We next select an instance which exemplifies a particular excellence of the Alexandrian text — freedom from readings introduced to make one Gospel harmonize with the parallel passage in another. In Mt 12-^ NBZ 1, 33 read 'iu; oZ (B omits) ETEJtEv uiov, and they have the support of important MSS of the Old Latin (avid b c g^ k), of the Egyptian versions, and the Curetonian Syriac. The mass of MSS and Versions bring Mt. into harmony with Lk. by reading 'ins ov irixtv tom viiv ccvty,; tov ^ pctnoToy.ov ,
A very similar group (with the addition of D, but without the Curetonian Syriac) omits the doxologv to the Lord's Praver in Mt 61S.
In Mt 713 we have one of the instances in which \VH desert B, omitting the words y, ivXy, with N* and the Old Latin, sup- ported bj' strong Patristic evidence. But the Patristic evidence is discounted by the fact that the extreme familiarity of expres- sions referring to the 'Two Ways' (cf. e.g. Didache, § 1) might easily result in no reference being made to the 'Gate.' Most people who are not professed textual critics would prefer to follow the main mass of MSS.
Mt 162b. 3 is omitted by KB, supported by 3 uncials (including X), 14 minuscules, the Curetonian Syriac, one MS of the Bohairic, and apparently Origen. .Jerome says that the passage was omitted in most MSS. Hort says : ' Both documentary evidence and the impossibility of accounting for omission prove these words to be no part of the text of Mt. They can hardly have been an altered repetition of the parallel Lk 12''-'- •''■"', but were apparently derived from an extraneous source, written or oral, and inserted in the Western Text at a very early time.' This example brings us face to face with an important problem : the natural tendency of scribes was to make their MS as full as possible, and it is usually im])ossible (except in cases of homa'O- teleuton) to account for omission. B and its allies frequently omit phrases or passages found in the majority of documents. Is this a i)roof of the superiority of their text ? It is hard to resist the conclusion that it is. Yet it is unsatisfactory, and indeed uncritical, to adopt a sweeping theory that all omissions are right, for they may have arisen from accidental causes which we camiot know of.
A far more interesting and important case is the omission of Mk 109 20. It is impossible here to go into the evidence fully. The internal evidence of these verses renders it most probable (personally we think it almost conclusively proves) that they did not belong to the original Gospel. But textual criticism has to answer only the question. Were they in the copy from which our .MSS are derived? They are omitted by NB : let us de.al first with the evidence of these two MSS. Are they inde- pendent witnesses? The question is well discussed by Dr.
724
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
Salmon, Histor. Introd. to the Study of the Books of the NT, in a, note at the end of ch. ix. The leaf containing the conclusion of Mk. in N is admitted to have been written by the scribe who wrote B : apparently as corrector of the former MS he cancelled and rewrote the leaf. Lk. begins as usual on a new leaf, and there would be room on the last leaf of Mk. for the disputed verses. It is an obvious conjecture that the scribe of N copied the verses from his archetype, and tliat the corrector deliljer- ately removed them. We have seen that there is some reason for connecting N and B with the great library of Csesarea : Eusebius was no doubt a great authority on points of Biblical criticism there, and we know that his opinion was against these verses (Mai, Script. Vett. Nov. Collect, i. p. 1). They were not reckoned in the Ammonian Sections or the Eusebian Canons. His ' testimony is to the effect that some of the copies in his time contained the verses, and some did not ; but that those which omitted them were then the more numerous, and, in his opinion, the more trustworthy.' It is quite possible that the evidence we have so far considered comes to no more than this — 'MSS preferred by Eusebius.' If he rejected these verses on internal grounds, we believe he was right in doing "so, but we must take care that subjective evidence is not treated as objective textual evidence. It is probable that the scholia found in various minuscules, to the same effect as the testimony of Eusebius quoted above, are derived from him, and have no independent value. But a shorter ending to the Gospel was also current, which was undoubtedly spurious, and this affords indirect, but definite, evidence for the omission of vv.9-20, because it could arise only through the Gospel ending abruptly at V.**. This shorter ending is found in the Old Latin MS k, 247 margin, Hark. Syriac inargin, one codex of the Bohairic margin, and in the /Ethiopic Version. Both endings, the shorter coming first, are found in L li2 p-vj/. It is obvious that the strictly textual evidence against vv.9-20 is very inconclusive : apparently they were omitted (either on internal evidence, or through a strange coincidence by accidental damage to a papyrus roll) in an early group of MSS ; and the omission commended itself to Eusebius, as it does to most scholars at the present day.