The connexion subsisting between this Latin, version, the Curetonian Syriac and Codex Bezae, proves that the text of these documents is considerably older than the vellum on which they are written.' Such is Dr.Scrivener's verdict upon the class of authorities with which Justin shows the strongest affinity, and he goes on to add; 'Now it may be said without extravagance that no set of Scriptural records affords a text less probable in itself, less sustained by any rational principles of external evidence, than that of Cod.

D, of the Latin codices, and (so far as it accords with them) of Cureton's Syriac.

Interpolations as insipid in themselves as unsupported by other evidence abound in them all....

It is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected originated within a hundred years after it was composed' [Endnote 135:1].
This is a point on which text critics of all schools are substantially agreed.

However much they may differ in other respects, no one of them has ever thought of taking the text of the Old Syriac and Old Latin translations as the basis of an edition.