racter, subject to the difference that the sources of corruption in Β are for the most part of a sporadic and indeterminate character (§ 204). Finally, the absence of any external criterion for referring the various singular and subsingular readings of either MS to one or other of the two possible origins, combined with the exceptional antiquity and purity of the fundamental text which they both preserve intact in very large though unequal proportions, demands a specially vigilant consideration for every such reading of both before it is definitely rejected.
329. It may be added explicitly here that, except for the Apocalypse, and the peculiar Western non-interpolations of the Gospels, a similar examination of the singular and subsingular readings of every extant MS except Β and א leads to entirely unfavourable results. There are a few, a very few, cases in which the genuineness of such a singular or subsingular reading must be admitted as possible: but all such readings occur, we believe, in ternary or more composite variations, and differ from the readings of Β or א merely by the absence of some slight erroneous modification. The same general statement may likewise be made respecting the trial of individual MSS by means of binary combinations into which א and Β do not enter (as in the Gospels CD, CL, CZ, CΔ, DL, DZ, LΔ, LΞ, AC, AD &c.), or indeed respecting any other application of Internal Evidence of Groups to the testing of their internal character.
G. 330—339. Determination of text where Β and א differ
330. It will be evident from the foregoing pages that Β must be regarded as having preserved not only
