(e) Because the various MSS. differ so thoroughly that each MS. is quoted as resting upon its own authority, and no one standard has been reached or is in view, the utmost that has been done in this respect being to group them.
But see next chapter: this is an undecided question.—Ed.
Since the discovery of the Curetonian version in Syriac by Archdeacon Tattam in 1842 and Canon Cureton, some Textualists have maintained that it was older than the Peshitto on these main grounds:—
1. Internal evidence proves that the Peshitto cannot have been the original text.
2. The Curetonian is just such a text as may have been so, and would have demanded revision.
3. The parallels of the Latin texts which were revised in the Vulgate suggests an authoritative revision between a.d. 250 and 350.
These arguments depend upon a supposed historical parallel, and internal evidence.
The parallel upon examination turns out to be illusory:—
1. There was a definite recorded revision of the Latin Texts, but none of the Syrian. If there had been, it must have left a trace in history.
2. There was an “infinita varietas” (August. De Doctr. Christ., ii. 11) of discordant Latin texts, but only one Syriac, so far as is known.