| Traditional. | Neologian. | |
| Julius Africanus (Emmaus) | 1 | 1 |
| Origen | 460 | 491 |
| Pamphilus of Caesarea | 5 | 1 |
| Eusebius of Caesarea | 315 | 214 |
| —— | —— | |
| 781 | 707 |
The lessons suggested by the groups of Fathers just assembled are now sufficiently clear.
I. The original predominance of the Traditional Text is shewn in the list given of the earliest Fathers. Their record proves that in their writings, and so in the Church generally, corruption had made itself felt in the earliest times, but that the pure waters generally prevailed.
II. The tradition is also carried on through the majority of the Fathers who succeeded them. There is no break or interval: the witness is continuous. Again, not the slightest confirmation is given to Dr. Hort's notion that a revision or recension was definitely accomplished at Antioch in the middle of the fourth century. There was a gradual improvement, as the Traditional Text gradually established itself against the forward and persistent intrusion of corruption. But it is difficult, if not altogether impossible, to discover a ripple on the surface betokening [pg 122] any movement in the depths such as a revision or recension would necessitate.
III. A source of corruption is found in Low-Latin MSS. and especially in Africa. The evidence of the Fathers shews that it does not appear to have been so general as the name “Western” would suggest. But this will be a subject of future investigation. There seems to have been a connexion between some parts of the West in this respect with Syria, or rather with part of Syria.
IV. Another source of corruption is fixed at Alexandria. This, as in the last case, is exactly what we should expect, and will demand more examination.
V. Syria and Egypt,—Europe, Asia, and Africa,—seem to meet in Palestine under Origen.
But this points to a later time in the period under investigation. We must now gather up the depositions of the earliest Versions.