Print
Word
PDF| i. 24, John i. 13, iii. 36, v. 3,
| 4, v. 43, vi. 39, vi. 51, xii. 30.
Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8, |Other codices, in Matt. iii. 8,
vi. 10, Xiii. 5, (xv. 26), John | v. 16, v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11,
iii. 36, v. 3, 4, vi. 39, (vi. 51),| Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
xii. 30. | iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43, vi. 39,
| vi. 51, xii. 30.
Vulgate, in Matt. xiii. 15, John |Vulgate, in Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,
v. 3, 4, (vi. 51), xii. 30 | v. 48, vi. 10, xi. 11, xv. 26,
(fuld.). | Mark i. 24, ix. 7, John i. 13,
| iii. 36, v. 43, vi. 39.
Syriac-- | Syr. Crt. (fragmentary), in |Syr. Crt., in Matt. v. 16, vi. 10,
Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, xiii. 15, | xi. 11, John (i. 13, ? Tregelles)
(xv. 26), John (i. 13, ? Crowfoot),| iii. 36, v. 3, 4, v. 43.
vi. 39, (vi. 51.). |
Syr. Pst., in Matt. iii. 8, v. 48, |Syr. Pst., in Matt. vi. 10, Mark
Mark ix. 7, John iii. 36, v. 3, 4. | i. 24, John i. 13, (vi. 51),
| xii. 30
[The evidence of this and the following versions is only given where it is either expressly stated or left to be clearly inferred by the editors.]
Egyptian—
Thebaic, in John (vi. 51). |Thebaic, in
Matt. iii. 8, v. 16,
|
Mark ix. 7, John v. 3, 4.
Memphitic, in Mark i. 24, John |Memphitic, in
Matt. iii. 8, v.
iii. 36. |
16, (v. 48), Mark ix. 7, John
|
v. 3, 4, vi. 51.
Summing up the results numerically they would be something of this kind:—
UNCIAL MSS.
[Hebrew: A B
C D
Alef]
Agreement 2 2 2 1 5
Difference 13 5 14 9 10
GREEK FATHERS.
Clement of Alexandria. Origen. Eusebius. Agreement 1 4 3 Difference 0 2 0
LATIN FATHERS.
Irenaeus. Cyprian. Augustine. Ambrose. Hilary. Others. Agreement 4 2 2 2 3 5 Difference 1 0 0 0 0 0
VERSIONS.
OLD LATIN. VULGATE. a b c f rel. Agreement 8 11 6 2 9 4 Difference 7 4 10 14 14 12
SYRIAC. EGYPTIAN. Crt. Pst. Theb. Memph. Agreement 7 5 1 2 Difference 7 5 4 6
Now the phenomena here, as on other occasions when we have had to touch upon text criticism, are not quite simple and straightforward. It must be remembered too that our observations extend only over a very narrow area. Within that area they are confined to the cases where Tertullian has gone wrong; whereas, in order to anything like a complete induction, all the cases of various reading ought to be considered. Some results, however, of a rough and approximate kind may be said to be reached; and I think that these will be perhaps best exhibited if, premising that they are thus rough and approximate, we throw them into the shape of a genealogical tree.
