge of the exact nature of genealogical evidence, and of how far it is available for the criticism of the NT text.
It is an obvious truth that, if the original of a document exists, no number of copies wul possess any value for settling its text, which can be ascer- tained by reference to the document itself. This is the simple ground on which all genealogical evi- dence rests. If three independent copies have been made of a document which has itself perished, it may fairly be assumed that where all three agree they correctly represent the original ; and further, in cases where two of the copies agree against the third, we shall confidently judge that these two preserve the right text, and that the third is in error. Now suppose that fifty copies have been made of this third original copy, and that it has itself perished, then it is clear that the evidence of the two extant primary copies outweighs the evidence of the fifty secondary ones. In this ex- ample it is assumed that the exact parentage of every coj^y is known. This is, of course, seldom the case with the MSS of ancient authors ; but when the parentage of every MS concerned can be ascertained, then genealogical evidence gives results from which there can be no appeal.
This matter is of such importance that it is worth while to illustrate further what we have said, by reference to an actual instance. A fair number of MSS exist of the Pceda^ogue of Clement of Alexandria. In one family of these, consisting of eight or more members, a passage of considerable length is left out. Now two leaves have been lost from a MS preserved at Florence (called F), which contained exactly this passage ; it is therefore beyond doubt that the MSS referred to were copied from F after the loss of these leaves, and they are therefore of no value as evidence. There exists also at Paris another MS/(P), considerably older than F. At one time there was some little doubt about the relation existing between these two MSS ; but after a time it was pointed out by a German scholar, Dr. Stahlin, that certain notes that were written in P by different people and at different times, are written in F in the hand of the original scribe; this makes it certain that F was copied, directly or indirectly, from P, and it can therefore also be put aside. Further researches showed that every known MS of the work was derived from P, which consequently forms our only authoritj' for the text. It is very seldom that such certain results as these can be reached in actual practice. It is generally possible to group MSS to some extent by observing their agreement in obvious errors, because it is not Ukely that different scribes would make the same mistakes independently in several differ- ent places. It is obvious that the confidence with which we can employ genealogical evidence is proportionate to the certainty with which the relations of the MSS have been ascertained. In the case of certain cursive MSS of the Gospels strictly genea- logical evidence is forthcoming, and it has been shown that the cursives 13, 69, 124, 346, and certain others, are derived from one common ancestor ; but, except for this one important and interesting case, the genealogical relations of Gospel MSS are matters of deduction, if not of guesswork.
It appears, then, that it is impossible to acqui- esce in Hort's unqualified condemnation of the
TEXT or THE GOSPELS
TEXT OE THE GOSPELS
721
Antiochian text, so far as that coiideuination rests on (i.) the analysis of contiate readings, which presupjjoses certain genealogical relations to exist between certain groups of MSS, and involves an argument in a vicious circle, because those relations cannot be independently shown to exist; and (ii.) so far as it rests on Patristic evidence, this being- precarious from its fragmentary character, while at the same time it does prove that the Antiochian text contains a very ancient element. It remains, therefore, to judge this text on its intrinsic merits.