TEXT
OF
THE
NEW
TESTAMENT
that
the
NT
manuscripts,
early
and
late,
are
far
more
numerous
than
those
of
any
classical
work,
so
that
the
ordinary
phenomena
are
exhibited
on
a
much
larger
scale.
If
once
it
be
admitted
that
the
ordinary
principles
of
literary
criticism
are
to
be
applied
to
the
NT,
then
the
rejection
of
the
TR
in
favour
of
one
of
the
earlier
families
follows
as
a
matter
of
necessity.
It
may
be
added
that
the
course
of
discovery
since
the
publication
of
WH's
theory
has
furnished
the
best
possible
test
of
such
a
theory,
that
of
wholly
new
and
unforeseen
witnesses,
and
that
it
has
received
therefrom
much
confirmation
and
no
refutation.
The
discovery
of
the
Sinaitic
Syriac,
the
fuller
scrutiny
of
the
versions,
the
testing
of
the
Patristic
quotations
(e.g.
in
the
case
of
Ephraem
Syrus,
who
was
formerly
supposed
to
have
used
the
Peshitta),
the
papyrus
and
vellum
fragments
from
Egypt
and
Sinai,
the
examination
of
more
of
the
minuscule
MSS,
all
these
have
brought
additional
support
to
readings
of
the
P,
y,
and
«
families,
for
which
the
evidence
previously
available
was
sometimes
very
scanty,
while
they
have
done
nothing
to
carry
back
the
date
of
the
distinctively
Syrian
readings
beyond
the
period
assigned
to
them
by
WH,
namely,
the
age
of
Chrysostom.
45.
One
point
remains
to
be
dealt
with
in
this
con-nexion,
namely,
the
question
of
the
origin
of
this
'
Syrian
'
text,
which
thus
dominated
the
NT
tradition
for
con-siderably
over
a
thousand
years.
The
view
of
WH
is
that
it
was
due
to
deliberate
editorial
revision,
operating
probably
in
two
stages,
the
first
revision
taking
place
early
in
the
4th
cent.,
the
second
at
some
time
after
the
middle
of
that
century.
Against
this
hypothesis
it
has
been
objected
that,
if
such
revisions
took
place,
we
should
have
expected
to
find
some
record
of
them
in
early
Christian
literature.
We
know
the
names
of
several
editors
of
the
Greek
OT
during
this
very
century
[see
Gr.
Vbhsions
oe
OT]
;
is
it
likely
that
two
revisions
of
the
NT
could
have
been
executed
and
yet
have
left
no
trace
in
history?
It
has
been
urged
that
there
is
no
record
of
how
another
great
textual
change
was
carried
out,
namely,
the
substitution
in
the
Greek
OT
of
Theodotion's
version
of
Daniel
for
that
of
the
LXX;
and
it
is
no
doubt
true
that
where
the
whole
available
literature
likely
to
deal
with
such
a
subject
is
so
scanty,
the
argument
from
silence
is
very
precarious.
Still
it
must
be
allowed
to
carry
some
weight,
and
not
a
few
critics
would
substitute
tor
Hort's
double
revision
a
process
of
gradual
change
spread
over
a
considerable
period.
Such
a
gradual
change
would
be
due
to
a
general
consensus
of
opinion
as
to
the
right
way
to
deal
with
divergent
texts,
namely,
to
combine
them
when
possible,
and
otherwise
to
soften
down
harshnesses,
to
harmonize
contradictions,
and
to
give
greater
smoothness
to
the
literary
style.
In
favour
of
this
hypothesis
it
may
be
noted
that
the
MSS
themselves
show
signs
of
a
gradual
and
progressive
development
of
the
a
text.
The
earliest
MSS
which
(in
the
Gospels)
can
be
classed
with
this
family,
A
and
C,
exhibit
its
characteristics
sporadically,
not
continuously,
and
not
infrequently
side
with
MSS
of
the
P
and
{
families
against
readings
found
in
the
overwhelming
mass
of
later
witnesses.
The
6th
cent.
MSS,
N2*,
show
the
a
text
in
a
somewhat
more
advanced
stage;
but
it
Is
not
until
we
reach
the
later
uncials,
such
as
EFKMSn,
that
we
find
it
fully
developed
in
the
form
which
we
know
as
the
TR.
But
whether
we
adopt
the
hypothesis
of
a
definite
revision
or
that
of
a
gradual
process
of
change
in
order
to
account
for
the
existence
of
the
a
text,
the
fad
of
the
existence
of
such
a
text
remains,and
its
character
as
a
secondary
text
of
relatively
late
origin
must
be
taken
to
be
one
of
the
established
results
of
criticism.
46.
The
ordinary
English
student
of
the
Bible
is
able
readily
to
appreciate
the
points
at
issue
in
the
controversy
between
the
a
and
P
texts,
because
they
are
substantially
represented
to
him
by
the
differences
TEXT
OF
THE
NEW
TESTAMENT
(so
far
as
they
are
differences
in
text,
and
not
merely
in
rendering)
between
the
AV
and
the
RV;
for
though
the
RV
does
not
go
the
whole
way
with
the
'
Neutral
'
text,
nevertheless
its
textual
departures
from
the
AV
are
in
that
direction,
and
give
an
adequate
general
idea
of
its
character.
In
dealing
with
the
S
text,
how-ever,
there
is
no
such
ready
means
of
realizing
its
character,
since
it
is
not
embodied
in
any
English
version,
or
even
in
any
edition
of
the
Greek
text.*
Its
features
must
be
gathered
by
an
inspection
of
the
appa-ratus
crilicus
of
such
works
as
the
'
Variorum
'
edition
of
the
English
Bible,
or
the
Oxford
edition
(with
Sanday's
appendixes)
of
the
Greek.
