one or more of the texts is seriously incomplete or doubtful. (III) The extant documents contain no readings (unless the peculiar Western non-interpolations noticed above are counted as exceptions), which suggest the existence of important textual events unknown to us, a knowledge of which could materially alter the interpretation of evidence as determined by the above history. (IV) In a large proportion of variations the assignation of the several readings to the several ancient texts by means of extant documents is clear and certain, and thus affords a sure clue to the original reading. (V) In many other ancient variations the distribution of documentary evidence must as a matter of fact be due to ancient distribution among the several texts, with or without subsequent mixture, although the extant documentary evidence is too scanty or too confused to allow confident decision between two or more possible views of the historical antecedents of the several readings. This last proposition implies that we have to do with many variations in which the tests supplied by the general history of the text of the New Testament are not available for direct use, and other critical resources are needed. To these we must presently turn.
SECTION VI. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CRITICISM WITH REFERENCE TO ANCIENT TEXTS
244—255
A. 244—246. Foundation of historical criticism by Mill, Bentley, and Bengel
