examination of the character of its remaining singular readings. We must first however consider the readings of a set of groups intermediate between those last considered (§§ 281—304) and B, that is, what we have called the subsingular readings of B. When the groups formed by Β with one or more secondary Greek MSS and with one or more Versions or Fathers are tried by Internal Evidence, the proportional number of readings which are to all appearance genuine is very large indeed. Readings so attested cannot in fact be well distinguished in character from readings of אB. When Β stands supported by only a single version, the results are by no means so uniform. When it is followed only by the Old Latin, or one or more Old Latin MSS or Fathers, the readings seldom commend themselves as worthy of unreserved confidence, though it is no less true that they are seldom manifestly wrong (see § 204): they may as a rule be strictly called doubtful readings. On the other hand when the associated version is the Memphitic, Thebaic, or Old Syriac, the presumption of genuineness raised by the habitual character of the readings is much greater, and not a few of them are almost certainly right. With other versions the combinations are various in quality, as might be expected from the mixed origin of the versions themselves and their present condition as edited.
317. These diminutions of attestation lead us continuously to the singular readings proper. Here too so many readings of Β by itself commend themselves on their own merits that it would be rash to reject any hastily, though undoubtedly not a few have to be rejected at last. Occasionally too some stray quotation of a Father shews that readings of Β which might have been
