can mean either that there were three separate manuscripts (which would suggest three translators), or that the translation was made from one manuscript of a varied type."[1] It should also be observed that the instances of the absolute participle are distributed, according to the report of Professor Morgan Callaway, Jr.,[2] as follows: Matthew 15; Mark 23; Luke 27; John 1 (xx, 26; see Notes). Moreover, Mr. H. G. Shearin[3] has noticed, in corroboration, as he believes, of Mr. Drake's "theory that Matthew and John stand together as opposed to Mark and Luke," that Matthew and John have both þē lǣs and þē lǣs þe, whereas in Mark and Luke þē lǣs only is found (see Notes xii, 42).
The observations just reviewed do not, however, establish the divided authorship of the Version. Mr. Drake's inference that, because of an agreement in the use of belǣwan, Mark and Luke and the Lindisfarne and Rushworth Glosses "are in somewise akin, probably as respects localities of translation," is certainly untenable. A more minute study of the entire text may disclose such variations only as can be brought into harmony with the dominant note of unity of authorship. The translator clearly varies his manner somewhat, and in details, at times, differs from himself; but the task of the entire translation was a long one, and was probably resumed at intervals, and carried on without constant or uniform care for consistency. It is, of course, possible that the translator was aided by a distribution of the task among associates; but in the further study of the question, due attention must be given to the differences in style of the
