• • • • • •， ，§），* .

"s. *
ºv-S->''.
º
ſ º º * , a ... • *
º º
kº. * s º, -
º rºs º -
of THE
E;
É
E.
H
=;
É
E.
É
É
É
E;
E.
E.
Eº
E.
E.
E3
E. !
º
E3 º
#.
É
Eº
Eº
º
º
i
|
|W.
-#.º
*
2.s
d
†
º-3
..sº, ÇA. TACA. Tº

THE NEW TESTAMENT
IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK.
IN T R O DU CTION
A PP E N DIX
*. , N, TV. º t
THE NEW TESTAMENT

ORIGINAL GREEK
THE TEXT, REVISED BY".
BROOKE FOSS & WEST COTT, D.D. .
CANON OF PETERROROUGII, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE
AND
FENTON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D.
- - IIULSEAN Professor of DIVINITY, cAMBRIDGE - - - - - -
INTRODUCTION AND APPENDIX
BY THE EDITORS
N E W YOR IX
H A R PER & B R OTHERS, FRANK LIN SQUARE
I S S 2 -
ASA S (//l/MA / W LIBA WS OJIAW/S S.A.J. W.A. R.F.S AST EX DAE /
PROVIDEAVTV4 : SED T4 MEAV ZA, ZAM IPSAM ProvidewayAM
AWOAV DEBEMUS EO A.Z.Z.EGAA. E. UT A ZIMA QUAM ACCURA-
Tissina DE ZERREAMUR. EOR UM QUT PRAEDECESSERE
NEQUE DEFECTUM EXAGITABIM US NEQUE AD EUM NOS
ADSTRINGEM US; EOR UM QUI SEQUENTUR PROFECTUMZ
AVEQUE POSTUZAZ}/M/US ZAV ARAZSEAVZY AWAEQUAE PRAAECZ U-
JD EMUS IN POSTER UM : QUAELIEAE 7" A.A. TAS PRO SUA
FACULTA TE VERITATEM - INVESTIGARE ET AMPLE.cz/
FIDELIZATEvove IN Mixings A T MAXIMIS PRAAESTA R E
PEBAE T.
B E N G E L M D C CXXXIV
-77
/*/ , TŽ)
6/ – 3ra &A.
4-4-4/
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION . e & º tº e VII
INTRODUCTION º º e º d ſº to © I
I. THE NEED OF CRITICISM FOR THE TEXT OF
THE NEW TESTAMENT . e e º e 4.
II. THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM . • I 9
III. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM To
THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT . • 73
IV. NATURE AND DETAILS OF THIS EDITION . . 288
APPENDIX
I. NOTES ON SELECT READINGS . e © e I
II. NoTES ON ORTHOGRAPHY, witH OF THoGRA-
PHICAL ALTERNATIVE READINGS . º • I 4 I
III. QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT • I 74
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION
PREFATORY REMARKS
PAGES
1–3
Purpose of this edition. Four heads of the Introduction º ſº I
Textual criticism not needed for most words in most texts; º gº I
and always negative in nature, consisting only in detection and re-
moval of errors . • * * • • • * * tº º º 3
Reservation of emendation, as but slightly needed in the N.T. owing
to comparative abundance and excellence of documents . 3
PART I
THE NEED OF CRITICISM FOR THE TEXT
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 4–18
Need of criticism for text of the N.T. explained by the circum-
stances of its transmission, first by writing, and then by printing . 4.
Transmissione by zwriting . • e • * • e • - 4–II
Loss of autographs . . . . . . . : * * 4.
Cumulative corruption through transcription - º & * e 5
Variability of corruption under different conditions: relation of
date to purity © e o tº e • • • • e 5
Special modifications of average results of transcription; as . º 6
(a) by transition from “clerical’ errors into mental changès (intended
improvements of language) . . e ‘e • • " ... • e
as in the earlier, and only the earlier, centuries of the N. T.; e
(b) by “mixture' of independent texts, which prevailed in the N. T.
in Cent. (III) Iv, . . • e e Q e o e e
such mixture having only fortuitous results; © ſº © º e 8
and (c) by destruction and neglect of the older MSS • * º 9
8
viii COAV7'EAV7 S OF ZAV7'RO/DUC ZZOAV
PAR. PAGES
B. 15–18. Transmission &y Żrineſſed editions . o tº º º º II—I6
15. Disadvantages of Erasmus, the first editor: his text substantially
perpetuated in the ‘Received Text” • e o e s - II
16. Preparatory criticism of Cent. (xvii) xv.111, ending with Griesbach I2
17. Lachmann’s text of 1831, inspired by Bentley's principles, the first
founded directly on documentary authority. Texts of Tischen-
dorf and Tregelles . o
{º - º e º e * e I3
18. Table showing the late date at which primary MSS have become
available -> & * º - º e e 4. º & I4
19. Recapitulation . º e - • . e - º o I5
C. 20–22. History of Żresent edition • * - 16–18
20. Origin and history of the present edition . e * • * * * I6
21. Nature of its double authorship • * e tº - - e 17
22. Notice of the provisional private issue. tº & tº & º 18
PART II
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM 19–72
23. Successive emergence of the different classes of textual facts . º I9
SECTION I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF READINGS (24–37) . . tº gº e I9–30
24. The rudimentary criticism founded on Internal Evidence of Read-
ings, which is of two kinds, Intrinsic and Transcriptional .
e I9
A. 25–27. Infrinsic Probability • * * * * . . . . . . 2O—22
25. First step, instinctive decision between readings by the apparently
best sense : tº tº tº º º º e e e º & 2O
26, its untrustworthiness as leading in different hands to different con-
clusions, º g & e -> e & e © - g 2?
27. and as liable to be vitiated by imperfect perception of sense . º 2I
P. 28–37. Transcriptional Probability . • . º e Q - 32—3o
28. Second step, reliance on the presumption against readings likely to
have approved themselves to scribes . . . . . . tº & º º
29. Relative fitness of readings for accounting for each other, not rela-
- tive excellence, the subject of Transcriptional Probability; & 22
30, which rests on generalisations from observed proclivities of copyists
(“canons of criticism') . e º - a o • * • 23
31. Its uncertainty in many individual variations owing to conflicts of
proclivities © & o º º º e º º - e 24
32. and its prima facie antagonism to Intrinsic Probability . . . 26
33. Apparent superiority and latent inferiority the normal marks of
scribes’ corrections & • * tº . . * * . 26
22
CONTZAV7'S OF INTRODUCTION ix
PAR, PAGES
34. Fallacious antagonisms due to difference of mental conditions be-
tween scribcs and modern readers . tº tº . . . . 27
35. Contrast of cursory criticism of scribes and deliberate criticism of
editors: real excellence of readings often perceptible only after
close study & g ſº º ſº * o 28
36. Ulterior value of readings that are attested by Intrinsic and Trans-
criptional Probability alike . . & & § © & • 29
37. Insufficiency of Internal Evidence of Readings proved by the
numerous variations which contain no readings So attested . ge 29
SECTION II. INTERNAL Evidence of Documents (38–48) . . dº e 30–39
38. Transition from immediate decisions upon readings to examination
of the antecedent credibility of the witnesses for them. (Krzozy-
ſedge of documzents should £recede 777tal judgement zºome readings.) 30
39. Presumptions, but not more, furnished by relative date . ſº & 3 I
40. The prevailing textual character of documents, as learned from read-
ings in which Internal Evidence is decisive, a guide to their
character in other readings . . & tº e º g g 32
41. A threefold process here involved; (1) provisional decision or sus-
pense on readings; (2) estimate of documents by this standard;
and (3) final decision (or suspense) on readings on comparison of
all evidence . tº & tº e . * gº e g § 33
42. Relative weight of documentary authority variable . © ge
• 34
43. Greater security given by the combined judgements of Internal
- Evidence of Documents than by the isolated judgements of Internal
Evidence of Readings . . . © & § tº º * 34
44. Uncertainties of Internal Evidence of Documents due to the variously
imperfect homogeneousness of texts; as shown in e & e 35
45. (a) concurrence of excellence of one kind and corruptness of another
kind in the same document; . . . . . . . . . . 36
46. (3) derivation of different books within the same document from
different exemplars; e • . • • e ge ſº º 37
47. (c) simultaneous derivation of different elements of text in the
same document from different exemplars (Mixture) . . . . 38
48. Moreover Internal Evidence of Documents difficult to apply in texts
preserved in a plurality of documents wherever there is a cross
division of authority o e & º . . • ' s © 38
SECTION III. GENEALOGICAL EVIDENCE (49–76) gº * * tº * gº 39-59
A 49–53. Single or divergent genealogy e & & tº . . . 39–42
49. Transition from character of individual documents to genealogical
affinities between documents. (All trustworthy restoration of
corrupted texts is founded on the study of their history) , . . 39
50. Variable relation of each of ten MSS to the rest according as (a) the
genealogy is unknown; . © . e. tº & © & e º 4O
CONTAEA/ZS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. - - - - PAGES
51. (5) or descent of nine from the tenth is ascertained; . . . . . . . 4o
52. (c) or descent of the nine from one lost MS is ascertained; • * 41.
53. (d) or descent of some of the nine from one lost MS and of the
‘. . . rest from another is ascertained . . . o e º - e 42
B. 54–57. Genealogy and number . • * . . . - 43–46
*: 54. The authority of number indeterminate apart from genealogy . e 43
55. Confusion between documents and votes the only ground for the
supposed authority of mere number; e e º e © º 43
56. except so far as extreme paucity of documents may introduce the
chance of accidental coincidence in error º º º e e 44
57. Variability of multiplication and preservation renders rival proba- -
bilities derived solely from relative number incommensurable & 45
C. 58, 59. Manner of discovering genealogy . tº . . . . . 46, 47
58. Identity of origin inferred from identity of reading . e - • 46
. 59. Successive steps of divergent genealogy shown by subordination of
arrays of documents having identical readings . º & º 46
D 60–65. Complications of genealogy by mixture º & tº - 47–52
6o. Detection of mixture by cross combinations of documents - º 47
61. Deceptive comprehensiveness of attestation given by mixture to
readings originally of narrow range & - g º º & 48
62. Mode of disentangling texts antecedent to mixture by means of
conflate readings; . . . . . . . . . . . 49
63. the attestations of which interpret the attestations of many varia-
tions containing no conflate reading º e • e e º 5I
64. Inherent imperfections of this process; - - • e o º 52
65. and its frequent inapplicability for want of sufficient evidence ante-
cedent to mixture . - & º g o • , a © & 52
E. 66–72. A ſplications of genealogy - . . - • • - 53–57
66. Summary neglect of readings found only in documents exclusively
descended from another extant document o e ".. a º e 53
67-69. Process of recovering the text of a lost document from its extant
descendants; and its various steps; . . . . . . . . 53
70. ending in the rejection and in the ratification of many readings. § 55
71. Two uncertainties attending this process; one occasional, due to
mixture with a text extraneous to the line of descent; . e º 56
72. the other inherent, the irrelevance of genealogical evidence in ulti-
mate independent divergences ſrom a common original e º 56
F. 73–76. Variable zuse of genealogy according to unequal £reservation
~ - of documents . . 6. . . © 57–59
73. Where extant genealogy diverges from a late point, the removal of the
later corruptions often easy, while the earlier remain undiscovered 57
74. Detection of earlier corruptions rendered possible by preservation of
some ancient documents, but the application of the process always
imperfect for want of sufficient documents . g ſº © g 58
COAVTEAV7'S OF ZAV ZACOZ) UC ZZOAV xi
PAR. . . PAGES
75. Presumption in favour of composite as against homogeneous attesta-
tion increased by proximity to the time of the autograph; . º 58
* 76. but needing cautious application on account of possible mixture • 59
**
SECTION IV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPs (77, 78) tº e * @ º 60–62
77. Inference of identical origin from identical readings applicable to
groups of documents; . 3. º º e e º º e 6o
78, and thus available for separating the elements of mixed documents,
and determining their respective characters . . e 9. e 61
SECTION V. RECAPITULATION OF METRODS IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER
(79–84) e e e ge e e º 62–66
79. The threefold process and the results of the Genealogical method . 62
80. This method the surest basis of criticism, wherever sufficient evidence
is extant for tracing genealogical relations . & Cº. º © 63
81, 82. Subordinate verification by other kinds of evidence, more especially
- Internal Evidence of Groups . e & * g © º © 63
83. Sound textual criticism founded on knowledge of the various classes
of facts which have determined variation, and therefore governed
w by method º º º º o e e e © º e 6
84. Personal instincts trustwol thy only in virtue of past exercise in
4-
method gº g º º º e º © º º º º 65
5
SECTION VI. CRITICISM As DEALING witH ERRORS ANTECEDENT To ExISTING
TEXTS (85–95) o e e g © © 66–72
A. 85–92. Primeitive errors . . . . . . . . . 66–70
85. Agreement or disagreement of the most original transmitted text
with the autograph indeterminable by any documentary evidence 66
86. Occasional paradox of readings authenticated by Genealogical and
Transcriptional Evidence, yet condemned by Intrinsic Evi-
dence (a); . . . . . . . . . . . 67
87. explained by the inability of documentary evidence to attest more
than relative originality; which does not exclude corruption. o 67
88. Such readings sometimes further condemned by decisive Internal
Evidence for rival readings, which are in fact cursory emendations
by scribes (5) . . . © • • tº © •' - " - © 68
89. Variations falling under these two types not really relevant as to the
value of the preceding methods . e e ‘e © e e 69
go. Two other cases of primitive corruption, (c) with variants apparently
independent of each other, and the best attested variant condemned
by Intrinsic Evidence, and (d) with no variation, and the one ex-
tant reading condemned by Intrinsic Evidence . . . . . 69
9r. In all four cases the use of Intrinsic Evidence as the basis of decision
exactly analogous to its use in ordinary cases; . . . . . 69
xii COMTENZS OF ANZA'OpUczyON
PAR. PAGES
92. (a)(3) and (d) identical in principle, the best attested reading of (a)
and (b) corresponding to the one reading of (d); while in (c) de-
cision rests on both Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence . o 7o
B. 93–95. Alemtozºal of Żrimitive errors by conjecture . & e & 7I, 72
93. Necessity of distinguishing recognition of primitive error from cor-
rection of it . e e - º •e º o e & º 71
94. Conjectural emendation founded on combination of Intrinsic and
Transcriptional Evidence º º e • e 9. & {- 71
95. The N. T. but slightly affected by the need of it © • • 6 72
PART III
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM
TO THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 73–287
96. Identity of methods for the N. T. and for other books, with difference
of evidence e e º © o & º º o o o 73
CHAPTER I. PA EZ/M/AVA R P CAA’OAVO LOGICA/C
SUR VE Y OF DOCUMENTS (97—128) 73–90
97. Greek MSS, Versions, Fathers . e * • - te º º 73
A. 98–106. Greek AZSS' © & g -
98. The four great uncial Bibles º & e º - . . . 74
99. Contents of other uncials . . . * e e * . . . 75
roo. Chronological distribution of other uncials. . - . . . 75
1or. Bilingual uncials . . - e o # e. - º . 70
Io2. Cursives º tº gº • * , , e - 9. - e º 76
Iog. Greek Lectionaries © - e . . 76
Io4. Imperfect knowledge of cursives; . & o o As e - 76
Ios. within what limits more complete knowledge could affect the text . 77
106. Uncials almost completely known * e º © 9 @ 9 77
B. Io/—122. Versions º e G e © e . . . tº e 78–86
Io'7. The chief groups, Latin, Syriac, Egyptian - • . . . º º 78
Io8. The Old Latin, (1) African, e e e - e 6. e o 78
IO9. (2) European; . º e • . . . * * g 78
I LO. (3) Italian © tº ſº • * e • º 79
III. The Vulgate Latin tº © © º tº • ' a § tº tº 8o
112. Corruption of the Latin Vulgate by mixture, and successºve attempts
to purify it & © & tº 6 9. © tº 6 e - 81
113. The extant Old Latin documents for the Gospels . . . . . 81
CONTENT'S OF JAVTRODUCTION xiii
PAR. PAGES
II4. Mixed Vulgate Gospels ſº † tº & & e tº o e 82
II5. The factitious Latin texts of bilingual MSS de & g tº & 82
116. The extant Old Latin documents for the Acts, Epistles, and Apoca-
lypse e e & 9 & § tº e is tº º gº 83
117. Latin Fathers . . . e e t e & e º 'º 83
118. The Old Syriac and the Vulgate Syriac: Syriac Fathers . & * 84
119. The Philoxenian or Harklean Syriac and the Jerusalem Syriac tº 85
120. The Egyptian versions, Memphitic, Thebaic, and Bashmulic . G 85
121. The Armenian and the Gothic . e º e tº & * & 86
122. The versions of later times . ſº º g te e * º ſº 86
C. 123–126. Fathers . tº ge p s ſº * º is e 87–89
123. Various forms of patristic evidence . ge o is ſº & & 87
124. Patristic statements about variations or MSS . e º e 87
125. The range of extant patristic evidence limited, especially as regards
continuous commentaries. te g te g ſº * g & 87
126. Collections of biblical extracts . e e e e & & © 88
127, 128. Documzentazºy #2'effaration for this edition. * * * * . 89, go
127. Distinctness of the three processes, collection of documentary
evidence, discussion of its bearings, and editing of a text . & 89
128. In this edition collection of flesh evidence inconsiderable, though
sufficient for the acquisition of personal experience gº tº g 89
CHAPTER II. RAFS Ü/, TS OF GEAVE A/LOGICA C E VI.
JDENCE PROPER (129—255) 90–186
SECTION I. DETERMINATION OF THE GENEALOGICAL RELATIONS OF THE CHIEF
ANCIENT TEXTS (129–168) . tº º . . 90–I Ig
129. Exploration of ancient ramifications the starting-point . & º 90
A. 130, 131. Priority of all great zariations to Cezzº. v. tº § ſº 9I-93
130. The text of Chrysostom and other Syrian Fathers of Cent. IV sub-
stantially identical with the common late text g g §
* 9I
g 131. The text of every other considerable group of documents shown by
analogous evidence of Fathers and Versions to be of equal or
greater antiquity . & ğ gº e £ & & g e 92
B. 132–151. Posteriority of ‘Syrzazz" (6) to Westerne” (8) and other (new-
#ral, a) readings shownt
(1) by analysis of conflate readings . . . . . . . 93-roy
132. Enquiry how far whole groups of documents have been affected by
mixture . * {} & º º e º e tº g g 93
133. Illustrations of conflation from single documents g gº tº 94
134. Conflation in groups of documents, as in Mark vi 33, which has
three principal variants, a, 8, 6: . . & te tº g cº g 95
135. attestation of a, 8, 8 in this place : . tº * g º * g 96
C.
COAVZZAVZS OF AAVZA'OZ)&VC ZZOAV
PAR.
136. Transcriptional Probability marks out 8 as a combination of a and B;
137. and, less clearly, a as the parent of 8: & e º g tº g
138. Intrinsic Probability condemns 8, and on examination commends
a as far preferable to 8: . tº gº tº º gº & ©
139. hence the provisional conclusion that the common original of the
documents attesting 8 was later than either that of the documents
which attest a or that of those which attest 3. * e tº *
I40. Similar results in Mark viii 26 . tº gº tº ſº tº e e
I4I. 33 53 ix 38 g º g tº tº g we ©
I42. 33 $5 1X 49 . * & * tº tº ºs g
I43. 3 3 3 5 Luke ix Io * tº & gº g tº tº * }
I44. 3 2 3.5 xi 5 * t Ye º º * * gº
I45. 35 33 xii 18 . e e tº tº * e &
I46. 5 § 5 § xxiv. 53 . tº ſº & tº e 3. º
I47. Table of distribution of the chief MSS and versions in a, B, or 8 in
these eight variations ge e º & g & e g &
148. Concordant testimony of these variations to the conflate character
of the 8 readings, and the originality of the a readings º g
149. What documents habitually attest the a, 8, and 6 readings respect-
ively e tº te ſº
150. No exceptions being observed elsewhere, the original scribes of 8
must have in some manner used a documents and 8 documents
in these conflate readings; § & tº © tº © & &
151. and so may be inferred to have used them clsewhere gº g ©
152–162. Posteriority of “Syriazz” to ‘JVestery, ' and other (mezzzzz! and
PAGES
96
97
98
99
99
IOO
IOI
I O2
IO2
Iog
IO4
IO4.
IO4.
IO5
Ioff
Ioë
*Alexandriazz’) zºeadings shozvºz
(2) by Ante-Nicene Patristic Ezſidence . . . & • . . Io?—I I5
152. The next step to observe the attestations of “ distinctive’ readings of
the several groups: special value of patristic evidence here as
chronological . * e © * te ſº e
153. Designation of group 8 as ‘Western', with explanation of the term;
of group 8 as ‘Sylian’; and of another group (y) as ‘Alexandrian'
154. How far the several groups can be traced in the Acts, Epistles, and
Apocalypse : . † º te wº & ge tº ſº e &
155. their relations analogous throughout, so far as extant evidence allows
them to be traced . & * * . . . ſº o º
156. Preliminary cautions as to uncertainties of patristic quotations;
(1) as liable to incorrect transmission; . e tº gº . .
157. (2) as originally lax, and so liable to misinterpretation . g º
158. Most of the pertinent patristic evidence confined to the 75 years
ending about A.D. 250, though with partial exceptions on each side
159. In the period ending A.D. 250 Western readings abundant and widely
spread; . º * & º tº gº * * e tº º
16o. and also Alexandrian and other Non-Western readings: but no
Syrian readings found . e º tº tº
161. Oligen's testimony specially significant on account
opportunities • . ſº & tº ū e e * g ©
162. Importance of this external and independent evidence of the relative
lateness of Syrian readings tº ſº & g * § º g
of his peculiar
Io/
Io8
Io9
I IO
II I
II 2
II3
II 3
II.4.
II4
CONTENTS OF INTRODUCTION XV
PAR. PAGES
D. 163—168. Posteriority of Syrian to Western, Alexandriazz, and other
(mezzāral) readings showzz
(3) by Internal Ezſidence of Syrian readings © & e * • II.5—I Ig
163 General inferiority of distinctive Syrian readings as tested by In-
ternal Evidence; . . g g & • II5
164. seen most clearly where other texts differ among themselves, when
the Syrian reading is often found to be a modification of a reading
not itself original . § te ë º e te tº e • II6
165. Sulilmary of the various modes of Syrian procedure in relation to the
earlier texts . e & g tº ºft 5 tº tº & &
166. The Patristic and the Internal Evidence shew the Syrian text not
only to have been formed from the other ancient texts, as the
evidence of conflation proved, but to have been formed from them
exclusively; so that distinctive Syrian readings must be rejected
as corruptions . º ſº º e tº & g ſº e • II.7
Similarly the Syrian element of attestation adds no appreciable
authority to the Non-Syrian element of attestation for earlier read-
ings adopted by the Syrian text (non-distinctive Syrian readings); 118
168. though sometimes the elements cannot be sufficiently distinguished
owing to Non-Syrian mixture e t g g g tº • I 18
& tº * te
II6
167
SECTION II. CHARACTERISTICs of THE CHIEF ANCIENT TExts (169—187) . 119–135
169. Concurrence of the Pre-Syrian texts having been accepted as de-
cisive authority, the several differences of reading between them
can be dealt with only by ascertaining the characteristics of each
text . * e * e º e e e * e º • II9
~4.
A. 170—176. Westerne characteristics ge * g º e e . I2O—126
170. Prevalence of obvious corruption in the Western text, chiefly owing
to bold licence of treatment; . & & º † & © • I2O
171. distinctive Western readings and non-distinctive Syrian readings
originally Western bearing the same testimony . & e • I2 I
172. The Western text not single and created at once, but various
and progressive g {º g tº * e º tº © • I22
173. Its two chief characteristics boldness of paraphlase and readiness
to adopt extraneous matter; . g {} gº º & º • I22
174. other tendencies found at work in other texts, but specially exuberant
here, being (1) to incipient paraphrase, as shown in petty changes
of form, . tº e e º gº • I23
175. and (2) to assimilation, especially of parallel or similar passages
(harmonistic corruption) . . • * * * * * * I24
176. Similar licence found in the texts of other literature much read in
early Christian times, and probably due in the N. T. to incon-
siderate regard for immediate use and edification . tº º • I25
xvi CONTENT'S OF INTRODUCTION
PAR. PAGES
B. 177—180. The zeezeiral fearé and its Areservation. e & º . I26–130
177. The patristic evidence for Non-Western Pre-Syrian readings chiefly
Alexandrian, and the evidence of versions in their favour chiefly
Egyptian; as was natural from the character of the Alexandrian
church: . º de - e & e º º º & e
178. but they often have other scattered Pre-Syrian attestation, Greek
Latin and Syriac, chiefly in the very best Western documents;
shewing that the Non-Western text in remote times was not con-
fined to Alexandria: . . . . . . . .
179. and Alexandria can hardly have furnished all the Non-Western
readings found in Fathers and Versions of the fourth and fifth
centuries . e e e e º º e & e e º
180. Fallacy of the term ‘Alexandrian as applied to all Non-Western
Pre-Syrian texts and documents; still more, to Pre-Syrian texts or
documents generally º g º e o gº º g • I29
I26
127
128
C. 181—184. Alexandriazz characteristics tº dº e º 'o . 130–132
181. Existence of a distinct class of truly Alexandrian readings • I3O
182. Their derivation from the rival Pre-Syrian readings attested by
Internal Evidence. Their documentary attestation, and the cir-
cumstances which obscure it . o º & g e e • I3O
183. Temperate forms of incipient paraphrase and of skilful assimilation,
with careful attention to language, and without bold paraphrase
or interpolation from extraneous sources, the chief Alexandrian
characteristics . e • • * e 0. tº G tº 6.
184. Instructiveness of ternary variations in which a single cause has
occasioned two independent changes, Western and Alexandrian.
Alexandrian readings sometimes adopted by the Syrian text • I32
D. 185–187. Syriazz characteréstics . . . . . . . . . 132–135
185. The Syrian text due to a ‘recension’ in the strict sense, being
formed out of its three chief predecessors, used simultaneously,
with an elaborateness which implies deliberate criticism e e
186. Its probable origin the inconvenient conflict of the preceding texts,
each of which had claims to respect; the only guide in the choice
of readings being probably a rough kind of Intrinsic Probability . 133
187. Lucidity and completeness the chief qualities apparently desired :
little omitted out of the earlier texts, much added, but chiefly
expletives and unimportant matter: the general result to introduce
smoothness and diminish force © © d º º º I 34
I32
SECTION III. SKETCH OF PostNICENE TEXTUAL HISTORY (188–198) . • I35-I45
A. 188—190. The tzwo stages of the Syrian text © º tº & • I35-I39
188. Probable connexion between the Greek Syrian revision or “recen-
sion' and the Syriac revision to which the Syriac Vulgate is due I35
COAV7'EAV7'S OF INTRODUCTION XV 11
PAR. PAGES
189. Two stages in the Greek Syrian text indicated by minor differences
of reading, the first being probably followed by the Syriac revision,
the second alone being perpetuated in Greek . . . . • I37
190. The first Syrian revision of uncertain date, between 250 and 35o:
possibly made or promoted by Lucianus of Antioch in the latter
part of Cent. III • g e * * e º * * • I37
B. 191—193. Mixture in the fourth century . e & • . . I39 –I4 I
191. Destruction of early texts under Diocletian, and diffusion of mixed
texts to the loss of local peculiarities through the circumstances of
Cent. Iv . . £º • • • & ge e e & • I39
192. Similar mixtures in Latin texts, with revisions in partial accordance
with Greek MSS, sometimes containing a Syrian text . tº • I4O
193. Similar mixtures, with progressive disappearance of the Pre-Syrian
texts, in patristic texts of this period . g & - & • 14o
C. 194, 195. Final supremacy of the Syriazz feará . g * gº . I4 I-143
194. Notwithstanding the long persistence of mixed texts, eventual tri-
umph of the (almost unmixed) Syrian text; . . . & º • I4 I
195. due partly to the contraction of the Greek world, and the destruction
of copies by invaders in outlying regions, partly to the centralisa-
tion of Greek Christendom round Constantinople, the heir of the
Syrian text of Antioch . . . . ſº ſe * & ſº • I42
D. 196, 197. Relics of Pre-Syriant tearts in cursives º & tº • I43-145
196. Substantial identity of text in the mass of cursives, along with
sporadic, or occasionally more extensive, occurrence of Pre-Syrian
readings in some cursives tº & :- * > e o wº • I 43
197. Such readings in effect fragmentary copies of lost ancient MSS • I 44
E. 198. Recapitulation of the history of the text. & 8 & 9 I45, 146
198. Continuous course of textual events from the rise of the Western
text to the attempt made to remedy the confusion of texts by the
Syrian revision, and the disappearance of the unmixed Pre-Syrian
texts; and thence to the gradual supersession of rival mixed texts
by the Syrian text of Constantinople . e * & • • I 45
SECTION IV. RELATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL ExTANT Documſen TS TO THE CHIEF
ANCIENT TEXTs (199—223) . iº e g . 146–162
A. 199, 2do. Nature of the Azocess of determination . tº e . I46–148
199. Application of the history to criticism of readings begins with deter-
mination of the ancient text or texts represented by each principal
document. . e iº g * > e tº e e * > . 146
200. The process of finding by readings of clearly marked attestation
whether a document follows this or that ancient text, or a mixture
of two, or a mixture of more . & * tº g º g • I47
xviii COAVZZAVZS OA' ZAVZTA’OZ) CWC ZZOAV
PAR, PAG ES
B. 201—212. Texts found in Greek MSS § * • • & . I48–155
201. Preliminary e sº & * e * g & & * . I48
202. D a Western MS of the Gospels and Acts . & e * tº
203. D2Gs Western MSS of St Paul's Epistles. No pure...y Alexandrian
MSS extant . e * g & º g e * wº • I49
204. B Pre-Syrian, not Alexandrian, nor (except within narrow limits)
Western . ſº &
I48
e tº e e e e s e • I 50
205. N Pre-Syrian, with large Western and Alexandrian elements . • ISI
2C6. All other extant MSS mixed, and partially or wholly Syrian : three
heads of difference in respect of mixture. tº gº º e &
207. The mixed text of A : Syrian predominance in the Gospels of A, not
in the other books: affinity of A with the Latin Vulgate te . I 52
208. The mixed text of C . • a & *
I5 I
* > ſº * g . I 52
209. Various mixed texts of other uncial MSS of the Gospels, . * . I 52
210. and of the other books; e tº * * *: ge e * • I53
2II. also of some cursive MSS of the Gospels, . e g * g • I54
212. and of the other books. & e * • I54
C. 213–219. Tearfs found in Persions . e sº e * & . I 55--I59
213. Mixed Latin texts & e tº e & g g g g • I55
214. The Old Syriac Pre-Syrian, chiefly (as far as known) Western: the
Vulgate Syriac incompletely Syrian & g e & s . I 56
215. The Harklean Syriac chiefly Syrian : its secondary ancient element 156
216. Peculiar mixture in the Jerusalem Syriac . * ge I57
217. The Egyptian Versions Pre-Syrian, predominantly neutral and also
Alexandrian, with Western elements of uncertain date: the
AEthiopic partly the same, partly Syrian º te tº . 157
218. The Armenian mixed, having various very early as well as Syrian
elements; the Gothic mixed, chiefly Syrian and Western, re-
sembling the Italian Latin º * e º sº * & . 158
219. General correspondence of the textual elements of versions with the
dates of versions . & & * e g tº e & e
D 220–223. Teacts youzed Zzz Greek Fathers . ſº * tº tº . I 59—162
220. Compound evidence (author’s text and translator's text) furnished
by Greek works extant in translations, as (Latin) the treatise of
Irenaeus, . . . & º º º & g tº g & • I 59
221. and various works of Origen; * * : * e g º º &
222. and (Syriac) the Theophazzia of Eusebius, and Cyril on St Luke .
223. Later Greek writers having texts with large Pre-Syrian elements
SECTION V. IDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATION OF READINGS AS BELONGING TO
- THE CHIEF ANCIENT TEXTS (224–243) . º ge . 162–179
A. 224. Nafzeze of the Žzocess of identification & & g s . . IC2
224, Assignation of readings to particular ancient texts frequently pos-
sible through knowledge of the constituent elements of the
attesting documents e © & o tº e * e . I62
COAWZZAV7'S OF MAWTRODUCTION xix
PAR, PAGES
225, 226. Identification and 7%jection of Syriant readings • , 163, 164
225. TYocumentary criteria for detecting Syrian readings . tº g • 163
226. Causes and limitations of their occasional uncertainties . & • 164
227—232. Identification of Western and of Alexandrian readings 164–169
227. Assignation of Pre-Syrian readings to the several Pre-Syrian types
a larger task . & & * gº g tº • • & , 164
228. Documentary criteria of distinctively Western readings; . ſº . 165
229. and of distinctively Alexandrian readings; . g * * . 166
230. and also of Western readings which became Syrian, and of Alexan-
. drian readings which became Syrian . & . . º . 167
231. The attestation of Non-Western and Non-Alexandrian readings
essentially residual . . . e • * gº & g g . 167
232. Causes of occasional uncertainty of assignation e & * . 168
233—235. Identification of zeezetral readings © fe º º . 169–172
233. In ternary variations Pre-Syrian readings by the side of Western
and Alexandrian readings may be either modifications of the
others or independent and neutral . He & g e * . 169
234. The attestation of neutral readings ascertained partly by direct in-
spection of termary readings, partly by comparison of the two
chief types of binary readings © ſº * e tº © . I70
235. Details of neutral attestation . . & e tº & * . I 7o
236—239. Suspiciousness of Westezzt and of Alexandriant readings 172--175
236. Western and Alexandrian texts, as wholes, aberrant in character . 172
237. The possibility that individual Western or Alexandrian readings
may be original not excluded by any known genealogical
relations; º & * * te * $º * e . * • I73
238. but internal character unfavourable to the claims of all but a few . 173
239. The apparent originality of some Western readings due to derivation
from traditional sources . * tº * º * e § * • I74
240–242. Exceptional Western ſton-interéolations . e ge . I75—I'77
240. Certain apparently Western omissions in the Gospels shown by in-
ternal character to be original, i. e. non-interpolations . g . I 75
241. The probable origin of the corresponding Non-Western interpolations 176
242. No analogous exceptional class of genuine Alexandrian readings . 177
243. Recaffèſulation of genealogical ezidence ºroger . & . I78, I79
243. Results of genealogical evidence proper summed up in five proposi-
tions & & tº & g § tº te tº e gº e 178
XX CONZTAEAV7 S OF AAV7'RO DUC ZYOAV
PA(EES
SECTION VI. REVIEw of PREVIOUS CRITICISM WITH REFERENCE TO ANCIENT
TEXTS (244–255) º e º º . 179–186
A. 244—246. Foundation of historical criticism by Mill, Bentley, and
Bezige/ º & o e º . I79–181
244. The necessity of considering the studies of Cent. xvi.II on ancient
textS . a º o
& e - & -> e - º • I79
245. Mill's detached criticisms: importance of Bentley's principle of
Greek and Latin consent; not directly embodied in a text before
Lachmann; o º º º - º - e - t . 18O
246. but instrumental in suggesting Bengel's classification of documents
by “nations’ or ‘families' * º e . . . . 18O
B. 247–249. Dezºelopment of historical criticisme by Griesbach, in contrast
- zwith Hug's theory of recensions . g . . I&I--183
247. Bengel followed by Semler and others, but especially Griesbach :
- misunderstandings arising from the ambiguity of the term
‘recension' . e -> e - e - e - e . 18 l
248. Hug’s comparatively true view of the Western text, and his fanciful
theory of recensions founded on words of Jerome . - e . 181
249. Griesbach’s disproof of the existence of the supposed Origenian
recension : the Syrian recension perhaps due to Lucianus: the
possibility of a recension by Hesychius . © © - º . 18.
C. 250–253. Defects of Griesbach’s criticismz e © e q • 183—185
250. Griesbach’s confusion between classification of ancient texts and of
extant documents, and consequent inadequate sense of mixture,
and neglect of groupings: sº º º o tº * e . 183
251. his confusion of Alexandrian readings with readings preserved
chiefly at Alexandria, and consequent failure to detect neutral
readings: . o * e e º © e • 183
252. his excessive confidence in Transcriptional Probability: and his use
of the Received Text as a basis º o e & e . 184
253. The limitations of view in Griesbach, and in the critics of Cent. xv.11
generally, due to the slenderness and the peculiar character of the
matérials accessible to them .
9. e e
º
o tº º º © wº - 185
D. 254, 255. Permantent zalue of Griesbach’s criticism. . º o . 185, 186
254. Griesbach’s greatness as a critic: his criticism historical in character,
and derived from classification of the actual phenomena: the
validity of its principle and chief results not affected by his later
observations . º © e º & o e o e &
255. Disregard of the genealogical basis laid down by Griesbach an
eiement of insecurity in the texts of his successors e g . 186
ſ
185
COAV ZAZAVTS OF ZAV ZA'O DUCTYOAV xxi
ar
CHAPTER III. F.E.S. UAE 7'S OF ZAVTEA’AVAZ. F V/-
DENCE OF GROUPS AAWD DOCUMENTS (256—355) 187—271
PAGES
SECTION I. Document ARY GROUPs As LIMITED BY REFERENCE To PRIMARY
GREEK MSS GENERALLY (256–280) . • . . 187—206
A. 256–26o. Genteral considerations one Documentary Groups & . 187—191
256. Internal Evidence of Documents already taken into account for the
great ancient texts, in reference to their internal character; . . 187
257. and this process equally applicable to any group of documents that
recurs in isolation from the rest, . . e & . .188
258. on the assumption that the text of the group is homogeneous . - 189
259. Isolation a necessary condition, because readings attested by other
- documents as well as by the group exhibit the character not of the
group’s special ancestor but of an earlier ancestor of all g • 189
260. . Virtual identity of groups found to be compatible with a certain
amount of variation in their composition. tº © * e • I90
B. 261–264. Progressive limitationt of Groups with reference to Primeary
- Greek MSS . o . e. - •. • I91–194
261. Groups worthy of attention found to be comparatively few, being
marked by the presence of one or more primary Greek MSS • IQI
262. Enumeration of primary Greek MSS . º e Q & o I92
263. Internal excellence of readings attested by all the primary Greek
MSS ; º º º o e - - e º º º • IS3
264. or by all except D or D2C3. * e * º - - º • I93
C. 265–267. Relation of Primary Greek MSS to other documeentary
- ezſidence º 6 . . e . 194–196
265. The need of determining whether Primary Greek MSS can be
decisive as to a reading opposed by all or nearly all other
documents of any class . e e - & • • g • T 94.
266. The chief means of determination (a) Internal Evidence of the
Groups thus formed by Primary Greek MSS, to be discussed
hereafter, and (3) the textual character of the several classes of
secondary documents, to be considered now . o º º . I95
267. Important fragmentary documents to be noticed in variations for
which they are extant, that it may be ascertained whether their
absence has to be allowed for elsewhere º º • o . 196
D. 268. Absence of Secondary Greek MSS from Groups containing Prº-
amazy Greek MSS . . * . . • 196, 197
268. The large amount of various mixture in all secondary Greek MSS
sufficient to account for their opposition to many genuine
readings of Primary Greek MSS . º e º e e • 196
xxii COA/ZTAEAV7'S OF ZAV ZACO/O JCZ'ſ OAV
PAR. PAGES
E. 269–273. Absence of Versions from Groups containing Primary
- - Greek MSS & & g 5 © © 197—aox
269. Versions are liable to be found supporting wrong Western readings
in consequence of the wide range of Western corruption among
them; º o • e - º o' ū o & te • I97
270. and the versions most free from Western corruption are the versions
oftenest found supporting the Primary Greek MSS • • ... Igº
271. Apparent dissent of versions is not always a mark of difference o
text, their apparent renderings being often due to inability to
express Greek distinctions, or to freedom of diction, . º . Ig&
272, or to love of paraphrase, found in translators even more than in
scribes . o &
G - e e sº e * ... • • ISQ
273. The existence of true cases of opposition of all versions to genuine
readings of Primary Greek MSS is consistent with the textual
composition of the versions, as given above; and the absence of
attestation by versions is not accompanied by suspiciousness of
internal character . e © te Q s e e o • 2CO
F. 274–279. Aösence of Fathers fromz Groups containing Primary
- Greek MSS . e d g e • 201-205
274. Negative patristic evidence irrelevant against a reading except in
the few cases in which quotation would have been morally inevi-
table; &" * º * - e - e © - º • 2C I
275. even when it is supported by positive Post-Nicene patristic evi-
dence, the force of which is - weakened by the prevalence of
mixture in Post-Nicene patristic texts . • • º º º
276. The force of the apparent opposition of Ante-Nicene patristic
evidence is weakened (1) by the assimilation of patristic texts
to the current texts in transcription or printing, which is often
indicated by varieties of reading or by the context ; & • 2 O2
277. or even in the absence of such marks, conscious or unconscious
recollection of the current texts being virtually inseparable from
transcription and editing: .
e - º e • s . 203
278. (2) by laxity of quotation, which naturally follows in most cases the
tº same lines as laxity of transcription: . e e tº e • 203
279. and (3) by the large Western element in the texts of even the
Alexandrian Fathers . * * * e º • * - 204
G. 280. Absence of Versions and Fathers frome Groups containing Pri-
77tary Greek MSS º s t & • 205, 206
28o. Versions and Fathers, as representative of lost MSS, are not generi-
cally different in ultimate authority from MSS: nor is there any
inherent improbability in the supposition that all Versions and
Fathers may occasionally coincide in complete defection from a
right reading . º - e - e. e º • - e . 205
COA’7'EAV7'S OF /AV7/8 O/DOCTYO.V xxiii
PAGES
SECTION II. Document ARY GROUPS As LIMITED BY REFERENCE TO THE BEST
PRIMARY GREEK MSS (281–355) e © e . 207—271
A. 281–283. Relation of zariations Četween Primary Greek MSS to the
chief ancient texts * , º * e . 207–209
281. Natural harmony between a true interpretation of the relations
between important groups and the known relations between the
chief ancient texts . e tº tº § e º sº º . 207
282. Its apparent violation by the apparent opposition of composite
attestation to probable readings; . & º 208
283. explained by the early adoption of Western readings in eclectic
texts, and by the mixed texts of most extant MSS. e º • 2C9
B. 284—286. General relations of B and N to other documents . • 2 IO-2 I2
284. Preeminence of RB combined, and comparative preeminence of
B alone, ascertained by Internal Evidence of Groups ; & • 2 IO
285. as it was virtually by analysis of the texts of documents in relation
to the chief ancient texts . & * * tº gº tº sº • 2 IO
286. Substantial independence of the two processes, and consequent
mutual verification . g • * º e e e e • 2 II
C. 287—304. Origin and character of readings of NB combined . . 212–227
287. Enquiry into the preeminence of RB combined . * $ & • 2 I2
288. Question as to the independence of their respective texts; not
answered by the participation of the scribe of B in the writing
of N gº “º '• º e & • • & & • 2 I 3
289. Community of readings in any two MSS insufficient for deter-
mining the proximity or distance of the common source, which
may even be the autograph . * º g e g & • 2 I 4.
290. The hypothesis of a proximate common origin of R and B, obviously *
incredible in its literal sense, has now to be examined as limited
to a common element in N and B . & gº & e wº • 2 I 5
291. Their texts being simplified by neglect of readings evidently due to
mixture and of “singular” readings, '• e § * º • 215
292. the remaining discrepancies, in which each has very ancient support,
are unfavourable to the hypothesis . e gº & * º . 216
293. Community of manifestly wrong readings in any two MSS is a proof
that the common original was not the autograph, but is indecisive
as to degree of remoteness © sº gº * & & º . 216
294. Community of a succession of mere blunders is a sign of proximate-
ness of common source : but only one such is found in RB com-
bined, and that easily explicable by accidental coincidence . . 2 I 7
295. Positive indications of the remoteness of the common source are
furnished by the genealogical relations of N and Bunder two heads. 219
, 296. (a) The identity of internal character between the least attested and
the better attested readings of NB combined is a reason for re-
ferring both to the same common source, which in the latter
case, cannot be proximate . * o º º sº te 2I2
xxiv. COMW ZEAV7'S OA' ZAV7'RO/DOC ZZOAV
PAR.
297. The primitiveness of text thus established for the common source
of xB is compatible with either (1) the primitiveness and con-
sequent extreme remoteness of the actual common source, or (2)
transcription from a primitive MS, or (3) inheritance from a
singularly incorrupt ancestry § sº º g tº * • 22 O
298. But (b) the two latter alternatives are excluded by the second kind
of genealogical considerations; that is, each MS is shown by
readings having a small very ancient accessory attestation to
contain a separate text of its own, at once analogous in character
PAGES
to the other and distinct from it; . * * g tº 43 • 22 I
299. these two separate texts being likewise perceptible in ternary
variations: * º
3oo. so that it is unnatural to take the text of NIX as a third independent
text rather than as representing the coincidences of the independ-
ent texts of N and of B . g * tº º g w & • 222
3oz. Hence N and B are descended through separate and divergent
ancestries from a common original not far from the autographs . .222
302. Readings of NB are virtually readings of a lost MS above two
centuries older. The strong presumption of relative purity due to
this high antiquity is confirmed by Internal Evidence of Groups . 22
303. Absolute purity is negatived by Western non-interpolations, possible
concurrences of x and B in wrong Western readings in St Paul,
and ‘primitive’ errors, besides accidental coincidences in e.g.
itacistic errors. With these exceptions, readings of NB should be
accepted when not contravened by strong internal evidence, and
then only treated as doubtful .
e © º g º • 224
3o4. Illustrative examples of good but £7-imza facie difficult readings of
NB e © tº © g © e º * ſº * e e 226
D. 305–307. Binary uncial combinations containing B and N 72s;ec-
* tive/y . * & e tº • , 227—230
305. Peculiar excellence of the binary combinations BL, BC, BT &c. . 227
306. Exceptional and variable character of BD2 in the Pauline Epistles . 228
307. Questionable character of most binary combinations contain-
ing N º & i º •. • $ & © tº ſº tº • 229
E. 3O8–325. Singular and subsingular readings of B . * * > . 230–246
308. Definition of “singular' and ‘subsingular” readings . & e • 23O
309. The authority of the singular readings of any document variable
according to the number and genealogical relations of all the extant
documents: in a complex pedigree no presumption against singular
readings of a document known to have an exceptional ancestry . 230
3ro. Separation of the singular readings of the proper text of a document,
due to its ancestry, from its mere ‘individualisms' originating
with the scribe tº e * & tº tº • * * * 23 I
311. Use of the determination of characteristic individualisms, whether
clerical or mental, in the examination of singular readings . . 232
312. Individualisms of B chiefly slight mechanical inaccuracies: & • 233
G.
PAR,
3I3.
3I4.
3I.5.
3I9.
32O.
325.
326.
33O.
33 I.
COAV7'EAVTS OF MAW 7TRO DUCTYOAV XXV
PAGES
groundlessness of the supposition that its scribe was addicted to
arbitrary omissions, (its supposed omissions being due only to an
inverted view of the interpolations of the ‘Received ’ and the
intermediate texts,) . tº º g e e • * o º
except perhaps as regards petty words, as articles and pronouns: .
its other individualisms simple and imartificial (chiefly easy assimila-
tions), such as would proceed from a dull and patient but some-
times negligent transcriber . º º * e º e e
Subsingular readings of B various in character according to the
accessory attestation - e e t- e * , - & º
Singular readings of B often individualisms only, but also often
probably right º - e a s tº * is • º &
Excellence of singular and subsingular readings of B in ternary and
especially in composite ternary variations, made up of two or
more binary variations with varying distributions of attesta-
tion . e - e. º º & e © g o e o
Reasons why the readings of B in such cases cannot be the result
of skilful choice, º g g te o & g • . • g
which must not be confounded with the incomplete adoption of
composite Western readings in the Pauline Epistles, due only to
negligence . . º
©
- - • ...a e • * - © e • 24O
Examples of the excellence of subsingular readings of B in termary
variations; whether of the simpler kind (James v 7); . 24I
or composite, consisting of a single phrase (Mark vi 43); . e . 242
or formed by a series of separate variations (St Mark's account of
the denials of St Peter) . e e e e e º e • 243
Excellence of many subsingular and even singular readings of B in
binary variations, though many have to be rejected º tº • 244.
Many genuine readings in the Acts and Epistles virtually subsingular
readings of B with the Syrian attestation added . e & • 245
F. 326–329. Singular and subsingular readings of R and other MSS 246–250
Individualisms of N bold and careless: subsingular readings of N
mostly suspicious, but a few possibly or probably right . . . 246
Probability that the reading of the archetype of RB is usually pre-
served in either R or B where they differ & g º ſº • 247
Hence subsingular readings of either MS may be either virtually
equivalent to subsingular readings of NB or early corruptions of
limited range : subsingular readings of B frequently the former,
subsingular readings of N usually the latter . • º te . 248
Internal Evidence of Groups and . Documents unfavourable to
singular and subsingular readings of all other MSS, and to all
binary combinations of other MSS o e º • & 25O
330–339. Determination of text where B and 8 differ 250-256
Erroneous results obtained by simply following B in all places not
containing self-betraying errors . º tº 6 e º • 25O
|Use of Secondary documentary evidence and Internal evidence in
conflicts of B and N . ... • e º º & º tº dº • 251
xxvi cowz-EyzS OF INTRODUCTION
PAR, - PAGES
332. Value of Secondary documentary evidence as proving readings not
to be individualisms, and throwing back their age : & tº . 252
333. its special value when it includes mixed documents (e.g. cursives)
having an ancient element; . . . . * & 4 • • 252
334. recognition of their weight in Non-Syrian readings being consistent
with neglect of their Syrian readings . e 253
335. Illustration of the composite texts of mixed documents from Es, a
transcript of the Western D2 made after D2 had been partially
assimilated to the Syrian text by correctors, . . . & g • 25.4
336. as exemplified by Rom. xv. 31 ff., which shews incomplete copying
of an incompletely assimilated text; and consequent survival of
some Western readings: . e sº e ge wº tº e • 254
337, comparison of E3 as interpreted by D3 with E3 as it would appear
if D2 were lost a key to the doubleness of text in other mixed
documents, warranting neglect of all readings not discrepant from
the current or Syrian text; . o o 's e gº & • 255
338. Such neglect being the only means of avoiding much positive
error & e e * tº te e * tº º • - 255
339. Cumulative absence of attestation by late mixed documents proved
unimportant by the numerous certain readings which have no
such attestation & tº g g * e © & g . 256
H. 340–346. Determination of text where B is absent . e & . 256–263
340. Three portions of text in which B (or its fundamental text) is
wanting . tº e e © º tº e g º * &
34T. (1) Vazriations including Westerne readings sufforted by B in the
Pauline Eßistles: difficulty of distinguishing Alexandrian from
genuine readings opposed to largely attested readings of BD,Gs: 257
342. possible but rarely probable Western origin of readings of NBD2Gs 258
343. (2) Parts of Pauline Epistles for which B is defective: difficulty
noticed under the last head repeated ; also of detecting readings
answering to subsingular readings of B: absolute authority of N
not increased by its relative preeminence º g * g . 259
344. (3) Apoca/y/se: obscurity of documentary relations: N full of in-
dividualisms, and otherwise of very mixed character : relative
excellence of A, and special value of AC combined : lateness of
256
text in most versions: internal evidence tº e & * . 26o
345. Need of further examination of documentary genealogy in the
Apocalypse & g * tº 262
346. Anomalous relation of the ‘Received' to the Syrian text in the
Apocalypse e e o c & § * º º te . 262
I. 347–355. Suft/enzenetary details on the birth-Élace azed the composition,
of leading MSS . tº * © º . 264-271
347. Uncertainty as to the birth-place of the chief uncials except the
bilingual MSS: absence of evidence for the supposed Alexandrian
origin of some . . . . e e g e o
348. Slight orthographical indications suggesting that B and N were
written in the West, A and C at Alexandria; . g º tº • 265
COAV7 AAV7'S OF ZAVZTA’O/DUC ZYOAV xxvii
FAR. PAGES
349. supported as regards B and 8 by their exhibition of a Latin system
of divisions in Acts, though not due to the first hands . gº . 266
350. Other indications from divisions of books altogether uncertain . 266
351. Surmise that B and N were both written in the West, probably at
Rome, but that the, ancestry of N contained an element trans-
mitted from Alexandria: the inclusion of Hebrews about the
middle of Cent. Iv compatible with this supposition sº e . 267
352. Similarity of text throughout B and (except in the Apocalypse)
throughout N probably due to sameness of average external con-
ditions, the greater uncials being probably copied from MSS
which included only portions of the N.T. º tº e º . 267
353. Various forms and conditions of corrections by the different ‘hands’
of MSS . . & & e º e e e • - • 269
354. Changes of reading by the second hand (the ‘corrector') of B: worth-
less character of the changes by the third hand 27o
355. The three chief sets of corrections of N. Erasures . 27o
CHAPTER IV. S. UAE,STAAWTIAA. INTEGRATP OF THE
PUR EST TRANSMITTE D TEXT (356-374) 271–287
356. The ultimate question as to the substantial identity of the purest
transmitted text with the text of the autographs to be approached
by enquiring first how far the text of the best Greek uncials is
substantially identical with the purest transmitted text . º • 27 I
A, 357–360. AAAzorimate moſt-existence of genuine readings unattested by
any of the best Greek zezicza/s tº & e . 272—276
357. The preservation of scattered genuine readings by mixture with lost
lines of transmission starting from a point earlier than the diver- -
gence of the ancestries of B and N is theoretically possible: 272
358, but is rendered improbable, (a) as regards the readings of secondary
uncials, by the paucity and sameness of their elements of mix-
ture, and by the internal character of readings º g : • 273
359. There is a similar theoretical possibility as regards () readings
wholly or chiefly confined to Versions and Fathers, which exist
in great numbers, and a £7°iori deserve full consideration : . . 274
360. but they are condemned by Internal Evidence of Readings, with a
few doubtful exceptions . e {-} & © * & 274
B. 361—370. Ažroximate sufficiency of eatisting documents for the recovery
of the genzeize text, zºo/withsłazzding the existence of some £rimitive
corruptions e • o , º gº tº tº & • tº 276–284
361. The question as to the possibility of primitive error not foreclosed
. by any assumption that no true words of Scripture can have
perished, nor by the improbability of most existing conjectures . 276
xxviii COAV ZAZAV7'S OF AAV7'RO/DUC 7TMOAV
P.A.R. - - PAGEIS
362. Presumption in favour of the integrity of the purest transmitted text
- derived from the small number of genuine extant readings not
attested by N or B . º o & º
tº tº g * e 2
363. Absence of any contrary presumption arising from the complexity of 77
attestation in the N.T., which is in fact due to unique advantages
in the antiquity, variety, and excellence of the evidence; . . 278
364, and yet more in the preeminent excellence of two or three existing
documents e • * e g & º tº e sº • 279
365. The existence of primitive errors, with variety of evidence, illustrated
by 2 Pet. iii Io; tº $ tº tº º e º e tº • 279
366. and not to be denied even where there is no variation, especially if
the existing text gives a Superficial sense e º e e . 28o
367. Impossibility of determining whether primitive errors came in at the
first writing by the author or amanuensis, or at a very early stage
of transmission: transitional class of virtually primitive errors in
places where the true text has a trifling attestation © tº . 28o
368. Paucity of probable primitive errors, and substantial integrity of the
purest transmitted text, as tested by Internal Evidence. * . 281
369. Total absence of deliberate dogmatic falsification as an originating
cause of any extant variants, notwithstanding the liability of some
forms of bold paraphrase to be so interpreted . . . & º . 282
370. Dogmatic influence limited to preference between readings antece-
dently existing: baselessness of early accusations of wilful corrup-
tion, except in part as regards Marcion. Absence of dogmatic
falsification antecedent to existing variations equally indicated by
Internal Evidence . tº * * & & & g g . 283
C. 371—374. Conditions of/?arther improvement of the fert . º . 284–287
371. Future perfecting of the text to be expected through more exact
study of relations between existing documents, rather than from
new materials, useful as these may be : . * te * : 6 . 284
372. but only in accordance with principles already ascertained and
applied . ge e * g e gº e º tº . 285
373. Inherent precariousness of texts constituted without reference to
genealogical relations of documents e & & g & . 286
374. Certainty of the chief facts of genealogical history in the N. T., and
of the chief relations between existing documents . & . 287
2
PART IV
NATURE AND DETAILS OF THIS EDITION 288–324
A. 375–377. Aimt and limitations of this edition . - tº G . 288–290
375. This text an attempt to reproduce at once the autograph text; . • 288
376. limited by uncertainties due to imperfection of evidence, and by
the exclusive claims of high ancient authority in a manual edition; 289
PAR.
377.
COAVTAEAV7'S OF MAWZTROZ)&VCT/OAV xxix
and thus modified by alternative readings, and by the relegation
of probable but unattested or insufficiently attested readings to
the Appendix . o' * e º º º g & * g
PAGES
29O.
B. 378–392. Tearfual notafioſt . g g º g © * * * . 291—302
384.
385.
386.
391.
... the Section on the Woman taken in Adultery;
Three classes of variations or readings, with corresponding notation:
forms of variation also three, Omission, Insertion, Substitution .
First class. Alternative readings proper, placed without accom-
panying marks in margin, or indicated by simple brackets in text.
Second class. Places where a primitive corruption of text is sus-
pected, marked by AA. f in margin (or ft in text) . . tº g
Third class. Rejected readings of sufficient special interest to de-
serve notice ; . * & e e * º * & e &
(1) Rejected readings worthy of association with the text or margin,
classified as follows . e g
. Nine Non-Western interpolations in Gospels retained in the text
within double brackets, to avoid omission on purely Western
authority; . # e. * G e • e a tº e º º
and five apparently Western interpolations, containing important
traditional matter, likewise enclosed in double brackets º
Other interesting Western additions (interpolations) and substitutions
in Gospels and Acts retained in the margin within peculiar marks
(2) Rejected readings not worthy of association with the text or
margin, but interesting enough to be noticed in the Appendix,
indicated by AA. . & gº
. Explanation of the course adopted as to the last twelve verses of
St Mark’s Gospel; . e
the Section on the Man working on the Sabbath; . e
the interpolations in the story of the Pool of Bethaatha; g &
the account of the piercing by the soldier's spear, as inserted in the
text of St Matthew ; gº & º º e ge g: * gº
and the mention of Ephesus in the beginning of the Epistle to the
Ephesians e & º & & g e g * e &
29t
29 I
292
293
294
294
295
296
298
298
299
300
30 I
3O2
C. 393–404. Orthografty . tº ſº th tº tº. & & g • 3O2 --31O
395-
396.
397.
Determination of orthography difficult, but not to be declined with-
out loss of fidelity and of the individual characteristics of different
books . gº & • • & * & . . º
The orthography of classical writers as edited often conventional
only; and the evidence for the orthography of the Greek Bible
relatively large e & te & * e g t & * .
Most of the unfamiliar spellings in the N. T. derived from the
popular language, not ‘Alexandrine ', nor yet “Hellenistic’; tº
illustrated by other popular Christian and Jewish writings and by
inscriptions e & & e e * {e * * º &
Most spellings found in the best MSS of the N.T. probably not in-
troduced in or before Cent. IV, but transmitted from the auto-
graphs; and at all events the most authentic that we possess &
3O2
3O3
3O3
3O4
305
XXX COAVZTEAVTS OF AAV7'RO/DUCTIOAV
PAR. PAGES
398. Orthographical variations treated here in the same manner as others,
subject to defects of evidence, and with much uncertainty as to
some results . & º º e - 6 e & o . 306
399. Orthographical change was more rapid than substantive change, but
followed the same main lines of transmission: the fundamental
orthographical character of documents is disguised by superficial
itacism . e e - q e - e - & º . 306
4oo. Western and Alexandrian spellings: habitual neutrality of B . . 3O7
4or. Tabulation of recurring spellings indispensable for approximate
determination, notwithstanding the impossibility of assuming an
absolute uniformity . º e e - e . . e . 307
402. Orthographical alternative readings reserved for the Appendix. . 308
403. Digression on itacistic error as diminishing but not invalidating the
authority of the better MSS as between substantive readings
differing only by vowels that are liable to be interchanged; . • 308
404. with illustrations of the permutation of o and o, e and at, e and m,
et and m, and justs and üuets . • <- © e tº º • 309
I). 405–416. Breathings, Accents, and other accessories of £rinting . 310–318
.405. No transmission of Breathings (except indirectly) or Accents in early
uncials . e e º & e º g o e o . 31 O
406. "Evidence respecting them extraneous, that is, derived from gram-
marians and late MSS. whether of the N. T. or of other Greek
writings . e • . tº • . º - tº - . 3 II
407. Peculiar breathings attested indirectly by aspiration of preceding
COInSO112 IntS e e • - º - s º º e • 3 I l
408. Breathings of proper names, Hebrew or other, to be determined
chiefly by their probable etymology: . e - 6 º' • 3T2
409. difficulty as to the breathing of Iow80s and its derivatives . . • 313
4to. Special uses of the Iota subscript º tº e -> º - - 3I4.
4II. Insertion of accents mainly regulated by custom, with adoption of
the frequent late shortening of long vowels . e * - • 3T4
412. Syllabic division of words at end of lines generally guided by the
rules of Greek grammarians and the precedents of the four earliest
MSS º o - e • 315
413. Quotations from the O.T. printed in uncial type, transliterated
Hebrew words in spaced type, titles and formulae in capitals • 375
414. Distinctive use of Kiipuos and [ć] kūptos; . • • g º . 316
415. of Xpwards and [d] Xplotós; - º tº e e e - • 317
416. and of "Yihuatos and d juvotos . tº . ~~ e o tº tº . 318
V/ E. 417–423. Punctuation, Divisions of terá, and Titles of ãooks . . .318–3:2
417. No true transmission of punctuation in early uncials or other docu-
ments; necessity of punctuating according to presumed inter-
pretation . - * o * tº © • . & e . 318
418. Simplicity of punctuation preferred. Alternative punctuations • 319
419. Graduated division and subdivision by primary sections, paragraphs,
subparagraphs, and capitals . e & e & e e • 319
COM 7TACAV7'S OF AAV7'A’O/DUCTAOAV xxxi
PAR. PAGES
420. Metrical arrangement of passages metrical in rhythin • - e 319
421. Peculiar examples and analogous arrangements. tº * * • 32O
422. Order of books regulated by tradition, that is, the best Greek tra-
dition of Cent. Iv. position of the Pauline Epistles in the N. T.,
and of Hebrews among the Pauline Epistles . . o & º
423. Traditional titles of books adopted from the best MSS. The collective
GOSPEL. The forms Colassae in the title, Colossae in the text . 321
F. 424, 425. Conclusion . & * c e & e * . . 322–324
424. Acknowledgements . g º e dº * * & a • 322
425. Last words . e * & gº ſº g tº • 323
I N T R O DUCTION
I. THIS edition is an attempt to present exactly the
original words of the New Testament, so far as they can
now be determined from surviving documents. Since
the testimony delivered by the several documents or wit-
nesses is full of complex variation, the original text Can-
not be elicited from it without the use of criticism, that
is, of a process of distinguishing and setting aside those
readings which have originated at some link in the chain
of transmission. This Introduction is intended to be a
succinct account (1) of the reasons why criticism is still
necessary for the text of the New Testament; (II) of
what we hold to be the true grounds and methods of
criticism generally; (III) of the leading facts in the docu-
mentary history of the New Testament which appear to
us to supply the textual critic with secure guidance; and
(iv) of the manner in which we have ourselves endea.
voured to embody the results of criticism in the present
text.
2. The office of textual criticism, it cannot be too
clearly understood at the outset, is always secondary and
always negative. It is always secondary, since it comes into
3
2 ZTEXTUAZ, CACAZTIC/SM
play only where the text transmitted by the existing docu-
ments appears to be in error, either because they diffel
from each other in what they read, or for some other suffi-
cient reason. With regard to the great bulk of the words
of the New Testament, as of most other ancient writings,
there is no variation or other ground of doubt, and there-
fore no room for textual criticism; and here therefore an
editor is merely a transcriber. The same may be said
with substantial truth respecting those various readings
which have never been received, and in all probability
never will be received, into any printed text. The pro-
portion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised
above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computa-
tion, than seven eighths of the whole. The remaining eighth
therefore, formed in great part by changes of Order and
other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area
of criticism. If the principles followed in the present
edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced.
Recognising to the full the duty of abstinence from
peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves
the judgement in suspense between two or more readings,
we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the
words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up
about one sixtieth of the whole New Testament. In this
second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial
variations is beyond measure larger than in the former;
so that the amount of what can in any sense be called
substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole
residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a
thousandth part of the entire text. Since there is reason to
suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the
extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testa-
ment, which might seem to be confirmed by language
SAECOMDAA' V AAWD AWA, GAZ"/VE 3
used here and there in the following pages, we desire to
make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the
New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic's
labours.
3. Again, textual criticism is always negative, because
its final aim is virtually nothing more than the detection
and rejection of error. Its progress consists not in the
growing perfection of an ideal in the future, but in ap-
proximation towards complete ascertainment of definite
facts of the past, that is, towards recovering an exact copy
of what was actually written on parchment or papyrus by
the author of the book or his amanuensis. Had all in-
tervening transcriptions been perfectly accurate, there
could be no error and no variation in existing docu-
ments. Where there is variation, there must be error in
at least all variants but one ; and the primary work of
textual criticism is merely to discriminate the erroneous
variants from the true.
4. In the case indeed of many ill preserved ancient
writings textual criticism has a further and a much more
difficult task, that of detecting and removing corruptions
affecting the whole of the existing documentary evidence.
But in the New Testament the abundance, variety, and
comparative excellence of the documents confines this
task of pure ‘emendation’ within so narrow limits that
we may leave it out of sight for the present, and confine
our attention to that principal operation of textual criti-
cism which is required whenever we have to decide be-
tween the conflicting evidence of various documents.
PART I
THE NEED OF CRITICISM FOR THE TEXT
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT -
5. The answer to the question why criticism is still
necessary for the text of the New Testament is contained
in the history of its transmission, first by writing and
then by printing, to the present time. For our purpose
it will be enough to recapitulate first in general terms
the elementary phenomena of transmission by writing
generally, with some of the special conditions affecting
the New Testament, and then the chief incidents in the
history of the New Testament as a printed book which
have determined the form in which it appears in existing
editions. For fuller particulars, on this and other sub-
jects not needing to be treated at any length here, we
must refer the reader once for all to books that are pro-
fessedly storehouses of information.
A. 6–14. Transmission by zwriting
6. No autograph of any book of the New Testa-
ment is known or believed to be still in existence. The
originals must have been early lost, for they are men-
tioned by no ecclesiastical writer, although there were
many motives for appealing to them, had they been
forthcoming, in the second and third centuries: one or
two passages have sometimes been supposed to refer to
them, but certainly by a misinterpretation. The books
of the New Testament have had to share the fate of
other ancient writings in being copied again and again
corruptſov PROGRESS/ WE. . - 5
during more than fourteen centuries down to the inven-
tion of printing and its application to Greek literature.
7. Every transcription of any kind of writing involves
the chance of the introduction of some errors: and even
if the transcript is revised by comparison with its ex-
emplar or immediate original, there is no absolute secu-
rity that all the errors will be corrected. When the
transcript becomes itself the parent of other copies, one
or more, its errors are for the most part reproduced.
Those only are likely to be removed which at once strike
the eye of a transcriber as mere blunders destructive of
sense, and even in these cases he will often go astray in
making what seems to him the obvious correction. In
addition to inherited deviations from the original, each
fresh transcript is liable to contain fresh errors, to be
transmitted in like manner to its own descendants.
8. The nature and amount of the corruption of text
thus generated and propagated depends to a great extent
on the peculiarities of the book itself, the estimation in
which it is held, and the uses to which it is applied. The
rate cannot always be uniform: the professional training
of scribes can rarely obliterate individual differences of
accuracy and conscientiousness, and moreover the current
standard of exactness will vary at different times and places
and in different grades of cultivation. The number of tran-
scriptions, and Consequent opportunities of corruption, can-
not be accurately measured by difference of date, for at
any date a transcript might be made either from a con-
temporary manuscript or from one written any number of
centuries before. But these inequalities do not render it
less true that repeated transcription involves multiplica-
tion of error; and the consequent presumption that a .
relatively late text is likely to be a relatively corrupt text
6 AºA'A’OA'S OF 7RAAVSCR/P7/OAV
is found true on the application of all available tests in
an overwhelming proportion of the extant MSS in which
ancient literature has been preserved. *.
9. This general proposition respecting the average
results of transcription requires to be at once qualified
and extended by the statement of certain more limited
conditions of transmission with which the New Testament
is specially though by no means exclusively concerned.
Their full bearing will not be apparent till they have
been explained in some detail further on, but for the
sake of clearness they must be mentioned here.
Io. The act of transcription may under different cir-
cumstances involve different processes. In strictness it
is the exact reproduction of a given series of words in a
given order. Where this purpose is distinctly recognised
or assumed, there can be no errors but those of work-
manship, ‘clerical errore’, as they are called ; and by
sedulous cultivation, under the pressure of religious,
literary, or professional motives, a high standard of im-
munity from even clerical errors has at times been at-
tained. On the other hand, pure clerical errors, that is,
mechanical confusions of ear or eye alone, pass imper-
ceptibly into errors due to unconscious mental action, as
any one may ascertain by registering and analysing his
own mistakes in transcription ; so that it is quite possible
to intend nothing but faithful transcription, and yet to
introduce changes due to interpretation of sense. Now,
as these hidden intrusions of mental action are specially
capable of being restrained by conscious vigilance, so
on the other hand they are liable to multiply sponta-
neously where there is no distinct perception that a
transcriber's duty is to transcribe and nothing more;
and this perception is rarer and more dependent on
MECAZAAVICAL AAWD MEMTAL 7
training than might be supposed. In its absence uncon-
scious passes further into conscious mental action; and
thus transcription may come to include tolerably free modi-
fication of language and even rearrangement of material.
Transcription of this kind need involve no deliberate
preference of sense to language; the intention is still
to transcribe language : but, as there is no special con-
Centration of regard upon the language as having an
intrinsic sacredness of whatever kind, the instinctive feel-
ing for Sense cooperates largely in the result.
II. It was predominantly though not exclusively
under such conditions as these last that the transcription
of the New Testament was carried on during the earliest
centuries, as a comparison of the texts of that period
proves beyond doubt. The conception of new Scrip-
tures standing on the same footing as the Scriptures of
the Old Testament was slow and unequal in its growth,
more especially while the traditions of the apostolic and
immediately succeeding generations still lived ; and the
reverence paid to the apostolic writings, even to the
most highly and most widely venerated among them,
was not of a kind that exacted a scrupulous jealousy as
to their text as distinguished from their substance. As
was to be expected, the language of the historical books
was treated with more freedom than the rest: but even
the Epistles, and still more the Apocalypse, bear abundant
traces of a similar type of transcription. After a while
changed feelings and changed circumstances put an end
to the early textuallaxity, and thenceforward its occurrence
is altogether exceptional; so that the later corruptions are
almost wholly those incident to transcription in the proper
sense, errors arising from Careless performance of a
scribe's work, not from an imperfect conception of it.
8 A/ZX 7"UAEA OF ZZX 7S
While therefore the greater literalness of later transcrip-
tion arrested for the most part the progress of the bolder
forms of alteration, on the other hand it could per-
petuate only what it received. As witnesses to the apo-
stolic text the later texts can be valuable or otherwise
only according as their parent texts had or had not
passed comparatively unscathed through the earlier
times.
12. Again, in books widely read transmission ceases
after a while to retain exclusively the form of diverging
ramification. Manuscripts are written in which there is
an eclectic fusion of the texts of different exemplars,
either by the simultaneous use of more than one at the
time of transcription, or by the incorporation of various
readings noted in the margin of a single exemplar from
other copies, or by a scribe's conscious or unconscious
recollections of a text differing from that which lies
before him. This mixture, as it may be conveniently
called, of texts previously independent has taken place
on a large scale in the New Testament. Within narrow
geographical areas it was doubtless at work from a
very early time, and it would naturally extend itself
with the increase of communication between distant
Churches. There is reason to suspect that its greatest
activity on a large scale began in the second half of the
third century, the interval of peace between Gallienus's
edict of toleration and the outbreak of the last perse-
cution. At all events it was in full operation in the
fourth century, the time which from various causes exer-
cised the chief influence over the many centuries of com-
paratively simple transmission that followed.
13. The gain or loss to the intrinsic purity of texts
from mixture with other texts is from the nature of the
AAA’./. V. D.A.STRUCTYOM OF /l/SS 9
case indeterminable. In most instances there would be
both gain and loss; but both would be fortuitous, and
they might bear to each other every conceivable pro-
portion. Textual purity, as far as can be judged from
the extant literature, attracted hardly any interest. There
is no evidence to shew that care was generally taken to
choose out for transcription the exemplars having the
highest claims to be regarded as authentic, if indeed the
requisite knowledge and skill were forthcoming, Humanly
speaking, the only influence which can have interfered
to an appreciable extent with mere chance and con-
venience in the selection between existing readings, or
in the combination of them, was supplied by the
preferences of untrained popular taste, always an unsafe
guide in the discrimination of relative originality of text.
The complexity introduced into the transmission of
ancient texts by mixture needs no comment. Where
the mixture has been accompanied or preceded by such
licence in transcription as we find in the New Testa-
ment, the complexity can evidently only increase the
precariousness of printed texts formed without taking
account of the variations of text which preceded mix-
ture.
14. Various causes have interfered both with the
preservation of ancient MSS and with their use as exem-
plars to any considerable extent. Multitudes of the MSS
of the New Testament written in the first three centuries
were destroyed at the beginning of the fourth, and there
can be no doubt that multitudes of those written in the
fourth and two following Centuries met a similar ſate in
the various invasions of East and West. But violence
was not the only agent of destruction. We know little
about the external features of the MSS of the ages of
Io PREVAZEAVCAE OF LA TE MSS
persecution : but what little we do know suggests that
they were usually small, containing only single books
or groups of books, and not seldom, there is reason
to suspect, of Comparatively coarse material; altogether
shewing little similarity to the stately tomes of the
early Christian empire, of which we possess specimens,
and likely enough to be despised in Comparison in an
age which exulted in outward signs of the new order
of things. Another cause of neglect at a later period
was doubtless obsoleteness of form. When once the
separation of words had become habitual, the old con-
tinuous mode of writing would be found troublesome
to the eye, and even the old, “uncial’ or rounded
capital letters would at length prove an obstacle to use.
Had biblical manuscripts of the uncial ages been
habitually treated with ordinary respect, much more in-
vested with high authority, they could not have been
so often turned into ‘palimpsests', that is, had their
ancient writing obliterated that the vellum might be
employed for fresh writing, not always biblical. It must
also be remembered that in the ordinary course of
things the most recent manuscripts would at all times
be the most numerous, and therefore the most generally
accessible. Even if multiplication of transcripts were
not always advancing, there would be a slow but con-
tinual substitution of new copies for old, partly to fill up
gaps made by waste and casualties, partly by a natural
impulse which could be reversed only by veneration or
an archaic taste or a critical purpose. It is therefore
no wonder that only a small fraction of the Greek manu-
scripts of the New Testament preserved to modern times
were written in the uncial period, and but few of this
number belong to the first five or six centuries, none
D/SADVAAV7.4 GAZS OF FYRS7" EP/7 OAS I I
being earlier than the age of Constantine. Most uncial
manuscripts are more or less fragmentary; and till lately
not one was known which contained the whole New
Testament unmutilated. A considerable proportion, in
numbers and still more in value, have been brought to
light only by the assiduous research of the last century
and a half.
B. I5–18. Zºransmission by printed editions
I5. These various conditions affecting the manu-
script text of the New Testament must be borne in
mind if we would understand what was possible to be
accomplished in the early printed editions, the text of
which exercises directly or indirectly a scarcely credible
power to the present day. At the beginning of the
sixteenth century, far more than now, the few ancient
documents of the sacred text were lost in the crowd of
later copies; and few even of the late MSS were em-
ployed, and that only as convenience dictated, without
selection or deliberate criticism. The fundamental
editions were those of Erasmus (Basel, 1516), and of
Stunica in Cardinal Ximenes' Complutensian (Alcala)
Polyglott, printed in 1514 but apparently not published
till 1522. In his haste to be the first editor, Erasmus
allowed himself to be guilty of strange carelessness:
but neither he nor any other scholar then living could
have produced a materially better text without enor-
mous labour, the need of which was not as yet
apparent. The numerous editions which followed
during the next three or four generations varied much
from one another in petty details, and occasionally
adopted fresh readings from MSS, chiefly of a common
I 2 CAE//ZA' S74 GAES AV AZZSZTO/º V
late type: but the foundation and an overwhelming
proportion of the text remained always Erasmian, some-
times slightly modified on Complutensian authority;
except in a few editions which had a Complutensian
base. After a while this arbitrary and uncritical varia-
tion gave way to a comparative fixity equally fortuitous,
having no more trustworthy basis than the external
beauty of two editions brought out by famous printers,
a Paris folio of 1550 edited and printed by R. Estienne,
and an Elzevir (Leyden) 24mo of 1624, 1633, &c.,
repeating an unsatisfactory revision of Estienne's mainly
Erasmian text made by the reformer Beza. The reader
of the second Elzevir edition is informed that he has
before him “the text now received by all”; and thus
the name ‘Received Text” arose. Reprints more or
less accurate of one or other of these two typographical
standards constitute the traditional printed text of the
New Testament even now.
16. About the middle of the seventeenth century
the preparation for effectual criticism began. The im-
pulse proceeded from English scholars, such as Fell,
Walton, and Mill ; and seems to have originated in the
gift of the Alexandrine MS to Charles I by Cyril Lucar,
the Patriarch of Constantinople, in 1628. France con-
tributed a powerful auxiliary in Simon, whose writings
(1689–1695) had a large share in discrediting acquies-
cence in the accepted texts. The history of criticism
from this time could hardly be made intelligible here: it
will be briefly sketched further on, when explanations
have been given of the task that had to be performed,
and the problems that had to be solved. In the course
of the eighteenth century several imperfect and halting
attempts were made, chiefly in Germany, to apply evidence
OA' A'RZAV7'ED 7"AXZ" I 3
to use by substantial correction of the text. Of these
the greatest and most influential proceeded from J. A.
Bengel at Tübingen in 1734. In the closing years of
the century, and a little later, the process was carried
many steps forward by Griesbach, on a double founda-
tion of enriched resources and deeper study, not without
important help from suggestions of Semler and finally of
Hug. Yet even Griesbach was content to start from the
traditional or revised Erasmian basis, rather than from
the MSS in which he himself reposed most confidence.
17. A new period began in 1831, when for the
first time a text was constructed directly from the
ancient documents without the intervention of any
printed edition, and when the first systematic attempt
was made to substitute scientific method for arbitrary
choice in the discrimination of various readings. In
both respects the editor, Lachmann, rejoiced to declare
that he was carrying out the principles and unfulfilled
intentions of Bentley, as set forth in 1716 and 1720.
This great advance was however marred by too narrow
a selection of documents to be taken into account
and too artificially rigid an employment of them, and
also by too little care in obtaining precise knowledge
of some of their texts: and though these defects, partly
due in the first instance to the unambitious purpose of
the edition, have been in different ways avoided by
Lachmann's two distinguished successors, Tischendorf
and Tregelles, both of whom have produced texts sub-
stantially free from the later corruptions, neither of them
can be said to have dealt consistently or on the whole
successfully with the difficulties presented by the variations
between the most ancient texts. On the other hand, their
indefatigable labours in the discovery and exhibition
I4. SZO W ACQUISZZYON
of fresh evidence, aided by similar researches on the
part of others, provide all who come after them with
invaluable resources not available half a century ago.
18. A just appreciation of the wealth of documentary
evidence now accessible as compared with that enjoyed
by any previous generation, and of the comparatively
late times at which much even of what is not now new
became available for criticism, is indeed indispensable
for any one who would understand the present position
of the textual criticism of the New Testament. The gain
by the knowledge of the contents of important new
documents is not to be measured by the direct evidence
which they themselves contribute. Evidence is valuable
only so far as it can be securely interpreted; and not
the least advantage Conferred by new documents is the
new help which they give towards the better interpreta-
tion of old documents, and of documentary relations
generally. By way of supplement to the preceding
brief sketch of the history of criticism, we insert the
following table, which shews the dates at which the
extant Greek uncials of the sixth and earlier centuries,
with five others of later age but comparatively ancient
text, have become available as evidence by various
forms of publication. The second column marks the
very imperfect publication by selections of readings; the
third, tolerably full collations; the fourth, continuous
texts. The manuscript known as A in the Gospels and
as G (G.) in St Paul's Epistles requires two separate
datings, as its two parts have found their way to different
libraries. In other cases a plurality of dates is given
where each publication has had some distinctive im-
portance.
OF DOCUMAZAVZTAA’ Y A. WZZOAAWCAE
i5

(fragg. = fragments) Rºi. Collations Cºus
N all books complete 1860 I862
B all books exc. part of
Heb., Epp. Past., and
(1857,) 1859,
Apoc. (1580) 1788, 1799 §';
A all books 1657 1786
C fragg. of nearly all
books 17 Io I75I, 2 1843
Q fragg, Lc. Jo. (? I 752) 1762, 1860
T fragg. Jo. [LC.] 1789
D Evv. Act. I55o 1657 I793, 1864
ID2 Paul ( º 1657 I852
* + I75I) + 1773 jºy
N fragg. Evv. + (1830) 1846, 1876
P fragg. Evv. (? I752) 1762, 1869
R fragg, Lc. o
Z fragg. Mt. 1801, 188o
[2 Mt. Mc.] (1880)
L Evv. I55o I75I, I?85 1846
5 fragg, Lc. 1861
% Evv. 1836
G. Paul exc. Heb. I7 Io + ;:
Es Act. 1715, 1870
P, all books exc. Evv. 1865+ 1869
19. The foregoing outline may suffice to shew the
manner in which repeated transcription tends to multiply
corruption of texts, and the subsequent mixture of in-
dependent texts to confuse alike their sound and their
corrupt readings; the reasons why ancient MSS in
various ages have been for the most part little preserved
and little copied ; the disadvantages under which the
Greek text of the New Testament was first printed,
from late and inferior MSS; the long neglect to take
serious measures for amending it; the slow process of
the accumulation and study of evidence; the late date
at which any considerable number of corrections on
I6 OR/G/AW OF 7TP/ZS ED/ZZOAV
ancient authority were admitted into the slightly modi-
fied Erasmian texts that reigned by an accidental pre-
scription, and the very late date at which ancient
authority was allowed to furnish not scattered retouch-
ings but the whole body of text from beginning to end;
and lastly the advantage enjoyed by the present gene-
ration in the possession of a store of evidence largely
augmented in amount and still more in value, as well
as in the ample instruction afforded by previous criticism
and previous texts.
C. 20–22. History of this edition
20. These facts justify, we think, another attempt
to determine the original words of the Apostles and
writers of the New Testament. In the spring of 1853
we were led by the perplexities of reading encountered
in our own study of Scripture to project the construction
of a text such as is now published. At that time a
student aware of the untrustworthiness of the ‘Received’
texts had no other guides than Lachmann's text and the
second of the four widely different texts of Tischendorf.
|Finding it impossible to assure ourselves that either editor
placed before us such an approximation to the apostolic
words as we could accept with reasonable satisfaction,
we agreed to commence at once the formation of a
manual text for our own use, hoping at the same time
that it might be of service to others. The task proved
harder than we anticipated ; and eventually many years
have been required for its fulfilment. Engrossing occu-
pations of other kinds have brought repeated delays and
interruptions: but the work has never been laid more
than partially aside, and the intervals during which it
MODES OF PROCEDURE ADOP7A2D 17
has been intermitted have been short. We cannot on
the whole regret the lapse of time before publication.
Though we have not found reason to change any of the
leading views with which we began to prepare for the
task, they have gained much in clearness and compre-
hensiveness through the long interval, especially as re-
gards the importance which we have been led to attach
to the history of transmission. It would indeed be to our
shame if we had failed to learn continually. --
21. The mode of procedure adopted from the first
was to work out our results independently of each other,
and to hold no counsel together except upon results
already provisionally obtained. Such differences as then
appeared, usually bearing a very small proportion to the
points of immediate agreement, were discussed on paper,
and where necessary repeatedly discussed, till either
agreement or final difference was reached. These ulti-
mate differences have found expression among the alter-
native readings. No rule of precedence has been adopted;
but documentary attestation has been in most cases
allowed to confer the place of honour as against internal
evidence, range of attestation being further taken into
account as between one well attested reading and another.
This combination of completely independent operations
permits us to place far more confidence in the results
than either of us could have presumed to cherish had
they rested on his own sole responsibility. No individual
mind can ever act with perfect uniformity, or free itself
completely from its own idiosyncrasies: the danger of
unconscious Caprice is inseparable from personal judge-
ment. We venture to hope that the present text has
escaped some risks of this kind by being the produc-
tion of two editors of different habits of mind, working
4. -
18 ARO V/S/OAVAZ ZSSUE
independently and to a great extent on different plans,
and then giving and receiving free and full criticism
wherever their first conclusions had not agreed together.
For the principles, arguments, and conclusions set forth
in the Introduction and Appendix both editors are alike
responsible. It was however for various reasons expe-
dient that their exposition and illustration should pro-
ceed throughout from a single hand; and the writing of
this volume and the other accompaniments of the text
has devolved on I)r Hort. - -
22. It may be well to state that the kindness of
our publishers has already allowed us to place successive
instalments of the Greek text privately in the hands of
the members of the Company of Revisers of the English
New Testament, and of a few other scholars. The
Gospels, with a temporary preface of 28 pages, were
thus issued in July 1871, the Acts in February 1873, the
Catholic Epistles in December 1873, the Pauline Epistles
in February 1875, and the Apocalypse in December 1876.
The work to which this provisional issue was due has
afforded opportunity for renewed consideration of many
details, especially on the side of interpretation; and we
have been thankful to include any fresh results thus or
otherwise obtained, before printing off for publication.
Accordingly many corrections dealing with punctuation
or otherwise of a minute kind, together with occasional
modifications of reading, have been introduced into the
stereotype plates within the last few months.
I9
P A RT II
THE METHODS OF TEXTUAL CRITICISM
23. Every method of textual criticism corresponds
to some one class of textual facts: the best criticism is
that which takes account of every class of textual facts,
and assigns to each method its proper use and rank.
The leading principles of textual criticism are identical
for all writings whatever. Differences in application
arise only from differences in the amount, variety, and
quality of evidence : no method is ever inapplicable
except through defectiveness of evidence. The more
obvious facts naturally attract attention first ; and it is
only at a further stage of study that any one is likely
Spontaneously to grasp those more fundamental facts
from which textual criticism must start if it is to reach
Comparative certainty. We propose to follow here this
natural order, according to which the higher methods
will come last into view.
SECTION I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF READINGS
24–37
24. Criticism arises out of the question what is to be
received where a text is extant in two or more varying
documents. The most rudimentary form of criticism
consists in dealing with each variation independently,
and adopting at once in each case out of two or more
variants that which looks most probable. The evidence
here taken into account is commonly called “Internal
Evidence’: as other kinds of Internal Evidence will have
2O AVZTAEA2AVAZ AE VI/O AEAVC/E OF AZAZA/D//VGS
to be mentioned, we prefer to call it more precisely
‘Internal Evidence of Readings’. Internal Evidence of
Readings is of two kinds, which cannot be too sharply
distinguished from each other; appealing respectively
to Intrinsic Probability, having reference to the author,
and what may be called Transcriptional Probability,
having reference to the copyists. In appealing to the
first, we ask what an author is likely to have written:
in appealing to the Second, we ask what copyists are
likely to have made him seem to write. Both these
kinds of evidence are alike in the strictest sense internal,
since they are alike derived exclusively from comparison
of the testimony delivered, no account being taken of
any relative antecedent credibility of the actual witnesses.
