of Joseph's fatherhood would be, like those in Luke 2:48 and Matt. 13: 55, an ordinary way of speaking, which could not deceive the reader because the divine fatherhood was so clearly stated.

The Egyptian language (also known as the Coptic, a corruption of the word Egyptian) has several dialects, with versions in each of them. The age and origin of these versions and their relation to one another are problems still unsolved. The most important version is the Bohairic, which seems to be connected in origin with Alexandria. It is unique among the early versions in that it represents a Neutral and Alexandrian text. This fact has its evident bearing upon the question of the origin of the Neutral text.

III. The Fathers

The third source of knowledge of the text is the Fathers, or, more exactly, Patristic Quotations. There is a great body of Christian literature older than any existing New Testament manuscript, and full of quotations from the New Testament. Such quotations ought to throw some light upon the text which each writer knew. Two difficulties, however, have to be reckoned with. First, the quotation may have been changed by a copyist to conform to a text with which he was familiar. This is most natural, whether done unintentionally or as a deliberate correction of a supposed mistake. Second, the author himself may not have quoted the Scriptures correctly. Sometimes his

intention may have been to give nothing more than the substance of a Scripture passage; and at other times, when he intended to give the precise words, his memory may have been faulty. Nothing is more common today than to hear misquotations of familiar Scripture passages even by well-educated Christians. But while the testimony of Patristic Quotations has to be taken with discrimination, it is of much value in determining both the date and the locality of various texts. "For instance, if we find a certain well-defined type of text in the Old Latin manuscripts and also in the quotations of certain African Fathers of the second and third centuries, we are obviously justified in saying that this form of Latin version was used in Africa in the second and third centuries. Whereas, if we had not the quotations, we should have very little certain evidence either as to date or place" (Lake, Text of New Testament, 48).

There is no need of entering upon a consideration of the testimony of the Fathers. Enough to say that in general the earlier ones bear witness to the use of the Western text everywhere, except in Alexandria where there is some evidence for the Neutral text. The later Greek Fathers seem to have used the Syrian text, while the Latin Fathers seem to have used the Vulgate.

Having considered the methods which critics adopt to secure a correct text of the gospels, we look with in

terest to see what measure of success they have gained. However, in our emphasis of the subject we must not develop an exaggerated idea of the magnitude of their task. Westcott and Hort point out (and Gregory endorses their statement) that in seven-eighths of the New Testament there are no variations of text and no grounds for doubt. The problems of the greater part of the remaining eighth are wholly unimportant, arising from changes in order, differences in spelling, and the like. And in the field, thus restricted, where the textual critic must labor, the great majority of variations are comparatively trivial, since they do not change the meaning of the passage. "The amount of what can be called substantial variations can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”

Concerning this debatable part of the text the agreement among critics is greater than might be expected. If we take Westcott and Hort's text as a standard for comparison, we shall find a few scholars who believe that it departs too far from the Syrian text, and many who think that it ought to incorporate more of the Western text. Nevertheless, the difference between it and the texts adopted by other modern scholars is inconsiderable. For working purposes it makes but little difference which one of the recent texts is followed. Moreover, no changes brought about in the text by critical study affect any of the doctrines of the New Testament. This is evident to the English reader

when he compares the Authorized Version with the Revised Version. In spite of all changes the two are practically the same book, giving the same facts, and teaching the same truths in the same way. If we wish to get close to the exact words which the New Testament writers used, we do well to study the Revised Version, especially the American Revised Version; but if we are seeking simply to lay hold upon the facts and doctrines of the New Testament, it makes little difference which version we take. With but few and minor exceptions they are the same in both.

In closing we may notice briefly the chief changes in the text of the gospels adopted by the best textual critics of to-day. They are interesting in themselves, and they illustrate the processes of textual criticism.

Mark 16:9-20.—While this ending to Mark's Gospel is found in most of the manuscripts, including Codices A, C, and D, it is omitted in B and 8, both of which end abruptly with verse 8, "For they were afraid." In B the copyist has left a blank column after this verse, thereby indicating that he knew of a further ending, but did not give it because it was not in the manuscript he was following. A very few manuscripts have a shorter ending which, with slight variations, is as follows: "And they reported briefly to those around Peter all the things commanded. And after these things Jesus himself (appeared to them and) sent

forth through them from the East, and as far as the West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation." But these manuscripts also add the longer ending with the note that it, too, is found after the words "For they were afraid." The later versions all give the longer ending; but the Lewis Syriac ends with verse 8, two manuscripts of the Bohairic Version give the shorter ending in the margin, and one Old Latin manuscript has only the shorter ending. There is also some testimony of the Fathers that doubt existed as to the genuineness of verses 9-16, though mostly they are silent about the passage.

The internal evidence, i. e., the evidence from vocabulary and style, is not pronounced, but tends rather against Mark's authorship. The passage certainly is joined most awkwardly to what precedes, as if it originally stood independent of it. Add to this its emphasis of the necessity of baptism, and its description of miracles as mere marvels (both of which are characteristic of the thought of the second century rather than of the apostolic age), and we have strong reasons for rejecting the passage as not genuine, and for refusing to use it as an authority upon the events after Christ's resurrection. Whether the original ending of Mark was destroyed by some accident or was suppressed by the early church for some reason, or whether the book never was finished or was ended most abruptly at 16 8, we never shall know. From