the reading opposed to that of the primary Greek MSS has patristic attestation not obviously Syrian, and their reading has none. The extent of its applicability must be affected by the usual character of the text of the Fathers who cite the passage. Almost all Greek Fathers after Eusebius have texts so deeply affected by mixture that their dissent, however clearly established, cannot at most count for more than the dissent of so many secondary Greek uncial MSS, inferior in most cases to the better sort of secondary uncial MSS now existing. The patristic evidence which can appreciably come into account must thus be limited to that of Ante-Nicene Fathers, and those very few later Fathers who used approximately Ante-Nicene texts.
276. But further, the apparent patristic evidence literally or virtually Ante-Nicene requires in its turn critical sifting. All the possible sources of error explained in former pages (§§ 156, 157) have to be kept constantly in mind; with the additional consideration that here we are dealing with detached variations, in which, except in the way of observation of analogies, we can obtain no corrective help from other variations. Positive grounds for distrusting the faithful transmission of a patristic attestation concordant with the Syrian text may very often be found, for instance in a recorded variation of MSS or in the clear implication of the context. Where this is the case, there is nothing arbitrary in ignoring the printed testimony, or even, if the evidence is strong enough, in reckoning it as favourable to the rival reading. Wherever a transcriber of a patristic treatise was copying a quotation differing from the text to which he was accustomed, he had virtually two originals before him, one present to his eyes, the other to his