A. 25–27. /nfrinsic Probability
25. The first impulse in dealing with a variation is
usually to lean on Intrinsic Probability, that is, to
consider which of two readings makes the best sense,
and to decide between them accordingly. The decision
may be made either by an immediate and as it were
intuitive judgement, or by weighing cautiously various
elements which go to make up what is called Sense, such
as conformity to grammar and Congruity to the purport
of the rest of the sentence and of the larger context; to
which may rightly be added congruity to the usual style
of the author and to his matter in other passages. The
process may take the form either of simply comparing
two or more rival readings under these heads, and giving
the preference to that which appears to have the ad-
vantage, or of rejecting a reading absolutely, for viola-
tion of one or more of the Congruities, or of adopting
a reading absolutely, for perfection of congruity.
IAWTRINS/C I’A’OBA BALITY 2 I
26. These considerations evidently afford reasonable
presumptions; presumptions which in some cases may
attain such force on the negative side as to demand the
rejection or qualify the acceptance of readings most
highly commended by other kinds of evidence. But
the uncertainty of the decision in ordinary cases is shown
by the great diversity of judgement which is actually
found to exist. The value of the Intrinsic Evidence of
Readings should of course be estimated by its best and
most cultivated form, for the extemporaneous surmises
of an ordinary untrained reader will differ widely from
the range of probabilities present to the mind of a
scholar prepared both by general training in the analysis
of texts and by special study of the facts bearing on the
particular case. But in dealing with this kind of evi-
dence equally competent critics often arrive at contra-
dictory conclusions as to the same variations.
27. Nor indeed are the assumptions involved in
Intrinsic Evidence of Readings to be implicitly trusted.
There is much literature, ancient no less than modern,
in which it is needful to remember that authors are
not always grammatical, or clear, or consistent, or feli-
citous; so that not seldom an ordinary reader finds
it easy to replace a feeble or half-appropriate word or
phrase by an effective substitute; and thus the best words
to express an author's meaning need not in all cases be
those which he actually employed. But, without attempt-
ing to determine the limits within which such causes have
given occasion to any variants in the New Testament, it
concerns our own purpose more to urge that in the highest
literature, and notably in the Bible, all readers are peculiarly
liable to the fallacy of supposing that they understand
the author's meaning and purpose because they under-
22 AVA 7TURAE AAWD AſOUAVZ) A 7TWOAV OA'
stand some part or some aspect of it, which they take
for the whole; and hence, in judging variations of text,
they are led unawares to disparage any word or phrase
which owes its selection by the author to those elements
of the thought present to his mind which they have
failed to perceive or to feel. .
B. 28–37. Z%anscriptional Probability -
28. The next step in criticism is the discovery of
Transcriptional Probability, and is suggested by the re-
flexion that what attracts ourselves is not on the average
unlikely to have attracted transcribers. If one various
reading appears to ourselves to give much better sense
or in some other way to excel another, the same ap-
parent superiority may have led to the introduction of
the reading in the first instance. Mere blunders apart,
no motive can be thought of which could lead a
scribe to introduce consciously a worse reading in place
of a better. We might thus seem to be landed in the
paradoxical result that intrinsic inferiority is evidence of
Originality. - - -
29. In reality however, although this is the form in
which the considerations that make up Transcriptional
Probability are likely in the first instance to present
themselves to a student feeling his way onwards be-
yond Intrinsic Probability, the true nature of Tran-
scriptional Probability can hardly be understood till it
is approached from another side. Transcriptional Pro-
bability is not directly or properly concerned with the
relative excellence of rival readings, but merely with the
relative fitness of each for explaining the existence of the
others. Every rival reading contributes an element to
TRANSCRIPTVOAVAI, PROBABAL/TV 23
the problem which has to be solved; for every rival
reading is a fact which has to be accounted for, and no
acceptance of any one reading as original can be satis-
factory which leaves any other variant incapable of being
traced to some known cause or causes of variation. If a
variation is binary, as it may be called, Consisting of two
variants, a and b, the problem for Transcriptional Pro-
bability to decide is whether it is easier to derive à from
a, through causes of corruption known to exist elsewhere,
on the hypothesis that a is original, or to derive a from
à, through similar agencies, on the hypothesis that 5 is
original. If the variants are more numerous, making a
ternary or yet more composite variation, each in its
turn must be assumed as a hypothetical original, and an
endeavour made to deduce from it all the others, either
independently or consecutively; after which the relative
facilities of the several experimental deductions must be
Compared together. .
30. Hence the basis on which Transcriptional Proba-
bility rests consists of generalisations as to the causes of
corruption incident to the process of transcription. A
few of the broadest generalisations of this kind, singling
out observed proclivities of average copyists, make
up the bulk of what are not very happily called “canons
of criticism’. Many causes of corruption are independ-
ent of age and language, and their prevalence may
be easily verified by a careful observer every day;
while others are largely modified, or even brought into
existence, by peculiar circumstances of the writings
themselves, or of the conditions of their transmission.
There is always an abundance of variations in which
no practised scholar can possibly doubt which is the
original reading, and which must therefore be derivative;
24 ZAVA/AEA’AAV7' LZMZ 7.4 7/OAWS OF .
and these clear instances supply ample materials for
discovering and classifying the causes of corruption
which must have been operative in all variations. The
most obvious causes of corruption are clerical or me-
chanical, arising from mere carelessness of the tran-
scriber, chiefly through deceptions of eye or ear. But,
as we have seen (§ Io), the presence of a mental factor
can often be traced in corruptions partly mechanical;
and under the influence of a lax conception of the
proper office of a transcriber distinctly mental causes of
change may assume, and often have assumed, very large
proportions. Even where the definite responsibilities of
transcription were strongly felt, changes not purely clerical
would arise from a more or less conscious feeling on a
scribe's part that he was correcting what he deemed an
obvious error due to some one of his predecessors; while,
at times or places in which the offices of transcribing
and editing came to be confused, other copyists would
not shrink from altering the form of what lay before them
for the sake of substituting what they supposed to be a
clearer or better representation of the matter.
31. The value of the evidence obtained from
Transcriptional Probability, is incontestable. Without
its aid textual criticism could rarely attain any high
degree of security. Moreover, to be rightly estimated,
it must be brought under consideration in the higher
form to which it can be raised by care and study, when
elementary guesses as to which reading scribes are
likely in any particular case to have introduced have
been replaced by judgements founded on previous in-
vestigation of the various general characteristics of those
readings which can with moral certainty be assumed
to have been introduced by scribes. But even at its
7TA’AAVSC/C/AT/OAVAZ P/20/3A BAZAZ"Y 25
best this class of Internal Evidence, like the other,
carries us but a little way towards the recovery of an
ancient text, when it is employed alone. The number
of variations in which it can be trusted to supply by
itself a direct and immediate decision is relatively very
Small, when unquestionable blunders, that is, clerical
errors, have been set aside. If we look behind the
canons laid down by critics to the observed facts from
which their authority proceeds, we find, first, that
scribes were moved by a much greater variety of
impulse than is usually supposed; next, that different
scribes were to a certain limited extent moved by
different impulses; and thirdly, that in many variations
each of two or more conflicting readings might be
reasonably accounted for by some impulse known to
have operated elsewhere. In these last cases decision
is evidently precarious, even though the evidence may
seem to be stronger on the one side than the other.
Not only are mental impulses unsatisfactory subjects for
estimates of comparative force; but a plurality of impulses
recognised by ourselves as possible in any given case by
no means implies a plurality of impulses as having been
actually in operation. Nor have we a right to assume
that what in any particular case we judge after comparison
to be the intrinsically strongest of the two or more pos-
sible impulses must as a matter of course be the one
impulse which acted on a scribe if he was acted on by
one only ; accidental circumstances beyond our know-
ledge would determine which impulse would be the first
to reach his mind or hand, and there would seldom be
room for any element of deliberate choice. But even
where there is no conflict of possible impulses, the
evidence on the one side is often too slight and ques-
26 .COMAC/C/CTS OF /AVZTA2/AWS/C AAV/D
tionable to be implicitly trusted by any one who wishes
to ascertain his author's true text, and not merely to
follow a generally sound rule. Hence it is only in well
marked and unambiguous cases that the unsupported
verdict of Transcriptional Probability for detached read-
ings can be safely followed. .
32. But the insufficiency of Transcriptional Proba-
bility as an independent guide is most signally shown
by its liability to stand in apparent antagonism to In-
trinsic Probability; since the legitimate force of Intrinsic
Probability, where its drift is clear and unambiguous,
is not touched by the fact that in many other places it
bears a divided or ambiguous testimony. The area of
final antagonism, it is already evident, is very much
smaller than might seem to be implied in the first Crude
impression that scribes are not likely to desert a better
reading for a worse; but it is sufficiently large to Create
serious difficulty. The true nature of the difficulty will
be best explained by a few words on the mutual relations
of the two classes of Internal Evidence, by which it will
likewise be seen what a valuable ancillary office they dis-
charge in Combination. -
33. All conflicts between Intrinsic and Transcrip-
tional Probability arise from the imperfection of our
knowledge: in both fields criticism consists of inferences
from more or less incomplete data. Every change not
purely mechanical made by a transcriber is, in some
sense, of the nature of a correction. Corrections in
Such external matters as Orthography and the like may
be passed over, since they arise merely out of the com-
parative familiarity of different forms, and here Intrinsic
Probability has nothing to do with what can properly
be called excellence or easiness. All other corrections,
TRAAWSCRIPTIONAZ AROBA BIZZZY 27
that is, those which bear any relation to sense, would
never be made unless in the eyes of the scribe who
makes them they were improvements in sense or in the
expression of sense: even when made unconsciously,
it is the relative satisfaction which they give to his
mental state at the time that creates or shapes them. Yet
in literature of high quality it is as a rule impro-
bable that a change made by transcribers should improve
an author's sense, or express his full and exact sense
better than he has done himself. It follows that, with
the exception of pure blunders, readings originating
with scribes must always at the time have combined the
appearance of improvement with the absence of its
reality. If they had not been plausible, they would
not have existed: yet their excellence must have been
either superficial or partial, and the balance of inward
and essential excellence must lie against them. In itself
therefore Transcriptional Probability not only stands
in no antagonism to Intrinsic Probability, but is its
sustaining complement. It is seen in its proper and
normal shape when both characteristics of a scribe's cor-
rection can alike be recognised, the semblance of Supe-
riority and the latent inferiority. -
34. It is only in reference to mental or semi-mental
causes of corruption that the apparent conflict between
Transcriptional and Intrinsic Probability has any place:
and neither the extent nor the nature of the apparent
conflict can be rightly understood if we forget that,
in making use of this class of evidence, we have to do
with readings only as they are likely to have appeared
to transcribers, not as they appear to us, except in so
far as our mental conditions can be accepted as truly
reflecting theirs. It is especially necessary to bear
28 AAA'MOAVY OF JAV7'RZAWSZC AAVD
this limitation in mind with reference to one of the most
comprehensive and also most widely prevalent mental
impulses of transcribers, the disposition to smooth away
difficulties; which is the foundation of the paradoxical
precept to ‘choose the harder reading', the most famous
of all “canons of criticism’. Readings having no especial
attractiveness to ourselves may justly be pronounced
suspicious on grounds of Transcriptional Probability, if
they were likely to be attractive, or their rivals unac-
ceptable, to ancient transcribers; and conversely, if this
condition is absent, we can draw no unfavourable
inferences from any intrinsic excellence which they may
possess in our own eyes. -
35. The rational use of Transcriptional Probability
as textual evidence depends on the power of distinguish-
ing the grounds of preference implied in an ancient
scribe's substitution of one reading for another from
those felt as cogent now after close and deliberate
Criticism. Alterations made by transcribers, so far as
they are due to any movement of thought, are with rare
exceptions the product of first thoughts, not second;
nor again of those first thoughts, springing from a rapid
and penetrating glance over a whole field of evidence,
which sometimes are justified by third thoughts. This is
indeed a necessary result of the extemporaneous, cursory,
and one-sided form which criticism cannot but assume
when it exists only as a subordinate accident of tran-
scription. But even the best prepared textual critic has
to be on his guard against hasty impressions as to the
intrinsic character of readings, for experience teaches
him how often the relative attractiveness of conflicting
readings becomes inverted by careful study. What we
should naturally expect, in accordance with what has
7 'A'AAWSCA’/AZZOAVAZ AA’OBA BAZZZ"Y 29
been said above (§ 33), is that each reading should shew
some excellence of its own, apparent or real, provided
that we on our part are qualified to recognise it. If
any reading fails to do so, clerical errors being of course
excepted, the fault must lie in our knowledge or our
perception; for if it be a scribe's correction, it must
have some at least apparent excellence, and if it be
original, it must have the highest real excellence. Con-
trast of real and apparent excellence is in any given
variation an indispensable criterion as to the adequacy of
the evidence for justifying reliance on Transcriptional
Probability. -
36. Fortunately variations conforming to this normal
type are of frequent occurrence; variations, that is, in
which a critic is able to arrive at a strong and clear
conviction that one reading is intrinsically much the
most probable, and yet to see with equal clearness how
the rival reading or readings could not but be attractive
to average transcribers. In these cases Internal Evidence .
of Readings attains the highest degree of certainty
which its nature admits, this relative trustworthiness
being due to the coincidence of the two independent
Probabilities, Intrinsic and Transcriptional. Readings
thus certified are of the utmost value in the application
of other methods of criticism, as we shall see hereafter.
37. But a vast proportion of variations do not
fulfil these conditions. Where one reading (a) appears
intrinsically preferable, and its excellence is of a kind
that we might expect to be recognised by scribes,
while its rival () shews no characteristic likely to be
attractive to them, Intrinsic and Transcriptional Proba-
bility are practically in conflict. In such a case either
& must be wrong, and therefore must, as compared with
3O A’AºA D/AWGS /AVZ) A 7/2/2//ZAWAA/LA2 -
a, have had some attractiveness not perceived by us,
if the case be one in which the supposition of a mere
blunder is improbable; or b must be right, and there-
fore must have expressed the author's meaning with
some special fitness which escapes our notice. The
antagonism would disappear if we could discover on
which side we have failed to perceive or duly appreciate
all the facts; but in the mean time it stands. Occasio-
nally the Intrinsic evidence is so strong that the Tran-
scriptional evidence may without rashness be disregarded:
but such cases are too exceptional to count for much
when we are estimating the general trustworthiness of a
method; and the apparent contradiction which the imper-
fection of our knowledge often leaves us unable to reconcile
remains a valid objection against habitual reliance on the
sufficiency of Internal Evidence of Readings.
SECTION II. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENTS
38–48
38. Thus far we have been considering the method
which follows Internal Evidence of Readings alone, as im-
proved to the utmost by the distinction and separate appre-
ciation of Intrinsic and Transcriptional Probability, and as
applied with every aid of scholarship and special study.
The limitation to Internal Evidence of Readings follows
naturally from the impulse to deal conclusively at once
with each variation as it comes in its turn before a reader
or commentator or editor : yet a moment's consideration
of the process of transmission shews how precarious it
is to attempt to judge which of two or more readings is
the most likely to be right, without considering which
of the attesting documents or combinations of documents
WZTAOUT KNOWLEDGE OF DOCUMENZS 31
are the most likely to convey an unadulterated transcript
of the original text; in other words, in dealing with
matter purely traditional, to ignore the relative antece-
dent credibility of witnesses, and trust exclusively to our
own inward power of singling out the true readings from
among their counterfeits, wherever we see them. . Nor is
it of much avail to allow supposed or ascertained excel-
lence of particular documents a deciding voice in cases
of difficulty, or to mix evidence of this kind at random
or at pleasure with Internal Evidence of Readings as-
Sumed in practice, if not in theory as the primary guide.
The Comparative trustworthiness of documentary authori-
ties constitutes a fresh class of facts at least as pertinent
as any with which we have hitherto been dealing, and
much less likely to be misinterpreted by personal Surmises.
The first step towards obtaining a sure foundation is a
Consistent application of the principle that KNOWLEDGE
OF DOCUMENTS SHOULD PRECEDE FINAL JUDGEMENT
|UPON READINGS. -
39. The most prominent fact known about a manu-
script is its date, sometimes fixed to a year by a note
from the scribe's hand, oftener determined within certain
limits by palaeographical or other indirect indications,
Sometimes learned from external facts or records. Rela-
tive date, as has been explained above ($8), affords a valu-
able presumption as to relative freedom from corruption,
when appealed to on a large Scale ; and this and other
external facts, insufficient by themselves to solve a question
of reading, may often supply essential materials to the
process by which it can be solved. But the occasional
preservation of Comparatively ancient texts in compara-
tively modern MSS forbids confident reliance on priority
of date unsustained by other marks of excellence.
32 /AV ZA, RAWA Z E VIDAEAVCAE OF DOCUMEAVTS
40. The first effectual security against the uncer.
tainties of Internal Evidence of Readings is found in
what may be termed Internal Evidence of Documents,
that is, the general characteristics of the texts contained
in them as learned directly from themselves by continuous
study of the whole or considerable parts. This and this
alone supplies entirely trustworthy knowledge as to the
relative value of different documents. If we compare
successively the readings of two documents in all their
variations, we have ample materials for ascertaining the
leading merits and defects of each. Readings authenti-
cated by the coincidence of strong Intrinsic and strong
Transcriptional Probability, or it may be by one alone of
these Probabilities in exceptional strength and clearness
and uncontradicted by the other, are almost always to be
found sufficiently numerous to supply a solid basis for
inference. Moreover they can safely be supplemented
by provisional judgements on similar evidence in the
more numerous variations where a critic cannot but form
a strong impression as to the probabilities of reading,
though he dare not trust it absolutely. Where then one
of the documents is found habitually to contain these
morally certain or at least strongly preferred readings,
and the other habitually to contain their fejected rivals,
we can have no doubt, first, that the text of the first has
been transmitted in Comparative purity, and that the text
of the second has suffered comparatively large corruption;
and next, that the Superiority of the first must be as great
in the variations in which Internal Evidence of Readings
has furnished no decisive criterion as in those which have
enabled us to form a comparative appreciation of the
two texts. By this cautious advance from the known to
the unknown we are enabled to deal confidently with a
ATS THAEFAZ STEPS 33
great mass of those remaining variations, open variations,
so to speak, the confidence being materially increased
when, as usually happens, the document thus found to
have the better text is also the older. Inference from
the ascertained character of other readings within the
identical text, transmitted, it is to be assumed, through-
out under identical conditions, must have a higher order
of certainty than the inferences dependent on general
probabilities which in most cases make up Internal Evi.
dence of Readings.
41. The method here followed differs, it will be ob-
served, from that described above in involving not a
single but a threefold process. In the one case we en-
deavour to deal with each variation separately, and to
decide between its variants immediately, on the evidence
presented by the variation itself in its context, aided only
by general considerations. In the other case we begin
with virtually performing the same operation, but only
tentatively, with a view to collect materials, not final
results: on some variations we can without rashness pre-
dict at this stage our ultimate conclusions; on many
more we can estimate various degrees of probability; on
many more again, if we are prudent, we shall be content
to remain for the present in entire suspense. Next, we
pass from investigating the readings to investigating the
documents by means of what we have learned respecting
the readings. Thirdly, we return to the readings, and go
once more over the same ground as at first, but this time
making a tentative choice of readings simply in accordance
with documentary authority. Where the results coincide
with those obtained at the first stage, a very high degree
of probability is reached, resting on the coincidence of
two and often three independent kinds of evidence.
- 5
34 VAZOAZ AAV/O Z//// 7.4 ZYOAVS OF
Where they differ at first sight, a fresh study of the whole
evidence affecting the variation in question is secured.
Often the fresh facts which it brings to light will shew the
discordance between the new and the old evidence to
have been too hastily assumed. Sometimes on the other
hand they will confirm it, and then the doubt must
remain.
42. To what extent documentary authority alone may
be trusted, where the Internal Evidence of Readings is
altogether uncertain, must vary in different instances.
The predominantly purer text of one document may un-
doubtedly contain some wrong readings from which the
predominantly less pure text of another is free. But the
instances of this kind which are ultimately found to stand
scrutiny are always much fewer than a critic's first im-
pression leads him to suppose; and in a text of any length
we believe that only a plurality of strong instances Con-
firming each other after close examination ought to disturb
the presumption in favour of the document found to be
habitually the better. Sometimes of course the Superiority
may be so slight or obscure that the documentary autho-
rity loses its normal weight. In such cases Internal Evi-
dence of Readings becomes of greater relative importance:
but as its inherent precariousness remains undiminished,
the total result is comparative uncertainty of text.
43. Both the single and the triple processes which we
have described depend ultimately on judgements upon
Internal Evidence of Readings; but the difference be-
tween isolated judgements and combined judgements is
vital. In the One case any misapprehension of the imme-
diate evidence, that is, of a single group of individual
phenomena, tells in full force upon the solitary process
by which one reading is selected from the rest for adop-
AVTEACAVAZ. A V//DACAVCAE OF DOCUMEAV7'S 35
tion, and there is no room for rectification. In the
other case the selection is suggested by the result of a
large generalisation about the documents, verified and
checked by the immediate evidence belonging to the
variation; and the generalisation itself rests on too broad
a foundation of provisional judgements, at Once Con-
firming and correcting each other, to be materially weak-
ened by the chance or probability that Some few of them
are individually unsound. -
44. Nevertheless the use of Internal Evidence of
Documents has uncertainties of its own, Some of which
can be removed or materially diminished by special care
and patience in the second and third stages of the pro-
cess, while others are inherent and cannot be touched
without the aid of a fresh kind of evidence. They all
arise from the fact that texts are, in One sense or another,
not absolutely homogeneous. Internal knowledge of
documents that are compared with each other should in-
clude all their chief characteristics, and these can only
imperfectly be summed up under a broad statement of
comparative excellence. At first sight the sole problem
that presents itself is whether this document is ‘better’ or
“worse’ than that ; and this knowledge may sometimes
suffice to produce a fair text, where the evidence itself is
very simple. Yet it can never be satisfactory either to
follow implicitly a document pronounced to be ‘best’, or
to forsake it on the strength of internal evidence for this
or that rival reading. Every document, it may be safely
said, contains errors; and second only to the need of dis-
tinguishing good documents from bad is the need of
leaving as little room as possible for caprice in dis-
tinguishing the occasional errors of ‘good' documents
from the sound parts of their text.
36 HE TEROGENEOUS ExCEZZEWCE AND
45. General estimates of comparative excellence are
at once shown to be insufficient by the fact that excel-
lence itself is of various kinds : a document may be
‘good’ in one respect and “bad” in another. The dis-
tinction between Soundness and correctness, for instance,
lies on the surface. One MS will transmit a substantially
pure text disfigured by the blunders of a careless scribe,
another will reproduce a deeply adulterated text with
smooth faultlessness. It therefore becomes necessary in
the Case of important MSS to observe and discriminate
the classes of clerical errors by which their proper texts
are severally disguised; for an authority representing a
sound tradition can be used with increased confidence
when its own obvious slips have been classed under defi-
nite heads, so that those of its readings which cannot be
referred to any of these heads must be reasonably Sup-
posed to have belonged to the text of its exemplar. The
complexity of excellence is further increased by the un-
equal distribution of the mental or semi-mental causes of
corruption; while they too can be observed, classified,
and taken into account, though with less precision than
defects of mechanical accuracy. Where the documentary
witnesses are not exclusively MSS having continuous
texts in the original language, but also, for instance,
translations into other languages or quotations by later
authors, similar deductions are required in order to avoid
being misled as to the substantive text of their exemplars.
Thus allowance has to be made for the changes of phrase-
ology, real or apparent, which translators generally are
prone to introduce, and again for those which may be due to
the defects or other peculiarities of a given language, or the
purpose of a given translation. In quotations account
must in like manner be taken of the modifications, in-
COMPOS/7ZAVAESS OA' DOCOMAEAV7'S 37
tentional or unconscious, which writers are apt to make
in passages which they rapidly quote, and again of the
individual habits of quotation found in this or that par-
ticular writer. In all these cases on the one hand Com-
parative excellence is various and divided; and on the
other an exact study of documents will go a great way
towards changing vague guesses about possible errors into
positive knowledge of the limits within which undoubted
errors have been actually found to exist. The corrective
process is strictly analogous to that by which evidence
from Transcriptional Probability is acquired and reduced
to order: but in the present case there is less liability to
error in application, because we are drawing inferences
not so much from the average ways of scribes as a class
as from the definite characteristics of this or that docu-
mentary witness.
46. The true range of individuality of text cannot
moreover be exactly measured by the range of Contents
of an existing document. We have no right to assume
without verification the use of the same exemplar or exem-
plars from the first page to the last. A document Con-
taining more books than one may have been transcribed
either from an exemplar having identical Contents, or
from two or more exemplars each of which contained a
smaller number of books; and these successive exemplars
may have been of very various or unequal excellence.
As regards alterations made by the transcriber himself,
a generalisation obtained from one book would be fairly
valid for all the rest. But as regards what is usually
much more important, the antecedent text or texts
received by him, the prima facie presumption that a
generalisation obtained in one book will be applicable in
another cannot safely be trusted until the recurrence of
38 7TEXTUAZ, MAX7'URAE ZAV ZDOCUMEAVZ.S.
the same textual characteristics has been empirically as:
Certained.
47. A third and specially important loss of homo-
geneousness occurs wherever the transmission of a writing
has been much affected by what ($ 5, 6) we have called
mixture, the irregular combination into a single text of
two or more texts belonging to different lines of trans-
mission. Where books scattered in two or more copies
are transcribed continuously into a single document ($46),
the use of different exemplars is successive: here it is
simultaneous. In this case the individuality, so to speak,
of each mixed document is divided, and each element
has its own characteristics; so that we need to know to
which element of the document any given reading belongs,
before we can tell what authority the reading derives from
its attestation by the document. Such knowledge evidently
Cannot be furnished by the document itself; but, as we
shall see presently, it may often be obtained through
combinations of documents.
48. Lastly, the practical value of the simple applica-
tion of Internal Evidence of Documents diminishes as
they increase in number. It is of course in some sort
available wherever a text is preserved in more than a
single document, provided only that it is known in each
variation which readings are supported by the several
documents. Wherever it can be used at all, its use is
indispensable at every turn ; and where the documents
are very few and not perceptibly connected, it is the best
resource that criticism possesses. On the other hand, its
direct utility varies with the simplicity of the documentary
evidence; and it is only through the disturbing medium of
arbitrary and untrustworthy rules that it can be made
systematically available for writings preserved in a plurality
COA/AOZAZX/7"Y OA' A 7'7"AºS 7.4 ZZOAV 39
of documents. For such writings in fact it can be em-
ployed as the primary guide only where the better
documents are in tolerably complete agreement against
the worse; and the insufficiency must increase with their
number and diversity. Wherever the better documents
are ranged on different sides, the decision becomes vir-
tually dependent on the uncertainties of isolated personal
judgements. There is evidently no way through the chaos
of complex attestation which thus confronts us except by
going back to its causes, that is, by enquiring what ante-
cedent circumstances of transmission will account for
such combinations of agreements and differences between
the several documents as we find actually existing. In
other words, we are led to the necessity of investigating
not only individual documents and their characteristics,
but yet more the mutual relations of documents.
SECTION III. GENEALOGICAL EVIDENCE
49–76 • *
A. 49–53. Simple or divergent genealogy
49. The first great step in rising above the uncer-
tainties of Internal Evidence of Readings was taken by
ceasing to treat Readings independently of each other,
and examining, them connectedly in series, each series
being furnished by one of the several Documents in
which they are found. The second great step, at which
we have now arrived, consists in ceasing to treat Docu-
ments independently of each other, and examining them
connectedly as parts of a single whole in virtue of their
historical relationships. In their prima facie character
documents present themselves as so many independent
and rival texts of greater or less purity. But as a matter
of fact they are not independent: by the nature of the
40 OSA, OF P/. URAAAZ"Y OF DOCUMEAV7 S
case they are all fragments, usually casual and scattered
fragments, of a genealogical tree of transmission, some-
times of vast extent and intricacy. The more exactly
we are able to trace the chief ramifications of the tree,
and to determine the places of the several documents
among the branches, the more secure will be the founda-
tions laid for a criticism capable of distinguishing the
original text from its successive corruptions. It may be
laid down then emphatically, as a second principle, that
ALL TRUSTWORTHY RESTORATION OF CORRUPTED TEXTS
IS FOUNDED ON THE STUDY OF THEIR HISTORY, that is,
of the relations of descent or affinity which connect the
several documents. The principle here laid down has
long been acted upon in all the more important restora-
tions of classical texts: but it is still too imperfectly un-
derstood to need no explanation. A simple instance will
show at Once its practical bearing.
5.o. Let it be supposed that a treatise exists in ten
MSS. If they are used without reference to genealogy
by an editor having a general preference for documentary
evidence, a reading found in nine of them will in most
cases be taken before a rival reading found only in
the tenth, which will naturally be regarded as a casual
aberration. If the editor decides otherwise, he does so
in reliance on his own judgement either as to the high
probability of the reading or as to the high excellence
of the MS. He may be right in either case, and in the
latter case he is more likely to be right than not : but
where an overwhelming preponderance of the Only kind
of documentary evidence recognised is so boldly dis-
regarded, a wide door is opened for dangerous uncertainty.
51. Another editor begins by studying the relations
of the MSS, and finds sufficient evidence, external or
DAEAAAAWDS KWOWZEDGAE OF GEMA.A LOGY 4 I
internal, for believing that the first nine MSS were all
Copied directly or indirectly from the tenth MS, and de-
rived nothing from any document independent of the
tenth. He will then know that all their variations from
the tenth can be only corruptions (successful cursory
emendations of scribes being left out of account), and
that for documentary evidence he has only to follow the
tenth. Apart therefore from corruptions in the tenth, for
the detection of which he can obviously have no documen-
tary evidence, his text will at once be safe and true.
52. If however the result of the second supposed
editor's study is to find that all the nine MSS were de-
rived not from the tenth but from another lost MS, his
ten documents resolve themselves virtually into two wit-
nesses; the tenth MS, which he can know directly and
Completely, and the lost MS, which he must restore
through the readings of its nine descendants, exactly and
by simple transcription where they agree, approximately
and by critical processes where they disagree. After these
processes some few variations among the mine may doubt-
less be left in uncertainty, but the greater part will have
been cleared away, leaving the text of the lost MS (with
these definite exceptions) as certain as if it were accessible
to the eyes. Where the two ultimate witnesses agree, the
text will be as certain as the extant documents can make
it; more certain than if the nine MSS had been derived
from the tenth, because going back to an earlier link of
transmission, the common source of the two witnesses.
This common source may indeed be of any date not later
than the earliest of the MSS, and accordingly separated
from the autograph by any number of transcriptions, so
that its text may vary from absolute purity to any amount
of corruption: but as conjecture is the sole possible
42 A US 7TRA TVOAWS OF GAZAVAEA ZOG Y
instrument for detecting or correcting whatever errors
it may contain, this common source is the only original
with which any of the methods of criticism now under
discussion have any concern. Where the two ultimate
witnesses differ, the genealogical method ceases to be
applicable, and a comparison of the intrinsic general
character of the two texts becomes the only resource.
53. The relations of descent between existing docu-
ments are rarely so simple as in the case supposed. To
carry the supposition only one step further, the nine
MSS might have been found to fall into two sets, five
descended from one lost ancestor and four from another:
and then the question would have arisen whether any
two of the three authorities had a common origin not
shared by the third. If it were ascertained that they
had, the readings in which they agreed against the
third would have no greater probability than the rival
readings of the third, except so far as their common
ancestor was found to have higher claims to authority
as a single document than the third as a single docu-
ment. If on the other hand the nine could not
be traced to less than two originals, a certain much
diminished numerical authority would still remain to
them. Since however all presumptions from numerical
superiority, even among documents known to be all
absolutely independent, that is, derived from the auto-
graph each by a separate line of descent, are liable to be
falsified by different lengths and different conditions of
transmission, the practical value of the numerical au-
thority of the two supposed witnesses against the third
could not be estimated till it had been brought into
comparison with the results yielded by the Internal
Evidence of all three witnesses.
43
B. 54–57. Genealogy and Mumber
54. It is hardly necessary to point out the total
change in the bearing of the evidence here made by the
introduction of the factor of genealogy. Apart from
genealogy, the One MS becomes easily overborne by
the nine; and it would be trusted against their united
testimony only when upheld by strong internal evidence,
and then manifestly at great risk. But if it is found that
the nine had a common original, they sink jointly to a
numerical authority not greater than that of the one;
may rather less, for that one is known absolutely, while
the lost copy is known only approximately. Where for
want of sufficiently clear evidence, or for any other
reason, the simplification of pedigree cannot be carried
thus far, still every approximation to an exhibition of their
actual historical relations presents them in a truer light
for the purposes of textual criticism than their enumera-
tion in their existing form as so many separate units. It
enables us on the one hand to detect the late Origin and
therefore irrelevance of some part of the Žºržma facie
documentary evidence, and on the other to find the rest
of it already classified for us by the discovered relations
of the attesting documents themselves, and thus fitted to
Supply trustworthy presumptions, and under favourable
circumstances much more than presumptions, as a basis
for the consideration of other classes of evidence.
55. It would be difficult to insist too strongly on the
transformation of the Superficial aspects of numerical autho-
rity thus effected by recognition of Genealogy. In the crude
shape in which numerical authority is often presented, it
rests on no better foundation than a vague transference of
associations connected with majorities of voices, this
44 A&AEA. J.A. V.4 AVCA OAF AWOW/l/A'AºA’
natural confusion being aided perhaps by the applica-
tion of the convenient and in itself harmless term
‘authorities’ to documents. No One doubts that some
documents are better than others, and that therefore a
numerical preponderance may have rightly to yield to a
qualitative preponderance. But it is often assumed that
numerical superiority, as such, among existing docu-
ments ought always to carry a certain considerable
though perhaps subordinate weight, and that this weight
ought always to be to a certain extent proportionate to
the excess of numbers. This assumption is completely
negatived by the facts adduced in the preceding pages,
which shew that, since the same numerical relations
among existing documents are compatible with the
utmost dissimilarity in the numerical relations among
their ancestors, no available presumptions whatever as to
text can be obtained from number alone, that is, from
number not as yet interpreted by descent.
56. The single exception to the truth of this
statement leaves the principle itself untouched. Where
a minority consists of one document or hardly more,
there is a valid presumption against the reading thus
attested, because any one scribe is liable to err,
whereas the fortuitous concurrence of a plurality of
scribes in the same error is in most cases improbable;
and thus in these cases the reading attested by the
majority is exempt from the suspicion of one mode
of error which has to be taken into account with respect
to the other reading. But this limited prima facie
presumption, itself liable to be eventually set aside on
evidence of various classes, is distinct in kind, not in
degree only, from the imaginary presumption against
a mere minority; and the essential difference is not
A PAA’7”. AWA’O/l/ GAAVAEALOGY 45
altered by the proportion of the majority to the mi-
nority.
57. Except where some one particular corruption
was so obvious and tempting that an unusual number
of scribes might fall into it independently, a few docu-
ments are not, by reason of their mere paucity, appre-
ciably less likely to be right than a multitude opposed
to them. As soon as the numbers of a minority exceed
what can be explained by accidental coincidence, so
that their agreement in error, if it be error, can only be
explained on genealogical grounds, we have thereby
passed beyond purely numerical relations, and the
necessity of examining the genealogy of both minority
and majority has become apparent. A theoretical pre-
sumption indeed remains that a majority of extant docu-
ments is more likely to represent a majority of ancestral
documents at each stage of transmission than vice versa.
But the presumption is too minute to weigh against the
smallest tangible evidence of other kinds. Experience
verifies what might have been anticipated from the
incalculable and fortuitous complexity of the causes
here at work. At each stage of transmission the number
of copies made from each MS depends on extraneous
conditions, and varies irregularly from zero upwards:
and when further the infinite variability of chances of
preservation to a future age is taken into account, every
ground for expecting a priori any sort of correspondence
of numerical proportion between existing documents and
their less numerous ancestors in any one age falls to the
ground. This is true even in the absence of mixture;
and mixture, as will be shown presently ($ 61, 76),
does but multiply the uncertainty. For all practical pur-
poses the rival probabilities represented by relative
46 GEAVEA COG Y TRA CAE ZO B Y
number of attesting documents must be treated as in-
Commensurable.
C. 58, 59. Manner of discovering genealogy
58. Knowledge of the Genealogy of Documents, as
of other facts respecting them, can sometimes be ob-
tained to a certain extent from external sources, under
which may be included various external indications
furnished by themselves; but it is chiefly gained by study
of their texts in comparison with each other. The
process depends on the principle that identity of reading
implies identity of origin. Strictly speaking it implies
either identity of origin or accidental coincidence, no
third alternative being possible. Accidental coincidences
do occur, and have to be reckoned for : but except
where an alteration is very plausible and tempting,
the chance that two transcribers have made the same
alteration independently is relatively small, in the case
of three it is much smaller, and so on with rapidly in-
creasing improbability. Hence, while a certain number
of identities of reading have to be neglected as capable
of either interpretation, the great bulk may at once
be taken as certain evidence of a common origin. Such
Community of origin for a reading may of course as
regards the two or more attesting documents be either
Complete, that is, due to a common ancestry for their
whole texts, or partial, that is, due to “mixture’, which
is virtually the engrafting of occasional or partial Com-
munity of ancestry upon predominantly independent
descent. - -
59. Here, as in the investigation of the comparative
excellences of continuous texts, we are able to arrive
at general conclusions about texts by putting together
A DFAW 7T//TAZS OF REA/D/AWGS 47
the data furnished by a succession of variations of read-
ing. What we have to do is to note what combinations
of documents, large or small, are of frequent recurrence.
"Wherever we find a considerable number of variations,
in which the two or more arrays of documents attesting
the two or more variants are identical, we know that at
least a Considerable amount of the texts of the docu-
ments Constituting each array must be descended from
a common ancestor subsequent to the single universal
original, the limitation of ancestry being fixed by the
dissent of the other array or arrays. Each larger array
may often in like manner be broken up into Subordinate
arrays, each of which separately is found repeatedly Sup-
porting a number of readings rejected by the other docu-
ments; and each such separate smaller array must have its
own special ancestry. If the text is free from mixture,
the larger arrays disclose the earlier divergences of
transmission, the smaller arrays the later divergences: in
other words, wherever transmission has been independent,
the immediate relations of existing documents are ex-
hibited by those variations which isolate the most
subordinate combinations of documents, the relationships
of the ultimate ancestors of existing documents by those
variations in which the combinations of documents are
the most comprehensive; not necessarily the most
numerous individually, but the most composite.
D. 60—65. Complications of genealogy by mixture
6O. In the texts just mentioned, in which transmis-
sion has followed exclusively the simple type of divergent
ramification, cross divisions among documents are impos-
sible, except to the limited extent within which accidental
coincidence can operate. If L M are two transcripts of the
original, L*L* of L, and M*M* of M, the five distributions
48 AºA2SUZ 7 S OF AZYX7'OWAQA2
(i) Li L2 against M*M*, (ii) L1 against LAM! M*, (iii) Lº
against Li M*M*, (iv) M1 against Li Lº M*, and (v) M2
against Lº Lº M* are all possible and all likely to occur: but
the two distributions (vi) Lº M* against LAM? and (vii)
L*M* against LAM! are impossible as results of divergent
genealogy. In the second distribution L4 appears to
desert its own primary array and join the array of M ; but
the truth is that in a text transmitted under these con-
ditions L4 must have introduced a corruption, while L”
has merely remained faithful to a reading of the original
which had been faithfully preserved by L and M alike.
On the other hand in the sixth distribution either L*M*
must have the wrong reading and Lº M.” the right, or vice
versa: if Lº M* are wrong, either L and M. must have both
concurred in the error, which would have rendered it
impossible for either L* or M% to be right, or L1 and M*,
transcribed from different exemplars, must have each
made the same change from the true reading of L and M
preserved by L4 and M*, which is impossible except by
accidental coincidence ; and 771zztałżs matefandºs the case
is the same if LºMº be right and Lº M% wrong, and again
for the two corresponding alternatives of the seventh dis-
tribution. In this fact that the sixth and seventh combina-
tions, that is, cross combinations, cannot exist without mix-
ture we have at once a sufficient criterion for the presence
of mixture. Where we find cross combinations associ-
ated with variations so numerous and of such a character
that accidental coincidence is manifestly incompetent to
explain them, we know that they must be due to mix-
ture, and it then becomes necessary to observe within
what limits the effects of mixture are discernible.
6I. In So far as mixture operates, it exactly inverts
the results of the simpler form of transmission, its effect
being to produce convergence instead of divergence. Cor-
ruptions originating in a MS belonging to one primary
array may be adopted and incorporated in transcripts
from other MSS of the same or of other primary arrays.
An error introduced by the scribe of L4 in one century,
and unknown to Lº M*M*, may in a later century be
attested by all the then extant representatives of L4 L*M*,
those of M* alone being free from it, the reason being
that, perhaps through the instrumentality of some popular
text which has adopted it, it has found its way into in-
termediate descendants of L4 and of M*. It follows that,
whenever mixture has intervened, we have no security
AS COMWA’OWS/AWG GAZAVAEA/LOGY 49
that the more complex arrays of existing documents point
to the more ancient ramifications: they may just as easily
be results of a wide extension given comparatively late by
favourable circumstances to readings which previously had
only a narrow distribution. Conversely a present narrow-
ness of distribution need not be a mark of relatively recent
divergence: it may as easily (see $76) be the only surviving
relic of an ancient supremacy of distribution now almost
obliterated by the invasion of mixture. This is of course a
somewhat extreme case, but it is common enough : as a
matter of fact, mixture is found to operate on every scale,
from the smallest to the largest.
62. Mixture being thus liable to confuse and even
invert the inferences which would indubitably follow
from the conditions of transmission were transmission
exclusively divergent, we have next to enquire what
expedients can be employed when mixture has been
ascertained to exist. Evidently no resource can be so
helpful, where it can be attained, as the extrication
of earlier unmixed texts or portions of texts from the
general mass of texts now extant. The clearest evidence
for tracing the antecedent factors of mixture in texts
is afforded by readings which are themselves mixed
or, as they are sometimes called, “conflate’, that is,
not simple substitutions of the reading of one document
for that of another, but combinations of the readings
of both documents into a composite whole, sometimes
by mere addition with or without a conjunction, some-
times with more or less of fusion. Where we find a
variation with three variants, two of them simple alter-
natives to each other, and the third a combination of
the other two, there is usually a strong presumption
that the third is the latest and due to mixture, not the
third the earliest and the other two due to two independent
impulses of simplification. Peculiar contexts may no
doubt sometimes give rise to this paradoxical double
6
5O AAVA / WS/S OA” Al//XAZZO 7/2_X 7.S.
simplification: but as a rule internal evidence is decisive:
to the contrary. If now we note the groups of docu-
ments which support each of the three variants; and
then, repeating the process with other conflate read-
ings, find Substantially the same groups of doculnents
Occupying analogous places in all cases, we gain first
a verification of the presumption of mixture by the
mutual corroboration of instances, and next a deter-
mination of one set of documents in which mixture
certainly exists, and of two other sets of documents
which still preserve some portion at least of two more
ancient texts which were eventually mixed together.
Sometimes the three groups are found nearly constant
throughout, sometimes they have only a nucleus, so
to speak, approximately constant, with a somewhat
variable margin of other documents. This relative
variability however, due to irregularity of mixture, does
not weaken the force of the inferences to be drawn
from each single instance. If a reading is conflate,
every document supporting it is thereby shown to have
a more or less mixed text among its ancestry; SO that,
in considering any other doubtful variation, we have
empirical evidence that the contingency of mixture in
each such document is not a prior: unlikely. About
those documents which habitually support the conflate
readings we learn more, namely that mixture must have
had a large share in producing their text. Similarly
we learn to set an especial value on those documents
which rarely or never support the conflate readings; not
necessarily as witnesses to a true text, for in all these
cases each true reading is paired with a simple wrong
reading, but as witnesses to texts antecedent to
mixture.
THAZOOGAZ COAVAE/AZTAE A&AEA/X/ZVGS’ 5 I
63. The results thus obtained supply the foundation
for a further process. It is incredible that mixed texts
should be mixed only where there are conflate readings.
In an overwhelming proportion of cases the composition
of two earlier readings would either be impossible or
produce an intolerable result; and in all such cases,
supposing the causes leading to mixture to be at work,
the change due to mixture would consist in a simple
replacement of one reading by another, such change
being indifferently a substitution or an addition or an
omission. Here then we should find not three variants,
but two only: that is, the reading of the mixed text
would be identical with one of the prior readings; and as
a matter of course the documents attesting it would
comprise both those that were descended from the mixed
text and those that were descended from that earlier
text which the mixed text has here followed. When
accordingly we find variations exhibiting these pheno-
mena, that is, having one variant supported by that
set of documents which habitually attests one recurring
factor of mixture in conflate readings, and another sup-
ported by all the remaining documents, there is a
strong presumption that a large portion of the ad-
verse array of documents is descended from no line
of transmission independent of the remaining portion,
(that is, independent of the set of documents which
habitually attests the other factor of mixture in con-
flate readings,) but merely echoes at second hand the
attestation of that remaining portion of the array: the
lines of descent of the two groups which together
make up the array are in short not parallel but succes-
sive. It follows that the documentary authority for the
two variants respectively is virtually reduced to that of
52 AAAZZZTA 7TWOAVS OA' AAVAZ VS/S
the two groups habitually preserving the separate factors
of mixture. - - -
64. It is true that variability in the margin of attesta-
tion, if we may for brevity repeat a phrase employed above
(§ 62), may render it uncertain with which portion of the
Composite array certain documents should be classed, thus
weakening but not destroying the force, whatever it
may be, of their opposition to the reading of the single
array. It is true also that the authority of the portion
of documents which belongs to the mixed text does
not become actually nothing: it is strictly the authority
of a single lost document, one of the sources of the
mixture, belonging to the same line of transmission as
the earlier group of documents supporting the same
reading independently of mixture, and thus adding
another approximately similar member to their company.
These qualifications do not however affect the sub-
stantial certainty and efficacy of the process here
described, as enabling us in a large number of varia-
tions to disentangle the confusion wrought by mixture.
It is independent of any external evidence as to dates,
being founded solely on the analysis and comparison
of the extant texts: but of course its value for purposes
of criticism is much enhanced by any chronological
evidence which may exist.
65. On the other hand there is much mixture of
texts for which the extant documentary evidence ante-
cedent to mixture is too small or uncertain to be de-
tached from the rest, and therefore to yield materials
for the application of this process. In such cases we
have to fall back on the principle of Internal Evidence
of Groups, to be explained presently, which is applicable
to mixed and unmixed texts alike.
* 53.
E. 66–72. Applications of genealogy -
66. After this brief sketch of the modes of discovering
genealogical facts by means of the extant texts, which
will, we hope, be made clearer by the concrete examples
to be given further on, we come to the uses of the facts
so obtained for the discrimination of true from false
readings. One case of the examples given in § 51 shews
at once that any number of documents ascertained to
be all exclusively descended from another extant docu-
ment may be safely put out of sight, and with them of
course all readings which have no other authority. The
evidence for the fact of descent may be of various kinds.
Sometimes, though rarely, it is external. Sometimes it
consists in the repetition of physical defects manifestly
not antecedent to the supposed original, as when the loss
of one or more of its leaves has caused the absence of
the corresponding portions of text in all the other docu-
ments. Sometimes the evidence is strictly internal, being
furnished by analysis of the texts themselves, when it
is found that a fair number of mere blunders or other
evidently individual peculiarities of the supposed original
have been either reproduced or patched up in all the
supposed derivative documents, and secondly that these
documents contain few or no variations from the text of
the supposed original which cannot be accounted for by
natural and known causes of corruption.
67. This summary reduction of documentary evidence
by the discovery of extantancestors of other existing docu-
ments is however of rare occurrence. On the other hand,
wherever a text is found in a plurality of documents,
there is a strong probability that some of them are de-
scended from a single lost original. The proof of com:
54 S/A'7"/AWG OF READ/WGS
mon descent is always essentially the same, consisting
in numerous readings in which they agree among them-
selves and differ from all other documents, together with
the easy deducibility, direct or indirect, of all their read-
ings from a single text. In the absence of the second
condition the result would differ only in being less
simple: we should have to infer the mixture of two or
more lost originals, independent of each other as well as
of the remaining extant documents.
68. The manner of recovering the text of a single lost
original, assuming the fact of exclusive descent from it to
have been sufficiently established, will be best explained
by a free use of symbols. Let us suppose that the extant
descendants are fourteen, denoted as a be defgh 2/3/7/27to ;
that, when their mutual relationships are examined, they
are found to fall into two sets, affedeſgh i and Élm ſto,
each having a single lost ancestor (X and Y respectively)
descended from the common original; and again that
each of these sets falls similarly into smaller sets, the first
into three, a 5, caleſ, and g/l i, the second into two, #2 and
7/7 ſto, each of the five lesser sets having a single lost an-
cestor (agºyèe respectively) descended from the common
Subordinate original, agºy from X, 6e from Y. Let us
Suppose also that no cross distributions implying mutual
or internal mixture can be detected. We have then this
pedigree:
O
º, I y
F-- | -] r——1–——
Cº. 8 'y ô 6
I------ F—T---|--|--- r—— F------ r--—|—|
a & c d e f g / 2 /* / 772 ZZ (9
69. Readings in which all fourteen documents agree be-
longed indubitably to the common original O. On the other
hand the genealogical evidence now before us furnishes no
indication as to the readings of O in variations in which
all the descendants of X are opposed to all the descendants
of Y: for reasons already given (§ 57) the proportion
nine to five tells us nothing; and the greater composite-
ness of a "ca/e/gºží, as made up of three sets against two,
A Y //EAAVS OA' GAZAVEA / OG V 55
is equally irrelevant, since we know that each larger set
has but a single ancestor, and we have no reason for
preferring X singly to Y singly. These variations there-
fore we reserve for the present. Where however the
descendants of either X or Y are divided, so that the re-
presentatives of (say) y join those of 6 and e against those
of a and 8, and the question arises whether the reading
of X is truly represented by a 5 or by y, the decision must
be given for that of y, because, mixture and accidental
Coincidence apart, in no other way can y have become at
Once separated from aft and joined to 6e ; in other words,
the change must have been not on the part of y but of aff,
or rather an intermediate common ancestor of theirs.
The reading thus ascertained to have been that of both
X and Y must also, as in the first case, have been the
reading of O. Accordingly, so far as the whole evidence
now before us is concerned, that is, assuming absence of
mixture with documents independent of O, all readings
of a £ against y 3e may be at once discarded, first as de-
partures from the text of O, and next as departures from
the text of the autograph, since the direct transmission
of all the documents passes through O, and thus it is not
possible, on the present conditions, for a 3 to agree with
the autograph against O except by conjecture or acci-
dental coincidence. The same results follow in all the
analogous cases, namely for readings of y against agós, a
against & y & e, 8 against a 3-ye, and e against aſ y 6. The
combinations a y against Böe and 8 y against a 6e are
possible only by mutual mixture among descendants of
X antecedent to a 6-y, since they form cross distributions
with the assumed combination aſ against y&e : but this
particular mixture would not interfere with the present
operation of fixing the reading of X by coincidence with
the reading of Y, because there would be no more mix-
ture with Y than in the other cases, and the force of the
consent of Y with part of the descendants of X remains the
same whatever that part may be. -
7o. It will be seen at once what a wide and helpful
suppression of readings that cannot be right is thus brought
about by the mere application of Genealogical method,
without need of appeal to the Internal Evidence of either
Texts or Readings except so far as they contribute in the
first instance to the establishment of the genealogical
facts. Precisely analogous processes are required where
any of the five lesser sets are divided, say by opposition
56 AAAZZZTA 7TWOA'S OA' O.S.A., OA' GZAVAEA ZOGY
of cd to ef, so that we have to decide whether the true
reading of 3 is found in ca. Or in ef. The final clear result
is that, when we have gone as far as the discoverable
relations among our documents admit, we have on the
one hand banished a considerable number of the extant
variants as absolutely excluded, and on the other ascer-
tained a considerable number of readings of O, in addition
to those parts of the text of O in which all its descendants
agree.
7 I. Two elements of uncertainty as to the text of O
alone remain. First, the condition presupposed above,
absence of mixture from without, does not always hold
good. Where mixture from without exists, the inference
given above from the concurrence of y with 8 e against
aft becomes but one of three alternatives. It is possible
that mixture with a text independent of O has affected y
and Y alike, but not a 6 ; and if so, ag will be the true
representatives of X and of O. This possibility is how-
ever too slight to be weighed seriously, unless the reading
of y and Y is found actually among existing documents
independent of O, provided that they are fairly numerous
and various in their texts, or unless the hypothesis of
mixture is confirmed by a sufficiency of similarly attested
readings which cannot be naturally derived from readings
found among the descendants of O. Again, it is possible
that the reading of ag is itself due to mixture with a text
independent of O : and if so, though rightly rejected from
the determination of the reading of O, it may possibly be
of use in determining the reading of an ancestor of O, or
even of the autograph itself. But both these contingencies
need be taken into account only when there is already
ground for supposing mixture from without to exist.
72. The second element of uncertainty is that which
always accompanies the earliest known divergence from
a single original. Given only the readings of X and Y,
Genealogy is by its very nature powerless to shew which
were the readings of O. It regains its power only when
we go on to take into account fresh documentary evidence
independent of O, and work towards an older common
original from which both it and O are descended. O
then Comes to occupy the place of X or Y, and the
same process is repeated; and so on as often as the
evidence will allow. It must however be reiterated (see
§ 52) that, when O has come to mean the autograph, we
have, in reaching the earliest known divergence, arrived
VAR/ABZA, USA OF GAEAVE.A.M.OGY 57
at the point where Genealogical method finally ceases to
be applicable, since no independent documentary evidence
remains to be taken up. Whatever variations survive at
this ultimate divergence must still stand as undecided
variations. Here therefore we are finally restricted to the
Internal Evidence of single or grouped Documents and
Readings, aided by any available external knowledge not
dependent on Genealogy.
F. 73–76. Variable use of genealogy according ſo un-
equal preservation of documents
73. The proper method of Genealogy consists, it will
be seen, in the more or less complete recovery of the
texts of successive ancestors by analysis and comparison
of the varying texts of their respective descendants, each
ancestral text so recovered being in its turn used, in con-
junction with other similar texts, for the recovery of the
text of a yeſ earlier common ancestor. The preservation
of a comparatively small number of documents would
probably suffice for the complete restoration of an auto-
graph text (the determination of the earliest variations of
course excepted) by genealogy alone, without the need
of other kinds of evidence, provided that the documents
preserved were adequately representative of different ages
and different lines of transmission. This condition how-
ever is never fulfilled. Texts are not uncommonly pre-
served in a considerable assemblage of documents the
genealogy of which can be fully worked out, but is found
to conduct to one or two originals which, for all that ap-
pears to the contrary, may be separated from the autograph
by many ages of transmission, involving proportionate
possibilities of corruption. Here Genealogical method
retains its relative value, for it reduces within, narrow
limits the amount of variation which need occupy an
editor when he comes to the construction of his text:
58 COM/2OS/7'E A 7'7ESTA 7TWOAV
but it leaves him in the dark, as all criticism dealing
only with transmitted variations must do, as to the
amount of correspondence between the best transmitted
text and the text of his author. These cases correspond
to such limited parts of the documentary evidence of
more adequately attested texts as represent single stages
of textual history. -
74. In those rare cases, on the other hand, in which
extant documentary evidence reaches up into quite
ancient times the process may be carried back to a stage
comparatively near the autograph: but here the evidence
is as a matter of fact never abundant enough for more
than rough and partial approximations to the typical pro-
cess described above. Here too, as always, we have to
ascertain whether the confusing influence of mixture
exists, and if so, within what limits. Under such Cir-
cumstances any chronological and geographical informa-
tion to be obtained from without has great value in in-
terpreting obscure genealogical phenomena, especially as
marking the relative date and relative independence of
the several early documents or early lost ancestors of late
documents or sets of documents.
75. In proportion as we approach the time of the
autograph, the weight of composite attestation as against
homogeneous attestation increases; partly because the
plurality of proximate originals usually implied in Com-
posite attestation carries with it the favourable presump-
tion afforded by the improbability of a plurality of scribes
arriving independently at the same alteration ; partly
because the more truly composite the attestation, that is,
the more independent its component elements, the more
divergences and stages of transmission must have pre-
ceded, and thus the earlier is likely to have been the
7TRUE AAVID SAEUR/O US 59
date for the common original of these various genera-
tions of descendants, the later of which are themselves
early. Nothing of course can exclude the possibility
that one line of transmission may have ramified more
rapidly and widely than another in the same time: yet
still the shorter the interval between the time of the
autograph and the end of the period of transmission in
question, the stronger will be the presumption that
earlier date implies greater purity of text. But the
Surest ground of trusting composite attestation is at-
tained when it combines the best documentary repre-
sentatives of those lines of transmission which, as far as
our knowledge goes, were the earliest to diverge. Such
are essentially instances of ascertained concordance of
X and Y ($ 69), in spite of the dissent of some de-
Scendants of one or both.
76. The limitation to “the best documentary repre-
sentatives” is necessary, because the intrusion of mix-
ture in documents, or in lost originals of documents or
of documentary groups, may disguise the actual histo-
rical relations (see § 61), and give the appearance of
greater compositeness of attestation to readings which
have merely invaded lines of transmission that for a while
were free from them. It thus becomes specially neces-
sary to observe which documents, or lost originals of
documents or documentary groups, are found to shew
frequent or occasional mixture with texts alien from their
own primary ancestry, and to allow for the contingency
accordingly. Many cases however of ambiguous inter-
pretation of evidence are sure to remain, which the
existing knowledge of the history of mixture is incom-
petent to clear up ; and for these recourse must be had
to evidence of other kinds.
6O
SECTION IV. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF GROUPS
77, 78
77. We have reserved for this place the notice of
another critical resource which is in some sense inter-
mediate between Internal Evidence of Documents and
Genealogical Evidence, but which in order of discovery
would naturally come last, and the value of which will
have been made more apparent through the inherent and
the incidental defects of Genealogical Evidence described
in the preceding paragraphs. This supplementary re-
Source is Internal Evidence of Groups. In discussing
Internal Evidence of Documents, we spoke only of single
documents: but the method itself is equally applicable
to groups of documents. Just as we can generalise the
characteristics of any given MS by noting successively
what readings it supports and rejects, (each reading having
previously been the subject of a tentative estimate of
Internal Evidence of Readings, Intrinsic and Transcrip-
tional,) and by classifying the results, so we can generalise
the characteristics of any given group of documents by
similar observations on the readings which it supports
and rejects, giving special attention to those readings in
which it stands absolutely or virtually alone. In texts
where mixture has been various, the number of variations
affording trustworthy materials for generalisations as to
any one group can be only a part of the sum total of
variations; but that part will often be amply sufficient.
The evidence obtained in this manner is Internal Evi-
dence, not Genealogical. But the validity of the inferences
depends on the genealogical principle that community of
reading implies community of origin. If we find, for in-
stance, in any group of documents a succession of readings
JAWZZRAWAZ ZVIDAENCE OF GROUPS 6 I
exhibiting an exceptional purity of text, that is, readings
which the fullest consideration of Internal Evidence pro-
nounces to be right in opposition to formidable arrays of
Documentary Evidence, the cause must be that, as far at
least as these readings are concerned, some One excep-
tionally pure MS was the common ancestor of all the
members of the group; and that accordingly a recurrence
of this consent marks a recurrence of joint derivation from
that particular origin, and accordingly a strong presump-
tion that exceptional purity is to be looked for here again.
The inference holds equally good whether the transmission.
has been wholly divergent, or partly divergent and partly
mixed ; and any characteristic, favourable or unfavour-
able, may be the subject of it. -
78. The value of Internal Evidence of Groups in
cases of mixture depends, it will be seen, on the fact that
by its very nature it enables us to deal separately with
the different elements of a document of mixed ancestry.
In drawing general conclusions from the characteristics
of the text of a document for the appreciation of its in-
dividual readings successively, we assume the general
homogeneousness of its text; but this assumption is legi-
timate only if unity of line of ancestry is presupposed.
The addition of a second line of ancestry by mixture
introduces a second homogeneousness, which is as likely
as not to conflict with that of the first, and thus to falsify
inferences drawn from the first, unless there be means of
discriminating from the rest of the text the portions taken
from the second original. But each well marked group
of which the mixed document is a member implies at
least the contingency of a distinct origin; and thus, in
readings in which the document is associated with the
rest of the group, its authority need not be that which
62 RA2 CA PZZTOZA 7TWOAV OA' //E 7/HO/OS
it derives in the bulk of its text from its fundamental
or primary original, but is strictly that belonging to the
Common ancestor of its secondary original and of the
other members of the group. Such readings might be
truly described as forming a series of minute fragments of
a copy of the lost document which was the secondary
original, leaving corresponding gaps in the more or less
faithfully preserved text of the primary original, except
where conflate readings have wholly or partly preserved
both texts. In the next Part we shall have ample op-
portunity of illustrating what has here been said.
SECTION V. RECAPITULATION OF METHODS IN RELATION
TO EACH OTHER
79–84
79. To recapitulate. The method of Genealogy is
an application of one part of the knowledge of Docu-
ments; and like the method founded on the Internal Evi-
dence of Documents it involves three processes; first the
analysis and comparison of the documentary evidence for
a succession of individual variations; next the investiga-
tion of the genealogical relations between the documents,
and therefore between their ancestors, by means of the
materials first obtained; and thirdly the application of
these genealogical relations to the interpretation of the
documentary evidence for each individual variation. The
results of the interpretation of documentary evidence thus
and thus alone made possible are various. In the first
place it winnows away a multitude of readings which ge-
nealogical relations prove to be of late origin, and which
therefore cannot have been derived by transmission from
the autograph. Where the extant evidence suggests but
A&AECAA/7'C/ZA 7TWOAV OA” Aſ E 7//O/OS 63
is insufficient to prove thus much, and in the case of all
other variants, this method so presents and limits the
possible genealogical antecedents of the existing combi-
nations of documentary evidence as to supply presump-
tions in favour of one variant against another varying
from what amounts under favourable circumstances to
practically absolute certainty down to Complete equipoise.
80. So far as genealogical relations are discovered
with perfect certainty, the textual results which follow
from them are perfectly certain too, being directly in-
volved in historical facts; and any apparent presumptions
against them suggested by other methods are mere guesses
against knowledge. But the inequalities and Occasional
ambiguities in the evidence for the genealogical relations
frequently admit of more than one interpretation, and this
greater or less substitution of probability for certainty re-
specting the documentary history reduces the textual ver-
dict to a presumption, stronger or weaker as the case may
be. Genealogical presumptions ought however to take
precedence of other presumptions, partly because their
immediate basis is in itself historical not speculative, and
the subject-matter of all textual criticism is historical,
partly because the generalisations by which that historical
basis is ascertained involve less chance of error than the
analogous generalisations required for any kind of In-
ternal Evidence. - - -
81. The only safe order of procedure therefore is
to start with the reading suggested by a strong ge-
nealogical presumption, if such there be ; and then
enquire whether the considerations suggested by other
kinds of evidence agree with it, and if not, whether
they are clear and strong enough to affect the prima Jacie
claim of higher attestation. If they appear so to be, a
64 AºA. CAA/7'UZAZ"ZOAV OA' MAE 7"HO/OS
full re-examination becomes necessary; and the result,
especially if similar instances recur, may be the discovery
of some genealogical complication overlooked before.
No definite rule can be given as to what should be done
where the apparent conflict remains, more especially where
the documentary evidence is scanty or obscure. For Our
own part, in any writing having fairly good and various
documentary attestation we should think it dangerous to
reject any reading clearly supported by genealogical rela-
tions, though we might sometimes feel it equally neces-
Sary to abstain from rejecting its rival. -
82. Next in value to Genealogical Evidence is In-
ternal Evidence of Documents, single or in groups. But
where the documents exceed a very small number, the
Internal Evidence of single Documents, as has already
been explained (§ 48), is rendered for the most part
practically inapplicable by the unresolved complexity.
The Internal Evidence however of Groups of Docu-
ments is always applicable if there are documents
enough to form groups. It is the best substitute for
Genealogical Evidence proper in texts, or in any parts
of texts, in which genealogical relations are too obscure
for use; and it affords the most trustworthy presump-
tions for Comparison with purely genealogical presump-
tions, having similar merits derived from the form of
the processes by which it is obtained, while relating to
a different class of phenomena. The highest certainty is
that which arises from concordance of the presumptions
suggested by all methods, and it is always prudent to try
every variation by both kinds of Internal Evidence of
Readings. The uncertainty however inherent in both, as
dependent on isolated acts of individual judgement,
renders them on the whole untrustworthy against a con-
METHOD AND PERSONAL 5. UDGEMENT 65
currence of Genealogy and Internal Evidence of Docu-
ments; though a concurrence of clear Intrinsic with clear
Transcriptional Probability ought certainly to raise at least
a provisional doubt. -
83. Textual criticism fulfils its task best, that is, is
most likely to succeed ultimately in distinguishing true
readings from false, when it is guided by a full and clear
perception of all the classes of phenomena which directly
or indirectly supply any kind of evidence, and when it
regulates itself by such definite methods as the several
classes of phenomena suggest when patiently and cir-
cumspectly studied. This conformity to rationally
framed or rather discovered rules implies no disparage:
ment of scholarship and insight, for the employment of
which there is indeed full scope in various parts of the
necessary processes. It does but impose salutary re-
straints on the arbitrary and impulsive caprice which has
marred the criticism of some of those whose scholarship
and insight have deservedly been held in the highest
honour. -
84. Nevertheless in almost all texts variations occur
where personal judgement inevitably takes a large part
in the final decision. In these cases there is no failure of
method, which strictly speaking is an impossibility, but
an imperfection or confusion of the evidence needed for
the application of method. Here different minds will be
impressed by different parts of the evidence as clearer
than the rest, and so virtually ruling the rest: here there-
fore personal discernment would seem the surest ground
for confidence. Yet here too, once more, the true su-
premacy of method is vindicated; for it is from the past
exercise of method that personal discernment receives
the education which tends to extinguish its illusions and
7
66 OCC.A.S/OAVAZ COA’ſº UAE’7 AVESS OF
mature its power. All instinctive processes of criticism
which deserve confidence are rooted in experience, and
that an experience which has undergone perpetual cor-
rection and recorrection.
SECTION VI. CRITICISM AS DEALING WITH ERRORS
ANTECFD ENT TO EXISTING TEXTS
85–95
A. 85–92. Primitive errors
85. The preceding pages have dealt exclusively with
the task of discriminating between existing various read-
ings, one variant in each case being adopted and the rest
discarded. The utmost result that can be obtained under
this condition is the discovery of what is relatively ori-
ginal: whether the readings thus relatively original were
also the readings of the autograph is another question,
which can never be answered in the affirmative with
absolute decision except where the autograph itself is
extant, but which admits of approximative answers vary-
ing enormously in certainty according to the nature of the
documentary evidence for the text generally. Even in a
case in which it were possible to shew that the extant docu-
ments can be traced back to two originals which diverged
from the autograph itself without any intermediate com-
mon ancestor, we could never be quite sure that where
they differed one or other must have the true reading,
since they might independently introduce different changes
in the same place, say owing to some obscurity in the
writing of a particular word. In almost all actual cases
an interval, short or long, must have divided the auto-
graph from the earliest point or points to which genealogy
conducts us back; and any interval implies the possibility
of corruption, while every addition to the length of the
interval increases the probability of corruption. On the
other hand documentary evidence including a fair variety
of very ancient attestation may bring the meeting-point
of the extant lines of transmission so near the autograph
that freedom from antecedent corruption ceases to be
improbable, without however thereby becoming a Żriori
probable. In such cases therefore any investigation of
A’A. Z.A 7/VAZZ, Y OA’/G/AVA/, fº/ZA/)/AWGS’ 67
the ultimate integrity of the text is governed by no
theoretical presumptions: its final conclusions must rest
on the intrinsic verisimilitude or Suspiciousness of the text
itself,
86. These considerations have an important bearing
on certain paradoxical conflicts of evidence respecting
transmitted variations, which present themselves occa-
sionally in most texts and frequently in many; and
which are peculiarly apt to mislead editors to whom
textual criticism is only a subordinate province of inter-
pretation. The reading clearly indicated by Genealogical
or other evidence obtained from whole texts, or by Tran-
scriptional Evidence of Readings, or by both together,
may be as clearly condemned by Intrinsic Evidence. We
are not speaking of the numerous cases in which readings
that have seemed to a critic in the first instance too strange
to be true approve themselves on better knowledge, perhaps
as no more than tolerable, but oftener still as having a
peculiar impress of truth which once apprehended can-
not easily be questioned; or in which competent critics
receive opposite impressions from the same reading, one
holding it to be impossible, the other to have the stamp
of originality. These differences of judgement throw no
light upon readings which all competent critics feel on
consideration to be impossible, and yet which are strongly
attested by, it may be, every kind of evidence except
Intrinsic Evidence.
87. The true solution lies in the fact that the subject
matter of the different kinds of evidence is not identical.
Intrinsic Evidence is concerned only with absolute ori-
ginality; it pronounces which of two or more words or
phrases a given author in a given place was more likely
to use, or, in extreme cases in either direction, whether
either of them was what he must have used or could not
possibly have used. All other kinds of evidence are con-
cerned only or predominantly with relative originality:
they pronounce, speaking roughly, which of two or more
readings is more likely to have given rise to the others,
or is found in the best company, or has the best pedigree.
The apparent conflict therefore is dependent on the as-
Sumption, usually well founded, that the two originalities
Coincide. Where they do not, that is, where corruption
has preceded the earliest extant documentary evidence,
the most nearly original extant reading may nevertheless
be wrong, simply because the reading of the autograph
68 AA’A///7”/ WAE AEA'A'OA'S WZZTAſ OAQ
has perished. What an editor ought to print in such a
case, supposing he has satisfied himself that the best
attested reading is really impossible, may vary according
to circumstances. But it is clearly his duty in some way
to notify the presumed fact of corruption, whether he can
offer any suggestion for its removal or not.
88. In the cases just mentioned, while the best
attested reading is found to be impossible, the other
reading or readings shown by evidence not Intrinsic to
be corruptions of it are or may be found quite possible,
but not more : they derive their Žrima facie, probability
only from an assumed necessity of rejecting their better
attested rival. In other cases the reading (or one of the
readings) shown to be of later origin has very strong
Intrinsic Evidence in its own favour; that is, we have a
combination of positive clear Intrinsic Evidence for the
worse attested reading with negative clear Intrinsic Evi-
dence against the better attested reading. So complete
an inversion of the ordinary and natural distributions of
evidence always demands, it need hardly be said, a
thorough verification before it can be accepted as certain.
It does however without doubt occasionally occur, and
it arises from a state of things fundamentally the same
as in the former cases, with the difference that here a
transcriber has happened to make that alteration which
was needed to bring back the reading of the autograph,
that is, has in the course of transcription made a successful
Conjectural Emendation. No sharp line can in fact be
drawn between the deliberate conjectural emendations of a
modern Scholar and many of the half or wholly unconscious
changes more or less due to mental action which have
arisen in the ordinary course of transcription, more es-
pecially at times when minute textual accuracy has not been
Specially cultivated. An overwhelming proportion of the
cursory emendations thus made and silently embodied in
transcribed texts are of course wrong: but it is no wonder
that under favourable circumstances they should some-
times be right. It may, once more, be a matter of doubt
what form of printed text it will here be most expedient
under given circumstances to adopt. The essential fact
remains under all circumstances, that the conjectural
origin of these readings is not altered by the necessity
of formally including them in the sum of attested read-
ings; and that an editor is bound to indicate in some
manner the conjectural character of any attested reading
WZTAE/OVZ" VAA’ſ 4 /YOAV OA' A' FA/D/AVG 69
which he accepts as the reading intended by the author,
and yet which he does not believe to have been received
by continuous transmission from the autograph.
89. We have dwelt at some length on these two
classes of variations because at first sight they appear to
furnish grounds for distrusting the Supremacy of what we
have ventured to call the higher kinds of evidence. They
not unnaturally suggest the thought that, whatever may
be said in theory respecting the trustworthiness of evi.
dence not Intrinsic, it breaks down in extreme cases, and
must therefore contain some latent flaw which weakens
its force in all. But the suspicion loses all plausibility
when it is seen that it springs from a confusion as to the sub-
ject matter of attestation (see $87), and that the attestation
itself remains as secure in extreme cases as in all others.
The actual uncertainties arise not from any want of cogency
of method, but from inadequate quantity or quality of the
concrete evidence available in this or that particular text
or variation. -
90. Both the classes of variations just considered imply
corruption in the earliest transmitted text. The same fact
of corruption antecedent to extant documentary evidence
has to be recognised in other cases, some of which form
a third class of variations. Besides the variations al-
ready noticed in which the evidence shews one variant
to have been the parent of the rest, while yet on Intrinsic
grounds it cannot be right, there are others in which the
variants have every appearance of being independent of
each other, while yet on Intrinsic grounds none having
sufficiently good documentary attestation, or even none at
all, can be regarded as right: that is to say, a convergence
of phenomena points to some lost reading as the common
origin of the existing readings. Fourthly, there may be
sufficient grounds for inability to accept the transmitted
text even in places where the documents agree.
91. In all four cases the ground of belief that the
transmitted text is wrong is Internal Evidence of Read-
ings. In the third it is or may be a combination of
Intrinsic and Transcriptional Evidence: in the first,
second, and fourth it is exclusively Intrinsic Evidence,
except where recognition of corruption is partly founded
on perception of the lost original reading, which, as we
shall see shortly, involves the use of Transcriptional Evi-
dence. The use of Internal Evidence of Readings in
detecting corruption is precisely identical with its use, or
7 O A. V/D EAVCAE OA' A'R/M/7/VAE AEA'A’OA'S
rather one of its uses, in the discrimination of attested
readings. In coming to a decision on the strength of In-
trinsic Evidence, a Critic makes one of three affirmations
respecting two variants a and 3; (1) a is more probable
than 8; (2) a is not only more probable than 3, and is not
only suitable to the place, but is so exactly and perfectly
suitable that it must be right; and (3) 6 is not only less
probable than a, but so improbable absolutely that it cannot
be right, so that a as the only remaining variant must be right:
(2) and (3) of course include (1), and also are compatible
with each other. Now in pronouncing a text corrupt, he
affirms neither more nor less than in the fundamental
proposition of the third instance, in which he equally finds
his whole evidence exclusively in the reading condemned,
and in its own relations to the context, without reference to
any other variant. In both procedures the affirmation has
against it all the uncertainties which we have pointed out
as inherent in the exclusive use of Intrinsic Evidence:
nevertheless there are places in nearly all texts where its
force is so convincing that the most cautious critic cannot
refuse to make the affirmation, and in every ill preserved
text they abound.
92. The first, second, and fourth cases are essentially
the same. The presence of more than one variant in the
first and second case does not place them on a different
footing from the fourth, because all but the one are by
supposition subsequent to the one, and are therefore
virtually out of sight when the question of accepting the
most original of attested readings as the true reading
arises. A critic may doubtless feel less reluctant to pro-
nounce a reading corrupt when he sees that it gave
trouble to ancient scribes; but the encouragement is due
to corroboration of personal judgement, not to any kind
of evidence ; it comes from the ancient scribes in the
character of Critics, not as witnesses to a transmitted text.
On the other hand the third case has an advantage over
the others by combining a certain measure of Transcrip-
tional with Intrinsic Probability. The supposition of
corruption has the strength of a double foundation when
it not only accounts for our finding an impossible text but
Supplies a common cause for two readings, the apparent
independence of which would otherwise be perplexing;
and this it does even in the absence of any perception as
to what conjectural reading would fulfil the various con-
ditions of the case.
7 I
B. 93–95. AEemoval of £rimitive errors by conjecture
93. In discussing the corruption of texts antecedent
to extant documents, the forms in which it presents itself,
and the nature of the critical process by which it is
affirmed, we have reserved till last a brief notice of
the critical process which endeavours to remedy it, that
is, Conjectural Emendation. Although in practice the
two processes are often united, and a felicitous conjecture
sometimes contributes strong accessory evidence of cor-
ruption, it is not the less desirable that they should be
considered separately. The evidence for corruption is
often irresistible, imposing on an editor the duty of in-
dicating the presumed unsoundness of the text, although
he may be wholly unable to propose any endurable way
of correcting it, or have to offer only suggestions in which
he cannot place full confidence.
94. The art of Conjectural Emendation depends for
its success so much on personal endowments, fertility of
resource in the first instance, and even more an appre-
ciation of language too delicate to acquiesce in merely
plausible corrections, that it is easy to forget its true
character as a critical operation founded on knowledge
and method. Like the process of detecting corruption, it
can make no use of any evidence except Internal Evi-
dence of Readings, but it depends on Intrinsic and
Transcriptional Evidence alike. Where either there is
no variation or one variant is the original of the rest, that
is, in the fourth, first, and second of the cases mentioned
above, two conditions have to be fulfilled by a successful
emendation. As regards Intrinsic Evidence, it must, to
attain complete certainty, be worthy of the second form of
affirmation noticed above, that is, be so exactly and per-
fectly suitable to the place that it cannot but be right;
or, to attain reasonable probability, it must be quite suit-
able to the place positively, and free from all incongruity
negatively. As regards Transcriptional Evidence, it must
be capable of explaining how the transmitted text could
naturally arise out of it in accordance with the ordinary
probabilities of transcription. Where there are more inde-
pendent variants than one, that is, in the third case, the
only difference is that the suggested correction must in
like manner be capable of giving rise naturally to every
such transmitted Reading. Thus in all cases the problem
2 COMy ECTURAZ ZMENDA TION
involved in forming a judgement on a suggested Conjec-
tural Emendation differs in one respect only from the ordi-
nary problems involved in deciding between transmitted
readings on the strength of Intrinsic and Transcriptional
Evidence combined, and of these alone; it consists in
asking whether a given reading out of two or three fulfils
certain conditions well absolutely, whereas in other cases
we ask which of two or three readings fulfils the same
conditions best.
95. The place of Conjectural Emendation in the
textual criticism of the New Testament is however so in-
considerable that we should have hesitated to say even
thus much about it, did it not throw considerable light on
the true nature of all textual criticism, and illustrate the
vast increase of certainty which is gained when we are
able to make full use of Documentary Evidence, and thus
confine Internal Evidence to the subordinate functions
which alone it is normally fitted to discharge.
73
P A RT III
APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM
TO THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
96. The principles of criticism explained in the fore-
going section hold good for all ancient texts preserved in
a plurality of documents. In dealing with the text of the
New Testament no new principle whatever is needed or
legitimate: but no other ancient text admits of So full
and extensive application of all the various means of
discriminating original from erroneous readings which
have been suggested to scholars by study of the con-
ditions of textual transmission. On the one hand the
New Testament, as compared with the rest of ancient
literature, needs peculiarly vigilant and patient handling
on account of the intricacy of evidence due to the un-
exampled amount and antiquity of mixture of different
texts, from which few even of the better documents are
free. On the other it has unique advantages in the
abundance, the antiquity, and above all in the variety of
its documentary evidence, a characteristic specially favour-
able to the tracing of genealogical order.
CHAPTER I. PA’A./C///WAA' V CANA’OAVO/LOGYCA/C
..SOA WE Y OA' ZOOCO//l/A2AVTS
97–128
97. Before entering on the historical phenomena of the
text itself, and the relations between its principal docu-
ments, we think it best to interpose a short general Survey
74. GA’Aº AºA /l/4 AVUSCA2/Z27.S.
of the written evidence with which all criticism has to
deal, presenting it in a form somewhat different from that
of the detailed catalogues which it is the office of other
books to supply. The entire body of documentary evi-
dence, with inconsiderable exceptions, consists of three
parts; extant Greek MSS, ancient translations or “Ver-
sions’ in different languages, and quotations from the New
Testament made by ancient Christian writers or ‘Fathers’.
A. 98–106. Greek A/SS
98. The Greek MSS of the New Testament are
divided into two classes, conventionally though somewhat
incorrectly termed “Uncials’ and “Cursives’, according
as they are written in capital or in minuscule characters.
Since Wetstein's time (1751, 1752) it has been customary to
distinguish Uncials by capital letters, and Cursives for the
most part by arabic numerals. At the head of the list of
Uncials stand four great MSS belonging to the fourth and
fifth centuries. When complete, they all evidently contained
the whole Greek Bible. At least three, and not improbably
all four, had all the books of the New Testament that have
been subsequently recognised as canonical, at least two
containing other books in addition: as two are mutilated
at the end, it is impossible to speak with greater precision.
These four MSS are products of the earlier part of that
second great period of Church history which begins with
the reign of Constantine; the time when the various partial
Canons of Scripture were brought together and as it were
codified in various ways, the first step in the process being
probably the catalogue of Eusebius in his Church History
(of about 325), and the most decisive step, at least for the
Greek churches, the Catalogue of Athanasius in his 39th
Paschal Epistle, of 367. About 332 Constantine directed
Eusebius to have fifty easily legible copies of the complete
Scriptures executed by skilful calligraphers for the use of
the churches in his newly founded capital. We learn
nothing of the texts or the contents of these “sump-
tuously prepared volumes” (Eus. Vää. Consº. IV 37): but if
the contained books corresponded with Eusebius's own
list of a few years earlier (H. E. III 25), none of our present
MSS can well have been of the number. The incident
illustrates however a need which would arise on a smaller
scale in many places, as new and splendid churches came
to be built under the Christian Empire after the great per-
secution: and the four extant copies are doubtless casual
UAVC/A/ GACA2A, K. MAAVUSCAC/ATS 75
examples of a numerous class of MSS, derived from va-
rious origins though brought into existence in the first
instance by similar circumstances. These four are the
Codex Važicanus (B), containing the whole New Testa-
ment except the later chapters of Hebrews, the Pas-
toral Epistles, Philemon, and the Apocalypse; the Codea:
Sinaiticus (8), containing all the books entire; the Co-
dear Alexandrinus (A), containing all, except about the
first 24 chapters of St Matthew's and two leaves of
St John's Gospel and three of 2 Corinthians; and the
Codex Eſhraemi (C), containing nearly three fifths of the
whole (14.5 out of 238 leaves), dispersed over almost
every book, one or more sheets having perished out of
almost every quire of four sheets. The two former appear
to belong to the middle part of the fourth century: the
two latter are certainly of somewhat later date, and are
assigned by the best judges to the fifth century,
The remaining uncial MSS are all of smaller
though variable size. None of them shew signs of having
formed part of a complete Bible, and it is even doubtful
whether any of them belonged to a complete New Testa-
ment. Six alone (including one consisting of mere frag-
ments) are known to have contained more than one of the
groups of books, if we count the Acts and the Apocalypse
as though they were each a group. The Gospels are
contained in fair completeness in nineteen uncial MSS
(including NABC), the Acts in nine, the Catholic Epistles
in seven, the Pauline Epistles in nine (besides the tran-
Scripts E3 and F2), and the Apocalypse in five. The num-
bers given for the Gospels, Acts, and Pauline Epistles do
not include some more or less considerable fragments:
but the line is hard to draw, and much is lost of C and T,
which are included in the list. -
IOO. After the four great Bibles the chronological
distribution becomes remarkable. The fifth century sup-
plies (besides AC) only Q and T, both consisting of frag-
ments of Luke and John ; the sixth century supplies for
the Gospels D (all four, but incomplete), N and P (frag-
ments of all four), 2 (Matthew and Mark, almost com-
plete), R (fragments of Luke), and Z (fragments of Mat-
thew); for the Acts D and E2 (both incomplete); and for
the Pauline Epistles D2 (not quite complete): under each
head some lesser fragments are not reckoned. The
seventh century furnishes merely a few fragments; the
eighth, besides lesser fragments, EL (Gospels), E (large
6 {VAVC/A/ AAV/D CUAES/VE
fragments of Luke), and B2 (Apocalypse). But the MSS
of the ninth and tenth centuries are about as numerous as
those of all preceding centuries together. The preceding
assignation of uncials to this or that century is founded
in most cases on no independent judgement, but on the
published estimates of the best qualified palaeographers.
It is quite possible that some of the intermediate uncials
may be placed a century too high or too low, for the
absence of dated MSS before the ninth century renders
palaeographical determination of the absolute chronology
as yet insecure. The approximate outlines of the rela-
tive or sequential chronology appear however to have
been laid down with reasonable certainty; so that the
total impression left by a chronological analysis of the
list of uncials can hardly be affected by possible errors of
detail. -
IoI. The bilingual uncial MSS have a special interest.
They are, in Greek and Latin, DA of the Gospels, DE2 of
the Acts, and D, EsfajGs of the Pauline Epistles; in
Greek and Thebaic (the language of Upper Egypt), the
fragmentary T of Luke and John, with some still smaller
fragments of the same kind. -
IO2. The Cursive MSS range from the ninth to the
sixteenth centuries. Many of them contain two or nore
groups of books, and about 30 the whole New Testament.
If each MS is counted as one, irrespectively of the books
contained, the total number is between 900 and IOOO.
103. An accessory class of Greek MSS is formed by
Lectionaries or books of ecclesiastical lessons taken from
the New Testament, of which above 4oo have been cata-
logued. Above four fifths contain only Gospel lessons,
most of the rest lessons from the Acts and Epistles, some
few being mixed. About 7o are uncials, and the rest
cursives. None however are believed to be older than
the eighth or possibly the seventh century, and uncial
writing continued in use for Lectionaries some time after
it had become obsolete for complete copies of the New
Testament or complete divisions of it.
IO4. Such is the nominai roll of Greek MSS. If how-
ever we confine our attention to those sufficiently known
to be used regularly as direct evidence, a numerically large
deduction has to be made, the amount of which, as dis-
tinguished from its value, cannot be estimated even in
a rough manner. Comparatively few Lectionaries have as
yet been collated. Some of these have been found to con-
GA*A.A.A. MAAVUSCA2/AP7.S. 77
tain readings of sufficient value and interest to encourage
further enquiry in what is as yet an almost unexplored
region of textual history, but not to promise considerable
assistance in the recovery of the apostolic text. Of the
numerous cursive MSS of the New Testament and its
parts hardly any have been printed in earáeztso. We have
however complete and trustworthy collations of a select
few from Tregelles, and of a large miscellaneous (English)
array from Dr Scrivener, both most careful collators;
and tolerably complete collations of other miscellaneous
assemblages from Alter (Vienna) and Matthaei (chiefly
Moscow and Dresden); with which other collations might
probably be classed. On the customary mode of reckoning,
by which the four traditional divisions of the New Testa-
ment (Acts and Catholic Epistles being counted as one)
are taken separately, the full contents of about I 50 cur-
Sives, besides Lectionaries, may be set down as practi.
cally known from these sources. A much larger number
are known in various degrees of imperfection, Some per-
haps almost as well as those included in this first class,
from the labours of a series of collators, of whom Mill,
Wetstein, Griesbach, Birch, Scholz, and Muralt deserve
Special mention. Many others have been examined only
in selected passages, by which rough presumptions, but
hardly more, can be formed as to the general character of
the text; and many others again are entirely unknown.
IO5. This large amount of present ignorance respecting
the contents of cursives is much to be lamented. Valuable
texts may lie hidden among them ; many of them are
doubtless sprinkled with relics of valuable texts now de-
stroyed; and fresh collations always throw more or less
light on the later history of the text generally, and some-
times On its earlier history. But enough is already known
to enable us to judge with reasonable certainty as to the
proportional annount of valuable evidence likely to be
buried in the copies as yet uncollated. If we are to trust
the analogy thus provided, which agrees with what might
have been anticipated from the average results of con-
tinued transcription generally, nothing can well be less
probable than the discovery of cursive evidence sufficiently
important to affect present conclusions in more than a
handful of passages, much less to alter present interpreta-
tions of the relations between the existing documents.
