In order to complete this brief survey of the most important documents, we must here mention A — the important Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th cent. , preserved in the British Museum ; it contains a pure form of the Antiochian text, and it is quite possible that critics will learn to allow more weight to its evidence than is at present the case. The main mass of uncials that have not been here mentioned, and of the minuscules, may be regarded as simplj' supplementing the evidence of A, because the importance to be attached to them depends upon the esti- mate formed of the value of the text of A.
We have now to consider in more detail the use which Hort makes of the Alexandrian group of documents. We have already tried to show how precarious any argument is which rests on genea- logical considerations, owing to the lack of suffi- ciently full evidence ; at the best, genealogical evidence affords us no help in judging between the Western and the Alexandrian texts, because they are confessedly parallel to each other, and have equal claims to consideration on genealogical grounds. But if it can be shown that the Alexandrian group consistently supports readings intrinsically better than those of the Western documents, this will afibrd good reason for follow- ing it. In other words, the question comes to this : Is the text of WH, which all critics admit to be substantially a text used at Alexandria early in the 3rd cent., on the whole preferable to the TR, and to such a text as Avould be formed by following exclusively Western documents ? The answer of critics at the present time to this question would undoubtedly be in the affirmative. But, in the great majority of cases in Avliich it differs from the TR, WH's text has the support of the best Western as well as of the Alexandrian documents ; it is
possible, therefore, to argue that its general excel- lence is due to the pure form of the Western element which it contains, and to look upon the distinctively Alexandrian readings as blemishes. On what grounds does Hort prefer these dis- tinctively Alexandrian readings ? His main argu- ment is the internal evidence of groups ; all the readings supported by a group such as KB or KD are examined, and judgment is passed on them collectively, and also on the text common to the MSS forming the group. Now, the text common to N and D is, according to Hort's classification, Western, and in his opinion gives inferior readings (of course, when unsupported by other primary documents) ; whereas the agreement of J< and B almost invariably gives readings which he con- siders intrinsically excellent. This method of forming a judgment on a wide consideration of the general readings of a group, to a great extent does away with the personal element which is so great a danger when individual readings are considered each on its intrinsic merits, but it still leaves plenty of room for the personal equation, since a general judgment is based on a special individual judgment in a number of separate cases ; thtis Hort's system is far less impersonal than it appears to be at first sight. It is obviously impossible to enter into all this minute research unless one is able to devote many years of close work to the subject ; yet, without doing so, it appears presumptuous to dis- pute Hort's conclusions.
But judgment in this matter really rests on a wider question. If it can be shown to be probable tliat the Alexandrian text is the result of a re- vision, then the greater part of Hort's work has been expended in restoring the original text of that revision, and is only a step, though an im- portant one, in getting back to the readings of the original autographs. Now, recent investigations seem to tend to render two facts probable : ( 1 ) that all documents giving an Alexandrian text are connected with Egypt, and (2) that the text current in Egypt prior to the time of Origen was fundamentally Western, not Alexandrian. If a strong probability can be made out for these two views, then it Avill be a reasonable conclusion that the Alexandrian text had its rise in Egypt during the early part of the 3rd cent,, and it will have to be treated as parallel to, though earlier and more important than, the Antiochian text. Egypt was the home of scholars, and if such a recension was made there, it is natural that the conclusions of early scholars should commend themselves on their intrinsic merits to men of similar training even at a much later date ; we have also to remember that it is quite probable that those early scholars, with more evidence before them than we now have, did select the best readings, and may have preserved to us many true readings which would otherwise have perished. The dislike with which the later students of Antioch regarded the opinions of the earlier Alexandrian Fathers, and the taint of heresy which attached to them, easily account for the text they preferred not having continued in general use, if indeed it was ever widely current. Hort has declared that there are no grounds at all for believing in this Alexandrian revision, but we are not aware that he has gone beyond assertion on this point. In the same way, Burgon and Miller declared that Hort's Antiochian revisions were the creations of Hort's imagination. But the fact re- mains that the Alexandrian text cannot be traced earlier than the first quarter of the 3rd century. Clement of Alexandria used a distinctively Western text ; it is true that he sometimes has what are commonly regarded as Alexandrian readings, but it is manifestly impossible to prove that these may not have been part of the Western text, current in