Tert. b
\ /
\/ O.L. (a.c. &c.)
\ /
\/ Syr.  Crt.
\ /
Tert.  O.L.\ /
\/
Greek Fathers. /
\ Tert.  O.L./
\ Syr.  Crt./
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Best Alexandrine Authorities. \ /
\ \ / Western.
\ /
\ Greek Fathers /
\ Memph.  Theb. /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
||
Alexandrine. || Western.
||
/\
The Sacred Autographs.

In accordance with the sketch here given we may present the history of the text, up to the time when it reached Tertullian, thus.  First we have the sacred autographs, which are copied for some time, we need not say immaculately, but without change on the points included in the above analysis.  Gradually a few errors slip in, which are found especially in the Egyptian, versions and in the works of some Alexandrine and Palestinian Fathers.  But in time a wider breach is made.  The process of corruption becomes more rapid.  We reach at last that strange document which, through more or less remote descent, became the parent of the Curetonian Syriac on the one hand and of the Old Latin on the other.  These two lines severally branch off.  The Old Latin itself divides.  One of its copies in particular (b) seems to represent a text that has a close affinity to that of Tertullian, and among the group of manuscripts to which it belongs is that which Tertullian himself most frequently and habitually used.

Strictly speaking indeed there can be no true genealogical tree.  The course of descent is not clear and direct all the way.  There is some confusion and some crossing and recrossing of the lines.  Thus, for instance, there is the curious coincidence of Tertullian with [Hebrew:  Aleph], a member of a group that had long seemed to be left behind, in John vi. 51.  This however, as it is only on a point of order and that in a translation, may very possibly be accidental; I should incline to think that the reading of the Greek Codex from which Tertullian’s Latin was derived agreed rather with that of B, C, D, &c., and these phenomena would increase the probability that these manuscripts and Tertullian had really preserved the original text.  If that were the case—­and it is the conclusion arrived at by a decided majority of the best editors—­there would then be no considerable difficulty in regard to the relation between Tertullian and the five great Uncials, for the reading of Mark ix. 7 is of much less importance.  Somewhat more difficult to adjust would be Tertullian’s relations to the different forms of the Old Latin and Curetonian Syriac.  In one instance, Matt. xi. 11 (or Luke vii. 26), Tertullian seems to derive his text from the Dd branch rather than the b branch of the Old Latin.  In another (Matt. iii. 8) he seems to overleap b and most copies of the Old Latin