IO6. The nominal list of uncials needs hardly any
appreciable deductions to make it a true representation
78 A 7TWAV VAEA2S/OAVS
of the umcial evidence completely available. With the
exception of the lately discovered >, all the older and
more important uncials, some fragments excepted, have
now been published in continuous texts, and the various
readings of the rest are included in the affaratus critici of
Tischendorf and (with unimportant exceptions) of Tregelies.
B. Io'7—122. Versions
Io?. The second class of documents consists of Ver-
sions, that is, ancient translations of the whole or parts of
the New Testament, made chiefly for the service of churches
in which Greek was at least not habitually spoken. Be-
sides some outlying Versions, there are three principal
classes, the LATIN, the SYRIAC, and the EGYPTIAN. The
history of all is still more or less obscure.
Io8. The LATIN MSS are usually classified under two
heads, “Old Latin’ (sometimes miscalled “Italic’) and ‘Vul-
gate’. For some purposes the distinction is convenient
and almost necessary: but it disguises the fact that there
is a wider difference between the earlier and the later
stages of the “Old Latin’ (in this comprehensive sense of
the term) than between the later stages and the Vulgate.
The statements of Tertullian leave no doubt that when
he wrote, near the beginning of the third century, a Latin
translation of the New Testament was already current in
North Africa. How much earlier it came into existence,
and in what manner, cannot be ascertained; but it may
be reasonably assumed to have originated in Africa. An
exact and authentic transcript of portions of the African
text is conveyed to us by the early Latin patristic quota-
tions. The rich evidence supplied by Tertullian’s works
is indeed difficult to disentangle, because he was fond of
using his knowledge of Greek by quoting Scripture in im-
mediate and original renderings, the proportion of which
to his quotations from the existing version is indeter-
minate but certainly large. This disturbing element is
absent however from Cyprian's quotations, which are
fortunately copious and carefully made, and thus afford
trustworthy standards of African Old Latin in a very
early though still not the earliest stage.
Io9. In the fourth century we find current in Western
Europe, and especially in North Italy, a second type of
text, the precise relation of which to the African text of
the second and third centuries has not yet been clearly
ascertained. These two Latin texts have very much in
AFRICAN AUROPEAN A 7.1/./AAW 79
common, both in the underlying Greek text and in lan-
guage; and many of the differences are fully compatible
with the supposition that the African was the parent of
the European text, having undergone revision when it
travelled northwards, and been in Some measure adapted
to the needs of a more highly cultivated population. On
the other hand, other differences, not so easily accounted
for by this process, afford some justification for the
alternative view that Italy had an indigenous version of
her own, not less original than the African. The dis-
tinctively African renderings which occur not unfre-
quently in some of the best European documents may
be explained in conformity with either view; as survivors
from an earlier, state, or as aliens introduced by mixture.
Recent investigations have failed to solve this difficult
problem, and it must be left for further examination:
fortunately the value of the two early forms of the Latin
text is not appreciably affected by the uncertainty. The
name “Old Latin’, in its narrower and truer sense, may
properly be retained for both, where there is no need of
distinguishing them, and for the European text, where
the African is not extant or never existed; the special
designations ‘African Latin' and “European Latin’ being
employed where they bear a divided testimony.
I Io. After the middle of the fourth century we meet
with Latin texts which must be referred to a third type.
They are evidently due to various revisions of the
European text, made partly to bring it into accord with
such Greek MSS as chanced to be available, partly to
give the Latinity a smoother and more customary aspect.
In itself the process was analogous to that by which the
European text must have been formed, on the supposition
that it was of African parentage: but, as we shall see
presently, the fundamental text now underwent more
serious changes, owing to the character of the Greek MSS
chiefly employed. The fact that the Latin text found in
many of Augustine's writings is of this type has long been
used with good reason to shew what he meant by the
Itala which he names in a single laudatory notice (De
doct. Chr. ii I5). Without doubt this name was intended
to distinguish the version or text which he had in view
from the “African' version or text with which he was
likewise familiar (‘codices Afros’ Retr. i. 21 3). The only
open question is whether he had definitely before his
mind a special text due to a recent North Italian re-
SO VOA, GAZTAE LA 7TWAV VA. R.S.ZOAV
vision, as has been usually assumed by those who have
interpreted rightly the general bearing of his words, or
was merely thinking of the text of Italy in such a com-
prehensive Sense as would include what we have called
the European text. The former view was a necessary
inference from the assumption that the best known
Old Latin MSS of the Gospels had a strictly African
text: but much of its probability is lost when it is seen
how far removed they are from a Cyprianic standard.
But whatever may be the precise force of the term as
used by Augustine, such revised texts as those which he
himself employed constitute an important stage in the
history of the Latin New Testament: and it can hardly
lead to misunderstanding if we continue to denote them
by the convenient name “Italian’.
III. The endless multiplicity of text in the Latin copies
at length induced Jerome, about 383, to undertake a more
thorough revision of the same kind. We learn from his
own account nothing about his Greek MSS except that
they were “old”; or about his mode of proceeding except
that he made no alterations but such as were required by
the sense, and that he kept specially in view the removal
of the numerous interpolated clauses by which the Gospels
were often brought into factitious similarity to each other
in parallel passages. Internal evidence shews that the
Latin MSS which he took as a basis for his corrections
contained an already revised text, chiefly if not wholly
‘Italian’ in character. In the Gospels his changes seem
to have been comparatively numerous; in the other books
of the New Testament, which he left without any expla–
natory preface, but which he must have taken in hand as
soon as the Gospels were finished, his changes were evi-
dently much scantier and more perfunctory. It is worthy of
notice that readings distinctly adopted in his own writings
are not seldom at variance with the revised text which
bears his name. These discrepancies may possibly be
due to a change of view subsequent to the revision: but
in any case it would be rash to assume that Jerome deli-
berately considered and approved every reading found in
his text, even of the Gospels, and much more of the other
books which passed through his hands. The name ‘Vul-
gate’ has long denoted exclusively the Latin Bible as
revised by Jerome; and indeed in modern times no con-
tinuous text of any other form of the Latin version or
versions was known before 1695. -
OZZ) ZA TWAV GOS/2.É./.S ; 8 I
II2. Generations not a few had passed before the
Hieronymic revision had even approximately displaced the
chaos of unrevised and imperfectly revised Latin texts; and
during the period of simultaneous use the Latin Vulgate,
as we may now call it, suffered much in purity by the
casual resumption of many readings expelled or refused by
Jerome. Scribes accustomed to older forms of text cor-
rupted by unwitting reminiscence the Vulgate which they
were copying; so that an appreciable part of Jerome's
work had been imperceptibly undone when the Vulgate
attained its final triumph. Partly from this cause, partly
from the ordinary results of transcription, the Vulgate text
underwent progressive deterioration till long after the close
of the Middle Ages, notwithstanding various partial at-
tempts at correction. . At length the authoritative “Cle-
mentine’ revision or recension of 1592 removed many cor-
ruptions. Many others however were left untouched, and
no critically revised text of the Latin Vulgate New Testa-
ment founded systematically on more than one or two of
the best MSS has yet been edited. The text of at least
two of the best as yet known, and a very few others com-
paratively good, has however been printed at full length.
I 13. The existing MSS of the Old Latin Gospels, dis-
tinguished by small letters, belong for the most part to
the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries: one however (c),
strange to say, was written as late as the eleventh cen-
tury. Hardly any are quite complete, and those which
contain more than inconsiderable fragments amount to
about fourteen, of which on an average scarcely more
than half are extant in any one passage: in this compu-
tation Ante-Hieronymic texts of all types are included.
Among the few fragments not counted are two leaves
which agree closely with one of the comparatively com-
plete MSS: but with this exception all known MSS shew
more or less textual individuality, and there are many
traces of sporadic and casual mixture. Two of the MSS
(e Å) are substantially African, a large proportion of their
texts being absolutely identical with that of Cyprian,
where he differs from European MSS and Fathers; but
each has also an admixture of other readings: both are
unfortunately very imperfect, e having lost above two-
fifths of its contents, chiefly in Matthew and Mark, and
Æ above three-fourths, including the whole of Luke and
John. Two other MSS (fg), and one or two fragments,
must be classed as ‘Italian'. The remaining ten, though
S
8
2 O//D / A 7TWAV ACTS AAD O7"A/FA2 BOOA'S
African readings are found to a certain extent in some of
them, and Italian readings in others, have all substan-
tially European texts.
II4. Various modifications of late revision and mix-
ture are represented in some Latin MSS of the Gospels,
which do not properly fall under any one of the preceding
heads. Four of them are usually marked as Old Latin
(ſº gº.” l); but most of the number pass simply as copies
of the Vulgate. With few exceptions their texts are as
yet imperfectly known; and the relations of their texts to
each other, and to the Hieronymic or any other late re-
visions, have still to be investigated. They are certainly
however in most cases, and not improbably in all, monu-
ments of the process described above (§ 1 I2) by which
Old Latin readings, chiefly European but in a few cases
African, found their way into texts fundamentally Hiero-
nymic. The chief worth of these Mixed Vulgate MSS.
for the criticism of the Greek text consists in the many
valuable particles of Latin texts antecedent to the Vulgate
which have thus escaped extinction by displacing Jerome's
proper readings. Mixed texts of this class are not con-
fined to the Gospels; but in the other books, so far as
they are yet known, their Ante-Hieronymic elements con-
tain a much smaller proportion of valuable materials.
II 5. The Gospels alone are extant in a series of tolerably
complete Old Latin MSS. For most of the other books we
have, strictly speaking, nothing but fragments, and those
covering only a small proportion of verses. The delusive
habit of quoting as Old Latin the Latin texts of bilingual
MSS has obscured the real poverty of evidence. These
MSS are in Acts Cod. Bezae (D, d; as in the Gospels)
and Cod. Laudianus (Es, e), and in St Paul's Epistles Cod.
Claromon fanzas (D2, d) and Cod. Boernerianus (G3, g;
without Hebrews). The origin of the Latin text, as clearly
revealed by internal evidence, is precisely similar in all
four MSS. A genuine (independent) Old Latin text has
been adopted as the basis, but altered throughout into
verbal conformity with the Greek text by the side of which
it was intended to stand. Here and there the assimilation
has accidentally been incomplete, and the scattered dis-
crepant readings thus left are the only direct Old Latin
evidence for the Greek text of the New Testament which
the bilingual MSS supply. A large proportion of the
Latin texts of these MSS is indeed, beyond all reasonable
doubt, unaltered Old Latin: but where they exactly cor-
OZZO ZATIN A2A7RISTIC QUOTATIONS 83
respond to the Greek, as they do habitually, it is impos-
sible to tell how much of the accordance is original, and
how much artificial; so that for the criticism of the Greek
text the Latin reading has here no independent authority.
The Latin texts of A of the Gospels and F2 of St Paul’s
Epistles are Vulgate, with a partial adaptation to the
Greek. Besides the Graeco-Latin MSS there are four
Gothico-Latin leaves of Romans. -
116. The relics of genuine Old Latin MSS of the
books after the Gospels are as follows. For Acts: a few
palimpsest leaves of an African text (%); a complete
European copy (g), and also the story of Stephen from
a Lectionary (gº), both agreeing closely with the quota-
tions of Lucifer; and some palimpsest fragments of the
later chapters (s), with a text of the same general type.
For the Catholic Epistles: one (? European) MS of St
James, and some fragments of the next three epistles in
a later (? Italian) text (g): the palimpsest fragments of
James and I Peter accompanying s of Acts are apparently
Vulgate only. For the Pauline Epistles: considerable
Italian fragments of eight epistles (?), with leaves from
two other MSS having similar texts (r. 73). For the
Apocalypse: two palimpsest leaves of a purely African
text (h), and a late European text of the whole book (g).
Other portions of Ante-Hieronymic texts of different
books are said to have been discovered in Italy; and
doubtless others will in due time be brought to light.
II.7. This is the fitting place to speak of the quota-
tions made by Latin Fathers, for they constitute a not less
important province of Old Latin evidence than the extant
MSS; not only furnishing landmarks for the investigation
of the history of the version, but preserving numerous
verses and passages in texts belonging to various ages and
in various stages of modification. Even in the Gospels
their aid is always welcome, often of the highest value;
while in all other books they supply not only a much
greater bulk of evidence than our fragmentary MSS, but
also in not a few cases texts of greater antiquity. Some
books and parts of books are of course much worse repre-
sented than others, more especially such books as formed
no part of the original North African Canon. But in the
Apocalypse Primasius, an African writer of the sixth cen-
tury, has preserved to us an almost uninterrupted text,
which is proved by its close similarity to the quotations of
Cyprian to be African Latin of high purity. Thus, sin-
84 w SYRIAC VERS/OAVS
gularly enough, the Apocalypse possesses the unique
advantage of having been preserved in a Latin text at
once continuous and purely African. The quotations of
other late African Fathers from various books exhibit an
African text much altered by degeneracy and mixture,
but preserving many ancient readings.
I 18. The SYRIAC versions are, strictly speaking, three
in number. The principal is the great popular version
commonly called the Peshito or Simple. External evidence
as to its date and history is entirely wanting: but there is
no reason to doubt that it is at least as old as the Latin
version. Till recently it has been known only in the form
which it finally received by an evidently authoritative re-
vision, a Syriac “Vulgate’ answering to the Latin ‘Vul-
gate’. The impossibility of treating this present form of
the version as a true representation of its original text,
without neglecting the clearest internal evidence, was per-
ceived by Griesbach and Hug about the beginning of this
century: it must, they saw, have undergone subsequent
revision in conformity with Greek MSS. In other words,
an Old Syriac must have existed as well as an Old Latin.
Within the last few years the surmise has been verified.
An imperfect Old Syriac copy of the Gospels, assigned
to the fifth century, was found by Cureton among MSS
brought to the British Museum from Egypt in 1842, and
was published by him in 1858. The character of the fun-
damental text confirms the great antiquity of the version
in its original form ; while many readings suggest that, like
the Latin version, it degenerated by transcription and per-
haps also by irregular revision. The rapid variation which
we know the Greek and Latin texts to have undergone in
the earliest centuries could hardly be absent in Syria; so
that a single MS cannot be expected to tell us more of
the Old Syriac generally than we should learn from any
one average Old Latin MS respecting Old Latin texts
generally. But even this partially corrupted text is not
only itself a valuable authority but renders the compara-
tively late and ‘revised’ character of the Syriac Vulgate a
matter of certainty. The authoritative revision seems to
have taken place either in the latter part of the third or in
the fourth century. Hardly any indigenous Syriac theology
older than the fourth century has been preserved, and
even from that age not much available for textual criti-
cism. Old Syriac readings have been observed as used
A. G. YP//AAV. VERS/OAVS - 85
by Ephraim and still more by Aphraates: but at present
there are no means of supplying the lack of Old Syriac
MSS to any appreciable extent from patristic quotations.
Of the Old Syriac Acts and Epistles nothing as yet is
known. The four minor Catholic Epistles and the Apo-
calypse, not being included in the Canon of the Syrian
Churches, form no part of the true Syriac Vulgate, but are
extant in supplementary versions. None of the editions
of the Syriac Vulgate come up to the requirements of
criticism : but considerable accessions to the evidence
for the Greek text are hardly to be looked for from this
SOUII Ce. - . . - .
II9. A second version, closely literal in its renderings,
was made by Polycarpus for Philoxenus of Mabug in 508.
Little is known of it in this its original condition. We
possess a revision of it made by Thomas of Harkel in 616,
containing all the New Testament except the Apocalypse.
The margin contains various readings taken from Greek
MSS, which must either have been ancient or have had
ancient texts. A third version, written in a peculiardialect,
is found almost exclusively in Gospel Lesson-books, and
is commonly called the Jerusalem Syriac. The text is of
ancient character: but there is no other evidence to shew
when the version was made. Besides one almost com-
plete Lesson-book known for some time, a few consider-
able fragments have lately come to light. They include a
few verses of the Acts. Various signs render it likely that
both these versions were in some sense founded on One
or other of the two forms of the Peshito. But the whole
Subject awaits fuller investigation. - -
12o. The third great group of Versions is the EGYPTIAN.
The Coptic or Egyptian versions proper are three, very un-
equally preserved. The Memphitic, the version of Lower
Egypt, sometimes loosely designated as the Coptic, con-
tains the whole New Testament, though it does not follow
that all the books were translated at the same period,
and the Apocalypse was apparently not treated as a
canonical book. The greater part of the version cannot
well be later than the second century. A very small number
of the known MSS have been used in the existing editions,
and that on no principle of selection. A cursory examina-
tion by Dr Lightfoot has recently shown much diversity
of text among the MSS; and in Egypt, as elsewhere, corrup-
tion was doubtless progressive. The version of Upper
86 AAEM/ZZVZ.4 AV AAV/O GO TH// C VAER.S.ZOAVS
Egypt, the Thebaic or Sahidic, was probably little if at
all inferior in antiquity. It in like manner contained
the whole New Testament, with the Apocalypse as an
appendix. . No one book is preserved complete, but the
number of extant fragments, unfortunately not yet all
published, is considerable. Of the third Egyptian version,
the Bashmuric, about 330 verses from St John's Gospel
and the Pauline Epistles alone survive. . With the
Egyptian versions proper it is at least convenient to asso-
ciate the AEthiopic, the version of ancient Abyssinia, dating
from the fourth or fifth century. Though written in a
totally different language, it has strong affinities of text
with its northern neighbours. The best judges maintain
its direct derivation from a Greek original: but neither
this question nor that of the relation of the Thebaic to the
Memphitic version can be treated as definitively settled
while so much of the evidence remains unpublished. The
numerous MSS of the AEthiopic have been ascertained to
vary considerably, and give evidence of revision: but the
two editions yet printed are both unsatisfactory. No book
of the New Testament is wanting.
121. Besides the three great groups two solitary ver-
sions are of considerable interest, the one from outlying
Asia, the other from outlying Europe. These are the AR-
MENIAN and the GOTHIC. The ARMENIAN, which is com-
plete, was made early in the fifth century. Some modern
copies, followed by the first printed edition, contain cor-
ruptions from the Latin Vulgate: but the Armenian trans-
lators certainly followed Greek MSS, probably obtained
from Cappadocia, the mother of Armenian Christianity.
The GOTHIC version, the work of Ulfilas the great bishop
of the Goths, dates from the middle of the fourth century.
He received a Greek education from his Christian parents,
originally Cappadocians: and Greek MSS unquestionably
supplied the original for his version. We possess the
Gospels and the Pauline Epistles (Hebrews excepted),
with many gaps, admirably edited from MSS of about the
sixth century.
I22. The other versions are of comparatively late date,
and of little direct value for the Greek text, though some
of them, as the Slavonic, bear traces of ancient texts.
Most of them are only secondary translations from other
versions, chiefly the Latin and Syriac Vulgates.
87
C. 123–126. Fathers
I23. The third class of documentary evidence is Sup-
plied by the writings of the Fathers, which enable us with
more or less certainty to discover the readings of the MS
or MSS of the New Testament which they employed. The
quotations naturally vary in form from verbal transcripts
of passages, short or long, through loose citations down to
slight allusions. Nay there are cases in which the ab-
sence of even an allusion allows the text read by an author
to be inferred with tolerable certainty: but this negative
evidence is admissible only with the utmost caution.
I24. Besides the evidence as to the texts used by an-
cient writers which is supplied by their quotations, allusions,
or silences, a few of them sometimes make direct asser-
tions as to variations of reading within their knowledge.
The form of assertion varies much, now appearing as a
statement that, for instance, “ some” or “many ” or “the
most accurate” “copies” contain this or that variant, now
as an allegation that the true reading has been perversely
depraved by rash or by heretical persons for some special
end. This whole department of patristic evidence has a
peculiar interest, as it brings vividly before the reader
the actual presence of existing variations, at a remote
antiquity. Its true value is twofold: for the history of
the whole text it certifies two or more alternative readings
as simultaneously known at a definite time or locality;
and for the settlement of the text in a given passage it
usually enables the reading adopted by the writer to be
known with a higher degree of certainty than is attainable in
a majority of cases by means of ordinary quotations. But
this superior certitude must not be confounded with higher
authority: the relative excellence or the historical position
of the text employed by a Father has nothing to do with
the relative adequacy of our means of ascertaining what
his text actually was. Moreover in the statements them-
selves the contemporary existence of the several variants
mentioned is often all that can be safely accepted: reliance
on what they tell us beyond this bare fact must depend
on the estimate which we are able to form of the oppor-
tunities, critical care, and impartiality of the respective
writers. -
I25. An enumeration of the Greek Fathers would be
out of place here. The names most important in textual
criticism will come before us presently, when we have to
88 GAZZX PATRZSZZC QUOTA ZZOAVS
speak of the peculiar value of their evidence as enabling
us to trace the outlines of the early history of the text.
This is however the place for observing that the extent of
patristic evidence still preserved is considerably less than
might have been a fºriori anticipated. Numerous verses
of the New Testament are rarely or never quoted by the
Fathers: the gaps in the evidence are still more striking
if we take the Ante-Nicene Fathers by themselves. A small
portion of Origen's commentaries is virtually all that re-
mains to us of the continuous connmentaries on the New
Testament belonging to this period: they include Matt. xiii
36—xxii 33 in the original Greek (perhaps in an abridged
form), and Matt. xvi I3—xxvii 66 in a condensed Latin
translation, preserving matter not found in the Greek now
extant; some verses of St Luke (a much condensed Latin
translation of Homilies on i–iv, not continuous, and on
five later passages of St Luke being also extant); John i
I —7, 19–29; ii I.2–25; iv. I3–54; viii 19–25 and 37–53;
xi 39–57; xiii 2–33 (little more than a sixth of the whole)
in the full original text; Romans in the much condensed
and much altered version of Rufinus; many verses of
I Corinthians and Ephesians; and a few scattered verses
of some of the other books. The extant commentaries
and continuous series of homilies written before the middle
of the fifth century are as follows:—Theodore of Mop-
suestia on the minor Pauline Epistles in a Latin transla.
tion; Chrysostom's Homilies, which include St Matthew,
St John, Acts (ill preserved), and all the Pauline Epistles;
Theodoret on all the Pauline Epistles, his notes being
chiefly founded on the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia
and Chrysostom; and Cyril of Alexandria's Homilies on
St Luke (many fragments in Greek and large portions
in a Syriac translation) and Commentary on John i I—x
17; xii. 49—end, with fragments on the rest of the book
and on the other Gospels and several of the Pauline
Epistles; together with fragments by other writers pre-
served in Catenae under various conditions, sometimes
apparently in their original integrity, but much oftener in
a condensed and partly altered shape.
126. It is on the whole best to class with patristic
evidence a few collections of biblical extracts, with little
or no intervening matter, selected and arranged for
doctrinal or ethical purposes. … The Ethica of Basil of
Caesarea (Cent. IV) and the Parallela Sacra of John of
Damascus (Cent. VIII) are the best known Greek ex-
DOCUMENTARY AWD OTHER PRAEPARAZYON. 89
amples: parts of some of Cyril of Alexandria's dogmatic
writings, especially the Thesaurus, have nearly the same
character. A Latin collection of a similar kind, the
Søeculum which wrongly bears the name of Augustine,
but is of unknown authorship, has usually been placed
with Old Latin MSS under the signature 772, and contains
an interesting but not early Old Latin text. Of much the
same structure are the three books of Zestimonia by
Cyprian, and indeed a large part of his little treatise De
exhortatione martyrii addressed to Fortunatus.
127, 128. Z)0cumentary preparation for this edition
127. It is right that we should here explain to what
extent we have thought it our duty to take part ourselves
in the indispensable preparatory work of Collecting docu-
mentary evidence. Great services have been rendered by
scholars who have been content to explore and amass texts
and readings for the use of others; or again who have dis-
cussed principles and studied documents without going
on to edit a text. On the other hand an editor of the New
Testament cannot completely absolve himself from either
of these two preliminary tasks without injury to his own
text: but the amount of personal participation required
is widely different for the two cases. If he has not worked
out at first hand the many and various principles and
generalisations which are required for solving the succes-
sive problems presented by conflicts of evidence, the re-
sulting text is foredoomed to insecurity: but the collection
of evidence is in itself by no means an indispensable ap-
prenticeship for the study of it. :* *
- 128. We have accordingly made no attempt to follow
the example of those editors who, besides publishing criti-
cal texts of the New Testament, have earned the gratitude
of all who come after them by collation of MSS and accu-
mulation of registered evidence in the form of an affa–
7atus criticus. As we have never proposed to do more
than edit a manual text, so we have no considerable
private stores to add to the common stock. The fresh
evidence which we have obtained for our own use has
been chiefly patristic, derived in a great measure from
writings or fragments of writings first published during the
last hundred years, or now edited from better MSS than
were formerly known. While in this and other respects the
evidence already accessible to all students has been to a
90 Z/M/ZS OF DOCUMENZ.4A Y PREPARA 7/OAV
certain limited extent augmented, it "has of course been
frequently verified and re-examined, not only for the sake
of clearing up ambiguities or doubts, but because the need-
ful experience could hardly be otherwise acquired. The
exigencies of our task demanded a personal acquaintance
with the outward phenomena of MSS, with the continuous
texts of individual MSS and versions, and with the varying
conditions under which the New Testament is quoted and
referred to by the Fathers; for no information at second
hand can secure the conveyance of a correct and vivid
impression of the true and complete facts by bare lists of
authorities cited for a succession of detached and sharply
defined various readings. But we have deliberately chosen
on the whole to rely for documentary evidence on the
stores accumulated by our predecessors, and to confine
ourselves to our proper work of investigating and editing
the text itself. Such a concentration of labour ought at
least to favour an impartial survey of the entire field of
evidence, and to give time and opportunity for prolonged
consideration of the text and its history in various lights.
CHAPTER II. RESULTS OF GENEA/LOGICAL
A. VIDAEAVCAE AEA’OAAEA’
I 29–25.5
SECTION I. DETERMINATION OF THE GENEALOGICAL
RELATIONS OF THE CHIEF ANCIENT TEXTS
129–168
-: ,
129. After this short preliminary survey of the ex-
isting documents out of which the text of the New Testa-
ment has to be recovered, we have now to describe the
chief facts respecting their ancestry and the character of
their texts which have been learned by study of their
contents or from any other sources, and which render it
possible to deal securely with their numerous variations
GAEAVEA ZOG Y OF EXTAAV7' 7"EXTS 9 I
in accordance with the principles of criticism explained
in the preceding section. We have already seen, first,
that decision upon readings requires previous knowledge
of documents, and secondly that the most valuable part
of the knowledge of individual documents implies a
previous knowledge of the genealogical history of the
text as a whole. The first step therefore towards fixing
the places of the existing documents relatively to each
other is to employ them conjointly as evidence for dis-
covering the more ancient ramifications of transmission;
and for this purpose the whole mass of documents of
all dates and all kinds must at the outset be taken into
aCCOUnt.
A. 130, 131. Priority of all greaf zariations fo Cenſ. V
130. A glance at any tolerably complete affaratus
criticus of the Acts or Pauline Epistles reveals the striking
fact that an overwhelming proportion of the variants com-
mon to the great mass of cursive and late uncial Greek
MSS are identical with the readings followed by Chry-
sostom (ob. 407) in the composition of his Homilies.
The coincidence furnishes evidence as to place as well
as time; for the whole of Chrysostom's life, the last ten
years excepted, was spent at Antioch or in its neigh-
bourhood. Ilittle research is needed to shew that this
is no isolated phenomenon: the same testimony, subject
to minor qualifications unimportant for the present pur-
pose, is borne by the scattered quotations from these and
other books of the New Testament found in his volu-
minous works generally, and in the fragments of his
fellow-pupil Theodorus of Antioch and Mopsuestia, and
in those of their teacher Diodorus of Antioch and Tarsus.
92 SYRAAV AAWD O ZTAER Z.E.A.D.IMG ZTE.X. ZS
The fundamental text of late extant Greek MSS generally
is beyond all question identical with the dominant An-
tiochian or Graeco-Syrian text of the second half of the
fourth century. The community of text implies on
genealogical grounds a community of parentage : the
Antiochian Fathers and the bulk of extant MSS written
from about three or four to ten or eleven centuries later
must have had in the greater number of extant varia-
tions a common original either contemporary with or
older than our oldest extant MSS, which thus lose at
once whatever presumption of exceptional purity they
might have derived from their exceptional antiquity alone.
I31. The application of analogous tests to other
groups of documents leads to similar results. The requi-
site chronological criteria are to be found in the Greek pa-
tristic evidence of the second, third and fourth centuries; in
the Latin patristic evidence of the third and fourth centuries;
in the Old Latin version, as dated indirectly by the Latin
patristic evidence; in the Vulgate Latin, the Gothic, and
virtually the Armenian versions, as dated by external evi-
dence; and the two (or possibly three) oldest extant
Greek MSS, B, s, and A.; the Armenian version and
probably A being however a little over the line. To
this list may safely be added the Old and Vulgate Syriac,
as they have some sufficient if slight patristic attestation
in the early part of the fourth century, although the
evidence which completely establishes their antiquity,
being inferential, would not entitle them to a place here;
and also the two principal Egyptian versions, the early
age of which, though destitute of the testimony which it
would doubtless have received from the preservation of
an early Coptic literature, is established by historical
considerations independent of the character of the texts.
No7 IATER THAN FOURTH CENTURY 93
The list, however limited, contains a sufficient variety of
strictly or approximately direct historical evidence to
enable us at once to refer to the fourth century at latest
the original of nearly every considerable group of extant
documents which frequently recurs in the affaratus criti-
cus, and indeed to carry back some to the third, and
others to the second century. In each Case the genea-
logical process here employed can of course do no more
than supply an inferior limit of age: a lost original thus
proved to be as old as the fourth century may, for all
that we have thus far seen, be in reality as old as the
other lost originals which can be positively referred to
earlier times. What we have gained is the limitation of
enquiry by the knowledge that all the important ramifica.
tions of transmission preceded the fifth century. -
B. 132–151. Posteriority of Syrian (8) to ‘West.
ern' (6) and other (neutral, a) readings shown
(1) by analysis of Conſlate ſteadings
132. Within this comparatively restricted field we
have next to investigate the genealogical relations of the
principal groups of documents, or, what is virtually the
same thing, of their respective lost originals, following
partly, as before, external evidence, partly the indications
of sequence obtained by Internal Evidence of the Groups
as wholes. The presence of early and extensive mixture
betrays itself at once in the number and intricacy of cross
distributions of attestation (see $60), and thus it becomes
important to ascertain at the outset whether any whole
groups have been affected by it; and if such can be
found, to determine the contributory groups which are
thereby proved not merely to be of earlier date, but to
have been the actual parents of the groups of mixed origin.
94. AI./. US 7/8A 7TWO.VS OF
133. The clearest evidence for this purpose, as we
have already seen ($62), is furnished by conflate readings,
where they exist; and in the case of some of the primary
groupings of the textual documents of the New Testament
they are fortunately not wanting. Before proceeding
however to examine some examples of this kind, it may
be well to notice a few illustrations of the phenomenon
of ‘conflation’ in its simpler form, as exhibited by
single documents. Here and always we shall use the
ordinary notation, unless there is sufficient reason for
departing from it: a list of special symbols and abbre-
viations employed is given in the Appendix. In Acts vi 8,
where the two readings TAjpms Xàpitos and TAſipms tri-
orreos are attested each by a plurality of documents, E,
alone combines them, by means of a conjunction, reading
TAſp7s Xàputos kai trio reos. In Mark vi 56 the Latin
MS a couples the readings év taſs dyopaſs and év tats
TAaretats by a conjunction, and slightly modifies them,
reading in fora et in plateis. In John v 37 D makes
ékeſvos adrós out of ékéſvos and airós without a conjunc-
tion ; and similarly John xiii 24 stands in one principal
text as večew oiv totrº X. II. Kai Aéyet airó Eirē tis
éo tw Trept of Aéyet, in another as veſſet obv Totºrº X. II.
Trvóórðat tis &v ein Tept of Aéyet, while 8 adds one form
to the other, merely changing a tense, and reads veijet
oëv roſrº S. II. Tv6éoffat tis &v ein rept of Aeyev, kai
Aéyet airó Eirē ris &otiv Tepi of Aéyet. In I Cor. x 19
the readings tº obv ºbnut ; Śrt eiðoxóðvröv Ti éotiv ; )
ôtt eiðoxév tá čotiv ; and tâ obv ºbnut ; 6tt eiðoxóðvrów
gotiv twº oty &rt eiðoxóv čariv ru, or their Latin equiva-
lents, are ingeniously interwoven by fu/d, as Zuid ergo
dico 2 quod idolis immolatum sit aliquid, aut quod idolum
siſ aliguid 2 mon quod idolum sit aſiguid. Luke xvi 3o
COAVAZA 7TE A2AA D/NGS 95
illustrates another kind of combination, in which part of
a longer reading is replaced by the whole of the shorter
reading: for éâv Tus ék velºpóv tropeuffſ, Tpós airoës or
Čáv tis ŠK vexpów avaortfi (implied in the Latin reading
si guis ex mortuis resurrexerit [v. 1. surrexerif) N has āv
tus ék verpov dvao tº Tpós airočs, while two or three other
documents retain both verbs. In I Cor. i 8 the Latin Vul-
gate effects the combination by making the one element
dependent on the other, changing the Old Latin in ad-
zenfu ZX/mini nostri (év tá trapovo (g toº kvptov juáv) into
in die adventus Domini nostri by incorporating the Greek
reading év tá juépg. Tod kvptov juáv. Bold conflations,
of various types, are peculiarly frequent in the AEthiopic
version, at least in the extant MSS.
134. We now proceed to conflate readings involving
important groups of documents, premising that we do
not attempt to notice every petty variant in the passages
cited, for fear of confusing the substantial evidence.
Mark vi 33 (following kai élèav attoos jºrd yovras kai
|éTéyvoorov ToMAoi, kai Teófi diró ardo'ov Tóv troXéov
ovvéðpopov čkeſ)
(a) Kai Tpoſix0ow airo's NB (LA 13) It (39) 49
lat. Vg me arm (LA 13 lt 39 have
Tpooij}\}ov)
Kai Tpoſix0ov airów airod syr.vg
(3) kai ovv^\{}ov adroj D 28 5
kai Affov adroſ, 81 ff i
kai m\}ov (Z
Ol]]. cu” ()
(8) kai Tpoff}\}ov attoos kai ovv^\{}ov trpoc at Tów
AEFGHRMUVTII cu.omn.exc.8
f / Syr.hl aeth
96 A.Y.4/l/AZAZS OF S VRIAAW RAEAD/AWGS
135. Here we have two short readings of three words
each (a, 8), differing only by the preposition compounded
with the verb and by the presence or absence of the last
letter, having therefore a strong prima facie appearance
of being derived the one from the other. The documents
attesting a are four uncials (two of them our two oldest),
three cursives, and at least three versions in different
languages, one of them made late in Cent. IV, one early
in Cent, v, and the third of age treated as not yet de-
termined, but at least not later than Cent. III. The
Vulgate Syriac is on the whole a supporter of a, as it
reads Tpoſjåffov and has but one clause: its ending may
be due either to modified reduplication of the last word
of a or, more probably, to conflation with the last word
of 8. For B (and the readings evidently derived from
it) we have an uncial of Cent. VI, two cursives, and three
Old Latin MSS. No true Old Latin MS is in any way
favourable to a or 6 against 8: two, ek, which contain
other parts of this Gospel, are absent; as are also the
Thebaic and Old Syriac and Jerusalem Syriac versions.
The longer reading 8, which is that of the Received Text,
is supported by eleven uncials, one of them of Cent. V (or
possibly Iv) and the rest not earlier than Cent. VIII; all
cursives except five; two Latin MSS belonging appro-
ximately to the Italian revision, which cannot be
younger and is probably not older than Cent. Iv; and two
versions unquestionably later than Cent. Iv.
136. If now we compare the three readings with
reference to Transcriptional Probability, it is evident
that either 8 is conflate from a and B, or a and B are inde-
pendent simplifications of 6; for the similarity of aito) and
abrońc, combined with the relative dissimilarity of both
to Tpós airów, shews that 8 can hardly have been a pas-
CONFZATE FROM EARZAZR RAEAZ)/AWGS 97
Sage from a to 8 or from 3 to a ; and the independent
derivation of 8 and 8 from a, or of a and 8 from 3, would
be still more incredible. There is nothing in the sense
of 8 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 simi-
larity of appearance (kat...")\}ov...avro...), 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 Tpós airów of 6 to
aúroſſ of 8 is improbable in itself, and doubly impro-
bable when ékéſ has preceded. Supposing however a
and 8 to have preceded 8, 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 adroj to Tpós adrów (involving no change of his-
torical statement, for the place denoted by aijtoo was the
place to which the Lord had gone) might commend itself
by the awkwardness of adroß (itself a rare adverb in the
New Testament) after ovvéðpapov čkéſ, 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.
I37. As between a and 8 the transcriptional pro-
babilities are obscure. XuvīAffov attoo is certainly otiose
after ovvéðpopov čket, 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
TpoffAffov auro's might be altered on account of the un-
familiarity of the construction or the unexpectedness of
9
98 A.Y.4//A/CAES OF SVR/AAV RAEA D/VGS
the sense, which harmonises with the earlier words eiðov
adroës jird yovras but would hardly be suggested by
them ; and then ovvéðpapov might suggest to the ear and
perhaps to the mind ovv^\{}ov, after which airo's would
be inevitably read as attoo, attoºs being in manifest Con-
tradiction to the contrast between €v Tó TAotº and Teófi :
the tautology introduced might easily escape notice at
first under the different phraseology, especially if ovv^\{}ov
were taken to express the arrival subsequent to the run-
ning, though it was perceived afterwards, as we see by
the omission of autoğ in a, and of the whole clause
in c, where convenerunſ stands, for cognoverunſ above.
138. As regards Intrinsic Probability, 8 may be dis-
missed at once, on grounds virtually given already. Had
6 been the only extant reading, it would have roused no
suspicion: but when it has to be compared with a, we
cannot but notice the irrelevance of the repetition of
orév in composition with two different verbs not in imme-
diate sequence, and the intrusiveness of kai Tpoſì).00w
airo's between the local and the personal endings of the
journey expressed by ékéſ and Tpos at Töv ; the position
of this clause can be justified only if ovvéðpapov is in-
serted merely to account for the prior arrival, and in that
case ékéſ is out of place. Nor is St Mark's characteristic
abundance of detail to the purpose here, for his multi-
plication of accessory facts is at least equalled by his
economy of words. Had he wished to introduce the
only fresh point in 8, that conveyed by Tpos airów, the
language natural to him would have been €6popov kai (or
better 8papdvres) trpoºgov attoos kai ovv^\6ov Tpós
adróv. But the truth is that this fresh point simply spoils
the point of ééeX68w in v. 34; the multitude ‘followed’
(Matt, Luke) the Lord to the desert region (ákeſ), but the
COMWAE/ATE FROM EAA’ C/EK’ READ/WGS 99
actual arrival at His presence was due to His act, not
theirs, for He ‘came out' of His retirement in some
sequestered nook to meet them. Thus, if we look below
the surface, the additional phrase in 6 is found to dis-
arrange the diction and confuse rather than enrich the
sense; while according to the clear and exact language
of a the fact to which the whole sentence leads up stands
emphatically at its close, and there is no premature intru-
sion of what properly belongs to the next part of the
narrative.
I39. Accordingly the balance of Internal Evidence
of Readings, alike from Transcriptional and from Intrinsic
Probability, is decidedly in favour of the derivation of 8
from a and 8 rather than of a and 3 from 6; so that, as
far as can be judged without the aid of other passages,
the common original of the documents attesting a and
the common original of the documents attesting 8 must
both have been older than the common original of the
documents attesting 8.
I4O. To examine other passages equally in detail
would occupy too much space. For the following similar
variations it will for the most part suffice to add but brief
Comments to the documentary attestation.
Mark viii 26 (following kai diréo Teixev attöv eis oikov
avroſ, Aéyov)
(a) Mmöé eis Tiju köpiny eigéAëns (8) BL I*-209 me
ry 9 w ‘s f * * 3y 5 & f
(8) YTaye eis Töv oików orov kai plmöevi eutrils eus Tmu koopamu
D(7)
cy 3. * ‘s p * > * > * p ioréA6
(3) "YTaye eis Töv oików orov kai éâvels Tiju ków.mu eigéAëns
plmöevi elirms uměé év tí, kópm 13-69-346 28 61 81; also
(omitting uměé) 2, and (omitting pumöé év tá kºpm) Ö// g”vg
"YTaye eis Töv oiköv Gov kai pº eis Tiju köpiny eigéA6ms
plmöé Tuvu eitſms a gº
Mmöé eis Tāv kópmy eigéAëns d\\a ſmaye eis rôv oików
orov kai éâv eis Tiju köpimu eioſéAëns uměč stirns rivi (or pumberi
I OO AXAMAZZS OF SYRAAV AZAZ)/AWGS
ełmns) ſuměč) év tº köpin arm ; also apparently (omitting d\Aá
...gov) Syr.hlmg
Mmöevi etirns eis Tāv kópmv (or év tº kópm) (c) AE
(6) Mmöé eis Tiju köpimu eioſéA6ms plmöé etirms Tuvi év rà
kćpm ACNXAEFGHRMSUVTII cu.omn.exc.8 syr.vg-hl
aeth go
Here a is simple and vigorous, and it is unique in the
N. T.: the peculiar initial Mmöé has the terse force of
many sayings as given by St Mark, but the softening
into Mrſ by S* shews that it might trouble scribes. In 8
we have a deprived of its novelty by the pumöevi etirms of
Matt. ix. 6 and its parallel, and of its abruptness by the pre-
vious insertion of "YTaye eis rôv oików orov from Matt. viii.4
and its parallels. Then follow several different but not
all independent conflations of a and 3. By the insertion
of a, a little modified, in the midst of 8 the Greek form of
£8s arises; and this, with the Superfluous last words re-
moved, is the prevalent Latin reading. In one MS, a, a
fresh conflation supervenes, the middle clause of the Latin
8, being replaced by a, almost unaltered. Arm. (and ap-
parently with one omission the margin of syr.hl) prefixes
a to 63. The reading of (c) A is as short as a, and may be
derived directly from it; but is more probably 8 delivered
from its extraneous first clause by the influence of a.
Lastly 6 combines a with 8 by substituting it for the first
clause of 8; a less clumsy means of avoiding the contra-
diction latent in the probability that the ‘house’ would
be in the ‘village’ than the introduction of éâv in 89. This
meat combination retains Mm6é without its abruptness by
making it a conjunction, but involves a new contradiction
unless Tuvi év be taken as ruvi Tôv év by a laxity ill suited
to the context. The documents attesting 8, it is to be
observed, include the early uncials CN as well as A, and
also A and the Syriac Vulgate.
I41. Mark ix 38 (following Auðdokaxe, eiðapéu Tuva èv Tó
dvépart orov čk&á\\ovta Öalpóvia,)
(a) kai ékoxiſoptev awröv, 3rt oëk fixoMoč6et juiv NBA (?vv)
e © o g º dko)\ov6et peó' ripáv L
* 5 p y p ty 3. y es & e- 3
kai éko)\gapev adrów, §rt oëk droNovéeſ àuiv C cu%f
(Syr.vg-hr me aeth)
(3) 5s owk droNov6et pºet) juáv Kai ékoMüoplew airóv D
e (ºr º & e . ékoWüorapev adrów a £
sº ſº 6 . ipſu . Škoxiſopeu avráv I-209
G º
& © e • *e e c
• * c e º e
: e - e o e
COAVA/LA 7E AERO// /2A/C//ZA' A' A' A D/AVCS IO I
ës odk droNov6et juiv kai ékoxégapev agrów X
I3-69-346 28 alº & c.7 á vg syr.hl.mg arm
(3) 8s oëk droNov6eſ iuv, kai éko)\toragev airów, 3rt
oùk droNov6el ſpiv AN EFGHRMSUVTII cu.ormn.exc.20
Syr.h].txt go - - * -
(8 I has jko)\otéet and al" peó’ muðv in the first
clause and al” peó’ ip6v in the third: 33 is defective.)
Part of the confusion of readings is due to obvious
causes, which throw little light on genealogy. From Luke ix
49 come diko)\ov6eſ and pºsó' juáv; while in both Gospels
a general proneness to alter imperfects and the influence
of the preceding aorist have together produced āka)}\ſqrapev.
But in 8, besides assimilation to St. Luke, there is a bold
transposition of the last clause bringing it into proximity
to its subject, with a necessary change of Śrt to 3s (cf.
Matt. v 45 in similar documents); while in two modifica-
tions of 3 the aorist ékao)\gapºev reappears, and one of
them, 32, the most widely spread, has also juiv in con-
formity with a . The transposed clause is preserved in
both places by 8 with exact similarity of ending. Here
again 6 is supported by N as well as A, but not by any
early version. -
I42. Mark ix.49
(a) tras yúp Tupi d\torójorera (S) BLA I-II8-209 61 81
435 al” me.codd the arm.codd
(3) Tāora yap 6voría d\, d\to 6ñorera D cu% (a) & c.7 ? (AE)
Żoł ho/m gig (a c to/ho/m2 gig omit d\t: a omits
yáp: AE has words apparently implying the Greek original
Tāora öé (or yap) odoria dvaModigerat, o being read for 6, and
ANAACo for AAAAIC.) , .
(8) träs yāp Tupi d\toróigerat, kai Tào a 6voría d\l
dAto:6;forera, ACNXEFGHI&MSUVTII cu.omn. exc. 15
fy vg syr.vg-hl me. Codd aeth arm.codd go Vict (culº
vg.codd.opt omit d\i; X adds it after Tvpt.)
A reminiscence of Lev. vii I.3 (kai Tāv 66pov 6vorias juáv
ãXi d\to 0forera) has created 8 out of a, TTYPIAAIC0 being
read as 0YCIAAAAAIC0 with a natural reduplication, lost
again in some Latin copies. The change would be aided
by the words that follow here, kakov Tó &\as k.T.A. In 6 the
two incongruous alternatives are simply added together,
yáp being replaced by kai. Besides ACNX, 6 has at least
I O2 AEXAMP/./2.S OF S V/0/AAV AC/EAD/WGS
the Vulgate Syriac and the Italian and Vulgate Latin, as
well as later versions.
143. Luke ix Io (after kai Tapa)\agów ačrot's jirexºpmorev
kar’ ióíav) -
(a) eis tróNuv ka)\ovpévny Bm0aatöá (8*)BLXE 33 me the
D
º kópºmu & & & &
(3) eis Tóirov ćpmuov N* * * [? I3-346-1 (69) 157 (syr.vt)
(cf. Tert) (eis é.t. I 3-69-346
syr.vt)
eis Tótrov ćpmuov Bm00 aw84 c ſ ſº vg Syr.vg
eis Tótrov ćpmuov kaxoſpevov Bm00 atóá a ef
(3) eis Tótrov ćpmuov TóAegos KaNovpévns Bm00 atóá (A)C
- EGHKMSUVTAATI cu.omn.exc.
3(5) Syr.hl aeth arm go
(A Cu% place épmuov before rômov, I-13 I-209 omit it)
The change from a to 8 would be suggested by the
occurrence of épmpos Tétros in the two parallels (Matt. xiv. I3;
Mark vi 31), by the words ārt 36e év éping TóTºp opév two
verses later, and by the difficulty of associating the inci-
dent with a ‘city’. Two forms of 8, in taking up the
name from a, still avoid this difficulty by refusing TóAuv.
In § the difficulty is ingeniously overridden by keeping
both a and 8, but making 8 dependent on a. For 6 we
find, with AC, the four latest but no early version. In this
variation 8* goes with 8, and D virtually with a. .
I44. Luke xi 54 (after #péavro oi ypappareſs kai oi Papt-
oratov Ševčs évéxetv kai diroo Topatiſetu attöv Tepi TAetóvov,)
5 f 5 * * f y gº p - 3 e.
(a) éveópečovres adrów &mpet,orai ti čk too otópatos at roo
NBL me aeth Cyr.syr (om. awºrów Nº me Cyr.syr.)
. (3) {nroëvres dºpoppiju Tuva Na3éiv adroſ, tva et poortv
karmyophoral attoº D syr.vt - .
- (mToàvres d'hoppijv Tuva Na3eiv attoo tua karmyo-
pſoraoruv attoo lat.vt (om. awºrow I" c e rhe) -
(6) évečpečovres ačTöv, Čntoovres émpedo at tº ék Too orrā-
paros adroß, iva karmyopija oortv autoi, ACXEGHKMUVTAAII
cu.ormn.exc.5 lat.vg Syr. Vg-hl (om. awºrów X 130
lat.vg: kai ºntoovres cu.mu, lat.Vg Syr.hl arm : om. Šve-
ôpečovres adróv arm : om. {nroovres I-II8-13 I-209 239) -
interroganſes (? Tepotóvres) adróv, (mroovres 6mpeão at
rt ék Toi o Tópatos attoo, tva dºpoppiñu et poortv Katmyopſia at
autoi, f * . . . . . . . -
CONFLATE AEROM EARZ/ER AEAAA)/AVCS IO3
The figurative language of a is replaced in 8 by a
simply descriptive paraphrase, just as in the preceding
sentence the chief documents that attest 8 change Öetvös
evéxetv to Östvös éxetv and diroo Topariſeuv autóv to ovv8á\\etv
aúró : and in the second or Latin form of 8 edpoortv karm-
'yophoral becomes karmyopija oortv in conformity with Matt.
xii Io; Mark iii 2. In 6 both phrases are kept, the descrip-
tive being used to explain the figurative: the now super-
fluous middle part of 8 however is dropped, and Čnrojvres
is transposed to ease the infinitive 6mpet,orat. Again the
documents of 6 include ACX, both Vulgates, and a later
version. Besides the readings of some good cursives and
of the Armenian, in which the influence of a and of 8
respectively leads to some curtailment of 8, f presents an
interesting secondary conflation, the last phrase of which
is derived with a neat transposition from the earliest form
of 6, whereas the 8 used in 6 is the second form, no longer
separately extant in Greek.
I45. Luke xii 18 (after kaðexó pov Tàs diroffijkas kai pºet-
{ovas oikoëopijoſa, kai ovváčo €ket Távra)
(a) Töv oſtrov kai Tà dya&á pov (8°)BTL(X) I-II8-13 I-
(209) (I3-69-124) 157 (al) (Syr.hr me the aeth) arm (the
bracketed documents add plov to girov)
(3) Tâ yewijuatá pov 8"D 435 al?() & ff g ...]
- (? Iren.lat) Amb syr.vt
Toys kapirot's pov lt 39 a caſe nº ) -
(6) Tâ yevijuará pov kai Tà dyadá uov AQEFGHKMSU -
VTAAII cu.omn.exc. 12 f vg syr.vg-hl Bas Cyr
Töv airów uov kai Tà yevljuatápov 346
For the rather peculiar combination of Töv oriTov and
Tà dya&á the single general term Tú yewijuara, common in
the LXX and Apocrypha, is substituted by 8, the precise
combination ovváyetv Tâ yeuripara being indeed found in
Ex. xxiii Io; Lev. xxv 20 ; Jer. viii I.3 : Some documents
have the similar Toys kapTroös plov from v. 17. In 6 the
full double form of a is retained, but the plural Tú yewiſ-
pata replaces Tóv oſtrov in accordance with the plural
Tā āyaffa. Another form of conflation of a and 8 appears
in 346. Besides AQ and Cyril, 8 has, as in Mark ix.49,
the Vulgate Syriac and the Italian and Vulgate Latin in
addition to the Harklean Syriac versions: both Sº and D
support 8,
IO4. A/S ZTRZAR UTVOAW OF ADOCOMAEAV7'S
146. Luke xxiv. 53 (after kai jaav Statavros év tá ispá.)
(a) et)\oyoovres róv 6eóv NBC*L me Syr.hr
(3) aivoſvres Têv 6eóv D a 8 e / vg.codd Aug
(8) aivojvres kai et Moyobvres Tov 6eóv AC*XFHKMSUV
TAAII cu.omn cfq vg Syr.vg-hl arm
eij\oyovures kai aivouvres Tóv 6eóv aeth
This simple instance needs no explanation. The dis-
tribution of documents is fairly typical, 6 having AC*X
with the two Vulgates, the Italian Latin (and another MS
containing a similar element), and two later versions;
while the AEthiopic has an independent conflation in in-
verse order.
147. It is worth while to note at once the distribution
of the chief MSS and versions with reference to the three
classes of readings contained in these eight ternary
variations. Only the first hand is taken into account,
cursives differing from the main body are not noticed, and
slightly aberrant readings are classed with those from which
they deviate least. Several MSS and versions are too frag-
mentary to give more than faint indications of the origin
of their texts within these narrow limits, and indeed for
the rest of them the results can be only provisional.


O. 8 § Total Cº. B 8 Total
Amº- I - - “. -- ---------
'N 6 || 2 | o 8 || Lat. vt O 8 O 8
A. o o | 8 8 it I 2 5 8
B 8 o o 8 Vg I 3 4. 8
C 2 || O || 4 6 || Syr.vt O 3 O 3
D I 7 o 8 vg 2 I 5 8
L 8 o o 8 hl O O 8 8
N O O 2 2 hr 3 O O 3
Q O | O || I I Memph 8 o (1 codd)| 8
T I | O || O I Theb 3 O O 3
X. 2 | I 4. 7 Aeth 3 O 5 8
A(Mc) || 3 || o | I 4. Arm 3 (or 2)| 2 |3 (or 4)| 8
(Lc) o o 4 4. Goth O O 4. 4.
F. I | O || O I
Late uncials and Cursives O O S 8
I48. Comparison of these eight variations strongly
confirms the conclusion to which the independent evi-
AV S VA’/A AV COA/A/LA 7TE A2ZA/OAAWGS IO5
dence respecting each has provisionally led, that the
longer readings marked 6 are conflate each from two
earlier readings. The fundamental grouping of docu-
ments also remains the same throughout, notwithstanding
the partial fluctuation. The conflate readings marked 8
are found in AC(N) of the earlier and in all later uncials
except L, not invariably however in C, X, or A ; as also
in the great mass of cursives, and in the Gothic and
Harklean Syriac, two versions known to be late. On
the other hand no 8 or conflate readings are found in
NBDL lat.vt Syr.vt me (the), these four versions being
also the most ancient. The most constant witnesses
for the readings marked 8 are D and most or all of the
Old Latin MSS, though they do not always support the
same modification of 8: and in the three places in which
it is extant the Old Syriac is with them. The most
typical group attesting the readings marked a, which in
these passages we have found reason to believe to be
the original readings, consists of NBL and the Egyptian
versions, with the Jerusalem Syriac in its three places;
though N twice passes over to the ranks of 8, even in
Luke ix Io, where D is virtually with a. The five re-
maining comparatively late versions or forms of versions
contain either readings of all three classes in different
proportions, or (AEthiopic) both 6 readings and a read-
ings: and CX have a similar variable character.
I49. Speaking roughly then we may assign the at-
testation of Greek MSS thus: to a a small handful of
uncials, including the two oldest, and a few varying
Cursives, sometimes wanting; to 8 D and sometimes a
few varying cursives, with the rare accession of N or
another uncial ; to 8 nearly all the later uncials, with
two or three of the older, especially A, and nearly all
IO6 SYMC/AAW USA, OF AZAAE//EAE ZTEX 7.S.
the cursives. The like rough distribution of the three
great families of versions which date from early times
will be as follows: to a the Egyptian, and to 8 the Old
Latin and Old Syriac; while the later versions, dating
from the fourth and following centuries (one perhaps a
little earlier), with one limited exception include 6 read-
ings, and two here exhibit 6 readings alone.
15o. To the best of our belief the relations thus
provisionally traced are never inverted. We do not
know of any places where the a group of documents
supports readings apparently conflate from the readings
of the 3 and 6 groups respectively, or where the 8 group
of documents supports readings apparently conflate from
the readings of the a and 6 groups respectively. Hence
it is certain not only that the 8 readings were always
posterior in date to the a and the 8 readings in variations
illustrating the relation between these three groups by
means of conflation, but also that the scribes or editors
who originated these 8 readings made use in one way or
another of one or more documents containing these a
readings, and One or more documents containing these
|3 readings; that is, they either wrote with documents
of both classes before them, or wrote from documents
of one class which had readings from the other class
written in the margin, or wrote from documents of one
class while carrying in their own minds reminiscences
from documents of the other class of which they had
Thad knowledge at some previous time.
151. Now it is morally impossible that their use of
documents of either or both classes should have been
confined to those places in which conflation enables
us to detect it in actual operation. The facts observed
thus far do not forbid the hypothesis that the originators
MOT CONFINAE ZO TO CONFLATE READINGS IO7
of the 8 readings made use likewise of documents belong.
ing to some additional class, conceivably purer than the
documents which furnished them with a and with 3
readings respectively, and that these additional docu-
ments may have been followed by them in a greater or
less part of the rest of their text. But the proved actual
use of documents of the a and 8 classes in the conflate
readings renders their use elsewhere a zera causa in the
Newtonian sense. With every allowance for the pro-
visional possibility of some use of other hypothetical
documents, it may be safely taken for granted that those
documents which we know to have been either literally
or virtually in the hands of the 8 scribes were freely
employed by them in other parts of their text.
C. 152–162. Posteriority of ‘Syrian' to ‘Western' and
offer (neutra/ and ‘Alexandrian') readings shown
(2) by Ante-Nicene Patristic evidence
I52. The next step accordingly is to discover
whether traces of such employment can be found. The
variations in the Gospels afford innumerable opportunities
for recognising singly the three principal groups of docu-
ments, detached from the rest. Oppositions of each of
the three groups in turn to all or nearly all the other
extant documents abound everywhere, presenting a suc-
cession of Distinctive readings of each group, that is,
readings having no other attestation: ternary variations
in which each of the three groups approximately attests
a different variant occur also, but much more rarely. The
large field of documentary evidence over which we are
now able to range enlarges at the same time our know-
ledge of the groups themselves. Other Greek MSS and
other MSS of versions become available : but above
IO8 A E.S/GAWA 7TWOAV OAF WAES 7TEA2.W.
all we obtain some valuable geographical and historical
data from the patristic quotations which in many cases
give clear additional attestation to the several groups.
I53. It will be convenient from this point to desig-
nate two of the primary groups of documents no longer
by Greek letters but by names. We shall call the 3
group “Western’, an appellation which has for more than
a century been applied to its leading members. It was
given at a time when the patristic evidence was very
imperfectly known, and its bearing ill understood; and
was suggested by the fact that the prominent representa-
tives of the group were Graeco-Latin MSS, certainly
written in the West, and the Old Latin version, which
throughout its range from Carthage to Britain is obviously
Western. The fitness is more open to question since it
has become evident that readings of this class were
current in ancient times in the East as well as the West,
and probably to a great extent originated there. On the
whole we are disposed to suspect that the ‘Western'
text took its rise in North-western Syria or Asia Minor,
and that it was soon carried to Rome, and thence spread
in different directions to North Africa and most of the
countries of Europe. From North-western Syria it would
easily pass through Palestine and Egypt to Ethiopia.
But this is at present hardly more than a speculation ;
nor do any critical results depend upon it. Whatever
may have been the original home of the ‘Western' text,
a change of designation would now cause more Confusion
than it would remove, and it remains true that the only
continuous and approximately pure monuments of the
‘Western' texts now surviving have every right to the
name. The 8 group we propose to call ‘Syrian', for
AZAZ.YAAVZ)/ø/4AV AAVZ) SYR/AAW 7'EX7'S IO9
reasons which have partly been noticed already, and ,
which will appear more clearly further on. To these
must here be added another group, which would be fitly
marked y, for, as we shall see, its originals must have
preceded those of the Syrian group. The local relations
of those of its habitual representatives which can be geo-
graphically fixed prescribe for it the name ‘Alexandrian’.
154. We have hitherto spoken of the primary groups
and the ancient texts attested by them with reference to
the Gospels alone, where the evidence is at once most
copious and most confused. For a full knowledge of
their characteristics however it is necessary to pursue .
them through other books of the New Testament. St
Paul's Epistles stand next to the Gospels in the instruc-
tiveness of their variations, and fortunately tolerably
unmixed Western texts of them are preserved in two
independent Greek uncials and in a large body of quota-
tions from Latin Fathers. The Western attestation of
the Acts is much less full, and suffers grievously in parts
by the loss of leaves in the Codex Bezae (D); but still it
can be fairly made out; while the Alexandrian text stands
out in much prominence, far more so than in the Pauline
Epistles. In the Catholic Epistles the Western text is
much obscured by the want of the requisite documents,
either Greek or Latin, and probably also by the limited
distribution of some of the books in early times; so that
it can rarely be relied on for the interpretation of
evidence: on the other hand the Alexandrian text is as
conspicuous as in the Acts. In the Apocalypse the
difficulty of recognising the ancient texts is still greater,
Owing to the great, relative paucity of documents, and
especially the absence or loss of this book from the
Vatican MS (B) which is available for nearly all the rest
I IO ZZAAPYZZ Z"Y OF AA 7TRZS 7./C E VIZ)/2A/CAE
of the New Testament; and thus the power of using a
directly genealogical method is much limited.
155. The variations here mentioned between different
parts of the New Testament are, it will be noticed, of
two kinds, being due partly to the varying amount and
distribution of documentary evidence which happens to
be extant at the present day, partly to the facts of ancient
textual history disclosed by the evidence. It is important
to observe that, wherever the evidence is copious and
varied enough to allow the historical facts to be ascer-
tained, the prevalent characteristics of the ancient texts,
as regards both their readings and their documentary
attestation, are identical or at least analogous through-
out, the diversities which exist being almost wholly con-
fined to proportion.
156. Patristic evidence, which we have now to
examine for indications of the ancient texts, needs at all
times to be handled with much circumspection, for it
includes data of every degree of trustworthiness. The
uncertainty which affects many apparent patristic attesta-
tions, that is, the difficulty of knowing how far they can
safely be taken as conveying to us the readings of the
MSS used by the Fathers, arises from two causes.
First, what a Father actually wrote is very liable to
be falsified by the proneness of both scribes and modern
editors to alter the text before them into conformity
with the written or printed text most familiar to them-
selves; and since a text substantially identical with that
of 6 was unquestionably the only text likely to be known
to transcribers generally throughout the centuries to
which existing Greek patristic MSS with the rarest ex-
ceptions belong, as also to the authors of nearly all the
7"O COAA’ UP7"ZOAV AA D MZSZAWTEA PRAETA 77OAV III
current editions of the Greek Fathers till quite lately, it
is no wonder that those Greek corruptions which can on
sufficient evidence be determined as such are almost
invariably found to consist in the introduction, not in the
removal, of 6 readings; and nearly the same may be
said as to Vulgate readings in the texts of Latin Fathers.
This kind of corruption is hardly ever systematic or
thorough, but it is common enough ; it is usually abun-
dant in those passages of Christian writers which owe
their preservation to Catenae, especially where, as fre-
quently happens, they have been evidently condensed by
the compiler. It may often be detected by recourse
to better MSS, by comparison with other quotations of
the same passage by the same writer, or, best of all, by
close examination of the context: but in many cases a
greater or less degree of doubt remains as to the words
actually written by a Father.
157. The second possible cause of error in dealing
with patristic evidence is laxity of quotation by the
writers themselves, more especially when they quote
indirectly or allusively. The laxity may arise either from
conscious or semi-conscious modification for the sake of
grammar or convenience, or from error of memory, a
frequent cause of error being confusion with other similar
passages. Here too there is a considerable residuum
of more or less doubtful cases, though comparison with
other quotations of the same passage and above all
experience will remove many prima facie ambiguities.
Allusive references are sometimes as decisive as full and
direct quotations, and they have the advantage of being
much less liable to corruption by scribes and editors.
But whatever imperfections of verification of patristic
evidence may cling to particular passages, they do not to
II 2 WESTZACAV AAWD O ZTAZZR 7TEX 7S A 7'7"ZSZTAE/D
any appreciable extent affect the generalisations as to
the patristic attestation of particular groups of documents
obtained by taking a large number of passages together.
The broad facts come out clearly : where there is doubt,
it for the most part relates to the presence or absence of
rare exceptions.
158. When we examine the remains of the Ante-
Nicene Christian literature with a view to collect evidence
respecting the ancient texts which the groupings of the
extant documents shew to have existed, we are for some
time after the apostolic age hampered both by the paucity
of the writings preserved and by the scantiness and com-
parative vagueness of the textual materials contained in
them. The only period for which we have anything like
a sufficiency of representative knowledge consists roughly
of three quarters of a century from about 175 to 250 :
but the remains of four eminent Greek Fathers, which
range through this period, Cast a strong light on textual
history backward and forward. They are Irenaeus, of
Asia Minor, Rome, and Lyons; his disciple Hippolytus,
of Rome; Clement, of Athens and Alexandria ; and his
disciple Origen, of Alexandria and Palestine. To the
same period belong the Latin representatives of North
Africa, Tertullian and Cyprian, as also Cyprian's Roman
contemporary Novatian. Towards the close of the third
century we have somewhat considerable remains of
Methodius, of Lycia and Tyre, an enemy of the Origenian
school; and in the first third of the fourth century
several writings of Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine,
the most learned of its disciples. For the second half
of the third century we have other fragments, but they
are few in number.
BY A.A.R.J. Y PA 7"RISTIC E V/DACAVCAE II3
159. The most striking phenomenon of the evidence
belonging to the time before 25o is the number of places
in which the quotations exhibit at least two series of
readings, Western and what may be called Non-Western.
The first clear evidence of any kind that we possess, that
obtained from recorded readings of Marcion (Pontus and
Rome) and from the writings of Justin Martyr (Samaria
and Rome), is distinguished by readings undoubtedly
Western, and thus shews that texts of this character were
in existence before the middle of the second century.
The same character of text is found in Irenaeus and
Hippolytus, and again in Methodius and predominantly
in Eusebius. Thus the text used by all those Ante-
Nicene Greek writers, not being connected with Alex-
andria, who have left considerable remains is substan-
tially Western. Even in Clement of Alexandria and in
Origen, especially in some of his writings, Western quo-
tations hold a prominent place. . -
16o. On the other hand the many Non-Western
readings supplied by Clement of Alexandria prove that
great divergencies were in existence at latest by the end
of the second century. Any possible doubts on this
head that could be suggested by his free mode of cita-
tion would be entirely swept away by what we find in
Origen's extant writings. Many of the verses which he
quotes in different places shew discrepancies of text that
cannot be accounted for either by looseness of citation
or by corruption of the MSS of his writings; and in
most instances the discrepant readings are those of the
primary extant groups, including the ‘Alexandrian’
group, of which we shall presently have to speak in
detail. It is even possible, as Griesbach shewed long
ago, to trace to a certain extent his use of different MSS
10
I I4. SYRIAN TExz Noz Az7 ES7AD
when writing different treatises; and moreover he now
and then refers in express words to variations between
MSS, as indeed Irenaeus had at least once done. Many
of his readings in variations in which Western documents
stand opposed to all other documents are distinctly
Western, many more are distinctly Non-Western. On
the other hand his quotations to the best of our
belief exhibit no clear and tangible traces of the Syrian
text. - -
I61. That these characteristics, positive and nega-
tive, of the quotations found in Origen's writings are due
to accident is in the highest degree improbable. A long
and laborious life devoted chiefly to original biblical
studies, combined with a special interest in texts, and
the twofold opportunities supplied by the widely dif-
ferent circumstances of Alexandria and Palestine, to say
nothing of varied intercourse with other lands, could
hardly fail to acquaint him with all leading types of
Greek text current th the Churches, and especially in the
Eastern Churches : and as a matter of fact we find all
other known great types of text represented in his
Writings except the one ; that one moreover, had it
then existed, being more likely to have come to the
notice of a dweller in Palestine than any other.
162. Nor is the testimony that of a single Father,
however well placed and well fitted for reflecting the lost
testimony of all contemporary Churches on such a
matter. The whole body of patristic evidence down to
his death, or later, tells the same tale. Before the middle
of the third century, at the very earliest, we have no
historical signs of the existence of readings, conflate or
other, that are marked as distinctively Syrian by the
want of attestation from groups of documents which have
A V EA RZY A/1 7/8/ST/C Z V//DAAVCAE II 5
preserv ld the other ancient forms of text. This is a fact
of greath significance, ascertained as it is exclusively by
external evidence, and therefore supplying an absolutely
indeperºdent verification and extension of the result
already: obtained by comparison of the internal character
of readings as classified by conflation.
D. Th 3—168. AEosſeriority of Syrian to Wes/ern,
Aſexandrian, and other (neutral) readings shewn
(3) by /nterna/ Zvidence of Syrian readings
I 63. The Syrian conflate readings have shown the
Syrian text to be posterior to at least two ancient forms
of text (still extant, one of them being ‘Western’, and also
to have been, at least in part, constructed out of both.
Patristić evidence has shewn that these two ancient
texts, and also a third, must have already existed early
in the third century, and suggested very strong grounds
for believing that in the middle of the century the Syrian
text had not yet been formed. Another step is gained
by a clºse examination of all readings distinctively Syrian
in the #ense explained above, comparing them on grounds
of Internal Evidence, Transcriptional and Intrinsic, with
the other readings of the same passages. The result is
entirely unfavourable to the hypothesis which was men-
tioned as not excluded by the phenomena of the con-
flate readings, namely that in other cases, where the
Syrian text differs from all other extant ancient texts, its
authors mayºf:ave copied some other equally ancient and
perhaps purer text now otherwise lost. In themselves
Syrian readings hardly ever offend at first. With rare
exceptions they run smoothly and easily in form, and
yield at once to even a careless reader a passable sense,



II 6 CAE/AA’AC 7'Aº Aº OA' SYRAAV Aº AEA ZO/WGS’
claim to be regarded as the original readings is found
gradually to diminish, and at last to disappear. Often
either the transcriptional or the intrinsic evidſence is
neutral or divided, and occasionally the two kinds of
evidence appear to be in conflict. But there are, we
believe, no instances where both are clearly in faţvour of
the Syrian reading, and innumerable where bºbth are
clearly adverse to it. *t
I64. The testimony of the simpler variations in
which the other ancient texts are united against the
Syrian reading is remarkably confirmed by that ºf many
of those variations in which they are divided; among
themselves. Here one of the readings has to approve
itself on transcriptional grounds by its fitness to give rise
not to one but to two or more other readings, that is
either to each independently or to one which will in like
manner account naturally for the third (or the rest); and
the failure of the Syrian reading to fulfil this condition is
usually manifest. The clearest cases are those in which
the immediate parent of the Syrian reading is seen to be
itself in turn derived from another, so that the two steps
of the process illustrate each other: not a few distinctively
Syrian readings are in reality Western or Alexandrian
readings, somewhat trimmed and modified. -
I65. To state in few words the results of examina-
tion of the whole body of Syrian readings, distinctive
and non-distinctive, the authors of the Syrian text had
before them documents representing at least three earlier
forms of text, Western, Alexandrian, and a third. Where
they found variation, they followed different procedures


SOURCAES OF SYR/AAV ZAZX 7" II 7
in different places. Sometimes they transcribed un-
changed the reading of one of the earlier texts, now
of this, now of that. Sometimes they in like manner
adopted exclusively one of the readings, but modified its
form. Sometimes they combined the readings of more
than one text in various ways, pruning or modifying
them if necessary. Lastly, they introduced many changes
of their own where, so far as appears, there was no
previous variation. When the circumstances are fully
considered, all these processes must be recognised as
natural. -
I66. Thus not only do the relations disclosed by the
conflate Syrian readings reappear conspicuously in the
much larger field of distinctively Syrian readings gene-
rally, but no fresh phenomenon claims to be taken into
account, unless it be the existence of the Alexandrian
text, which has its own extant attestation apart from the
Syrian text. Taking these facts in conjunction with the
absence of distinctively Syrian readings from the patristic
evidence of the Origenian and Ante-Origenian periods,
while nevertheless distinctive readings of all the texts
known to have been used in the production of dis-
tinctively Syrian readings abound in the Origenian
period, as also, with the possible exception of dis-
tinctively Alexandrian readings, in the Ante-Origenian
period, we are led to conclude that the hypothesis pro-
visionally allowed must now be definitively rejected, and
to regard the Syrian text as not only partly but wholly
derived from the other known ancient texts. It follows
that all distinctively Syrian readings may be set aside at
Once as certainly originating after the middle of the third
century, and therefore, as far as transmission is concerned,
corruptions of the apostolic text.
II.8 J)OUB/A2. A TTE,STA 7TWOAV OA' FAA’/ Y
I67. The same facts lead to another conclusion of
equal or even greater importance respecting non-dis-
tinctive Syrian readings, which hold a conspicuous place
by their number and often by their intrinsic interest.
Since the Syrian text is only a modified eclectic com-
bination of earlier texts independently attested, existing
documents descended from it can attest nothing but
itself: the only authority which they can give to readings
having other documentary attestation, that is to readings
Syrian but not distinctively Syrian, is the authority of
the Syrian text itself, which resolves itself into that of a
lost ancient MS of one or possibly more of those older
texts from which the Syrian text was in any given varia-
tion derived. Accordingly a reading supported both by
the documents belonging to the Syrian group and by
those belonging to e.g. the Western group has no ap-
preciably greater presumption in its favour than if it
were supported by the Western group alone: the only
accession is that of a lost Western MS not later in date
than the time when the Syrian text was formed ; and in
almost all cases this fact would add nothing to our know-
ledge of the ancestry of the reading as furnished by the
Non-Syrian documents attesting it. -
I68. If our documents were free from all mixture
except that contained in the Syrian text, that is, if no
document of later origin itself combined elements from
different texts, the application of this principle would be
always clear and certain. Since however most of the
more important documents are as a matter of fact affected
by later mixture, the origin of any given reading in them
can only be determined by grouping; and since grouping
is sometimes obscure, a greater or less degree of doubt
about the antecedents of a non-distinctive Syrian reading
READ/WGS APOP7 EZ) ZAV SYRIAAV ZAZXZ II 9
may in such cases remain. Thus it may be clear that a
reading was first Western and then Syrian, while yet there
may be a doubt whether certain of the attesting docu-
ments derived it from a Syrian or from an earlier source.
If from the former, the reading must be held to be in
effect distinctively Western : if from the latter, the possi-
bility or probability of its having existed not only in the
Western but in a Non-Western Pre-Syrian text has to be
taken into account. These occasional ambiguities of
evidence do not however affect the force or the ordi-
nary applicability of the principle itself: and in practice
the doubt is in most cases removed by Internal Evidence
of Groups.
SECTION II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
CHIEF ANCIENT TEXTS
I69–187
I69. Leaving for the present the Syrian text and its
own history, we must now go back to the earlier periods
within which the primary ramifications of the genealogical
tree have been shown to lie. It follows from what has
been said above that all readings in which the Pre-Syrian
texts concur must be accepted at once as the apostolic
readings, or to speak more exactly, as the most original
of recorded readings. Indeed this is only repeating in
other words that all distinctively Syrian readings must
be at once rejected. The variations between Pre-Syrian
texts raise much more difficult questions, which can be
answered only by careful examination of the special
characteristics of the several texts. - -
I2O
A. 170–176. Western characteristics
170. On all accounts the Western text claims our
attention first. The earliest readings which can be fixed
chronologically belong to it. As far as we can judge
from extant evidence, it was the most widely spread text
of Ante-Nicene times; and sooner or later every version
directly or indirectly felt its influence. But any prepos-
sessions in its favour that might be created by this
imposing early ascendancy are for the most part soon
dissipated by continuous study of its internal character.
The eccentric Whiston's translation of the Gospels and
Acts from the Codex Bezae, and of the Pauline Epistles
from the Codex C/aromontanus, and Bornemann's edition
of the Acts, in which the Codex Aegae was taken as the
standard authority, are probably the only attempts which
have ever been made in modern times to set up an
exclusively or even predominantly Western Greek text as
the purest reproduction of what the apostles wrote.
This all but universal rejection is doubtless partly owing
to the persistent influence of a whimsical theory of the
last century, which, ignoring all Non-Latin Western
documentary evidence except the handful of extant
bilingual uncials, maintained that the Western Greek
text owed its peculiarities to translation from the Latin ;
partly to an imperfect apprehension of the antiquity and
extension of the Western text as revealed by patristic
quotations and by versions. Yet, even with the aid of
a true perception of the facts of Ante-Nicene textual
history, it would have been strange if this text as a
whole had found much favour. A few scattered Western
readings have long been approved by good textual critics
CAAAACTAER OF WESTERAW ſº EAD/WGS I 2 I
on transcriptional and to a great extent insufficient
grounds; and in Tischendorf’s last edition their number
has been augmented, owing to the misinterpreted acces-
sion of the Sinai MS to the attesting documents. To
one small and peculiar class of Western readings, ex-
clusively omissions, we shall ourselves have to call
attention as having exceptional claims to adoption.
But when the Western readings are confronted with
their ancient rivals in order to obtain a broad Com-
parative view of the two texts, few scholars could long
hesitate to pronounce the Western not merely to be
the less pure text, but also to owe its differences in a
great measure to a perilous confusion between transcrip-
tion and reproduction, and even between the preser-
vation of a record and its supposed improvement; and
the distrust thus generated is only increased by further
acquaintance. -
I 71. What has been here said is equally true whether
we confine ourselves to Western readings having only a
Western attestation or include with them those Western
readings which, having been adopted into the Syrian
text, have a combination of Western and Syrian attesta-
tion. When once the historical relations of the texts
have been ascertained, it would be arbitrary to refuse the
evidence of the latter class in studying the general
character of Western readings apart from attestation, for
the accident of their appropriation by the Syrian text
when the other Western readings were neglected can
have no bearing on the antecedent relations of the whole
class to the apostolic originals. But as a matter of fact
the general conclusions would be the same in either case:
throughout both classes of Western readings there is no
diversity of salient characteristics.
I 2.2 WAESTEA2AV AAA’AAAA’.A.S.A.S.
I72. To what extent the earliest MSS of the dis-
tinctively Western ancestry already contained distinctive
Western readings, cannot now be known. However they
may have differed from the apostolic autographs, there
was at all events no little subsequent and homogeneously
progressive change. It is not uncommon to find one,
two, or three of the most independent and most au-
thentically Western documents in agreement with the
best representatives of Non-Western Pre-Syrian texts
against the bulk of Western authorities under circum-
stances which render it highly difficult to account for
the concurrence by mixture : and in such cases these
detached documents must attest a state of the Western
text when some of its characteristic corruptions had not
yet arisen, and others had. On the other hand it is
probable that even the relatively latest Western readings
found in distinct provinces of Western documents, for
instance in different languages, were already in existence
at a very early date of Church history, it may be before
the end of the second century.
173. The chief and most constant characteristic of
the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words,
clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted,
and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed
that the meaning could be brought out with greater force
and definiteness. They often exhibit a certain rapid
vigour and fluency which can hardly be called a re-
bellion against the calm and reticent strength of the
apostolic speech, for it is deeply influenced by it, but
which, not less than a tamer spirit of textual correction,
is apt to ignore pregnancy and balance of Sense, and
especially those meanings which are conveyed by ex-
ceptional choice or collocation of words. An extreme
WAE,ST/E/PAV EAWA’ſ CA////ZAVTS I 23
form of the paraphrastic tendency is shown in the in-
terpolation of phrases extending by some kind of pa-
rallelism the language of the true text; as kai Tijs vöpiºns
after eis itávrmatv Toi, vvpºptov in Matt. xxv I; yewvóvrat
kai yevvöow between oi viol too aid vos toūrou and yo-
potov Kai Yaptorkovtat in Luke xx 34; and ék tās oropkós
airoi, Kai ék Töv do Téov airoi, after påm éopºv too ord paros
airov in Eph. V 30. Another equally important charac-
teristic is a disposition to enrich the text at the cost of
its purity by alterations or additions taken from tra-
ditional and perhaps from apocryphal or other non-
biblical sources; as >, et à vić's pov ć dyatytós, òv oroi
eið6kmora (originating of course in Ps. ii 7) given as the
words spoken from heaven at the Baptism in Luke iii.22 ;
and a long interpolation (printed in the Appendix) be-
ginning Yue's 8& Čntéïre after Matt. xx 28. The two
famous interpolations in John V and viii, which belong
to this class, will need special notice in another place.
Under the present head also should perhaps be placed
some of the many curious Western interpolations in the
Acts, a certain number of which, having been taken up
capriciously by the Syrian text, are still current as part of
the Received text: but these again will require separate
mention.
174. Besides these two marked characteristics, the
Western readings exhibit the ordinary tendencies of
scribes whose changes are not limited to wholly or
partially mechanical corruptions. We shall accordingly
find these tendencies, some of them virtually incipient
forms of paraphrase, in other texts of the New Testament:
but in the Western text their action has been more power-
ful than elsewhere. As illustrations may be mentioned
the insertion and multiplication of genitive pronouns, but
I 24. WAESTEACAV VAEA’BAZ, CAE/AAWGAES
occasionally their suppression where they appeared cum-
brous; the insertion of objects, genitive, dative, or ac-
cusative, after verbs used absolutely; the insertion of
conjunctions in sentences which had none, but Occa-
sionally their excision where their force was not perceived
and the form of the sentence or context seemed to com-
mend abruptness; free interchange of conjunctions; free
interchange of the formulae introductory to spoken words;
free interchange of participle and finite verb with two
finite verbs connected by a conjunction; substitution of
compound verbs for simple as a rule, but conversely
where the compound verb of the true text was difficult
or unusual; and substitution of aorists for imperfects as
a rule, but with a few examples of the converse, in which
either a misunderstanding of the context or an outbreak
of untimely vigour has introduced the imperfect. A
bolder form of correction is the insertion of a negative
particle, as in Matt. xxi. 32 (od being favoured, it is true,
by the preceding Toi), Luke xi 48, and Rom. iv. 19 ; or
its omission, as in Rom. v. 14; Gal. ii. 5; V 8.
175. Another impulse of scribes abundantly exem-
plified in Western readings is the fondness for assimi-
lation. In its most obvious form it is merely local,
abolishing diversities of diction where the same subject
matter recurs as part of two or more neighbouring clauses
or verses, or correcting apparent defects of symmetry.
But its most dangerous work is ‘harmonistic’ corruption,
that is, the partial or total obliteration of differences in
passages otherwise more or less resembling each other.
Sometimes the assimilation is between single sentences
that happen to have some matter in common; more
usually however between parallel passages of greater
length, Such especially as have in some sense a common
WESTEAEAW ASS///NZATIO/WS I25
origin. To this head belong not only quotations from the
Old Testament, but parts of Ephesians and Colossians,
and again of Jude and 2 Peter, and, above all, the parallel
records in the first three Gospels, and to a certain extent
in all four. It is difficult to exaggerate the injury thus
inflicted upon the resources for a right understanding of
the Gospel history by the destruction of many of the
most characteristic and instructive touches contributed
by the several narratives, whether in the form of things
otherwise said, or of additional things said, or of things
left unsaid. A sense of the havoc wrought by harmo-
nistic corruption in the Old Latin texts, in their origin
Western texts, has been already mentioned as one of the
primary motives alleged by Jerome for his revision ; and
though his effort had only a limited success, the Vulgate
contrasts favourably with prior Latin texts of the Gospels
in this respect. It should be observed that the harmo-
nistic changes in the Western as in all other texts were
irregular and unsystematic. Nor is it rare to find Western
changes proceeding in an opposite direction; that is, to
find paraphrastic or other impulses followed in the text
of one Gospel in unconsciousness or disregard of the
creation of new differences from the language of a parallel
narrative. 2 -
I76. It must not be supposed that the liberties
taken by the authors of the Western readings, though
far exceeding what we find appearing for the first time
in other texts of the New Testament, are unknown in
Other literature transmitted under not unlike circum-
stances. Several books of the Apocrypha of the Old
Testament exist in two forms of text, of which one is
evidently an amplified and interpolated modification of
the other. Analogous phenomena in various manners
I 26 CA O.S.AES OA' WAES 7/2/2/V AE O/L DAW/2.SS
and degrees occur in the texts of some of the earliest
post-apostolic Christian writings, as the Epistle of Barnabas
and the Shepherd of Hermas; and even the interpola-
tions of the Ignatian Epistles are to a certain extent of
the same kind. In the Christian ‘apocryphal’ or le-
gendary literature, some of which, in its elements if not
in its present shape, is undoubtedly as old as the second
century, much of the extraordinary diversity in different
MSS can only be explained by a hardly credible laxity of
idea and practice in the transmission of texts. Some at
least of the writings here mentioned, if not all of them,
had a large popular currency: and it is probably to
similar conditions of use and multiplication, prevailing
during the time of the slow process by which the books
of the New Testament at last came to be placed on the
same footing as those of the Old, that we must look
for a natural explanation of the characteristics of their
Western texts. In surveying a long succession of Western
readings by the side of others, we seem to be in the
presence of a vigorous and popular ecclesiastical life,
little scrupulous as to the letter of venerated writings,
or as to their permanent function in the future, in Com-
parison with supposed fitness for immediate and obvious
edification.
B. I 77—180. Z%e neutra/ ſext and its preservation
177. We now proceed to other Pre-Syrian texts. If
it be true, as we have found reason to believe, first, that
during that part of the Ante-Nicene period of which we
have any direct knowledge ‘Western' texts were at least
dominant in most churches of both East and West, and
Secondly, that, whatever may be the merits of individual
IOCAZ SAEA 7'S OF MAE (VTRAZ ZZXZ" I 27
Western readings, the Western texts generally are due to
a corruption of the apostolic texts, it is natural to ask
where comparatively pure texts were preserved. The
only extant patristic writings which to any considerable
extent support extant Pre-Syrian readings at variance with
Western readings are connected with Alexandria, that is,
the remains of Clement and Origen, as mentioned above
(§ 159), together with the fragments of Dionysius and
Peter of Alexandria from the second half of the third
century, and in a certain measure the works of Eusebius
of Caesarea, who was deeply versed in the theological
literature of Alexandria. In like manner, of the three
great versions or families of versions which must date
from the earliest centuries, two in their Old or unrevised
form must be classed as Western, the Latin clearly and
almost entirely, the very imperfectly preserved Syriac
more obscurely: but it is only the two versions of Lower
and of Upper Egypt, and the latter, which is the further
from Alexandria, less than the former, that can be pro-
nounced extensively Non-Western. That a purer text
should be preserved at Alexandria than in any other
church would not in itself be surprising. There, if any-
where, it was to be anticipated that, owing to the prox-
imity of an exact grammatical school, a more than usual
watchfulness over the transcription of the writings of
apostles and apostolic men would be suggested and kept
alive. But the rapid total extinction of comparatively
pure texts in all other places would undeniably be a
riddle hard of solution.
I78. No Such enigmatic history however demands
acceptance. The early traces of a text free from Western
Corruption in Churches remote from Alexandria, though
relatively few in number, are indubitable and significant.
f
I 28 Aº VIDAEAVCAE FOR AWAE UTRAZ 7TEXT
They are the same facts that were mentioned above
(§ 172) in speaking of the progressiveness of Western
changes, only seen from the other side. When we find
that those very Western documents or witnesses which
attest some of the most widely spread and therefore
ancient Western corruptions attest likewise ancient Non-
Western readings in opposition to most Western docu-
ments, we know that they must represent a text in
process of transition from such a text as we find at Alex-
andria to a more highly developed Western text, and
consequently presuppose a relatively pure Non-Western
text. This early evidence is sometimes at once Greek,
Latin, and Syriac, sometimes confined to one or two of
the languages. It shews that at least in remote anti-
quity the Non-Western text was by no means confined to
Alexandria.
