For the Gospels the oldest K-text is that of Matthew in e014 of the 5th or 6th century, next is e051 (in Tiflis) of the 7th or 8th. But the oldest indirect witness to this text is the Com mon (Pshitia) Syriac translation made by Rabbula (?), bishop of Edessa 411-435, and representing the Greek text at Antioch.
Not Final.— This scheme of von Soden's is noteworthy in dismissing the *neutral and recognizing that the venerable twain, B and it, are revisions like all the rest, as indeed is clearly shown by Adelbert Merx in the test case of the two sons (Matt. xxi, 28-31). But it is far from true that the text-problem has been solved; von Soden's own conception of the earlier history of the text seems naive, ro mantic and apologetic to a degree, and he is indeed contradicted by himself in immediately sequent sentences, thus: *As against the Gnos tic redactions as well as Mason's version of Paul's Epistles, the situation demanded that they lay emphasis now on the authentic verbal form of those Scriptures. Nevertheless, they were still so free in attitude toward this ver bal form that Tatian between 160 and 170 could offer in his Diatessaron 'a compound of the four Gospels in one and obtain success for it in the widest circles.' Plainly, then, the mand,' however just it may seem to von Soden, did not seem so to the Christians, neither was it by any means met. Moreover, it is to be noted that von Soden's explanation of the creeping in of Tatian-variants and others is at most only probable, in no case certain. Even when it seems quite satisfactory it is not therefore necessary or proved: such indeed may (not must) have been the case. Now, when there are so many distinct and often independent cases, even though the probability in any one be very high, this does not make the probability high for the whole body of cases; it may still be very low, even though one may be unable to suggest any other solution nearly so likely in any individual case. We must beware, then, of ascribing great likelihood to such collective explanations as von Soden's. Often the results may have come about in totally different ways. • Originals.— In title the German's work is surely modest enough: *The Scriptures of the New Testament in their oldest attainable text form," which is by no means necessarily the original form. Indeed, not only does any such original form seem almost if not quite as unat tainable as in case of the Old Testament, but we may seriously question whether indeed there was ever any such, in the ordinary sense of the phrase. By original form of a modern work,
as it first leaves the press, of an ancient one, as it was first written or dictated by the author himself, we indicate a more or less complete and rounded unit, subject only to minor modi fications. In case of far-reaching changes, by addition, subtraction or otherwise, we should say, *This is practically a new work,' and we should discriminate, as between the A and B editions of Kant's (Critique of Pure Reason.' Moreover, we associate such an original with a certain author,— or if with collaborators, as signing, generally with fair exactness, responsi bility to each. However, on coming to the New Testament, in particular the central mass, the Gospels, we find all such conditions re versed. Not to speak of leaving the press, there is no notion of first. writing or dictation of the Gospels as a rounded whole complete but for minor corrections. To be sure, some per son .or persons must lave presided at each transformation of transformations, but they who shaped it,. as it now is, most likely supplied but little material. It is indeed an accepted principle of Gospel study that the Synoptins, at least in their present form, are the result of century-long processes of continual growth, directed by continual pruning, of weaving, uu weaving and weaving again. At the very open ing we recognize that the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke, the so-called pre-histories, form no part of the originals, but are the prefix of a later hand. As we penetrate deeper and deeper into the intimate structure of the Gos pel, the seeming unity resolves into multiplicity, the same chapter, paragraph, verse even show ing layers of different ages and authors, of varying and even inconsistent tendencies. In evitably the critic becomes anatomist and is forced to distinguish the components by finer and finer division. It is not any single output of any single mind nor of any co-operative group of minds that lies before him, but .the gradual unfolding of a common consciousness, the stratified deposit of more than 100 (or even 200) years of the intensest religious life. The history of a Gospel is not unlike that of a say ing or °winged word.° On tracing it down we may find it now has many forms, perhaps in many tongues, that it goes back for genera tions perchance, and may be lost in the mists of antiquity.