Introduction, by Westcott and Hort

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

150.....To the best of our belief the relations thus provisionally traced are never inverted. We do not know of any places where the α group of documents supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the β and δ groups respectively, or where the β group of documents supports readings apparently conflate from the readings of the α and δ groups respectively. Hence it is certain not only that the δ readings were always posterior in date to the α and β readings in variations illustrating the relation between these three groups by means of conflation, but also that the scribes or editors who originated these δ readings made use in one way or another of one or more documents containing these α readings, and one or more documents containing these β readings; that is, they either wrote with documents of both classes before them, or wrote from documents of one class which had readings from the other class written in the margin, or wrote from documents of one class while carrying in their own minds reminiscences from documents of the other class of which they had knowledge at some previous time.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

151.....Now it is morally impossible that their use of documents of either or both classes should have been confined to those places in which conflation enables us to detect its actual operation. The facts observed thus far do not forbid the hypothesis that the originators of the δ readings made use likewise of documents belonging to some additional class, conceivably purer than the documents which furnished them with α and with β readings respectively, and that these additional documents may have been followed by them in a greater or less part of the rest of their text. But the proved actual use of the α and β classes in the conflate readings renders their use elsewhere a vera causa in the Newtonian sense. With every allowance for the provisional possibility of some use of other hypothetical documents, it may be safely taken for granted that those documents which we know to have been either literally or virtually in the hands of the δ scribes were freely employed by them in other parts of their text.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

C.....152―162....Posteriority of 'Syrian' to 'Western' and other (neutral and 'Alexandrian')
.....................................readings shown (2) by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence

152.....The next step accordingly is to discover whether traces of such employment can be found. The variations in the Gospels afford innumerable opportunities for recognizing singly the three principal groups of documents, detached from the rest. Oppositions of each of the three groups in turn to all or nearly all the other extant documents abound everywhere, presenting a succession of Distinctive readings of each group, that is, readings having no other attestation: ternary variations in which each of the three groups approximately attests a different variant occur also, but much more rarely. The large field of documentary evidence over which we are now able to range enlarges at the same time our knowledge of the groups themselves. Other Greek manuscripts and other manuscripts of versions become available: but above all we obtain some valuable geographical and historical data from the patristic quotations which in many cases give clear additional attestation to the several groups.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

153.....It will be convenient from this point to designate two of the primary groups of documents no longer by Greek letters but by names. We shall call the β group 'Western', an appellation which has for more than a century been applied to its leading members. It was a given at a time when the patristic evidence was very imperfectly known, and its bearing ill understood; and was suggested by the fact that the prominent representatives of the group were Græco-Latin manuscripts, certainly written in the West, and the Old Latin version, which throughout its range from Carthage to Britain is obviously Western. The fitness is more open to question since it has become evident that readings of this class were current in ancient times in the East as well as the West, and probably to a great extent originated there. On the whole we are disposed to suspect that the 'Western' text took its rise in North-western Syria or Asia Minor, and that it was soon carried to Rome, and thence spread in different directions to North Africa and most of the countries of Europe. From North-western Syria it would easily pass through Palestine and Egypt to Ethiopia. But this is at present hardly more than a speculation; nor do any critical results depend on it. Whatever may have been the original home of the 'Western' text, a change of designation would now cause more confusion than it would remove, and it remains true that the only continuous and approximately pure monuments of the 'Western' texts now surviving have every right to the name. the δ group we propose to call 'Syrian', for reasons which have partly been noticed already, and which will appear more clearly further on. To these must here be added another group, which would fitly be marked γ, for, as we shall see, its originals must have preceded those of the Syrian group. The local relations of those of its habitual representatives which can be geographically fixed prescribe for it the name 'Alexandrian'.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

154.....We have hitherto spoken of the primary groups and the ancient texts attested by them with reference to the Gospels alone, where the evidence is at once most copious and most confused. For a full knowledge of their characteristics however it is necessary to pursue them through other books of the New Testament. St Paul's Epistles stand next to the Gospels in the instructiveness of their variations, and fortunately tolerably unmixed Western texts of them are preserved in two independent Greek uncials and in a large body of quotations from Latin Fathers. The Western attestation of the Acts is much less full, and suffers grievously in parts by the loss of leaves in the Codex Bezae (D); but still it can be fairly made out; while the Alexandrian text stands out in much prominence, far more so than in the Pauline Epistles. In the Catholic Epistles the Western text is much obscured by the want of the requisite documents, either Greek or Latin, and probably also by the limited distribution of some of the books in early times; so that it can rarely be relied on for the interpretation of evidence: on the other hand the Alexandrian text is as copious as in the Acts. In the Apocalypse the difficulty of recognizing the ancient texts is still greater, owing to the great relative paucity of documents, and especially the absence or loss of this book from the Vatican manuscript (B) which is available for nearly all the rest of the New Testament; and thus the power of using a directly genealogical method is much limited.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

