B. 225, 226. Identification and rejection of Syrian readings
225. The first point to decide with respect to each reading is whether it is Pre-Syrian or not. If it is attested by the bulk of the later Greek MSS, but not by any of the uncials אBCDLPQRTZ (Δ in St Mark) Ξ (also 33) in the Gospels (the smaller fragments we pass over here), אABCDE2 (also 13 61) in Acts, אABC (also 13) in the Catholic Epistles, or אABCD2G3 (also 17 67**) in the Pauline Epistles, and not by any Latin authority (except the latest forms of Old Latin), the Old or the Jerusalem Syriac, or either Egyptian version, and not by any certain quotation of a Father earlier than 250, there is the strongest possible presumption that it is distinctively Syrian, and therefore, on the grounds already explained (§ 158), to be rejected at once as proved to have a relatively late origin. It is true that many documents not included in these privileged lists contain Pre-Syrian elements; but only in such small proportion that the chance of a Pre-Syrian reading finding attestation in these late relics of vanishing or vanished texts, and none in the extant documents wholly or mainly of Pre-Syrian ancestry, is infinitesimal; and, when this hypothetical possibility is set against the vera causa supplied by the Syrian revision, becomes yet more shadowy. The special need of strictly limiting early patristic authority for the present purpose to what is 'certain' will be explained further on.
226. The Syrian or Post-Syrian origin of a reading is not much less certain if one or two of the above Greek MSS, as CLPQR 33 in the Gospels, AC[E2] 13 in the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and AC 17 in the Pauline