179. As regards the other facts of the Ante-Nicene
period, the negative evidence is not of a trustworthy
kind. If we deduct from the extant Ante-Nicene Greek
patristic quotations those of the Alexandrian Fathers, the
remainder, though sufficient to shew the wide range of
the Western text, is by no means sufficient by itself to
disprove the existence of other texts. What we have
urged in a former page (§ 162) respecting the absence of
patristic evidence for the Syrian text before the middle of
the third century at earliest was founded on the whole
evidence, including that of Clement and Origen, Origen's
evidence being in amount more than equal to all the rest
put together, and in probable variety of Sources and
actual variety of texts exceptionally comprehensive : and
moreover this negative argument was confirmed by the
internal phenomena of the Syrian text itself. But further,
much positive evidence for the persistence of Non-West-
AVZ) AAAEAWDA. Aſ 7" OA' A ZAZXAAVADA’./A I29
ern texts in various regions throughout the Ante-Nicene
period is contained in the varied texts of Fathers and
versions of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is true that
the only considerable text of a Father or version of this
later period which closely approximates to a Non-Western
Pre-Syrian text, that of the younger Cyril, has again Alex-
andria for its locality. It is true also that it is not abso-
lutely impossible for the large Non-Western Pre-Syrian
elements which enter into many mixed texts of the later
period to have all radiated from Alexandria in the third
century. Nevertheless the preservation of early Non-
Western texts in varying degrees of purity in different
regions would account for the facts much more naturally
than such a hypothesis. On the one hand there is no
reason to think the prominence of Alexandria in the
extant evidence accidental : nowhere probably was the
perpetuation of an incorrupt text so much an object of
conscious desire and care, and the local influence of
Origen's school for some generations after his death was
likely to establish a tradition of exceptional jealousy for
the very words of Scripture. On the other hand our
documentary evidence, taken as a whole, equally sug-
gests, what historical probability would have led us to
anticipate, that in various and perhaps many other places
the primitive text in varying degrees of purity survived
the early Western inundation which appeared to sub-
merge it.
180. Such being the facts, we have not thought it
advisable to designate Non-Western Pre-Syrian readings
generally as ‘Alexandrian', although this, or something
like this, is the sense in which the term ‘Alexandrian’ is
Commonly used, when it is not extended to all ancient
readings alike that are not found in the later Greek MSS.
11
I 3O CAAA’.4 C 7'EA? AAVZ) A 7'7"ZSZTA 7TWOAV
Not only were these readings not confined to Alexandria,
but a local name suggests erroneous associations when
applied to a text which owes its comparative isolation to
the degeneracy of its neighbours. On the laxity with
which existing MSS are themselves often called Alexan-
drian we shall have occasion to remark hereafter.
C. 181–184. Alexandrian characteristics
181. There is moreover, as we have already inti-
mated, a class of ancient readings to which the name
‘Alexandrian' of right belongs. They are brought to
light by a considerable number of variations among those
documents which have chiefly preserved a Non-Western
Pre-Syrian text, and which are shown by the whole distri-
bution of documentary evidence to have nothing to do
with variations between Western and Non-Western texts.
They enter largely, as we shall see presently, into the
texts of various extant uncial MSS, and with the help
thus afforded to the recognition of documentary grouping
it is usually easy to see which variants in successive va-
riations have the distinctively ‘Alexandrian' attestation,
and thus to arrive at a comparative view of the general
internal characteristics of the two series of readings.
182. The differences of type are by no means so
salient here as in the previous comparison of Western
with Non-Western texts; but on due consideration the
case becomes clear. On grounds of Intrinsic and Tran-
scriptional Probability alike, the readings which we call
Alexandrian are certainly as a rule derived from the
other Non-Western Pre-Syrian readings, and not vice versa.
The only documentary authorities attesting them with
any approach to constancy, and capable of being assigned
OA' A/AFXAAVZ) RAAW RAEA D/AWGS I 3 I
to a definite locality, are quotations by Origen, Cyril of
Alexandria, and occasionally other Alexandrian Fathers,
and the two principal Egyptian Versions, especially that
of Lower Egypt. These facts, taken together, shew that
the readings in question belong to a partially degene-
rate form of the Non-Western Pre-Syrian text, apparently
limited in its early range, and apparently originating in
Alexandria. It cannot be later in date than the opening
years of the third century, and may possibly be much
earlier. Some of its readings at one time attracted the
attention of critics, owing to certain peculiarities in their
secondary attestation : but the greater number have been
confused with other Non-Western readings, doubtless
owing to the accidental loss of all Greek MSS having an
approximately unmixed Alexandrian text. Had D of the
Gospels and Acts and D,E,F,G, of the Pauline Epistles
all in like manner perished, it would have been in like
manner far harder than now to form a clear conception
of the Western text, and consequently of early textual
history. -
183. The more startling characteristics of Western
corruption are almost wholly absent from the Alexandrian
readings. There is no incorporation of matter extra-
neous to the canonical texts of the Bible, and no habitual
or extreme licence of paraphrase; though a certain
amount of paraphrase and what may be called inventive
interpolation finds place in the less read books, that is,
the Acts and Catholic Epistles (especially I Peter), and
probably the Apocalypse. The changes made have
usually more to do with language than matter, and are
marked by an effort after correctness of phrase. They
are evidently the work of careful and leisurely hands, and
not seldom display a delicate philological tact which
I32 WAESTERN AND AZEXANDRAM DIVAERGEAVCE
unavoidably lends them at first sight a deceptive appear-
ance of originality. Some of the modes of change de-
scribed above as belonging to incipient paraphrase occur
as distinctly here as in the Western texts, though as a
rule much more sparingly ; and the various forms of
assimilation, especially harmonistic alteration and inter-
polation in the Gospels, recur likewise, and at times are
carried out in a very skilful manner.
184. Alexandrian changes sometimes occur in places
where Western changes exist likewise, sometimes where
they do not; and again the Syrian text sometimes follows
one, sometimes another, of the three antecedent texts in
the former case, of the two in the latter. Considerable
variety of distribution, irrespective of Non-Syrian mixture,
accordingly arises in the documentary attestation. We
often find the Alexandrian group opposed to all other
documents, often the Alexandrian and Syrian groups
combined in opposition to the others, implying an adop-
tion of an Alexandrian reading by the Syrian text. But
the most instructive distributions, as exhibiting distinctly
the residual Pre-Syrian text which is neither Western nor
Alexandrian, are those produced by the simultaneous
aberration of the Western and Alexandrian texts, espe-
cially when they severally exhibit independent modes of
easing an apparent difficulty in the text antecedent to
both.
D. 185—187. Syrian characteristics
185. The Syrian text, to which the order of time
now brings us back, is the chief monument of a new
period of textual history. Whatever petty and local
mixture may have previously taken place within limited
SYRIAAW TEXT DUE TO AEA, V/S/OAV I 33
areas, the great lines of transmission had been to all ap-
pearance exclusively divergent. Now however the three
great lines were brought together, and made to contribute
to the formation of a new text different from all. As we
have seen, the reading föw of one, now of another was
adopted, such adoption being sometimes a mere tran-
Scription but often accompanied by a varying amount of
modification not rarely resulting in an entirely new
reading. Occasionally also the readings of two of the
antecedent texts were combined by simple or complex
adaptations. The total process to which these operations
belonged was essentially different from the preceding pro-
cesses of change. In itself the mixture of independent
texts might easily be, and perhaps usually was, fortuitous
or even unconscious. But the complexity of the Syrian
text as derived from three distinct sources simultaneously,
the elaborate manner in which they are laid under con-
tribution, and the interfusion of adjustments of existing
materials with a distinctly innovative process, shown
partly in verbal transformation of adopted readings,
partly in assimilative or other interpolations of fresh mat-
ter, belong to a manner of change differing as widely
from change of either the Western or the Alexandrian
type as even Western change from ordinary careless tran-
scription. The Syrian text must in fact be the result of
a ‘recension' in the proper sense of the word, a work of A
attempted criticism, performed deliberately by editors
and not merely by scribes.
I86. The guiding motives of their criticism are
transparently displayed in its effects. It was probably
initiated by the distracting and inconvenient currency of
at least three conflicting texts in the same region. The
alternate borrowing from all implies that no selection of
I 34. COND/7”/OAVS OF SYRIAAV A&AE V/S/O.W.
one was made,-indeed it is difficult to see how under
the circumstances it could have been made,-as entitled
to supremacy by manifest Superiority of pedigree. Each
text may perhaps have found a patron in some leading
personage or See, and thus have seemed to call for a
conciliation of rival claims: but at all events, if a new
measure was to be adopted for promoting unity of text,
no course was so natural and convenient as the accept-
ance of the traditional authority of each text already
accredited by honour and use, at least in an age when any
really critical perception of the problem involved in the
revision of a written text would have been an anachro-
nism. It would have been no less an anachronism at
each variation to find reasons for the preference to be
given to this or that text in specialities of documentary
attestation or again in consideration of Transcriptional
Probability. The only grounds of selection, affording
any true means of advancing towards textual purity, that
could find place in the conditions of the time, or that
can now be discerned in the resulting text, depend on a
rough and superficial kind of Intrinsic Probability. But
the governing impulses, just as in the case of nearly all
licentious as distinguished from inaccurate transcription,
unquestionably arose from a very natural failure to dis-
tinguish between the purity of a text and its present
acceptability or usefulness. : -
187. The qualities which the authors of the Syrian
text seem to have most desired to impress on it are
lucidity and completeness. They were evidently anxious
to remove all stumbling-blocks out of the way of the
ordinary reader, so far as this could be done without
recourse to violent measures. They were apparently
equally desirous that he should have the benefit of in-
CA/ARA C 7'EA OF S VR/AAV ZTEXT I 35
structive matter contained in all the existing texts, pro-
vided it did not confuse the context or introduce seeming
Contradictions. New omissions accordingly are rare, and
where they occur are usually, found to contribute to
apparent simplicity. New interpolations on the other
hand are abundant, most of them being due to harmo-
nistic or other assimilation, fortunately capricious and
incomplete. Both in matter and in diction the Syrian
text is conspicuously a full text. It delights in pro-
nouns, conjunctions, and expletives and Supplied links
of all kinds, as well as in more considerable additions.
As distinguished from the bold vigour of the ‘Western'
scribes, and the refined scholarship of the Alexandrians,
the spirit of its own corrections is at once sensible and
feeble. Entirely blameless on either literary or religious
grounds as regards vulgarised or unworthy diction, yet
shewing no marks of either critical or spiritual insight,
it presents the New Testament in a form smooth and
attractive, but appreciably impoverished in sense and
force, more fitted for cursory perusal or recitation than
for repeated and diligent study.
SECTION III. SKETCH OF POST-NICENE
TEXTUAL HISTORY
188—198
A. 188—190. The two stages of the Syrian text
188. We have thus far found it conducive to clear-
ness to speak of the Syrian text in the singular number.
Two stages of it however can be traced, which may have
been separated by an interval of some length. At an
I 36 SYM’/.1 C AAVZ) GACA. A. K. AºA W/S/OAVS
early period of modern textual criticism it was perceived
that the Vulgate Syriac version differed from early ver-
sions generally, and from other important early docu-
mentary authorities, in the Support which it frequently
gave to the common late Greek text: and as the version
enjoyed a great traditional reputation of venerable anti-
quity, the coincidence attracted much interest. Even-
tually, as has been already noticed (§ 118), it was pointed
out that the only way of explaining the whole body of
facts was to suppose that the Syriac version, like the
Latin version, underwent revision long after its origin,
and that our ordinary Syriac MSS represented not the
primitive but the altered Syriac text: and this explana-
tion has been signally confirmed in our own day by the
discovery of part of a copy of the Gospels in which the
national version is preserved approximately in its Old
or unrevised state. Two facts render it highly probable
that the Syriac revision was instituted or sanctioned by
high authority, personal or ecclesiastical ; the almost
total extinction of Old Syriac MSS, contrasted with the
great number of extant Vulgate Syriac MSS; and the
narrow range of variation found in Vulgate Syriac
MSS, so far as they have yet been examined. Histo-
rical antecedents render it tolerably certain that the
locality of such an authoritative revision, accepted by
Syriac Christendom, would be either Edessa or Nisibis,
great centres of life and culture to the churches whose
language was Syriac, but intimately connected with An-
tioch, or else Antioch itself, which, though properly
Greek, was the acknowledged capital of the whole Syrian
population of both tongues. When therefore we find
large and peculiar coincidences between the revised Sy-
riac text and the text of the Antiochian Fathers of the
TWO STAGES OF SYRIAN REVISION 137
latter part of the fourth century, and strong indications
that the revision was deliberate and in some way autho-
ritative in both cases, it becomes natural to suppose that
the two operations had some historical Connexion.
189. Nevertheless the two texts are not identical.
In a considerable number of variations the Vulgate
Syriac sides with one or other of the Pre-Syrian texts
against the Antiochian Fathers and the late Greek text,
or else, as we have already found (§ 134, I43), has a
transitional reading, which has often, though not always,
some Greek documentary attestation. These lesser irre-
gularities shew that the Greek Syrian revision in its ulti-
mate form, the only form adequately known to us, and
the Syriac revision, though closely connected in origin,
cannot both be due to a single critical process performed
once for all. The facts would, we believe, be explained
by the supposition, natural enough in itself, that (1) the
growing diversity and confusion of Greek texts led to an
authoritative revision at Antioch, which (2) was then
taken as a standard for a similar authoritative revision of
the Syriac text, and (3) was itself at a later time sub-
jected to a second authoritative revision, carrying out
more completely the purposes of the first; but that the
Vulgate Syriac text did not undergo any corresponding
second revision. The revision apparently embodied in
the Harklean Syriac will be noticed further on.
190. The final process was apparently completed by
35o or thereabouts. At what date between 250 and 35o
the first process took place, it is impossible to say with
confidence; and even for conjecture the materials are
scanty. There can be little doubt that during the long
respite from persecution enjoyed by the Church in the
latter half of the third century multiplication of copies
I38 ZUC/AAVO.S
would be promoted by the increase of converts and new
security of religious use, and confusion of texts by more
frequent intercourse of churches. Such a state of things
would at least render textual revision desirable; and a
desire for it might easily arise in a place where a critical
spirit was alive. The harmony between the character-
istics of the Syrian revision and the well known temper
of the Antiochian School of critical theology in the fourth
century, at least on its weaker side, is obvious; and
Lucianus the reputed founder of the school, himself
educated at Edessa, lived in the latter part of the third
century, and suffered martyrdom in 312. Of known
names his has a better claim than any other to be asso-
ciated with the early Syrian revision; and the conjecture
derives some little Support from a passage of Jerome,
which is not itself discredited by the precariousness of
modern theories which have been suggested by it. When
he says in his preface to the Gospels “Praetermitto eos
codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nuncupatos pau-
corum hominum adserit perversa Contentio”, he must
have had in view some definite text or texts of the Gos-
pels or the New Testament generally, appealed to by
some definite set or sets of men as deriving authority
from names honoured by them. Jerome's antagonism to
Antiochian theology would readily explain his language,
if some Antiochian Father had quoted in controversy a
passage of the New Testament according to the text
familiar to him, had been accused of falsifying Scripture,
and had then claimed for his text the Sanction of Luci-
anus. Whether however Lucianus took a leading part in
the earlier stage of the Syrian revision or not, it may be
assigned with more probability either to his generation
or to that which immediately followed than to any other;
AX 7/AWC 77OAW OF AZAA’Z Y 7TEXTS I 39
and no critical results are affected by the presence or
absence of his name.
B. 191—193. Mixture in the fourth century
191. Two successive external events which mark the
opening years of the fourth century, the terrible persecu-
tion under Diocletian and his colleagues and the reaction
under Constantine, doubtless affected the text not less
powerfully than the Canon of the New Testament. The
long and serious effort of the imperial government to
annihilate the Scriptures could not be otherwise than
unequally successful in different places; and thus while
throughout whole regions all or nearly all existing MSS
would perish without leaving their text transmitted through
fresh copies, the vacant places would presently be filled,
and more than filled, by transcripts which would import
the texts current in more fortunate lands. Thus what-
ever irregularities in the geographical distribution of texts
had grown up in the earlier centuries would be suddenly
and variously multiplied. Moreover the tendency of the
changes brought about in that century of rapid innova-
tion by the new relations between the Church and the
empire, and by the overwhelming influence of theological
controversies, was unfavourable to the preservation of
local peculiarities of any kind. It is therefore no wonder
that the ancient types of text now lose themselves in a
general medley, not indeed vanishing entirely from view,
but discernible only in fragments intermingled with other
texts. Whatever may be the causes, mixture prevails
everywhere in the fourth century: almost all its texts, so
far as they can be seen through the quotations of the
Fathers, are more or less chaotic. . . .
I4O MAX 7'UA' A' AW GRAAEA 7/5 X 7.S.
192. The confusion was naturally most extensive in
the Greek texts; but the versions did not altogether
escape it. Enough is already known of the Latin texts
to enable us to see what kind of processes were at work.
Along with the old Western licence as to diction, in
which Latin scribes must have long continued to indulge,
we find not only indigenous mixture, the combination of
diverging or possibly of independent Latin types, but
also mixture with Greek texts. Combinations of this
latter kind were in fact more or less rude revisions, not
differing in essential character from the Hieronymic
revision to which the Vulgate is due. As in that better
known case, they proceeded from a true feeling that a
Greek MS as such was more authentic than a Latin MS
as such, uncontrolled by any adequate sense of the dif-
ference between one Greek MS and another. As was
to be expected, the new Greek elements of these revised
Latin MSS came from various sources, now Pre-Syrian
with or without the specially Alexandrian corruptions,
now distinctly Syrian, Greek readings of this last type
being however almost confined to the Italian and Hiero-
nymic revisions. How far the mixture perceptible in
Egyptian texts should be referred to this time, it is not
as yet possible to Say.
I93. Exact knowledge of the patristic texts of the
fourth century is much impeded by the uncritical manner
in which the works of most of the Greek Fathers have
been edited. But wherever firm ground can be reached,
we find essentially the same characteristics; almost total
absence of all the ancient texts in approximate integrity,
and infinitely varying combinations of them, together
with an increasing infusion of the later Syrian readings.
The most remarkable fact, standing out in striking con-
AV WEAES/OAVIS AAWD //W AA 7A/E/CS I4 I
trast to the previous state of things, is the sudden
collapse of the Western text after Eusebius: a few
writers offer rare traces of the expiring tradition in oc-
casional purely Western readings which subsequently
vanish; but even this slight and sporadic testimony is
exceptional. On the other hand elements derived from
Western texts entered largely into most of the mixtures
which encounter us on every side. A similar diffusion
of large elements derived from the Alexandrian text, dis-
cernible in the patristic evidence, is still better attested
by versions or revisions of versions in this and the next
following period, and apparently by the phenomena of
subsequent Greek MSS. At Alexandria itself the Alex-
andrian tradition lives on through the fourth century,
more or less disguised with foreign accretions, and then
in the early part of the fifth century reappears compara-
tively pure in Cyril. On the growing influence of the
Syrian texts throughout this time enough has already
been said.
C. 194, 195. Final supremacy of the Syriazz àext
194. The history of the text of the New Testament
in the following centuries is obscure in details; but the
facts which stand out clearly are sufficient for the pur-
poses of criticism. The multiplicity of texts bequeathed
by the fourth century was of long continuance. If, pass-
ing over the four great early Bibles RBAC, and also the
Graeco-Latin and Graeco-Egyptian MSS, we fix our at-
tention on what remains to us of purely Greek MSS
down to the seventh or eighth century, we cannot but be
struck by the considerable though unequal and on the
whole decreasing proportion in which Pre-Syrian readings
I42 AºAV4 L S. VA’/AAW SUAEA2/7//4 CY
of all types are mingled with Syrian. On the other
hand before the close of the fourth century, as we have
said, a Greek text not materially differing from the almost
universal text of the ninth century and the Middle Ages
was dominant, probably by authority, at Antioch, and
exercised much influence elsewhere. It follows that,
however great and long continued may have been the
blending of texts, the text which finally emerged trium-
phant in the East was not a result of any such process,
in which the Antiochian text would have been but One
factor, however considerable. With one memorable
exception, that of the Story of the Woman taken in
Adultery, there is evidence of but few and unimportant
modifications of the Antiochian text by the influence of
other ancient texts before it became the current text of
the East generally.
195. Two classes of causes were at work to produce
this singular result. On the one hand Greek Christen-
dom became more and more contracted in extent. The
West became exclusively Latin, as well as estranged from
the East: with local exceptions, interesting in themselves
and valuable to us but devoid of all extensive influence,
the use and knowledge of the Greek language died out
in Western Europe. Destruction of books, which had
played so considerable a part in textual history at the
threshold of the Constantinian age, was repeated again
and again on a larger scale, with the important difference
that now no reaction followed. The ravages of the bar-
barians and Mahometans annihilated the MSS of vast
regions, and narrowly limited the area within which tran-
Scription was carried on. Thus an immense number
of the MSS representing texts furthest removed in lo-
cality from Antiochian (or Constantinopolitan) influence
4 AV7/OCA AAVAD COMWS7AAV7//WOAZAZ I43
perished entirely, leaving no successors to contribute read-
ings to other living texts or to transmit their own texts to
the present day. On the other hand Greek Christendom
became centralised, and the Centre, looked up to in-
creasingly as such while time went on, was Constan-
tinople. Now Antioch is the true ecclesiastical parent
of Constantinople ; so that it is no wonder that the
traditional Constantinopolitan text, whether formally
official or not, was the Antiochian text of the fourth
century. It was equally natural that the text recognised
at Constantinople should eventually become in practice
the standard New Testament of the East.
D. 196, 197. Æelics of Pre-Syrian flexis in cursives
196. We have hitherto treated the Greek text of the
Middle Ages as a single text. This mode of represen-
tation, strictly true in itself, does not convey the whole
truth. An overwhelming proportion of the text in all
known cursive MSS except a few is as a matter of fact
identical, more especially in the Gospels and Pauline
Epistles, however we may account for the identity. Fur-
ther, the identity of readings implies identity of origin;
the evidence already given has shown many of the Cha-
racteristic readings to have originated about 250—350,
assigning them at the same time a definite single origin,
for we need not here distinguish stages in the Syrian re-
vision; and there are no reasons whatever for assigning
a different origin to the rest. If an editor were for any
purpose to make it his aim to restore by itself as com-
pletely as possible the New Testament of Antioch in
35o, he could not help taking the approximate Consent
of the cursives as equivalent to a primary documentary
I44 A.A. Z/CS OF AZAAEA. Y. ZTEXTS ZAV CUAES/VES
witness; and he would not be the less justified in so
doing for being unable to say precisely by what historical
agencies the One Antiochian original was multiplied into
the cursive hosts of the later ages. But it is no less
true that the consent is only approximate. Although
numerous important variations between the Antiochian
and other more ancient texts have left no trace in known
cursive texts, hardly a verse is free from deviations from
the presumed Constantinopolitan standard, sometimes
found in a few cursives or one, sometimes even in a
large array ; and there are not wanting cursives which
suggest a doubt whether such a standard forms any part
of their ancestry. These diversities of cursive texts, per-
ceptible enough even in Mill's pages, and brought into
clearer relief by the collations made or employed by
Griesbach and Scholz, can now be studied as to all their
characteristic phenomena by means of Dr Scrivener's
exhaustive collations.
197. Variations of cursives from the prevalent late
text are of two kinds, differing in origin, though not
always capable of being distinguished. They are due
either to mixture with other texts, or to ordinary degene-
racy of transmission. In the latter case they must of
course have originated in an age which deprives them at
once of all critical value and of all but the most subor-
dinate historical interest: in the former case they not
only often supply important documentary evidence for
the restoration of the apostolic text, in which light we
shall have to consider them presently, but form a re-
markable link historically between the ninth and following
centuries and the preceding periods, being in fact analo-
gous to the Old Latin readings often preserved in Vulgate
Latin MSS. They are virtually copies of minute frag.
CONTINUZZY OF TEXTUAZ AZSTORY I45
ments of lost MSS, belonging doubtless in most instances
to the middle or late uncial times, but sometimes of
an earlier date, and in either case derived directly or
indirectly, wholly or partially, from ancient texts. They
shew that the final victory of the Antiochian text did not
carry with it a total suppression of MSS of other texts;
while the fact that the cursives with distinctly mixed texts
are not only proportionally but absolutely much more
numerous in the tenth and eleventh than in the twelfth
and later centuries shews equally that the MSS of other
texts fell more and more into neglect. The cursives
mentioned above as probably or possibly independent
of any Constantinopolitan Origin are doubtless on this
supposition copies, more or less pure, of MSS similar to
those which, immediately or remotely, furnished detached
ancient readings to the mixed cursives. They might be
compared to the Old Latin c, written several centuries
not only after the formation of the Latin Vulgate, but
even after its general adoption.
E. 198. Acecapitulation of history of ſex;
I98. The continuity, it will be seen, is complete.
Early in the second century we find the Western text
already wandering into greater and greater adulteration
of the apostolic text, which, while doubtless holding its
ground in different places, has its securest refuge at Alex-
andria; but there in turn it suffers from another but
slighter series of changes: and all this before the middle
of the third century. At no long time after we find an at-
tempt made, apparently at Antioch, to remedy the grow-
ing confusion of texts by the editing of an eclectic text
combining readings from the three principal texts, itself
I 2
I46 AMAZYSIS OF ZEx7S OF DOCUMENTS
further revised on like principles, and in that form used
by great Antiochian theologians not long after the middle
of the fourth century. From that date, and indeed
earlier, we find a chaos of varying mixed texts, in which
as time advances the elder texts recede, and the Antio-
chian text now established at Constantinople increasingly
prevails. Then even the later types with mixed base
disappear, and with the rarest exceptions the Constanti-
nopolitan text alone is copied, often at first with relics of
its vanquished rivals included, till at last these too dwindle,
and in the copies written shortly before the invention of
printing its victory is all but complete. At each stage
there are irregularities and obscurities: but we believe
the above to be a true sketch of the leading incidents in
the history of the text of the New Testament; and, if it
be true, its significance as a key to the complexities of
documentary evidence is patent without explanation.
SECTION IV. RELATIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL EXTANT
T)OCUMENTS TO THE CHIEF ANCIENT TEXTS
I99–223
A. 199, 200. AWałęre of the process of determination
I99. In the preceding pages we have been tracing
the history of ancient lines of transmission, divergent and
convergent, by means of evidence chiefly furnished by
the existing documents. In order to use the knowledge
thus obtained for the restoration of the text, we have next
to follow the converse process, and ascertain which
ancient text or texts are represented by each important
document or set of documents. Up to a certain point
T///0 OUGAſ AWOA&MAZ, VAAAA 7TWOAVS I47
this exploration of the ancestry of documents has been
performed already at an earlier stage of the investigation,
for we could have made little progress if we had not been
able to recognise certain more or less defined groups of
documents as habitually attesting analogous ancient read-
ings, and thus as being comparatively faithful representa-
tives of particular ancient texts. But we are now enabled
both to verify with increased exactness the earlier classifi-
cations, and to extend them to other documents the texts
of which were too ambiguous at first sight to allow them
to be classified without the aid of standards external to
themselves.
2 oo. The evidence is supplied by the numerous
variations in which each variant can at Once be assigned
with moral certainty to some one of the ancient texts, to
the exclusion of those variations in which the grouping of
documents is at this stage obscure. At each variation
we observe which ancient text is attested by the docu-
ment under examination. The sum of these observa-
tions contains the required result. Neglecting petty
exceptions as probably due to some unnoticed ambiguity,
unless they happen to be of special clearness, we find
that the document habitually follows some one ancient
text; or that it sometimes follows one, sometimes another,
but has no characteristic readings of the rest; or again
that it follows all in turn. Thus we learn that it has
transmitted one ancient type of text in approximate
purity; or that it is directly or indirectly derived by mix-
ture from two originals of different defined types; or that
it has arisen from a more comprehensive mixture. The
mixture may of course have taken place in any propor-
tions, and the same observations which bring to light the
various elements will supply also a fair estimate of the
I48 GAEAAA UAVC/A/S WZZTAſ
proportions between them: most Commonly there is no
difficulty in recognising one text as the base on which
readings of one or more other types have been inserted
in greater or less number. From the component ele-
ments of the text of a document as thus empirically
ascertained to be present in the illustrative variations
taken into account, and also, more roughly, from their
proportions, the component elements of its text generally,
and their proportions, become approximately known.
This knowledge Supplies a key to other less simple varia-
tions, by shewing either to which ancient text a given
reading must be referred, so far as its attestation by each
such document is concerned, or at least to which ancient
text or texts each such document gives little or no warrant
for referring it. The uses of the information thus ob-
tained, and their limitation, will appear in due time.
B. 201–21 2. Texts found in Greek A/SS
2OI. We have next to give a brief account of the
relations of the principal extant documents to ancient texts
as ascertained in the manner described above. Greek
Uncial MSS are arranged here in the order that seems
most convenient for exhibiting their textual composition,
without reference to any supposed order of excellence.
Some repetitions have been found unavoidable.
2O2. Western texts virtually unmixed survive exclu-
sively in Graeco-Latin MSS written in Western Europe.
They are well represented in the Gospels and Acts by D,
some leaves in different places and some whole chapters
at the end of Acts being however lost. Though the MS
was written in Cent. VI, the text gives no clear signs of
having undergone recent degeneracy: it is, to the best of
our belief, substantially a Western text of Cent. II, with
occasional readings probably due to Cent. IV. Much
more numerous are readings belonging to a very early
stage of the Western text, free as yet from corruptions
early enough to be found in the European or even in the
WAES 7TEACAV 7TAXTS I49
African form of the Old Latin version, and indeed else-
where. In spite of the prodigious amount of error which
D contains, these readings, in which it Sustains and is
sustained by other documents derived from very ancient
texts of other types, render it often invaluable for the
secure recovery of the true text: and, apart from this direct
applicability, no other single source of evidence except
the quotations of Origen surpasses it in value on the
equally important ground of historical or indirect instruc-
tiveness. To what extent its unique readings are due to
licence on the part of the scribe rather than to faithful
reproduction of an antecedent text now otherwise lost, it
is impossible to say: but it is remarkable how frequently
the discovery of fresh evidence, especially Old Latin
evidence, supplies a second authority for readings in
which D had hitherto stood alone. At all events, when
every allowance has been made for possible individual
licence, the text of D presents a truer image of the form
in which the Gospels and Acts were most widely read in
the third and probably a great part of the Second century
than any other extant Greek MS.
203. Western texts of the Pauline Epistles are pre-
served in two independent uncials, D2 and G3, in G3 to
the exclusion of Hebrews. What has been said of D of
the Gospels may be applied with little deduction to the
Pauline D2, allowance being made for the inferior interest
of all Western texts of St Paul. The text of Gs, to a great
extent coincident, apparently represents a later type, but
still probably not later than Cent. IV. It is to be ob-
served that though many readings of D2 in opposition
to Gs are supported by other very ancient texts, others
receive no such confirmation, and are shown by Latin evi-
dence to be no less Western than those of G3. But this is
merely an example of the variety of Western texts. Since
Gs was apparently written late in Cent. IX, probably at St
Gallen by an Irish scribe (though it may possibly have
been brought to St Gallen from Ireland), the nature of its
text may be due either to the preservative power of the
seclusion of Greek learning in the West or to direct
transcription from a very much older copy. The text of
the Gospels in what was originally part of the same MS
is, we shall See, entirely different. Two of the uncial
Graeco-Latin copies of the Pauline Epistles, Es and F2,
cannot count as independent sources of evidence: E3 has
long been recognised as a transcript of D2, and we believe
I 50 GA2A2/2A OAVC/4 ZS WZZTAZ"
F, to be as certainly in its Greek text a transcript of Ga;
if not, it is an inferior copy of the same immediate ex-
emplar. Not a single Greek MS of any age, as we have
already (§ 17I) had occasion to notice, has transmitted to
us an Alexandrian text of any part of the New Testament
free from large mixture with other texts.
2O4. Tried by the same tests as those just applied,
B is found to hold a unique position. Its text is through-
out Pre-Syrian, perhaps purely Pre-Syrian, at all events
with hardly any, if any, quite clear exceptions, of which
the least doubtful is the curious interpolation in Rom. xi 6.
From distinctively Western readings it seems to be all but
entirely free in the Gospels, Acts, and Catholic Epistles:
in the Pauline Epistles there is an unquestionable inter-
mingling of readings derived from a Western text nearly
related to that of Ga; and the facility with which they can
generally be here recognised throws into clearer relief the
almost total absence of definite Western influence in the
other books. Here and there indeed may be found read-
ings which are perhaps in some sense Western, having
some slight Old Latin or similar attestation : but they
are few and not clearly marked, so that their existence
does not sensibly render less significant the absence of
distinctively Western readings manifestly such. Respect-
ing Alexandrian readings negative statements as to a
document containing a Non-Western Pre-Syrian text can
never be made without hesitation, on account of the
narrow limitation of the difference of documentary at-
testation characteristic of the two forms of this text re-
spectively. But we have not been able to recognise as
Alexandrian any readings of B in any book of the New
Testament which it contains; so that, with the exceptions
already noticed, to the best of our belief neither of the
early streams of innovation has touched it to any ap-
preciable extent. This peculiar character is exhibited to
the eye in the documentary evidence of those variations
in which both a Western and an Alexandrian corruption
is present, and one of these corruptions is adopted in the
Syrian text, B being then conspicuous in the usually
slender array supporting the reading from which both have
diverged. It must not of course be assumed to follow that
B has remained unaffected by sporadic corruption inde-
pendent of the three great lines, Western, Alexandrian,
and Syrian. In the Gospel of St Matthew for instance it
has occasionally admitted widely spread readings of very
AA’Aº-S VA’/AAW TAZXTS I 5 I
doubtful genuineness. But the influence of these three
lines upon almost all extant documents has been so
enormous that the highest interest must already be seen
to belong to a document of which thus far we know only
that its text is not only Pre-Syrian but substantially free
from Western and Alexandrian adulteration.
205. The relations to ancient texts which disclose
themselves on analysis of the text of X are peculiarly inter-
esting. As in its contemporary B, the text seems to be
entirely, or all but entirely, Pre-Syrian: and further a very
large part of the text is in like manner free from Western
or Alexandrian elements. On the other hand this funda-
mental text has undergone extensive mixture either with
another text itself already mixed Or, more probably, with
two separate texts, one Western, one Alexandrian. Thus,
widely different as is N from the Syrian text, as well as in-
dependent of it, it is analogous in composition, except
that it shews no trace of deliberate adjustment and critical
modification. The mixture is unequally distributed, being
most abundant in the Gospels and apparently in the Apo-
calypse, and least abundant in the Pauline Epistles; but
it is never absent for many verses together. The West-
ern readings are specially numerous in St John's Gospel,
and in parts of St Luke's : they belong to an early and im-
portant type, though apparently not quite so early as the
fundamental text of D, and some of them are the only
Greek authority for Western readings which, previous to
the discovery of N, had been known only from versions.
2O6. Every other known Greek MS has either a mixed
or a Syrian text, mixture becoming rarer as we ap-
proach the time when the Syrian text no longer reigned
supreme, but virtually reigned alone. Moreover every
known Greek MS except those already mentioned Con-
tains a Syrian element, which is in almost all cases large,
but is very variable. The differences in respect of mixture
fall under three chief heads;–difference in the proportion
of Syrian to Pre-Syrian readings; difference in the propor-
tion of Pre-Syrian readings neither Western nor Alexan-
drian to those of both these classes; and difference in the
proportion of Western to Alexandrian readings. It is to
be observed that the Non-Syrian element of these mixed
Greek MSS is hardly ever, if ever, exclusively Western or
exclusively Alexandrian. Sometimes the one type pre-
dominates, sometimes the other, but neither appears quite
alone. This state of things would naturally arise if, as
I 52 GA’A. AEX UAVC/A/LS WATAſ
was to be anticipated from the phenomena of the fourth
century, the Pre-Syrian texts in their purer forms quickly
died out, and were replaced by a multitude of mixed texts.
In like manner it is no wonder that the Pre-Syrian text
neither Western nor Alexandrian, which already by the
fourth century was apparently less popular than that of
either the Western or the Alexandrian type, is afterwards
found less conspicuously represented in mixed texts than
its rivals.
2O7. The text of A stands in broad contrast to those
of either B or 8, though the interval of years is probably
small. The contrast is greatest in the Gospels, where A
has a fundamentally Syrian text, mixed occasionally with
Pre-Syrian readings, chiefly Western. In the other books
the Syrian base disappears, though a Syrian occurs among
the other elements. In the Acts and Epistles the Alex-
andrian outnumber the Western readings. All books
except the Gospels, and especially the Apocalypse, have.
many Pre-Syrian readings not belonging to either of the
aberrant types: in the Gospels these readings are of rare
occurrence. By a Curious and apparently unnoticed coin-
cidence the text of A in several books agrees with the
Latin Vulgate in so many peculiar readings devoid of Old
Latin attestation as to leave little doubt that a Greek MS
largely employed by Jerome in his revision of the Latin
version must have had to a great extent a common Original
with A. Apart from this individual affinity, A both in the
Gospels and elsewhere may serve as a fair example of the
MSS that, to judge by patristic quotations, were Com-
monest in the fourth century. Even the difference of text
in the Gospels, though very possibly due only to accidental
use of different exemplars for different groups of books,
corresponds to a difference existing on a larger Scale; for
the Syrian text of the Gospels appears to have become
popular before that of the rest of the New Testament.
208. In C the Syrian and all three forms of Pre-
Syrian text are combined in varying proportions; distinc-
tively Syrian readings and such distinctively Western
readings as were not much adopted into eclectic texts
being however comparatively infrequent.
209. With respect to the texts of extant uncial MSS
of the Gospels later than the four great Bibles, a few
words on some of the more important must suffice. The
Greek text of the Graeco-Thebaic fragments of St Luke
M//XED AA’ſ) SVA’ſ AAW ZE.X. ZS I 53
and St John (T, Cent. v) is entirely Pre-Syrian and almost
entirely Non-Western. That of the considerable fragments
of St Luke called F has a similar foundation, with a larger
share of Alexandrian corrections, and also a Sprinkling of
Western and Syrian readings: this character is the more
remarkable as the date seems to be Cent. VIII. Of greater
general importance is L of about the same date, which
contains the Gospels in approximate completeness. The
foundation of the text is Non-Western Pre-Syrian. No
extant MS has preserved so many Alexandrian readings in
the Gospels, but the early readings neither Western nor
Alexandrian are also very numerous. On the other hand
the fundamental text has been largely mixed with late
Western and with Syrian elements. The composition, it
will be seen, has analogies with that of S, though the actual
texts are entirely independent, and the much smaller pro-
portion of Alexandrian corrections in S, the great dissimi-
larity of its Western element, and the absence of a Syrian
element, constitute important differences. In three Gos-
pels the St Gallen MSA (see above on Gs of the Pauline
Epistles, § 203) has an ordinary Syrian text sprinkled
thinly with Alexandrian and a few Western readings.
But in St Mark this fundamental text is for the most part
displaced by mixture with a Non-Western Pre-Syrian text
of the same type as the fundamental text of L and E, and
thus full of Alexandrian corrections as well as other early
Non-Western readings: traces of the process remain in
conflate or intermediate readings. The numerous frag-
ments of PQRZ of the Gospels (see Ś IOO) are variously
mixed, but all have a large proportion of Pre-Syrian read-
ings; in such MSS as NXT(?X), and still more as KM,
Pre-Syrian readings are very much fewer. The smaller
fragments we must pass over, with one exception: too few
lines of W* (St Mark) survive to enable us to form a
trustworthy conceptioſi of its text generally; but it includes
a large Western elempnt of a very curious type.
2 IO. The Codet Caudiazzus (E.) of Acts is interesting
on more accounts than one. It was apparently the identi-
cal Greek MS used by Bede. As it is Graeco-Latin in
form, its text might be expected to be Western. A West-
ern text it does contain, very distinctly such, though evi-
dently later than that of D; but mixed on apparently
equal terms, though in varying proportions, with a no less
distinctly Alexandrian text: there are also Syrian read-
ings, but they are fewer in number. P2 is all but purely

I54. GA’AºA2A CURS/VAZS W/TAY
Syrian in the Acts and I Peter, while in the other Epistles
and the Apocalypse a similar base is variously mixed with
another text predominantly but not exclusively Alexan-
drian, often agreeing with A where A has readings of this
class. The Pauline fragments M, and Ha have mixed
texts, that of M2 being of more ancient character and
more interesting. The historical antecedents of B2, and
indeed of all MSS of the Apocalypse, are still obscure.
2 II. A few words must suffice here on Greek Cursives.
By far the most free from Syrian readings is 61 of the
Acts, which contains a very ancient text, often Alexan-
drian, rarely Western, with a trifling Syrian element, pro-
bably of late introduction. The cursive which comes
nearest to 61 of Acts in antiquity of text, though at a long
interval, is 33 of the Gospels; which has indeed a very
large Syrian element, but has also an unusual proportion
of Pre-Syrian readings, chiefly Non-Western of both kinds
though also Western : the same type of text runs through
the whole MS, which is called 13 in the Acts and Catholic
Epistles, and 17 in the Pauline Epistles. Most cursives
of the Gospels which contain many ancient readings owe
more to Western than to Alexandrian sources. Among
these may be named four, I 3, 69, I24, and 346, which
have recently been shown by Professors Ferrar and T.
K. Abbott to be variously descended from a single not
very remote original, probably uncial: its Non-Syrian
readings belong to very ancient types, but their proportion
to the fundamentally Syrian text as a whole is not great.
Nearly the same may be said of I and 209 of the Gospels,
which contain a large common element of ancient origin,
partly shared by I 18, as also by I31. The most valuable
cursive for the preservation of Western readings in the
Gospels is 81, a St Petersburg MS called 20° by Tischendorf
as standing second in a list of documents collated by Muralt.
It has a large ancient element, in great measure Western,
and in St Mark its ancient readings are numerous enough
to be of real importance. Another more than usually
interesting text, somewhat of the same type but much
more largely Syrian, is that of It, 39, the British Museum
Gospel Lectionary called y by its collator Dr Scrivener.
In 157 of the Gospels we have the best example of the few
cursives which more nearly resemble 33 in the composi-
tion of their Pre-Syrian element, though not connected
with 33 by any near affinity.
212. The proportion of cursives of the Acts and
Alſ/XED 7AX 7S I 55
Catholic Epistles containing an appreciable amount of
Pre-Syrian readings is much larger than in the Gospels or
even in the Pauline Epistles, and the Alexandrian read-
ings thus attested are greatly in excess of the Western,
without taking into account 61 or 13. Fortunately how-
ever Western texts are not altogether ill represented,
though only by Scattered readings, chiefly in 137, 18O, and
44, this last being a MS belonging to the Baroness
Burdett-Coutts (iii. 37), for the loan of a collation of which
we have to thank Dr Scrivener's kindness; and to these
MSS should be added 31 (the Leicester MS called 69 in
the Gospels), which has many Non-Alexandrian Pre-
Syrian readings of both kinds. The chief characteristics
of the ancient elements in the cursive texts of St Paul are
the extreme irregularity with which they appear in dif-
ferent parts of his epistles, and the Small proportion of
Western readings to others. Certain corrections in the
margin of 67 (66 of the Acts and Catholic Epistles) stand
apart by their inclusion of a relatively large number of
very ancient readings, which have no other cursive at-
testation, some distinctively Western, others not so : these
marginal readings must have been derived from a MS
having a text nearly akin to that of the fragmentary MS
called M2, though not from M2 itself. Besides 17, men-
tioned above, no other MSS of St Paul require special
notice. Much ancient evidence is assuredly preserved in
not a few cursive texts of the Apocalypse: but they have
not as yet been traced with any clearness to their sources.
C. 213–219. Texts found in Versions
213. Analogous phenomena of mixture to those ob-
served in most Greek MSS recur in the later Versions
and states of versions: but the want of adequate know-
ledge of individual MSS of all versions except the Old
Latin leaves much uncertain that will doubtless hereafter
be cleared up. The African and European Latin, as has
been already intimated, represent Western texts of dif-
ferent antiquity: but most of the aberrant readings found
in single MSS are probably due to independent mixture
with other Greek texts. In the Italian and Vulgate re-
visions mixture with Greek texts of various types played
a large part : in the Italian Latin the Syrian contingent
is especially conspicuous. We have already spoken of the
I 56 COAVST/7'UAEAV7' 7"ZX 7.S.
various forms of Latin mixture which are perceptible in
‘Mixed Vulgate’ MSS (§ 1 I4): it is likewise possible that
some of their Non-Western readings may have come
directly from Greek MSS.
2I4. The textual character of the Old State of the
national or Peshito Syriac version is to a certain extent
ambiguous, as being known only through a solitary and
imperfect MS. We cannot always distinguish original
readings of the version, antecedent to the bulk of West-
ern readings, from readings in no sense Western in-
troduced into it by mixture in the later generations
before our MS was written. In many cases however
the discrimination is rendered morally certain by the
grouping of documents: and at all events the widest
examination of all classes of documents only confirms the
general conclusions on the history of the Syriac version set
forth above (§ II8) as suggested by the Žºržmza facie rela-
tions of early grouping. In its origin the version was at
least predominantly Western of an early type, such few
Alexandrian readings as occur having probably come in
at a later though still early time. At the revision, whether
independent or conforming to a Greek Syrian revision,
changes having the Syrian characteristics already described
were introduced into the fundamental text. The revised
or Vulgate Syriac text differs from the final form of the
Greek Syrian text chiefly in retaining many Non-Western
readings (some few of them apparently Alexandrian) which
afterwards gave way to Western or to new (distinctively
Syrian) readings.
215. The Harklean Syriac, which the thorough recast-
ing of diction constitutes rather a new version founded on
the Vulgate Syriac than a revision of it in the ordinary
sense, receives its predominant character from the multi-
tudes of ordinary Antiochian readings introduced; but
readings of more ancient Greek types likewise make their
appearance. Taken altogether, this is one of the most
confused texts preserved: but it may be rendered more
intelligible by fresh collations and better editing, even if
they should fail to distinguish the work of Thomas of
Harkel from that of his predecessor Polycarpus. It would
not be surprising to find that Polycarpus simply converted
the Vulgate Syriac into an exact imitation of the Greek
Antiochian text, and that the more ancient readings were
introduced by Thomas from the “three (v. Z. two) approved
and accurate Greek copies in the Enaton of the great city
OA' VAZA'.SZOAVS I 57
of Alexandria, in the holy monastery of the Enatonians”,
with which he states that he carefully Compared his pre-
decessor's version. In this case the readings noted in the
margin might well be those which he did not see fit to
adopt, but thought it best to place on record in a second-
ary place. The Non-Antiochian readings in the text, with
or without an asterisk, have the same general character as
the marginal readings, and can mostly claim a very high
antiquity: , many of them are distinctively Western, and
they include a large proportion of the peculiar Western
variations and interpolations in the Acts. In the Catholic
Epistles the readings of the Harklean Syriac have a more
mixed character than in the other books.
216. The Jerusalem Syriac Lectionary has an entirely
different text, probably not altogether unaffected by the
Syriac Vulgate, but more closely related to the Old Syriac.
Mixture with one or more Greek texts containing elements
of every great type, but especially the more ancient, has
however given the whole a strikingly composite character.
Variations occur to a certain extent between repetitions of
the same passages in different parts of the Lectionary, and
also between the several MSS in the few places where the
new fragments contain the same portions with each other
or with the principal MS. These differences are probably
caused by mixture with late Greek MSS; which is indeed
likely to have affected this Syriac text in all the extant
copies: but for the most part the same peculiar text pre-
sents itself throughout.
217. . The Egyptian versions are substantially true to
their Žrimea facie character. The main body of both ver-
sions is founded on a very ancient Non-Western text,
Sometimes affected by the Alexandrian corrections, some.
times free from them. Neither of them however has
escaped mixture. Syrian readings are rare, even in the
printed editions, and it is probable that they belong only
to a late and degenerate State of the versions: the varia-
tion which Dr Lightfoot has found as to the presence or
absence of some conspicuous interpolations, Syrian by
either origin or adoption, in different Memphitic MSS,
and the appearance of a series of them in the margins
but not the text of the leading Oxford MS, suggest that
this element may have been wholly wanting in the first
few centuries. The Western influence is more deeply
Seated, but is probably of two kinds. The Memphitic no
less than the Thebaic has Western readings, but they are
158 CONST/7'UAE.V7' 7"ZX7 S
with comparatively few exceptions, readings much current
in the fourth century, and possibly owe their place to com-
paratively late mixture. The Thebaic on the other hand
has a large proportion of distinctively Western readings of
an older type. Whatever may be the real origin of the
AEthiopic, it is on the one hand strongly Syrian, on the
other in strong affinity with its Egyptian neighbours, and
especially its nearer neighbour the Thebaic: both ancient
Western and ancient Non-Western readings, Alexandrian
and other, are conspicuous in its unsettled but certainly
composite text.
218. The two solitary outlying versions bear marks of
their late date, but not less of the valuable texts which
were still current when they were made. The Armenian
includes at least three large elements, Syrian, early West-
ern, and early Non-Western, including some Alexandrian
modifications. The coincidence of many of the Western
readings in the Armenian with the Latin Vulgate, in con-
junction with the real adulteration of the first printed
edition from the Latin Vulgate, as mentioned above (§ 121),
has brought this version under a vague suspicion of having
been at some period subjected to Latinising corruption.
The coincidences however with the Old Latin in peculiar
readings against the Vulgate Latin are likewise numerous,
and can only be explained by descent from a Greek West-
ern original. The Gothic has very much the same com-
bination as the Italian revision of the Old Latin, being
largely Syrian and largely Western, with a small admix-
ture of ancient Non-Western readings. Whether the
copies which furnished the Western element were obtained
by Ulfilas in Europe or brought by his parents from
Cappadocia, cannot be determined: in either case they
were Greek, not Latin.
219. It will be seen that, extensive and intricate as
have been the results of mixture upon Versions, the broad
historical relations of their texts correspond to the rela-
tions found among other documentary authorities. The
only readings, belonging to distinctive types, that can with
any certainty claim the authority of either of the three
great independent families of versions originating in the
earliest period are either Western or Alexandrian. Ap-
parent exceptions to this statement may be found in occa-
sional Syrian readings, or what appear to be such, attested
by the Old Syriac or the Memphitic: but the evident
presence of a late or extraneous element in the solitary
OA; VAZAZSZOAVS AAWD A.AZTA://ZA'S I 59
MS of the one and in the printed editions, founded on
late MSS, of the other, together with the prevailing charac-
ter of both texts, renders it highly improbable that these
exceptions existed in the versions in their earlier days.
The Revised Syriac is the first version to betray clearly
the existence of the Greek Syrian revision, exhibiting a
large proportion of the characteristically Syrian new read-
ings and combinations of old readings. Various Latin
revised texts follow, with analogous but different combina-
tions, two alone deriving a very large share of their com-
plexion from the Syrian text. The Egyptian texts, and
especially the Memphitic, likewise sooner or later became
adulterated, as we have said, with extraneous elements;
but at what dates is uncertain. The only versions, besides
the Italian and Vulgate Latin, in which the completed
Syrian text is clearly and widely represented are definitely
known to be of the fourth or later centuries, that is, the
Gothic, AEthiopic, Armenian, and Harklean Syriac: the
date of the Jerusalem Syriac is unknown.
D. 22 o–223. Texts found in Greek Fażhers
220. Enough has already been said (§§ 158—162) on
the texts which can be recognised in the extant remains of
the several Ante-Nicene Greek Fathers. A few supple-
mentary remarks must however be inserted here on the
peculiar nature of the textual evidence furnished by Greek
works preserved, wholly or in great part, only in ancient
translations. In the quotations found in these works the
texts of Versions and Fathers are variously blended to-
gether, so that their testimony needs to be examined with
special care, while it is often too valuable to be neglected.
Irenaeus furnishes the most prominent example. Of his
great treatise against heresies, which is extant in a Latin
translation, no Greek MS is known to exist. Epiphanius
however, writing about 375, has transcribed into his own
principal work the greater part of the first of the five
books. Other Greek writers and compilers, from Euse-
bius onwards, have preserved many short fragments, a few
being likewise extant in a Syriac or Armenian dress.
Secure knowledge of the character of the text of the New
Testament used by Irenaeus himself can of course be ob-
tained only from the Greek extracts and from such read-
ings extant only in Latin as are distinctly fixed by the
I6O DOUBZE 7/2x7'S OF GRZZX F47//EAS
context; and it is solely from these materials that we have
described his text as definitely Western. In the use of
the Greek extracts the age and other circumstances of the
several sources from which they are derived have to be
consideled. The Greek transmission is independent of
the Latin transmission, but not always purer. Greek cor-
ruptions absent from the Latin version, due either to the
use of degenerate MSS of Irenaeus by late writers or
to degenerate transmission of the works of these writers
themselves, can often be detected in the language of Ire-
naeus himself, and might therefore be anticipated in his
quotations. But these individual ambiguities do not dis-
turb the general results. The passages subject to no
reasonable doubt render it certain that the translator
largely modified biblical quotations in conformity with an
Old Latin text familiar to him, but perhaps unconsciously,
certainly irregularly and very imperfectly. We thus learn
what anteccdents to the Latin readings we have to take
into account as possible where the Greek has perished,
aided by the fact that passages quoted several times
exhibit a text sometimes identical, sometimes modified in
various degrees. Occasionally, with the help afforded by
the other Old Latin evidence, we can arrive at moral
certainty that the translator has faithfully reproduced
his author’s reading: but more commonly the two alter-
natives have to be regarded as equally possible. Both
texts are Western ; and the evidence is valuable, whether
it be that of Irenaeus or virtually of a fresh Old Latin
MS, though in the former case it is much more valuable.
Were indeed Massuet's commonly accepted theory true,
that the Latin version of Irenaeus was used by Tertullian,
the biblical text followed by the translator would take pre-
cedence of all other Old Latin texts in age. We are
convinced however, not only by the internal character of
this biblical text but by comparison of all the passages of
Irenaeus borrowed in substance by Tertullian, that the
Greck text alone of Irenaeus was known to him, and that
the true date of the translation is the fourth century. The
inferior limit is fixed by the quotations made from it by
Augustine about 42 I.
221. Several important works of Origen are likewise,
wholly or in part, extant only in Latin, and need similar
allowance for two alternatives in the employment of their
evidence as to biblical texts. Caution is especially needed
where Rufinus is the translator, as in the early treatise
A.XTAAV7' AV ZAZTIAW AAWD SYRAC I6 I
De Principiis, the commentaries on Canticles and Romans,
and the Homilies on several early books of the Old Tes-
tament and on three Psalms: for his well known licence in
manipulating Origen's own language undoubtedly extended
to the quotations; and at least in the commentaries the
depravation of text has apparently been increased by the
condensation of the voluminous original. Yet even here
numerous readings can be determined with certainty as
Origen's. More reliance can be placed, though still with
some reserve, on Jerome's translations, that is, those of
the Homilies on St Luke, (Isaiah P), Jeremiah (mostly also
extant in Greek), and Ezekiel, and of two on Canticles. For
part of the commentary on St Matthew we have an inter-
esting anonymous translation, the portion for xvii. 34–
xxvii. 66 being preserved in no other shape. For xvi I3–
xxii 33 it overlaps an extant section of the Greek text;
and comparison suggests that they are both independent
condensations of a fuller original, so that neither can be
safely neglected, though the Latin has the disadvantages
of Old Latin modification as well as greater brevity. It
has however occasionally preserved matter omitted al-
together by the Greek abbreviator. Other Greek patristic
writings extant in Latin may be passed over.
222. The Syriac MSS brought to England within the
present century have contributed some valuable patristic
texts. The Theophania of Eusebius, edited and translated
by Dr Lee, presents phenomena analogous to those of the
Latin Irenaeus. Some of the readings are undoubtedly
of Old Syriac parentage, and introduced by the translator;
others as certainly belong to Eusebius; and many may
have either origin. Moreover the predominant colour of
both texts is Western, though the influence of a Non-
Western text over Eusebius is also perceptible. The help
of Greek fragments is available both here and in the other
Syriac patristic translation most useful to the textual
critic, that of a large part of the younger Cyril's Homilies
on St Luke, edited and translated by Dr Payne Smith. In
this instance the disturbing element is the Vulgate Syriac:
but the great bulk of the text of the biblical quotations is
unaffected by it, and takes high rank as a documentary
authority for a Non-Western Pre-Syrian text of the verses
which it covers.
223. Respecting Post-Nicene Greek patristic writings
generally it will suffice here to refer to what has been said
already (§ 193) on the extremely mixed character of their
13
I62 AZADINGS REAEERREZ) TO ANCIENT Z.EXZS
texts, shewing a growing preponderance of Syrian read-
ings even where the text of Antioch was not adopted almost
or altogether without modification. With the works of Cyril
of Alexandria may be named an obscure exposition of faith
(Karā puépos tío Tus), formerly called a work of Gregory of
Neocaesarea (Cent. III), and now attributed with much pro-
bability to Apollinaris, which has a remarkable Pre-Syrian
and chiefly Non-Western text. A more than average pro-
portion of similar elements presents itself in the quotations
of Epiphanius; and even so late a writer as John of
Damascus (Cent. VIII) makes considerable use of an
ancient text.
SECTION V, ITDENTIFICATION AND ESTIMATION OF READ-
INGS AS BELONGING TO THE CHIEF ANCIENT TEXTS
22.4—243
A. 224. Aſaſure of the process of identification
224. The constituent elements of each principal
extant document, so far as they have been contributed
by the several great ancient types of text, having thus
been approximately determined, we are now in a posi-
tion to determine by their aid the ancient distribution of
a much larger number of separate readings than was
possible when only the comparatively unmixed repre-
sentatives of each type were taken into account. Here
then at last genealogical evidence becomes extensively
applicable to use in the discrimination of false readings
from true. As each variation comes before us with its
two or more variants, each attested by a group of docu-
ments, we are now enabled in a large proportion of
cases to assign at once each variant to one of the ancient
texts on the strength of the grouping of documents which
makes up its attestation, and thereby to obtain (to say
the least) a presumption of the highest value as to its
genuineness or spuriousness.
/
SIFTING ovz of SYRIAN READINGS, 163
B. 225, 226. Identification and rejection of Syrian
zeadings
225. The first point to decide with respect to each
reading is whether it is Pre-Syrian or not. If it is
attested by the bulk of the later Greek MSS, but not
by any of the uncials NBCDLPQRTZ (A in St Mark)
E (also 33) in the Gospels (the smaller fragments we pass
over here), NABCDE, (also 13 61) in Acts, SABC (also
I3) in the Catholic Epistles, or NABCD,G, (also 17
67*) in the Pauline Epistles, and not by any Latin
authority (except the latest forms of Old Latin), the Old
or the Jerusalem Syriac, or either Egyptian version,
and not by any certain quotation of a Father earlier
than 250, there is the strongest possible presumption
that it is distinctively Syrian, and therefore, on the
grounds already explained (§ 158), to be rejected at once
as proved to have a relatively late origin. It is true
that many documents not included in these privileged
lists contain Pre-Syrian elements; but only in such small
proportion that the chance of a Pre-Syrian reading find-
ing attestation in these late relics of vanishing or vanished
texts, and none in the extant documents wholly or mainly
of Pre-Syrian ancestry, is infinitesimal; and, when this
hypothetical possibility is set against the vera causa
supplied by the Syrian revision, becomes yet more
shadowy. The special need of strictly limiting early
patristic authority for the present purpose to what is
‘ certain’ will be explained further on.
226. The Syrian or Post-Syrian origin of a reading
is not much less certain if one or two of the above
Greek MSS, as CLPQR 33 in the Gospels, ACIE, 13 in
the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and AC 17 in the Pauline
I64 SORTING OF PRE-SYRIAN READ/WGS
Epistles, are found on the side of the later MSS, or even
if similar testimony is £rima facie borne by such a version
as the Memphitic, the MSS of which have not yet been
subjected to a critical sifting. It would be useless to at-
tempt to lay down absolute rules of discrimination; the
essential prerequisites for striking the balance are famili-
arity with the documents, and a habit of observing their
various groupings: but the fundamental materials of
judgement must be such facts and combination of facts,
slightly sketched in the preceding pages, as are implied
in the rough arrangement of documents just given. The
doubt that must sometimes remain is not often whether
a given reading is Syrian, but whether it is distinctively
Syrian, that is, whether it originated with the Syrian
revision, or was an older reading, of whatever type,
adopted by the Syrian revisers. In the final decision,
as will be seen, this doubt is very rarely of practical
moment.
C. 227—232. Zdentification of Western and of Alex-
andrian readings
227. Distinctively Syrian and Post-Syrian readings
being set aside, there remain only such readings as the
nature of their documentary attestations marks out, often
with certainty, often with high probability, as older than
250. Such readings may with substantial truth be
called ‘Ante-Nicene'; but the term ‘Pre-Syrian’, if less
familiar, is not less convenient, and certainly more
correct. The account which we have already given of
the early history of the text must have dispelled any
anticipation that textual criticism, in reaching back to
the middle of the third century, would have nearly ful-
WAESZTAA’AV A 7"7TESTA 7TWOAVS I65
filled its task. In truth not only the harder but the
larger part remains. We have to begin with simply
endeavouring to range under the three principal types
or lines of text all readings evidently worthy of attention
as possibly right, at the same time making full use of
the instruction to be gained by observing the attestations
of all Pre-Syrian readings whatever, whether they have
any appearance of being possibly right or not. Of the
variations in which the endeavour is baffled we shall
speak presently. Multitudes of variations present no
difficulty at all, and as many need only a little consider-
ation to interpret them.
228. Such Western readings as have acquired no
accessory attestation by adoption into the Syrian or other
mixed texts catch the eye at once in books or parts of
books in which we have one or more Greek MSS with a
tolerably unmixed Western text and in which Old Latin
evidence is not wanting. In the Gospels such readings
are attested by D, the chief Old Latin MSS and Fathers,
the Old Syriac, and the Greek Ante-Nicene Fathers,
those of Alexandria partially excepted. They are not
materially less conspicuous if in the Gospels they are
likewise supported by a stray uncial as 8 or X or T,
or by a few cursives, as 81 (especially), or I and its
kindred, I 3 and its kindred, 22, 28, 157, &c., or by the
Latin or Syriac Vulgate (indeed any Syrian text), or the
Thebaic, Æthiopic, Armenian, or Gothic. In Acts D
and the Old Latin fragments and Fathers, with the Greek
patristic evidence as above, are the primary attestation:
S, E, 31, 44, 61, 137, 18O, &c., or any of the above ver-
Sions except the Gothic, especially the Harklean Syriac
or Thebaic, may be the secondary; the numerous quota-
tions by Irenaeus taking a prominent place. In the
I66 ALEXANDRIAA. AZZZSZAZZONS
Pauline Epistles the primary documents are D.G. (E,
and F, need no further mention), the Old Latin frag-
ments and Fathers, and Greek patristic quotations as
above: in the Second place may stand 8 or B, 31, 37,
46, 8o, 137, 22.1, &c., or any of the above versions, the
Gothic in particular. The secondary documents here
named are only those whose sporadic attestation of
Western readings not afterwards Syrian is most frequent:
from readings of this class few if any uncials having a
large Pre-Syrian element are entirely free.
229. The analogous Alexandrian readings need more
attention to detect them. Since it has so happened that
every MS containing an approximately unmixed Alex-
andrian text has perished, the Alexandrian readings can
have no strictly primary attestation among extant docu-
ments, and are therefore known only through documents
containing large other elements. In the Gospels they
are chiefly marked by the combination NCLX 33, and
also Z in St Matthew, A in St Mark, E and sometimes
R in St Luke, with one or both of the Egyptian versions,
and sometimes another version or two, especially the
Armenian or the Vulgate or another revised Latin text;
and of course Alexandrian Fathers. The least incon-
stant members of this group are CL and the Memphitic,
In the Acts the chief representatives are saCE, 13, 61,
and other cursives, as 27 29 36 4o 68 69 Io2 IIo I 12;
and the same in the Catholic Epistles, with the loss of
E, and 61, and the partial accession of P, ; and in the
Pauline Epistles SACP, 5 6 17 23 39 47 73 137 &c.;
with the same versions, so far as they are extant, and
Fathers as in the Gospels. As however all these docu-
ments abound in neutral readings, and most of them in
Western readings, the identification of Alexandrian
I).O.U.B.ZAZ A 7"7TPES7A 7TWOAVS 167
readings can be effected only by careful observation and
comparison of contrasted groupings in successive varia-
tions. The process is a delicate one, and cannot be
reduced to rule: but, though many cases must remain
doubtful, we believe that the identification can usually
be made with safety. -
230. In each of the two classes of variations just
noticed the array opposed to the group representing
the aberrant text, that is, the Western or the Alexandrian
text, as the case may be, owes much of its apparent
variety, and more of its apparent numbers, to the presence
of the irrelevant Syrian contingent. Two other classes of
variations, differing from these in nothing but in the
transposition of the habitually Syrian documents to the
aberrant side, must evidently be interpreted in precisely
the same way. Readings having only characteristic
Western and characteristic Syrian attestation must have
belonged to the Western text: readings having only
characteristic Alexandrian and characteristic Syrian at-
testation must have belonged to the Alexandrian text.
231. On the other hand the rival readings cannot
be exactly described except in negative terms. Against
a Western stands a Non-Western Pre-Syrian reading:
against an Alexandrian stands a Non-Alexandrian Pre-
Syrian reading. The attestation of these readings is
simply residual; that is, each of them must have been
the reading of all extant Pre-Syrian texts, whatever they
may be, except the Western in the one case, the Alex-
andrian in the other. It follows that, unless reason has
been found for believing that all attestation of texts
neither Western nor Alexandrian has perished, it must
be presumed that the rival reading to a Western reading
is not exclusively Alexandrian, and that the rival
I68 CA O.S.S. A 7'7"ZSTA 7TWOAWS
reading to an Alexandrian reading is not exclusively
Western. -
232. A large proportion of variations still remains
in which the assignation of the readings to different types
of ancient text is in various degrees difficult or uncertain.
The difficulty arises chiefly from two causes, the mixed
composition of some of the principal extant documents,
especially Greek uncials, and the not infrequent opposi-
tion of documents habitually agreeing as witnesses for
one of the aberrant types, resulting in apparent cross
distribution. Owing to the former cause Western
readings, for instance, which were saved from the ex-
tinction which befel their parent texts in the Greek East
in the fourth century by their reception into eclectic
texts of that period, must naturally be often found at-
tested by documents lying outside the properly Western
group. Almost all our better uncials occur singly in
their turn as supporters of very distinctly Western read-
ings, and therefore it would be surprising if two or three
of them were never to hold the same position together;
so that a reading which two or three of them concur in
supporting may quite possibly have had a Western origin.
But where there is no clear inequality of number and
also of predominant character in the attestation which
documents of this kind give to the two rival readings of a
variation, it may be difficult or impossible to say whether
the opposition is between a Western and a Non-Western, or
between a Non-Alexandrian and an Alexandrian reading.
The cases of apparent cross distribution, of which the Old
Latin evidence furnishes the most conspicuous examples,
are of course equally due to mixture, and especially to
the mixture produced by revision of versions after Greek
MSS. Latin MSS known to contain revised texts may
TERAWAA’ Y VAAAA TVOMS I69
naturally be taken to follow a Non-Western source where
they stand in opposition to MSS of purer Old Latin
pedigree; and in many similar instances a complete
survey of the documentary evidence suffices to bring to
light the essential features of the grouping in spite of
partial confusion. But among these cases likewise there
remain ambiguities which can be cleared up only by
other kinds of evidence, or which cannot be cleared up
at all.
D. 23.3—235. Ademáſication of neutra/ readings
233. Besides all the various classes of binary varia-
tions examined in the preceding paragraphs, and besides
those ternary variations in which the third variant is dis-
tinctively Syrian, there are, as we have already seen
(§ 184), many other ternary variations in which one read-
ing has a characteristic Western attestation, another has
a characteristic Alexandrian attestation, the Syrian evi-
dence being in support of either the first or the second,
while the third is attested by documents ascertained to
be of wholly or chiefly Pre-Syrian origin: in other words,
both the principal aberrant texts stand clearly side by
side, each clearly distinguished from a third text. Such
third reading may doubtless be, and often manifestly is,
nothing but a secondary modification of one of the other
readings; for, as has been already intimated, it is not
unusual to find together less and more developed West-
ern readings, or less and more developed Alexandrian
readings, or both together: nor are mixtures of the two
lines unknown. But there are many other third readings
which cannot without great difficulty be assigned on
either external or internal grounds to such an origin, and
I7o AWE UTRAZ A&EAD/WGS
which must stand on at least an equal rank with the
other two, as having to all appearance an independent
ancestry.
234. If then a Pre-Syrian text exists which is neutral,
that is, neither Western nor Alexandrian, the pheno-
mena of attestation provide two resources for learning
in what documents we may expect to find such a text
preserved, comparison of the two fundamental types of
binary variations, and direct inspection of the ternary
or yet more complex variations last mentioned. In
order to avoid needless repetition, the information thus
obtained has been to a certain extent employed already
in the account of the constituent elements of different
documents (§ 199–223): but, strictly speaking, it is
only at the present stage of the investigation that the
large body of evidence supplied by the binary variations
becomes available. By comparison of binary variations
we find what documents recur oftenest in the attestations
of Non-Western and the attestations of Non-Alexandrian
readings, taken together; in other words, what docu-
ments are oftenest found joining others in opposition
to either of the aberrant texts singly. By inspection
of ternary variations we find what documents oftenest
stand out in clear detachment from all others by patent
opposition to a Western and an Alexandrian text simul-
taneously.
235. As might be expected, the results of both
processes are accordant as to the documents which they
designate as most free at once from Western and from
Alexandrian peculiarities. We learn first that, notwith-
standing the lateness of our earliest Greek MSS as com-
pared with some of the versions, and the high absolute
antiquity of the fundamental texts which the older ver-
AſO W. A 7'7TES 7TAZA) I7 I
sions represent, the constituent texts of our better Greek
MSS must be in the main of at least equal antiquity, and
that the best of them are, even as they stand, more free
from Western and Alexandrian peculiarities than any
version in its present state. We learn next that B very
far exceeds all other documents in neutrality of text as
measured by the above tests, being in fact always or
nearly always neutral, with the exception of the Western
element already mentioned (§ 204) as virtually confined
to the Pauline Epistles. At a long interval after B, but
hardly a less interval before all other MSS, stands 8.
Then come, approximately in the following order, Smaller
fragments being neglected, T of St Luke and St John,
E of St Luke, L, 33, A (in St Mark), C, Z of St Matthew,
R of St Luke, Q, and P. It may be said in general
terms that those documents, B and S excepted, which
have most Alexandrian readings have usually also most
neutral readings. Thus among versions by far the largest
amount of attestation comes from the Memphitic and
Thebaic; but much also from the Old and the Jerusalem
Syriac, and from the African Latin; and more or less from
every version. After the Gospels the number of docu-
ments shrinks greatly; but there is no marked change in
the relations of the leading uncials to the neutral text,
except that A now stands throughout near C. In Acts
61 comes not far below 8, 13 being also prominent,
though in a much less degree, here and in the Catholic
Epistles. The considerable Pre-Syrian element already
noticed (§ 212) as distinguishing a proportionally large
number of cursives in this group of books includes many
neutral readings: for examples of these cursives it will
suffice to refer to the two lists given above (§ 228, 229),
which include the more important MSS. In some of the
172 AAASUMP7/ON AGAINST WAESTERAV
Catholic Epistles, as also in the Subsequent books, an
appreciable but varying element of the text of P, has the
same character. For the Pauline Epistles there is little
that can be definitely added to NBAC except I7 and P.:
the best marked neutral readings are due to the Second
hand of 67.
E. 236–239. Suspiciousness of Western and of
- A/exandrian readings
236. Nearly all that has been said in the preceding
pages respecting the documentary attestation of the three
leading types of Pre-Syrian text remains equally true
whatever be the historical relation of these types to each
other. On the other hand, it was necessary at an earlier
stage (§ 173 ff., 183), in describing the characteristics
of the Western and Alexandrian texts, to state at once
the general conclusions on this head to which we are
irresistibly led by Internal Evidence of Texts, alike on
that more restricted study of Western and Alexandrian
readings which is limited to variations in which their
characteristic attestation is least disguised by extraneous
evidence, and on the more comprehensive study of all
readings that can be ultimately recognised as Western
or Alexandrian. In a vast majority of instances the
result is identical: in binary variations the Non-Western
reading approves itself more original than the Western,
the Non-Alexandrian than the Alexandrian: in ternary
variations the neutral reading, if supported by such docu-
ments as stand most frequently on the Non-Western and
Non-Alexandrian sides in binary variations, approves
itself more original than the Western and also more
original than the Alexandrian. The Western and Alex-
AAW/O A.I.A.XAAWD/º/AAW RAEAD/AWGS I73
andrian texts as wholes are therefore in the strictest
sense, as we have called them partly by anticipation,
aberrant texts. .
237. It does not follow however that none of their
distinctive readings are original. If it could be shown
with reasonable certainty that the three lines diverged
simultaneously from the apostolic autographs, or from a
common original derived almost immediately from the
autographs, the chance that one line alone has preserved
true readings where the two others agree, that is, that
wo transcribers have independently made the same
changes, would be infinitesimal (see $ 75), except as
regards changes of a very obvious and tempting kind.
No such presupposition is however imposed by the
actual evidence: we have no right to affirm that the two
great divergences were simultaneous, not successive. Both
are indeed of such extreme antiquity that a strong pre-
sumption must always lie against an exclusively Western
or exclusively Alexandrian reading; since, apart from
accidental coincidence, its genuineness would presup-
pose as a necessary condition, not only that the two
divergences were not simultaneous, but that the rival
reading came into existence either at the first divergence
or between the first and the second. .
238. Of the unfavourable presumptions arising out of
the internal character of distinctive Western and distinc-
tive Alexandrian readings generally we have said enough
already (§ 17off., 181 ff.). A certain number might on
purely internal grounds be received or rejected with
equally or almost equally good reason: it is however,
we believe, quite safe to dismiss them along with their
much more numerous associates that are condemned by
individual internal evidence no less than by the pre-
I 74. WAESTAEA’AW USA OF TRA/D/7”/OAV
vailing character of the text to which they belong : it
may be added that they are seldom intrinsically of
much interest. Others remain which by strong in-
ternal probability of some kind plead against Summary
rejection. The plea can never with prudence be set
entirely aside: but the number of such readings which
eventually make good a claim to a possible place in
the apostolic text is, in our judgement, exceedingly
Small.
239. There are indeed some Western readings in
the Gospels, and perhaps in the Acts, which cannot be
explained by accidental error of transcription, or by any
of the ordinary causes of textual corruption, such as
paraphrase, or assimilation to other passages of the
New or Old Testament; and in such cases an incau-
tious student may be easily tempted by the freshness of
the matter to assume that it must have come from the
hand of the writer of the book before him. The assump-
tion would be legitimate enough were the Western texts
of late origin: but it loses all its force when we re-
member (see § 173) that in the second century oral
traditions of the apostolic age were still alive; that at
least one written Gospel closely related to one or more of
the four primary Gospels, together with various forms of
legendary Christian literature concerning Our Lord and
the Apostles, was then current in some churches; and
that neither definition of the Canon of the New Testa-
ment nor veneration for the letter as distinguished from
the substance of its sacred records had advanced far
enough to forbid what might well seem their temperate
enrichment from such sources as these. Transcriptional
probability is likewise of no little weight here: the ab-
sence of Western readings of this kind from the Non-
WAES 7A. AEAW AWOAV-AAV7'AA' POZA 7TWOAVS I75
Western texts is inexplicable on the supposition that they
formed part of the apostolic text.
F. 240–242. Exceptional Western non-infeºfolations
240. On the other hand there remain, as has been
before intimated (§ 170), a few other Western readings
of similar form, which we cannot doubt to be genuine
in spite of the exclusively Western character of their
attestation. They are all omissions, or, to speak
more correctly, non-interpolations, of various length:
that is to say, the original record has here, to the
best of our belief, suffered interpolation in all the extant
Non-Western texts. The almost universal tendency of
transcribers to make their text as full as possible, and to
eschew omissions, is amply exemplified in the New Tes-
tament. Omissions of genuine words and clauses in the
Alexandrian and Syrian texts are very rare, and always
easy to explain. In the Western text, with which we
are here concerned, they are bolder and more numerous,
but still almost always capable of being traced to a
desire of giving a clearer and more vigorous presentation
of the sense. But hardly any of the omissions now in
question can be so explained, none in a satisfactory
manner. On the other hand the doubtful words are
Superfluous, and in some cases intrinsically suspicious,
to say the least ; while the motive for their insertion
is usually obvious. With a single peculiar exception
(Matt. xxvii. 49), in which the extraneous words are
omitted by the Syrian as well as by the Western text,
the Western non-interpolations are confined to the last
three chapters of St Luke. In various parts of the
Gospels other Western omissions are to be found, which
176 OR/G/W AAVZ) CAEIA RACTER OF
it would be rash to condemn absolutely, the attestations
being precisely similar to those of the non-interpolations
which we accept, and the internal evidence, intrinsic and
transcriptional, being open to some doubt; in other
words, an intermediate class of Western omissions that
may perhaps be non-interpolations must be admitted.
Examples will be found in Matt. (vi 15, 25;) ix 34; (xiii
335) xxi 44; (xxiii 26;) Mark ii. 22; (x 2;) xiv. 39; Luke
v39; x 41 f.; xii IQ, 21, 39; xxii 62; (xxiv. 9;) John iii 32;
iv. 9. With the difficult question of notation here in-
volved we are not for the moment concerned: it is
enough here to repeat that we find ourselves wholly
unable to believe some of the clauses and sentences
omitted by Western documents to be genuine, while in
other not obviously dissimilar cases our judgement re-
mains suspended.
241. These exceptional instances of the preservation
of the original text in exclusively Western readings are
likely to have had an exceptional origin. They are easily
reconciled with the other phenomena if we suppose, first,
that the text which became fixed at Alexandria, and
in due time was partially adulterated by Alexandrian
corruptions, was an offshoot from the text which we
have called the neutral text, and which had parted
company from the earliest special ancestry of the Western
text at a yet earlier date; and secondly, that the inter-
polations which give rise to the appearance of Western
omissions took place in the interval, if not at the actual
divergence, and thus stand in all Non-Western texts,
whether derived through Alexandria or not. These inter-
polations are for the most part quite unlike Alexandrian
interpolations, and have much more of a ‘Western’
character; so that the hypothesis which might at first
WAZSZTAEACAV AVOAV./AWTAEA&AE’OZA ZZO/WS 177
sight suggest itself, of their having originated at Alex-
andria, and thence spread by mixture to Non-Western
texts elsewhere, is set aside by internal evidence as well
as by the want of other corroborative instances. The
purely documentary phenomena are Compatible with the
supposition that the Western and the Non-Western texts
started respectively from a first and a second edition of
the Gospels, both conceivably apostolic: but internally
none of the Non-Western interpolations certainly justify
this claim to a true though a secondary kind of originality,
and some of them, it is not too much to Say, shew a
misunderstanding which renders it impossible to assign
to them any worthier origin than to Ordinary Western
interpolations.
242. Nothing analogous to the Western non-inter-
polations presents itself among distinctively Alexandrian
readings of any form, omissions, additions, or substitu-
tions. Now and then, though fortunately but rarely, the
attestation of what seems to be an Alexandrian reading,
unusually well attested, approaches too near the attestation
of Some neutral readings to exclude doubt as to the true
origin, while internal evidence is likewise indecisive.
But this occasional ambiguity of external evidence is
not to be confounded with incongruities of internal
character in readings of clearly defined external type.
No variations are known to us in which a distinctively
Alexandrian reading, indubitably such, approves itself
as genuine against Western and neutral texts combined,
Or even against the neutral text alone. Of the numerous
variations which at first sight appear to involve conflicts
between the neutral text and the Western and Alexan-
drian texts combined it will be more opportune to speak
further on.
14
178 A'UAVZ)A//E/W7.4 L FA C7'S
G. 243. Acecapitulation of genealogical evidence proper
243. To sum up what has been said on the results
of genealogical evidence proper, as affecting the text of
the New Testament, we regard the following propositions
as absolutely certain. (I) The great ancient texts did
actually exist as we have described them in Sections II
and III. The main line of neutral and comparatively
pure text was from an early time surrounded and over-
shadowed by two powerful lines containing much aber-
ration, the ‘Western' being by far the most licentious
and the most widely spread, and the Alexandrian being
formed by skilful but mostly petty corrections which left
the neutral text untouched, at all events in the Gospels
and Pauline Epistles, except in a very small proportion of
its words. Late in the third century, or soon after, MSS
came to be written in which the three main texts were
mixed in various proportions, and the process went for-
ward on a large scale in the following century, when all
the unmixed texts began to die out. The Western,
hitherto the most influential of all texts, now disappeared
rapidly, lingering however, it would seem, in the West.
One of the mixed texts was formed in Syria with
care and contrivance, modifying as well as combining
the earlier texts, and by the middle of the fourth cen-
tury was established in influence. For some centuries
after the fourth there was in the East a joint currency
of the Syrian and other texts, nearly all mixed, but at
last the Syrian text, the text of Constantinople, almost
wholly displaced the rest. (II) In the Gospels and
Pauline Epistles, and to a less extent in the Acts, all
the four principal forms of text are fairly represented in
extant documents; in other books the representation of
OA' TAX7'UAA. Aſ/S 7 O/C Y I79
one or more of the texts is seriously incomplete or
doubtful. (III) The extant documents contain no read-
ings (unless the peculiar Western non-interpolations
noticed above are Counted as exceptions), which suggest
the existence of important textual events unknown to
us, a knowledge of which could materially alter the
interpretation of evidence as determined by the above
history. (IV) In a large proportion of variations the
assignation of the Several readings to the several ancient
texts by means of extant documents is clear and certain,
and thus affords a sure clue to the original reading.
(V). In many other ancient variations the distribution of
documentary evidence must as a matter of fact be due
to ancient distribution among the several texts, with or
without subsequent mixture, although the extant docu-
mentary evidence is too scanty or too confused to allow
confident decision between two or more possible views
of the historical antecedents of the several readings.
This last proposition implies that we have to do with
many variations in which the tests supplied by the
general history of the text of the New Testament are
not available for direct use, and other critical resources
are needed. To these we must presently turn.
SECTION VI. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS CRITICISM WITH RE-
FERENCE TO ANCIENT TEXTS -
244–255 -
A. 244–246. Foundation of historical criticism by
A/i/Z, Bentley, and Benge/
244. Before however we pass from the great ancient
texts, it will be right to interpose a few words of comment
on previous criticism dealing with the same subject. Al-
I8O AZSZTO/8/CAM, CA’ſ 7T/C/S// /AV
though the series of editions which can be said to ap-
proximate to a true text of the New Testament begins
in 1831, the preliminary studies of the eighteenth century,
unduly neglected since the earlier part of the present
century, form the necessary introduction to all secure pro-
gress hereafter. It will be sufficient to mark the most
Salient points in the progress of criticism.
245. Mill led the way in 1707 not only by his ample
collection of documentary evidence.but by his comprehen-
sive examination of individual documents, seldom rising
above the wilderness of multitudinous details, yet full of
sagacious observations. He incidentally noticed the value
of the concurrence of Latin evidence with A, the most
conspicuous and the only complete representative of an
ancient Non-Western Greek text then sufficiently known;
and this glimpse of genealogical method was not lost upon
Bentley, who with clear and deliberate purpose made
Greek and Latin consent the guiding principle of his own
project for a restoration of the text. The actual project
fell to the ground until it was revived and carried out in
Lachmann’s edition of 1831, the starting point of the later
period; in which however it assumed a somewhat different
shape through the substitution of the Old Latin for the
Vulgate Latin, and the ranging of the Greek Western
uncials on the Latin or, as it was more properly called,
the ‘Western’ side. But the principle itself was received
at once into fruitful soil, and contributed more than any
other antecedent to the criticism of the intervening period.
246. How deeply the value of the principle, as set
forth in Bentley’s Proſosa/s of 1720, impressed Bengel,
although he accepted it only in part, is evident from many
pages of his Introduction of 1734. Bengel himself pointed
out the deceptiveness of numerical superiority detached
from variety of origin, prepared for sifting the confused
mass of Greek MSS by casting upon it, as he said, the
Versions and Fathers as an additional heap, and en-
deavoured to classify the documents known to him accord-
ing to their presumed derivation from ancient texts. He
divided them into two great “nations’ or ‘families’, the
“Asiatic’ and the “African’, answering roughly to what we
have called Syrian and Pre-Syrian ; and further, less dis-
tinctly, subdivided the latter into two subordinate “nations’
or ‘families’, represented typically by A and by the Old
Latin. At the same time he laid great stress on internal
evidence, in this as in other respects making large use of
7THAE AEAGA/7/2AXAVTA. CAEAV7'OAº V 181
materials scattered through Mill's notes; and it is chiefly
to his earnest if somewhat crude advocacy that Transcrip-
tional Probabilities under the name of ‘the harder reading’
owe their subsequent full recognition.
B. 247–249. Zevelopment of historical criticism by
Griesbach, in contrast with Hug's theory of recensions
247. Bengel was succeeded in Germany by Semler,
and under his influence by a group of acute and diligent
textual critics, stimulated to fresh researches both by
Bengel’s writings and by the rich accession of new materials
from Wetstein's edition of I75I-2, and from the various
explorations and collations which were vigorously carried
on in the later years of the century. What Bengel had
sketched tentatively was verified and worked out with
admirable patience, Sagacity, and candour by Griesbach,
who was equally great in independent investigation and in
his power of estimating the results arrived at by others.
Bengel’s ‘Asiatic” text he called “Constantinopolitan’: the
two more ancient texts, which he clearly defined, he called
‘Western’ and ‘Alexandrian'. Unfortunately he often fol-
lowed Semler in designating the ancient texts by the term
‘recension’, and thus gave occasion to a not yet extinct
confusion between his historical analysis of the text of
existing documents and the conjectural theory of his con-
temporary Hug, a biblical scholar of considerable merit,
but wanting in sobriety of judgement.
248. Hug started from what was in itself on the whole
a true conception of the Western text and its manifold
licence. He called it the kow) āköooris, or “Vulgate Edition’,
taking the name from the text of the LXX as it was in its
confusion before the reform attempted by Origen in his
Hexapla. But further he conjectured that the disorderly
state of this popular text led to its being formally revised
in three different lands, the product of each revision being
a ‘recension’ in the strict sense of the word. The alleged
evidence consists in two well known passages of Jerome.
In the first he speaks of the diversity of copies of the LXX
in different regions ; Alexandria and Egypt appeal, he
says, to the authority of Hesychius; Constantinople and
Antioch approve of the copies of Lucian the Martyr; the
intermediate provinces read the Palestinian volumes,
wrought out by Origen and published by Eusebius and
I82 HISTORICAL CRIZICISM As
Pamphilus; and the whole world is set at discord by this
threefold difference. In the Second passage, already cited
(§ 190), he is stating vaguely to what Greek sources he pro-
poses to have recourse in correcting the Latin Gospels.
“I pass by ”, he says, “those volumes which bear the
names of Lucianus and Hesychius, and are upheld by the
perverse contentiousness of a few men”: he adds in ob-
scure language that “they had neither been allowed to
make corrections (emendare) after the Seventy in the Old
Testament, nor profited by making corrections in the New
Testament’. The latter quotation, enigmatic as it is, dis-
tinctly implies the existence of copies of the New Testa-
ment or the Gospels bearing in some way the names of Lu-
cianus and Hesychius, and supposed to have in some way
undergone correction; and likewise associates the same
names with some analogous treatment of the LXX. As
they appear in company with Origen's name in a similar
connexion in the first quotation, Hug supposed that Hesy-
chius had made a recension of both Testaments for Alex-
andria, Lucianus for Antioch, and Origen for Palestine.
He had next to discover descendants of the supposed
recensions in existing groups of documents, and had no
difficulty in assigning the Constantinopolitan text to Lu-
cianus: but since Hesychius plausibly claimed the ‘Alex-
andrian’ text, he could find no better representation of
Origen's supposed work than an ill defined and for the
most part obscure assemblage headed by AKM.