155.....The variations here mentioned between different parts of the New Testament are, it will be noticed, of two kinds, being due partly to the varying amount and distribution of documentary evidence which happens to be extant at the present day, partly to the facts of ancient textual history disclosed by the evidence. It is important to observe that, wherever the evidence is copious and varied enough to allow the historical facts to be ascertained, the prevalent characteristics of the ancient texts, as regards both their readings and their documentary attestation, are identical or at least analogous throughout, the diversities which exist being almost wholly confined to proportion.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

156.....Patristic evidence, which we have now to examine for indications of the ancient texts, needs at all times to be handled with much circumspection, for it includes data of every degree of trustworthiness. The uncertainty which affects many apparent patristic attestations, that is, the difficulty of knowing how far they can safely be taken as conveying to to us the readings of the manuscripts used by the Fathers, arises from two causes. First, what a Father actually wrote is very liable to be falsified by the proneness of both scribes and modern editors to alter the text before them into conformity with the written or printed text most familiar to themselves; and since a text substantially identical with that of δ was unquestionably the only text likely to be known to transcribers generally throughout the centuries to which existing Greek patristic manuscripts with the rarest exceptions belong, as also to the authors of nearly all the current editions of the Greek fathers till quite lately, it is no wonder that those Greek corruptions which can on sufficient evidence be determined as such are almost invariably found to consist in the introduction, not in the removal, of δ readings; and nearly the same may be said as to Vulgate readings in the texts of Latin Fathers. This kind of corruption is hardly ever systematic or thorough, but it is common enough; it is usually abundant in those passages of Christian writers which owe their preservation to Catenæ, especially where, as frequently happens, they have been evidently condensed by the compiler. It may often be detected by recourse to better manuscripts, by comparison with other quotations of the same passage by the same writer, or, best of all, by close examination of the context: but in many cases a greater or less degree of doubt remains as to the words actually written by a Father.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

157.....The second possible cause of error in dealing with patristic evidence is laxity of quotation by the writers themselves, more especially when they quote indirectly or allusively. The laxity may arise either from conscious or semi-conscious modification for the sake of grammar or convenience, or from error of memory, a frequent cause of error being confusion with other similar passages. Here too there is considerable residuum of more or less doubtful cases, though comparison with other quotations of the same passage and above all experience will will remove many prima facie ambiguities. Allusive references are sometimes as decisive as full and direct quotations, and they have the advantage of being much less liable to corruption by scribes and editors. But whatever imperfections of verification or patristic evidence may cling to particular passages, they do not to any appreciable extent affect the generalizations as to the patristic attestation of particular groups of documents obtained by taking a large number of passages together. The broad facts come out clearly: where there is doubt, it for the most part relates to the presence or absence of rare exceptions.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

158.....When we examine the remains of the Ante-Nicene Christian literature with a view to collect evidence respecting the ancient texts which the groupings of the extant documents show to have existed, we are for some time after the apostolic age hampered both by the paucity of the writings preserved and by the scantiness and comparative vagueness of the textual materials contained in them. The only period for which we have anything like a sufficiency of representative knowledge consists roughly of three quarters of a century from about 175 to 250: but the remains of four eminent Greek Fathers, which range through this period, cast a strong light on textual history backward and forward. They are Irenæus, of Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons; his disciple Hippolytus, of Rome; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria; and his disciple Origin, of Alexandria and Palestine. To the same period belong the Latin representatives of North Africa, Tertullian and Cyprian, as also Cyprian's Roman contemporary Novatian. Towards the close of the third century we have somewhat considerable remains of Methodius, of Lycia and Tyre, an enemy of the Origenian school; and in the first third of the fourth century several writings of Eusebius of Cæsarea in Palestine, the most learned of his disciples. For the second half of the third century we have other fragments, but they are few in number.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

