TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Evan. 33, and some other minuscules in a lesser degree, by Boh. and sometimes Sah. and frequently by the quotations ot Origen; in Acts, Epp., and Apoc, A and C generally join this group, (v) The Alexandrian family, a sort of sub-species of ^, not continuously found in any one MS, but represented by the readings of some MSS of the P group when they differ among themselves, and especially when they differ from B; LT, and AC when they are not Syrian, may be taken as the leading members of the family. ( 5 ) The Western family, headed by D _among the uncials (with E' in Acts and D2 in Paul.) and Evan. 473 among a small group of minuscules, but most authentically represented by the Old Latin and Old Syriac versions, and especially by k and Syr.-Sin. ; it also largely colours Sah., and is found in almost all the early Fathers, notably Justin, Irenseus, Cyprian, and Clement.

41. These being the main divisions which are found to exist among our authorities, the next step is to discriminate between them, so as to determine which is the most generally trustworthy. Here it is (in addi-tion to the greater minuteness of the examination and analysis of the individual authorities) that the original and epoch-making character of the work of WH is most conspicuous. The first proposition — and one which strikes at the root of the claims of the TR — is this, that no specifically 'Syrian' reading occurs in the NT quotations of any Father before Chrysostom. In other words, wherever the Syrian family marks itself off from the others by a reading of its own, that reading cannot be shown to have been in existence before the latter part of the 4th century. The importance of this proposition is obvious, and it is noteworthy, as showing the value of Patristic evidence, that the proof of it rests wholly on the quotations found in the Fathers. The inevitable conclusion is that the Syrian text is a secondary text, formed (according to WH in Syria, and especially in Antioch) in the course of the 4th century. This secondary character is also established by an examination of representative Syrian readings (for these, see especially J. O. F. Murray's art. 'Textual Criticism of the NT' in Hastings' DB, Ext. Vol.). As compared with the rival readings of other groups, they show the ordinary signs of editorial revision, such as the modification of harsh or strange phrases, assimilation of one version of an incident with another, greater literary smoothness, and the like. A special proof of secondariness is found in what WH call conflate readings, when one group of authorities has one reading and another has a second, and the Syrian text combines the two. The shortest and simplest example is Lk 24", where ^ BCL Boh. read eulogountes ton theon, D, OL, and Augustine ainountes ton theon, while A and the general mass of late uncials and minuscules have ainountes kai eulogountes ton theon. (For other examples of this type see Hort's Introduction, and Murray, loc. cit.) The con-clusion, therefore, is that the witnesses belonging to the Syrian family, although they predominate enormously in numbers, possess little intrinsic weight when opposed to witnesses of the other groups.

42. As between the remaining groups the discrimina-tion is not so easy, and must be made by other methods. The Patristic evidence can show us that the Western text (originally so named because the principal repre-sentatives of it were the OL version, the Latin Fathers, and the bilingual MSS) was spread over all the principal provinces to which Christianity penetrated, — Syria, Egypt, Rome, Gaul, Africa, — and that it goes back as far as we have any evidence, namely to the middle of the 2nd century. On the other hand, it points to Egypt as the special stronghold of the Neutral text, and the sole home of the Alexandrian. All, however, are of such antiquity that the preference can be given to none on this ground alone. It is necessary, therefore, to look at the internal character of the several texts. Of the Western text WH say {Introd. § 170): 'Any

926

TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

prepossessions in its favour that might be created by its imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon dissipated by continuous study of its internal character.' The chief characteristics with which they charge it are a love of paraphrase; a tendency to inter' polate words, sentences, and even paragraphs; free changes or insertions of conjunctions, pronouns, and prepositional phrases; and generally an extreme licence in handling the original text. Alexandrian readings, on the other hand, consist mainly of slight linguistic changes, made in the interest of literary style; they are thus comparatively unimportant, and give rise to little controversy. Over against these various divergences stands the text which WH call Neutral, because it shows few or none of the signs of aberration which characterize the other groups. This text is found pre-dominantly in B, the character ot which is so superior that its evidence always deserves the most careful consideration, even when it stands alone.

43. Such is, in briefest summary, the theory with regard to the textual history of the NT propounded by WH. On its first promulgation it was bitterly assailed by the advocates of the TR; but against these its triumph, in the opinion ot nearly all students of the subject, has been decisive. More recently the tendency has been to depreciate the pre-eminence of the /3 or Neutral Text, as being merely the local text of Egypt, and to exalt the * or Western family, on the ground of its wide and early diffusion and the apparently primitive character of some of its special readings. A further topic of criticism has been the terminology of WH. The term 'Syrian' has been condemned as liable to be confused with 'Syriac'; 'Western' as wholly misleading, since that type of text was widely prevalent in the East also, and probably took its rise thence; 'Neutral' as begging the question of the superior character ot the family so described. These criticisms may be briefly dismissed; there is good foundation tor them, but they are matters of form rather than of substance. 'Antiochian' might be substituted for 'Syrian' with advantage, and the Egyptian status of the ' Neutral ' text might be admitted without abandoning its claims to superiority; but no good substitute for 'Western' has yet been proposed. In some ways it would be better to abandon epithets altogether, and to call the several families by the names of the a-text, the /3-text, the y-text, and the {-text, as indicated in § 40; or the nomenclature ot WH may be retained, but regarded simply as so many labels, devoid of any significant connotation.

44. It is more important to say something with regard to the comparative claims of the /3 and a texts in the first instance, and the ^ and S texts subsequently. With regard to the former controversy, which raged with great warmth after the publication ot the RV of the NT, the advocates of the » or Syrian or TR (chief among whom were Dean Burgon, his disciple and literary heir the Rev. E. Miller, and the Rev. G. H. Gwilliam, the editor of the Peshitta) rest their case mainly on the numerical preponderance of the manu-scripts of this type, which they take as indicating the choice, deliberate or instinctive, ot the early Church, and as implying the sanction and authority ot Divine Providence. But to argue thus is to maintain that the textual history ot the Bible is fundamentally different from that of all other books of ancient literature, and that the reasoning faculties given to us by God, which are generally recognized as guiding us to the truth with regard to the textual history ot classical literature, are not to be employed with regard to the textual history of the NT. There is nothing strange or abnormal in the rejection ot a relatively large number ot late authorities in favour ot a relatively small number ot ancient authorities; on the contrary, it is a phenome-non common to nearly all works of ancient literature that have come down to us, the sole difference being