249. Origen's quotations prove conclusively that no
such text as these documents present can ever have pro-
ceeded from him ; and it is hardly less certain, as Griesbach
shewed by the implicit testimony of various passages, that
he never made anything like a recension of the New Testa-
ment. It does not follow that the same can be said of
Lucianus and Hesychius. As we have already observed
(§§ 185, 190), the Syrian text must have been due to a re-
vision which was in fact a recension, and which may with
fair probability be assigned to the time when Lucianus
taught at Antioch. Of the Alexandrian corrections more
than one stage can certainly be traced ; whether the pri-
mary corrections were due to a distinct revision cannot,
we think, be determined, and it would be little gain to
know. That Hesychius had no hand in any revision
which can have produced them is proved by the occurrence
of many of them in Origen’s writings, at a much earlier
date. But it is quite conceivable that Hesychius made or
I) EVELOPED BY GRIESBACH I83
adopted some eclectic text too short-lived to have left
recognisable traces of itself in extant evidence, though it
may be a hidden factor in the process of mixture to which
some of our texts are partly due. Thus much it is but just
to Hug to say, though the point is of no practical con-
sequence. But neither the deserved discredit into which
Hug's theory of recensions as a whole has fallen, nor the
uncertainty as to the precise nature of the facts referred to
in Jerome's second passage, create any doubt as to the
soundness of Griesbach’s fundamental classification of
texts, which rests entirely on the independent base fur-
nished by the observed phenomena of existing documents.
C. 250—253. Defects of Griesbach’s criticism
250. There are indeed some defects in Griesbach’s
view which he could hardly have failed to correct if all the
evidence now accessible had been in his hands. Perhaps
the most important of these is a confusion between the
classification of ancient texts and the classification of
documents derived from them. He was aware indeed
that no existing MS preserves any “recension’ or leading
ancient text in absolute purity, and that one Source of cor-
ruption was the intrusion of readings out of another ‘re-
cension’ (Preface to Gospels of 1796, p. lxxviii; cf. Me-
Jeffemata, pp. xxxviii.f.). But still in effect he treated our
documents as capable of being each on the whole identified
with some one ancient text. In other words, he failed to
apprehend in its true magnitude the part played by mix-
ture in the history of the text during the fourth and follow-
ing centuries, or to appreciate the value of the observation
of groupings as a critical instrument by which a compo-
site text can be to a great extent analysed into its Con-
stituent elements.
251. Hardly if at all less important was his confusion
of Alexandrian readings with readings preserved wholly
or chiefly at Alexandria. His discrimination of the in-
ternal character of Western and Alexandrian corrections
(ib. p. lxxvii) is excellent as far as it goes, and may supply
useful guidance in some cases of obscure attestation. But
his mode of using the two great texts can be justified only
on the impossible assumption that the Alexandrian text,
with its bulk of pure readings and its distinctive corrup-
tions alike, was, so to speak, full-blown from the beginning.
184 DEFEcz's of GRIESBACH's cK/7/CISM
The very fact that these corruptions originated at Alex-
andria implies that MSS free from them, as well as from
Western corruptions, existed previously at Alexandria ;
and there is no apparent reason why this earlier form of
text should not have been propagated in greater or less
purity at Alexandria by the side of the altered text or
texts. If it was, and if any existing documents represent
it, their text, whatever its value may be, has not the de-
fects of a distinctive Alexandrian text. But further there
is no apparent reason why documents should not exist
derived from sister MSS to those which originally came
to Alexandria, and which thus were the parents of later
MSS current at Alexandria, including those in which the
Alexandrian corrections originated; and if so, no ordinary
internal evidence can enable us to decide whether the
ancestry of any given existing documents having this
character of text was altogether independent of Alexan-
dria, or had its home at Alexandria but was unaffected by
any distinctive Alexandrian corruption. Griesbach seems
however to have tacitly assumed both that Alexandria had
but one Non-Western text, and that no early Non-Western
text survived except at Alexandria ; and accordingly in
most variations the critical problem which virtually pre-
sented itself to him was merely whether it was more likely
on internal grounds that the (assumed.) Western reading
was a corruption of the (assumed) Alexandrian or the
Alexandrian of the Western, the characteristics of each
‘recension’ and the special probabilities of the immediate
context being considered together. -
252. Thus owing to an imperfect conception of the
process of transmission, leading to a misinterpretation of
quite the most important evidence, unchecked by attention
to grouping, Griesbach was driven to give a dangerously
disproportionate weight to internal evidence, and especi-
ally to transcriptional probability, on which indeed for its
own sake he placed excessive reliance : and this, not his
wise anxiety to discriminate the ancient Sources of read-
ings before counting or weighing authorities, is the chief
cause of the inferiority of his own text of the New
Testament, which stands in singular contrast to the high
qualities of his criticism. The other great cause of its
insufficiency we have already mentioned (§§ 16, 17), his
use of the Received Text as a basis for correction. To
have taken as his basis those ancient texts in which
he himself placed most confidence would have increased
A 7'S AAA’MAAWAEAV7' WAZ UAE 185
the difficulties of his task as an editor, since they fre-
quently did not offer him the same reading ; but, as Lach-
mann triumphantly shewed, in no other way was it pos-
sible to avoid the errors that must often find acceptance
when numberless variations are approached from the
wrong side.
253. The limitations of view in Griesbach and his
predecessors were the natural result of the slenderness of
their materials. Bentley and Bengel wrote when A was
for practical purposes the one ancient purely Greek uncial;
and the peculiarities of its text, used as a standard, Coloured
their criticism, and to a certain extent even that of Gries-
bach. He learned much from his study of C and L: but
the very large distinctively Alexandrian element which
they contain had probably a considerable share in leading
him implicitly to assume that any extant ancient text not
Western must be Alexandrian, and that in the most ex-
clusive sense. A later generation has less excuse for over-
looking the preservation of a neutral text, in approximate
integrity in B, and in greater or less proportions in many
other documents; or for questioning the vast increase of
certainty introduced by its recognition in weighing th
claims of rival Pre-Syrian readings. -
D. 254, 255. Permanent value of Griesbach’s criticism
254. In dwelling on Griesbach’s errors at some length,
notwithstanding the neglect into which his writings have
unhappily fallen, we should be grieved even to seem re-
gardless of a name which we venerate above that of every
other textual critic of the New Testament. It was es-
sential to our purpose to explain clearly in what sense
it is true, and in what sense it is not true, that we
are attempting to revive a theory which is popularly
supposed to have been long since exploded. No valid
objection can, we believe, be brought against the
greater part of Griesbach's historical view. It is com-
monly met by vague Sceptical assertions which make no
attempt to deal with the actual phenomena. Criticisms
which merely shewed that he had been led into too broad
and unqualified assertions as to this or that document
have left untouched or even unawares strengthened his
main positions. The most plausible allegation, that his
latest discoveries as to Origen's readings compelled him
186 CR/ESPACAE/ AAVD Aſ/S SUCCASSOA'S
to abandon his attempt to distinguish between his
‘Western' and his ‘Alexandrian’ readings, and thus de-
stroyed the basis of what is called his theory, depends
on a double misconception. The recognition of the fact
that Origen sometimes used a MS either “Western” or
containing a large “Western’ element did indeed render
it impossible to affirm that a reading found in Origen
must needs be ‘Alexandrian’, that is, it prescribed special
care in the interpretation of one single source of evidence;
but it made no change in other respects: and the Melete-
mata of 18 II, in which the recognition is conveyed, reite-
rate Griesbach’s familiar statements in precise language,
while they shew a growing perception of mixture which
might have led him to further results if he had not died
in the following spring.
255. It is not necessary to our purpose to pass under
review the principles and texts of Griesbach's three great
successors, all of whom have published texts of a sub-
stantially ancient type, and from each of whom, from
Tregelles in particular, we have learned much. But we
are bound to express our conviction that the virtual aban-
donment of Griesbach’s endeavour to obtain for the text
of the New Testament a secure historical foundation in
the genealogical relations of the whole extant documentary
evidence has rendered the work of all appreciably more
imperfect in itself, and less defensible on rational grounds.
Such corrections of Griesbach's leading results as have
been indicated above (§§ 250—252) would have removed
the difficulties which have unquestionably been felt by
dispassionate judges, though they have also been distorted
and exaggerated by partisans. In taking up his investiga-
tions afresh, we have, we trust, found a way not only to
make a somewhat nearer approximation to the apostolic
text than our immediate predecessors, but also to strength-
en the critical bases on which their own texts are for the
most part founded.
187
CHAPTER III. RAESO//. TS OF WAVTEA’AWA Z E V/-
ADAEAVCAE OF GROUPS, A/V/O DOCUMEAVTS
256–355 \
SECTION I. DOCUMENTARY GROUPS AS LIMITED BY RE-
FERENCE TO PRIMARY GREEK MSS GENERALLY
256—280
A. 256–26o. General considerations on ZJocumentary
Groups
256. In attempting to give an account of the
manner in which the historical relations of the great
ancient texts of the New Testament can be safely used
for decision between rival readings, we have of necessity
(see § 72) transgressed the limits of purely genealogical
evidence, in so far as we have dwelt on the general
internal character of the Western and Alexandrian texts
as a ground for distrusting readings apparently Western
only, or Western and Syrian only, or Alexandrian only,
or Alexandrian and Syrian only. The evidence which
has been thus appealed to is in effect Internal Evidence
of Groups ($77,78), in principle identical with Internal
Evidence of Documents in virtue of the genealogical
axiom that, accidental coincidences apart, identity of
reading implies ultimate identity of origin. Thus, to
take the simplest case, finding a frequent recurrence of
D, the Old Latin, and the Old Syriac in isolated com-
bination, we knew that in each such reading they must
be all lineally descended from a single common ancestor.
Having found reason to think that readings attested by
I88 ANTERNAZ E VIDENCE OF GROUPS
this particular group of documents are of great antiquity,
we examined them successively in order to ascertain
their prevailing internal character by means of variations
in which the internal evidence is morally free from doubt.
257. Now a moment's consideration shews that
the essentials of this process are independent of the
historical adjuncts here attached to it, and remain the
same for every possible combination of documents;
and that therefore its power of employing easy varia-
tions as a key to difficult variations is of universal
range. So applied, it is essentially a particular mode
of using Internal Evidence of Documents; only not
continuous extant documents but, as it were, fragment-
ary lost documents. Whenever a particular detached
combination of documents is of sufficiently frequent
occurrence to give room for generalisations, and those
of its readings which admit of being provisionally
accepted or rejected on Internal Evidence of Read-
ings, Intrinsic and Transcriptional, are found to be
all or nearly all apparently right, we are justified in
anticipating that its other readings, as to which Our
judgement has thus far been suspended, or even on the
whole adverse, are right too, and in requiring on re-
examination very strong local internal evidence to rebut
the favourable presumption. A similar recurrence of
numerous apparently wrong readings will throw sus-
picion on the other or doubtful readings of the same
group, provided that it remains in all cases literally or
practically detached; we say practically, because the
accession of a group containing no document outside
the habitual attestation of such a text as the Syrian
violates detachment in appearance alone. Either the
favourable or the unfavourable presumption may also
ASOLA 7TWOAW OF GACOUPS I89
be further defined according to particular classes of
readings.
258. Since in all cases the inference depends on
assumed homogeneousness of text, its basis may appear
to be subject to uncertainty; for homogeneousness is
interrupted by the intrusion of mixture, and it is theo-
retically possible that lost originals of groups might be
mixed, as well as extant MSS. But the Originals from
which most groups which it is in practice worth while
to keep in mind must have diverged can with diffi-
culty be referred to so late a date as the times of
general mixture, and no clear evidence of antecedent
mixture has come to our own notice. The homo-
geneousness of the fundamental texts of all important
groups may therefore, we believe, be safely trusted.
259. The limitation, more or less strict, to detached
combination is necessary because otherwise the character-
istics of the special common ancestor will be mixed up
with the characteristics of a remoter and for present pur-
poses less important ancestor. In all places where there
is no variation D and the two associated versions are
likewise found in combination, not the less truly because
all other documents have the same reading ; and this
combination points with equal certainty to a single
common ancestor : but here the single common ancestor
was the apostolic autograph, followed perhaps by an
indefinite number of immediate descendants; whereas
what we want to know is the character of the special
ancestor, as displayed either in departure from the
original text or in fidelity shewn to it where others
have departed from it. Similarly, where we find D and
its associates agreeing with, for instance, spCL and the
Memphitic against all other documents, if we have ascer-
I90 VARZAZYoy of GROUPS
tained that this second group often stands in opposition
to the first, we know that the reading must have existed
in a common ancestor of the two special ancestors, and
that therefore it can tell us nothing about the special
characteristics of either.
26o. The most delicate and difficult part of the
use of groupings in Criticism consists in judging how far
a group loses its virtual identity by slight losses or slight
accessions of constituent members. The least important
losses and accessions from this point of view are evidently
those which accompany fragmentariness of text, so that
the change is not, for instance, from concurrence to
opposition, but from concurrence to total absence, or vice
zersa: in such cases much depends on the number and
variety of the remaining members. Others again, which
look as if they ought to be important, are found in ex-
perience to be of little or no account: that is, if we treat
separately the groupings with and without the varying
member, the characteristics are found to be identical; so
that the same results would have been reached by treating
both forms of combination as a single group. An excel-
lent example is supplied by many of the Alexandrian
corrections in St Mark, where we have every binary and
ternary combination of NCLA besides the full quater-
nion. But the accession or loss of any primary document
should always be treated as constituting a new group
until observation has shown that no real difference can
be detected in the results. How easily readings having
the same Origin might come to have an attestation per-
petually varying within certain limits may be readily
understood, for instance in such an example as that
just cited, as soon as we apprehend clearly the manner
in which Ordinary casual mixture came to pass. Whether
W/7 HO Ú7" D/FFAERAEAVCAE OF OR/G/AW I9 I
two or more MSS were deliberately compared for simul-
taneous use, or variations were noted in a margin and
then at the next stage taken up into the text, or remi-
niscences of a text formerly heard or read became inter-
mingled with the immediate impressions of eye and ear
in transcription,-in all these cases a transcriber was
imaking a conscious or unconscious selection of readings
to insert into his fundamental text; and no two tran-
scribers would make exactly the same selection. How-
ever great may be the superficial complexities of existing
attestation, the primitive relations of text from which
they are derived must have been simple; as otherwise
each variation must have exhibited a much greater
number of variants: and thus it is no wonder that after
a while we find ourselves enabled to ascribe practical
identity to groups not identical as to all their members.
B. 261—264. A rogressive limitation of Groups with
reference ſo Primary Greek MSS
261. It might perhaps be imagined that the possible
combinations of our numerous documents would con-
stitute an intractable multitude of groups: but no such
difficulty exists in practice. Genealogical possibilities
make up the merest fraction of arithmetical possibilities;
and of the combinations that actually occur only a small
proportion deserve more than momentary attention. The
Syrian text as a whole must, we believe, be condemned
by Internal Evidence of Groups almost as surely as by
the evidence connected with the history of texts; and
texts supported by only a portion of the Syrian phalanx
have still less claim to consideration. Greek manuscripts
containing a large amount of Pre-Syrian text, early Ver-
I92 GAZOO AES AS LAM/7′ED BY
sions, and early Fathers are not numerous, and to a
great extent are fragmentary or discontinuous; and
Combinations into which none of them enter may
evidently in most cases be safely neglected. A student
Soon becomes aware that the groupings which can by any
possibility affect his judgement in doubtful variations are
Sure to contain one or more of a very small number of
primary documents. If at any time in the examination
of a specially difficult case his attention is attracted by
a reading supported by a group hitherto neglected by
him, he will naturally take fresh opportunities of ob-
serving its characteristics. But the whole operation is
simpler than it seems on paper.
262. No one, we believe, who agrees explicitly or
implicitly with the account which we have given of the
Syrian text and its attestation would hesitate, after study-
ing the Internal Evidence of Groups, to take NBCDL
33 in the Gospels, SABCDE, 13 61 in Acts, SABC 13
in the Catholic Epistles, and NABCD,G, 17 in the Paul-
ine Epistles, as the primary documents in the sense just
mentioned. This is of course entirely consistent with
the assignation of substantial weight to numerous other
documents in different degrees in the decision between
rival readings. What is meant is that all groups con-
taining none of these primary documents are found so
habitually to support the obviously wrong variants
where internal evidence is tolerably clear, that they
must lie under the strongest suspicion in doubtful varia-
tions. Some few other Greek MSS, mostly fragmentary,
might to a certain extent claim to be placed in the
same class (see $ 225): but it is safer to keep to these
conspicuously preeminent and approximately complete
copies. In strictness the African and European Latin,
AR///A A' V CRAE AEA. M.S.S I93
the Old Syriac, the Egyptian versions, and the Ante-
Nicene Fathers should be added to the list: we venture
however to omit them here for the sake of simplicity,
the practical effect of omitting them being extremely
small, as will be explained further on.
263. Now if each of the Greek MSS singled out
as primary is individually entitled to this exceptional
distinction as a representative of Pre-Syrian texts, we
should naturally expect the complete combinations of
them to attest a specially pure text; the text thus at-
tested being certified by the concurrence of all the great
lines of transmission known to have existed in the earliest
times, since undoubtedly all known Pre-Syrian forms of
text are sufficiently represented among the primary MSS
except the Western texts of the Catholic Epistles (in so
far as they have a Western text) and of part of the Acts,
and these exceptions are shown by the analogies of
other books to affect little beyond degrees of certainty.
And this is precisely what we do find: the groups
formed by the complete combinations of these primary
documents attest clearly the purity of their ancestry by
the prevailing internal excellence of their readings. The
number of their readings which can with any show of
reason be pronounced to be apparently corruptions of
other existing readings is exceedingly small; and in our
opinion the claim is in all these cases unfounded.
264. When these groups lose their most distinctively
Western members, D in the Gospels and Acts and
D.G., in the Pauline Epistles, and with them, as usually
happens, one or more of the predominantly Western
versions, totally different because less comprehensive
groups come into view, SBCL 33 in the Gospels, SABC
and the one or two cursives in the other books; but
15 -
I94. RAE ZAZYOAV OA; SAECOMOA R Y DOCUMEAW 7S
these also, when tried by internal evidence, are found
not less constantly to bear the marks of incorrupt trans-
mission. Thus far we have been dealing with essen-
tially the same distributions as in former pages, though
from a different point of view : the last result is nearly
equivalent to the former conclusion that, certain peculiar
omissions excepted, the Western text is probably always
corrupt as compared with the Non-Western text.
C. 265–267. Æelation of Primary Greek MSS to
other documentary evidence
265. Before we proceed to examine the character
of the more narrowly limited groups, it is necessary to
consider in Some little detail the bearing of the evidence
of Greek MSS not singled out for primary authority,
and of all versions and patristic quotations. Texts in all
the languages Supply a greater or less amount of various
Pre-Syrian evidence having a strong prima facie claim
to authority, the true force of which manifestly cannot
be left undetermined. It is needless to discuss variations
in which the secondary Pre-Syrian evidence (the Syrian
evidence may be passed over here and elsewhere) is pre-
dominantly on the side of the primary group, or in which
it divides itself with anything like equality: the apparent
difficulty begins with the numerous cases in which the
reduced band of primary MSS is sustained by only a
small proportion of the secondary evidence; and then
the question arises whether any and if so what annount
or weight of secondary evidence, in conjunction with
outlying primary MSS, ought to balance or outweigh
the strong antecedent authority of the primary band of
primary MSS. The question here is not, as it was above
TO AEA2ZAZAA’ Y GA’A. AEA A/SS I95
(§ 262), whether this or that document should be in-
cluded among primary documents, but whether the docu-
ments accepted as primary, whichever they may be, can
safely be allowed an absolutely paramount authority.
Taking for granted that all the documentary evidence
contributes, more or less appreciably, to the formation
of a right judgement as to the merits of all rival read-
ings, and further that in many variations documents not
Classed as primary contribute materially to a right de-
cision, either directly or as aiding the interpretation of
the whole evidence, we have still to ask how far primary
documents can be implicitly trusted where they have
little or no support from other documents. The doubt
presents itself most strongly in readings attested by a
very small number of primary MSS exceptionally com-
mended by Internal Evidence of Groups and Docu-
ments: but the principle is not affected by the number.
266. The strongest presumption against the legiti-
macy of any such separate authority of the primary MSS
is derived from the prima facie Superiority of composite
to homogeneous attestation (see $75); while on the other
hand (see $76) it is checked by the contingency, varying
in probability according to the ascertained elements of
the secondary documents that may be in question, that
apparent compositeness of attestation may really be due
to mixture and therefore delusive. A satisfactory an-
swer to the question can however be obtained from two
sources only, Internal Evidence of Such groups as consist
wholly or almost wholly of primary MSS, and considera-
tion of the nature of the texts of the secondary docu-
ments as bearing on the point at issue. On the Internal
Evidence of the more important groups of this class
enough will be said in the following sections. We are
196 AR/MAA’ Y UAVSUPAE’OA'7"A.D BY
for the present concerned with the preliminary enquiry
whether any class of Secondary documents has such a
textual character that their total or almost total absence
from the attestation of a reading otherwise sufficiently
attested by primary MSS should throw doubt on its
genuineness.
267. To conduct the enquiry with due circum-
spection, it is necessary to pay special attention to those
variations in which the extant evidence includes impor-
tant secondary documents preserved only in fragments,
and especially documents which would merit a place on
the primary list but for their imperfect preservation. If
in such cases the result were often unfavourable to the
primary MSS, it would evidently in variations where they
are absent be requisite to take into account the twofold
contingency of their hypothetical presence on this or on
that side. If however, on careful consideration of every
kind of evidence, their actual presence is not found to
justify doubts as to the antecedent authority of the
primary MSS, we can with the more confidence trust the
primary MSS in those more numerous variations where,
with perhaps no accession to the number of their allies,
they are confronted by a less imposing array.
D. 268. Absence of Secondary Greek MSS from Groups
containing Primary Greek MSS
268. The first class of secondary documents, ac-
cording to the usual order, is formed by the secondary
Greek MSS; in which we do not include those whose
texts are wholly or almost wholly of Syrian origin. No-
thing can be clearer than the mixed character of all
these MSS; so that, in supposing them to have derived
SECOAVIDA R Y GRAE AEK A/SS I97
a given reading from, for instance, a Western Origin,
ultimate or immediate, we are not contradicting the
known fact that they have numerous ancient Non-West-
ern readings, when it is equally known that they contain
numerous Western readings. If in some places their
aggregation in opposition to the primary MSS appears
too great to be explained by accidental coincidence of
several separate mixtures with Western or other sources,
we have to remember, first, that none or almost none
of them are without a large Syrian element, and Secondly,
that there is no reason to suppose the Syrian to have
been the only eclectic text which had a wide influence
about the fourth century.
E. 269–273. Absence of Versions from Groups con-
taining Primary Greek MSS
269. Respecting Versions, it is to be observed at the
outset that the large extent to which they have either
from the first or at some later time participated in
Western corruption must lead us to expect from them
but scanty support to the true reading in a large pro-
portion of Pre-Syrian variations. Of the versions more
ancient than the times of general mixture, the Old Latin
being wholly Western, and the Old Syriac, as now extant
for not quite half of the Gospels and for no other books,
being almost wholly Western, there remain only the two
closely related Egyptian versions, of which the Thebaic,
itself preserved only in fragments, contains so large a
Western element that earlier critics reckoned it as wholly
Western. It is certain, on evidence already given (§ 120,
217), that the original Memphitic version became ulti-
mately corrupted from common Greek sources, and the
198 AAEA.////ZAWAA’ Y SAA'7/AWG
printed editions to a great extent represent this debased
form of Memphitic text; so that till the best MSS have
been completely collated, we have no security that Mem-
phitic readings at variance with the general character of
the version belong to its primitive state. Moreover, as
we have seen, even in its earlier days it was probably
touched by the Western influence. There remain the
later versions and the revised forms of the Latin and
Syriac versions; and though they all contain Non-West-
ern Pre-Syrian elements in various proportions, and ac-
cordingly have all a certain number of readings in
common with the primary Greek MSS against most ver-
sions, we have no right to regard their predominant or
even concordant opposition as outweighing an otherwise
trustworthy attestation.
270. This distribution of Western and Non-Western
texts among versions is reflected in the range of support
which the primary Greek MSS (in opposition to D in
the Gospels and Acts, D.G. in the Pauline Epistles)
most usually receive from the several versions. Their
most constant allies are, as we should expect, one or
both of the Egyptian versions. Next to them probably
come documents essentially Western, but preserving
much of the earlier state of text which existed when
many of the Western readings had not yet arisen, such
as the Old Syriac and the African Latin. But, as we
have said, the primary Greek MSS likewise receive in
turn the support of every other version, sometimes of
several at once, not seldom even where all or nearly
all other Greek MSS stand in opposition.
271. On the other hand the support of versions
is sometimes wholly wanting. Before however this dis-
tribution can be rightly judged, a very large majority
OA' A' V/Z)ZAVC/E OF VERS/OAVS I99
of the variations prima facie belonging to it must be
cleared away. The causes of the irrelevance fall under
two principal heads, inability to express Greek distinc-
tions, and freedom of rendering. Where the variation
lies between two approximately synonymous words, it is
often impossible to say which it was that the author of a
given version had before him. Such version cannot
therefore be cited for either variant, and the necessary
absence of a version from the side of the primary Greek
MSS in an apparatus criticus leaves it undecided whether
the Greek original of the version had or had not their
reading. A similar uncertainty attends grammatical
forms partially identical in meaning, such as the aorist
and perfect of verbs; and also, though not in all cases,
the presence or absence of the article. The ambiguity
caused by freedom of rendering is sometimes not essen-
tially different from the preceding cases, namely, where
the genius of the translator's language would have ren-
dered literal translation of one of the Greek readings
unendurably stiff, or even impossible, and the most
obvious rendering of it coincides with what would be a
literal representation of the other Greek reading.
272. But, apart from this involuntary licence, most
translators are liable to deviate from their original by
slight verbal paraphrase in just the same way as tran-
scribers of the fundamental text: in other words, many
associations of versions with Greek evidence in support
of changes of diction are due to accidental coincidence.
Every paraphrastic impulse which affects a trafiscriber is
not less likely to affect a translator, who has a strong
additional temptation to indulge the impulse in the fact
that he is creating a new set of words, not copying words
set one after another before him. One of the commonest
2OO A2/2///AA’ Y GA2AAEA A/SS
forms of paraphrase is a change of order; and a large
proportion of the readings in which the primary Greek
MSS stand alone differ from the rival readings in order.
only. How little reliance can be placed on the adverse
testimony of versions in such a matter is indeed proved
by the absence of Greek or any other authority for num-
berless Scattered inversions of order, to be found in MSS
of so literal a version as the Old Latin. Other changes
of a paraphrastic kind, in which versions may have the
appearance of Supplying attestation in another language
to similar Greek readings, but which doubtless were often
in fact made by the translators and the Greek scribes
independently, are the insertion of expletives, more es-
pecially pronouns (very liberally added as suffixes by
Syriac translators), kat after oùros, and the like; the
resolution or introduction of participial constructions;
and permutations of conjunctions, and introductory lan-
guage generally. In some of these cases a peculiarity
of form in one Greek reading renders it probable that
versions which attest it are faithfully reproducing their
Original, while it remains uncertain which original un-
derlies any or all of the versions on the opposite side:
in other cases either Greek reading might so easily be
paraphrased by the other, either in Greek or in any
other language, that no single version can be safely taken
to represent exactly its original; though it is usually
probable that some only of the versions have disguised
their fundamental reading. -
273. But, when allowance has been made for all
these cases in which the apparent isolation of the primary
Greek MSS is possibly or probably delusive, a certain
number of variations remain in which the isolation must
in the present state of our evidence be counted as
UAVSUPAEOA ZZZ) B Y VERS/OAVS 2O I
unambiguous. For the reasons given above, the Suppo-
sition that readings thus unattested by any version may
yet be original is consistent with the known facts of
transmission; and continuous examination of the read-
ings attested by the primary Greek MSS without a
version fails to detect any difference of internal character
between them and readings in which the primary Greek
MSS are sustained by versions. While therefore so
narrow a range of attestation renders special caution
imperative with respect to these readings, and some of
them cannot be held certain enough to render all
recognition of their rivals superfluous, we have found
no sufficient reasons either for distrusting them gene-
rally or for rejecting any of them absolutely.
F. 274–279. Absence of Fathers from Groups contain-
i ing Primary Greek MSS * -
274. The presence or absence of Fathers as allies
of the primary Greek MSS is evidently to a great extent
fortuitous, depending as it does so much on the nature
of the passage, as causing it to be quoted often, seldom,
or not at all. Except therefore in the comparatively few
cases in which it is morally certain that a passage must
have been quoted by one or more given Fathers in
given contexts, had it stood with a particular reading
in the text used by him or them, negative patristic
evidence is of no force at all. . . . .
275. This universal rule is completely applicable to
the variations which we are now considering, where
neither variant is attested by any Father who does not
habitually follow a Syrian text: it is applicable in prin-
ciple, but subject to more or less qualification, where
2O2 AA2A2/Z/ZAWAA’ Y SAA’7”/AVG:
the reading opposed to that of the primary Greek MSS
has patristic attestation not obviously Syrian, and their
reading has none. The extent of its applicability must
be affected by the usual character of the text of the
Fathers who cite the passage. Almost all Greek Fathers
after Eusebius have texts so deeply affected by mixture
that their dissent, however clearly established, cannot
at most count for more than the dissent of so many
secondary Greek uncial MSS, inferior in most cases to
the better sort of secondary uncial MSS now existing.
The patristic evidence which can appreciably come into
account must thus be limited to that of Ante-Nicene
Fathers, and those very few later Fathers who used
approximately Ante-Nicene texts.
276. But further, the apparent patristic evidence
literally or virtually Ante-Nicene requires in its turn
critical sifting. All the possible sources of error ex-
plained in former pages (§ 156, 157) have to be kept
constantly in mind; with the additional consideration
that here we are dealing with detached variations, in
which, except in the way of observation of analogies,
we can obtain no corrective help from other variations.
Positive grounds for distrusting the faithful transmission
of a patristic attestation concordant with the Syrian
text may very often be found, for instance in a recorded
variation of MSS or in the clear implication of the
context. Where this is the case, there is nothing arbi-
trary in ignoring the printed testimony, or even, if the
evidence is strong enough, in reckoning it as favourable
to the rival reading. Wherever a transcriber of a patristic
treatise was copying a quotation differing from the text to
which he was accustomed, he had virtually two originals
before him, one present to his eyes, the other to his
OA' A' V//DAAVCAE OF AZA 7THAEA'S 2O3
mind; and, if the difference struck him, he was not
unlikely to treat the written exemplar as having blun-
dered. But since the text familiar to nearly all tran-
scribers after the earlier ages, to say nothing of editors,
was assuredly the Syrian text, this doubleness of original
could arise only where the true patristic reading was
Non-Syrian. For the converse supposition there is no
similar justification: for the only known causes that can
be assigned for the appearance of a Non-Syrian reading
in a patristic quotation are faithful transmission and
accidental error; and where the reading is independently
known to be of high antiquity, the chance of accidental
coincidence in error is in an immense preponderance
of cases too minute to come into account.
277. Even where there is no obvious positive in-
ternal ground for doubting whether the words written
by a Father have been faithfully preserved, some slight
uncertainty must always rest on a patristic attestation
of a variant adopted by the Syrian text, since the Sup-
posed doubleness of original remains equally possible, and
equally likely, whether the circumstances of the individual
quotation do or do not happen to contain suspicious
indications. This uncertainty ceases to be slight when
the apparent position of the patristic testimony Creates
a grouping unlike any of the groupings into which it
habitually enters, and when if transferred to the other
side it would find itself in accustomed company. -
278. Again, there is often reason to doubt whether
what a Father wrote was identical with what he read:
positive grounds may be found for distrusting a free
quotation as faithfully representing the biblical text used,
provided that the difference between one variant and
another is such as might readily be reproduced accident-
2O4. AR/M/AA’ Y GA&AEAEA MSS
ally by the free manner or the special purpose of the
citation. Patristic quotations in short, like versions, may
easily seem to make up a composite attestation, when it
is really nothing more than an accidental coincidence.
Such deceptive attestations might conceivably arise in
either direction: but in a large majority of cases they
would be due to a paraphrastic impulse such as that which
we find working in scribes; that is, for either process the
original peculiarities of Order or diction which tempt to
modification would be the same. In like manner the in-
termingling of unconscious reminiscences of parallel or
similar passages, a specially fruitful cause of corruption
in patristic quotations, may easily result in readings
identical with readings due in MSS to harmonistic or
other assimilation, and thus produce a deceptive sem-
blance of joint attestation. Accordingly quotations
apparently opposed to the primary Greek MSS are
oftener found to be for these reasons questionable repre-
sentatives of the texts used by the patristic writers than
those which seem to support the primary Greek MSS.
Suspicions as to fidelity of quotation, unsustained by
other evidence, by the nature of the case can never
transpose attestation from one side to the other; they can
only create uncertainty: but uncertainty suffices to
destroy the force of the prima facie contrast between
the presence of patristic attestation on the one side and
its absence on the other.
279. Lastly, even the presence of tried and verified
Pre-Syrian patristic evidence in opposition to the pri-
mary Greek MSS, in conjunction with its absence from
their side, loses much of the weight to which it would
otherwise be entitled, when the actual texts employed
in the extant writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers are
CWAVSUPPORTED E V FA 7THAEA'S 2O5
taken into consideration. Western readings, it will be
remembered, are abundant in Clement and Origen,
much more in Eusebius; and these are the only Ante-
Nicene Fathers, represented to us by more than petty
fragments, whose texts are not approximately Western.
Now the readings of primary Greek MSS with which
we are here concerned have opposed to them D in the
Gospels and Acts, D.G., in the Pauline Epistles and
almost always other Western-documents as well, making
up a clear Western element in the attestation, whether
the origin be ‘Western' or not. If therefore even
Clement or Origen swell the array, the source of their
readings in these passages, as in many others where no
doubt is possible, may be Western; and if so, they con-
tribute nothing towards shewing that these readings were
only preserved by the Western text, not originated by
it. Nevertheless, since the greater part of the texts
of the Alexandrian Fathers is Non-Western (see § 159),
their certified opposition to a reading of the primary
Greek MSS ought to forbid its unqualified acceptance
except after the fullest consideration.
{
G. 280. Absence of Versions and Fathers from Groups
containing Primary Greek MSS -
28o. We have spoken separately of the absence of
Versions and of Fathers from the company of the
primary Greek MSS: it remains to consider the rare
and extreme cases in which Versions and Fathers are
absent together. Independently of the special utility of
versions and patristic quotations in supplying the land-
marks of textual history their certified testimony has a
high corroborative worth. The unknown Greek MSS
206 ABSEAVCE OF VERSIONS AND FATHERS
from which they all derive their authority preceded our
earliest extant MSS in several cases by long periods event-
ful in textual history, and thus at least rescue any reading
of our MSS which they undoubtedly attest from the
suspicion of having come into existence at any recent
stage of transcription, in the century, we may say, pre-
ceding 350. This ancillary aid of Versions and Fathers
in individual variations is invaluable, notwithstanding their
unfitness to supply a primary and continuous standard of
text as compared with our best Greek MSS. But, though
the security of verification is withdrawn where Versions
and Fathers are both absent, it by no means follows that
a positive insecurity takes its place. Every version, so
far as it is at present known to us, contains so many
readings which it is morally impossible to believe to be
right, and a certain proportion of these readings are
scattered in such apparent irregularity, that we have no
right to assume either that the deficiencies of one version,
as the Memphitic, would in every case be made up by
some other version, or that deficiencies of all versions
and deficiencies of all extant patristic evidence would
never happen to coincide. Moreover the transition to
total absence of Versions and Fathers is bridged over by
the many places in which a secondary version, as the
AEthiopic or Armenian, supplies the only accessory
authority. The whole number of cases where the pri-
mary Greek MSS stand alone is extremely small, when
the deceptive variations mentioned above (§ 27I, 272),
have been set aside : and neither in their internal cha-
racter nor in their external relations to other documents
have we found reason to deny to such readings the
favourable presumption which their attestation by the
better of the extant Greek MSS would confer.
2O7
SECTION II. DOCUMENTARY GROUPS AS LIMITED BY
REFERENCE TO THE BEST PRIMARY GREEK MSS
281–355
A. 281–283. AEelation of variations between Primary
Greek MSS ſo the chief ancient texts
281. After this examination of the relation of the
evidence of Versions and Fathers to that of the primary
Greek MSS in respect of the final process of deter-
mining the text, we must now resume the consideration
of the numerous variations in which the primary Greek
MSS differ widely among themselves. Here, in investi-
gating Internal Evidence of Groups for each individual
group or class of groups, we lose clear and obvious
parallelism with the great ancient texts. But the dis-
tribution of attestation for most of the groups must as
a matter of fact have in most cases been determined
by the great ancient texts, with or without subsequent
mixture, whether it be in our power to assign each docu-
ment to a definite text or not (see $ 243 V); and there-
fore that cannot well be the right reading which would
render the documentary distribution incompatible with
known genealogies. It is not indeed requisite that we
should be able to decide between two or more possible
histories of a variation; but an important confirmation
is wanting when we are unable to suggest at least
one such history consistent alike with the composition
of documents as known through the simpler and more
normal distributions of attestation, and with the genuine-
ness of the reading commended by Internal Evidence of
Groups and other considerations. Before therefore We
2O8 PECEPTIVE OPPOS/7ZONS OF
proceed to enquire into the character of special groups in
detail, it will be right to examine a little more closely the
probable relation of the primary ancient lines of trans-
mission to many important variations now to be Con-
sidered.
282. The principal difficulty with which we have
to deal arises from an apparent combination of Western
and Alexandrian attestations in opposition to a group of
documents which bears no clear and obvious marks of
compositeness of attestation, but which is commended
by Internal Evidence of Groups; so that the preference
accorded to this group seems to involve the paradox
of a preference of a single line of descent to two con-
cordant lines of descent. Given the independence of
the Western and Alexandrian texts, the supposed pre-
ference is genealogically untenable as regards readings
which could not owe their place in both texts to acci-
dental coincidence in error. Now, though no contra-
diction is involved in the hypothesis of the adoption of
early Alexandrian readings into a late Western text or
of early Western readings into a late Alexandrian text,
the actual evidence contains comparatively few traces of
any such relation of dependence; while the definite
Original parallelism of the two texts is evinced by the
many places in which they smooth away difficulties of
language by entirely different devices. Either therefore
(1) the readings of which we are now speaking as found
only in the better of the primary Greek MSS must be of
Alexandrian origin; or (2) they must have originated in
Some indeterminate equally aberrant text, assignation of
them to a Western Origin being in most cases clearly
impossible; or (3) the opposed attestation cannot rightly
be said to combine the two primary aberrant texts.
SIMPLE AND COM/POSITE ATZZSTATION 209
283. The two former suppositions stand in so
flagrant opposition to the suggestions of internal evidence,
howsoever obtained, and harmonise so ill with the
results furnished by other groupings, that nothing but
the proved inadmissibility of the third supposition could
justify their acceptance. The third supposition is how-
ever natural enough, as soon as we recognise on the one
hand the wide and early prevalence of Western readings,
and on the other the mixed composition of the Greek
MSS which are the chief extant representatives of the
Alexandrian text (compare $269). The Alexandrian text
of the Gospels for instance would have been hopelessly
obscure but for the very large Alexandrian elements
which SCL(A) 33 contain in various places and propor-
tions: yet the presence of a Western element in these
MSS is equally indubitable, and it furnishes what must
be in most cases the true key to the paradox. The
readings attested by the best of the primary Greek MSS
are as a rule simply Non-Western readings which are
extant in an exceptionally small number of existing
documents because the Western corruptions of them
obtained an exceptionally early and wide popularity in
one or other of the eclectic texts of the third and fourth
centuries. That one of these eclectic texts arose at Alex-
andria, the text of Hesychius (see § 249) being indeed
probably of this character, is likely enough; and, if so,
it might be called a late Alexandrian text: but such a fact
would only serve to illustrate the conclusion just stated.
This conclusion harmonises in every respect with all
known facts; and we are unable to think of any other
interpretation which can be consistently applied without
startling incongruities alike of external and of internal
evidence.
I6
2 IO
|B. 284–286. General relations of B and R fo other
documents
284. When the various subordinate groupings which
arise by the defection of one or another member of the
leading groups of primary Greek MSS described as
mainly Non-Western are tested by the prevalent cha-
racter of their readings, the results thus obtained are
for most of them as well marked as in the cases where
the primary Greek MSS agree together. Two striking
facts here successively come out with especial clearness.
Every group containing both N and B is found, where
Internal Evidence is tolerably unambiguous, to have an
apparently more Original ext than every opposed group
containing neither; and every group containing B, with
the exception of such Western groups as include B in the
Pauline Epistles, is found in a large preponderance of cases,
though by no means universally, to have an apparently
more original text than every opposed group containing S.
285. Thus Internal Evidence of Groups conducts us
to conclusions respecting these two MSS analogous to,
and confirmatory of, the conclusions obtained inde-
pendently by ascertaining to what extent the principal
extant documents severally represent the several ancient
lines of text. We found is and B to stand alone in
their almost complete immunity from distinctive Syrian
readings; N to stand far above all documents except B in
the proportion which the part of its text neither Western
nor Alexandrian bears to the rest; and B to stand far
above S in its apparent freedom from either Western
or Alexandrian readings with the partial exception in
the Pauline Epistles already mentioned more than once
(§ 204 f).
TWOATO/CA) TEST/AWG OA' B AAVZ) N. 2 I H
286. The two processes deal with distinct classes
of phenomena, the one with distributions of external
attestation, the other with internal characteristics. The
former simply registers in what company a given docu-
ment is or is not found, with reference to certain well
marked assemblages constantly recurring and having a
conspicuously ancient origin: the latter deduces from
those variations which on internal grounds afford clear
presumptions the quality of the texts attested by the
various groups into which a given document enters, and
thus ultimately the quality of the document itself as
a whole. The results of the former process are brought
into comparison with those of the latter by a similar
but independent deduction of the texts of the observed
assemblages of documents. To a certain limited ex-
tent the materials in this case are identical with those
employed in the latter process, for the various Syrian,
Western, and Alexandrian assemblages are included
among the numerous groups. But this partial coinci-
dence does not materially impair the independence of
the two processes, at least as regards any mixed or any
approximately neutral document; for among the varia-
tions from which the character of, let us say, the Western
text is deduced there will be found many in which
each of the mixed documents now in question stands
in opposition to the Western reading; and again many
groupings, which by the ascertained quality of their
texts go to shew the quality of a given document included
in them all, are of too ambiguous composition to be
used as evidence of the character of the Western Or
other assemblages. Thus the correspondence between
the results of the two modes of investigating the groups
containing 8 and B, and again those containing B with-
2 I 2 A*/2/A 7T/OAV OA' B 7"O N AWOZ’’ AAAEA, C 7TP D
out N, is not created, as might be incautiously surmised,
by a twofold presentation of inferences essentially the
same, but amounts to a real verification. On the other
hand the ascertainment of the quality of any single docu-
ment by bringing together the ascertained qualities of the
texts of the different groups of which it is a member is
not essentially different from the direct ascertainment of
its quality on internal grounds without intermediate
reference to groups, except in its ornission to take into
account those variations in which the document stands
absolutely alone.
C. 287—304. Ace/ation of B ſo S and characteristics
of Groups containing Wołż B and 8
287. It now becomes necessary to scrutinise more
closely the trustworthiness of the propositions laid down
above respecting the preeminent excellence of the Vatican
and Sinaitic MSS, which happen likewise to be the old-
est extant Greek MSS of the New Testament. It is at
the outset essential to distinguish carefully the readings
and the groups of documents in which they stand side
by side from those in which one of them stands alone.
Following the gradual narrowing of groups, we come first
to the combination SB, which is, as we have intimated,
wherever it occurs, the constant element of those variable
groups that are found to have habitually the best read-
ings. The statement remains true, we believe, not less
when the groups dwindle so as to leave NB compara-
tively or absolutely alone than when they are of larger
compass. The cases in which NB have no support of
Greek MSS, or no support at all, are connected by every
gradation with the cases in which they stand at the head
A V AAA’ 7/A/, //DAAV7/7"Y OF SCA2/BAES 2 I 3
of a considerable group; and the principle is not affected
by the size of the groups. But when the number of
members is nearly or quite reduced to two, it is of con-
sequence to find out what can be known respecting the
antecedents of each, and especially respecting their
mutual relations.
288. The first point that arises for examination is
the independence of their testimony. The numerous
readings in which they stand alone against all or nearly
all extant Greek MSS suggests at Once the enquiry
whether they had separate ancestries or were, to a greater
or less extent, copies of a single exemplar. The enquiry
is the more necessary because the two MSS are really
brought together as to their transcription in a singular
manner by the fact observed by Tischendorf, that six leaves
of the New Testament in N, together with the opening
verses of the Apocalypse, besides corrections, headings,
and in two cases subscriptions, to other parts, are from the
hand of the same scribe that wrote the New Testament
in B. The fact appears to be sufficiently established by
Concurrent peculiarities in the form of one letter, punctu-
ation, avoidance of contractions, and some points of
Orthography. As the six leaves are found on Computa-
tion to form three pairs of conjugate leaves, holding
different places in three distant quires, it seems probable
that they are new or clean copies of corresponding leaves
executed by the scribe who wrote the rest of the New
Testament, but so disfigured, either by an unusual num-
ber of corrections of clerical errors or from some unknown
cause, that they appeared unworthy to be retained, and
were therefore cancelled and transcribed by the ‘cor-
rector’. However this may be, their internal character
of text differs in no respect from that of their neighbours.
2I4. S/MPLA, CO////UAVITY OF A2AA D/AWGS
The fact that the scribe of B was a ‘corrector' of s shews
that the two MSS were written in the same generation,
probably in the same place: but as regards the text it
has no independent force, though it would have to be
taken into account if the internal evidence were to point
to the use of a common exemplar. On the other hand a
strong presumption to the contrary is created by remark-
able differences in the order of the books, the divisions
into sections, and other externals.
289. Turning then to the internal evidence afforded
by the texts themselves, we are at once confronted by the
question,-How can we know that any two MSS are both
derived from a common parent or near ancestor? Cer-
tainly not, as is often assumed, from the bare fact that
they have many readings in common, with or without the
support of other documents. What is absolutely certain
in these cases is that those readings have some common
ancestor, coincidences in independent error being always
excepted; and it is morally certain that the same ancestor
supplied more or less of the rest of the text. But this
ancestor may have been at any distance from the MSS,
near or remote, back to the autograph itself inclusive.
That this is no exaggeration will be seen at once by
following the course of transmission downwards instead
of upwards. Whenever an original reading has disap-
peared from all representatives of all originally indepen-
dent lines of transmission except two, and each of these
two lines has either but a single extant representative or
has itself lost the true reading in all its extant representa-
tives but one, the resulting distribution is precisely as
Supposed, two MSS against the rest: and this is a com-
mon case in many texts. To what stage in the trans-
mission the common ancestor implied by the identical
AS BAEARZAVG OAV RAE ZAZ ZOAW OF 7"WO MSS 2 I 5
readings belonged, can in fact, so far as it can be deter-
mined at all, be determined only by the internal cha-
racter of these readings, and by the genealogical relation-
ships to other documents disclosed by these and the
other readings. -
290. As soon as the test furnished by the most ele-
mentary analysis of attestations, and consequently of
genealogies, is applied, the supposition that the texts of
N and B as wholes are in any one book or chapter of the
Testament derived from a single near ancestor falls to
the ground. It is negatived at the first glance by the
multitude of variations in which they are divided, while
each is associated with a variety of attestation. Apart
from the associated attestations the diversities of read-
ing would be inconclusive: they might have been produced
by the independent carelessness or licence of two trans-
cribers of the same exemplar. But where each discrepant
reading has other witnesses, and there is no room for
accidental coincidence, the discrepancies in two trans-
cripts of the same exemplar can have no other origin
than mixture; that is, at least one of the transcripts
must be virtually a transcript of two different originals.
In this restricted sense alone is the hypothesis of a proxi-
mate common origin of 8 and B worthy of being seriously
examined; that is, in the sense that a single proximate
original has supplied a large common element in their
textS. -
291. To examine the hypothesis in this shape, we
must put out of sight all the elements of each MS which
it owes to undoubted mixture with texts capable of being
recognised through a long succession of variations, and
which may therefore easily have come in together; that
is, every clearly Western and every clearly Alexandrian
2 I6 COMMOAV/Z'Y OA' WA’OAVG A&AEAA)/AWGS
reading of R in such books as are preserved in B, and
every clearly Western reading of B in the Pauline Epistles.
The residue would then approximately represent each
text reduced to the form which it must have had just
before the great final independent mixture, upon the
hypothesis that antecedent to this mixture the two texts
had a common proximate origin. To make comparison
clearer, we may further leave out of account every reading
of either MS singly which has no other attestation what-
eVer, *
292. The resulting text however would still entirely
fail to shew the imagined agreement. Multitudes of dis-
crepancies between N and B would remain, in which each
MS would have some very early documentary evidence
supporting it. Doubtless the hypothesis might still be
rendered possible by supposing all the readings in which
N and B differ to have been taken simultaneously in one
of these MSS from a single accessory original, or each
MS to have its own accessory original. But the same
conjectural mode of composition might be imagined with
equal propriety for any other pair of MSS having at least
an equal number of coincidences peculiar to themselves
and no greater number of discrepancies. It is only one
among an almost infinite number of at least equally
probable contingencies, and has therefore no a priori
probability of its own, though it would have no inherent
improbability if other textual phenomena pointed to it.
The problem cannot possibly be solved on the ground of
attestation alone: but, so far as the phenomena of attes-
tation contribute to its solution, they do not suggest a
near common origin for even the residuary portions of N
and B. -
2.93. We now come to the indications furnished by
f
AS BEARING ON REZATION OF TWO MSS 217
the internal character of identical readings. If some of
the identical readings are manifestly wrong, and if they
further are of such a nature that accidental coincidence
will not naturally account for their having the double at-
testation, they must have had a common Original later than
the autograph; and it becomes probable that some at least
of those other identical readings which afford no clear
internal evidence of the intrinsic kind had likewise only
that later MS than the autograph for their common origi-
mal. But this negative fact is all that we learn; and it is
compatible with even the extreme supposition that the
common source of the identical readings was the original
of all extant documents, though itself but imperfectly
representing the autograph, and thus that these readings,
wrong though they be, were the ancestors of all other
existing variants of the same variations (see $86, 87). If
on the other hand some of the wrong identical readings are
manifestly derived from other existing readings, the com-
mon original must of course have been later than the
common original of the other readings; but the question
of its remoteness or proximateness to the two extant MSS
remains undecided.
2.94. The only quite trustworthy evidence from inter-
nal character for derivation from a common proximate
original consists in the presence of such erroneous iden-
tical readings as are evidently due to mere carelessness
or caprice of individual scribes, and could not easily have
escaped correction in passing through two or three trans-
criptions. To carry weight, they must of course be too
many to be naturally accounted for by accidental coinci-
dence of error in two independent scribes. Now, to the
best of our belief, N and B have in common but one such
reading, if we set aside the itacisms, or permutations of
218 NEGATIVE EVIDENCE AS TO B AAVD N
vowels, current in uncial times, as between o and o, m
and el; including the confusion between jueſs and üpets.
This solitary blunder is Tapa)\\ayjitpot's dirookudopatos
for tr. ) T. diroo kiaopia in James i 17. The final -atos
might possibly be derived from an airós which stands at
the head of the next verse in a good cursive (40) and in
two Syriac texts, and which has much intrinsic force: On
this supposition the reading of N and B, though erroneous,
would be nearer to the true reading than the common
reading. But the evidence as a whole does not point to
so deeply seated a corruption; and it may be fairly as-
Sumed that the reading -atos is due either to thoughtless
assimilation to the preceding genitive or to a mental
separation of diró from O'Kiaopia and consequent correc-
tion of the supposed solecism. But, though a series
of such coincidences would imply community of proxi-
mate origin, a single instance does not, nor would two or
three. Our extant MSS afford examples of more startling
coincidences, unquestionably accidental, as gepots & pots
(NA) for orepo’s £6 bow in 2 Pet. ii 4, $60pás (b0apt?s
(SAC) for O'Topós (p6.apt?s in I Pet. i. 23, and ééto-Tavro
(s” Cº Dº) for éétotato, followed by 'Akočoravres 8° of
dTóo toxot, in Acts viii 13, the subject of the verb being
6 Xiuov. The coincident readings of 8 and B likewise
include one or two peculiar spellings having a some-
what problematical appearance : they occur however
in peculiar words, in which it is difficult to find a
trustworthy Criterion of intrinsic certainty or even pro-
bability. They include likewise a few substantive read-
ings which are capable of being accounted for as
blunders, but which may as reasonably be admitted as
genuine, and in most cases are sustained by internal
evidence.
PoS/7/v/. EPIDENCE AS TO B AND N 2 IQ
295. Thus far we have obtained only negative
results. We have found readings that are explicable by
the supposition of a common proximate original: we have
found none that it is difficult to explain without it. We
must now turn to such positive indications of the relative
antiquity of the common original as can be obtained by
taking genealogical relations into account. These are of
two kinds, arising from comparisons in which the two
MSS are taken together, and from those in which they
are taken separately. -
296. Under the former head we have to compare
the readings in which N and B together stand unsupported
with those in which they have the concurrence of one
or two important MSS or of ancient versions and quota-
tions without extant MSS. Here we are merely recon-
sidering from a special point of view the evidence from
which the enquiry started (§ 287), the Internal Evidence
of Groups. Having found NB the constant element in
various groups of every size, distinguished by internal
excellence of readings, we found no less excellence in the
readings in which they concur without other attestations of
Greek MSS, or even of Versions or Fathers. The two sets
of groupings, containing no reading in common, illustrate
and confirm each other. The general character of the
readings of both is the same, so that there is no internal
evidence against the natural presumption that they come
from the same source. But the readings of 8B in which
they are associated with other and various witnesses for
very early texts cannot by the nature of the case have
Originated with the scribe of a proximate common source;
so that, if the common source was proximate, they must
have been received and transmitted from an earlier
Source: and accordingly there is no reason, in the absence
220 POS/7/VE EVIDENCE OF REMOTENESS
of constraint from internal evidence, to imagine a differ-
ent origin for those readings of NB which have no other
attestation. It might indeed be suggested that both sets
of readings were obtained from a single proximate com-
mon source, but that the one set originated there, while
the other was transmitted. But against this contingent
possibility must be set the comparative inconstancy of
the members of the Smaller groups containing NB, and
the consequent probability that occasionally they would
all be found ranged against readings having the same
parentage as those which they elsewhere concur with SB
in supporting (see § 280).
2.97. These considerations shew that the common
original of NB for by far the greater part of their identical
readings, whatever may have been its own date, had
a very ancient and very pure text, and that there is no
sufficient reason for surmising that the rest of their
identical readings came from any other source. They
prove that one of three alternatives must be true: either
the respective ancestries of N and B must have diverged
from a common parent extremely near the apostolic auto-
graphs; or, if their concordant readings were really de-
rived from a single not remote MS, that MS must itself
have been of the very highest antiquity; Or, lastly, such
single not remote MS must have inherited its text from
an ancestry which at each of its stages had enjoyed a
singular immunity from corruption. For practical pur-
poses it is of little moment which alternative is true.
The second and third alternatives would leave open the
possibility that single readings of RB, otherwise unsup-
ported, may have originated with the common proximate
source here inplied: but there is no difference between
the three alternatives as regards the general character and
OF COMMOAV SOURCAE OF B AAWD S 22 H
date of the readings taken together, and the consequent
presumption in favour of any one of them.
298. When however we go on, secondly, to compare
the identical readings of RB with the readings of 8 unsup-
ported by B and of B unsupported by S, the first alterna-
tive obtains so much positive corroboration that the
second and third may be safely dismissed. For the pre-
sent purpose we must neglect the numerous readings in
which S or B forms part of a large group, and attend to
those readings only in which they stand respectively in
opposition to all or almost all other Greek MSS, but
with some other support: with the places where they
stand absolutely alone we are not for the present con-
cerned. It is then seen that a large proportion of the
small groups containing one or other of the two MSS
contain also other documents (versions or quotations)
attesting a high antiquity of text. Many of the readings
of B having this accessory attestation are doubtless
wrong, and, as we shall see presently, a much greater
number of the readings of N : what we are now concerned
with however is not genuineness but antiquity. Each of
the two MSS is proved by these readings to be at least
in part derived from an Original preserving an extremely
ancient text, for the most part not represented by Our
other extant MSS: and these two texts are by the nature
of the case different from each other.
299. The distinct existence of these two indepen-
dent texts is further illustrated by places where they
emerge into view simultaneously; that is, in a certain
number of those ternary or yet more composite variations
in which the readings of N and of B are different from
each other, but are closely connected together in opposi-
tion to the reading or readings of the great bulk of docu-
222 AAVCAEST/C/AES OF B AAWD N SEAEAAAZZ
ments, and in which each of the two MSS is supported
by a small number of documents having a largely Pre-
Syrian text. In these cases, allowance being made for
the possibility of an occasional accidental coincidence,
the reading of neither N nor B can have originated in the
process of transcription from a proximate common source,
and the two MSS confront each other with exclusively
early texts of different ancestry. -
3oo. It follows from the binary and the ternary
variations alike that the hypothesis of a proximate com-
mon original for the identical readings of NB involves the
necessity of postulating at least three independent sources
of exceptionally ancient character of text for the two
MSS, independently of sources akin to documents still
largely extant. It is at once obvious that the same
phenomena are accounted for with much greater proba-
bility by the simple explanation that the identical read-
ings do not represent a third and proximate common
Original, containing a single pure text preserved with
extraordinary fidelity, but are merely those portions of
text in which two primitive and entirely separate lines of
transmission had not come to differ from each other
through independent corruption in the one or the other.
3or. The importance of this conclusion is so great
that we venture to repeat in other and fewer words the
principal steps which lead to it. Whatever be the mutual
relation of N and B, each of them separately, 8 in the
Apocalypse excepted, is found on comparison of its
characteristic readings with those of other documentary
authorities of approximately determinate date to have a
text more ancient by a long interval than that of any
other extant Non-Western MS containing more than a
few verses; to be in fact essentially a text of the second
FROM A REMOTE ANZ/QUZZY 223
or early third century. This fact, which is independent
of coincidences of NB, so that it would remain true of 8
if B were unknown, and of B if S were unknown, suggests
the most natural explanation of their coincidences. They
are due, that is, to the extreme and as it were primordial
antiquity of the common original from which the ancestries
of the two MSS have diverged, the date of which cannot
be later than the early part of the Second century, and
may well be yet earlier. So high an antiquity would of
course be impossible if it were necessary to Suppose that
the ‘common original’ was a single archetypal MS Com-
prising all the books as they now stand in either existing
MS. But, as has been noticed elsewhere (§ 14: See also
§ 352), there is reason to suspect that the great MSS of
the Christian empire were directly or indirectly transcribed
from smaller exemplars which contained only portions of
the New Testament; so that the general term ‘common
original ', which we have used for the sake of simplicity,
must in strictness be understood to denote the several
common originals of the different books or groups of
books. There is however no clear difference of charac-
ter in the fundamental text common to B and S in any
part of the New Testament in which B is not defective.
The textual phenomena which we find when we compare
them singly and jointly with other documents are through-
out precisely those which would present themselves in
representatives of two separate lines diverging from a
point near the autographs, and not coming into contact
subsequently. Other relations of pedigree are doubtless
theoretically possible, but involve improbable combina-
tions.
302. An answer, in our opinion a true and sufficient
answer, is thus found to the question how far the testimo-
224 A. YCAEA’7”/OAVAZ AURATY OF ZTAEX7'
nies of N and B are independent of each other. Their
independence can be carried back so far that their con-
cordant testimony may be treated as equivalent to that
of a MS older than N and B themselves by at least two
centuries, probably by a generation or two more. Here,
as always, high relative and absolute antiquity supplies a
strong presumption of purity, but cannot guarantee it:
on the one hand the writings of the New Testament were
liable to textual change in the earliest generations of
their existence as well as a little later; on the other the
close approach to the time of the autographs raises the
presumption of purity to an unusual strength. It must
be remembered however that part of the evidence with
which we have been dealing relates to quality as well as
to antiquity: Internal Evidence of Groups, independently
of the aid which it gives towards ascertaining the proxi-
mity or distance of the common original of 8 and B,
retains its own direct value. As was pointed out above
(§ 296), even if it were credible that they were divided
from their common ancestor by no more than two or
three transcriptions, we should have on this ground to
ascribe to the ancestry of the common ancestor an extra-
ordinary freedom from corruption. -
303. That absolute purity cannot be ascribed to all
readings attested by NB is implied in the existence of the
Western non-interpolations ($240). We shall presently
have to notice the possibility of a concurrence of N and B
in support of wrong Western readings in St Paul's Epis-
tles, implying a departure in the ancestries of both from
their common fundamental text; and this is perhaps the
most natural explanation of the attestation of the unques-
tionably wrong reading #A0ev for Affov by NBD,G, cu"
Orig in Gal. ii I.2. Account must likewise be taken of
IN READ/WGS COMMON TO RB 225
the places in which, without difference of reading between
N and B, the true text appears to be lost in all existing
documents, or in all but one or two of a subsidiary
character. Besides these clear or possible errors in SB
there are some few variations in which their joint read-
ing, though supported by some other testimony, is subject
to more or less of doubt. But we have not found reason
to make any further deduction from their united authority.
In this as in all similar cases no account of course can be
taken of coincidences that might be easily due to the
independent origination of the same error by two different
scribes. Under this head preeminently fall identical
changes of an itacistic kind, as the confusion between
imperatives in -e and infinitives in -al, and also be-
tween jueſs and jue's : it seldom happens that both MSS
go unquestionably astray together in such points, for
their laxity is but comparative, but examples do occur.
When these indecisive coincidences have been set aside,
no readings of RB remain which we could venture to pro-
nounce certainly or probably wrong as against other
existing readings. This general immunity from substan-
tive errors that can without room for doubt be recognised
as errors in the common original of RB, in Conjunction
with its very high antiquity, provides in a multitude of
places a safe criterion of genuineness, not to be distrusted
except on very clear internal evidence. Accordingly, with
the exceptions mentioned above, it is our belief (1) that
readings of NB should be accepted as the true readings
until strong internal evidence is found to the contrary,
and (2) that no readings of NB can safely be rejected
absolutely, though it is sometimes right to place them
only on an alternative footing, especially where they
receive no support from Versions or Fathers.
17
2
2
6 AZZ OS 7/QA 7/VE AEAEA/D/AWGS OA' NB
3O4. Sufficient examples of important or interesting
readings attested by SB, but lost from the texts of all
other extant uncials, will be found in the Appendix, as in
the notes on Matt. v. 22; x 3; xi Ig; xvi 21 ; xvii. 20;
xxviii. 6; Mark ix 29; xvi 9–2O; Acts xx. 5, 28; I Pet. v. 2;
Eph. i I. Two or three additional places may be noticed
here, in which there is reason to think that the bearing of
the internal evidence is liable to be misunderstood.
Mark iv 8 kai äA\a étréolev K. T. A., kui éðiðov KapTöv dua-
8aivovra kai at £avópºeva SB (adéavópevov ADLA cu', adéá-
wovta C and most documents). Here the true force of the
parable requires that not the fruit, but the plants into
which the seeds have expanded, be said to mount up
and grow. The temptations to corruption were peculiarly
strong; duagaivovra, immediately following kapırów, had an
ambiguous termination readily assumed to belong to the
masculine accusative, and thus drew after it the other parti-
ciple, one text adopting the middle form, which involved least
change, the other the neuter form, which coincided with
dvaſºaivovra : an additional motive for alteration would be
the apparent paradox of seeds being said to “mount up', a
paradox which St Mark apparently intended to soften by
means of the order of words. Finally the Western and
Syrian texts completed the corruption by changing &\\a to
the dN}\o of VV. 5, 7.
John iv. I 5 iva pai) 8twºró pumöé Ötépxopat (or -opal) évôáðe
divrºeiv N*B Orig” (äpxoplat most documents). Atépxopal
is here used in its idiomatic sense “come all the way’,
which expresses the woman's sense of her often repeated
toil. Being commonly used in other senses, the word was
easily misunderstood and assumed to be inappropriate ;
and the change would be helped by the facility with which
one of two similar consecutive syllables drops out.
Acts xxviii 13 karax6évres eis Xupakovo as étrepieivapiev
fuépas Tpets 66ev TepteNóvres karmvrija apev eis ‘Pijylov N*B
g (fulimus et [=‘weighed anchor’, as vg cum stastle/issent
de Asso for #pavres ào orov in xxvii I.3]) memph (‘going
forth '); where most documents have Teplex66vres. IIepte-
Nóvres here is explained by the use of the same verb in
xxvii 40, kai rās dyköpas TepteNóvres etov eis thu 6áAagorav,
where it clearly means the casting loose (literally “stripping
off’) of the anchors (with their cables) in order to set the
vessel free to drive, though it is otherwise unknown as a
nautical term. By analogy it must here mean the casting
loose of the cables which attached the vessel to the shore
in harbour (called in ampler phrase Tă diróyeta \to aoréat,
AIAWARY COMBINA 7/ONS CONTAINZAVG B 227
\0orat, diroköyal &c.), the elliptic employment of transitive
verbs being common in Greek nautical language as in
English (compare àpavres in xxvii I.3, cited above). The
general sense then is merely ‘and loosing from thence’,
that is, from Syracuse, where there had been a stay of three
days. On the other hand the run from Syracuse to Rhegium
could never be described as circuitous (Tepuéâ6óvres), unless
the ship were thrown out of her course by contrary winds,
a circumstance not likely to be noticed by means of an
obscure implication (cf. xxvii 4, 7, 8); while scribes, to
whom this geographical difficulty was not likely to suggest
itself, would be tempted by the superficial Smoothness of
TepuéA6óvres.
D. 305–307. Binary uncial combinations containing
B and N respectively
305. We come next to the variations in which N
and B stand on different sides. . The first step towards
dealing successfully with the problems which here arise
is to examine the internal character of the readings
attested by the two series of binary groups formed by N
and by B combined with each other primary Greek MS.
Now every such binary group containing B is found by
this process to offer a large proportion of readings which
on the closest scrutiny have the ring of genuineness,
while it is difficult to find any readings so attested which
look suspicious after full consideration. Such groups
are in the Gospels BL, BC, BT, BE, BD, AB, BZ, B 33,
in St Mark BA ; in the Acts AB, BC, BD, B.E., B 61 ;
in the Catholic Epistles AB, BC, BP, ; in the Pauline
Epistles AB, BC, BM, (BP,,) B 17, B 67*. These
readings are in fact for most of the groups, especially
those belonging to the Gospels, hardly of less uniformly
good character than the readings of 8.B. Once more,
their character is not found appreciably different whether
228 COMBINATION OF B WZTA, D,
they do or do not receive the support of Versions or
Fathers. -
306. One binary group containing B requires sepa-
rate mention, namely BD, of the Pauline Epistles. From
what has been already said (§ 204, 228) on the Western
element of B in these Epistles it will be evident that the
combinations BD,G, and BG, when they are unsustained
by clear Non-Western Pre-Syrian attestation, may be
taken to imply a Western reading. The question thus
arises whether the same is to be said of BD, On
the one hand D represents on the whole an earlier
and purer form of the Western text than G, so
that, were not B known to contain a Western ele-
ment in these epistles, the combination BDs would,
like the BD of the Gospels and Acts, have a strong
presumption in its favour; and the presumption,
though weakened, is by no means destroyed by the
contingency which has thus to be taken into account.
On the other hand D, has some clearly Western cor-
ruptions from which G, is free; and the analogy of
BD,G, and BG, preclude any assumption that BD, could
not have this character. The decision must accordingly
rest with Internal Evidence, which is on the whole defi-
nitely favourable to the BD, readings, while some of
them are not free from doubt. They cannot as a class
be condemned with the readings of BD,G, and BG, ; but
neither is it certain that none of them are of the same
origin and quality. Since the inferior quality of BG,
and the ambiguity as to BD, are explained by the ex-
ceptional intrusion of an alien element into the Pauline
text of B, the existence of which alien element is ascer-
tained independently of the quality of its readings,
the character of the fundamental text of B, as shown
A/AWAA Y COMBINATIONS CONTAIN/AWG R 229
by the other binary combinations, evidently remains
unaffected.
307. When tº is tested in like manner, the results
are quite different. None of its binary combinations, if
their readings are examined consecutively, are found to
be habitually of good character, though here and there
readings occur which are not to be hastily dismissed.
The readings of ND in the Gospels and Acts are often
interesting, but they are shown by the Versions and
Fathers which usually support them to be simply
Western : the character of ND with the Old Latin, of 8
with the Old Latin, and of D with the Old Latin is iden-
tical. Except in the peculiar Western non-interpolations
we have never found reason to trust ND. It is worth
mention here that much the most considerable deduction
to be made from the superiority of text in Tischendorf’s
editio ocława to his earlier editions is due to the indiscri-
minate vagueness of his estimate of 8: a large proportion
of those readings adopted by him which we have been
obliged to reject are ordinary Western readings which are
attested by 8 in consequence of the Western element
which it contains. With ND of the Gospels may be
classed NG, of the Pauline Epistles; while the rarer
combination ND, of the Pauline Epistles contains both
bad and good readings, the latter being apparently con-
fined to the parts where B is defective, and elsewhere to
those variations in which the reading of B is that of its
Western element peculiar to these books, so that in the
absence of this element we might have expected NBD,
in place of RD, Trial by Internal Evidence is likewise
unfavourable to such groups as in the Gospels SL, SC,
NT, SE, NZ, N 33, in St Mark NA; in the Acts SA, SC,
NE, N 61 ; in the Catholic Epistles SA, NC, SP, ; in the
230 IVA/2/ABM.A. A. O. ZTAE/O RAE Z'Y
Pauline Epistles NA, NC, (NP,) N 17; though they contain
a few readings which may perhaps be genuine. Their
pedigree is usually, we believe, perhaps almost always,
Alexandrian. The character is here, as elsewhere, as-
certained independently of the origin: but it is instruc-
tive to see how completely the results of the comparison
of binary groups containing N and B respectively are
explained by the presence of large Western and Alex-
andrian elements in S. The character of what remains
of the text of N after their subtraction must be largely
excellent, as the character of SB shews; an estimate of
the degree of excellence cannot however be formed till
we have taken another step.
E. 3O8–325. Singular and subsingular readings of B
308. The readings of B and of 8 respectively have
now to be compared in those variations in which they
stand unsustained by any other Greek uncial MS. Such
readings are of two kinds, “singular readings’, as they
are usually called, which have no other direct attestation
whatever, and what may be called ‘subsingular read-
ings’, which have only secondary support, namely, that
of inferior Greek MSS, of Versions, or of Fathers, or of
combinations of documentary authorities of these kinds.
Subsingular readings of B, which are in fact the read-
ings of a particular class of groups containing B, will
require consideration presently. What we have to say
on the singular readings of B may be made clearer by
a few remarks on singular readings generally.
309. The attention frima facie due to singular read-
ings of any one document is evidently variable, ac-
OA' S/AWGO/CAA' A' AEAZX/ZVGS 23 I
cording to the number and genealogical relations of
the whole body of extant documents. If a text is
preserved in but two documents, every reading of each
where they differ is a singular reading, one or other of
which must be right; unless indeed both are wrong, and
the true reading has perished. If the documents are
more numerous, the singular readings of one document
have no less prima facie authority than the rival readings
found in all other documents alike, provided that the
other documents have had a common original (see § 52),
making the readings common to them to be virtually,
though not in appearance, as ‘singular” as the others.
The same principle holds good whatever be the total
number of documents, unless they have all only one
common ancestor; that is, the prima facie authority of
the singular readings of any document cannot be esti-
mated by the bare numerical relation (see § 54–57),
but varies partly with the independence of ancestry of
the one document in relation to all the rest, partly with
the affinities of ancestry among the rest. Where the
whole pedigree is very complex, as in the New Testa-
ment, any documents which frequently stand in very
Small groups attesting evidently genuine readings, against
the bulk of documents of various ages, must evidently
contain so large elements having an independent an-
cestry that the a priori presumption against their sin-
gular readings cannot be much greater than against
singular readings at their best, that is, in texts preserved
in two documents only. -
3 Io. On the other hand (see § 56, 58) the sin-
gular readings of a document may always be due either
to inheritance from a more or less remote ancestry, which
may be of any degree of purity, or to quite recent
232 SAE/’AA’A 7TWOAV OA' ZAV/D/V//D UAZASMS
corruption, or, which is much the commonest case, partly
to the one, partly to the other. Whatever a document
has inherited of the autograph text is of necessity in-
cluded in its proper or ancestral text; and in order to
ascertain the character of those of its singular readings
which belong to its ancestral text, we must sift away as
far as possible those other singular readings which are
mere individualisms, so to speak, originating with the
scribe or one of his immediate predecessors. Complete
discrimination is of course impossible in the absence of
the exemplar or exemplars; but every approximation to
it is a gain. Except by conjecture, which does not con-
cern us here, no scribe can make a text better than
he found it ; his highest merit is to leave it no worse.
The inherited text of a document must therefore have
been usually better, never worse, than the text which if
actually presents to the eye; and the character of the
inherited text is inevitably disguised for the worse by
every “individualism which remains undetected.
311. Individualisms may obviously belong to various
types, from purely clerical errors to alterations of purely
mental origin. Sufficient clerical errors betray them-
selves, beyond the possibility of doubt, to enable us
with a little care to form an estimate of the degree of
general accuracy attained by the scribe of a given docu-
ment, and also of the kinds of mistakes to which he was
prone (see § 45). The mere subtraction of a large
number of irrelevant readings from the gross list of sin-
gular readings gives, as we have seen, greater exactness
to the appreciation of the character of the ancestral text.
But moreover the further knowledge gained respecting
the habits of the scribe becomes of use both positively
and negatively in dealing at a later stage with individual
AROM AAVCAESTRAZ S/NGULAR RAEAD/AWGS 233
variations. Singular readings which make good sense
and therefore need imply no clerical error, but which
might also be easily explained as due to a kind of
clerical error already fixed upon the scribe by undoubted
examples, are rendered by the presence of possible
clerical error as a vera causa more doubtful than they
would otherwise be. Singular readings which make good
sense, and which cannot be explained by clerical error
except such as lies outside the known proclivities of the
Scribe, acquire a better title to consideration. Again,
those singular readings which are evidently errors, but are
not clerical errors, can likewise be classified, and the
results of classification used in the same manner: for
instance, in the New Testament an appreciable number
of the singular readings of A consist in the permutation
of synonyms, and it can hardly be doubted that these
readings are true individualisms. Whether however such
singular readings are individualisms or of older date, is
often not easy to tell: but it is always useful to remember
that the text of a document as it stands is partly ancestral,
partly due to transcriptional error in the last stage or
stages of transmission, though definite indications of the
One or the other origin may be wanting for each indi-
vidual variation.
312. When the singular readings of B are examined
for the purpose here explained, it is found that on the
one hand the scribe reached by no means a high standard
of accuracy, and on the other his slips are not propor-
tionally numerous or bad. Like most transcribers, he
Occasionally omits necessary portions of text because his
eye returned to the exemplar at the wrong place. As the
longer portions of text so omitted consist usually either
234. CZAZAC/CA/C ZACA’O/CS OA' B
of 12 to 14 letters or of multiples of the same, his ex-
emplar was doubtless written in lines of this length.
Often, but not always, an obvious cause of omission may
be found in /homoeoſe/eufon, the beginning or ending of
consecutive portions of text with the same combinations
of letters or of words. Reduplications due to the same cause
likewise occur, but more rarely. More characteristic than
these commonest of lapses is a tendency to double a
single short word, syllable, or letter, or to drop one of
two similar consecutive short words, Syllables, or letters.
The following are examples: Mark ix 25 eroeſoyeTI-
Tacco for eroeſtltacco ; Acts xviii 17 ToyTOONTONTO)
for Toy ToonTo ; Mark xiii 13 eiccTeXoc for elctexoc ;
John xiv. Io Aero for aero)\epo; Luke vii 24 co-
AeyoMeN for CañeyoMeNON ; Mark iii. 5 Åel for Aerel;
vi 22 ele\90YeHC for eIceA60YCHC ; vii. 21 AIAOTICMol for
AIAAOFICMol; also without similarity of form, Mark vi I
ežHeeN for ezHA6en; vii 18 ACYNTo for acyNetol. OC-
casionally we find assimilations of ending, as Mark v 38
aXaXačovt as troXXas (for ToMAa); Rom. xiv. 18 Sokºpots Tots
avópotrots (for Öokipos); or even, but very rarely, such
verbal assimilations as Kūpuyp, a 6 Kipwćev in Acts x 37
for £36. Tttopa š ČKºjpučev.
313. The singular readings of B which cannot
strictly be called clerical errors, and yet which appear to
be individualisms of the scribe, are confined within still
narrower limits. A current supposition, to which fre-
quent repetition has given a kind of authority, that the
scribe of B was peculiarly addicted to arbitrary omissions,
we believe to be entirely unfounded, except possibly in the
very limited sense explained below, while the facts which
have given it plausibility are everywhere conspicuous.
A BSAE/VCAE OA' ZAV7'EACAOMA 7/OAVS ZAV B 235
In the New Testament, as in almost all prose writings
which have been much copied, Corruptions by interpola-
tion are many times more numerous than Corruptions by
omission. When therefore a text of late and degenerate
type, such as is the Received Text of the New Testa-
ment, is consciously or unconsciously taken as a standard,
any document belonging to a purer stage of the text
must by the nature of the case have the appearance of
being guilty of Omissions; and the nearer the document
stands to the autograph, the more numerous must be the
omissions laid to its charge. If B is preeminently free
from interpolations, Western, Alexandrian, or Syrian, it
cannot but be preeminently full of what may relatively
to the Received Text be called omissions. Strictly
speaking, these facts have no bearing on either the
merits or the demerits of the scribe of B, except as
regards the absolutely singular readings of B, together
with those nearly singular readings in which the other
attestation may easily be due to accidental coincidence :
multitudes of the so called omissions of B are found in
other good documents, few or many, and therefore, if
not genuine, must at least have originated at a point in
the line of transmission antecedent to B. It has seemed
best however to speak of the supposed omissions of B
here once for all, both those which concern the cha-
racter of B individually and those which concern the
character of the older text or texts from which it was
derived. -
3I4. The great mass of omissions, or rather for the
most part non-interpolations, which B shares with other
primary documents being set aside as irrelevant, it re-
mains to be considered whether its singular readings,
which alone are relevant, include such and so many
236 SUPAEO.S.A.D OM/SS/OAVS AV B
omissions as to indicate a characteristic habit of the
scribe. It is a conceivable hypothesis that the scribe of
B, besides inheriting a text unusually free from interpo-
lations, was one of the very few transcribers addicted to
curtailment, and thus corrupted the inherited text in a
direction opposite to the usual course of transcription :
the question is whether such a hypothesis is borne out
by a comprehensive examination of the facts. What
has been said above ($ 312) as to omissions due to
purely clerical error need not be repeated. The only
readings of B which can with any plausibility be urged
on behalf of the hypothesis are the instances in which it
omits slight and apparently non-essential words found
in all other documents, such as pronouns and articles.
It is on the one hand to be remembered that such words
are peculiarly liable to be inserted, especially in Versions
and quotations by Fathers; and still more that we find
numerous similar omissions in good groups containing
B, with every gradation in the amount of support which
it receives, so that these omissions in B alone might
be taken as genuine non-interpolations without incon-
gruity as to the attestation, as well as consistently with
the general character of the text of B. In our opinion
this is the most probable account of the matter in some
cases, and possibly in all : but it is on the whole Safer
for the present to allow for a proneness on the part of
the scribe of B to drop petty words not evidently re-
quired by the sense, and therefore to neglect this class
of omissions in B alone, where good confirmatory ex-
ternal or internal evidence is wanting. If however a like
scrutiny is applied to important words or clauses, such as
are sometimes dropped in the Western texts for the sake
of apparent directness or simplicity, we find no traces
AVZ) / WZZO OVAZZSA/S OF B 237
whatever of a similar tendency in B. Omissions due to
clerical error, and especially to homoeoſe/euton, naturally
take place sometimes without destruction of sense: and
all the analogies suggest that this is the real cause of the
very few substantial omissions in B which could possibly
be referred to a love of abbreviation. As far as readings
of any interest are concerned, we believe the text of B
to be as free from Curtailment as that of any other im-
portant document. -
315. The chief feature of the few remaining indi-
vidualisms of B, so far as they can be recognised with
fair certainty as such, is their simple and inartificial
character. Nearly all of them are due to easy assimila-
tion, chiefly between neighbouring clauses or verses,
occasionally between parallel passages. Consecutive
words are perhaps occasionally transposed : but here on
the other hand account has to be taken of the peculiar
habitual purity of the text of B in respect of the
order of words; a purity which is specially exhibited in
numerous ternary or more composite variations, in
which B is the sole or almost the sole authority for
the one collocation which will account for the other
variants. Of paraphrastic change there is little or no-
thing. The final impression produced by a review of all
the trustworthy signs is of a patient and rather dull or
mechanical type of transcription, Subject now and then
to the ordinary lapses which come from flagging watch-
fulness, but happily guiltless of ingenuity or other un-
timely activity of brain, and indeed unaffected by mental
influences except of the most limited and unconscious
kind.
316. This examination of the tolerably certain indi-
vidualisms of B, of all kinds, prepares the way for an
238 SUAES/AWG O/CAA’ RA2A D/AWGS OF B
examination of the character of its remaining singular
readings. We must first however consider the readings
of a set of groups intermediate between those last con-
sidered (§ 281—304) and B, that is, what we have Called
the subsingular readings of B. When the groups formed
by B with one or more secondary Greek MSS and with
one or more Versions or Fathers are tried by Internal
Evidence, the proportional number of readings which
are to all appearance genuine is very large indeed. Read-
ings so attested cannot in fact be well distinguished in
character from readings of SB. When B stands sup-
ported by only a single version, the results are by
no means so uniform. When it is followed only by
the Old Ilatin, or one or more Old Latin MSS or
Fathers, the readings seldom commend themselves as
worthy of unreserved confidence, though it is no less true
that they are seldom manifestly wrong (see $204): they
may as a rule be strictly called doubtful readings. On the
other hand when the associated version is the Memphitic,
Thebaic, or Old Syriac, the presumption of genuineness
raised by the habitual character of the readings is much
greater, and not a few of them are almost certainly right.
With other versions the combinations are various in
quality, as might be expected from the mixed origin of
the versions themselves and their present condition as
edited.
317. These diminutions of attestation lead us con-
tinuously to the singular readings proper. Here too so
many readings of B by itself commend themselves on
their own merits that it would be rash to reject any
hastily, though undoubtedly not a few have to be rejected
at last. Occasionally too some stray quotation of a
Father shews that readings of B which might have been
S/AWG UZAA’ RAEA D/AWGS OF B 239
thought to be individualisms were really at least several
generations older than the age when B was written.
Thus in I Cor. xiii. 5 it has to pºſſi èavrìs with Clem.
Ated. 252 for Tà éavrìs, retained by Clem. Strom, 956;
both readings being shown by the respective contexts to
have been actually used by Clement, and both making
excellent sense. But, wherever there is no such accessory
authority, clear internal evidence is needed to justify the
acceptance of singular readings of B, since the possibility
that they are no more than individualisms is constantly
present. -
318. The special excellence of B displays itself best
perhaps in ternary or more than ternary variations. This
has been already noticed (§ 315) in reference to Colloca-
tions of words ; but the statement is equally true as
regards readings of all kinds. Where the documents
fall into more than two arrays, the readings of B are
usually found to be such as will account for the rival
readings, and such as cannot easily be derived from
any one of them, or any combination of them. Not
the least instructive are what may be termed Com-
posite ternary variations, which easily escape notice
in the cursory use of an ordinary apparatus criticus.
They arise when two independent aberrant texts have
removed a stumbling-block due to the original form
of a phrase or sentence by altering different parts of
the phrase, not by altering the whole or the same
part in a different manner. If, as is usual, the evidence
affecting each alteration is presented separately, we have
in form not a single ternary variation but two or more
Successive binary variations. Now in such cases it is
of frequent occurrence to find B nearly or even quite
alone in supporting what is evidently the genuine variant
24O ZZX 7" OA' B JAV ZAAAW4A y VARIA 7/OAVS
in each binary variation, while most of the other docu-
ments, representing ancient as well as later texts, divide
themselves into those which are right in one place and
those which are right in another.
319. If it is suggested that these phenomena might
be due to a skilful selection and combination of readings
from two sources by the scribe of B, the hypothesis is
decisively negatived by several considerations. If it
were true for composite variations, it should fit also
the ternary variations of the more obvious type, in which
B similarly supports the neutral reading; whereas in
most of them it would be peculiarly difficult to derive
the neutral reading from any kind of coalescence of the
aberrant readings. Secondly, the process hypothetically
attributed to the scribe of B is incongruous with all that
is known of his manner of transcription and capacity
of criticism. Thirdly, the ternary variations in which B
stands absolutely alone are not separable in character
from those in which its readings are ‘subsingular”, having
the support of, for instance, one or two early versions;
and thus the operation would have to be attributed to
one or more scribes of the first or early second century,
while it would demand a degree of skill of which we have
no example in extant records. Fourthly, the hypothesis
is distinctly condemned by transcriptional evidence,
which has an exceptional force in ternary variations (see
§ 29).
320. It should be noticed that some few variations
in the Pauline Epistles, in which the local Western ele-
ment of B has affected the text, present a deceptive
appearance of exceptions to what has been stated. Thus
the accessory Western text, which makes itself felt in
simple conflations (Col. i 12 ka)\égavti kai ikavºoravtt B
AVO 7 DUE TO E.CZECT/C COMBINA ZZON 24.I
from ikavógavrv and the Western Ka}\éoravtt, 2 Thess.
iii 4 kai érotijorate kai Touette kai Toujorete B from [kai)
Towe're kai Toujo'ere, and the Western kai Toujo are kai
Toweſte), is but partially followed in the composite ternary
variation of Rom. x 5. Here the scribe of B adopted
two out of three closely connected Western (and sub-
sequently Syrian) changes, the transposition of Śrt and
the insertion of airá after Toujoras, but in the third place
negligently left airfi untouched, doubtless the reading
of his primary exemplar, and thus produced an impos-
sible combination. Combinations like these imply im-
perfect workmanship, not skilful choice. Nor is it
material to know whether the scribe of B himself took
the Western readings from a second exemplar, or, as
seems more likely, merely copied a single exemplar with
marginal or interlinear corrections which he incorporated
into the text (see §§ 335 fſ.): the essential nature of the
process is not changed by its being carried a single step
back. Except in so far as even the slightest mixture may
be said to involve some kind of selection, we hold it
to be certain that the readings of B are never the result
of any eclectic process. Its occasional individual aberra-
tions of course sometimes take place where there is
variation already, and therefore sometimes go to make up
ternary variations. But it remains true that the readings
of B in ternary variations, simple or composite, are
habitually those of the original text, and the readings of
the other texts divergent attempts to amend it.
32 I. What has been said on the excellence usually
shown by the readings of B in ternary variations will be
made more intelligible by two or three examples of different
types.
James v 7 ièot 6 yeopyös éköéxeral rôv Tiptov Kapirov
rfis yńs, uakpoévuòv ét' airá, éos Xà8m Tpóipov Kai čvipov
242 ExAMPZES OF ExCEZZEWCE
B (? 31) lat.vg the (? aeth) arm. One text supplies the
concluding adjectives with kaptrów (from the first clause) as
a substantive (N 9 f me Syr.hl.mg pp, with slight varia-
tions), another, the Syrian, with jetöv (AKAL, P2 cu" syr.
vg-hl.txt pp.”). Here the elliptic expression has manifestly
given rise to two different corrections; and B is the only
certain Greek authority for the true text. This is an ex-
ample of the simplest and most fundamental form of ter-
nary readings, with the neutral text clearly exhibited.