159.....The most striking phenomenon of the evidence belonging to the time before 250 is the number of places in which the quotations exhibit at least two series of readings, Western and what may be called Non-Western. The first clear evidence of any kind that we possess, that obtained from recorded readings of Marcion (Pontus and Rome) and from the writings of Justin Martyr (Samaria and Rome), is distinguished by readings undoubtedly Western, and thus shows that texts of this character were in existence before the middle of the second century. The same character of text is found in Irenæus and Hippolytus, and again in Methodius and predominantly in Eusebius. Thus the text used by all those Ante-Nicene Greek writers, not being connected with Alexandria, who have left considerable remains is substantially Western. Even in Clement of Alexandria and in Origin, especially in some of his writings, Western quotations hold a prominent place.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

160.....On the other hand the many Non-Western readings supplied by Clement of Alexandria prove that great divergencies were in existence at latest by the end of the second century. Any possible doubts on this head that could be suggested by his free mode of citation would be entirely swept away by what we find in Origin's extant writings. Many of the verses which he quotes in different places show discrepancies of text that cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation or by corruption of the manuscripts of his writings; and in most instances the discrepant readings are those of the primary extant groups, including the 'Alexandrian' group, of which we shall presently have to speak in detail. It is even possible, as Griesbach showed long ago, to trace to a certain extent his use of different manuscripts when writing different treatises; and moreover he now and then refers in express words to variations between manuscripts, as indeed Irenæus had at least once done. Many of his readings in variations in which Western documents stand opposed to all other documents are distinctly Western, many more are distinctly Non-Western. On the other hand his quotations to the best of our belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the Syrian text.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

161.....That these characteristics, positive and negative, of the quotations found in Origen's writings are due to accident is in the highest degree improbable. A long and laborious life devoted chiefly to original biblical studies, combined with a special interest in texts, and the twofold opportunities supplied by the widely different circumstances of Alexandria and Palestine, to say nothing of varied intercourse with other lands, could hardly fail to acquaint him with all leading types of Greek text current in the Churches, and especially in the Eastern Churches; and as a matter of fact we find all other known great types of text represented in his writings except the one; and that one moreover, had it then existed, being more likely to have come to the notice of a dweller in Palestine than any other.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

162.....Nor is the testimony that of a single Father, however well placed and well fitted for reflecting the lost testimony of all contemporary Churches on such a matter. The whole body of patristic evidence down to his death, or later, tells the same tale. Before the middle of the third century, at the very earliest, we have no historical signs of the existence of readings, conflate or other, that are marked as distinctly Syrian by the want of attestation from groups of documents which have preserved the other ancient forms of text. This is a fact of great significance, ascertained as it is exclusively by external evidence, and therefore supplying an absolutely independent verification and extension of the result already obtained by comparison of the internal character of readings as classified by conflation.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

163―168.... Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandrian, and other (neutral) readings shown (3) by Internal Evidence of Syrian readings

163.....The Syrian conflate readings have shown the Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms of text still extant, one of them being 'Western', and also to have been, at least in parts, constructed out of both. Patristic evidence has shown that these two ancient texts, and also a third, must have already existed early in the third century, and suggested very strong grounds for believing that in the middle of the century the Syrian text had not yet been formed. Another step is gained by a close examination of all readings distinctly Syrian 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 unfavorable to the hypothesis which was mentioned as not excluded by the phenomena of the conflate readings, namely that in other cases, where the Syrian text differs from all other extant ancient ancient texts, it authors may have copied some other equally ancient and perhaps purer text now otherwise lost. In themselves Syrian readings hardly ever offend at first. With rare exceptions they run smoothly and easily in form, and yield at once to even a careless reader a passable sense, free from surprises and seemingly transparent. But when distinctly Syrian readings are minutely compared one after the other with the rival variant, their claim to be regarded as the original readings is found to gradually diminish, and at last to disappear. Often either the transcriptional or the intrinsic evidence is neutral or divided, and occasionally the two kinds of evidence appear to be in conflict. But there are, we believe, no instances where both are clearly in favor of the Syrian reading, and innumerable where both are clearly adverse to it.

[John Reece]

Please read and heed the OP.

164.....The testimony of the simpler variations in which the other ancient texts are united against the Syrian reading is remarkably confirmed by that of many of those variations in which they are divided among themselves. Here one of the readings has to approve itself on transcriptional grounds by its fitness to give rise not to one but two or more other readings, that is either to each independently or to one which will in like manner account naturally for the third (or the rest); and the failure of the Syrian reading to fulfill this condition is usually manifest. The clearest cases are those in which the immediate parent of the Syrian reading is seen to be itself in turn derived from another, so that the two steps of the process illustrate each other: not a few distinctly Syrian readings are in reality Western or Alexandrian readings, somewhat trimmed and modified.