Even
here
it
is
not
all
plain
sailing,
since
no
one
MS
gives
a
full
and
consistent
representation
of
the
S
text,
and
the
authorities
which
are
predominantly
of
this
character
not
infrequently
disagree
with
regard
to
particular
readings.
Generally
it
may
be
said
that
the
Old
Syriac
(especially
Syr.-Sin.)
and
Old
Latin
(especially
*;,
e,
and
Cyprian)
represent
the
oldest
form
of
the
a
text,
while
Codex
Bezae
(D),
its
chief
champion
among
Greek
MSS,
has
it
in
a
more
advanced
(and
more
extravagant)
form.
From
these
some
idea
of
its
divergences
from
the
a
and
p
texts
may
be
gathered
(though
it
must
be
remembered
that
sometimes
a
and
S
are
found
in
agreement
against
j3,
owing
to
the
eclectic
compilers
of
a
having
adopted
a
S
read-ing
from
the
alternatives
presented
to
them;
and
sometimes,
on
the
other
hand,
/3
and
5
concur
in
the
preservation
of
some
early
reading
which
has
been
dropped
or
altered
in
a).
Thus
OL
and
OS
(with
nB)
omit
'firatbom'inMt
V^,
and
the
words
'
bless
them
that
curse
you,
do
good
to
them
that
hate
you'
and
'despitefully
use
you'
in
Mt
5^^,
while
D
in
both
cases
has
the
omitted
words;
Syr.-Cur.
has
the
doxology
to
the
Lord's
Prayer,
while
D
and
most
OL
MSS
omit
it;
OS
omits
Mt
162-
>
and
17^'
(with
nB),
while
OL
and
D
retain
both;
in
Mt
18",
D,
OL,
and
Syr.-Cur.
a^ree
with
the
a
group
in
retaining
the
verse,
while
Syr.-Sin.
sides
with
the
P
group
in
omitting
it;
after
Mt
202»
a
long
addi-tional
passage
(akin
to
Lk
14'-")
ia
inserted
in
D*,
OL,
and
Syr.-Cur.
(Syr.-Sin.
is
defective).
Mk
Id'-^"
is
omitted
by
k
and
Syr.-Sin.,
inserted
by
D,
Syr.-
Cur.,
and
most
MSS
of
the
OL.
At
Lk
6^
D
inserts
the
incident
of
the
man
working
on
the
Sabbath
day,
but
OS
is
defective
here,
and
OL
has
no
trace
of
it;
in
Lk
9^^
the
TR
is
derived
from
the
S
text
(D,
OL,
Syr.-Cur.),
but
Syr.-Sin.
agrees
with
the
|3
group
in
omitting
the
words
'and
said.
Ye
know
not
what
spint
ye
are
of,'
etoj
D
and
some
OL
MSS
omit
Lk
22",
while
other
OL
MSS
and
OS
transpose
w."-
'*
to
this
place;
Syr.-Sin.
omits
Lk
22«.
«,
but
D,
OL,
and
Syr.-Cur.
retain
them;
in
Lk
23*8
some
words
are
added
to
the
end
by
OS
and
g^',
in
Lk
24^-
^2-
afl,
where
D
and
OL
have
remarkable
omissions
(which
WH
are
incUned
to
accept,
even
against
the
testimony
of
B),
both
MSS
of
OS
contain
the
omitted
passages;
but
they
concur
with
D
and
OL
in
omitting
24*"*.
These
examples
serve
to
show
both
the
character
of
the
&
text
and
the
way
in
which
its
authorities
are
divided
among
themselves,
—
a
point
of
considerable
importance;
while
m
Acts
the
divergences
of
the
*
text
(here
mainly
represented
by
D
and
OL,
the
OS
not
being
extant)
are
even
greater,
so
much
so
as
to
have
given
rise
to
the
hypothesis
that
it
represents
a
different
edition
of
the
book,
due
to
the
author
himself
.t
The
vagaries
of
individual
members
of
the
S
group
are
occasionally
still
more
striking
than
those
which
have
been
quoted;
as
when
two
OL
MSB
(o
and
g^)
insert
in
Mt
1"
the
legend
(apparently
from
the
Ebiomte
Gospel)
of
the
great
light
which
flashed
from
Jordan
at
the
baptism
of
Jesus,
or
when
D
c
and
Sah.
state
(at
Lk
23^')
that
the
stone
at
the
mouth
of
the
sepulchre
was
'such
as
scarce
twenty
men
could
roll.'
In
addition
to
these
sub-stantial
additions
to
or
alterations
of
the
text,
the
verbal
divergences
are
very
numerous,
proving
that
an
excessive
Uoence
was
taken,
by
scribes
or
editors,
m
deaUng
with
the
Gospel
text.
47.
Until
quite
recently,
the
special
variants
of
the
a
text
were
almost
universally
regarded
as
aberrations,
which
no
one
would
think
of
accepting
as
readings
of
the
original
text.
It
is
true
that
WH
were
disposed
to
believe
that
the
passages
omitted
by
the
'Western'
*
A
partial
exception
is
furnished
by
Blaas'
texts
of
Mt.,
Lk.,
and
Acts.
t
For
a
fuller
list
of
notable
S-readinga,
both
m
Ew.
and
Acts,
see
Kenyon,
Handbook,
pp.
76,
131-134,
293-299.