322. Mark vi 43 kai fipau k\áapata 866eka koºbivov
TAmpºpata B. The easier k\aopºdrov of viii 20 (Tóorov
orqupiðav TAmpdºuata k\aguárov #pate, where the necessary
order enforces the genitive) is adopted by Nº I 3-69-124-
346 209 (I omits). The Western (and Syrian) text, starting
from this last reading, borrows Koqbivovs TAñpets, to replace
the last two words, from viii 19 ; Matt. xiv. 20 (AD uncº
cu” latt syrr me); most Latins, with 33 and some second-
ary Greek MSS, introducing further assimilations to Matt.
There are also two remarkable conflations : LA vary from
B only by adopting koºpivovs from the Western reading (or
the antecedent parallel passages); 28, which has many
relics of a very ancient text hereabouts, retains the k\d-
guara of B, but for the rest follows the Western and Syrian
text. Here the choice clearly lies between three readings,
those of B, of N and the lost early originals of two texts now
partially preserved in cursives, and of LA; and the difficulty
of accounting for the well attested k\áo para is unfavourable
to the second. The reading of LA, KAáguara ödöeka koºpt-
wovs TAmpdjuata, which has no intrinsic probability, may be
due to accidental mixture (in v. 31 they, and they alone,
have the impossible edkaipov): the reading of B, which
has much intrinsic probability, was likely to be changed
on account of the double accusative, even apart from the
influence of parallel passages, and might easily give rise
to all the other variants with the help of harmonistic
assimilation. If we take the three parts of the composite
variation separately, a good group is found supporting
each of the three readings of B; k\áo para being attested
by BLA 28, koºpivov by NB I-209 I3-69-124-346, and
TAmpaśpara by NBLA I-209 I3-69-124-346. This last
specially certain attestation marks the virtual authority for
the entire fundamental text from which the Western cor-
rection departed, the peculiar word TAmpajpata being the
turning-point of change; and evidently the common an-
cestor of R &c. altered one of the three preceding words,
OF B JAV ZERMARY PARIATIONS 243
and the common ancestor of LA another, while B alone
held fast the true text throughout.
323. Once more, the unique character of B in a series
of separate but mutually related variations, making up as it
were an extended composite variation, is illustrated by
St Mark’s account of the denials of St Peter. Alone of
the evangelists St Mark notices two Crowings of a cock.
According to the true text the follows the same lines as
St Matthew and St Luke, while he makes the requisite
additions in three places: that is, he inserts the word
“twice’ (6ts) in both the prediction (xiv. 30) and St Peter's
recollection of the prediction (xiv. 72 &), and the phrase ‘a
second time’ (ék Ševrépov) in the statement that “a cock
crew’ immediately after the third denial (xiv 72 a). Thus
all the points are tersely but sufficiently given. The text
however, as it thus stood, presented more than one tempta-
tion to correction. At the first of the four places (v. 30)
the direct harmonistic influence from the other Gospels
was naturally strong and unchecked, and thus the first 6ts
is largely omitted (by N. C* aeth arm as well as the Westerns,
D cuºlat.afr–eur). When v. 72 a was reached, ék Ševrépov
was as naturally a stumbling-block for a different reason,
because there had been no mention of a previous cock-
crowing. The supposed difficulty was met in two ways:
a text now represented by a small group (NL c vg.cod),
doubtless Alexandrian, assimilated v. 72 to v. 68 and the
parallel narratives by striking out €k Öevrépov; while the
Western text boldly adapted v. 68 to v. 72 by inserting kai
dAékrop q6vmaev after TpoaúNuov. Lastly v. 72 & was
affected by the various texts both of the preceding words
and of the original prediction (v. 30), here expressly re-
peated and thereby brought into strict parallelism, and
accordingly 8ts is omitted by more documents than ék
ðevrépov. The Syrian text makes the whole uniformly
symmetrical and complete by accepting the Western in-
terpolation in v. 68, while it retains öts in both places.
The confusion of attestation introduced by these several
cross currents of change is so great that of the seven prin-
cipal MSS NABCDLA no two have the same text in all
four places. Neither of the two extreme arrangements,
the Syrian (with A), which recognises the double cock-
Crowing in all four places, and that of S c, which recognises
it nowhere but simply follows the other Gospels, could have
given rise to the other readings. The chief cause of dis-
turbance is manifestly the attempt to supply an explicit
244 S////2ZAZ AAV/O Z)/SG ONZSZZX
record of the first Cock-crowing; and the original absence
of kai äAéktop Édºungev in v. 68 is sufficiently attested by
NBL lt 17 c me. , Half however of this group, as we have
seen, followed the alternative expedient of omitting ék
ðevrépov, two of the number going on to omit the following
ôts : and thus it appears that the only consistent authori-
ties for the true text in this series of variations are B,
a lectionary, and the Memphitic.
324. Such being the results of an examination of
ternary variations, it is no wonder that binary variations
likewise supply us with multitudes of readings of B,
slenderly supported or even alone, which have every
appearance of being genuine, and thus exemplify the
peculiar habitual purity of its text. Readings like these
are striking illustrations of the danger of trusting abso-
lutely to even an overwhelming plurality of early and
good authorities (see § 282 f.), and the need of bearing
in mind the distorting effects of mixture. For instance
it is morally certain that in Gal. vi. 15 B, with two good
Cursives and some Versions and Fathers, is right in reading
oùre yūp for év yap Xplotó "Imoroſ, oire, which is borrowed
from v 6; and yet the array sustaining the interpolation
includes NACD,G,F, with Versions and Fathers. Such a
distribution could never have arisen except by a wide
early adoption of a yet earlier aberration of some in-
fluential text, which here was evidently Western. On
the other hand there are many subsingular readings of B
that cannot claim more than the secondary rank of
alternative readings which may possibly be genuine, and
there are many others that may be safely rejected.
The claims of absolutely singular readings of B in binary
variations are naturally found to be usually of no great
strength, though some among them appear to be very
possibly genuine, and their genuineness would not be
out of harmony with the known textual relations of B.
SUBS/AGULAR READINGS OF B 245
3.25. The existence of numerous genuine subsingular
readings of B in binary variations gives the key to the
origin of another class of variations, fundamentally the
same but different in appearance, which, though rare in
the Gospels, are not uncommon in the other books pre-
served in B. The peculiarity of these variations consists
in the agreement of B with the Syrian text against the
great mass of documents representing the more ancient
texts. How is this distribution to be explained P Are
these readings of B corruptions of its fundamental text
from a Syrian source, or do they belong to its funda–
mental text, so that they must have stood in the purest
of the texts out of which the Syrian text was constructed?
Internal evidence is decisively favourable to the second
answer for at least the larger number of passages, and
thus affords a strong presumption for the rest. Perhaps
the most striking example is the well known variation
in I Cor. xv. 51, where there can be no doubt that the
peculiar form of St Paul’s words, together with forgetful-
ness of the language of the apostolic age (I Thess. iv 15,
17), led to a transposition of the negative from the first
clause to the second, and the introduction of a seemingly
easy but fallacious antithesis. Here the wrong position
of the negative is supported by R(A)CG, 17 with some
Versions and Fathers, and also, with a verbal change,
which probably formed part of the corruption in its
earliest shape, by D, with other Versions and Fathers.
Thus B alone of primary uncials, sustained however
by the Memphitic and apparently by Origen and other
good Fathers, as also by lost MSS mentioned by Fathers,
upholds the true position in company with the Syrian
text. The only difference of distribution between such
cases and those noticed in the last paragraph is the
246 AVZ)/ V//DC/A/.../S/l/S AAWZO
shifting of the Syrian documents from the one side to
the other ; and such a shifting is the natural result of the
eclecticism of the Syrian revisers (see Ś 185 f.). Two
causes have doubtless Contributed to the unequal occur-
rence of the readings here described, genuine readings
attested by B almost alone in addition to the Syrian
documents, so that if the Syrian attestation were removed
they would be subsingular readings of B; their greater
abundance in the Acts and Epistles than in the Gospels
being partly due to the more rapid and more widely
current corruption of the Gospels, and partly to the
relative paucity of extant uncials containing the Acts and
Epistles. The former cause belongs to the actual history
of the text; the latter is a mere accident in the pre-
servation of documents to this day.
F. 326–329. Singular and subsingular readings of 8
and other M.S.S
326. Turning from B to 8, we find ourselves dealing
with the handiwork of a scribe of different character.
The omissions and repetitions of small groups of letters
are rarely to be seen; but on the other hand all the
ordinary lapses due to rapid and careless transcription
are more numerous, including substitutions of one word
for another, as when yuajoket atroës replaces a knvögel
étrº ajrows in Apoc. vii. 15. Some of these substitutions
have a kind of sense of their own which is out of all
relation to the context, as eis Tijv Avritatpíða (from Acts
xxiii. 31) for eis Tºv tatpíða in Matt. xiii 54 ; and
dyatrija as toūs ‘Iověaíous (for ióíovs) toos év tá, kógp9 in
John xiii I. The singular readings are very numerous,
especially in the Apocalypse, and scarcely ever com-
SUAES/AVG U/A A' A' AEA D/AWGS OF N 247
mend themselves on internal grounds. It can hardly
be doubted that many of them are individualisms of
the scribe himself, when his bold and rough manner
of transcription is considered; but some doubtless are
older. Little encouragement however to look favour-
ably upon them is given by an examination of the sub-
singular readings. Many of these, as has been already
noticed (§ 2 os), are clearly Western corruptions, of which
oivov oijk etxov Štu ovverexéorón 6 oivos too yopov in John ii
3 is an example; and many others are probably of Alex-
andrian origin: but, whatever may be the sources, the
prevalent internal character where it can be known is
such as to raise a strong presumptive suspicion where it
is obscure. There are however a few subsingular readings
of 8 which recall the predominant character of sub-
singular readings of B, and are possibly or even pro-
bably genuine. Such are the omission of viot, 6eoû in
Mark i I, and of j trij)\m in Matt. vii I.3; the insertion
of Horatov in Matt. xiii.35; pºéva (for pmöev) direAtráovres
in Luke vi 35 ; it morav Tów (for itſioſavto) Tſet\árov in
Acts xiii. 28; £60ka for £80kaw in Matt. xxvii Io. The
fact that Origen's name occasionally stands among the
accessory authorities is a warning against hasty rejection;
and though subsingular readings of S attested by Origen
are doubtless often only Alexandrian, this is probably not
always the Case.
3.27. These various characteristics of the singular
and subsingular readings of N are easily explained in
connexion with the relation between the texts of B and
of 8 described above, and at the same time enable this
relation to be ascertained with somewhat greater pre-
cision. The ancestries of both MSS having started from
a common source not much later than the autographs,
248 AAEAD/AWGS OF ARCAETYPE OF RB
they came respectively under different sets of influences,
and each in the course of time lost more or less of its
original purity. With certain limited exceptions already
noticed, the Concordance of B and N marks that residual
portion of the text of their primitive archetype in which
neither of the two ancestries had at any point adopted
or Originated a wrong reading. Where their readings
differ, at least one of the ancestries must have departed
from the archetypal text. The possibility that both have
gone astray in different ways must remain open, for it
would be only natural that there should be an occasional
coincidence of place between corruptions admitted into
the one line of transmission and corruptions admitted
into the other; and as a matter of fact there are a few
passages where it is difficult to think that either B or N
has preserved the reading of the common original. But
these coincidences are likely to be only exceptional; and
all that has been observed up to this point respecting
the character of our two MSS justifies a strong initial pre-
sumption in each particular case that the text of their
archetype is preserved in one or other of them.
328. It follows that any Subsingular, or even singular,
reading of either B or N may owe the limitation of its
attestation to either of two totally different sets of ante-
cedents. A subsingular reading of B (or N) may be,
first, equivalent to a subsingular reading of NB com.
bined, which has lost part of its attestation by the acci-
dental defection of R (or B); it may be, secondly, an
early corruption limited in range of acceptance. Both
explanations being in all cases possible, the antecedent
probabilities differ widely according as the one or the
other MS is in question. The ancestry of B posterior to
the common archetype was probably a chain of very few
AºA2Z.S.A.A.” WEAD CA/ZAZAZ V /AW B 249
links indeed; certainly the various transcribers who had
a hand in making it must either have been in a position
which kept them ignorant of the great popular textual
corruptions of the second and third centuries or must
have for the most part preferred to follow their own in-
herited exemplars. It was not so in all Cases, as is shown
by such examples as those which have been cited above
(§ 326); and an exceptional adulteration of the funda-
mental text of B must be recognised as having occa-
sionally left N alone where NB Ought, so to speak, to
have stood together. On the other hand the certainty
that the ancestry of N posterior to the common archetype
must, at one or more points in its history, have been
exposed to contact with at least two early aberrant texts,
since it accepted a considerable number of their readings
(§ 203), enables us to account at Once for the good in-
ternal character of most subsingular readings of B, and
for the questionable internal character of most sub-
singular readings of N. Where the corrupt readings
adopted by the ancestors of N happened to be widely
adopted in current texts likewise, B would be left with
little or no support from Greek MSS; that is, the true
text of the common archetype would be preserved in
subsingular readings of B. Where the corrupt readings
adopted by the ancestors of S happened to find little or
no reception in eclectic texts, B and mixed Greek texts
generally would be found alike attesting the true text
of the common archetype, and subsingular readings of
N would be nothing more than examples of early aberra-
tion early extinguished. The erroneous subsingular read-
ings of B, proportionally as well as absolutely much less
numerous than those of 8, may be described in the same
general terms with respect to their genealogical cha-
25O A&AESUZZS OF 7'EST/AWG OF OTHER MSS
racter, subject to the difference that the sources of cor-
ruption in B 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 pro-
portions, demands a specially vigilant consideration for
every such reading of both before it is definitely re-
jected. -
3.29. It may be added explicitly here that, except
for the Apocalypse, and the peculiar Western non-inter-
polations of the Gospels, a similar examination of the
singular and subsingular readings of every extant MS
except B and N leads to entirely unfavourable results.
There are a few, a very few, cases in which the genuine-
ness 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 B or N merely by the absence
of some slight erroneous modification. The same gene-
ral statement may likewise be made respecting the trial
of individual MSS by means of binary combinations into
which 8 and B do not enter (as in the Gospels CD, CIL,
CZ, CA, DL, DZ, LA, LE, AC, AD &c.), or indeed re-
specting any other application of Internal Evidence of
Groups to the testing of their internal character.
G. 330—339. Deſermination of text where B and 8
differ
330. It will be evident from the foregoing pages
that B must be regarded as having preserved not only
7-ZX7'OAZ ZAZAAEA’AACC 7/OAW OF B 25 I
a very ancient text, but a very pure line of very ancient
text, and that with comparatively small depravation either
by scattered ancient corruptions otherwise attested or by
individualisms of the scribe himself. On the other hand
to take it as the sole authority except where it contains
Self-betraying errors, as some have done, is an unwar-
rantable abandonment of criticism, and in our opinion
inevitably leads to erroneous results. A text so formed
would be incomparably nearer the truth than a text
similarly taken from any other Greek MS or other single
document: but it would contain many errors by no
means obvious, which could with more or less certainty
have been avoided by the free use of all existing evi-
dence. -
331. Enough has already been said on the deter-
mination of the text where B is supported by 8. A few
words must be added here on the mode of dealing with
the numerous variations in which these two preeminent
MSS differ from each other. Setting aside ternary varia-
tions, most of the distributions in which the conflict of
S and B requires notice belong to one or other of the
three following types: (1) B with a small group against
the rest; (2) 8 and B each with a large group dividing
the array; and (3), much less important, S with a small
group against the rest. The characteristics and twofold
genealogical antecedents of the first and third have been
already considered (§ 324, 326 ff.). In the first two
cases, and also to a limited extent in the third, Genealogy
and Internal Evidence of Groups have brought us to the
point of having two readings before us, with so real a
conflict of authority that, notwithstanding the habitually
greater integrity of text in B than in 8, the normal re-
lations between the different kinds of evidence are to
252 V.4/, UAE OF AAVC/AAWZ" ZZAZA/AEAV7'S
a certain extent disturbed. Two classes of evidence rise
into unusual importance here, Secondary documentary
evidence and Internal evidence. The effects of both
under these circumstances are the same ; first to rescue
a slenderly attested reading from being entirely set aside,
and next, if the two classes of evidence sustain each
other, or either is of exceptional strength, to render
superfluous the retention of the other reading as an
alternative. The bearing of Internal evidence, which
here can be only Internal Evidence of Readings, re-
quires no special comment. The change in the relative
importance of Secondary documentary evidence will need
a little explanation.
332. All Secondary documentary evidence has its
value for these variations, in so far as it shews a given
reading attested by a primary MS not to be an indivi-
dualism; provided of course that the coincidence is such
as cannot well be accidental. By supplying diversity of
attestation, it has at the least the effect of proving that
the reading had some sort of pedigree ; and, considering
the absence of very close and immediate relations of
affinity between most extant documents, the pedigree
must usually have been of some length. Little would be
gained by this were the uncial itself secondary : but if
its readings are habitually good in an exceptional pro-
portion, the relative probability of the given reading is at
once much increased.
333. There is however a much greater increase
of authority when the secondary evidence is that of a
peculiarly good element in a mixed document, being
then equivalent to fragments of a document which if con-
tinuously preserved would have been of primary or not
much lower rank. Such elements are found, for instance,
AAW SAE CONDA R Y DOCUMEAVTS 253
in some Mixed Latin MSS, and also in Some cursive
Greek MSS. If a given cursive is observed to concur
several times with the very best documents against not
only all or almost all other cursives but almost all
uncials in favour of a manifestly right reading, we know
that it must contain an element of exceptional purity,
and reasonably infer that the same element is the parent
of other less certain readings in Supporting which it
joins with perhaps a single primary uncial only. Under
these conditions the uncial may receive weighty docu-
mentary support from an apparently insignificant docu-
Iment. -
334. On a superficial view it might seem arbitrary to
assign a given cursive or other mixed document high
authority in those variations which differ from the com-
mon text, and refuse it any authority where it agrees
with the common text. As however has been implicitly
shown in former pages (§ 197), this view derives its
plausibility from neglect of the Conditions on which
criticism allows authority to a document on the ground
that it is ‘good’, that is, gives it relative confidence in
doubtful cases because it has been found on the right
side in clear cases in which most documents are on the
wrong side. If the homogeneousness of a cursive text
is found to be broken by Sporadic ancient readings, we
know that we have virtually two distinct texts to deal
with under the same name ; that is, the readings dis-
crepant from the Common text proclaim themselves as
derived from a Second ancestor which had an ancient
text. It can never indeed be positively affirmed that
all the readings agreeing with the common text came
distinctively from the principal or Syrian ancestor of the
Supposed cursive, for in regard of any one such reading
254 A.YAMAE/CAE OF A COMPOS/TAZ 7TAX7'
it is always speculatively possible that it may have had
a place in the virtually Pre-Syrian as well as in the Syrian
ancestor : but in the face of the certainty that it must
have existed in the Syrian ancestor this speculative possi-
bility has no appreciable force for the purposes of Criticism.
335. It so happens that the relation between two ex-
tant uncial MSS of St Paul’s Epistles illustrates vividly
the composite origin of many texts, including the texts of
some at least of such cursives as have been noticed above.
The St Germain MS E3, apparently written in Cent. X or
late in Cent. IX, has long been recognised as a copy of the
Clermont MS D2, executed after D2 had suffered much re-
vision by correcting hands: all possible doubt as to the
direct derivation of the one from the other is taken away
by the senseless readings which the scribe of E3 has con-
structed out of a combination of what was written by the
original scribe of D, and what was written by its cor-
rectors;–an interesting illustration, it may be observed in
passing, of the manner in which the strange Beacopo’ép of
8% in 2 Pet. ii 15 must have resulted from a fusion of the
two readings Bećp and Booróp. D2, it will be remembered
(§§ Ioo f., 203), was written in Cent. VI, and has a Western
text. The readings introduced by the two chief correctors,
referred to Cent. VII (D,”) and Cent. IX (D.P) respectively,
and especially the readings due to the later of the two, are
for the most part Syrian: on the other hand, while the
later corrector alters many Pre-Syrian readings which his
predecessor had passed over, he fails to make his own
assimilative revision complete.
336. A short passage from Da (Rom. xv. 31–33) will
sufficiently exhibit the chief phenomena of the corrections
and transcription, the readings of the correctors being set
between the lines: ºva jvo 66 diró Tóv diſtuffoivrov ću tº
ºva ) 6takovia. els -
'Iověaig kai i öopoqopia pov i év Imp. ediſpógãekros yéumrat
65
Tois dyiots, iva èv xapá čA60 Tpós juás Štú 6e Nijuatos XV IV
dots
kai dvayúčo ué6 Juáv Ó Sé 6eós Tās eipſiums #To perå
Trávrov juávº duſiv. This passage contains five distinctively
Western readings, of which the first four, j ča popopia, ev
(before ‘IepovoraMiju.), Xptoſto0 ’Imaoſ, and the interpolation
of fro, are brought by the correctors into conformity with
.**
I) EA’/ WE/D FROM A COA&AEA, C 7'E/D MS 255
the true and the Syrian texts alike; the fifth, dvayºo
piet” Juáv for ovvavarraworoplat juiv, remains untouched. The
two Western readings which are also Syrian, yévijrat rols
dyiots for T. d. y, and éA60...kai for éA66v, are likewise left as
they were. Lastly, the second tva, omitted by all Pre-
Syrian authorities, is inserted in agreement with the Syrian
text. Of the five changes here made E3 adopts the first
three, substituting them for the original readings of D3.
The last two it neglects, retaining the original readings:
the correctors' omission of #ro was apparently expressed
by cancelling dots, which might easily escape the eye; the
disregard of 6600 is probably due merely to carelessness,
of which the scribe gives abundant signs. It will be seen
at once that, if both the later corrector of D2 and the scribe
of E3 had done effectually that which they evidently pro-
posed to do, E3 would in this place have simply represented
the Syrian text; and that the combined negligence was
the cause of the survival of three Western readings.
337. These instructive phenomena naturally receive
little consideration now, because the exact knowledge that
we possess of the original D2 renders attention to the copy
Es superfluous. Supposing however that D2 had been lost,
the complex antecedents of the text of E3 would have been
unknown : it would have presented itself merely as a Syrian
document sprinkled with Western readings. When then
we find other late MSS having a Syrian text sprinkled
with Western or other Pre-Syrian readings, we may reason-
ably take D2 and E3 as exhibiting the manner in which
the mixture has probably arisen, and indirectly illustrating
other possible modes of mixture. Evidently the textual value
of E3 is virtually confined to the fragments which it pre-
served of the original writing of Ds, while in the absence of
Dg there would be no way of distinguishing these fragments
from the rest of the text except by their discrepance from
the Syrian text: and in like manner discrepance from the
Syrian text is the only safe test for the readings of the
ancient element in any late mixed document, because in
late times the texts which would be virtually taken as
standards for assimilative correction were naturally Syrian,
no others being current.
338. It is true that by attending to the discrepant
readings alone we should be neglecting some readings
which as a matter of fact were in the original writing of
D2, namely the Western readings that became Syrian (in
the passage cited these are the change of order and the
256 VAA’/AA/EAE VAZ UAE OF COMA’OS/7′E 7'EX 7S
resolved construction): but if D2 had been lost there would
have been no means of knowing this. Two courses alone
would have been open; to attend exclusively to the read-
ings discrepant from the Syrian text, as being almost
certainly derived from the Non-Syrian element in the
ancestry of Es; or to allow to all the readings of Es what-
ever authority the discrepant readings might claim. In
the former case there would be a negative disadvantage;
a necessary loss of evidence, but no falsification of it: the
composite text of E3 would be virtually ignored outside
the definite limits, but the risk of attributing to the better
element of its ancestry readings due in fact to the worse
would be avoided. In the latter case there would be a
certainty of extensive positive error, since Es obviously
abounds in purely Syrian readings, and yet, for want of a
discriminative test, they would be included with the rest
in the general attribution of the authority belonging
properly to the more ancient element alone. Here again
D2 and E3 elucidate the necessity of limiting the separate
authority of cursives containing ancient elements of text
to their Non-Syrian readings (see the end of § 334).
339. Some weight might doubtless be consistently
given to the cumulative negative evidence against a read-
ing Supplied by the absence of any cursive attestation
whatever; because it might be anticipated that the for-
tuitous irregularity with which the ancient readings are
scattered over any one mixed text would be neutralised by
the juxtaposition of all mixed texts, so that a genuine
reading would be likely to obtain attestation from at least
one or other of the number. But the anticipation is not
verified by experience, for numerous absolutely certain
readings have no cursive or other similar attestation; and
this fact has to be taken into account in doubtful cases.
Here, as in all cases where textual character is in question,
what is said of cursives applies equally to late uncials: the
outward and formal difference between the two classes of
MSS involves no corresponding difference of texts.
H. 340–346. ZXefermination of ſex; where B is absent
340. The comparative certainty afforded by the pe-
culiar character of B is felt at once when we pass to parts
of the text where it is wanting. As regards the ancient
A.4A-7'S OF 77A2 Y 7" M/SS/AVG /AW B 257
texts, we lose the one approximately constant Greek
neutral document: as regards Internal Evidence of
Groups, we lose all the groups into which B enters.
This state of evidence occurs under three different con-
ditions; first, in detached variations in the Pauline
Epistles, where the Western element of B has displaced
its fundamental or neutral element, the absence of which
is virtually equivalent to the absence of B; secondly, in
those parts of the Pauline Epistles which were con-
tained in the lost leaves of B, but in which the relations
of the other documents are to a considerable extent
illustrated by facts of grouping observed in those parts of
the same series of books for which B is extant ; and
thirdly, in the Apocalypse, where analogies of grouping
are to say the least imperfect, and the few important
documents common to the rest of the New Testament
present themselves in novel relations.
341. First both in order of books and in gradation
come the isolated Western readings of B in the Pauline
Lpistles. Where BD,G, or BG, with other chiefly Western
documents stand alone among Pre-Syrian documents,
there is no difficulty. Distinctively Western substitutions
or additions attested by B are with a few doubtful excep-
tions, as knudsorets I Cor. ix. 9, ppmwevtifs xiv. 28, Čvöet-
Kvěpevot 2 Cor. viii 24, jueſs...éo-té Gal. iv. 28, which it is
prudent to retain as alternatives, of no better character
than similar distinctively Western readings not supported
by B. Such readings therefore as TAmpoqopſoral for TAm-
pºorat Rom. xv. 13 (cf. v. 29 v. Z), ºbt)\otipodpºol XV 20,
80poſpopta for 6takovia xv. 31, 'AptorroſłóAov xvi Io, odóē
dirfiX0ov Gal. i. 17, and the transposition of th oùorm év
Kopfv69 and jywoopévous év Xptorró ‘Imood (ancient lines)
in I Cor. i 2 we have had no hesitation in rejecting.
19 -
258 B YAV AA U/C/AVA. A. AE/S 7TL/ES'
The internal evidence is not so clear with respect to
distinctively Western omissions, and for the present at
least it is safest to indicate doubt about words omitted
by this group. But where other documents not clearly
Western form part of the attestation, interpretation of the
evidence is often difficult, if the rival reading is well
attested. We can have no security in these cases that
B derived its reading from its neutral element: and, if it
derived it from its Western element, then two alternatives
are possible: either the accessory documents are really
Non-Western, in which case the rival reading is often
Alexandrian; or they are mixed (usually Syrian) and have
adopted a Western reading, in which case the rival read-
ing is more likely to be simply Non-Western, although its
attestation is consistent with its being Alexandrian. In
these cases we have exactly the state of things, as far as
regards extant attestation, which Griesbach assumed to
have from early times existed everywhere (see § 251), an
attestation which might easily be only Western opposed
to an attestation which might easily be only Alexandrian.
If however these variations are examined together, Inter-
nal Evidence is generally favourable to the apparently
Non-Western readings: but in not a few cases the other
reading must be retained as an alternative, or even
appears to be the more probable of the two. -
342. Since in the Pauline Epistles B (as well as N,
A, and C) sometimes supports distinctively Western
readings, so that they gain, for instance, the attestation
BD,G, as well as ND,Ga, AD,G, and (more rarely)
CD,Ga and even ACD,Ga and occasionally SACD,Ga,
it might be asked what security we have that RBD,G,
or even the same group with other uncials added, do not
make a Western combination. As a matter of attestation
PAK ZS OF EAZSZZZS LOST IN B 259
the contingency contains no improbability; and the re-
cognition of it prescribes special watchfulness where
there is no sufficient accessory Non-Western attestation,
this being in fact another of the cases in which secondary
documentary evidence of the better sort acquires a high
interpretative value. But Internal Evidence is so favour-
able to the group NBD,Ga that except in a very few
cases, as of Rom. iv. 8, aixua)\otičovté pe év tá včº
vii. 23, j omitted after tod óeoſ, I Cor. XV Io, dyſots
omitted 1 Thes, v 27, and kai Tàs dyvörmtos added 2 Cor.
xi 3, we have not found reason to treat their readings as
doubtful.
343. We come next to the analogous difficulties
which arise where B totally fails us as regards direct evi-
dence, but still affords some indirect aid in the interpre-
tation of groupings, namely in the latter part (ix 14—end)
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the Pastoral Epistles,
and in the Epistle to Philemon. Here too the main dis-
tinctive problem is how to distinguish oppositions of
Western and Non-Western from oppositions of Non-Alex-
andrian and Alexandrian readings; and it has to be dealt
with in the same manner as in the former case. Another
uncertainty is suggested by a recollection of the excel-
lence of subsingular readings of B in those parts of the
Pauline Epistles which are preserved in it, and of the
similar excellence of readings differing in attestation
from these by the mere addition of the Syrian documents
(§ 324 f.). Evidently the only resource here is to allow
an alternative place to readings slenderly supported, or
supported chiefly by Syrian documents, provided that
the attestation includes such documents as are often as-
sociated with B in its subsingular readings, and that the
local internal evidence is favourable. It would be con-
26O ZTAE_Y2" OA' A POC.1 / WPSAE
venient to an editor in this part of the New Testament
to assign to 8 such an authority as a consideration of
the whole evidence has up to this point constrained us
to assign to B. But the absolute excellence of S is
neither lessened nor increased by the loss of a purer MS :
the comparative excellence of its fundamental text and
the deterioration of that text by mixture alike remain
unchanged, while the discrimination of the different ele-
ments through grouping is deprived of one important
resource. Such being the case, the text of these eighteen
or nineteen chapters of the Pauline Epistles is undeniably
less certain than that of the rest, though, as far as we can
judge, the uncertainty is Small in amount and of no real
In Oment.
344. When at last we reach the Apocalypse, new
and troublesome conditions of evidence are encountered.
Not only is B absent, but historical landmarks are ob-
Scure, and familiar documents assume a new position.
Probable traces of a Western and perhaps an Alexandrian
text may be discerned, with analogous relations to the
extant uncials which contain other books: but they are
not distinct enough to give much help, and for the most
part Internal Evidence of Groups is the highest avail-
able guide of criticism. As before, 8 has a large neutral
element; but in addition to mixture, probably Western
and Alexandrian, evident individualisms of the scribe, or
of one of his immediate predecessors, come forth in
much greater luxuriance than before, as also they do in
the Epistle of Barnabas which follows the Apocalypse
in the same handwriting; this less scrupulous treatment
of the text being perhaps connected with the ambiguous
authority of the Apocalypse in the canonical lists of
Cent. IV, Nor is internal evidence as a rule here
POCUMENTS OF A POCALYPSE 26 I
favourable to N unsupported by other uncials: Indeed
a large proportion of the readings of the binary combina-
tions SA, NC, NP, are questionable or clearly wrong.
C preserves nearly the same character as in the Acts
and Epistles. The elements of A apparently remain un-
changed; but the ancient or neutral element is larger.
Both these MSS however acquire a high relative emi-
nence through the want of Compeers, or documents
approximately such. Their consent is well supported
by internal evidence, even where it has no documentary
confirmation; and A stands quite alone, or unsustained
by any other Greek MS, in some manifestly right read-
ings, such as Katjyop in xii Io, and et tts eis aixuaxo-
orſaw eis aixua)\oorſaw jird yet in xiii Io. On the other
hand the absolute proportion of wrong readings is great
in each of them singly. As in most of the Epistles, P.
contains, in the midst of a somewhat degenerate text, so
many good readings that it is entitled to an appreciable
authority in doubtful cases; while the Comparatively few
readings of B, which rise above its generally low level of
character are such as imply a source of no distinctive
value. Cursives containing not a few ancient readings
are fairly numerous, and yield valuable help ; as do the
Latin versions, and in a less degree the rest, which seem
to be all of comparatively late date, and certainly have
texts of an extremely mixed character. Careful study
of grouping goes far towards shewing which readings
may safely be neglected; and Internal Evidence of Read-
ings is often sufficiently decisive in this book to allow a
clear decision to be made between those that remain.
Yet the state of the documentary evidence renders it
necessary to leave a considerable number of alternative
readings. With the fullest allowance for the peculiarities
262 AAECOW/L/AA’ CA/21/?AC 7TAZA’ OA'
of the rough Palestinian Greek, which indeed for the
most part may be classified under a very Small number
of grammatical heads, several places remain where no
document seems to have preserved the true text, and it
is quite possible that the discovery of new and better
documents might bring to light other unsuspected cor-
ruptions. Nothing however in the extant evidence
suggests the probability that they would be of any im-
portance. -
345. We are by no means sure that we have done
all for the text of the Apocalypse that might be done
with existing materials. But we are convinced that the
only way to remove such relative insecurity as belongs to
it would be by a more minute and complete examination
of the genealogical relations of the documents than we
have been able to accomplish, nor have we reason to
suspect that the result would make any considerable
change. - *
346. The relation of the ‘Received Text” to the
ancient texts in the Apocalypse requires separate notice.
In all other books it follows with rare exceptions the
text of the great bulk of cursives. In all the books
in which there was an undoubted Syrian text the text of
the great bulk of cursives is essentially Syrian, with a
certain number of later (“Constantinopolitan’) modifica-
tions; in other books the text is, if not Syrian, at least
Such as must have been associated with the original
Syrian books at Constantinople. The exceptional read-
ings of the ‘Received Text”, in which it abandons the
majority of the cursives, are hardly ever distinctively
Alexandrian ; in almost all cases they are Western read-
ings, sometimes very slenderly attested, which evidently
owe their place to coincidence with the Latin Vulgate,
{
|
A’A. CAE/VAE D 7TEX 7" ZAV AA’OCAA. VPSAE 263
having been adopted by Erasmus in the first instance,
and never afterwards removed. The foundation of the
‘Received Text' of the Apocalypse on the other hand was
a transcript of the single cursive numbered I : Erasmus
had in his earlier editions no other Greek MS to follow,
though eventually he introduced almost at random a
certain number of corrections from the Complutensian
text. Now I is by no means an average cursive of
the common sort. On the one hand it has many
individualisms and readings with small and evidently un-
important attestation : on the other it has a large and
good ancient element, chiefly it would seem of Western
Origin, and ought certainly (with the somewhat similar 38)
to stand high among secondary documents. While there-
fore the text of I differs very widely from the true text
by its Western readings, its individualisms, and the large
late or Constantinopolitan element which it possesses
in Common with other cursives, a text formed in the
way that the ‘Received Text” is formed in other books
would probably have differed from the true text on the
whole much more. Thus the ‘Received Text” of the
Apocalypse has a curiously anomalous position. Besides
containing a small portion of text which, like some single
words in other books with less excuse, was fabricated
from the Latin by Erasmus without any Greek authority
to supply a defect in his one MS; it abounds in readings
which cannot be justified on any possible view of docu-
mentary evidence, and are as a matter of fact abandoned
by all textual critics: and yet the proportion of cases in
which it has adopted the readings most current in the
degenerate popular Greek texts of the Middle Ages,
though large, is probably smaller than in any other book
of the New Testament.
264
I. 347–355. Supplementary details on the birthplace
and Žhe composition of leading MSS
347. In all that we have hitherto Said we have taken
no account of the supposed locality in which MSS were
written, except in certain definite cases. The reason is
because we do not believe anything certain to be as
yet known. Up to a certain point the bilingual MSS
(Graeco-Latin and Graeco-Thebaic) tell their own tale:
about no other important early MS is it as yet possible
to make any geographical assertion with confidence.
It is indeed usually taken for granted that the chief
uncials of the New Testament were written at Alexandria.
This floating impression appears to be founded on vague
associations derived from two undoubted facts; (1) that
the translations of the Old Testament which form the
LXX were made at Alexandria, while the chief uncials of
the New Testament agree in some prominent points of
orthography and grammatical form (by no means in all)
with the chief uncials of the LXX, the four oldest being
moreover parts of the same manuscript Bibles, and (2)
that A was at some unknown time, not necessarily earlier
than the eleventh century, preserved at Alexandria, and
is hence called the Codex Alexandrinus. The suppo-
sition cannot be pronounced incredible; but it is at
present hardly more than a blind and on the whole im-
probable conjecture. An Alexandrian Origin, much more
an exclusively Alexandrian or Egyptian use, cannot be
reasonably maintained for most of the unclassical ortho-
graphies and grammatical forms found in MSS of the
New Testament, as we shall have to explain more at
length in Part IV. The character of the substantive
BARTHPZACE OF AAAI. Y. MSS DOUBZ"FUL 265
texts affords only the most uncertain indications; for (1)
there is no reason to suppose that more than a small
fraction of the readings often called Alexandrian had any
special connexion with Alexandria, and (2) the clearest
phenomena of Versions of the fourth and fifth cen-
turies shew how widely spread at that time were Greek
MSS containing a large proportion of those readings
which did really originate at Alexandria.
348. Possibly hereafter some of the external accom-
paniments of the text may be found to contain trustworthy
evidence. At present we know of almost nothing to appeal
to except such Orthographies as are shown by their isolated
distribution to be due to scribes, not to the autographs.
This evidence at best points only to the home or school
of the scribe himself, and cannot take account of migra-
tion on his part. Such as it is, it suggests that A and C
were connected with Alexandria. Orthographies appa-
rently Alexandrian occur also in s, but chiefly or wholly
in words for which A or C have them likewise. On
the other hand some Western or Latin influence is very
clearly marked in the usual or occasional spelling of
Some proper names, such as Ioak and IotpamAſettme)
or ſo SpamAſettms]. In B the Alexandrian indications are
to the best of our belief wholly wanting. Western
indications are fainter than in N, but not absent. The
superfluous euphonic T is sometimes inserted in IapamA-
ſettmg) but only in Acts, apparently implying the
presence of Western or Latin influence in the scribe of
that manuscript of Acts which was copied by the scribe
of B. The substitution of Xptorrós Ingods for "Imoroús
Xpwortós in places where it is almost certainly not right is
mainly confined to Western documents, and it is also in
St Paul's Epistles a fayourite individualism of B.
266 INDICATIONS THAT B AND s WERE
349. Again it is remarkable that the principal Latin
system of divisions of the Acts, found in the Codex
Amiaſinus and, slightly modified, in other Vulgate MSS,
is indicated by Greek numerals both in N (with large irre-
gular omissions) and in B, but is otherwise unknown in
Greek MSS and literature. The numerals were appa-
rently inserted in both MSS, certainly in N, by very
ancient scribes, though not by the writers of the text
itself, B indeed having antecedently a wholly different set
of numerals. The differences in detail are sufficient to
shew that the two scribes followed different originals:
the differences of both from the existing Latin arrange-
ment are still greater, but too slight to allow any doubt
as to identity of ultimate origin. The coincidence Sug-
gests a presumption that the early home, and therefore
not improbably the birthplace, of both MSS was in the
West. -
350. The other systems of divisions marked in B
and 8 have not hitherto yielded any trustworthy indica-
tions; and, what is more surprising, the same must be
said of the structure and contents of the MSS them-
'selves. It might have been anticipated that in order to
ascertain the regions in which they were written it would
suffice to observe what books they do or do not include,
and in what manner the books are arranged, account
being taken of the Old as well as the New Testament.
But the attempt is baffled by the scantiness of our infor-
mation. Comparison with the few extant catalogues and
other evidence of local use in the fourth century leads
only to ambiguous results; and the difficulty of decision
is increased by the wide differences of structure and
arrangement between B and s, and again between both
and A.
PROBARZY WA/TTEN IN THE WAEST 267
351. Taking all kinds of indications together, we
are inclined to surmise that B and 8 were both written in
the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B
were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the tex-
tual sense) up to a very early time indeed; and that the
ancestors of N were in great part Alexandrian, again in
the geographical, not the textual sense. We do not
forget such facts as the protracted unwillingness of the
Roman church to accept the Epistle to the Hebrews,
commended though it was by the large use made of it in
the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians : but the com-
plex life of Christian Rome in the fourth century cannot
safely be measured by its official usage; and it would be
strange if the widely current History of Eusebius led no
Roman readers to welcome the full Eusebian Canon,
with the natural addition of the Apocalypse, a book
always accepted in the West. The supposition here
made would account for all ascertained facts and contra-
dict none. Yet we are well aware that other suppo-
sitions may be possibly true; and we must repeat that
the view which we have here ventured to put forward as
best explaining the sum total of the phenomena is only
a surmise, on which we build nothing.
352. The fundamental similarity of text throughout
the whole of B, and again throughout the whole of 8
with the exception of the Apocalypse, deserves special
notice, because it is more probable that the exemplars
from which they were taken contained each only a single
book or group of books than that they were large enough
to contain the whole series of books (see §§ 14, 301).
Even among Cursives it is not uncommon to find one or
more groups of books written in a different age from the
rest, with which they are bound up; so that a transcript
268 LAMI 7A. D COAV7'AºAV7'S OF AAA’ L V //SS
of the whole volume would really represent two different
exemplars (see $46); and for a different reason a similar
diversity of sources must often have been disguised by
transcription in the fourth and fifth centuries. The tran-
sition from small portable MSS of limited contents is
strikingly illustrated by a fortunate accident in the tran-
scription of one of the four great comprehensive MSS
which are the earliest now extant. In the MS of the
Apocalypse from which C was taken some leaves had
been displaced, and the scribe of C did not discover the
displacement. It thus becomes easy to compute that
each leaf of the exemplar contained only about as much
as Io lines of the text of the present edition; SO that
this one book must have made up nearly 120 small
leaves of parchment, and accordingly formed a volume
either to itself or without considerable additions. The
distinctive character of text exhibited by A in the Gospels,
by A in St Mark, and by B in the Pauline Epistles, as
also the orthography of B (IoTp.) peculiar to the Acts, are
instances of indications which equally shew the preca-
riousness of assuming with respect to any one MS of the
New Testament that all the books in it were copied from
a single volume. In some cases, as we have suggested
above ($320) with reference to B in the Pauline Epistles,
the discrepant character of text in particular books or
groups of books was doubtless introduced not by the
immediate exemplar but by previous interlinear or mar-
ginal corrections made in its predecessor: but in most
cases the range of the corrections would be limited by
the contents of the accessory copy which furnished them ;
so that the cause of the discrepancy of text would be
ultimately the same. It is indeed quite uncertain to
what extent the whole New Testament was ever included
Z)/A;AZRAEAVſ/' AAAWDS OF MISS 269
in a single volume in Ante-Nicene times. On the other
hand the average conditions to which different volumes
of the sacred writings would be exposed in the same
place were not likely to differ much, in so far as they
were likely to affect the text. It is therefore not sur-
prising that we find great fundamental similarity of text
throughout MSS which probably derived different groups
of books from different exemplars, and that definite evi-
dence of separate origins is sometimes present, sometimes
wanting.
A word may be added here respecting the different
‘hands’ of MSS. It sometimes happened that the original
scribe (“first hand”) of a MS discovered that he had begun
to transcribe wrongly, and accordingly corrected himself
before going further : in such cases what he first wrote
may have been either a mere blunder or the unconsciously
remembered reading of another copy. After the comple-
tion of a MS it was often revised by a ‘corrector’ with a
view to the removal of clerical errors. The thoroughness
with which this laborious process was carried out must
however have varied to a singular extent : and moreover
the revision appears sometimes to have included the occa-
sional introduction of readings from a different exemplar.
Changes made by a hand apparently contemporary with
the original hand may usually be set down to the ‘cor-
rector’. Additional changes might be made subsequently
at any date on account of observed difference of reading
from another MS simultaneously read or another current
text. Sometimes these changes were confined to a small
portion of text, or were sprinkled very thinly over the
whole, sometimes they were comparatively systematic :
but it is hardly ever safe to assume that a reading left un-
changed is to be taken as ratified by the copy or text
from which neighbouring changes were derived. Since
corrections in previously written MSS, as distinguished
from corrections made in the process of transcription, are
not likely to be conjectures, they may be treated as vir-
tually particles of other lost MSS at least as early as the
time of correction : the textual value of the lost MSS can
of course be ascertained only by successive examination
270 COA’A’A, C 7'OA'S OA' B
of their successive particles, and therefore often but im-
perfectly.
354. For Some six centuries after it was written B
appears to have undergone no changes in its text except
from the hand of the ‘corrector’, the ‘second hand’. Among
llis corrections of clerical errors are scattered some textual
changes, clearly marked as such by the existence of very
early authority for both readings: the readings which he thus
introduces imply the use of a second exemplar, having a
text less pure than that of the primary exemplar, but free
from clear traces of Syrian influence. The occurrence of
these definite diversities of text renders it unsafe to assume
that all singular readings which he alters were indi-
vidualisms of the first hand, though doubtless many of
them had no other origin. The scale of alteration was
however very limited : hardly any of the corrections affect
more than two or three letters, except the insertions of
rightly or wrongly omitted words. Some few of the early
corrections perceptible in the MS appear to have been
made by the original scribe himself; and to his hand
Tischendorf refers seven alternative readings placed in
the margin of Matt. xiii 52 ; xiv. 5; xvi 4; xxii IO; xxvii. 4;
Luke iii I (bis). In the tenth or eleventh century, according
to Tischendorf’s apparently well founded judgement, the
faded characters of the fourth century were retraced in
darker ink. The readings adopted for renewal were almost
always those of the second hand; and words or longer
portions of text wrongly repeated by the original scribe
were left untouched. There was no systematic attempt
to correct the text itself, except as regards the Orthography,
which was for the most part assimilated to the common
literary standard ; but Syrian readings were introduced
here and there, though rarely, if ever, in cases where there
would be more than a trifling difference in the space occu-
pied by the old and the new readings respectively. We
have passed over the readings of this third hand of B in
the Appendix because they not only were inserted at a
very late period, but exhibit no distinctive internal charac-
ter. Confusion between the second and third hands of B
has led to much error; and it is only of late that the true
history of the changes undergone by the MS has been
fully understood.
355. The original writing of S has escaped retrace-
ment, but it has been altered much at different times. The
three principal hands alone need mention here. The ‘cor-
|
CO/8A2A, C 7'OA'S OF N 27I
rector’ proper (N") made use of an excellent exemplar, and
the readings which he occasionally introduces take high
rank as authorities. Those of another hand (N") of some-
what similar appearance but ill determined date (? Cent. VI)
are likewise for the most part distinctly ancient, but in-
clude many of later origin. The much more numerous
readings introduced by 8° (? Cent. VII) are for the most
part Syrian ; but Scattered among them are readings handed
down from a high antiquity: the exemplar employed by
this writer had apparently some such mixed character as
we find in X of the Gospels. These examples will suffice
to illustrate the phenomena of correction generally. The
manner in which it produces mixture of texts in transcripts
from corrected MSS has been already explained by the
example of D2 and E3 (§§ 335–339). In some instances, as
often in A and C, an erasure preceding correction has .
completely obliterated the original writing : but, as the
amount of space which it occupied can almost always be
ascertained, a comparison of the lengths of the existing
variants is usually sufficient to determine the reading with
tolerable certainty.
CHAPTER IV. SUAESTA WTMA/, /AVTEGRITY OF
THE AURAE,ST TRAAVSM/777A2 D 7/5 YT
356–374
356. Having now described the nature of the evi-
dence available for settling the text of the New Testa-
ment, and explained the modes of applying it which leave
least room for error, it is right that we should give some
answer to the reasonable enquiry whether there is good
ground for confidence that the purest text transmitted by
existing documents is strictly or at least substantially
identical with the text of the autographs. This enquiry
will however be best approached through another, which
is closely connected with the subject of the preceding
chapter; namely, whether there is or is not reason to
272 ABSEAVCE OF GENUINE READ/AWGS
think that, notwithstanding the peculiar authority con-
ferred on the best uncials by the clear results of Genea-
logical Evidence proper and of Internal Evidence of
Groups, the true reading is sometimes one that is attested
by inferior documents alone. This antecedent enquiry
is complementary to a question discussed in another
place (§ 265–283), how far Primary Greek MSS may
safely be trusted where accessory attestation is more or less
completely wanting. From the nature of the case there
is no room for absolute and unqualified answers: but
we trust that the following Considerations, taken along
with what has been said already, will meet all such
doubts as can be raised with a fair show of reason.
357–360. Affroximate non-existence of genuine readings
1/maſtesſed by any of the best Greek uncials
357. The vague but necessary term ‘inferior docu-
ments’ covers two classes of evidence which demand
attention on wholly different grounds; first, Greek uncials
which in external character, as in Conventional designa-
tion, have no generic difference from the best Greek
uncials, and secondly, the earlier Versions and Fathers.
First then it may be asked,—Given the relative supre-
macy which we have been led to ascribe under normal
conditions to B and 8 in most books, and to some
extent to A and C in the Apocalypse, is there or is
there not good ground to expect that the true reading
should sometimes exist not in them but in less good or
in secondary Greek uncials P. There is no theoretical
improbability in the supposition here made. This is
obviously true in cases where N and B are at variance, that
is, where the positive evidence afforded by the coinci-
COMWE/AWEAD 7TO / WFER/OR MSS 273
dence of two extremely ancient independent lines is
absent: for, where they differ from each other, the true
reading may differ from that of either, and may have
survived in an independent line to a Somewhat later
time, and so have found its way into other uncials.
But the theoretical possibility holds good likewise where
B and N agree, though reduced within much narrower
limits. Near as the divergence of the respective ances-
tries of B and N must have been to the autographs, there
must have been an appreciable interval of transcription
(§ 241, 301 ff.); and it is a priori conceivable that relics
of a line of transmission starting from a yet earlier point
should find their way into one or another uncial of the
fifth or following centuries, and further that such relics
should include genuine readings which disappeared in
the writing of an intermediate ancestor of B and N.
358. When however the readings of secondary or
even primary uncials in opposition to B and R are Con-
secutively examined, they present no such phenomena,
whether of accessory attestation or of internal character,
as might have been expected were the supposition true.
The singular readings with rare and unimportant excep-
tions have all the appearance of being individualisms.
The Scanty Subsingular readings having some attestation
by early Versions or Fathers will be noticed under the
next head. The readings attested by two or more of
these uncials, which make up by far the greater part
of the whole number of these readings, can be recog-
nised at once as distinctively Syrian or Alexandrian or
Western, or as obvious modifications of extant readings
having one or other such attestation and character.
Among all the endless varieties of mixture there is a
striking sameness in the elements mixed. The imme-
20
274 A BSAEAVCAE OF GAAVU/WE ACA24 O/WGS
diate sources of all our uncials not purely Syrian, except
B and s, were evidently for the most part the popular
eclectic texts of about the fourth century, Syrian or
other, and not the various earlier and simpler Ante-
Nicene texts from which the eclectic texts were com-
pounded, and which the eclectic texts soon drove out of
currency. Lastly, the verdict of internal evidence is
almost always unfavourable where it is not neutral.
359. Passing backwards to Ante-Nicene times, we
have to deal with the Second question,-May we or may
we not reasonably expect to find true readings in very
limited but very ancient groups of documents in opposi-
tion to B and N P There are many Pre-Syrian readings
the antiquity of which is vouched for by Versions or
Fathers, but which nevertheless are supported by no
Greek MS but a stray uncial or two, or only by a few
cursives, (such cursives naturally as are otherwise known
to contain ancient elements of text,) or even in many
cases by no Greek MS at all. The attestation of these
readings, or at least of the second and third classes of
them, resembles the accessory attestation of the sub-
singular readings of B, which we have already learned to
judge on the whole favourably: it resembles also the
accessory attestation of the subsingular readings of N,
which we have rarely found to have the stamp of
genuineness. All such readings shew how plentiful a
crop of variation existed in the early centuries and was
swept out of sight by the eclectic texts.
360. Readings thus attested by Versions and
Fathers almost without support from existing Greek
MSS have as yet received from critics no attention pro-
portionate to their historical interest. The accident of
their neglect by the Greek editors of the fourth century,
COWA/AWAEZ) 7'O VERSIONS AAWD AA 7A/EA'S 275
and their consequent approximate or complete extinction
in Greek copies of the New Testament, can have no
bearing on the character of their pedigree in the earlier
ages. It is therefore but right to enquire whether the
accidental preservation of B and N does or does not give
their texts an undeserved preeminence, which they would
have lost had continuous uncials existed containing such
texts as these stray readings represent. A scrutiny of
the readings themselves dispels the suspicion. We have
for our own part been quite prepared to find among
these relics of ancient variation many readings highly
commended by Internal Evidence: but experience has
not justified any such anticipation. A very few readings
absent from all existing Greek MSS we have thought it
safest to retain as alternative readings; for instance in
Matt. iv. 17 "Hyyukev (for Metavoeſte, #yyukew ydp), attested
by syr.vt Orig(as represented by schol ProCop. Zs. I44
Hier. Es. 128) Vict,ant. Mc.273(expressly); and in I John
iv 3 Aijet (for prºj duoxoyeſ), attested by “ancient copies’
mentioned by Socrates, and also by lat.vg Iren.lat(with
context) Orig. Mälat;(?schol) Tert Lucif Aug Fulg. There
are a few others supported by yet slighter authority,
which have an appearance of intrinsic probability in places
where the better attested readings seem to be specially
difficult; and these we have not attempted to separate
from purely conjectural readings. Readings belonging
to either of these classes are however in the highest
degree exceptional, and do not disturb the general im-
pression produced by examination of the whole number.
Most indeed of the readings of great antiquity which
stand in no extant Greek uncial are seen at a glance to
be ordinary, Western readings; so that doubtless the
reason why those of them which occur in the Gospels
276 ANZZCZZ)ZNZ PRESUMP77OAS
and Acts are deprived of the support of D is simply the
comparative purity of its early Western text. While
then it cannot be confidently affirmed that no relics of
lines of transmission independent of the ancestries of B
and 8 now exist in one or more secondary documents of
one kind or another (compare $357), the utmost number
of such relics is too petty, even with the inclusion of
doubtful instances, to affect appreciably the conclusions
already obtained. It is of course only with such evidence
as actually exists that the primary uncials can be brought
into comparison : but the fullest comparison does but
increase the conviction that their preeminent relative
purity is likewise approximately absolute, a true approxi-
mate reproduction of the text of the autographs, not an
accidental and deceptive result of the loss of better
Greek MSS.
361—37o. A/Aroximate sufficiency of existing documents
for the recovery of the genuine text, notwithstanding
ſhe existence of some primitive corruptions
361. The way has now been cleared for the final
question,--Is it or is it not reasonable to expect that in
any considerable number of cases the true reading has
now perished? Have we a right to assume that the true
reading always exists somewhere among existing docu-
ments P The question is often foreclosed on one or both
of two grounds which in our judgement are quite irrele-
vant. First, some think it incredible that any true words
of Scripture should have perished. In reply it is a
sufficient argumentum ad hominem to point to the exist-
ence of various readings, forming part of various texts
accepted for long ages, and the frequent difficulty of
AS 7"O AEPR/M/TV VE CORA’ UPT/OAV 277
q
deciding between them, even though we say nothing of
difficulties of interpretation: on any view many important
churches for long ages have had only an approximately
pure New Testament, so that we have no right to treat
it as antecedently incredible that only an approximately
pure New Testament should be attainable now, or even
in all future time. For ourselves we dare not introduce
considerations which could not reasonably be applied to
other ancient texts, supposing them to have documen-
tary attestation of equal amount, variety, and antiquity.
Secondly, the folly and frivolity of once popular con-
jectures have led to a wholesome reaction against look-
ing beyond documentary tradition. Some of them are
attempts to deal textually with what are really difficulties
of interpretation only; the authors of others, though
they propose remedies which cannot possibly avail, are
not thereby shown to have been wrong in the supposi-
tion that remedies were needed; and a few have been
perhaps too quickly forgotten. Though it cannot be said
that recent attempts in Holland to revive conjectural
criticism for the New Testament have shown much
felicity of suggestion, they cannot be justly condemned
on the ground of principle. The caution imposed by
the numerous failures of the earlier critics has on the
whole worked well; but it has no bearing on the ques-
tion at issue. -
362. On the other hand a strong presumption in
favour of the immunity of the text of the New Testament
from errors antecedent to existing documents is afforded
by the facts mentioned under the last head ($357–360).
If among the very ancient evidence now extant, collected
from various quarters, so little can be found that ap-
proves itself as true in opposition both to B and N,
278 UNIQUE 7/2x7JAZ AZZES747/OM
there is good reason at the outset to doubt whether any
better readings have perished with the multitudes of
documents that have been lost.
363. The question however needs more careful con-
sideration on account of the apparent ease and simplicity
with which many ancient texts are edited, which might be
thought, on a hasty view, to imply that the New Testa-
ment cannot be restored with equal certainty. But this
ease and simplicity is in fact the mark of evidence too
scanty to be tested; whereas in the variety and fullness
of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New
Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone
among prose writings. For all other works of antiquity,
the Old Testament (in translations) and some of the
Latin poets excepted, MSS earlier than the ninth or
even tenth century are of extreme rarity. Many are
preserved to us in a single MS or hardly more; and
so there is little chance of detecting corruption wherever
the sense is good. Those only which are extant in
many copies of different ages present so much as a
distant analogy with the New Testament: and, if through
the multitude of various readings, and the consequent
diversities of printed editions, they lose the fallacious
uniformity of text which is the usual result of extreme
paucity of documents, there is always a nearer approxi-
mation to perfect restoration. Doubtful points are out
of sight even in critical editions of classical authors
merely because in ordinary literature it is seldom worth
while to trouble the clearness of a page. The one
disadvantage on the side of the New Testament, the
early mixture of independent lines of transmission, is
more than neutralised, as soon as it is distinctly per-
ceived, by the antiquity and variety of the evidence;
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 279
and the expression of doubt wherever doubt is really felt
is owing to the paramount necessity for fidelity as to the
exact words of Scripture. - --
364. But it will be seen from the preceding pages
that we possess evidence much more precisely certified
than by the simple and general titles of antiquity, ex-
cellence, and variety. Two or three of our best docu-
ments might have been lost, and yet those titles might
still be justly claimed; while without those documents
both the history of the text and its application would be
so imperfectly understood that the results in that case
would be both different and more uncertain. It is the
minute study of the whole evidence in relation to the
best documents which brings out their absolute and
not merely their relative excellence. The external evi-
dence is therefore such that on the one hand perfect
purity is not a priori improbable, and a singularly high
degree of purity is highly probable; and yet the con-
ditions are not such—it is difficult to see how they could
ever be such—as to exclude the possibility of textual
errorS. - * - -
365. These general probabilities however are but
preparatory to the definite question,-Are there as a
matter of fact places in which we are constrained by
overwhelming evidence to recognise the existence of
textual error in all extant documents? To this ques-
tion we have no hesitation in replying in the affirma-
tive. For instance in 2 Pet. iii Io NBK,P, with three
of the best cursives and two Versions read groxéſa 8:
kavoroſpevo, Avôjoretov kai yi, kai Tà év airfi épya elipe 97-
ore to v. Before eijpeſhforetal two other Versions insert a
negative. C replaces elipeſhjoretat by dºpavioróñorovtat, for
which we find katakajoretov in AL, and most cursives and
28O OCCAS/OAVAZ /AWSZTAAVCAES
several Versions and Fathers; while one representative
of the Old Latin omits it altogether. External evi-
dence is here strongly favourable to eipedijo eral, as must
be felt even by those who do not see any special
significance in the concordance of N and B. Internal
evidence of transcription is absolutely certain on the
same side, for ejpeſºſoretat fully accounts for all four other
readings, two of them being conjectural substitutes, two
less audacious manipulations; while no other reading
will account for the rest. Yet it is hardly less certain by
intrinsic probability that eipedijoretat cannot be right:
in other words, it is the most original of recorded
readings, the parent of the rest, and yet itself corrupt.
Conditions of reading essentially the same, in a less
striking form, occur here and there in other places.
366. But there is no adequate justification for as-
suming that primitive corruption must be confined to
passages where it was obvious enough to catch the eye
of ancient scribes, and would naturally thus lead to
variation. Especially where the grammar runs with
deceptive Smoothness, and a wrong construction yields
a sense plausible enough to cause no misgivings to an
ordinary reader, there is nothing surprising if the kind of
Scrutiny required for deliberate criticism detects impos-
sible readings accepted without suspicion by all trans-
cribers. On the various kinds of primitive errors, and
the nature of the evidence on which in each case their
existence can be affirmed, we have said enough in the
Second Part ($ 85–92).
367. Little is gained by speculating as to the precise
point at which such corruptions came in. They may be
due to the original writer, or to his amanuensis if he
wrote from dictation, or they may be due to one of the
OF PRIM/7/VE ERROR 28 I
earliest transcribers. Except from extraneous sources,
which here have no existence, it is never possible to
know how many transcriptions intervened between the
autograph and the latest common ancestor of all the ele-
ments in all extant documents; and a corruption affect-
ing them all may evidently have originated at any link
of that initial chain. Moreover the line of demarcation
between primitive and other corruptions is less easy to
draw than might be supposed. As was intimated above
(§ 360), account has to be taken of a few places in which
what appears to be the true reading is found exclusively
In one or two secondary or hardly even secondary docu-
ments ; perhaps transmitted from the autograph, and
preserved by some rare accident of mixture notwithstand-
ing the otherwise complete extinction of the line of
transmission by which it had been conveyed, perhaps
due only to a casual and unconscious emendation of an
erroneous current reading. But these gradations of primi-
tiveness in corruption have no practical moment. The
only fact that really concerns us is that certain places
have to be recognised and marked as insecure.
368. The number of such places which we have
been able to recognise with sufficient confidence to
justify the definite expression of doubt is not great. If
we exclude books in which the documentary attestation
of text is manifestly incomplete, as the Apocalypse, some
of the Catholic Epistles, and the latter part of Hebrews,
it is relatively extremely small. There may be and
probably are other places containing corruption which
we have failed to discover : but judging by analogy we
should expect the differences to be of no real interest.
We Cannot too strongly express our disbelief in the exist-
ence of undetected interpolations of any moment. This
282 AV4 7'OWA’Aº AAWD ZZZZZZTS
is of course, strictly speaking, a speculative opinion, not a
result of criticism. But we venture to think that the pro-
cesses of criticism which it has been our duty to consider
and work out have given us some qualifications for form-
ing an opinion as to the probabilities of the matter.
There are, it ought to be said, a few passages of St
Matthew's Gospel (xii 4o ; [xiii 35 ;] xxiii 35 ; xxvii 9) in
which it is difficult to believe that all the words as they
stand have apostolic authority : the second part of xxvii
49 would have to be added to the list, if sufficient
reasons should be found for accepting the possible but
doubtful view that it is not a Non-Western interpolation,
but an original reading omitted without authority by the
Western text. But the question which these passages
raise is rather literary than textual, for we see no reason
to doubt that, as regards the extant form or edition of
the first Gospel, their text as it stood in the autograph
has been exactly preserved. -
369. It will not be out of place to add here a
distinct expression of our belief that even among the
numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New
Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of
the text for dogmatic purposes. The licence of para-
phrase occasionally assumes the appearance of wilful
corruption, where scribes allowed themselves to change
language which they thought capable of dangerous mis-
construction ; or attempted to correct apparent errors
which they doubtless assumed to be due to previous
transcription; or embodied in explicit words a meaning
which they supposed to be implied. But readings
answering to this description Cannot be judged rightly
without taking into account the general characteristics of
other readings exhibited by the same or allied docu-
OA' DOGMA 7"/C / WFZ UE/WCAE 283
ments. The comparison leaves little room for doubt
that they merely belong to an extreme type of para-
phrastic alteration, and are not essentially different from
readings which betray an equally lax conception of
transcription, and yet are transparently guiltless of any
fraudulent intention. In a word, they bear witness to
rashness, not to bad faith. .
370. It is true that dogmatic preferences to a great
extent determined theologians, and probably scribes, in
their choice between rival readings already in existence :
scientific criticism was virtually unknown, and in its
absence the temptation was strong to believe and assert
that a reading used by theological opponents had also
been invented by them. Accusations of wilful tampering
with the text are accordingly not unfrequent in Christian
antiquity: but, with a single exception, wherever they
can be verified they prove to be groundless, being in
fact hasty and unjust inferences from mere diversities of
inherited text. The one known exception is in the case
of Marcion's dogmatic mutilation of the books accepted
by him : and this was, strictly speaking, an adapta-
tion for the use of his followers; nor had it apparently
any influence outside the sect. Other readings of his,
which he was equally accused of introducing, belonged
manifestly to the texts of the copies which came into his
hands, and had no exceptional character or origin. The
evidence which has recently come to light as to his dis-
ciple Tatian's Diatessaron has shown that Tatian habitu-
ally abridged the language of the passages which he
combined; so that the very few known omissions which
might be referred to a dogmatic purpose can as easily
receive another explanation. The absence of perceptible
fraud in the origination of any of the various readings
284 cowp/TIONS OF FUTURE IMPROVEMENT
now extant may, we believe, be maintained with equal
confidence for the text antecedent to the earliest extant
variations, in other words, for the purest transmitted text,
though here internal evidence is the only available cri-
terion; and, as we have intimated above, any undetected
discrepancies from the autographs which it may contain,
due to other or ordinary causes, may safely on the same
evidence be treated as insignificant. The books of
the New Testament as preserved in extant documents
assuredly speak to us in every important respect in
language identical with that in which they spoke to
those for whom they were originally written.
C. 371—374. Conditions of fur//ier improvement of
the texf
371. The text of this edition of course makes no
pretension to be more than an approximation to the
purest text that might be formed from existing materials.
Much, we doubt not, remains to be done for the perfect-
ing of the results obtained thus far. Even in respect of
the discovery of new documents, and fuller acquaintance
with the contents of some that have in a manner been
long known, useful contributions to the better under-
standing of obscure variations may fairly be expected.
It is difficult to relinquish the hope that even yet Lagarde
may be able to accomplish at least a part of his long
projected edition of the testimonies of the oriental ver-
sions, so that the New Testament may be allowed to
enjoy some considerable fruits of his rare gifts and
acquirements: a complete and critically sifted exhibition
of the evidence of the Egyptian versions would be
ZAV 7TEXTUAL CR/7/C/S// 285
a specially acceptable boon. But it would be an illusion
to anticipate important changes of text from any acquisi-
tion of new evidence. Greater possibilities of improve-
ment lie in a more exact study of the relations between
the documents that we already possess. The effect of
future criticism, as of future discovery, we suspect, will
not be to import many fresh readings; but there is reason
to hope that the doubts between alternative readings will
be greatly reduced. -
372. We must not hesitate however to express the
conviction that no trustworthy improvement can be
effected except in accordance with the leading principles
of method which we have endeavoured to explain, and
on the basis of the primary applications of them which
have been here made to the interpretation of the docu-
mentary phenomena of the New Testament. It is
impossible to entertain an equal degree of confidence in
the numerous decisions which we have felt ourselves
justified in making in comparatively obscure or difficult
variations; because in these cases a greater liability to
error was involved in the proportionally larger part
inevitably played by individual personal judgements.
Even where a text is certain enough to make the exhibi-
tion of alternative readings Superfluous, gradation of cer-
tainty is a necessary consequence of the manifold grada-
tions of evidence. But, while we dare not implicitly
trust Our Own judgement in details, the principles of
criticism here followed rest on an incomparably broader
foundation, and in an overwhelming proportion of cases
their application is free from difficulty. As was said at
the outset, the best textual criticism is that which takes
account of every class of textual facts, and assigns to the
subordinate method corresponding to each class of textual
286 AVAE CAESS / 7"Y AAVAD SAE COAC/TV
facts its proper use and rank. All that has been said in
the intervening pages has been an attempt to translate
into language the experience which we have gradually
gained in endeavouring to fulfil that aim.
373. There is no royal road to the ascertainment of
the true texts of ancient writings. Investigation of the
history and character of documentary ancestries would
indeed be out of place for the text of the New Testa-
ment if the documentary evidence were so hopelessly
chaotic that no difference of authority could carry much
weight as between readings all having some clearly
ancient attestation. The consequent necessity of always
judging chiefly by Internal Evidence of Readings would
undeniably save much labour. But it would introduce
a corresponding amount of latent uncertainty. The sum-
mary decisions inspired by an unhesitating instinct as to
what an author must needs have written, or dictated by
the Supposed authority of “canons of criticism as to
what transcribers must needs have introduced, are in
reality in a large proportion of cases attempts to dispense
with the solution of problems that depend on genealogical
data. Nor would there be a material increase of security
by the assignment of some substantial weight to docu-
mentary evidence, so long as it were found or thought
necessary to deal with each passage separately, and to
estimate the balance of documentary evidence by some
modification of numerical authority, without regard either
to genealógical affinities as governing the distribution of
attestation or to the standard of purity which this or that
document or group of documents habitually attains.
Under all these circumstances the absence or neglect of
the most essential kinds of textual evidence would leave
a real precariousness of text which could be avoided only
*
OA' A GAZAWAEA.J. O'G/CA/, A.A.S/S 287
by an enormously increased exhibition of alternative
readings. -
374. For scepticism as to the possibility of obtain-
ing a trustworthy genealogical interpretation of documen-
tary phenomena in the New Testament there is, we are
persuaded, no justification either in antecedent proba-
bility or in experience; and, if this be so, the range of
uncertainty is brought at once within narrow limits.
When it is clearly understood that coincidence of reading
infallibly implies identity of ancestry wherever accidental
Coincidence is out of the question, all documents assume
their proper character as sources of historical evidence,
first respecting the antecedent lines of textual transmis-
sion, and then respecting the relation of each reading to
these antecedent texts. Nearly a century and a half ago
the more important ancient texts were clearly recognised,
and the great subsequent accession of materials has but
added certainty to this first generalisation, while it has
opened the way for further generalisations of the same
kind. Again, when it is seen that the variations in which
decision is free from difficulty supply a trustworthy basis
for ascertaining the prevalent character of documents and
groups of documents, and thus for estimating rightly the
value of their testimony in other places, little room is
left for difference of estimate. Whatever may be the
ambiguity of the whole evidence in particular passages,
the general Course of future criticism must be shaped by
the happy circumstance that the fourth century has
bequeathed to us two MSS of which even the less incor-
rupt must have been of exceptional purity among its own
contemporaries, and which rise into greater preeminence
of character the better the early history of the text be-
Comes known.
288
PART IV
NATURE AND DETAILS OF THIS EDITION
A. 375–377. Aim and limitations of this edition
375. The common purpose of all critical editions of
ancient books, to present their text in Comparative purity,
is subject to various subordinate modifications. Our
own aim, like that of Tischendorf and Tregelles, has
been to obtain at once the closest possible approximation
to the apostolic text itself. The facts of textual history
already recounted, as testified by versions and patristic
quotations, shew that it is no longer possible to speak of
“the text of the fourth century”, since most of the
important variations were in existence before the middle
of the fourth century, and many can be traced back to
the second century. Nor again, in dealing with so
various and complex a body of documentary attestation,
is there any real advantage in attempting, with Lach-
mann, to allow the distributions of a very small number
of the most ancient existing documents to construct for
themselves a provisional text by the application of uni-
form rules, and in deferring to a separate and later pro-
cess the use of critical judgement upon readings. What
is thus gained in facility of execution is lost in insecurity
of result: and while we have been led to a much slower
and more Complex mode of procedure by the need of
obtaining impersonal and, if the word may be forgiven,
AVATURAE OF THIS EDITVOAV 289
inductive Criteria of texts, documents, and readings, we
have at the same time found it alike undesirable and im-
possible to take any intermediate text, rather than that
of the autographs themselves, as the pattern to be repro-
duced with the utmost exactness which the evidence
permits.
376. Two qualifications of this primary aim have
however been imposed upon us, the one by the imper-
fection of the evidence, the other by the nature of the
edition. Numerous variations occur in which the evi-
dence has not appeared to us decisive in favour of one
reading against the other or the others; and accordingly
we have felt bound to sacrifice the simplicity of a single
text to the duty of giving expression to all definite doubt.
In this respect we have followed Griesbach, Lachmann,
and Tregelles: and it is a satisfaction to observe that
Tischendorf’s latest edition, by a few scattered brackets
in the text and occasional expressions of hesitation in
the notes, shewed signs of a willingness to allow the
present impossibility of arriving every where at uniformly
certain conclusions. Secondly, it did not on the whole
Seem expedient, in a manual text of the New Testament
intended for popular use, to give admission to any read-
ings unattested by documentary evidence, or to give the
place of honour to any readings which receive no direct
Support from primary documents. Since then the in-
Sertion of any modern conjectures would have been
incompatible with our purpose, we have been content
to affix a special mark to places where doubts were
felt as to the genuineness of the transmitted readings,
reserving all further suggestions for the Appendix: and
again, by an obvious extension of the same principle,
the very few and unimportant readings which have both
21
29O A/, 7'EA’AVA TVVE READ/WGS
an inferior attestation and some specially strong internal
probability have not been elevated above a secondary
place, but treated as ordinary alternative readings. Thus
the text of this edition, in that larger sense of the word
‘text” which includes the margin, rests exclusively on
direct ancient authority, and its primary text rests exclu-
sively on direct ancient authority of the highest kind.
377. Alternative readings are given wherever we do
not believe the text to be certain, if the doubt affects
only the choice between variations found in existing
documents. It is impossible to decide that any pro-
bable variation, verbal or real, is too trivial for notice ;
while it would be improper to admit any variation to
a place among alternative readings except on the ground
of its probability. Nothing therefore is retained among
alternatives which in our judgement, or on final conside-
ration in the judgement of one of us, has no reasonable
chance of being right. But no attempt is made to in-
dicate different shades of probability beyond the assign-
ment to the principal and the secondary places respec-
tively ; and all probable variations not in some sense
orthographical are given alike, without regard to their
relative importance. Nor would it be strictly true to say
that the secondary or alternative readings are always
less probable than the rival primary readings; for some-
times the probabilities have appeared equal or incom-
mensurable, or the estimates which we have severally
formed have not been identical. In these cases (com-
pare $ 21) precedence has been given to documentary
authority as against internal evidence, and also on the
whole, though not without many exceptions, to great
numerical preponderance of primary documentary au-
thority as against high but narrowly limited attestation.
29 I
B. 378–392. Zºxtual notation
378. The notation employed for expressing these
diversities of probability or authority will need a little
explanation in detail. We have been anxious to avoid
excessive refinement and complexity of notation: but, as
variations or readings of which we felt bound to take
notice are of three classes, which must on no account be
confounded, we have been obliged to use Corresponding
means of distinction. Moreover every various reading
belonging to any of these classes must by the nature of
the case be either an omission of a word or words which
stand in the rival text, or an insertion of a word or
words absent from the rival text, or a substitution of a
word or words for another word or other words em-
ployed in the rival text, or of an order of words for
another order found in the rival text; and clearness
requires that each of these three forms of variation
should as a rule have its own mode of expression.
379. The first class consists of variations giving rise
to alternative readings in the proper sense; that is, varia-
tions in which both readings have some good ancient
authority, and each has a reasonable probability of being
the true reading of the autograph. To these the fun-
damental and simplest notation belongs. A secondary
reading consisting in the omission of words retained in
the primary reading is marked by simple brackets [] in
the text, enclosing the omitted word or words. A
Secondary reading consisting in the insertion of a word
or words omitted in the primary reading is printed in
the margin without any accompanying marks, the place
of insertion being indicated by the symbol " in the text.
292 MozAZZON OF AZTERNATIVE READINGS
A secondary reading consisting in the substitution of
other words for the words of the primary reading is
printed in the margin without any accompanying marks,
the words of the primary reading being enclosed between
the symbols " " in the text. Where there are two or
more secondary readings, they are separated by Z. in the
margin; unless they differ from each other merely by
the omission or addition of words, in which case they
are distinguished from each other by brackets in the
margin, enclosing part or the whole of the longer reading.
Occasionally one of two secondary readings differs from
the primary reading by omission only, so that it can be
expressed by simple brackets in the text, while the other
stands as a substitution in the margin. Changes of
punctuation have sometimes rendered it necessary to ex-
press a possible Omission by a marginal reading rather
than by brackets (Luke X 41, 42; John iii. 31, 32; Rom.
iii I.2). Changes of accent have sometimes been likewise
allowed to affect the form of alternative readings; but
only when this could be done without inconvenience.
A few alternative readings and punctuations are examined
in the Appendix: they are indicated by Aſº. attached to
the marginal readings. Where there is likely to be any
confusion of marginal readings answering to different but
closely adjoining places in the text, they are divided by
a short vertical line.
380. The second class of notation is required for
places in which there is some reason to suspect corrup-
tion in the transmitted text, if there is no variation, or
in all the transmitted texts, if there is more than one read-
ing (§ 365–368). Under this head it has been found
convenient to include a few places in which the reading
AWOTA 7/OM OF SUSPEC Z'EZ) RAEAZ)/AWGS 293
that appears to be genuine is not absolutely unattested,
but has only insignificant authority ($ 360, 367). Such
suspicion of primitive corruption is universally indicated
by an obelus (f) in the margin or small obeſi (") in the
text, and further explained by a note in the Appendix.
The typical notation consists of Aff.f in the margin, the
extreme limits of the doubtful words in the text being
marked by "". In a single instance (Apoc. xiii 16) the
reading suspected to be genuine has been prefixed to Ap.t
on account of the peculiar nature of the evidence. We
have not however thought it necessary to banish to the
Appendix, or even the margin, a few unquestionably
genuine readings which are shown by documentary and
transcriptional evidence to have been in all probability
successful ancient emendations made in the process of
transcription, and not to have been transmitted continu-
ously from the autograph (§ 88). Such true readings,
being at once conjectural and traditional, have been
placed in the text between small obedi ("), the best
attested reading being however retained in the margin
with Af, added, and an account of the evidence being
given in the Appendix.
381. Both the preceding classes of notation refer
exclusively to places in which in our opinion there is
substantial ground for doubting which of two or more
extant readings is genuine, or in which no extant reading
—in a few cases no adequately attested extant reading—
can be confidently accepted as genuine. The third class
of notation on the other hand deals exclusively with
readings which we believe to be certainly foreign to the
Original text of the New Testament in the strictest sense,
and therefore to have no title to rank as alternative
294 WoZEWORTHY RE/ECTED READINGS
readings, but which have in various degrees sufficient
interest to deserve some sort of notice,
382. For ordinary readings of this kind the Ap-
pendix is the fitting repository. In the Gospels and
Acts however there are a considerable number of read-
ings that have no strict claim to a place except in the
Appendix, and yet plead strongly for a more immediate
association with the true text. To have allowed them
to be confounded with true alternative readings would
have practically been a deliberate adulteration of the
New Testament: but we have thought that on the whole
historical truth would be best served by allowing them
some kind of accessory recognition, and thus we have
been forced to adopt additional modes of notation with
peculiar symbols. None can feel more strongly than our-
selves that it might at first sight appear the duty of faithful
critics to remove completely from the text any words or
passages which they believe not to have originally formed
part of the work in which they occur. But there are cir-
cumstances connected with the text of the New Testa-
ment which have withheld us from adopting this obvious
mode of proceeding. *
383. The first difficulty arises from the absence of
any sure criterion for distinguishing Western Omissions
due to incorrupt transmission, that is, Western non-
interpolations, from Western omissions proper, that is,
due only to capricious simplification (§ 240): whoever
honestly makes the attempt will find his own judgement
vacillate from time to time. On the whole it has seemed
best that nothing should at present be omitted from the
text itself on Western authority exclusively. Those
Western Omissions therefore which we can confidently
accept as, properly speaking, non-interpolations are
AND THEIR NOTATION 295
marked by double brackets []; while those about which
there is a reasonable doubt are marked by simple brackets
||, that is, they are not distinguished from ordinary
cases of ambiguous evidence. Western omissions evi-
dently arbitrary are of course neglected. The omission
of the singular addition to Matt. xxvii. 49 has been
treated as a Western non-interpolation, as its early
attestation was Western, though its adoption by the
Syrian text has given it a wide range of apparent docu-
mentary authority. The last three chapters of St Luke's
Gospel (xxii IQ f ; xxiv. 3, 6, 12, 36, 40, 51, 52) supply
all the other examples.
384. The second consideration which has led to the
adoption of an accessory notation for certain noteworthy
rejected readings is of a different kind. It has been
already pointed out (§ 173, 239) that some of the early
Western interpolations must have been introduced at a
period when various forms of evangelic tradition, written
or oral, were still current. There is accordingly no
improbability in the supposition that early interpolations
have sometimes preserved a record of words or facts not
otherwise known to us. From a literary point of view
Such fragmentary and, as it were, casual records are
entirely extraneous to the Gospels, considered as indi-
vidual writings of individual authors. From a historical,
and, it may be added, from a theological point of view
their authority, by its very nature variable and indefinite,
must always be inferior to that of the true texts of the
known and canonical books; but as embodiments of
ancient tradition they have a secondary value of their
own which, in some cases at least, would render their
unqualified exclusion from the Bible a serious loss. A rule
that would for instance banish altogether from the printed
296 AWOZE WOAZAZY A.A./ZCZZZ) A&AEAZ)ZAWGS
Gospels such a sentence as the first part of Luke xxiii. 34
condemns itself, though the concurrence of the best texts,
Iatin and Egyptian as well as Greek, shews the sentence
to be a later insertion. Yet single sayings or details cannot
be effectually preserved for use except as parts of a con-
tinuous text: and there is no serious violation of the
integrity of the proper evangelic texts in allowing them
to yield a lodgement to these stray relics surviving from
the apostolic or subapostolic age, provided that the ac-
cessory character of the insertions is clearly marked.
Double brackets || || have therefore been adopted not
only for the eight interpolations omitted by Western
documents and by no other extant Pre-Syrian evidence,
but also for five interpolations omitted on authority
other than Western, where the omitted words appeared
to be derived from an external written or unwritten source,
and had likewise exceptional claims to retention in the
body of the text (Matt. xvi 2 f.; Luke xxii 43 f ; xxiii
34), or as separate portions of it (Mark xvi 9–20 ; John
vii 53–viii II).
385. In addition to the specially important interpO-
lations thus printed in the same type as the true text but
with double brackets, there are many Western additions
and substitutions which stand on a somewhat different
footing from ordinary rejected readings; not to speak of
the very few which, being possibly genuine, there was no
need to separate from ordinary alternative readings. It
was not so easy to decide whether any notice should be
taken of any others. The influence of extraneous records
or traditions of one kind or another is clearly perceptible
in some cases, and its presence may with more or less
probability be suspected in others. On the other hand
the great mass of these readings can have no other source
AAWD 7THE/A2 AWOTA 7TWOAV 297
than paraphrastic or assimilative impulses of an ordinary
kind. On the whole it seemed advisable to place in the
margin between peculiar marks - H a certain number of
Western interpolations and substitutions containing some
apparently fresh or distinctive matter, such as might pro-
bably or possibly come from an extraneous source or
which is otherwise of more than average interest, but
having no sufficient intrinsic claim to any form of incor-
poration with the New Testament. We wish it accord-
ingly to be distinctly understood that readings so marked
are in our judgement outside the pale of probability as
regards the original texts, and that it is only necessities of
Space which compel us unwillingly to intermix them with
true alternative readings. Except in so far as they are
all Western, they form an indefinite class, connected on
the one side by intermediate examples (as Luke ix 54 f.;
xxiv. 42) with the doubly bracketed readings, and on the
other including readings which might with equal pro-
priety have been noticed only in the Appendix (see § 386),
or even passed over altogether. From the nature of the
case the line was hard to draw, and perhaps some in-
consistencies may be found, too much, rather than too
little, having doubtless been here and there included;
but for the present a provisional course has much to
recommend it. Ultimately the readings enclosed with-
in + F may probably be omitted with advantage. The
Epistles and Apocalypse contain no Western readings
which have any distinct title to be so marked. The pa-
raphrastic change to which such books are liable differs
much from the variation in the record of facts and sayings
which easily invades books historical in form, more es-
pecially if other somewhat similar writings or traditions
are current by their side.
298 AVZZA'A'OZA 7TAZZO PASSA GAZS
386. There remain, lastly, a considerable number of
readings which had no sufficient claim to stand on the
Greek page, but which for one reason or another are
interesting enough to deserve mention. They are ac-
cordingly noticed in the Appendix, as well as the other
readings having some peculiar notation. It did not
appear necessary to define by marks their precise place
in the text: but the line to which each belongs is indi-
cated in the margin by Aff, unaccompanied by any other
word or symbol. This class of rejected readings, which
includes many Western readings along with many others
of various origin, is of Course, like the preceding, limited
only by selection, and might without impropriety have
been either enlarged or diminished.
387. The examination of individual readings in de-
tail is reserved for the Appendix. In a few cases how-
ever a short explanation of the course adopted seems
to be required here. First in importance is the very
early supplement by which the mutilated or unfinished
close of St Mark’s Gospel was completed. This remark-
able passage on the one hand may be classed among the
interpolations mentioned at the end of § 384 as deserving
of preservation for their own sake in spite of their omis-
sion by Non-Western documents. On the other it is
placed on a peculiar footing by the existence of a second
ancient supplement, preserved in five languages, some-
times appearing as a substitute, sometimes as a dupli-
cate. This less known alternative supplement, which is
very short, contains no distinctive matter, and was doubt-
less composed merely to round off the abrupt ending of
the Gospel as it stood with épogoïvro ydo for its last
words. In style it is unlike the ordinary narratives of the
Evangelists, but comparable to the four introductory
OA' SAEA, C/A/, /AWZTAEA’AºS 7" 299
verses of St Luke's Gospel. The current supplement
(xvi 9–20) was evidently an independently written suc-
cinct narrative beginning with the Resurrection and
ending with the Ascension, probably forming part of
Some lost evangelic record, and appropriated entire, as
supplying at once a needed close to St Mark’s words and
a striking addition to the history, although the first
line started from the same point as the beginning of the
sixteenth chapter. The two supplements are thus of
very unequal interest; but as independent attempts to
fill up a gap they stand on equal terms, and may easily
be of equal antiquity as regards introduction into copies
of St Mark’s Gospel ; so that we have felt bound to
print them both within [ ] in the same type. More-
over, as we cannot believe that, whatever may be the
cause of the present abrupt termination of the Gospel at
v. 8, it was intended by the Evangelist to end at this
point, we have judged it right to mark the presumed
defect by asterisks, and to suggest the probability that
not the book and paragraph only but also the last sen-
tence is incomplete.
388. The Section on the Woman taken in Adultery
(John vii 53-viii II) likewise required an exceptional
treatment. No interpolation is more clearly Western,
though it is not Western of the earliest type. Not only
is it passed over in silence in every Greek commentary of
which we have any knowledge, down to that of Theo-
phylact inclusive (Cent. XI-XII); but with the excep-
tion of a reference in the Apostolic Constitutions (? Cent.
