altogether and go to the Curetonian Syriac.  How, too, did he come to have the paraphrastic reading of Matt. v. 16 which is found in no MSS. or versions but in Justin (approximately), Clement of Alexandria, and several Latin Fathers?  The paraphrase might naturally enough occur to a single writer here or there, but the extent of the coincidence is remarkable.  Perhaps we are to see here another sign of the study bestowed by the Fathers upon the writings of their predecessors leading to an unconscious or semi-conscious reproduction of their deviations.  It is a noticeable fact that in regard to the order of the clauses in Matt. v. 4, 5, Tertullian has preserved what is probably the right reading along with b alone, the other copies of the Old Latin (all except the revised f) with the Curetonian Syriac having gone wrong.  On the whole the complexities and cross relations are less, and the genealogical tree holds good to a greater extent, than we might have been prepared for.  The hypothesis that Tertullian used a manuscript in the main resembling b of the Old Latin satisfies most elements of the problem.

But the merest glance at these phenomena must be enough to show that the Tuebingen theory, or any theory which attributes a late origin to our Gospels, is out of the question.  To bring the text into the state in which it is found in the writings of Tertullian, a century is not at all too long a period to allow.  In fact I doubt whether any subsequent century saw changes so great, though we should naturally suppose that corruption would proceed at an advancing rate for every fresh copy that was made.  The phenomena that have to be accounted for are not, be it remembered, such as might be caused by the carelessness of a single scribe.  They are spread over whole groups of MSS. together.  We can trace the gradual accessions of corruption at each step as we advance in the history of the text.  A certain false reading comes in at such a point and spreads over all the manuscripts that start from that; another comes in at a further stage and vitiates succeeding copies there; until at last a process of correction and revision sets in; recourse is had to the best standard manuscripts, and a purer text is recovered by comparison with these.  It is precisely such a text that is presented by the Old Latin Codex f, which, we find accordingly, shows a maximum of difference from Tertullian.  A still more systematic revision, though executed—­if we are to judge from the instances brought to our notice—­with somewhat more reserve, is seen in Jerome’s Vulgate.

It seems unnecessary to dilate upon this point.  I will only venture to repeat the statement which I made at starting; that if the whole of the Christian literature for the first three quarters of the second century could be blotted out, and Irenaeus and Tertullian alone remained, as well as the later manuscripts with which to compare them, there would still be ample proof that the latest of our Gospels cannot overstep the bounds of the first century.  The abundant indications of internal evidence are thus confirmed, and the age and date of the Synoptic Gospels, I think we may say, within approximate limits, established.