Page:The New Testament in the original Greek - Introduction and Appendix (1882).pdf/135

Rh sage from to  or from  to ; and the independent derivation of  and  from, or of  and  from , would be still more incredible. There is nothing in the sense of that would tempt to alteration: all runs easily and smoothly, and there is neither contradiction nor manifest tautology. Accidental omission of one or other clause would doubtless be easy on account of the general similarity of appearance, and precedents are not wanting for the accidental omission of even both clauses in different documents or groups of documents. On the other hand the change from of  to  of  is improbable in itself, and doubly improbable when  has preceded. Supposing however and  to have preceded, the combination of the two phrases, at once consistent and quite distinct in meaning, would be natural, more especially under the influence of an impulse to omit no recorded matter; and the change from  to  (involving no change of historical statement, for the place denoted by  was the place to which the Lord had gone) might commend itself by the awkwardness of  (itself a rare adverb in the New Testament) after , and by the seeming fitness of closing this portion of narrative with a reference to the Lord Himself, who is moreover mentioned in the opening words of the next verse.

137. As between and  the transcriptional probabilities are obscure,  is certainly otiose after, and a sense of the tautology might lead to change; but the changes made by scribes hardly ever introduce such vivid touches as this of the arrival of the multitude before the apostles. On the other hand might be altered on account of the unfamiliarity of the construction or the unexpectedness of