Iv), and a statement by an obscure Nicon (Cent. x or
later) that it was expunged by the Armenians, not the
slightest allusion to it has yet been discovered in the
whole of Greek theology before the twelfth century. The
3OO AV7'Aº RAE2O/CA 7TA.D A.A.SSA GAZS
earliest Greek MSS containing it, except the Western
Codex Bezae, are of the eighth century. It is absent
from the better MSS of all the Oriental versions except
the AEthiopic, and apparently from the earliest form of
the Old Latin. In the West it was well known in the
fourth century, and doubtless long before. It has no
right to a place in the text of the Four Gospels: yet it is
evidently from an ancient source, and it could not now
without serious loss be entirely banished from the New
Testament. No accompanying marks would prevent it
from fatally interrupting the course of St John's Gospel
if it were retained in the text. As it forms an indepen-
dent narrative, it seems to stand best alone at the end
of the Gospels with double brackets to shew its inferior
authority, and a marginal reference within + F at John vii
52. As there is no evidence for its existence in ancient
times except in Western texts, we have printed it as nearly
as possible in accordance with Western documents, using
the text of D as the primary authority, but taking account
likewise of the Latin evidence and of such later Greek
MSS as appear to have preserved some readings of cog-
nate origin. The text thus obtained is perhaps not pure,
but it is at least purer than any which can be formed on
a basis supplied chiefly by the MSS of the Greek East.
389. The short Section on the Man working on the
Sabbath bears a curious analogy to the preceding, and is
not unlikely to come from the same source. As how-
ever it is at present known only from the Codex Bezae,
in which it replaces Luke vi 5, transposed to the end of
the next incident, we have with some hesitation relegated
it to the Appendix. -
390. The double interpolation in John v. 3, 4 has
been for other reasons consigned to the same receptacle.
of SPECIAL INTERAEST 3OI
Both its elements, the clause éköexopévov Tijv táv jödrov
kivmoruv and the scholium or explanatory note respecting
the angel, are unquestionably very ancient: but no good
Greek document contains both, while each of them se-
parately is condemned by decisive evidence. In internal
character it bears little resemblance to any of the readings
which have been allowed to stand in the margin between
the symbols + F; and it has no claim to any kind of asso-
ciation with the true text. -
391. In some of the best documents a modified form
of St John's statement (xix. 34) about the piercing of our
Lord's side is inserted in St Matthew's text after xxvii
49, although Our Lord's death follows in the next verse.
If the words are an interpolation, as seems on the whole
most probable, their attestation involves no special ano-
maly, not being essentially different from that of the inter-
polations in Luke xxii and xxiv. which are found in the
best documents but omitted by the Western (§ 240 f.,
383). The superficial difference of attestation would
seem to be chiefly if not wholly due to the accident that
here the Syrian revisers preferred the shorter Western
text. On this supposition the fortunate circumstance
that their habitual love of completeness met with some
counteraction, probably from a sense of the conſusion
arising out of the misplacement of the incident, has saved
the texts of later times from a corruption which they
might easily have inherited, and would doubtless have
held fast. Apart however from the possibility that the
words did belong to the genuine text of the first Gospel
in its present form (see § 368), we should not have been
justified in excluding them entirely from our text so long
as we retained similar interpolations; and we have there-
fore inserted them, like the rest, in double brackets.
3O2 OA” 7TA/OGA2AAAZ Y .
392. Besides the three classes of notation already
explained, a peculiar type has been found necessary
for the words év Eqbéorg in Eph. i I. If there were here,
as usual, a simple issue of genuineness or spuriousness,
the words would have to be condemned. But the very
probable view that the epistle traditionally entitled IIPOX
EðEXIOYX was addressed to a plurality of churches has
naturally given rise to a supposition that the words are
not so much spurious as local, filling up an intentional
gap in the text rightly for Ephesian readers, but intended
to be replaced by év and another name for readers be-
longing to other churches addressed. In expression of
this view we have retained the words with a change of
type in preference to leaving a blank space; as we see
no reason to doubt that at least one primary recipient of
the epistle was Ephesus, from which great centre it would
naturally be forwarded to the churches of other cities of
Western Asia Minor. We have thought it safer however
to enclose év Eqiáorg) in ordinary brackets, as Origen is
perhaps right, notwithstanding the fanciful interpretation
with which he encumbers his construction, in taking the
words toſs dyiots toſs odoruv kai Two roºs év Xpwortó ‘Imoroſ,
to run on continuously, so that no place would be left
for a local address.
C. 393–404. Orthograffhy
393. A short explanation remains to be given re-
Specting the Orthography adopted, and also the various
typographical details or other external arrangements, some
purely formal, some closely related to sense, by which the
contents of ancient MSS are presented in a shape adapted
for ready use and understanding. An editor of the New
Testament is often driven to wish that it were possible to
evade the necessity of choosing between one mode of
spelling and another. Much time would be saved by
OA' TA/E AWAE W 7" E.S.T.4//ZAV7' 3O3
adopting a conventional spelling, such as stands in the
Received Text; and the many points of orthography in
which there is little hope of arriving at approximate cer-
tainty in the present state of knowledge throw some
serious discouragement on the attempt to reproduce
the autographs in this as well as in more important
respects. Yet it is not seemly, when the text of the New
Testament is being scrupulously elaborated word by word,
that it should be disfigured many times in every page by
a slovenly neglect of philological truth. The abandon-
ment of all restoration of the original forms of words
is also liable to obliterate interesting and perhaps im-
portant facts, affinities of authorship and the like being
sometimes indicated by marks trivial in themselves. No
strictly middle course is satisfactory: for, though not a
few ancient spellings are placed above doubt by the
consent of all or nearly all the better uncials, there is
every gradation of attestation between these and spellings
of highly questionable authority. We have therefore
thought it best to aim at approximating as nearly as
we could to the spelling of the autographs by means of
documentary evidence; with this qualification, that we
have acquiesced in the common Orthography in two or
three points, not perhaps quite free from doubt, in which
the better attested forms would by their prominence cause
excessive strangeness in a popular text. Under the head
of spelling it is convenient to include most variations of
inflexion.
394. Much of the spelling in the current editions of
Greek classical authors is really arbitrary, depending at
least as much on modern critical tradition as on ancient
evidence, whether of MSS of the book edited or of MSS
of other books or of statements of Greek grammarians.
Indeed to a great extent this artificiality of spelling is
inevitable for want of MSS of any considerable antiquity.
In the Greek Bible however, and especially in most books
of the New Testament, there is a tolerable supply of avail-
able resources, so that criticism can occupy a position not
unlike that which it holds with respect to Latin writings
preserved in fairly ancient MSS. -
395. The spellings found in good MSS of the New
Testament at variance with the MSS of the middle ages
and of the Received Text are probably in a few cases the
true literary spellings of the time, though not found in
printed editions of other books: but for the most part they
3O4. S/2ZZZAWGS OF 7A/A2 A3 AES 7 A/SS
belong to the “vulgar’ or popular form of the Greek lan-
guage. There has been as yet so little intelligent or
accurate study of the later varieties of Greek that we must
speak with some reserve : but we believe it is not too
much to say that no undoubted peculiarities of a local or
strictly dialectic nature are at present known in the New
Testament. The often used term ‘Alexandrine’ is, thus
applied, a misnomer. The erroneous usage apparently
originated partly in the mere name Codex Alexandrinus,
the MS so called having been for a long time the chief
accessible document exhibiting these forms, partly in the
Alexandrian origin of the Septuagint version, assumed to
have supplied the writers of the New Testament with their
orthography: the imagined corroboration from the exist-
ence of the same forms in Egypt is set aside by their
equally certain existence elsewhere. The term “Helle-
nistic’ is less misleading, but still of doubtful propriety.
It was coined to denote the language of Greek-speaking
Jews: but, though the only extant books exhibiting in large
number these modes of language were written either by
Greek-speaking Jews or by Christians who might have
derived them from this source, the same modes of lan-
guage were certainly used freely by heathens in various
parts of the Greek world. Another objection to the term
“Hellenistic’ is the danger of confusion with the “Hellenic’
or ‘Common Dialect’, that is, the mixed and variable lite-
rary language which prevailed from the time of Alexander
except where Attic purity was artificially cultivated ; a
confusion exemplified in the practice of calling Philo a
“Hellenistic’ writer, though he has hardly a better title to
the name than Polybius.
396. A large proportion of the peculiar spellings of
the New Testament are simply spellings of common life.
In most cases either identical or analogous spellings occur
frequently in inscriptions written in different countries, by
no means always of the more illiterate sort. The Jewish
and Christian writings which contain them are of popular
character : naturally they shew themselves least where
literary ambition or cultivation are most prominent. Many
found in inscriptions, in the LXX, and in some Christian
apocryphal books are absent from the New Testament.
Within the New Testament there is a considerable general
uniformity: but differences as to books and writers are
likewise discernible, and worthy of being noted; thus these
spellings are least frequent with St Paul and the author of
A U7'HEAVZYCA 7'ED BY O 7A/EAE A. V/DEA CE 305
the Epistle to the Hebrews, who are in other respects the
most cultivated writers. te
397, A question might here be raised whether there is
sufficient ground for assuming that the spellings found in
the oldest MSS of the New Testament were also, ge-
nerally speaking, the spellings of the autographs; whether
in short the oldest extant orthography may not have been
introduced in the fourth or some earlier century. Versions
afford no help towards answering the question; and
Fathers not much more, owing to the lateness of the MSS
in which nearly all their writings have been preserved ;
though it is instructive to observe that the better MSS of
some patristic writings shew occasional unclassical forms
or spellings as used by the authors in their own persons
as well as in quotations, while they disappear in inferior
MISS. Although however there is a lack of direct evi-
dence, the probabilities of the case are unfavourable to
the hypothesis of the introduction of such forms by
transcribers of the New Testament. In the fourth and
following centuries, and even during a great part of the
third, a natural result of the Social position of Christians
would be a tendency of scribes to root out Supposed vul-
garisms, as is known to have been the case in the revisions
of the Old Latin as regards grammatical forms as well as
vocabulary. In this matter the Orthography of late MSS
has no textual authority. Like their substantive text, it
is a degenerate descendant from the Orthography of the
early Christian empire, and cannot have survived inde-
pendently from primitive times; so that its testimony to
classical spellings is without value, being derived from
the literary habits of scribes, not from their fidelity in
transmission. Hence, be the spellings of our best MSS
right or wrong, they are the most trustworthy within
our reach. Even if it be taken as a possible alternative
that they originated with the scribes of the second cen-
tury, we must still either follow our best MSS or rewrite
the orthography by blind conjecture. The simpler suppo-
sition that in the main they were transmitted from the
autographs need not however be questioned. The un-
classical forms or spellings of Our MSS were certainly
Current in the apostolic age, as is proved by inscriptions;
and they are not out of keeping with the prevalent
characteristics of the diction of the New Testament: so
that no tangible reason can be given why the apostles
and other writers should not have employed them.
22 -
306 COURSE OF ORTHOGRAPHICAZ CAAAVCE
398. Accordingly in Orthographical variations we have
followed essentially the same principles as in the rest of
the text; allowance being made in their application for
the much smaller amount of documentary evidence, and
for the facility with which all experience shews that accus-
tomed Spellings flow from the pens of otherwise careful
transcribers. Possibly we may here and there have erred
in adopting an unclassical form or spelling. It is still
more probable that the writers of the New Testament
employed unclassical forms or spellings in many places
where no trace of them now exists, and where therefore
their present use could not be justified. Yet we have
taken much pains as to individual details, and given per-
haps only too much time to what are after all trifles,
though in not a few cases there was little hope of arriving
at more than provisional results without a disproportionate
extension of the field of labour. Fortunately in this
matter the individual details are of less consequence than
the general colouring which they collectively produce, and
about the truth of the general colouring here given we
have no misgiving. Even in details a liberal indication
of alternative readings (see § 403) goes far towards sug-
gesting the probable limits of uncertainty.
399. The course of Orthographical change during the
centuries known to us from extant MSS coincided ap-
proximately with that of verbal or substantive change.
But ancient spellings died out much more quickly than
ancient substantive readings; so that the proportion of
MSS containing them is considerably smaller. The evi-
dence as to some of these spellings is complicated by
coincidence with the range of itacism : that is, some of
the rival forms differ from each other only by permutation
of such vowels, including diphthongs, as are also liable to
be exchanged for each other in mere error. Throughout
the uncial period, of which alone it is necessary to speak
here, some licence as to itacism is always present, and in
a few late uncials the licence is gross and extensive : yet
the confusion of vowels, especially in the more ancient
copies, is found to lie within constant limits, which are
rarely transgressed. Thus N shews a remarkable inclination
to change et into t, and B to change t into eu, alike in places
where either form is possible and in places where the form
actually employed in the MS is completely discredited by
the want of any other sufficient evidence or analogy; the
converse confusions being very rare in both, and particu-
te
se e:
• * of ee e -e º e
see º' e e e o e
* * * * > * e & e
o • *ee e_ _e
tº e
OR THOGAEAAEAEI/CAZ / RAE AEGULAA’/7"Y 3O7
larly in B. Hence B has to be left virtually out of account
as an authority against unclassical forms with t, and N
against unclassical forms with et ; while in the converse
cases the value of their evidence remains unimpaired, or
rather is enhanced, allowance being made for the possible
contingency of irregular permutations here and there.
Till the unsifted mass of orthographical peculiarities of
a MS has been cleared from the large irrelevant element
thus contributed by what are probably mere itacisms, no
true estimate can be formed of its proper orthographical
character. When this rectification has been made, it
becomes clear that the unclassical forms and spellings
abound most in the MSS having the most ancient text,
and that their occurrence in cursives is almost entirely
limited to cursives in which relics of a specially ancient
text are independently known to exist.
4OO. To accept however every ancient spelling dif-
fering from the late spellings would be as rash as to accept
every Western reading because it is very ancient. Curiously
enough, but quite naturally, the Western documents are
rich in forms and spellings not found in other documents,
and some few are also confined to documents in which
the Alexandrian text is very prominent. Here again B
holds a neutral place, having many spellings in common
with each class of text. We have as a rule taken only
such unclassical spellings as had the support of both
classes, or of either alone with B. Even where B stands
alone, we have usually followed it for the text, unless for-
bidden by some tolerably strong internal or analogical
reason to the contrary. But in many cases there is no
room for hesitation about the reading, all the best uncials
being concordant. -
401. The irregularity of the extant orthographical
evidence is so great that it would have often been un-
satisfactory to decide on the form to be given to a word in
any one place without previous comparison of the evidence
in all or nearly all places where the same or similar words
occur. Most orthographical variations have been care-
fully tabulated, and the readings decided on consecutively
as they stood in the tables, not as they occur scattered
among substantive readings. Many of the particulars re-
quired were not to be found in the published aftaratus
crific; ; but the labour involved in collecting them has
not been fruitless. Examination of the columnar tables
of attestation, by bringing to light approximate uniformi-
3O8 A Z ZZACAVA ZYVAE SAEAEZZZAWGS’
ties affecting particular books or writers, or collocations of
letters or words, and the like, has often shown that an
exceptional Smallness or largeness of evidence has been
probably due to accident. On the other hand it would be
unreasonable to assume that the same writer, even in the
same book, always spells a word in the same way. Abso-
lute uniformity belongs only to artificial times; and, after
full allowance has been made for anomalies of evidence,
the verdict of MSS is decisive against the supposition.
Absolute uniformity therefore we have made no attempt to
carry out, even within narrow limits; while we have as-
Sumed the existence of Such a moderate or habitual uni-
formity in the usage of the writers as would enable us to
come to a decision for the text in difficult cases. Many
ancient spellings are therefore adopted in individual places
on evidence which might be perilously small if they were
taken alone, and if substantive readings were in question;
but we have printed absolutely nothing without some good
documentary authority. -
402. In some departments of orthography the evi-
dence is so unsatisfactory that the rejected spellings are
but little less probable than those adopted; and thus they
should in strictness be accounted alternative readings.
But to have printed them in the margin along with the
Substantive alternatives would have crowded and confused
the pages of our text beyond measure, without any cor-
responding gain. They are therefore reserved for the
Appendix, in which a few additional remarks on some
Special points of Orthography, especially on some forms of
proper names, may fitly find a place. The alternative
readings thus relegated to the Appendix under the head
of Orthography include not only forms of inflexion, but
forms of particles, as āv or éâv, and variations in the
elision or retention of the last vowel of 'd)\\á and of such
prepositions as end with a vowel. We have ventured to
treat in the same manner variations of the indicative or
Subjunctive after such particles as iva, Čáv, and 6Tav, and
after relatives with āv or éâv.
403. A word may be interposed here on a topic which
in Strictness belongs to Part III (compare $303), but
which it is more convenient to notice in connexion with
Orthography. Attention was called above ($ 399) to the
necessity of making allowance for purely itacistic error
in considering the properly Orthographical testimony of
MSS. But there is another more important question con-
ZIMIZS OF AZACISTIC ERROK 3O9
cerning itacistic error, namely how far its early prevalence
invalidates the authority of the better MSS as between
substantive readings which differ only by vowels apt to be
interchanged. The question cannot be answered with any
confidence except by careful comparison of the various
places in the New Testament which are affected by it.
The results thus obtained are twofold. It becomes clear
that in early times scribes were much more prone to make
changes which affected vowels only than to make any other
changes; and that every extant early document falls in this
respect below its habitual standard of trustworthiness. Read-
ings intrinsically improbable have often a surprising amount
of attestation ; and thus internal evidence attains unusual
relative importance. It is no less clear that the several
documents retain on the whole their relative character as
compared with each other, and that readings unsupported
by any high documentary authority have little probabi-
lity. Where the testimony of early Versions and Fathers
is free from uncertainty, it has a special value in variations
of this kind by virtue of mere priority of date, as the
chances of corruption through such interchange of vowels
as is not obviously destructive of sense are considerably
more increased by repetition of transcription than the
chances of corruption of any other type: but MSS of
Versions are in many cases liable to corresponding errors
of precisely the same kind, and the interpretations of
Fathers are open to other special ambiguities.
4O4. Probably the commonest permutation is that of
o and co, chiefly exemplified in the endings -opiev and -opey,
-ópe6a and -ópe6a. Instances will be found in I Cor. xv.
49, where we have not ventured to reject either popéo-opey
or popéo-opey; and in Rom. v I, where the imperative eipſi-
vnv ćxoptev, standing as it does after a pause in the epistle,
yields a probable sense, virtually inclusive of the sense of
eipijumv ćxopiev, which has no certain attestation of good
quality but that of the ‘corrector’ of N. Another fre-
quent permutation is that of e and at ; likewise exempli-
fied in forms of the verb, especially in the infinitive and
the second person plural of the imperative. Thus in
Luke xiv. 17 it is difficult to decide between "Epxeo 6e and
épxegéat, or in xix I3 between Tpaypareworagóat and IIpa-
'yuateiſgaorée, the infinitive in the latter place being justi-
fied by St Luke's manner of passing from oratio off/ºgata
to oraždo recta. Gal. iv. 18 furnishes one of the few in-
stances in which B and N have happened to fall into
3IO SUBSTAAV7'/VAE 77.4 C/ST/C AA’A’OA'S
the same itacistic error, both reading (m)\odorée where
{m\odoróat , alone has any real probability. Examples
of another type are the Western kauvodovias for kevopo-
vías in I Tim. vi.20; 2 Tim. ii. 16; and the more perverse
confusion by which in Matt. xi I6 the idiomatic Toís Éré-
pots, the other ‘side’ or party in the game played by the
children sitting in the marketplace, appears in the Syrian
text as Tois ératpots with autów added. The interchange
of e and m may be illustrated by juev and jumv in Acts
xi I I, where the best uncials are opposed to the versions;
and of et with m by ei and , in 2 Cor. ii. 9 : less frequent
forms of itacism may be passed over. Lastly, itacism
plays at least Some part in the common confusion of jue's
and juels. The prevailing tendency is to introduce
tiple is wrongly, doubtless owing to the natural substitution
of a practical for a historical point of view, as is seen to a
remarkable extent in I Peter : but there are many per-
mutations which cannot be traced to this cause. The
peculiarly subtle complexity of the personal relations
between St Paul and his converts as set forth in 2 Corin-
thians has proved a special snare to scribes, the scribes
of the best MSS not excepted. Occasionally the varia-
tion between juels and Úple is is of much interest. Thus,
though the limited range of attestation has withheld us
from placing Tuvés Tóv kað’ juás Trotmºtów in the text proper
of Acts xvii. 28, there would be a striking fitness in a claim
thus made by St Paul to take his stand as a Greek among
Greeks ; as he elsewhere vindicates his position as a
Roman (xvi. 37; xxii 25, 28), and as a Pharisee (xxiii.6).
D. 405–416. Breathings, Accents, and other accessories
of #7 inding
405. Orthography deals with elements of text trans-
mitted uninterruptedly, with more or less of purity, from
the autographs to the extant MSS. In passing next from
the letters to the various marks which custom and conveni-
ence require to be affixed to them, we leave, with one
partial exception, the domain of the written tradition.
Whether the autographs contained Breathings, Accents,
and the like, it is impossible to know. None exist in the
earlier uncials of the New Testament, and it is morally
certain that they were not included in transcription
during a succession of centuries; so that, if any existed in
the first instance, the record of them must have speedily
ACCESSORY MARKS NOT TRANSM/ZZZZ) 3 II
perished. The earliest MSS of the New Testament that ex-
hibit breathings and accents are in any case too degenerate
in orthography and in substantive text alike to be followed
with any confidence, even were it possible to regard them
as having inherited these marks from an unbroken succes
sion of ancestral MSS. But in truth they have no au-
thority derived from ancestral transmission at all, the
accessory marks having been doubtless chosen or placed,
when they were first inserted, in conformity with the pro-
nunciation or grammatical doctrine of the time. They are
the expression of a tradition, but not of a tradition handed
down through transcription, nor a tradition belonging to
the New Testament more than to any other book contain-
ing any of the same words. The one exception to this
Statement is made by the conversion of a preceding hard
Consonant, k, T, or T, into an aspirate Consonant, which
thus carries in itself the impress of the rough breathing.
The opportunity for such conversion of course arises only
in duri, diró, Širi, kará, perá, jiró, where the final vowel
suffers elision, in verbs compounded with these preposi-
tions, and in the particle očk. -
4O6. The problem therefore, as limited by the evi-
dence, is to discover not what the apostles wrote, but what
it is likely that they would have written, had they employed
the same marks as are now in use, mostly of very ancient
origin: and the only safe way to do this is to ascertain,
first, what was the general Greek usage, and next, whether
any special usage of time, place, or other circumstances
has to be further taken into account. The evidence at the
command of modern grammarians for this purpose con-
sists partly of the statements or precepts of ancient gram-
marians, partly of the records of ancient grammatical
practice, that is, the marks found in such MSS as contain
marks. To this second class of evidence the later uncials
and earlier cursives of the New Testament make an
appreciable contribution, which has not yet received due
attention from grammarians: but their testimony respect-
ing ancient Greek usage, though it has thus its use, in
combination with other evidence, when marks have to be
affixed to the text of the New Testament, must not be
confounded with a direct transmission of affixed marks
from primitive times. 3.
407. Some few unusual Breathings indicated by aspira-
tion of the preceding consonant occur in good MSS of
the New Testament ; but their attestation is So irregular
3I 2 AA’A.4 ZTAZZAWGS’
that it is difficult to know what to do with them. They are
assuredly not clerical errors, but genuine records of pro-
nunciation, whether of the apostolic age or some other
early time, and have to a certain extent the support of
inscriptions, even of inscriptions from Attica. They seem
to be chiefly relics of the digamma, and are interesting as
signs of the variety of spoken language which often lies
concealed under the artificial uniformity of a literary
standard. The range of good MSS supporting them in
one place or another is remarkable, and in some few
places they can claim a large aggregation of good MSS :
yet in others they receive but little attestation, and usually
they receive none at all. In two or three cases we have
admitted them to the text, content elsewhere to leave
them for the present as alternatives in the Appendix,
where any needful details as to these or other acces-
sory marks will be found. The amply attested reading
oùk éo-rm kev in John viii.44 does not come under the present
head, éorrméev being merely the imperfect of a Tijko, as it
appears also to be in Apoc. xii 4. The sense of an imper-
fect rather than a present is required by the context, which
must refer to the primal apostasy as representing the Jews'
abandonment of the truth into which they were born ; and
there is a fitness in the virtually intensive force (‘stand
fast’) which belongs by prevalent though not constant
usage to 0 rijka). The imperfect of this somewhat rare verb
is not on record : but imperfects are too closely connected
with presents to need separate authority, and multitudes
of unique forms of verbs are known only from single
passages. The aspiration of avrot used reflexively is
discussed in the Appendix.
• 408. The breathings of proper names possess a sem-
blance of documentary evidence in the Latin version and
its presentation of names with or without H. Yet, how-
ever early the first link in the Latin chain may be, it is
evidently disconnected from the Palestinian pronunciation
of Greek, the true object of search. The serious incon-
sistencies and improbabilities contained in the Latin usage
condemn it equally on internal grounds: it is obviously
due rather to unconscious submission to deceptive analo-
gies and associations of sound than to any actual tradition.
The breathings of Greek and Latin proper names can
usually be fixed by the etymology: where this fails, it is
seldom difficult to find direct or indirect authority in coins,
inscriptions, or even early MSS of Latin authors. The well
AAEAA TH/AWGS OF PROAAEAE AWAA/ES 3I 3
attested aspirate of the African Hadrzemelum prescribes
TAotº ‘Aépapuvrmyó, as the name of the obscurer Asiatic
city must have had the same origin. In proper names
transliterated from the Hebrew or Aramaic we have in like
manner exactly followed the Hebrew or Aramaic spelling,
expressing 8 and V by the smooth breathing, and n and n
by the rough breathing. This principle, manifestly the
only safe guide in the absence of evidence, sanctions
"ABeX, "Ayap, ‘Akex8apdx, ‘AAqbatos, Avavias, "Avva, "Avvas,
‘Apéras, “Apupaflata, Eppºp, ‘Evax, Eopºp, Eöa, 'Oormé; also
‘AAAm)\ovuá as well as ‘Qaravvá. In “Ap Mayeóðv, Mount
Megiddo, the common identification of Ap with TJ is ac-
cepted. It is true that the rare form T}, denoting a ‘city’,
is represented in the Ar-Moab of Num. xxi 28; (cf. xxii
36;) IS. xv I, (transliterated by Theodotion in Isaiah,
but by no other Greek authority in either place,) and in
the Aparapuãorata of classical authors, the name of a city
near the sources of the Tigris. But better parallels on
Jewish soil are Supplied by “Ap Tapuśetu, Mount Gerizim,
from two Greek Samaritan sources (PS. Eupolem, ap. Eus.
A. E. ix. 419 A; Damasc. Vºt. Marin. ap. Phot. Biö/.345 b 20
[Tó ‘Apyapićp]; cf. Freudenthal A/ear. Polyhäst, 86 ff.), and
by “Ap Saqbāp, Mount Shaffher, from the LXX of Num.
xxxiii. 23 f. in A and most MSS. The context points to
a “mount’ rather than a ‘city’; and the name Mount
Megiddo is not difficult to explain, though it does not
occur elsewhere. In ‘AAqbalos we follow the Vulgate
Syriac (the Old Syriac is lost in the four places where the
name occurs), which agrees with what the best modern
authorities consider to be the Aramaic original. We have
also in the text accepted the authority of the Syriac for
*Ayagos (from hy): but "Aya&os (from him) is supported
by the existence of a Hagač in Ezr. ii 45 f.; Neh. vii. 48.
In like manner 'Effép, 'E6paios, 'E8país, E6paiort have
every claim to be received: indeed the complete displace-
ment of Eóraeus and Æðrezy by Hebraeus and Hebrezy is
comparatively modern. All names beginning with have
received the smooth breathing. No better reason than the
false association with ispós can be given for hesitating to
write "Iepeptas, Iepetx%, ’IepooróAvpa (-pettme), IepovaaXiju.
409. On the other hand an interesting question is
raised by the concurrence of several of the best MSS
in Gal. ii I4 in favour of otix Iověaikós, the only other
well attested reading ouxi lověaikós being probably a
correction: nowhere else in the New Testament is any
3I4. AOTA A/DSCR/P7' AAWD ACCAEAV7'S
similar proper name preceded by a hard consonant, so as
to give opportunity for aspiration. The improbability
of a clerical error is shown by the reading ody Iow8a
in Susan. 56, attested by at least three out of the four
extant uncials (ABQ), the reading of the fourth (V) being
unknown ; combined with the fact that this is the only
other place in the Greek Bible where an opportunity for
aspiration occurs before a similar proper name. It seems
to follow that, where ºn at the beginning of proper
names was transliterated by Iov- (and by analogy in" by
Io-), the aspirate Sound coalesced in pronunciation with the
semi-vowel. On this view Iověaios and all derivatives of
Iow8as, together with Iopdu and Ioaraqpát, should always
carry the rough breathing. We have however refrained
from abandoning the common usage in the present text.
4IO. The Iota adscript is found in no early MSS of the
New Testament. As the best MSS make the infinitive
of verbs in -ào) to end in -oiv (kataokmvolv Matt. xiii. 32
and Mark iv 32; quoiv I Pet. ii I 5; ditroëekarov Heb. vii
5), analogy is distinctly in favour of allowing the Iota
subscript of Öv and infinitives in -áv. Indeed even in
ordinary Greek the practice of withholding it, which Wolf
brought into fashion, has been questioned by some high
authorities. ‘Hpgjöms is well supported by inscriptions,
and manifestly right: of course its derivatives follow it.
It seems morally certain that the Greeks wrote not only
Tpápa, Úrepôov, but á860s, göv, Öov; and we had good
precedents for accepting these forms. Almost as much
may be said for orđſo (see K.H.A.Lipsius Gramm.
Onſers. 9; Curtius Das Verð. d, griech. Sør. ed. 2. ii 401):
but it had found no favour with modern editors when our
text was printed, and we did not care to innovate on its
behalf then, or to alter the plates in more than a hundred
passages on its behalf now. Once more, authority has
seemed to prescribe eiki, kpupfi, travtaxi, Távrm, Aéðpg.
41 I. Details of Accents need not be discussed here.
The prevalent tendency of most modern grammarians,
with some notable exceptions, has been to work out a
consistent system of accentuation on paper rather than
to recover the record of ancient Greek intonations of
voice, with all their inevitable anomalies: but we have
not ventured on any wide departures from custom. With
some recent editors we have taken account of the well
attested fact that certain vowels which were originally
long became short in the less deliberate speech of later
S V/L/AAR/C ZOA V/SZOAV OA' WO/C/DS 3 I 5
times, and have affixed the accents accordingly (see
Lobeck Parcliff. Diss. vi; Mehlhorn Gr. Gr. 26, 31, 158;
Cobet AW. T. Praeſ li; K.H.A.Lipsius 31 ff.). The example
of C.E.C. Schneider, who usually shews good judgement
in these matters, has encouraged us to drop the unneces-
sary mark or space distinguishing the pronoun ört from
the particle.
412. In the division of words at the end and beginning
of lines we have faithfully observed the Greek rules, of
which on the whole the best account is in Kühner’s Gram-
mar, i 273 ff. (ed. 2). It has been urged that the scribe
of S copied an Egyptian papyrus, on the ground that
some of the lines begin with 61, a combination of letters
which may begin a word in Coptic, but cannot in Greek.
The truth is that 6p, following the analogy of Tu, is a
recognised Greek beginning for lines. It was a Greek
instinct, first doubtless of pronunciation and thence of
writing, to make syllables end upon a vowel, if it was in
any way possible; and the only universally accepted
divisions between consonants occur where they are double,
where a hard consonant precedes an aspirate, or where the
first consonant is a liquid except in the combination uv.
Among the points on which both precept and practice
differed was the treatment of prepositions in composition
as integral parts of a word, in the two cases of their being
followed by a consonant or by a vowel: in allowing di-
vision after Tpés and eis, but joining the final consonant
of the preposition to the next syllable in other cases, even
after orjv, we have been guided by the predominant though
not uniform usage of NABC. In most particulars of the
division of syllables these MSS habitually follow the
stricter of the various rules laid down by grammarians,
more closely indeed than such papyrus MSS as we have
compared with them by means of facsimile editions,
though miscellaneous deviations may occasionally be
found. The rarest of Such lapses are violations of the
rule that a line must on no account end with oùk, oùx,
or a Consonant preceding an elided vowel, as in dir’, odó',
dAN’; in which cases the consonant must begin the next
line, unless of course the separation of the two adjacent
Syllables can easily be altogether avoided. In the case
of compound Hebrew proper names, as BmóNečp, we have
ventured for the present purpose to treat each element as
a separate word. -
413. Quotations from the Old Testament are printed
3 I6 QUOZAZZOAVS AVROM OZZ) ZESTAMAEAV7'
in ‘uncial’ type. Under this head are included not only
passages or sentences expressly cited in the context as
quotations, but sentences adopted from the Old Testament
without any such indication, and also all phrases apparently
borrowed from Some one passage or limited number of
passages, and in a few places characteristic single words.
The line has been extremely difficult to draw, and may
perhaps have wavered occasionally. Words or forms of
speech occurring in either the Massoretic Hebrew alone or
the Septuagint alone have been treated as belonging to the
Old Testament, as well as those which stand in both texts;
and the various readings belonging to different states of the
LXX, as preserved in its extant MSS, have likewise been
taken into account. On the other hand words occurring
in the midst of quotations, and not clearly capable of being
referred to an Old Testament original, have been left in or-
dinary type. A list of references to the passages, phrases,
and words marked as taken from the Old Testament is
given in the Appendix. Hebrew and Aramaic words trans-
literated in Greek, not being proper names, are marked by
spaced type ; inscribed titles and the peculiar formulae
quoted in Rom. X 9, I Cor. xii 3, and Phil. ii II, are
printed entirely in ordinary capitals.
414. The use of capital initials for the most part tells
its own tale; but some explanation is required as to the
exceptional employment of Kúptos and Xptorrós. Wherever
kūpuos is preceded by an article, it is manifestly a pure
appellative, and needs no capital. When the article is
wanting, apart from such phrases as diró 6.e00 Tatpès muáv
kai kvptov Ingoi, Xptoroi, and év kvpig ['Imoroúl, in a con-
siderable number of cases the form is evidently taken from
the LXX, where it usually represents Jehovah (%ahveh),
Adomai, or some other name of God. Direct and in this
respect exact quotations from the LXX, which evidently
throw no light on the usage of the writer who quotes
them, similar direct quotations in which Küptos is not the
word employed in at least existing texts of the LXX,
reminiscences of one or more passages in the LXX, and
detached phrases of frequent occurrence in it (as āyye) os
Kvptov) make up the greater number of these cases. The
only writers who in our judgement employ the anarthrous
Köpuos as a name after the manner of the LXX, but quite
independently, are St James, St Peter, and (in the Apoca-
lypse) St John; and even in reminiscences of the LXX,
or short phrases taken from it, the distribution of this use
SPECIAL CASES OF INITIAZ CAP/ZAZS 317
of Kºptos is strikingly limited. In all these five classes of
passages, which shade into each other, the capital has been
used, because here Köpuos is the equivalent of a proper
name, though it may sometimes contain a secondary allu-
sion to the Greek signification. On the other hand after
careful examination we can find no instance in which the
omission of the article need be referred to the Greek idiom
by which, for instance, j\tos and kócruos are often used
anarthrously, that is, in which küpuos seems to be used
convertibly with 6 köptos. In other words, where the God
of Israel is not intended, the absence of the article is
always accompanied by a directly or indirectly predicative
force in köptos, and a capital initial would certainly be
wrong. Such passages are numerous in St Paul's epistles,
very rare elsewhere.
4I5. The grounds of distinction for Xpwortós and Xptorrós
are different. Here the Greek word exactly translates an
appellative of the Old Testament which was in popular
speech becoming or become a proper name, and in like
manner it becomes at last a proper name itself. We doubt
whether the appellative force, with its various associations
and implications, is ever entirely lost in the New Testa-
ment, and are convinced that the number of passages is
Small in which Messiahship, of course in the enlarged
apostolic sense, is not the principal intention of the word.
The presence or absence of the article is only an imper-
fect criterion, as its absence is compatible with the
meaning “a Christ”, and its presence with limitation to a
single definite person. Adequate representation of the
gradation of use is beyond the power of notation: yet we
could not willingly give support to the perverse interpre-
tation which makes [6] Xptotós a merely individual name,
as we should have done had we used the capital initial
always. In using it where the article is absent (the forms
"Imorows Xptorrós, Xptotôs "Imorows being included), and
avoiding it where the article is present (6 xptorrós Ingots
being included) and in the vocative of Matt. xxvi 68,
we have, we hope, obtained fair approximations to the
predominant force of the word. In I Peter alone it seemed
best to retain the capital both with and without the
article, for fear of obscuring the apparently complex
usage of this epistle. Fortunately both forms throughout
the New Testament are bound together by the common
accent, the oxytone Xpwortós never having been exchanged
for the Xptorros appropriate to a true proper name.
318 AUAVC7'UA 7TWOAV
416. An initial capital has likewise been used for
"Yºruotos in the four places, all in St Luke's Gospel, in
which it stands in the Singular without an article. In this
shape it exactly represents the anarthrous E/ion, a very
ancient name not confined to the Jews, and is virtually
itself a proper name. In the LXX the article is usually
inserted: but in Ecclesiasticus, doubtless a better authority
for Palestinian custom, "Y Vºto Tos occurs frequently, and has
the article but once, except in combination with another
title.
E. 417--423. Punctuation, Divisions of fearſ, and Titles
of Öooſés
417. Punctuation properly includes not stops only,
but spaces at the beginning, middle, or end of lines,
and indeed any notation having a similar effect, that is,
the distribution of words into clauses, and of clauses into
sentences of greater or less complexity. In this sense
probably no MSS are without punctuation, though in the
earlier biblical MSS it is vague and comparatively infre-
quent. Comparison of the punctuation of extant MSS
leads to the conclusion that, though in some places breaks
or stops occur with fair constancy, there has been no
transmission of punctuation of any kind from the auto-
graphs ;. So that whatever punctuation is found is merely
a record of ancient interpretations of unknown authority.
Punctuations presupposed in the renderings of Versions
may often be older, but they have essentially the same
character; and those which are involved in the renderings
or interpretations of Fathers differ only as having usually
the authority, whatever it may be, of known expositors or
theologians. Many interpretations embodying punctua-
tions naturally became traditional within a wider or nar-
rower sphere: but the starting-point of each tradition must
have been an individual act of judgement upon an inherited
text, not a continuously transmitted reproduction of an
Original punctuation as part of a text. Modern editors
have therefore no option but to punctuate in accordance
with the best interpretation that they are themselves able
to arrive at, with ancient and modern aids; and no unwil-
lingness to encumber a text with needless comments can
dispense them from the necessity of deciding a multitude
of subtle and difficult points of interpretation, to be ex-
pressed only by Stops.
GRADUATED SUBDIVISION OF TExz. 319
418. In arranging the punctuation, on which we have
bestowed especial pains, we have followed the example
first set by Lachmann in aiming at the greatest simplicity
compatible with clearness. We fear that we may not
always have succeeded in preserving a strictly uniform
scale of punctuation; but some of the deviations have
been intentional, being made with a view to help the
reader through Confusions or ambiguities. In some cases
of doubt, or of division of judgement, an alternative punc-
tuation has been placed in the margin.
419. Punctuation passes insensibly into the larger
arrangements denoted by paragraphs and Sections. The
Course which we have followed has been to begin by ex-
amining carefully the primary structure of each book as a
whole, and then to divide it gradually up into sections of
higher or lower rank, separated by spaces, and headed if
necessary by whole words in capitals. In the subdivision
of Sections we have found great convenience in adopting
the French plan of breaking up the paragraphs into Sub-
paragraphs by means of a space of some length. In this
manner we have been able to keep together in combina-
tion a single series of connected topics, and yet to hold
them visibly apart. The advantage is especially great
where a distinct digression is interposed between two
closely connected portions of text. We have been glad
at the same time to retain another grade of division in
the familiar difference between capitals and small letters
following a full stop. Groups of sentences introduced
by a capital thus bear the same relation to subparagraphs
as Subparagraphs to paragraphs. The transitions of
living speech are often however too gradual or too com-
plex to be duly represented by punctuation or any arrange-
ment of type. The utmost that can then be done is to
mark those articulations of a book, paragraph, or sentence
which apparently dominate the rest, and to preserve the
subordination of accessory points of view to the main
Course of a narrative or argument.
42O. Passages apparently metrical in rhythm have
been printed in a metrical form, whether taken from the
Old Testament or not; and in the former case fresh
words substituted or added in the same strain have been
dealt with in the same way. We have not thought it ne-
cessary to follow the Massoretic arrangements of passages
from the poetical books of the Old Testament, even in
passages transcribed without modification. In many places
32O A/E7'/º/CAM, AM&A'AAWGAEA/EAV7'S
indeed it would have been impossible, owing to the changes
of form or language introduced in the process of quota-
tion. We have merely tried to indicate probable or pos-
sible lines of Hebraic metrical structure clothed in a Greek
dress, first by assigning a separate line to each member,
and then by expressing the most salient parallelisms
through an artificial ordering of lines. Doubtful cases
however have not been rare; and we are far from Sup-
posing that the divisions and distributions here employed
are exclusively right.
421. The hymns of the Apocalypse shew, strange to
Say, no metrical arrangement of diction, so that they could
be marked only by a narrower column of type; and in
Luke ii I4 the diversities of possible construction led to
the adoption of the same course. On the other hand the
example of Eph. v. I4, which seems to be taken from a
Christian source, has emboldened us to give a metrical
form to the latter part of I Tim. iii 16, the difficulties of
which are certainly somewhat lightened by the supposition
that it is part of a hymn. But we are unable to recognise
in the Pastoral Epistles any other quotations, metrical or
not, such as are supposed by some to be introduced or
concluded by the phrase Tigrós 6 Aóyos. We have been
especially glad to mark the essentially metrical structure
of the Lord’s Prayer in St Matthew’s Gospel, with its
invocation, its first triplet of single clauses with one
common burden, expressed after the third but implied
after all, and its second triplet of double clauses, variously
antithetical in form and sense. Other typographical
arrangements speak for themselves. * .
422. In the order of the different books we have for
various reasons not thought it advisable to depart from
traditional arrangements. We should have defeated Our
own purpose had we needlessly mixed up such disputable
matter as the chronology and authorship of the apostolic
writings with the results of textual criticism, obtained by
different methods from evidence of an entirely different
kind. We have however followed recent editors in aban-
doning the Hieronymic order, familiar in modern Europe
through the influence of the Latin Vulgate, in favour of the
order most highly commended by various Greek authority
of the fourth century, the earliest time when we have dis-
tinct evidence of the completed Canon as it now stands.
It differs from the Hieronymic order in two respects.
First, the Acts are immediately followed by the Catholic
OA'ſ) A.R OF BOOAS 32 I
Epistles. The connexion between these two portions,
commended by its intrinsic appropriateness, is preserved
in a large proportion of Greek MSS of all ages, and cor-
responds to marked affinities of textual history. This
connexion is not sacrificed in the arrangement found in
the Sinai MS and elsewhere, by which the Pauline Epi-
stles are placed next to the Gospels. The Sinaitic order
has the undoubted advantage of keeping together those
books of the New Testament which were most decisively
invested with a scriptural character in the earlier ages.
But there is a manifest incongruity in placing the Acts in
the midst of the Epistles; and moreover, since the choice
lies between what are after all only rival traditions, strong
reasons would be needed to justify us in forsaking the
highest ancient Greek authority, in accordance with
which the Pauline Epistles stand after the Catholic Epistles.
Secondly, the Epistle to the Hebrews stands before the
Pastoral Epistles. It is certainly not satisfactory to
ourselves personally to separate what we believe to be
genuine writings of St Paul from the bulk of his works
by an epistle in which we cannot recognise his authorship.
But no violence has, we trust, been here done to truth in
deferring throughout to the most eminent precedent, since
the Epistle to the Hebrews is on all hands acknowledged
as in some sense Pauline, and St Paul's epistles addressed
to single persons may very well be placed by themselves.
We have therefore been content to indicate the existence of
three groups in the table prefixed to the whole Pauline
collection.
423. The titles of the books of the New Testament
are no part of the text of the books themselves. Their
ultimate authority is traditional, not documentary. In
employing them according to universal custom, we neither
affirm nor question their accuracy in respect of authorship
or destination. In length and elaboration they vary much
in different documents: we have adopted the concise and
extremely ancient form preserved in NB and some other
documents, which is apparently the foundation of the
fuller titles. In prefixing the name EYATTEAEON in the
singular to the quaternion of ‘Gospels’, we have wished
to supply the antecedent which alone gives an adequate
sense to the preposition KATA in the several titles.
The idea, if not the name, of a collective ‘Gospel' is im-
plied throughout the well known passage in the third book
of Irenaeus, who doubtless received it from earlier genera-
23
322 T/7ZES OF BOOKS
tions. It evidently preceded and produced the commoner
usage by which the term ‘Gospel' denotes a single written
representation of the one fundamental Gospel. There
are apparent references to “the Gospel”, in a collective
sense in Justin Martyr, while he also refers to ‘the me-
moirs of the apostles’ as ‘called Gospels’. The difference
in orthography between the title IIPO2 KOAA33AEIS and
St Paul’s words év KoMoororals has too strong documentary
attestation to be rejected : the evidence is fully set forth
by Dr Lightfoot (Col. p. 17), who has arrived independently
at the same conclusion. The spelling Co/assae was in use
at a time subsequent to the apostolic age; and a current
pronunciation might easily fix the form of name for the
epistle, while St Paul’s way of writing was faithfully re-
tained by most transcribers in the text itself.
F. 423, 424. Conclusion
424. In conclusion we desire to express sincere
acknowledgements to Our publishers for the patience
with which they have endured the protraction of this
edition through many long years, and for the considerate
kindness with which they have forwarded our wishes in
various ways. No less acknowledgements are due to the
officers and workmen of the Cambridge University Press
for the equal patience with which they have carried out
a work troublesome in itself, and rendered doubly trou-
blesome by intermissions and revisions. To Dr Tregelles,
had he been still living, it would have been to us a
special pleasure to express Our Sense of the generous
encouragement always received from him. Many friends
have earned our gratitude by help rendered in various
ways. Among them we must especially single out Mr
A. A. VanSittart and the Rev. Hilton Bothamley, to whose
minute care in the examination of the proof sheets the
text owes much in the way of typographical accuracy,
and who have contributed invaluable assistance of other
COAVC/ U.S/ON 323
kinds. A certain number of misprints, chiefly in accents
and breathings, which had escaped notice in the first
or private issue, owe their rectification to notes kindly
furnished by correspondents in England, Germany, and
America. Any further corrections of Overlooked errors
of the press will be sincerely welcomed; with the utmost
desire to secure accuracy, we have learned increasingly
to distrust our own power of attaining it in the degree
to which an edition of the New Testament should
aspire. -
425. It only remains to express an earnest hope
that whatever labour we have been allowed to contribute
towards the ascertainment of the truth of the letter
may also be allowed, in ways which must for the most
part be invisible to ourselves, to contribute towards
strengthening, correcting, and extending human appre-
hension of the larger truth of the spirit. Others assuredly
in due time will prosecute the task with better resources
of knowledge and skill, and amend the faults and defects
of our processes and results. To be faithful to such
light as could be enjoyed in our own day was the
utmost that we could desire. How far we have fallen
short of this standard, we are well aware : yet we are
bold to say that none of the shortcomings are due to
lack of anxious and watchful sincerity. An implicit con-
fidence in all truth, a keen sense of its variety, and a
deliberate dread of shutting out truth as yet unknown
are no security against Some of the wandering lights
that are apt to beguile a critic : but, in so far as they are
obeyed, they at least quench every inclination to guide
criticism into delivering such testimony as may be to the
supposed advantage of truth already inherited or ac-
324. COAVC/ USAOAV
quired. Critics of the Bible, if they have been taught
by the Bible, are unable to forget that the duty of guile-
less workmanship is never Superseded by any other. From
Him who is at once the Supreme Fountain of truth and
the all-wise Lord of its uses they have received both the
materials of knowledge and the means by which they are
wrought into knowledge: into His hands, and His
alone, when the working is over, must they render back
that which they have first and last received.
ež AYTOY Köl Al AYTOY KAI elc AYTON TA TIANTø.
AYTO) H AOżA €IC TOYC &ICONAC.
ÖAMHN.
A PPEN DIX
I. NOTES ON
THE subjects of the following notes
may be classified under four heads.
First, the few peculiarclauses or pas-
Sages, partly Western interpolations,
partly Non-Western interpolations,
which are printed between [I] either
within the text itself or appended
to it (Zºzºrod. § 240 f., 383,384), and
the Western additions and substitu-
tions printed in the margin of the
text between + F in the Gospels and
Acts (Znárod. § 385). Secondly, mis-
cellaneous rejected readings suffi-
ciently interesting to deserve special
notice (Zntrod. § 386). The places
where they occur are indicated by Ap.
in the margin. Thirdly, a few varia-
tions, also marked by AZ., in which
there has been reason for discussing
alternative readings or punctuations
retained in the text and margin.
Fourthly, words or passages, marked
with Af.f. in the margin, in which
One or both of us have been unable
to acquiesce in any well attested
extant reading as right, and ac-
cordingly believe or suspect some
primitive error” or corruption to
be present, whether a probable sug-
gestion as to the true reading can
be offered or not (Introd. § 361–368,
380, 88).
SELECT READINGS
These notes do not form a critical
commentary, though some of them,
taken singly, might properly be so
described in reference to particular
passages. As regards the great bulk
of the readings simply indicated by
Aff., and to a certain extent the
readings enclosed between - H in the
margin, the list might without any
serious difference of purpose have
been made much longer. Perhaps
less uniformity of standard in selec-
tion has been maintained than might
have been desired : but the list was
not intended to have any complete-
ness except in respect of the more
important or interesting readings,
and those of less moment which we
have noticed have been taken in
great measure for their illustrative
and as it were representative cha-
raCter.
Again, as compared one with
another, the notes are written on
a great variety of scale, ranging
from a bare classification of docu-
ments to long and minute discussion
of every kind of evidence. These
deliberate irregularities, though
doubtless sometimes affected by ac.
cidental circumstances, have been
guided by a practical purpose: that
2 AVO 7TES OAV SAE ZAZ CZ' A' A' A DZZVGS
is, in reciting documentary evidence,
we have assumed that our readers
would have access to the apparatus
critici of Tischendorf and Tregelles;
and we have rarely thought it neces-
sary to discuss the claims of rival
readings except where there is still
difference of opinion among com-
petent persons, and the true bearing
of the evidence appears to be as yet
but imperfectly understood. The
frequent indications and occasional
fuller statements of Internal Evi-
dence, Intrinsic and Transcriptional,
will shew, we trust, that the con-
stancy of our eventual adhesion to
documentary authority has been
preceded by careful consideration
of the interpretation of each par-
ticular context, and by attention to
the various influences that might
affect transcription. In this and
other respects the Appendix may
be taken as an illustrative Supple-
ment to the Introduction.
In the short statements of docu-
mentary evidence our chief aim has
been to reduce the confused cata-
logues of ‘authorities’ to some de-
gree of order by means of classifi-
cation. Readings which could safely
be referred to one or other of the
early lines of transmission are simply
described as ‘Western ', ‘Alexan-
drian', ‘ Syrian', ‘Western and
Syrian’ (that is, originally Western
and then adopted into the Syrian
text), and so on. After each of
these designations follows in
brackets a list of the languages in
which the reading is extant, the
several Latin, Syriac, and properly
Egyptian versions being taken toge-
ther under these three heads, and
languages for which the evidence is
uncertain or Suspicious being usually
enclosed in square brackets: where
‘ Gr.’ is followed by square brackets
containing the symbol for One or
two documents (as D in many
Western readings), it is to be under-
stood that there is no other Greek
authority for the reading. The
enumeration of languages is often
followed by specification (“incl.”) of
documents having an exceptional
claim to be mentioned; such as
primary MSS not habitually found
supporting readings of the ancient
text or texts to which the reading
in question belongs, but especially
Greek or Latin Ante-Nicene Fathers,
or occasionally Fathers of later date
but exceptional text, as Cyril of
Alexandria. On the other hand
the dissent of documents which do
often attest readings of somewhat
similar ancestry is frequently noticed
(as ‘not cfsyr. vt’), especially if such
attestation occurs in the immediate
neighbourhood.
A full enumeration of documents
attesting readings referred definitely
to ancient texts is given only where
the adverse testimony of documents
of the same class is considerable, or
there is some other special reason
for completeness. A full enumera-
tion is likewise given for readings
not referred to an ancient text; for
readings adopted in the text itself
where the reading rejected is both
Pre-Syrian (of any type) and Syrian ;
for variations in which the docu-
ments are split by diversity of read-
ing into Several small groups; and
for a few important variations
treated more fully than the rest.
These documentary statements are
intended to be in one sense com-
plete ; no tangible item of evidence
within our knowledge has been ab-
Solutely passed over : but we have
not cared to waste space, and dis-
tract attention from the weightier
evidence, by an exhaustive enumera-
tion of every petty ‘authority', ſol
instance of all late Fathers; and
have usually preferred to gather up
a handful of such virtually irrelevant
ZVO 7A.S OAV SAE ZA, CZ' A&AEA D/AWGS 3
names under a single designation,
such as ppser. With cursives we
have dealt in the same manner,
usually citing by their numbers
those only which have a consider-
able proportion of Pre-Syrian read-
ings, and briefly indicating the ex-
istence of others. Suspicious evi-
dence, such as that of the inferior
MSS of Versions and uncertified and
questionable quotations of Fathers, is
often enclosed in[]. Mereindirectness
of evidence, usually though not al-
ways involving some little uncer-
tainty, is marked with (), a P being
added where there is a more appre-
ciable degree of uncertainty. But
variations and gradations of trust-
worthiness can be only imperfectly
expressed by any notation.
The amount of detail given in
patristic references has varied ac-
cording to circumstances. Standard
pages (or, in certain cases, chapters)
have been systematically specified
for citations loosely or incorrectly
recorded by others, or now first
recorded ; and also,
tently, in many other cases, espe-
cially for the Ante-Nicene Rathers.
In the absence of a reference to
pages or chapters, the book contain-
ing a quotation has been specified
wherever it could affect the cha-
racter or the certainty of the attesta-
tion. For instance the text followed
by Origen in his Comm. on St
Matthew (Orig. Aſt) has a much
more Western character than the
text followed in his Comm. on St
John (Orig. 70). Similarly the quo-
tations of Cyril of Alexandria can
be less relied on when they occur
in books not edited since Aubert's
time, as the Zhesaurus, Glaſ/lyra,
and De Adoratione, the Epistles, and
the Commentary on Isaiah, than
when they occur in the books edited
by the lamented Mr P. E. Pusey,
as the Commentaries on the Minor
w
less consis-
Prophets and St John and some of
the minor dogmatic treatises; and
these again differ in authority ac-
cording to the MSS extant. We
have of course been careful to mark
distinctly the quotations of Greek
writers which are extant only in
Latin or Syriac, and which may
thus come from either of two sources
(/72/7′od. § 220), and also to distin-
guish, when possible, the work of
different translators. But it must
suffice to notice once for all the
complexity of the testimony obtained
from the Armenian translation of
Ephrem's Syriac commentary (or
parts of it) on Tatian's Diatessaron,
now made accessible by Moesinger's
Latin rendering. It is often diffi-
cult to distinguish Ephrem's own
(Syriac) readings from those which
he found in the Syriac Diatessaron;
and hardly ever possible to distin-
guish Tatian's own Greek readings
from Old Syriac readings intro-
duced by his translator.
The following are the chief ab-
breviations used in reference to MSS
and in some cases to other docu-
ments :—‘unc’ uncials; “cu' cur-
sives; ‘al” (after specified cursives)
other (cursives); ‘ alº' six others
(most of these enumerations are only
approximative); ‘alP’ a few others;
‘almu' many others; “alpº' very
many others; “alPl’ nearly all others;
‘albo’ others having good texts or
textual elements; “alopt 'others hav-
ing exceptionally good texts or text-
'ual elements. Hyphens are used for
linking together the cursives (of the
Gospels) 13-69-124-346 and I-1 18-
13.1-209 (see Zntrod. § 2 II), as their
joint authority where they agree is
only the authority of a single com-
mon original.
The notation of Greek MSS here
adopted is that which is now every-
where current, with various slight
modifications. Where however the
4. AVO ZTAES OAV SAE ZAZCZ" A2A2.4/)/AWGS’
same capital letter denotes different
MSS in different parts of the New
Testament, we have distinguished
the MSS containing a second or a
third group of books by the corres-
ponding (“infericr’) numerals, placed
at the foot of the letter on the right
side (see Dicé. of Bible ii 513).
Thus D is the Cod. Bezae, of the
Gospels and Acts; D, the Cod.
Claromozzianzus, of the Pauline
Epistles; G one of the Codd. Wolffii,
of the Gospels, G., a St Petersburg
fragment of the Acts; G3 the Cod.
Aoernerianus, of St Paul's Epistles;
B the Cod. Vaticanus (1209) of most
of the N.T.; B, the much later
and in all respects inferior Cod. Vati-
canus (2066) of the Apocalypse;
L the Cod. Alegius (62) of the
Gospels; L., the late and inferior
Cod. Passione?, of the Acts, Catho-
lic, and Pauline Epistles : and so
with others. For distinguishing the
* hands of the different correctors
of uncials we have followed the nota-
tion introduced by Tischendorf for
N, using *b* ſor the first, second, or
third correctors, in preference to
multiplying asterisks; the hand of
the original scribe being, as usual,
marked with a single asterisk. For
the determination of ‘hands’ we are
of course dependent on the judge-
ment of editors, which must occa-
sionally rest on somewhat ambiguous
grounds. Having occasion to cite
the fourth of the seven fragmentary
MSS combined by Tischendorf un-
der the single letter I (see the clear
enumeration in Dr Scrivener's /72-
£rod.” I22 f.), we have distinguished
it as Id: the portions of the other
MSS should be called Ia Ib I. I. If Ig
respectively.
Some important cursives, hitherto
identified by an irregular and in-
convenient notation, we have ven-
tured to designate by numerals which
have been recently set free. In the
following list the possessors, reputed
dates, and collators of these cursives
are mentioned after the two forms
of notation.
Gospels
81 2P" of Tisch.: St Petersburg:
Cent. X: Muralt
82 Venice: XII :
[Burgon in Guardia/2, 1874, p. 49:
specimen only]
Ioz wēor of Tisch.: Trin. Coll., Cann-
bridge: A. D. I 316: Scrivener
Acts and Catholic AEpistles
44 Burdett Coutts (iii. 37):
XII: Scrivener MS
Io2 kººr of Tisch. (= Io2 of the
Gospels: see above)
IIo asor of Tisch. : Lambeth : XII
or XIII: Scrivener
I I 2 cºor of Tisch. : Lambeth : XV :
Scrivener, from Sanderson
Pauline AEpistles
27 kººr of Tisch. (= Io2
Gospels: see above)
Alectionaries (of the Gospels)
38 x* of Tisch. : Arundel, Brit.
Mus.: IX: Scrivener
39 yºr of Tisch. : Burney, Brit.
Mus. : P XII: Scrivener
59 zºº of Tisch. : Christ's Coll.,
Cambridge: XI or XII: Scrivener
In the notation of Old Latin MSS
we have done little more than at-
tach letters to new documents.
These are, with their reputed dates
and the names of their editors,
of the
Gospels (AEuropean)
j Saretianus (fragg. Lc; Jo.); IV or
V : [Amelli, specimen only]
z Dublinensis (fragg.): [Gilbert,
and Bradshaw MS, specimens
only]
a. Fragmenta Curiensia (LC); V :
Ranke
AVO 7'ES ON SELECT READ/AWGS 5
‘Acts (African)
h Fragmenta Regia : V or VI;
VanSittart
Acts (European)
g Gigas Holmiensis: 2 XIII : Bels-
heim
gº Fragmentum Ambrosianum : X
«S 2 - e
or XI: Ceriani
Catholic AEpistles (? /taliazz)
q Freisingensis (fragg. I 2 Pet; I Jo):
VI: Ziegler
Aauline AEpistles (Italian)
(r. Freisingensis (fragg.) : V or VI:
Ziegler)
r, Freisingensis alter (frag. Phi;
1 Th): VII: Ziegler
73 Gottvicensis (fragg. Ro; Ga):
VI or VII: Rönsch
Apocalypse (African)
J. Fragmenta Regia: V or VI:
VanSittart
Apocalypse (Zate European or
J/aliazz)
g Gigas Holmiensis: P XIII: Bels-
heim.
On me see Introd. § 126; by
sess is meant the Cod. Sessoriazzºts
(A) of the Zestimonia of Cyprian,
cited separately for readings differ.
ing from those of Cyprian and of
the Vulgate. We have assimilated
the notation of the following MSS
of the Gospels to the usual Vulgate
form, since, though usually classed
as Old Latin, they appear rather to
have a Vulgate text with different
Old Latin admixtures (see /introd.
§ 114):- coró(=ff); The (= /); ger,
(=g"); ger, (=g”). The simple
notation f is thus set free for the
important MS usually called fº,
which has no affinity to the MS
called ſº : the ſº of Martianay's
MS of St James may also with ad-
vantage be reduced to f.
Latin Vulgate MSS are desig-
nated in the usual manner. In all
books but the Acts and Apocalypse
(the text being there Old Latin),
gig denotes the Bohemian Gigas of
Stockholm as collated by Belsheim,
and in the Gospels holme the Cod.
aureus Holmiensis as published by
him ; also rushºv the Rushworth
Gospels as collated by Stevenson
and Skeat, and cant the Cambridge
Gospels (Kk 1 24, Lc Jo only, PCent.
VIII), both good specimens of the
‘British ’ type of Mixed texts (see
B. F. Westcott in Dict. of Bible iii
1694). Similarly in Acts seld de-
notes the Selden MS (Bodl. 3418),
for which Mr J. Wordsworth has
kindly allowed us to use his colla-
tion; and in the Pauline Epistles
zzez, the Neville MS in Trinity Col-
lege, Cambridge (B Io 5, PCent. IX).
In most cases however we have not
specified individual MSS in refer-
ring to variations among Vulgate
textS
The Old (Curetonian) Syriac is
denoted by ‘syr.vt’; the Revised or
Vulgate Syriac by ‘syr.vg’; the
Harklean Syriac by ‘syr.hl’, or
where it has accessory readings or
marks (Zntrod. §§ 119, 215) by ‘Syr.
hl.txt”, “syr.hl.mg’, ‘syr.hl.”’, which
explain themselves; and the Jerusa-
lem Syriac by ‘syr.hr', with indi-
cation of differences between the
London and St Petersburg frag-
ments published by Land and the
Vatican MS.
Where more than one Latin ol
Syriac version has the same reading,
‘lat’ or ‘syr’ is not repeated for
each, but a hyphen is inserted, as
‘lat.it-vg’ ‘syr.vt-vg-hr”; but where
all Latin or Syriac versions agree,
they are represented collectively as
‘latt’ or ‘syrr’. For brevity the
version of Lower Egypt is usually
sº
O AVO 7/2S OAW SAE ZA, CZ' A&AEA/O/AWGS
called ‘me’, that of Upper Egypt
‘the ’, and the Gothic ‘go’. The
better of the known MSS of versions
are occasionally distinguished as
codd.opt’. Uscan’s Armenian read-
ings are rarely cited where they
appear to be derived from the Latin
Vulgate (see Introd. §§ 121, 218).
The patristic notation for the
most part explains itself. Some of
the abbreviations noticed above for
Greek MSS are applied mutaſis
malfandis to Versions and Fathers:
thus ‘al’ is occasionally used after
the names of Fathers to denote
unimportant patristic testimonies,
especially those of doubtful but not
early authorship. A “Superior’
numeral affixed to the name of a
Father (as Clem”) denotes the exist-
ence of so many quotations to the
same effect in his extant works, or
in some one work of his if the
numeral is affixed to the name of
the work: but in reference to modern
writers and editors (as Matthaei") a
‘superior' numeral is used to distin-
guish the first second or later edi-
tions. In some of the many cases
in which an ancient author or work
supports, or seems to support, differ-
ent readings in different places it has
been thought worth while to carry
numerical precision a step further,
and indicate the proportion of the
several testimonies: thus ‘Hil 3/5 °
denotes that the reading in question
is attested by Hilary three times,
the whole number of places in which
he has either this or a different
reading being five. -
The mark + denotes the addition
of the words following: < the omis-
sion of the words following: || in-
dicates a parallel passage, || more
parallel passages than one. The
abbreviations ‘ap.’ ‘cf.” are treated
as pure symbols, not as governing a
case. The readings which stand at
the head of each note, and the other
variants contrasted with them, re-
tain the accentuation which they
have, or would have, as parts of the
text itself: thus in the note on Mc
i41 airMayyuuq 0els and Öpytoffels have
the grave accent, because here they
are not independent or strictly final
Oxytones, being treated as fragments
of a clause which runs on continu-
ously to the pause at airó. Places
where a ‘primitive error’ is suspected
are marked with (F). Criticisms for
which one of the editors alone is
responsible are enclosed in [] with
an initial.
We are much indebted to Dr
Wright for the pains which he has
taken in furnishing us with the read-
ings of selected AEthiopic MSS in
an ample list of passages, and for
other similar help ; and also to Mr
VanSittart for the loan of his colla-
tion of some cursives in several of
the Pauline Epistles, and to Dr
Scrivener for the loan of his colla-
tion of 44 of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles.
These explanations will, we trust,
suffice to render the contents of the
following notes intelligible by them-
selves to any careful reader. We
must repeat however that the pri-
mary purposes of the notes are ex-
planation and illustration ; and that,
though they silently correct many
erroneous statements of fact, they
are not intended as substitutes for
the more detailed exhibitions of
documentary evidence attached to
the larger critical editions.
ST MATTHEW
i 8 (Iapóp. 68 €yévvmorev]+ Tów
'Oxoglav, 'Oxoğias 66 €ºyévvmorev Tów
'Iwós, 'Idés 6é éyévvmaſev Tów 'Apa-
Otav, 'Apiaatas Šē éyévvmaſev some
Syriac MSS and writers, and at
least one MS of aeth : D, defective
here, interpolates the same names
in Lc iii, where it replaces the
names of the genealogy between
David and Joseph by the names
given in Mt. The absence of these
three names is expressly attested by
Jul.afr(Cat. Cram.//z.9). From I
Chriii II f.
i I I Igaetas 63 Čyévvmorev]+Tov
‘Iwaketu, Ioakelp. 68 €yévvmgev some
Greek (Cent. X and later) and Sy-
riac MSS, and apparently Iren. 218
by implication, and Epiph. i 2 I f. ,
whose language about a reading
‘‘ of the accurate copies” removed
by “certain ignorant persons' was
probably intended to refer to these
words rather than to part of v. 12:
D, defective here, interpolates toū
* in Lc iii. From I Chriii
I5 f.
i 18 tod óē ['Imaoſ] Xptorroſ)]
(marg.) Tot 3é xptoſto0 ’Ingoû B Orig.
Ac.lat. Hier; and perhaps jo. 15 (i.
eijayye) to 6eto a juïv Ólá Tijs y eve-
geºs Xp to Tot; 'I'ma of Xapá); but
Orig. Ze.gr and again ad loc. (Gal-
land xiv.b 73=Migne vii. 289) has
text, as has also Tat. ZOiaſſ, arm. 20.
< *Imaoû d (D.gr being deſective)
latt.ormn Syr.vt Iren.lat. 191,204 ex-
pressly (though the Greek of 191
as imperſectly preserved by Ger-
manus has Too 6é I. X.) Vita S.
Syncleticae ascribed to Ath. Opp. ii.
7oo Theod, mopS./7tcarn.syr. (p. 52
Sachau, P from Syr.vt) Thphl.cod
pp”: it may be accidental that
Clem. 401 has the phrase Tiju yéveaw
toū Xpua Toij.
A peculiar and difficult varia-
tion. Text, which is much the best
attested reading, is intrinsically im-
probable, the article being nowhere
in the N. T. prefixed to I. X. in
any good MS: indeed its presence
in this position could hardly be re-
conciled with the appellative force
which Xplorós assuredly must retain
in St Matthew, and which is not
lost in the partial assimilation to a
proper name. Moreover the occur-
rence of the phrase yevégea's 'Imaoû
Xptorroſ, in i I could hardly fail to
lead to the introduction of 'Ima'ot,
Xpta toû by scribes in connexion
with h yéveats here. The clearly
Western Too 6é XplorToj on the other
hand is intrinsically free from ob-
jection. [Yet it cannot be confi-
dently accepted. The attestation is
unsatisfactory, for no other Western
omission of a solitary word in the
Gospels has any high probability;
8 AVO 7TA'S OAV SZZ/ CZ" A&AEAD/AWGS
nor was toū 6é Xplotov in itself a
phrase likely to provoke alteration ;
while on the other hand it might
easily arise from assimilation to the
preceding éa's toū Xpta toû. Nor is
the presence of the name 'Imaoû
improbable, as v. 16 shews. The
phenomena can hardly be accounted
for except by a phrase sufficiently
uncommon to provoke alteration,
and containing both 'I'moods and d
Xptatós. These conditions are ful-
filled by Too 6é Xplorod 'Img'où, the
reading of at least B, though here
the authority of B is weakened by
its proneness to Substitute X. 'I. for
*I. X. in the Pauline Epistles. They
would be fulfilled equally by Toč 6é
'[ma'où Toſſ, Xpta toû : but there is no
authority for the second Toij. H.]
ibid. Yéveats] yévvmats Pre-Syrian
(? Alexandrian) and Syrian (Gr. :
vv ambiguous); incl. L and Orig.
loc. expressly (Galland Z. c.). Pro-
bably suggested by éyevvij9m in v.
16: compare also the parallel cor-
ruption of yewéo et into 'yevuºſa'el in
Lc i I4.
i 25 višv] Töv viðv ſawrfis] top
Tpa Tótokov Syrian (Gr. Lat.[it-vg]
Syr. AEth. Arm.); incl. Ath. Ažo//
JEpiph : Töv Tpa Tótokov Tat. ZXiat.
arm. 25. From Lc ii 7.
ii II tot's 6ma'avpot's] Tâs Tipas
Epiph. i 430, IoS5, who calls text a
reading of ‘some copies’. Perhaps
a confusion of the canonical Gospel
with the apocryphal Book of Şames
xxi 3. See on Lc ii 7.
iii. I5 ſize.]+ et cum baptizarefur
(+%sus), Zument ingens circumfulsif
(magnume ſee/gebat) de agata, ifa zed
timerent omizes qui advenerant (cozz-
gregati eraſzé) a (ger.) and apparently
Juvencus: A is defective. Probably
from an apocryphal Source: accord-
ing to the ‘Ebionite’ Gospel cited
by Epiph. i 129 c, immediately after
the voice from heaven, TreptéAappe Tov
TóTov pås pºéya. So Justin Dia/.88
MATT. I 18
kate),65uros toū Imaoſ, Čiri Tô jöop
Kal trüp divāq,0m év Tó ‘Iopóóvº); a
lost Praedicatio Æau//i (auct. Adebapt.
17) stated cum baptizarefur igne”
suffer aquame esse ziisum ; Ephr./Jiat.
arm.43 refers to the light; and the
tradition has left other traces.
iv to ÜTaye]+ 6trioſa, [uov] Wes-
tern and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth.
Arm.); not & Iren.lat Tert. From
xvi. 23. -
v 4, 5] - pakáplot of Tpaeſs K.T.A.
pakdpuot oi Trévôoüvtes K.T.A. H
Western (Gr.[D 33] Lat. Syr.; not
& Tert); incl. (Clem,) Orig. Mº, and
probably Ephr. Diaz. arm.62.
v 22 trós 6 Öpylàevos Tg déexpg
aijrod] + elkºff Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Arm. Goth.);
incl Iren.lat”; Eus. D. F.; Cyp. Text
&B Greek MSS known to Aug cul
lat.vg aeth pp ; SO apparently Just
Ptolem (PIren. 242ſin.) Tert; and cer-
tainly Orig on Eph iv 31, noticing
both readings, and similarly Hier
loc, who probably follows Orig;
also Ath. Aasch. syr. II ; Ps. Ath.
Cast. ii 4 (“so the accurate copies”);
and others. A* is wrongly cited for
omission : the marks taken for can-
celling dots are corrections of two
slips of the pen, and due to the
original scribe.
v 37 val vat, où oël Tô Nat vat kal
Tó Oj od It 59 and some early and
late Greek Fathers. Nearly as Ja v
12. Perhaps from an extraneous
Source, written or oral.
vi 13 ſizz.] + &rt o'où &otiv j 3aat-
Xeta kai j Śēvapºts kai i ööğa els toūs
altºvas. dpi.v. Syrian (Gr. Lat. If ſy
ger, Syr. AEth. Arm. Goth.). Similar
but shorter doxologies are added in
Å (om. 3ao. and j 5óša) theb(the
same, but + m taxis) syr.vt(om. ;)
ööv.). Text NBDZ 1-1 18-209 17 130
lat.vt. pl-vg me pp ; incl. all Greek
commentators on the Lord’s Prayer
(Orig Cyr.hr Greg.nys Max) except
Chrys and his followers (Isid. pel
MATT. VI I3
Thphl Euthym); and all Latin
commentators (Tert Cyp Hil Chrom
Juv Aug &c.), the Off. impey'ſ being
probably a translation. The Dox-
ology stands in full in the Lord’s
Prayer as prescribed in Const. Af.
III 18 2, and apparently also in VII
24 I (see Lagarde 207 f.), though in
the common texts founded on the
ed. Zrinceps # 8aat)\eta is followed
immediately by dpi.v. -
There can be little doubt that th
Doxology originated in liturgical use
in Syria, and was thence adopted
into the Greek and Syriac Syrian
texts of the N. T. It was probably
derived ultimately from I Chr xxix
II (Heb.), but, it may be, through the
medium of some contemporary Jew-
ish usage : the people’s response to
prayers in the temple is said to have
been “Blessed be the name of the
glory of his kingdom for ever and
ever”. In the extant Greek liturgy
bearing St James's name, the base of
which was certainly Syrian, the em-
ôolism, or expanded last double pe-
tition of the L. P., ends with ött
goû &otiv 7) 6aot)\eta kal j Ščvagus
kal ºff 66&a, Toº Tarpès Kai Toij vio'ſ
kal Tov dylov Tveijuatos, vöv kal det,
that is, the Doxology with a doc-
trinal expansion ; and three late
writers cite the liturgical ascription
approximately in this form : one of
them, Euthymius, elsewhere dis-
tinctly describes it as “the conclud-
ing acclamation which was added
by the divine luminaries and masters
of the Church”. The Doxology can
be traced in other liturgies believed
On other grounds to be derived from
that ascribed to St James, or to
have come under Constantinopoli-
tan (= Antiochian) influence; but
apparently in these alone; and the
language of Cyr.hr (Catech. xxiii
18) leaves no doubt that in his time
(about 349) it was absent from the
liturgy of Jerusalem ; as it certainly
AVO ZZS OAV SAE ZAZCZ" R.A.A.ZX/AWGS 9
is from all extant Latin liturgies.
The natural impulse to close the
prayer in actual use with a doxo-
logy (cf. Orig. Orat. 271 f.) is illus-
trated by the parallel Latin doxo-
logy noticed by ‘Ambr.” Sacr. v.
25, £er dominum nestrum Ż. C., in
quo Ziół esſ, calm, quo Zibi esſ, honor,
Jatts, gloria, magnificentia, Žotestas
cum spiritu Sancto a saeculis eſſ azumc
et semper eſſ ºne omnia saecula saecu-
Jorum2 = Amezz: and various embo-
lisms include other ascriptions of
praise. It may possibly be owing
to a reminiscence of liturgical use of
the Syrian or some other doxology
that the elaborate ascription with
which Greg.nys concludes his last
Oration on the L. P. contains j 65-
vapºts kai i ööğa instead of the more
usual # 66éa kai Tô kpótos; though
he certainly treats no such words
as parts of the L. P. itself, as he
must have done had he read them
in the text of Mt. His ascription
has indeed much more in common
with the developed doxology of
the existing Greek liturgies, as
cited above. The ecclesiastical
currency of similar language in
Cent. IV is further attested by E-
piph (Haer. 786; cf. Anc. 42 ; Did.
Z%rizz. iii 2.1 p. 402 ; Caesar. i. 29),
ôpoxoyoovres aſſroº Tô Tàs ei)\oyias
kpótos kai Övö, ÄetroXoytas Špoogev
2% early 7, 6&vapºts, gov Tó kpótos,
orff €attu ?, Tupºff, aſ éa Tuv i ööğa, oº,
éotiv ječ)\oyia, aſ éarly j loºxºs, gº
éo Tuv j 6üvapºts [sic]. There is thus
no improbability in the supposition
that the doxologies in Å and theb
are of independent origin rather
than mutilations of the Syrian text.
The Amerz added by some late
Latin documents which omit the
Doxology proper is certainly inde-
pendent, and its insertion analogous
to that of the Doxology.
Another apparently liturgical in-
terpolation occurs in several Latin
IO AVO 7'ES CAV SZZZCZ" A'AA D/AWGS
Fathers, the addition of 7team ferre
(sufferre) mont possumus to tempta-
tionem : it is not known to exist in
any Latin MS of the Gospel itself.
vi 33 Tâu 8aat)\etav) + Toti 0600
most documents. Others (early
|Pathers) add Tów otpavāv; others
(as A. Cyp”), omitting here, replace
auroo by Too Geoû; me aeth read
aúroß in both places; Eus omits
in both places. Text N(B) ºn ger,
am rhe har!: B transposes (3aot)\etav
and Öukavoortjumv.
vii 13 TNateia] (marg.) + # TVXm
most documents. Text S* lat.vt (not
lat.ser) and many Greek and Latin
Fathers, early and late : D is de-
fective. In 14 j Túxm is likewise
omitted by cu% lat. vt.codd and a
very similar array of Fathers; not
by N* * c for and probably Orig
(see below).
A peculiar variation, the patristic
evidence being unusually discordant
with that of MSS and versions, and
both the patristic evidence and the
primea facie balance of the evidence
of MSS and versions being at
variance with internal evidence.
Transcriptional considerations give
high probability to the composite
reading formed by the omission of
the first 7, TrúX7 and the retention of
the second : unlikely itself to arise
from either the double insertion or
the double omission, it will fully
account for both. The best attested
of the three readings, the double
insertion, is the furthest removed
of all from the whole of the some-
what copious stream of patristic
attestation prior to Chrys among
Greeks and to Amb among Latins.
Till the latter part of the fourth cen-
tury the first j TöX") has no Greek
or Latin patristic evidence in its
favour, much against it; while the
second j triºm differs only by hav-
ing in its favour one or two quota-
tions of Orig, and against it an
MATT. VI 13
ampler list, including some fourteen
quotations or clear allusions of Orig.
The modification which a written
phrase sometimes undergoes in be-
coming proverbial might account
for part of this distribution, buſ
not for its approximate exclusive.
IlêSS.
The first iſ Túxm being then re-
garded as probably not genuine, it
is not necessary to decide whether
it should be interpreted as a ‘West
ern non-interpolation', or, as we
rather suspect, as one of those rare
readings in which the true text has
been preserved by S without extant
uncial support, owing to the excep-
tional intrusion of a late element
into B. (of which some examples
occur further on in this Gospel) or
perhaps to accidental coincidence in
independent assimilation of the two
verses. Under all the circumstances
we have thought it right to retain
7) TüAn in the margin, though there
is little probability of its being
genuine. It was natural to scribes
to set v. I 3 in precisely antithetic
Contrast to v. I4 : but the sense
gains in force if there is no mention
of two gates, and if the contrast in
v. 13 is between the narrow gate
and the broad and spacious way.
vii. 21 ſºn.] +- oëros eigeMeča eral
els Tiju Baot)\etav Tów otpavčv H
Western (Gr.[Ca 33] Lat. Syr.): D is
defective.
vii. 22 Kūpte köpte]+ of T(3 duépart
orov čºpáyopeu ka? [T & Guópati gov]
€ttopaev syr.vt Just Origº Hier Aug”.
Perhaps from an extraneous source,
written or oral : but cf. Lc xiii 26.
vii. 29 ſin.]++ kai ol Papugalot H
Western (Gr. Lat. Syr.); incl. C*
I7 33 al Eus. I/2 ; D is defective.
Probably from Lc v 30.
viii II però 'A3pa&p.] év toſs KöX-
arous [too] 'A. (also eis roºs köXtrovs
''A. and év KöXTºp A.), mostly with
omission of Kai 'Iolašk...ovpavów, cuP
MATT. X 3
Hom. Cl and several Greek Fathers,
most of whom have text elsewhere.
Perhaps from an extraneous source,
written or oral: but cf. Lc xvi 23.
Similarly in Jo i 18 (els Töv kóXtrov)
there is some slight evidence for év
[Tots] kóXTrots, and Erigena ad /.
(p. 502 Floss) has the curious state-
ment “gui est in simu Aatris', zel att
zzº Graeco scribiţur “gui est in simum
Aaſrås' ze/ ‘ 272 sizzzózes A*ažris ': 272
quióusdam codicióus Graecorum sin-
gulariter sinus Patris diciºur, Žiz
quibusdazz pluraliter, quasi sinus
multos Aafer habeat.
viii 12 €k6\möögovtat] - ééeXeta'ov-
Tav H. Western (Gr. Lat.[afr] Syr.)
incl. Sº Heracl Eus. Zheoph.syr Cyp.
1/3 : D is defective : iózent lat.eur-it
Iren.lat Cyp. I/3. ‘. . '
viii 28 Taëapmuðvl Tepaormváv
Western (? Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.); Tepye-
ormvæv Alexandrian and Syrian (Gr.
Eg. Æth. Arm. Goth.). In Mc v I
Tepao muáv is changed to Tepyegºvićv,
Alexandrian (Gr. Syr. Eg. Æth.
Arm.), and Tadapmvóv, Syrian (Gr.
Syr. Goth.); and in Lc viii 26, 37
Tepaormvöv to Tepyeomvöv, Alexan-
drian (Gr. Syr. Eg. Æth. Arm.),
and Tačapmvöv, Syrian (Gr. Syr.
Goth.). Orig. jo. I40, incidentally
discussing the three names on geo-
graphical grounds and without reſer-
ence to difference between the Gos-
pels, rejects Gadara (found by him
‘in a few’ copies) and Gerasa in
favour of Gergesa. Epiph (Haer.
650 BC) assigns Tepyeo muáv to Mc
and Lc (the form of sentence sug-
gesting however that Tepa a muðv was
meant in one Gospel); and Tača-
pmvów, with Tepyeo mudov in ‘some
copies’, to Mt.
There is no need to assume that
all three forms must have found a
place originally in one or other
Gospel. Documentary evidence
shews clearly Tačapmuáv as the true
reading in Mt, Tepa onvév in Mc
AWOTAES OAV SAE/A2CZ" A&AEA/D/AWGS II
and Lc. The Western text simply
assimilates all three variations by
introducing Tepaamvåv in Mt. The
Alexandrian text likewise assimi-
lates all three, but substitutes for
both the original names a name
supposed to be more correct geo-
graphically, and also resembling the
Tepyegafot of the LXX. Thirdly,
the Syrian text in the earlier form
represented by Syr.vg inverts the
Western process by reading Tača-
pmvåv in all three places; though a-
gain the Greek Constantinopolitan
form of it adopts in Mt the Alexan-
drian Tepyegmvæv: Chrys, strange to
say, avoids using any name in dis-
cussing the narrative, but in the
next Homily (342 C) speaks retro-
spectively of Töv čv Tačápots. In
Lc Tepyegmvów has an exceptionally
good attestation, though of a dis-
tinctly Alexandrian colour, and
might claim a place as an alterna-
tive if v. 26 stood alone: the fuller
evidence however preserved in v. 37
is decisive for Tepaoºwdov.
ix 15 vugſbövos] + v vpºtov H Wes-
tern (Gr. [D] Lat. Eg. Æth.
Goth.). From the following &
vvpºptos, through failure to under-
stand the Jewish phrase.
x 3 6aôöalos] + Aeggatos H (also
spelt Aega?0s) Western (Gr.[DCu!]
Lat. Syr.[hr. cod]): the Latin autho-
rity seems to be African only, Å
codd.a.p.Aug. Text NB I 7 124 c
corð vg me the Hier. Joc(apparently).
In Mc iii 18 AeS6aſos is likewise a
Western (Gr.[D] Lat.) corruption of
Gaëöaſos, these being the only two
places where either name occurs.
The clearly defined attestation is
unfavourable to the genuineness of
Aegga?os in either Gospel. This
name is apparently due to an early
attempt to bring Levi (Aevels) the
publican (Lc v 27) within the
Twelve, it being assumed that his
call was to apostleship; just as in
I 2 AVO 7TA'S OW SEZAZC 7' A' FAA)/AWGS
Mc ii 14 Aevels is changed in
Western texts to 'Idkø90s because
Töv Toj ‘AAqbatov follows, and it was
assumed that the son of Halphaeus
elsewhere named as one of the
Twelve must be meant. The differ-
ence between the two forms of the
name would be inconsiderable in
Aramaic, Zewi and Zevi or Leôi
or /.ebbi ; and Aegóatos might as
easily represent Zebbi as 6aščaſos
Zhadaſi. Indeed the identity of
Levi and Lebbaeus, evidently rest-
ing on the presumed identity of the
names in Greek, is implied in a re-
mark of Orig quoted on Mc iii 18,
and in a scholium (best given by
Matthaei" on Mc ii 1.4) which may
be ultimately derived from a lost
comment of his.
Another Western substitute for
0a06a70s is jºudas Zeloſes, a well
supported Old Latin reading (a & J.
and Mixed MSS), found also in the
list in the Roman Chronography
of 354, p. 64o Mommsen. "Jude is
evidently introduced for assimila-
tion to the list in Lc (vi 16). The
addition of Zelotes is probably due
to a punctuation of Lc's text which
might not seem unnatural if no
connexion of sense were recognised
between Kavayatos and Kºmka,Tºffs,
Töv ka)\oºpepov Zm?\@Tàu being de-
tached from Xipºwva and prefixed to
ka? 'Iow8av Iakó8ov, “him who
bore the names Zelodes and Judas
Şacobi’. Conflation of this reading
with lat.vg produced the curious
Thazheets Zeloſis of 7-atshºw.
The Syrian reading Aegga?os Ó
étruk\)0els ēačöaſos (Gr. Syr. AEth.
Arm.) is a conflation of the true and
the chief Western texts. The two
names having been preserved and
applied to the same apostle in Mt,
it was apparently thought Superflu-
ous to repeat the process in Mc.
By a further conflation 'Iolºšas Ó
kat is prefixed in 243. The two
MATT. X 3
principal names change places by
another conflation in 13-346.
x 23 peºyeTe els Tāv čTépavj--- kāv
ék Tattºns àudºkawa w śpºds, peºyere els
Töv čN\mu H Western (Gr. Lat. Arm.),
with much variation; incl. Orig. Cels;
Mará; }os.lat. ruf; Tat. Diaſ.arm.
94. A natural continuation, pro-
bably suggested by étépav, which
in many documents, whether in-
dependently or under the influence
of the interpolation, is altered into
&\\mu.
x 42 &troXéa m Töv pug 60V] + diró-
Xmtat 6 p.a.0ós H Western (Gr.[D]
Lat. . Eg. Æth.). Cf. Sir ii 8,
où pº Trata m 6 pºtoºs at Tóv.
xi 19 pygov] Tékvav Western and
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. P Arm.
Goth.). Text NB” MSS known to
Hier I24 Syr.vg-hl.txt me aeth
arm. Codd Hier. From Lc vii 35,
where conversely S introduces épywy
from this place. - -
xiii 35 Too Tpopfftov] (marg.)
'Ha'atov Tod Tpoq àTov Sº I 13-124-
346 33 253 rushºv aeth.cod. Hom.
