- whether the Caesarean text identified by Streeter is really identifiable (pp. 284-288);
- Burkitt’s disagreement with Streeter on Luke 3.22 and 11.2-4, and hence on the reconstruction of Q (pp. 288-292);
- whether Streeter is always right in his application of textual criticism to the minor agreements, especially Mark 14.62 (cf. Matt 26.64//Luke 22.70) and Mark 14.65 (cf. Matt 26.67f // Luke 22.64) (pp. 293f).
‘On a careful reconsideration of the evidence I feel inclined to maintain that the special value of the textual part of Dr Streeter’s book consists in the light that it throws on the psychology of Origen. Origen had used a very good text of the Gospels, but he was quite willing later on to acquiesce in a much worse text which he found current, and even to expound it. Indeed he does not appear to be conscious of the difference, except that there and there where it is a question of some quite striking variant he seems to remember that he has seen manuscripts which had another reading. There does not seem to be any evidence that he ever compared any MSS of the New Testament together.
After all, this textual work is only one part of Dr Streeter’s volume, and it would be out of proportion to stress it too strongly either by praise or blame. …’ (p. 294).
So what about this strange phrase "the special value of the textual part of Dr Streeter’s book consists in the light that it throws on the psychology of Origen" - is this an insult? Origen had no critical principles, Origen didn't know a good text from a bad one, Origen never compared any manuscripts. It sure sounds like an insult to me.