Cl Porph (ap. Brez. Psalt, in
Hier. Oft. vii.270 Vall.). According
to Eus. As.1xxviii.fi/. ‘some, not
understanding’ that the ‘prophet’
intended by Mt was Asaph, “added
in the Gospel àud, 'Horatov roſ, Tpc-
ºpátov: but in the accurate copies”,
he proceeds, “it stands without
the addition Övö, 'Horatov [sic], sim-
ply thus &c.”; a loose condensation
of Eus in Cord. Cat. Ps. ii 63 I sub-
stitutes ‘ancient’ for ‘accurate’.
Hier. Joc. says that he had read
'Horatov “in some MSS’, and sup-
poses that afterwards, since the
passage was not found in Isaiah, the
name a prudentiºus ziris esse sub/a-
£um. He further conjectures that
'Aoſdá was the original reading, un-
intelligently corrected into 'Horatov.
The Brez. inz Ps. states definitely
that 'Aadq, was found ‘in all old
MSS’, but was removed (Zulerunt,
MATT. XVI 2 I
Psilstulerunt) ‘by ignorant men’;
that by an error of scribes ‘Haſatov
was written for 'Agdºp; and that at
the time of writing (usque hodie)
many copies of the Gospel still had
'Horatov. This is perhaps only an
exaggerated reproduction of Jerome's
account; but the unknown author
or compiler must have had some
other authority for at least the refe-
rence to Porphyry and for some re-
marks which follow. Possibly both
he and Jerome may have used some
lost passage of Eus written in reply
to Porphyry. No extant document
is known to have 'Aadq). -
[It is difficult not to think
'Haſatov genuine. There was a
strong temptation to omit it (cf.
xxvii. 9; Mc i 2); and, though its
insertion might be accounted for by
an impulse to supply the name of
the best known prophet, the evi-
dence of the actual operation of
Such an impulse is much more
trifling than might have been an-
ticipated. Out of the 5(6) other places
where the true text has simply toº
Tpoºfirov, in two (Mt. ii 15 [Hosea);
Acts vii 48 [Isaiah]), besides the
early interpolation in Mt xxvii 35
[Psalms], no name is inserted; in
two a name is inserted on trivial
evidence (Mt ii 5, //ica/, rightly,
and Zsaiah [by a wrongly ; xxi 4,
Asaiah and Zecharia/, both rightly
[Zech by lat. Vt]); and once (Mt i 22)
Zsaiah is rightly inserted on varied
Western evidence. Also for the
perplexing 'Iepepatov of xxvii. 9,
omitted by many documents, 7%e
has 'Horatov. Thus the erroneous in-
troduction of Isaiah’s name is limited
to two passages, and in each case
to a single Latin MS. On the other
hand the authority of 7-ushºv and
aeth is lessened by the (right) inser-
tion of 'Horatov by one in Mt i 22,
and by both in xxi 4. The adverse
testimony of B is not decisive, as it
AWO TAES OAV SZZZC 7" ſº ÆAZO/AWGS I3
has a few widely spread wrong
readings in this Gospel. H.]
xiii 55 "Iwo hºp] 'Iwo fis Syrian (Gr.
Syr. Arm.); also ‘A z**', but?%sef
(f for ſ), the form elsewhere used by
A. Probably from common use, sup-
ported (in the gen. 'Iwo firos) by
Mc vi 3 ; XV 40, 47. Another an-
cient reading here is ‘Iwdvvms, pro-
bably from the familiar combination
of James and John : Some Latin
MSS combine this with text. For
both the brother of the Lord and
the brother of James the Less Mt
here (and probably xxvii. 56) uses
'Iwo ſº, Mc (u07 sup.) the Graecised
form ‘Iwańs. The Syrian tendency,
apparently shown also in Acts iv
36 (cf. i23), was to introduce ’Iajahs,
the Western to introduce ’Iwo-hºp.
xv. 30(t) XaXots, kvXX00s, TvøNoüs,
kwſpot's] The documents shew great
diversity of order among the words,
partly due to the influence of v. 31.
No single order is supported by
more than a small amount of evi-
dence. Not being able to arrive
at any safe conclusion, we have
printed the order of B, and prefer
marking the reading as uncertain
to affixing a series of alternatives.
Possibly one of the words should
be omitted. . .
xvi 2, 3 ['Opias—óðvao 6eſ <
NBVXI “most MSS’ known to
Jerome 13-124 157 al” Syr.vt me.
cod arm Orig. loc. Text Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.
AEth.). Both documentary evidence
and the impossibility of accounting
for omission prove these words to
be no part of the text of Mt. They
can hardly have been an altered
repetition of the || LC xii 54, 55, but
were apparently derived from an
extraneous source, written or oral,
and inserted in the Western text at
a very early time. - -
xvi. 21 'ima offs Xplorës] o 'Imaoûs
most documents, including Orig.
24
I4 AVO 7TAZS OAV SAE ZAZ C7' A2AA /)/AWGS
/oc?; 'Inao.3s D ; omitted by 8° and
some Fathers. Text N*B me. The
high though limited attestation of
text is sustained, and the prima
facie presumption against it as at
variance with the usual language of
the Gospel narratives is removed,
by the absence of erroneous intro-
ductions of I. X. elsewhere in the
Gospels (see on i 18), by the want
of apparent motive for introducing
it here and the facility with which it
would be changed to the commoner
form, and above all by the special
fitness of I. X. to mark the begin-
ning of the second half of the
Ministry. The introductory phrase
'ATö Tóte ºp$ato is used in like
manner in iv 17 to introduce the
first half of the Ministry, and occurs
nowhere else in the Gospel; while
the double name could not well be
used in narrative till the climax of
the Ministry had been reached, as it
is in xvi I 3—20.
xvii 12, 13 oita's—airów. TóTe—
aúTots.] TóTe—attoºs. otita's—gºrów.
Western (Gr. Lat.): the omission of
oùrws — airóv by Just. Zia!.49 is
doubtless owing to the context.
Probably due to a wish to bring
together the sentences relating to
John the Baptist.
xvii 20 ſin.]+ (v. 21) Toñto 63 rô
ºyévos ojk ékTopečet at el pºſſ év
Trpoolev)&m kai vºma Teig Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.]
Arm.); incl. Orig. loc. Text S*B
33 e coró Syr.vt-hr” me cod the
' aeth Eus. Cazz. Though earlier than
Origen's (mainly Western) MS,
this interpolation from | Mc ix 29
can hardly belong to the earliest
Western text, being absent from
the African e and from syr.vt, and
being subsequent to the interpola-
tion of kal uma Teig into Mc’s text.
It occurs with much variation:
daemonzii is a well attested Latin
addition to yévos ; the verb is
MATT. XVI 2 I
ékóóXXétat in N* latt. Omn Ps. Ath
(not D Syr.vg Orig./oc); Tpogeux'ſ
and vºma Teig are inverted in vy and
Orig. loc.lat; &c. -
xviii Io ſin.]+ (v. II) ºx6ev yºp
6 viðs toū āvöpétrov adja at Tô diroNø-
Aós. Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. [Eg.] Arm. [AEth.]). Text
NBL* I* 13 33 e cord syr.ht.vat me
the aeth. cod Orig. loc(almost certain-
ly, if the Latin is taken into account)
Eus. Cazz. Interpolated either from
Lc xix Io (a different context) or
from an independent source, written
or oral. Various secondary docu-
ments insert {ntmo at Kai from LC.
xviii 20 appears in D as ović elaiv
'yūp 600 m Tpets ovvmygévot els Tô &uðv
ôvopa trap' ois owk elui (elpet) év
péoºp at Tóv.: geri adds to text an a-
bridged form of the same. Western.
Probably due to a misreading of the
initial OY as ow.
xix. 16 Atódio KaNe] + &yc.06 Pre-
Syrian and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Rg. Arm.). Text SBDL 1 22 al”
a e coró aeth Orig, loc Hil./oc. From
| Mc x 17; Lc xviii 18. With this
variation may be taken the follow-
ing
17 Ti pſe éporá's Tepi Tod dya ('où)
Ti we Xéyéus dyadév Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. Eg.). From | Mc x 18; Lc
xviii 19.
eis éotiv 6 dyabós] oiâels áya.06s
et pºſſ eis Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.
AEth.). From | Mc x 18; Lc xviii
IC).
*Also + 6 beós Western and Sy-
rian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth.).
Text NBDL I 22 a (e) syr.hr arm
Orig. Joc. From | Mc x IS ; Lc
xviii 19. Also + 6 Tatip [wou á čv
Tots owpavo’s], variously modified,
e and, without reference to any
particular Gospel, several ancient
writers (Just Hom.CI Ptolem Mar
cos Naass Clem Orig Tat. Diaſ.
169, 173 &c.). Similarly d Tatip
is found in arm.codd in Mc and
MATT. XXI 28–31
Lc, and in d and Marcion in Lc.
Probably from an independent
source, written or oral. -
The earliest of these corruptions
are the additions of dºya.0é and Ó 0eós,
which are supported by most, not
the best, lat.vt.codd and by Syr.vt
and me (these last omitting dyadów,
so as to retain dy. Once only), not
however by any good uncial except
C: even here text is sustained by the
best Greek and (a e coró Hil and a
[e] Latin evidence, as also by aeth
in v. 16 and Syr.hr arm in v. 17.
The other more important changes
apparently date only from the Syrian
revision. Orig./oc has text through-
out, and expressly vouches for Tt pe
épatós rept Tov dyaboij (and perhaps
what follows) against the reading of
Mc and Lc. The other early quo-
tations (as Just Marcos) may come
from any Gospel or from more than
OIl62.
xix 19 kal &yatthaeus...&s geavrów
< Syr.hr.vat (not lond). Orig. loc
expresses a strong doubt whether
this clause is genuine, appealing to
its absence in Mc and Lc, and re-
garding it as inconsistent with v. 21.
Apparently the doubt was not Sup-
ported by any manuscript authority.
The reading of syr.hr might easily
arise from the omission in || Mc
x 19 ; Lc xviii. 20.
xx 16 ſin.]+ + troX\ol yáp eigly
k\mtol 6\{yot 6é ék\ektoi. F Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [AEth.]
Arm.); incl. Orig./oc. Text NBLZ
cu' me the aeth.cod. From xxii 14,
the close of a similar parable.
xx 28 ſizz.]+ Jue's 6é ºnteſte ék
pukpot (uetkpov) aušma at Kai ék pet-
{ovos éNarrow eiwat. eigepyópevot Öé
Kai Tapak\mbéutes 6ettvågal pººl diva-
k\lveoffe (-eived 6al) els Toys ééxov-
tas Tótrovs, pºſſ trote évôošárepós a ov
étréA9m kai Tpoa ex0&v č Šetirvok\#Tap
eūrm got "Etv Káro X&pet, kal Katat-
oxvyóho m. Édv 6é àvatéons eis Tèv
zesponderuzzi ei Zła,
AVOTES OAV SZZZCZ" A.A.A.D/.VCS I5
#Trova Tótrov Kal étréA0m gov #rrow,
épét got 6 Öettvok\frap X\ſuaye ār,
divoj, Kai éo Tat Got Touro Xpija upov.
Western (Gr.[D] Lat. Syr.). The
first part only, Upſets—eival, is pre-
served in 72 ger, and apparently Leo
(he quotes no more); the second
part only, eloep):6pevot to xpfiguov,
in ger, and apparently Hil. Alſt. The
first part must come from an inde-
pendent source, written or oral;
the second probably comes from the
same, but it is in substance nearly
identical with Lc xiv 8—Io.
xx 33 fizz.]+ Quibus dixit 7esus
Creditis posse ºne hoc facere 2 qui
Zomine c,
+ ‘ and we may see
from ix 28.
Zhee” syr.vt.
xxi 12 Tô lepôv] + 4 Toº 6eoû H
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.);
incl. Orig./oc. Text NBL I3 33 al
& syr.hr me the arm aeth Orig.jo
(giving the whole context in each
Gospel) Chr (PHil). Probably sug-
gested by Mal iii I in connexion
with the context, though the word
there in the LXX is vačv : tepôv is
hardly at all used in the LXX pro-
per, but 2 Esd (Apocr.) v 43,54 has
Tô iépôv Tow 0éoù, which cannot have
been a rare phrase: Ó vaôs Too 6eoû
occurs in several places of the N.T.,
including Mt xxvi 61, whence a
wide range of Western (not Greek)
documents imports toū 6.e00 after
Töv vačv into xxvii 4o. The absence
of T. 6. ſrom | Mc xi 15; LC xix 45
(cf. Jo ii I4) at all events cannot
weigh against the overwhelming do-
cumentary authority for omission.
xxi 17 ſizz.] + et (ióigate) docebač
eos de regno /Je; some Mixed Latin
MSS. Cf. Lc ix. I 1.
xxi 28–31. Combinations of two
principal simple variations, the pla-
cing of the recusant but at length
obedient son first or last, and the
reading of ‘first' or “last’ in V. 31,
here make up a termary variation
16 AWOTES ON SEZFCZ' KAAA)/AWGS MATT. xxI 28–31
consisting of the three following
readings:
a (text), this son last, with Wate-
pos; so B 13-69-124-346 al” latt.ser
syr.hr me aeth.codd arm Ps. Ath.
and apparently Isid.pel and Dam :
8 (Western), this son first, with
(ja Tepos or) éaxatos; so D lat. vt-vg
Hil: -
'y (Pre-Syrian [PAlexandrian] and
Syrian), this son first, with TpóTos;
so SCLX cett lat.codd syr.vt-vg-hl
[aeth] Eus Chr (apparently Cyr.al)
Hier: -
also Hipp has #axatos (a or 8);
Orig.loc has this son first (? 3 or y).
It will be seen that both a and y
are easy and harmonious; while the
intermediate arrangement 8, agree-
ing with y in order and virtually
with a in the final word, involves a
patent contradiction. Transcrip-
tional evidence, if taken alone,
would thus suggest the originality
of 8, both as the only difficult read-
ing and as easily explaining the
existence of a and y as divergent
corrections: but the intrinsic diffi-
culty is excessive and the document-
ary evidence unsatisfactory. It re-
mains that 8 must owe its interme-
diate character to its having formed
a middle step either from a to y or
from y to a. Both a and y are well
attested : but the group supporting
a is of far the higher authority, and
moreover the best documents sup-
porting y incur distrust in this pas-
sage by Supporting also the manifest
correction ou for otöé in v. 32.
The Western alteration of a to 8
is strange at first sight, but, on the
assumption that there is no inter-
polation in v. 31, a remark of Hier
ſurnishes a clue to it: sº attlem
novissimum Zolateriments legeze, mani-
festa est interpretatio, zet dicamus
intellegere guidem zeritateme judaeos,
sed tergizersari et molle d'icere quod
, senſiumſ, sicut et bağdismatſ/t 7'oannis
scientes esse de caelo dicere ſtoluerunſ;
referring to what he had said on
v. 27, iſ/? in ea quod nescire se re-
sponderant mentiti sunſ.' ... ex quo
ostendić et illos scire, sed respondere
zzolle, et se 7zosse, eſſ ideo 7207, dicere
guia iſ/: quod sciuſzé faceant, et
statiſm inſert parabolam, &c. The
interpretation of v. 3 I suggested by
Hier may well have been taken for
granted by others before him : by
a not unnatural misunderstanding
Christ’s words ‘Apºv Aéya, pºv
K.T.N. might be assumed to have
been said in contradiction and re-
buke of the preceding answer of the
Jews, which would accordingly be
taken as a wilful denial of the
truth, and thus appear to necessi-
tate an inversion in vv. 28–30 :
considerable transpositions occur
elsewhere in Western texts, and the
order introduced here might seem
to be borne out by the order of the
second and third clauses of v. 32,
assumed to be together an expansion
of the first clause. The same some-
what obscure verse illustrates the
Western licence, for où is inserted
by lat.vt.omn between Toč and
Two-Teja'at, and ováé is omitted by
D c e, both changes being due to the
misinterpretation of Too (lat.vt. omn)
Quod [non] credidistis. "Eaxatos,
naturally opposed to Tpótos, is
apparently a Western correction of
jørepos (B), which is used - but
twice in the LXX, being replaced
by Éo Xatos even in such contexts
as Deut xxiv. 3: the fact that movis-
simzes in both places and in I Ti iv. 1
represents Úatepos shews that ver-
sions must on this point be treated
as neutral. - * . . .
The subsequent alteration of 6
to y by the simple substitution of
Troöros would easily arise from a
sense of the contradiction which 3
presents on the assumption that the
Jews' answer was meant to express
MATT. xxiv. 36 AWOTES OW SEZZCT RAEA D/AWGS I7
the truth, provided that a happened
iot to be known to those who
made the alteration. Thus the third
reading would in effect be equiva-
lent to the first, with the difference
that against all biblical analogy it
would make the call of the Jews on
the larger scale, and of the chief
priests and elders on the smaller,
to follow after that of the Gentiles
and of the publicans and harlots
respectively.
Lachmann in the preface to his
vol. ii (p.v) treats the Jews' answer
as an early interpolation, together
with the following words Xéyet
aijto's 6 'Imaojs.
moved by the difficulty which it
occasions in conjunction with the
Western order, which he had adopt-
ed: but he points out that Origen's
commentary (pp. 770 f.) contains
no reference to anything said by the
Jews. [Considering the difficulty
of the Western combination of read-
ings it seems not unlikely that Lach-
mann is substantially right; in which
case the Western change of order
would probably be due to a retro-
spective and mechanical application
of Tpodyovo v. W.] Lachmann
weakens his suggestion however by
including Xéyet attois à 'Imaoûs in
the supposed interpolation: this
phrase might easily seem otiose if it
followed immediately on words of
Christ, and might thus be thought
to imply the intervention of words
spoken by others.
xxii 12 ‘Eraſpe] - Orig.loc. A
Scholium preserved in a few cursives,
and probably derived from some lost
passage of Orig, states that ‘ETaipe
was found “in a few copies”.
xxiii 14 ſin.]+ (v. 13) Oſſal öpſu,
'Ypappareſs Kal Paptoratot jirokpurat,
ðTu katea fliere Tús oikías Tów Xmpôv
kal Tpoºãoet wakpā, Tpoo’evXópevow:
ôté, Toàro Añupeg 6e Treptorgörepov
kplpa. Western (Gr. Lat. Syr.).
He was doubtless
Adapted from Mc xii 4o; Ic xx 47.
Retained by the Syrian text (Gr.
Lat. [f] Syr. [Eg.] AEth.) before v.
I4, with a transference of the 6é
from v. 14. Text NBDLZ 1-1 18-
209 28 33 (? 346) a e coró vg me.
cod the arm Orig. 9 o'; loc.lat Eus.
Cazz Hier./oc. .
xxiii. 27 of rives éé@6ev påv patvov-
tat dºpatov čawā'ev 6é yépovolvi čoffew
Ö Tápos (patvétat (-Te) dºpatos éga,0ev
ôé yéuet (-pºt) Western, D. Clem
Julian Iren.lat. Probably from an
extraneous source, written or oral.
N* Onits of Tuves.
xxiii 35 viot, Bapaxtov] → S." and
at least 4 cursives, three of them
lectionaries. Eus cannot be cited
for this reading, though he three
times omits the words; /). Æ. 385,
where he throughout combines the
texts of Mt and Lc, taking most
from Lc; ió.445; and 7%eoffh.gr.
(Mai M. P. B. iv. 125); both the quo-
tations in these last places being con-
densed and allusive, and each of them
containing a characteristic reading
of Lc: in neither of the three places
does he refer expressly or implicitly
to either Gospel in particular. The
last passage, which seems genuine,
is not found in the Syriac Theophania
(iv. 14): but in another place of the
Syriac version (iv 17), where xxiii
33–36 are quoted at length, the
words are retained. They are found
also in Orig. ſoc; Afric and Iren.lat.
Omitted in || LC xi 51. Jerome
states that in the Gospel used by
the Nazarenes the words were re-
placed by ſilium joiadae.
xxiv. 36 otöé à viós]<(? Alexan-
drian and) Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Eg.). Text S***BD 13-124-346 28
86 lat.vt-vg.codd syr.hr aeth arm
Orig. loc.lat(distinctly by context)
Chrys Hil.loc. Op.imp.loc. Jerome
states the words to be present in
“certain Latin MSS’’ but absent
from “Greek copies, and especially
I 8 AVO 7'ES ON SEZAZCT RAEAD/WGS MATT. xxiv. 36
those of Adamantius and Pierius”,
and then comments on them as
occurring “in some”, i.e. apparent-
ly some Greek MSS. Ambrose (De
ſide v 1.93), evidently referring to Mt,
though he seems to include Mc (in
whose text the words stand in all
documents except X vg.cod), says
that “the old Greek MSS ’’ onlit
the words. Bas, Did, and some
later Greek Fathers notice the words
as absent from Mt though present in
Mc. Several Fathers, from Iren
onward, refer to ováé à viós without
shewing whether they had in view
both Gospels or one only : this is
the case in most of the places where
Cyr.al discusses the words; but one
of them is said to come from his
Comm. on Mt (Mai AV. P. B. ii 482),
and two others follow closely upon
comments on v. 29 of this chapter
(Zech. 8oo D; //o/l. in Mai Z. c.
481 = Pusey v 469).
The words must have been absent
from many of the current texts of
Mt by the middle of Cent. IV; but
the documentary evidence in their
favour is overwhelming. Although
assimilation to Mc would account
for their presence if the attestation
were unsatisfactory, their omission
can be no less easily explained by
the doctrinal difficulty which they
seemed to contain. The corruption
was more likely to arise in the most
freely used Gospel than in Mc, and
having once arisen it could not fail
to be readily welcomed.
xxv I toº vupºtov) + - Kai Tàs
včuqºms H Western (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Arm.). -
xxv 41 Tö Tüp Tô alôvtov] Tô aſkó-
ros rô éðrepov Just Hom.C1 and
several Syrian and other late Fa-
thers (Dr E. Abbot), by a confusion
with v. 3o; vi. 23; viii 12: also 4o”
Chri al (Dr E. Abbot) combine the
phrases in the form Tô Tüp Tö &re-
pov. In v. 46 kóAaolu is variously
altered in lat.vt, becoming ignem
(a & cºff / coró al) by confusion with
v. 41, ambustionem (Cyp Aug), and
combustionem (Aug Fulg Prom); but
it is preserved in (d with D) ger,
Junil (poenam) and f vg (suppli-
citl/l). -
Žbid. Tö Toupaguévovl - 3 tot-
pagev d Tathp plov H Western (Gr.
Lat.); incl. Just Hom.C1 Iren.lat”
Orig.lat. Ruf3;Mt.lat.885(but not loc)
(Hipp) Cyp” (some of these writers
omitting pov); while others, as Clem
Orig.lat. Rufº Tert. 1/2 substitute 6
Kūptos or Deus for 6 Tratºp pov; not
Tert. 1/2 Aug Ephr. Ział.arm.75, nor
Orig.jo Eusé Cyr.al.%. Probably
from an extraneous source, written
or oral.
xxvi 15 Gpyúpta] - a Tarāpas H
Western (Gr. Lat.). The conflate
reading a rathpas àpyvptov also oc-
curs (Gr. Lat.).
xxvi 73 6m Möv ore troteſ] + 6ploud: et F
Western (Gr. Lat.). .
xxvii. 2 IIet)\árqp} - IIowtig H IIet-
XáTºp Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. AEth. Arm. Goth.); incl. Orig.
loc.lat.(clearly). Text NBL 33 Syr.vg
me the aeth.cod Orig. 70. (Petr.al).
I’rom Lc iii 1 ; Act iv 27; I Ti vi
13, the insertion being naturally
made at the first place where Pilate's
name occurs in the Gospels.
xxvii 9 'Iepeptov] om. 33 157 a 6
vg.codd (and [Latin] MSS mention-
ed by Aug) Syr. Vg. Zaxaptov is
substituted by 22 Syr.h].mg, and
Fsaiam by 7%.e. The two chief cor-
rections are due to the absence of
this passage from the existing texts
of Jeremiah, and the occurrence of
nearly the same words in the book
of Zechariah. Orig./oc.lat, followed
by Eus. ZD. Z.481, suggests as one so-
lution of the difficulty an error of
copyists by which Iepeptov was sub-
stituted for Zaxaplov. Such is also
the view taken in the B7-ezy. 772 As.
p. 27 I (See above on xiii 35), and
MATT. xxvii. 16, 17 AWOTES ON SEZZCZ" RAEAZ)/AWGS I9
probably also by FIier, who however
ad / contents himself with expressing
an opinion that the quotation was
from Zechariah, mot from an apo-
cryphal Hebrew book professing to
be a prophecy of Jeremiah, in
which he had seen the identical
words,
of the Gospels” have Jeremiah’s
name, and refers to the Suppositions
that it was either corrupted from
Zechariah or spurious: but he re-
jects these expedients on the grounds
that “Jeremiah’s name stands in
a larger number of manuscripts,
that those who have examined the
Gospel with special care in Greek
copies declare themselves to have
found it in the more ancient Greek
[MSS]”, and that there was no
motive for adding the name, whereas
the difficulty might easily lead rash
persons (audax imperidia) to omit
it.
aftāv Ā 'Imaoüy rôv \eyöuévov Xpt-
otów] 'Imaoûv Bapağ8āv...’Imaoüv
BapağBáv 'Imaoüy K. T. N. I*-
118-209° 299° Syr.hr.*(cod.vat, not
cod. petrop) arm Orig.lat.txt(in v.
17, not v. 16). Orig.lat on xxiv. 5
(p. 853) expresses an opinion that
“in like manner as, according
to some, Barabbas was also called
}esus, and yet was a robber, having
nothing of Jesus but the name, so
there are many Christs, but only in
name’”. The comment on the pas-
Sage itself (p. 918) begins thus, “In
many copies it is not stated (non cont-
timefur) that Barabbas was also
called Jesus, and perhaps [the O-
mission is] right” &c. The whole
paragraph is manifestly authentic,
though doubtless abbreviated by the
translator. In S and various cur-
sives occurs the following scholium,
“In many ancient copies which I
have met with (or ‘read', Čuruxºv)
Aug. De cons. ezz. iii. 29 f.
states that “not all [Latin] MSS
xxvii 16 f. Bapağ8&v...[Tövj Bap-
I found Barabbas himself likewise
called Jesus ; that is, the question
of Pilate stood there as follows,
Tiva 6é\ete diró Töv Óſo diroMoro
ūgīv, 'I'mgoûv Töv Bapag|36v ) 'Imgoûv
Töv Āeyópevou Xplotów ; for apparent-
ly the paternal name (Tarpovvula)
of the robber was Æarabbas, which
is interpreted Son of the teacher”.
The scholium is usually assigned in
the MSS either to “Anastasius
Bishop of Antioch " (?latter part of
Cent, VI) or to Chrysostom, who is
certainly not the author. In a
Venice MS however (Galland B. P.
xiv 2 81 = Migne vii 308) it is attri-
buted to Origen, and followed imme-
diately by a few lines having a dis-
tinctly Origenian character “By its
composition therefore (??, Xvur, 64.
pºevov oiv) the name of Bapaugāv
[sic] signifies Son of our teacher ;
and of what teacher must we deem
the ‘notable robber' to be a son
but of the man of blood, the mur-
derer from the beginning ” &c.? On
the whole it seems probable that the
two scholia are distinct, and that
Origen's name belongs to the second
alone; while it is no less probable
that the matter of the first scholium
was obtained from Origen's com-
mentary by a late writer, who may
be Anastasius. It is in any case
certain that the reading ‘Imaoüv [Töv)
Bapağ8áv was known to Origen,
and not absolutely rejected by him,
though the general tenour of his
extant remarks is unfavourable to
it.
Abulfaraj , ad Z. in his Syriac
Storehouse of Mysteries states that
Barabbas was called Jesus, being so
named after his father to avoid con-
fusion, and that this reading was
still (Cent. xIII) found in Greek
copies (Nestle in Theol. ZZ. IS8o
p. 206): a statement that Barabbas
bore the name Şesus occurs, like-
wise in the Bee of Solomon of Bas-
2O AWOZZS OAV SEZZCZ" R.EAD/WGS MATT. xxvii. 16, 17
sora (Assemani B. O. iii 2, cited by
Nestle), another Syriac writer of the
same century, in the midst of a
number of additions to the Gospel
narrative from apocryphal sources.
Jerome ad l, after transcribing
16–18, adds “This man in the
Gospel entitled ‘according to the
Hebrews’ is called by interpretation
Soſz of their teacher, ſeven he] who
had been condemned for sedition
and murder ’’ (Zsfe...filius magistri
eorum interpretaſter, 7ui propter &c.).
It is morally certain that (1) the
last clause (virtually taken from LC
xxiii 19) is added by Jerome himself
to mark the character of the ‘son
of their teacher’, St Matthew having
merely called him winctum insig-
7tem ; and (2) that eorum is part of
the cited interpretation, not due to
Jerome himself, though possibly
thrown by him into the third person
by oratio obligata. But it is quite
uncertain whether the ‘interpreta-
tion', evidently in Greek, was sub-
stituted for the name Bapağ8ău, or
only added to it. On the former
supposition, which is usually taken
for granted, it is likely that a personal
name would precede, and this might
be 'Imaoûv. But Jerome's language
would be equally appropriate if the
Gospel according to the Hebrews
had no more than Bapſplaš8āv, 6 €p-
p.mveijet at Tiêu Toij ŠušaakáAov at Túv
(or judov); and in that case there
would be no evidence for connecting
*Imaoûv Bapag|Sāv with the Gospel
according to the Hebrews, from
which otherwise it would be natural
to derive the reading as ſound in a
text of St Matthew.
This remarkable reading is at-
tractive by the new and interesting
fact which it seems to attest, and by
the antithetic force which it seems
to add to the question in v. 17: but
it cannot be right. It is against all
analogy that a true reading should
be preserved in no better Greek MS
than the common original of I-1 18-
209, and in none of the more
ancient versions; and the intrinsic
difficulty of accounting for a change
in the antithetic names in vv. 20,
26 is very great. The most probable
explanation is a repetition of iN
in v. 17 from YMIN (Tregelles), or
an accidental overleaping of Bap-
aft3av j, speedily detected and
corrected by cancelling IN with dots
which the next transcriber failed to
notice (Griesbach): on either sup-
position the intercalated "Imoroſiv must
Subsequently have been inserted for
clearness in v. 16. Either of these
explanations would be amply satis-
factory if the text of Orig.lat (the
commentary being ambiguous) were
not the only document which inserts
*Imaoju in v. 17 alone; though again
the whole number of documents
which insert [Töv 'Imaoüy in v. 16 is
virtually but five. Derivation from
the Gospel according to the Hebrews
(See above) is also possible, and re-
ceives some little support from the
approximate coincidence between
the ‘interpretation’ reported by Je-
rome and that which is given in one
of the manifestly imperfect extracts
from Origen, who refers to that
Gospel once elsewhere in the same
commentary (p. 671 lat).
xxvii. 32 Kvpmvatov]++els dirávrm-
atv aurov H Western (Gr. Lat.).
xxvii. 34 oivov) 6:0s Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr.): also Orig.loc.lat in text
and once in comm.; but oivov is
implied in what follows. Proba-
bly from Ps lxix. 2 I : in Mc and
Lc there is no mention of XoAſ,
the Psalm having both XOXī and
§§os.
xxvii 35 ſºn.]+?va TXºpa,0ſ. Tô
p")0éu ÜTó too trpoq àTov Alepeptoſauro
Tć ludited pov Šavroſs, kal étri Tôv
iſlatuopºv prov #3a)\ov k\ſipov Western
MATT. xxvii. 49 NOTES ON SEZFCT READINGS 2 I
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm.); incl. Eus.
A.A.: but omitted by D, most of
the Mixed Latin texts, probably
syr.vg (MSS differ), and Orig.ſoc.lat
Hil.loc. Abulfaraj notices the in-
sertion, but did not find it in ‘three
ancient MSS’. From Jo xix 24.
This is one of the Non-Syrian read-
ings adopted by Erasmus, doubtless
from the Latin Vulgate, and retain-
ed in the ‘Received Text”. -
xxvii 38 after Šešutov c adds nomine
Zoatham and after ejww.bp.au 1zomine
Camma; in Mc xv 27 the same
additions are made by c with the
names spelt as Zoathazz and Chama-
7taſha. From some unknown a-
pocryphal source. The apocryphal
Gesta Pilafi c. 9 (Io) give the names
as Avopºds and Tea Tâs. Other names
from late traditions are collected
by Thilo Cod. Apocr. M. Z. I43,
58o f. - - -
xxvii 45 €tri Täcau Tàu yńv] →
N* 248 7%e; also Lact, but only in a
loose paraphrase. Possibly omitted
to remove one of the difficulties
which Origen's comment (922 ff.)
shews to have been felt in his time;
but more probably by accident.
xxvii 46 'EAwi éAwl Xepº a.a6ax0a-
vet] - 'HXet #Aét Xap & aſp6avet F
Western (Gr. Lat.); }\et (\!) being
also Syrian. Probably an attempt to
reproduce the Hebrew as distin-
guished from the Aramaic forms,
Šaç6avet standing roughly for agaz-
thani (Hier. c. AEuſ. ii 34 [expressly
tº #sa cruce] has azaćathani). In
Mc xv. 34 Aet and ſaq,0avel are
again Western readings (Gr. Lat.),
but there the Syrian text retains
é\@t : B (i) have the curious form
Šaffaq,0avet (zaffapthami). In both
places the Syrian text has Xipºd,
which the ‘Received Text” deserts
for the Western Nagó, changed in Mc
apparently without Greek authority
into \appad (lamma lat.vg. codd).
xxvii.49 |&A\os 3& Nagºv A6)xmy
authorship is , however
—alua.] → Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Arm. Goth.);
incl. Orig./oc.lat(also by implication
Ce/s) Eus. Carº Mac.magn. 32(and
the heathen writer cited by him, 22)
Sev pp". Text NBCL(U)T, 5 un-
important cursives, several Mixed
Latin MSS (chiefly of the British
type), Syr.hr.vat(omitted in another
lesson, and in a London fragment),
aeth, Chrys and also, it is said,
‘Tatian’ ‘Diod’ Cyr.al. t
An anonymous scholium in 72
attests the presence of this sentence
“in the ‘historical’ Gospel (roſ)
ka0° to Toptav evayye)\tov) of Diodorus
and Tatianus and divers other holy
Fathers”. Another scholium which
follows, probably extracted from
a book on the differences of the
Gospels, illustrates the statement
by quoting I Cor v 7 (éTü6m), and
then reconciles it with St John's
account by Supposing St Matthew
to have inserted the incident by
anticipation. This second scholium
is preceded by words that seem to
attribute it to Chrysostom . (Tooro
Xéyet kai 6 Xpworóa Topios); but they
are probably only a misplaced mar-
ginal note calling attention to the
similar interpretation implied in
Chrysostom's Homily ad Z. p. 825 C.
What is in at least its latter part the
same scholium, but apparently be-
ginning at an earlier point, is attri-
buted in another cursive (238), to
Severus (Matthaei" ad loc.). The
rendered
doubtful by a more authentic frag-
ment of Severus. In a letter par-
tially preserved in Syriac (ap. Petr.
jun. in Assemani B. O. ii. 81) he
mentions the reading as having been
vigorously debated at Constantino-
ple in connexion with the matter of
the patriarch Macedonius, when the
magnificently written copy of St
Matthew’s Gospel said to have been
discovered in Cyprus with the body
22 MOZAS ON SEZECT A FAD/AWGS MATT. XXVII 49
of St Barnabas in the reign of Zeno
(? 477) was consulted and found, not
to contain the sentence in question :
he adds that none of the old exposi-
-tors mentioned it except Chrys and
Cyr.al (i.e. probably in his lost com-
mentary ad Z.). The ‘magnificent’
copy of St Matthew, though said to
have been written by Barnabas
himself (Alex. mon. Mazad, in Aff.
Aarzz. 30 in Migne lxxxvii p. 4Ioã),
was doubtless of quite recent origin,
the discovery having been oppor-
tunely made by Anthemius bishop
of Salamis when he was vindicating
the independence of Cyprus against
the patriarch of Antioch, Peter the
Fuller. The opposite view as to
the reading is implied in a sarcastic
statement of the Chronicle of Victor
Tununensis(in Canis.-Basm. Mecá. Azzt.
i 326) that “at Constantinople the
holy Gospels were by command of
the emperor Anastasius censured
and corrected, as having been com-
posed by unlettered (idiotis) evan-
gelists”. At least one other textual
variation (I Ti iii 16) was a subject
for dispute in the same bitter con-
troversy of 5 Io, I between the Mo-
nophysite Severus and the Chalce-
donian Macedonius, which ended in
the expulsion of Macedonius by the
emperor Anastasius. Liberat. Æ7'ez,
speaks of Macedonius as having been
expelled tamgalam evangelia falsasseſ,
et maxime illud apostoli dictatº Qui
apparuit &c.
Nothing is known of the work of
* Diodorus' mentioned by the Scho-
lium: the commentary of Diodorus
of Tarsus “on the four Gospels”
(Theodorus Lector ap. Suid. s. v.)
can hardly be meant. The work of
‘Tatianus’ has naturally been iden-
tified with the Diatessaron of Jus-
tin's disciple Tatian, which cannot
have been much later than the mid-
dle of Cent. II: but, Strange to Say,
Ephrem's Comm. on the Diatessa-
rom shews no trace of the words in
this place, while it contains an ex-
position of them (or of the corre-
sponding words) at the proper place
in St John's Gospel (p. 259).
Even if the words &A\os 6& K.T.A.
had a place here in Tatian's Diates-
såron, the hypothesis that they ori-
ginated in its harmonistic arrange-
ment is practically excluded by their
remarkable documentary attestation,
pointing to the highest antiquity.
There is moreover no evidence that
this obscure work was known out of
Syria, where Tatian founded his
sect; and the evil repute attached
to his name renders the adoption
of a startling reading from such a
source highly improbable.
Two suppositions alone are com-
patible with the whole evidence.
First, the words d'A\0s 5è K.T. A.
may belong to the genuine text of
the extant form of Mt, and have been
early omitted (originally by the
Western text) on account of the
obvious difficulty. Or, secondly, they
may be a very early interpolation,
absent in the first instance from the
Western text only, and thus resem-
bling the Non-Western interpola-
tions in Luke xxii. xxiv except in
its failure to obtain admission into
the prevalent texts of the third and
fourth centuries. The prima facie
difficulty of the second supposition
is lightened by the absence of the
words from all the earlier versions,
though the defectiveness of African
Latin, Old Syriac, and Thebaic evi-
dence somewhat weakens the force
of this consideration. We have
thought it on the whole right to give
expression to this view by inclu-
ding the words within double brack-
ets, though we did not feel justified
in removing them from the text,
and are not prepared to reject alto-
gether the alternative supposition.
xxvii. 56 Mapia i Toij 'Iakºftov
MARK II I4.
kat "Iagºjp pºſtmp kal ºff pºſtmp Töv
vićv Zegeóatov] M. m. Too 'Iakó8ov
kai º Mapia m 'Iowa ºf kal ºff Mapia m
Töv viðv Zegeóatov N* : the correc-
tion in. Sº leaves the second j un-
touched, perhaps by accident, yet
in accordance with 131; and B 131
have the same reading kal j 'Iaja.
pºſitimp in Mc xv 4o. In aeth (Wright)
both 'Iakašov and 'Iola hºp have
pºſtmp : on the other hand the pºſtmp
after ‘Iwaºjº is omitted by Old and
Mixed Latin documents.
xxviii 6 áketto]+ + 6 kūptos H West-
ern and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.).
Never applied to Christ in Mt except
in reported Sayings.
AVO ZTAES OAM S/EZAZC 7' A' A' A /9/AWGS 23
xxviii. 7 (+) ióoi) eitrov) ka0&s cirew
tipſy cu%f. [Comparison with Mcxvi
7 gives much probability to the sug-
gestion of Maldonat and others that
eitrov is a primitive corruption of
eitreu, O for e. The essential identity
of the two records in this place
renders it improbable that the cor-
responding clauses would hide total
difference of sense under similarity
of language; while löot might easily
mislead a Scribe. As recalling
sharply an earlier prediction or
command, ióoj eitrev is the more
forcible though less obvious reading.
H.] -
ST MARIS
ir 'Imaoû Xploroúj-i- (margin) viou
9eoû Pre-Syrian and, with Toàprefixed
to 6600, Syrian (Gr. and all v.v.). Text
S* 28 255 lat.vg.cod. Athelst(Bentl.)
Ireni Orig. 798; Cels; Æom.lat. Ruf
Bas [“Serap” s.g.] Ps. Tit ‘Victo-
rin. petab'(in Apoc iv 7) Hier”. Iren
has both readings, vioj[too] 6éoù 187,
205 (lat only, but confirmed by con-
text 205), and omission 191 (gr
lat): the peculiar passage containing
the quotation without j. 6. was pro-
bably derived from an earlier author.
Severianus (/)e sigilſis, Chrys. Oft.
xii 4.12), dwelling on the reticence of
Mt Mc Lc as to the Divine Sonship,
says that Mc speaks of viðv 6éoù “but
immediately contracts his language
and cuts short his conception”, quo-
ting in proof vv. 1, 2 without j. 6. :
if the text is sound, his MS must
have had a separate heading APXH
ETATIVE AIO'ſ IHXOT XPIXTO'ſ
TIOT 0EOT, followed by a fresh
beginning of the text without 5. 6.,
and such a reduplication of the open-
Western (Gr. [D] Lat.).
*
ing words in the form of a heading
might in this place easily arise from
conflation; the alternative possibi-
lity that he refers only to the ab-
sence of such language as that of Mt
i 20–23; LC i 32–35, and that
ū. 6. has been lost from his text in
transcription, does not agree well
with the context.
Omission, possibly Alexandrian,
is certainly of very high antiquity.
On the whole it seems to deserve
the preference: but neither readin
can be safely rejected.
Several Fathers connect v. I with
v. 4 (Apx?) T. ed....éyéveto 'Iodiums),
treating vv. 2, 3 as a parenthesis.
But Hos i 2 sufficiently justifies the
separateness of v. 1. -
i. 41 or r\ayxvto 6eis] - 6pytabels H.
A singular
reading, perhaps suggested by V. 43,
perhaps derived from an extraneous
..SOlli Ce. , -
ii i Aevelva'ſékošov H Western
(Gr. Lat, PSyr.); incl. (Ephr, Dict.
24 AVO ZTES OAV SAE LAFC 7" ſº EA D/AWGS
arm. 58); found ‘in some’ copies.
according to a confused scholium
(printed by Matthaei" ad /.), not im-
probably derived from some com-
ment of Origen. His extant remark
on the publican Zebes (see on iii 18;
Mt x 4) shews only that he himself
read Aeveiv here : his notice of a
textual variation can refer only to iii
18. The following words Töv too
‘A\patov doubtless suggested the
Western reading here.
iii 18 6a 36aſovl - Aegga?ov H Wes-
tern (Gr.[D] Lat.). See on Mt x 4.
Here lat.vt (except c) is concordant
in supporting Aeggaſov. In reply
to a taunt of Celsus that Christ
chose for His apostles “publicans
and sailors”, Orig. Cels. 376 first
allows no publican but Matthew,
and then refers concessively to “Le-
bes [Aegºs, but P Aevels] a publican
who followed Jesus”: “but”, he adds,
‘‘ he was in no wise of the number of
the apostles except according to some
copies of the Gospel according to
Mark”. The reference here is evi-
dently first to Mc ii 14 and then, for
the apostleship, to iii 18. There is
no ground.for altering Mark to Maſſ-
thew, or for supposing any textual
error on the part of Orig beyond
failure to observe that in Mt, as well
as in Mc, Gaë6atov was not the only
reading.
iii. 29 &papthwaros] kptorea's Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth.); not Ephr.
Zial. III. Another early, probably
Western, correction is ČuapTias. .
iii. 32 of dēeXpot orov) -- + kal at
döexpat gov - Western and probably
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr[hl.mg] Goth.);
not e Syr.vg. Neglected by Eras-
mus, doubtless as unsupported by
lat. Vg, and hence absent from the
‘Received Text”. Probably suggested
by v. 35, but possibly derived from
an extraneous source (cf. vi. 3 || Mt
xiii. 56). -
iv 9 &kovérw]+ + kai 3 o'vvtov &vvt-
MARK II I4.
éra' (-etov -etera) H. Western (Gr.[D]
Lat. [Syr.]). -
iv 21 Tril jirô (SB” 13-69-346 33)
is evidently an error, due to me-
chanical repetition. But the con-
currence of four such documentary
authorities, all independent, implies
the highest antiquity, the number
rendering accidental coincidence
very unlikely. In all probability
ūtró was a primitive corruption,
rightly corrected to éirí by a very
early conjecture: the error could
hardly fail to strike most transcribers,
and the remedy was obvious, even
without the help of Mt v 15; Lc xi
iv 28 TAffpm gºrov) TAmpes orettos
B; tr}\mpms o gettos D.; TXmpms attov
C*(vdtr) cu”; TXmpes autov cul;
TXīpm Töv Gºrov 81; TXmpoſ oſtrov cu"
(?me.codd); text SAC*LA unpº cup.
[This strange confusion is easily ex-
plained if the original reading was
TAffpms girov, as in C* (apparently)
and 2 good lectionaries. IIXīpms is
similarly used as an indeclinable in
the accusative in all good MSS of
Acts vi 5 except B, and has good
authority in the LXX. H.]
v 33 Tpéuovo al-H- 5ub Tetrováket
Xá0pg H Western (Gr. Lat. Arm.).
vi 3 & Téktov, 6 viðs] 3 roi, Tékto-
vos viðs kal Western (Gr. Lat. AEth.
Arm.); not D: Syr.hr simply omits
d TékTøv. From Mt xiii. 55. -
In reply to a scoff of Celsus, Origen
says (vi 36) that “Jesus Himself has
nowhere been described as a carpen-
ter in the Gospels current in the
churches”. The natural inference is
not that the reading of text was un-
known to Origen or rejected by him,
but that he either forgot this passage
or, perhaps more probably, did not
hold Mc responsible for the words of
the Galileans. His concluding phrase
shews, that he had in mind the ex-
plicit account given in apocryphal
narratives (see Just. Zial. 88 and
MARK X I 9
the authorities collected by Thilo on
the Latin /nfancy c. Io).
£bid. Kai 'Iajorntos] kai Iwo hºp Wes-
tern (Gr. Lat. AEth.); incl. S, but
not D : Kai Iwam Syrian (Gr. Syr.
Arm. Goth.): om. c.f., three MSS
which have a special common
element. See on Mt xiii 55, whence
'Iwo ſq) is derived.
vi 20 jirôpet] Totel Western and
Syrian (Gr. and all vv but memph):
A omits with the following kai. Text
SBL me; also anon. in Pouss.cat.
Zoc.
vi 33 kal ºrpom),00u avroſis]+ kal
ovvi,\}ov attoſ, HWestern (Gr. Lat.).
For other variants, including a
Syrian conflate reading, see Zutrod.
§§ 134–8.
vi 36 kök\g]+ #yyuata H Western
(Gr.[D] Lat.).
vi 47 ºv]+ - TráA&t H. Western (Gr.
P Lat.): it is not clear whether the
variously transposed ſame of Old and
Mixed Latin MSS represents ºrd Nat
or the not otherwise attested ºfföm.
vi 56 dyopa's]- TXatelaus H Wes-
tern (Gr. I.at. Syr. Goth.).
vii. 3 Trvygii, owing to its obscurity,
is variously altered and translated,
the chief substitute being trukvá (sub-
£nde, cre/7′o Latt) 8 and some vv.
(cf. Lc V 33): A omits.
vii 4 XaXKiwu) + - Kal KAlváv H
Western and Syrian (Gr. and all v.v.
but memph); also Orig. Mt. Text
NBLA lt. 48 62 me. Probably from
an extraneous source, written or oral :
cf. J. Lightfoot ad Z.
vii. 6 Tipă] H dyatró. F Western
(Gr.[D] Lat. AEth.[conflate]); (?incl.
Clem). Probably from a lost read-
ing of LXX Is xxix 13 : Tert Marc.
iii.6; iv. I2, 17, 41 (not so Cyp) has
diligit (-und), chiefly if not wholly
quoting Isaiah. Clement’s pu)\odot
(2O6) and dyatrów (583) seem on
comparison with 143,461,577 to be
derived from Mc. -
vii. 9 Tºphom Tel 4 at #ante H Wes-
AVO 7/2.S () W SEZAZCT READ/WGS 25
tern (Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm.).
vii 13 Tim Tapačóget jučv]+ - Tó
pºpg | Western (Gr.[D] Lat. Syr.
ſhl. mg]). -
vii. 19 dºpečpóval - Öxerov H Wes-
tern (Gr.[D] Lat.).
vii. 28 Nat, kūpte]+ Köple, ČXXd H
Western (Gr.[D] Lat.); also with-
out d\\d. (Gr. Arm.).
viii. 22 Bºmboatóów] - B).9aviav H
Western (Gr. Lat. Goth.).
viii 26 Mmöé eis Tºv któwmv elačX-
6ms] - Mºmčevl ettrºls eis Tºv köptºmu H.
with or without the addition of "Tºra-
ºye eis Töv oików aou, Western (Gr.
Lat. Syr.[hl.mg] Arm.). For other
variants, including a Syrian con-
flate reading, see Zºrod. § 14o.
ix 24 Tatótov]+ - pleTö, Öakpótov H
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Goth.). Text NA*BC*LA 28 A me
the arm aeth.
ix 29 Tpoo’evyń]+ + kal vºma Teig H
Western and Syrian (Gr. and, in
one order or another, all vv but
Å); vºmat. Kal Tpogeux. Syr.vg-hr
aeth arm. Text S*B A and appa-
rently Clem. 993, Tâs ºria rews Tiju
etxºv toxvpotépau dirégmvev ć owTºp
Toſs Tuo roſs diroo TóAous éiri Tuvos 6at-
povetovtos év oëk taxvorav kaffapt-
a'at, eitév Tà Touaira etxà kaTop-
600Tat. .
ix 38 kal ékaj)\ºopeu at Töv, Ört
oùk hkoxočffet huſul- Ös oëk diko)\ov6e?
pºeff' huów, kai ékw\ºogev attöv H, so
or with ékøMa'apev, Western (Gr.
Lat. Syr.[hl.mg] Arm.). For other
variants, including a Syrian conflate
reading, see /ntrod. § 141. -
ix 49 Tàs yap Tupt åAto:6;forétat]
- Tào a yöp 6vata äAt &\to 0%gerat H
Western (Gr. Lat.). From Lev vii
13. For a Syrian conflate reading
See Z72ćrod. § 142. A few cursives add
&ptos after Tås (cf. LXX. Job vi 6).
x 19 Mī) povetſons, Mö polyevo ms]
- Mºj polyeiſans, Mý Tropueta ms H. Wes-
tern (Gr.[D] Lat.). Mºi potxet'a ms,
Mi) povetſops (likewise Western and)
26
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth. Arm.
Goth.). Other variations occur. The
third or ultimately Syrian reading,
of which the second is perhaps a
corruption, comes from Lc xviii. 20;
Rom xiii. 9; the same order occurs
in Philo ZXe decal. 24 f. and else-
where (cf. Ex xx I 3 ff. LXX cod.
B): in Lc xviii. 20 the order is con-
versely corrupted from Mt or Mc in
latt Syrr. -
x 24 600 koxöv čo Tuv]+ Tots Tetrot-
6óras Čiri [roſs] Xpºſuaoru Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.]
Arm. Goth.); incl. Clem. al.; Ephr.
AXiat. 170. Text 8BA ſº me. cod.
Evidently inserted to bring the verse
into closer connexion with the con-
text by limiting its generality: com-
pare also Job xxxi 24; Ps. lii (li) 7;
lxii (lxi) Io; I Ti vi 17. Similar
supplements are divitem (c.f.) and
toūs Tú Xprjuata éxovtas from v. 23
(aeth): a has a conflation of these
last words with the common reading.
x 27 d5%vatov &MX of trapó, 0eg,
Trávra yöp Övvatā, trap& IT@ 6ég]
+ dāūvarāv čo Tuv trapó, 6é Tó, 0eg övva-
Töv H Western (Gr. Lat. AEth.).
x 30 olktas Kal &öéAqbot's kal dóé\-
pås kai pºmtépas Kai Tékva kai d'Ypots
pºetà étalyptºv, Kai éu Tô alôvt Tig
épxopévg (ºv altºvtov]+ 8s 63 dºñkev
olktav Kal dóeXqās Kat dòeXpots Kal
Amtépa Kai Tékva kai d'Ypots pºet &
6tarypoſ év Tú alſºvt tº épxopévg Goju
aidſvuov Xàu pétat H Western (Gr.[D]
Lat.); 6tayyuod (D) seems however
to have no Latin attestation.
x 51 Pagéovyet]+ Kºple fiağ8ét H
Western (Gr.[D] Lat.); also ‘Pag-
8et (Lat. Syr.), from which by con-
flation with the Kūpte of Mt Lc
(cuſ here) the double reading has
probably arisen.
xi 32 eixov] + ſ^eto av H. Western
(Gr. Lat. Arm.).
xii 1.4 kāvorov) - étuce pdxatov H
Western (Gr. Lat. Syr.).
xii 23 Čv Tă ăvaaſtäget]+&Tav čva-
AVO 7T/2.S. O.W. SAE ZAZC 7' A&AEA/D/AWGS
MARK X 19
a Tóru late Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. Arm. Goth.); not D
à c & syr.vg; Štav offv čvaartjatv év
Tà duaa Taa’et 13-69-346; Éöv otv
dvao Tôgu [?ék velºp&v] aeth. Though
not now extant separately except in
aeth, Örau dvao Tóruv (from v. 25)
was probably first substituted for
text, and afterwards conflate with it.
With transpositions, AE inserts here si
ſizzlier mortata est ef mulier sine ſiſ?’s,
czzi remazeef mat/ier 72.2/mda 3 and c
similarly et mulier relicta est sine
fillis: cui enim manebit uzor wizanda?
xii 4o Xmptov] + - Kai Öppavady H
Western (Gr. Lat.); not e Á.
xiii 2 ſin.]++ kal 6& Tpadu hueptov
&\\os duaa Thore rat divew Xelpêu H Wes-
tern (Gr.[D] Lat.): some Latin
documents (chiefly African) for diva-
a Tijgetat have é-yép6%getat (excitabi-
fur, resusciteſur [sic]); c has €yepao
airów. From xiv 58; Jo ii I9.
xiii. 8 Auot] + kal Tapaxat Pre-
Syrian (? Alexandrian) and Syrian
(Gr. Lat.[a] Syr. Eg. Arm.); incl.
Orig. Mt.lat (expressly). Text NBDL
lat.afr-eur-vg me aeth. Inserted
probably either for the sake of
rhythm, a similar effect being pro-
duced by the Western (Gr. Lat.)
substitution of Kat for the second
ëorov'Tau ; or from an extraneous
source, written or oral (cf. vii 4
kal k\lvóv). In the || LC xxi II a
Western text inserts kal Xeup oves.
xiv 4 Ågav 6é Tuvés dyavaktoivres
Tpós éavTow's] - of 6é gaff mTai attoo
ôtetrovoſvto kai éAeyov H Western
(Gr. Lat. Arm.), with slight varia-
tions. -
xiv 4 r &iréxed]+ Tô Té\os Western
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm.); D c q further
read kat for \6ev, and the ver-
sions (except a g) étréxet (with one
cursive) for dTéxet : conjunctions
are also added. These variations
and others, as the substitution of
&Taš by aeth, all arise from the
difficulty presented by the very rare
MARK XV 27
impersonal GTéxet, unknown else-
where (the gloss in Hesychius being
doubtless founded on this passage)
except in Ps. Anacr. xv. 33. The
addition of Tô Té\os comes from the
| LC xxii. 37 ka? yöp Tö repl épot
Té\os éxet : so a scholium in Pouss.
cat. p. 32.1, &Téxet, Tovtéart Tetºh-
parai, TéAos éxel Tô kat' épé; and
Euthym on Mt xxvi 45 (nearly
as a scholium in a Venice MS of
Theophylact on Mc), Mápkos 36
pmaſty eitreºu airóu ... §tu 'ATéxel,
Touréattu "EXage Tiju kar’ &uoj čov-
a tav Ó 6:0:80Xos, ºf 'Atréxel Tô Kat' épé,
#yovu IIépas àxel, kai yüp kal Tapó,
Tig Aovkg etpmkev ŠTu Tà trepi épºoj
TéXos éxet.
xiv.51 kal Kparodau at Tów] + ot
veaviakot Syrian (Gr. Lat.[a] Syr.
AEth. Arm. Goth.), perhaps modi-
fied from an earlier form of the
reading, exhibited by good cursives
and apparently theb, oi Öé weavia kot
Kpatojou airów. Probably supplied
to give the verb a subject.
Xiv 58 dxetpotroimTov oikočopºfforw]
- &vao Thaw dye-poiſotºrov H Western
(Gr.[D] Lat.). Cf. Jo ii 2.0 (éºye-
pets).
xiv 68 ſizz.] + kal d\ékTap Éqāvm-
aev. Western and Syrian (Gr. and
most vv). Text NBL lt 17 c me:
in Woide’s MS of theb the insertion
precedes kai éâN0év. The inter-
polation was evidently made to
justify the subsequent ék Čevrépov
in v. 7.2. Conversely in v. 72 there
is an (?Alexandrian) omission of ék
àeutépov itself in NL c vg. cod, and
a corresponding (partly Alexandrian)
omission of Öts in NC*A 251 c ſ ſy
ge", ſhe aeth, both changes producing
assimilation to the other Gospels;
while the earlier and more isolated
ôts of v. 3o disappears for the same
reason in a considerable assemblage
of documents, NC*D 238 lt 150
a cf. A vg. Codd aeth arm. Accord-
ingly B (?lt I7) and memph alone
throughout.
AVO 7TES OAV SAE ZAZCZ' A2ZA/D/AWGS 27
preserve the neutral or true reading
See Zn/rod. § 323.
xv. 25 Tpirm) &rtm syr.hl.mg aeth;
also written in the margin of B.M.
Add. I I 3oo (Dr Scrivener's k), but
by “a recent hand”. From Jo xix 14,
where the converse corruption occurs.
The Brev. in Psalt. p. 271 (see on Mt
xiii. 35), inverting a supposition of
Eus, calls text a clerical error arising
from the similarity of T (3) to F (6).
7&id. Čotatºpajoſavl - épôNagorov H
Western (Gr.[D] Lat.). Probably
introduced to avoid the seeming an-
ticipation of v. 27 (o. Taupo.00 tu), the
Hebraistic use of ºv... kai not being
understood.
xv. 27 ſin.]+ (v. 28) kal ét)\mpõ67
# ypaqº j \éYova'a Kai pºetó divöplay
ëXoyto 6 m Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. [Eg.] AEth. Arm. Goth.),
incl. Hier. Ms. 624. The balance
of probability is in favour of a
reference to this reading in Orig.
Cels. ii 44, though the reference may
be (as apparently in viii. 54) to Lc
xxii 37 alone; and also of its inclu-
sion in Eus. Cazz, when the various
perturbations of the sectional num-
bers are taken into account, though
the canonical numbers in A, the
oldest authority, would suggest ra-
ther the absence of v. 28 and the
treatment of v. 30 as a section dis-
tinct from v.29. Text SABCDX 157
and many inferior cursives, chiefly
lectionaries, Á me.cod.txt the ; thus
including D AE, representatives of the
earlier Western text. The quota-
tion from Is liii 12 occurs, though
in a different context, in Lc xxii. 37:
the condemnation of v. 28 by docu-
mentary evidence is confirmed by
the absence of quotations from the
O. T. in this Gospel except at the
opening and in reported sayings.
‘Vig.thaps'. AEuz. iv. 6 attributes to
Eutyches (or a contemporary Euty-
chian P) the curious reading velºpæv
for divögov, of which there is no
28
other clear trace, though the phrase
ěv vekpots kaTeXoytorón happens to
occur in Hipp. A reſ. 26.
xv. 34 yicatéAttres] + &vetöta as H
Western (Gr. Lat.); also the hea-
then writer cited by Macar.magn.
2 [ .
xv. 47 'Iwo-ſtos] 'Iakó8ov Wes-
tern (Gr. Lat.), from xvi I ; text
being also modified to 'Iaja fig (Gr.
Lat. AEth.), on which see on Mt xiii
55; Mc vi 3; and to 'Iooſſ, Syrian
(Gr. Syr. Goth.). Some Latin MSS
combine Iakºbov and 'Iowa fiqh, either
simply by et or in the form Maria
Jacobi et Maria Žoseph.
xvi. 3 &k Tàs 0dpas Toº uvmuetov;
kal] / has aſ osteo? Suðito autema ad
/horam fertia/z tenebrae died [l. die]
factae sunt per totatiºn orbem, ferrae,
et descenderunt de caeſis angeli et sur.
gent []. suggendes] in claritate zizi
AXei simul ascenderuzzi cum co, et cozz-
timizuo lux ſacſa esſ. Zhaºzc illae ac-
cesseruzzi ad moſzimiezzātml, et. Doubt-
less from an apocryphal or other
extraneous source: cf. Mt xxviii 2.
xvi 9–20. We have thought it
right to state and discuss the evi-
dence affecting the end of St Mark’s
Gospel at a length disproportionate
to the usual scale of these notes.
Much of the evidence is of so intri-
cate and in a manner disputable a
nature that a bare recital of its
items, ranged according to our judge-
ment on one side or another, would
have done injustice both to the
merits of the case and to the emi-
nent critics who have treated of this
at first sight difficult variation. The
variation itself is moreover almost
unrivalled in interest and import-
ance, and no other that approaches
it in interest and importance stands
any longer seriously in need of full
discussion. A preliminary table
will make the contents of the fol-
lowing note more readily intelligi-
ble,
AWOZZS OW SELECT READINGS MARK xv. 27
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
For Omission
Direct attestation
Specialities of B, L, 22, arm
Patristic evidence in detail
Eusebius (1) ad Marinum
(2) Scholium in 255
(3) Canons
Plater writers
(* denotes writers wholly
or in part independent of
Eusebius)
(?,*) Jerome
Orat. in Resurrectionem
[Hesychius irrelevant]
* Victor of Antioch
IPseudo-Victor supports
vv. 9—20]
[Anon. Tolos. uncertain]
* Author of Ötró0sorts
Euthymius and Scholia
Negative patristic evidence
reek.
(Clement, Origen)
Cyril of Jerusalem
(Ath., Bas., Greg. Naz.,
Greg. Nyss., Cyr. Al.,
Theodoret)
Latin
Tertullian
Cyprian
(Lucifer, Hilary)
For Shorter Conclusion
For Longer Conclusion (vv. 9–20)
Direct attestation
Special evidence of versions,
viz. syr.vt (syr.hr) [theb
not extant]
Patristic evidence in detail
Greek
(? Justin)
Irenaeus
[“Hipp.” spurious]
arinus, heathen writer,
(?Mac. Magn.,) Const. Ap.,
Epiph., Did., Gesta Pi-
lati, (??Chrys.,) Nest., and
later writers
Latin
(?? Vinc. Thib.)
Amb., Aug., (Jerome,) and
later writers
Syriac
Aphraates
I,ection-systems
Extant systems late, and early
systems unknown
Insertion of vv. 9—20 inevi-
table at late revisions of
early systems
System of Constantinople
traced to Antioch in time
of Chrys. ;
29-46
29–38
29
29, 30
30–36
30-32
32, 33
33
MARK XVI 9–20 AWOTES
OAV SAE/LA, CZ" R.A.A.D.//WGS
43, 44
44, 45
44
44
45
45
46
46-49
46, 47
47
47, 48
48
but not known as used else-
where then, or anywhere
earlier;
its employment of vv. 9—20
Eastern systems
N. Africa (Augustine)
European Latin systems
Evidence of lection-systems
extensive, but too late to be
of value
IHistorical bearing of Shorter Con-
clusion
Shorter Conclusion, itself by all
evidence Spurious, presup-
poses Omission
Documentary evidence for
Shorter Conclusion is there-
fore evidence for Omission
In AE Shorter Conclusion pro-
bably superimposed on (Afri-
can) Omission
Recapitulation of direct and in-
direct documentary evidence
for and against Omission
Documentary evidence (Internal
Evidence of Groups) unfavour-
able to vv. 9–20
INTRINSIC PROBABILITIES
Improbability that v. 8 was meant
to conclude a paragraph or the
Gospel unquestionable, but com-
patible with loss of a leaf or
with incompleteness:
abruptness of end of v. 8 not re-
moved by addition of vv. 9—20
Improbability that contents of vv.
9–20 were invented by a scribe
or editor unquestionable, but
compatible with derivation from
another source
Vocabulary and style of vv. 9—20
indecisive, but not favourable to
genuineness
Various points of diction in v. 9
mark it (1) as not a continuation
of vy. I–8, and (2) as the be-
ginning of an independent nar-
rative
TRANSCRIPTIONAL PROBABILITIES
If genuineness be assumed, Omis-
sion not explicable as intended
to remove difficulties,
nor as due to misunderstanding of
the (liturgical) word TéAos;
but conceivably by accidental loss
of a leaf
If originality of Omission be as-
sumed, naturalness of some ad-
dition unquestionable, and con-
firmed by existence of Shorter
Conclusion
*) -:
< *)
48, 49
49, 5C
49
49
49, 50
5O
29
Diction of v. 9 incompatible with
origination in a desire of supply-
ing the presumed defect; 50
and a ſortior: with subsequent -
addition by the evangelist; 5o
but compatible with adoption of
an independent narrative 50
Internal evidence, Intrinsic and
Transcriptional, unfavourable to
vv. 9—20; as also to intentional
conclusion at v. 8, and to inven-
tion of vv. 9–20 by a scribe or
editor º 5O, 51
Probable derivation of vv. 9—20
from a lost record embodying a
tradition of the apostolic age 5I
xvi 9–20 ['Avaoré's — a mueſ-
ov.] and [[IIóvra—got mptas] → NB,
most of the MSS known to Eus
and probably Hier, some of the
older MSS of arm, and, by clear
implication, Vict.ant and the author
of a tróðeous to the Gospel: on the
negative evidence of various Fathers,
Greek and Latin, and on the pa-
tristic evidence generally, see be-
low.
In B the scribe, after ending the
Gospel with v. 8 in the second
column of a page, has contrary to
his custom left the third or remain-
ing column blank; evidently be-
cause one or other of the two sub-
sequent endings was known to him
personally, while he found neither
of them in the exemplar which he
was copying. The same use of
blank spaces is ſound in L at Jo
vii 53–viii II, and also, very in-
structively, in A+ G3, in which the
absence of familiar words from the
exemplar must in different places
have been due to three several
causes, accidental loss of leaves of
the exemplar (Ro ii 16–25; I Co
iii 8–16; vi 7–14; Col ii I–8),
mere carelessness of its writer (2 Ti
ii 12 f.), and, as here in B, differ-
ence of inherited text (Mc iii. 31;
Jo vii 53–viii II; Ro viii I ; xiv. 23
[xvi 25–27]; xvi 16). In all such
3O MOTES ON SELECT READINGS MARK xvi 9–20
cases the attestation given to the
onnitted words is simply chrono-
logical and, under favourable cir-
cumstances, indirectly geographical;
amounting to a proof that they
were in existence at the date when
the extant MS was written, and
were known to its scribe: while on
the other hand the omission of the
words has in addition a qualitative
attestation, determined by the ha-
bitual internal character of the text
of the extant MS, and varying in
authority accordingly. Here there-
fore the authority for the omission is
the authority of the habitual charac-
ter of B. *
In L v. 8 comes to an end in the
middle of the last line but one of a
column, and a termination of the
Gospel in some sense at this point
is implied by the ornamental marks
which make up the last line of the
column. In the next column we
find, first, the note “These also are
in a manner [or ‘somewhere’, i.e.
in some authorities] current” (q)epere
trov kat Tavra), surrounded by or-
namental lines, and introducing the
Shorter Conclusion (IIóvta—oatm-
pías); and then another note, simi-
larly decorated, “And there are these
also current (earmv 66 Kaz Tavra pe-
poueva) after épogoûvro Yáp”, intro-
ducing the Longer Conclusion (vv.
9–20, "Avagräs—pºet' at Tóv. čuffv.).
Last comes the colophon, evayyextov
kara papkov, decorated like the
preceding notes (not so the colo-
phon of Lc : the last leaves of Mt
and Jo are lost), and immediately
followed by the chapter-headings
of Lc. It seems tolerably certain
that the exemplar contained only
the Shorter Conclusion, and that the
Longer Conclusion, which proba-
bly was alone current when L was
written, was added at the end from
another copy.
In 22, as Dr Burgon (Zast Twelve
Verses of S. Maré, p. 230) was the
first to point out, the word TéAos is
inserted after both v. 8 and v. 20,
while no such word is placed at the
end of the other Gospels. The last
twelve verses are moreover separated
from the rest of the chapter by a
clear break, and preceded by a note,
written in shorter lines than those
of the text, “In some of the copies
the Gospel is completed at this
point, but in many these also are
current” (äws @e TAmpoorat deway-
'ye)\to Tiffs, év troX\oſs 6é kal Taijta.
q,épétat). The two insertions ex-
plain each other, and distinctly
imply that this Gospel was con-
sidered in some sense to end at
v. 8, in some sense at v. 20: for the
other Gospels there was but a single
and obvious end, and thus no moni-
tory TéAos was needed. This evi-
dently ancient notation, having in
the course of time doubtless ceased
to be understood, has apparently left
traces of itself in other cursives,
becoming confused however with the
liturgical TéNos which from about
the eighth or ninth century is often
found marking the end of ecclesias-
tical lections, and which ultimately
became common : as v. 8 forms the
close of a lection, the confusion was
inevitable. On the other hand it is
impossible to explain the phenomena
of such a MS as 22 by the liturgical
use alone. The true origin of the
double Té)\os which it presents is
illustrated by the exact and inde-
pendent parallel of a double colo-
phon in some of the more ancient
Armenian MSS, which have eijay-
ºyéAtov katt, Mápkov after both v. 8
and v. 20. In each case the peculiar
notation implies an antecedent text
which terminated at v. 8.
The direct patristic testimony
begins with Eusebius, whose treat-
ment of the question is known from
three independent sources. Con-
MARK xvi 9–20 AWOTES ON SEZECT READ/AWGS 3 I
siderable extracts from his work
Ozz the discrepance of the Gospels,
in three books of answers to queries,
are extant in a condensed form (Mai
AV. A. B. iv. 255 ff.). In the first
query of the third book Eusebius's
correspondent Marinus asks “How
it is that in Matthew the Saviour
appears as having been raised up
ôpé gagéâTøv [xxviii 1], but in
Mark Tpaſt tº putº Tøv orać8á-
Tøv’” [xvi 9, incorrectly combined
with xvi 2]. Eusebius replies: “The
solution will be twofold (6tt Tä &v
eim). For One man, rejecting the
passage itself (tò kepd)\atov airó),
the section which makes this state-
ment, will say that it is not current
in all the copies of the Gospel ac-
cording to Mark. That is, the ac-
curate copies determine the end of
the narrative according to Mark (Tö.
'yojv dºpt?? Töv duriypdºpov Tó TéAos
Treptºypéqet Tās K.T.A.) at the words of
the young man” &c., ending épo-
80üvro ydp. “For at this point
the end of the Gospel according to
Mark is determined in nearly all the
copies of the Gospel according to
Mark ('Eu Totºrg yāp axéðov ću áiraat
Tois duriypdºots toū Kató M. evay-
yeXtov replyé)pairTat Tó TéAos);
whereas what follows, being but
Scantily current, in some but not in
all [copies], will be redundant [i.e.
such as should be discarded: tá 6é
éïs, a travia's év Tuolu d\\’ oëk Čv
Trāat pepôpºeva, reputrā āv elm],
and especially if it should contain
a contradiction to the testimony
of the other evangelists. This is
what will be said by one who de-
clines and entirely gets rid of [what
seems to him] a superfluous question
(trapatroºpewos kal Trávrm dualpêv
Teputröv ćpúTmpa). While another,
not daring to reject anything what-
ever that is in any way (Ötragoûv)
current in the Scripture of the Gos-
pels, will Say [reading phael for
ºpmoſt] that the reading (āváyvoortv)
is double, as in many other cases,
and that each [reading] must be
received, on the ground that this
[reading] finds no more acceptance
(éykptveoffat) than that, nor that
than this, with faithful and discreet
persons. Accordingly, on the as-
Sumption that this view is true, it is
needful to interpret the sense of the
passage (āvayvöopatos).” Eusebius
then proposes to reconcile the two
statements by changing the punc-
tuation of v. 9.
Some slight roughnesses in the
Greek of this passage are evidently
due to condensation. Thus the du-
plicate phrases in apposition, Tó
kepd?\atov alſTó and Tºv roöTo pá-
okovo av repukothu and again a travia's
and év Tugu áAA’ owk Šv Trägi, may
very possibly have been brought to-
gether from different similar sen-
tences. The only point which pre-
sents any real difficulty is the unique
compound phrase TôtéAos Teplypáſpel
(Teplºyé ypatrrat), literally to “limit
(or determine) the end ?. This might
mean to mark off the end, as by a
colophon, ornamental line, or other
notation. But it is probably only
a pleonastic way of expressing more
emphatically the sense of the com-
mon elliptic replyptiqa (to ‘end’ a
book or statement), used by various
writers and by Eusebius himself, as
A. AE. sub ſizz. To prev Tās Eijayye-
Atkäs IIpotrapaakeväs év rot Tots
ºjºſºv Tep t ye yp & p 6 w. Compare Töv
toū j\tov reptópopov etvat Tep vºypa-
q, r v Toij Trépa Tos Toij Köopov in
the Placita Philos. ii I (Diels ZXaxogr.
p. 328). The Greek words cannot
possibly mean the inscription of the
formula [Tö] TéAos, either followed
(as in 22) or not followed by vy.
9–20; so that Eusebius is not likely
to have had the formula in view
when he was employing the com-
mon word TéAoS in its natural Sense.
32 NOTES ON SEZZCZ RAEAD/WGS MARK xvi 9–20
Strangely enough, theanswer given
by Eusebius to the next question,
relating to a supposed contradiction
between Mt xxviii I and Jo xx I,
is, taken by itself, inconsistent with
his former answer: it implicitly
excludes that interpretation of 6 pe
a'aff36twv in Mt which had been
there assumed as a standard for
correcting the construction of Mc
xvi. 9. This second answer, evi-
dently founded on the Epistle of
I)ionysius of Alexandria to Basilides,
is however in effect, though not in
form, a third alternative solution of
the first difficulty. It thus merely
affords an additional illustration of
the indecision often displayed by
Eusebius, especially in presence of
a conflict of traditional authorities.
In the textual question likewise he
shews indecision; but of a kind
which marks plainly at what point
the Gospel ended, as used and
adopted by him. His second Sup-
posed critic accepts the presence and
absence of vv. 9—20 as alike to be
received, simply because it would
be rash to reject from Scripture a
passage Sanctioned by any sort of ec-
clesiastical usage. Yet this balanced
view, by which the omission of these
verses is placed on a level with their
prudential reservation, isitself placed
on a level with their unqualified re-
jection. Thus, while Eusebius him-
self to a certain extent exemplifies
the instinctive hankering after in-
clusiveness of text which has led to
the facile retention of so many in-
terpolations, he allows it to be trans-
parent that he did not seriously re-
gard the disputed verses as part of
the Gospel. And this interpretation
of his language is strikingly con-
firmed by the total absence of any
allusion to their contents in another
answer to Marinus (296 ff.), in
which he carefully compares the
appearances recorded in the Gospels
with the list in I Cor xv. 5 fſ.
Moreover the order which he adopts,
placing the final narrative of Mt
(xxviii 16–20) before some of the
appearances mentioned by St Paul,
virtually excludes parallelism with
the final narrative of Mc (xvi I4–20),
which runs on to the Ascension.
Whatever may have been his
own judgement, the textual facts
stated by Eusebius at the outset
have an independent value, and re-
quire to be carefully noted. In two
places he says vaguely that v.v.
9–20 are “not current in all copies
of the Gospel”, “ current in some
but not in all”. But, wherever he
takes clear account of quality or
quantity, the testimony borne by
his language is distinctly unfavour-
able to these verses: ‘‘the accurate
copies” end the Gospel at the pre-
ceding verse; this is the case “in
almost all the copies of the Gospel”;
the disputed verses “are current
to a scanty extent, in some * copies,
though not in all. Whether the
statement is original or, as Matthaei
and Dr Burgon suggest, reproduced
from the lost comment of an earlier
writer, as Origen, cannot be decided.
If it was borrowed from Origen, as
we strongly suspect that it was, the
testimony as to MSS gains in im-
portance by being carried back to
a much earlier date and a much
higher authority. Whoever was the
author, he must of course be under-
stood to speak only of the copies
which had come directly or indirectly
within his own knowledge, not of all
copies then existing in his time.
Secondly, either rejection or igno-
rance of vv. 9–20 is clearly implied
in a remarkable scholium bearing
the name of Eusebius, preserved in
255, a Moscow cursive (Matthaei"
A/c. 269; Burgon 319 ff.). Emu-
merating in a summary and almost
tabular manner the appearances
MARK XVI 9–20 AWOZZS ON SEZA, CZ" RAEAZ)/NGS 33
of Christ after the Resurrection,
it states that “according to Mark
He is not said to have appeared
to the disciples after the Resur-
rection”; and thus it implies the
rejection of at least vv. 14 ff. This
scholium is indeed, as Dr Burgon
points out, an abridgement of an
anonymous Scholium forming a con-
tinuous comment on Jo xxi 14,
which, as published by Matthaei"
(2 Thess. 228 f.) from 3 Moscow
MSS, 237, 239, 259, makes no
reference to Mc. It is difficult how-
ever to believe that the original
writer ignored Mc altogether, as
assuming xvi I2 f. and 14 f. to be
sufficiently covered by his explicit
references to Lc (xxiv. 13 ff.) and Mt
(xxviii 16 ff.); and stillmore that the
abbreviator, totally disregarding
these two passages of xvi, invented
his definite negative statement be-
cause he noticed the absence of S.
Mark’s name. There can be little
doubt that he had before him some
Such text as this, katá pºšu yöp Töv
[Mcipkov oi, Aéyérat āq,0at Toís platºn-
Taſs: Kató, 6é Tów] Matóaſov &pôm
aútoſs éu Tà Taxi\aig påvov, and that
the bracketed words were omitted by
homoeoteleuton in a common source
of the Moscow MSS. The Euse-
bian authorship of the scholium is
not affected by a slight coincidence
(ot...avvexós) of phrase with Chrys
on Jo xxi I4; for the idea literally
expressed by it, the ‘discontinuity”
of the appearances, is at least as old
as Origen (Cels. ii 65 f.). This
Second direct testimony as to the
text used by Eusebius is closely re-
lated to the negative evidence sup-
plied by the answer noticed above
(Mai 296 ff.); and both extracts
may well have come from the same
work.
The third testimony is that of the
Eusebian Canons, which according
to the more ancient and trustworthy
documents omitted vv. 9—20. The
best evidence from Greek MSS,
supported by the Latin Vulgate and
the statement of a scholium in I and
209 (which have a common ancient
Source), Éaſs of kai Eða'é8tos & IIap-
‘pi\ov ékavóviorev, shews conclusively
that v. 8 either formed or com-
menced the last section (numbered
233), though in Some MSS its nu-
meral naturally slipped down to the
larger break at v. 9, after these
verses had become part of the ac-
cepted text; and further, since sec-
tion 233 belongs to Canon 2, which
consists of passages common to all
of the first three Gospels, it must
have ended as well as commenced
with v. 8. It was equally natural
that the supposed neglect on the
part of Eusebius should in due
time be systematically rectified; so
that many MSS divide vv. 9—20
into supplementary sections, and
alter the canons accordingly. His
own text is but placed in clearer
relief by these changes.
The principal statement of Euse-
bius was reproduced without ac-
knowledgement by later writers in
various forms. The epistle of Je-
rome to Hedibia (120 Vall.) con-
tains answers to 12 queries on bibli-
cal difficulties. In several cases
even the queries are free translations
of those which stand under the name
of Marinus, and therefore probably
owe their wording to Jerome him-
self; while the answers are conden-
sations of the answers of Eusebius.
On the third query Jerome says
“Aſujus quaestionis duplex solutio est:
aut enim more recipimus Marci festi-
monium, 77tod in raris fertur ezazz-
geliis, omnibus Graeciae ſióris Žeme
/oc capitulum more habentibus, prae-
sertime quum diversa atque contraria
evangelistis ceteris narrare zidea-
fºr auf hoc respondendum ” &c.
This is certainly not an independent
34. MOTES ON SEZFC 7 RAEAD/WGS MARK xvi 9–20
statement: yet it is not likely that
a man so conversant with biblical
texts as Jerome would have been
content to repeat it unmodified, con-
sidering the number and importance
of the verses in question, had it
found no degree of support in the
Greek MSS which had come under
his own observations. The AEpistle
to Aediffia was written at Bethlehem
in 406 or 407, when he was about
66 or 67 years old.
An Oration on the Resurrection,
variously attributed to Gregory of
Nyssa, who cannot be the author, to
Hesychius of Jerusalem, and to
Severus of Antioch, contains a re-
mark that “in the more accurate
copies” the Gospel ended at épo-
800vro ydp, “but in some is added ?”
'Avaarās 6é K.T.A. Both the imme-
diate context and other parts of the
Oration abound in matter taken from
Eusebius, and the textual statement
is evidently nothing more than a
brief paraphrase of his words, en-
titled to no independent authority.
Near the end of the Oration the
writer himself quotes xvi 19 as to
trapó, Tig Mcipkg yeypapºpºvov; so
that, in borrowing from Eusebius
the solution of a difficulty, he must
have overlooked the inconsistency
of the introductory words with his
own text of the Gospel.
Another work attributed to He-
sychius (Quaest. lii in Cotel. AZ.A.G.
iii.45) has been supposed to imply
the absence of vv. 9–20, by saying
that Mc “ended his narrative when
“he had told in a summary manifer
“ the particulars down to the men-
“tion of the one angel”. But the
context shews that the writer is
speaking exclusively of the appear-
ances to the women, and has specially
in view the absence of the addi-
tional incident supplied by Lc xxiv.
24: moreover in Qataest. 1, p. 40, he
uses a phrase founded on xvi 9.
A third reproduction of the Eu-
Sebian statement occurs in the com-
mentary on St Mark’s Gospel which
in most MSS is attributed to Victor
of Antioch, a writer known only by
the occurrence of his name in Catenae
and compiled commentaries. This
work of his quotes Cyr.al, and
thus cannot be earlier than the
middle of Cent. v : it probably be.
longs to Cent. V or VI, but there is
Ilo clear evidence to fix the date.
In commenting on xvi I (not 9),
Victor refers to 'Avao Tös 6é K.T.A.
as added “in some copies” of the
Gospel, and to the apparent discre-
pance with Mt thus arising: “we
might have said '', he proceeds,
“ that the passage which is current
as standing last in some [copies] of
Mc. is spurious”; but, for fear of
“seeming to take refuge in too easy
an expedient” (äri Tô &roupov re-
puyéval), he prefers to meet the
difficulty by punctuation. In this
passage, and still more in the ad-
joining context, Eusebian materials
abound, and Eusebius is named in
the next paragraph. Thus far there-
fore no conclusion either as to
Victor’s own text or as to the text
of MSS within his knowledge can
safely be drawn from his words.
This however is but a part of
his evidence. The paragraph con-
taining the reference to the textual
variation is followed by another
paragraph which the MSS place as
a note on v. 9 (or 9 f.), but which
actually deals with vv. 6–8 alone.
On all the weighty matter contained
in vv. 9—20 Victor is entirely silent.
This silence is the manifest cause of
the displacement of his last para-
graph in the MSS of the Gospel
which contain his commentary, and
it can have but one interpretation:
vv. 9—20 must have been absent
from his copy of the Gospel.
Though Victor's own work ends
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES ON SEZ ECT READ/WGS 35
at v. 8, each of the two principal
editions, by Poussin and Cramer
respectively, has a subsequent note
or Scholium. A short anonymous
commentary (from a Vatican MS)
which Poussin intersperses with that
of Victor and with a third, has
8 lines on v. 9; and here Eusebius
is cited by name, the subject being
Mary Magdalene, with reference to
the appearance to her and the other
women narrated in vv. 1 ff. But
there is no evidence for connecting
this note directly or indirectly with
Victor.
The other scholium, which con-
cludes Cramer's edition and is found
in many MSS, deserves more atten-
tion. “Although *, it says, “the
“words 'Avaqtās 6é K.T.A., and
‘‘ those which next follow in the
“Gospel according to Mark, are
“absent from very many copies,
“as some Supposed them to be as
“it were spurious, yet we, from
“accurate copies, as having found
“them in very many, in accordance
“with the Palestinian Gospel of
“Mark, as the truth is, have put
“together ” &c. : what follows is
corrupt, but must in substance mean
the insertion or retention of vv.
9–20. This scholium evidently pre-
supposes the critical remark which
Victor borrowed from Eusebius, and
must be intended to refer back to
it. Victor himself cannot possibly
be its author. It is chiefly found in
anonymous MSS, with a few in
which another name is prefixed to
the commentary, very rarely in those
which bear his name; and this fact
is the more important because the
variations in the MSS shew the
commentary to have undergone much
bold rehandling. The scholium does
not qualify Victor's own words but
contradicts them : nor could the two
passages have stood thus far apart
and out of visible connexion, had
they proceeded from a single author,
with whom the first was but intend-
ed to prepare the way for the second.
These considerations are independ-
ent of the cessation of Victor’s com-
ments at v. 8, and the combined evi-
dence leaves no room for doubt. The
scholium must have been added at
the end of the book by some Greek
editor who was modifying or abridg-
ing the Victorian commentary, pos-
sibly the unknown Peter of Laodicea
whose name appears in some of the
MSS, and who cannot be a fictitious
personage. His evident purpose was
tº undo the impression which might
be left by Victor's words, and with
this view he appealed to MSS ex-
tant in his own time. What was
the value of the “accurate copies”
and “the Palestinian Gospel of
Mark” appealed to by an unknown
editor in the sixth or some later,
perhaps much later, century, in
defence of the current text of his
time against an ancient criticism, it
is neither possible nor important to
know.
The third commentary printed
by Poussin comes likewise to an end
at v. 8 in the Toulouse MS em-
ployed by him. But it is not yet
known whether other MSS attest a
similar text; and at all events the
Toulouse scholia are here almost
identical with those that are attri-
buted to Theophylact, which cer-
tainly cover vv. 9—20.
On the other hand the short anony-
mous Argument (Öiróðegis) prefixed
to the Gospel in Poussin's edition
(p. 1) must have been written by some
one who used a copy from which
vv. 9–20 were absent. After a
very brief account of the evangelist
he gives the substance of i 1–20,
and then passes almost at Once to the
Last Supper, the Betrayal, the Cru-
cifixion, the parting of the gar-
ments, the Burial, and the Resur-
36
rection; ending with the words Kal
toūto Ta’s yuvaičiv 6 karaśās āy-ye-
Xos & Tây)et\ev, ºva Kai attat dTay-
'yet\wat To's padmTats (xvi 7). Thus,
he is silent, not only as to the ap-
pearances in vv. 9–13, but as to the
last charge, and even the Ascension.
The author cannot be Victor, whose
own Preface (Tpó\oyos) is extant,
and contains likewise an account of
the evangelist.
On the relics of the Eusebian tra-
dition of a discrepance of reading
which survive into the middle ages
a few words will suffice. . Whatever
may have been the currency of the
original work of Eusebius, or of
extracts from it, the Oračíoſz on the
A'esurrection and the scholium ap-
pended to the Victorian comment-
ary were evidently well known.
Euthymius, followed by a Venice
MS of Theophylact, refers distinctly
to “some of the interpreters”. The
writers of the several scholia (four
forms are known) which appear in
a few cursives were content to pre-
serve a record of the absence of vv.
9–20 from “some of the copies”,
while they variously described the
opposing authorities as “some *
or “many” or “the more ancient”
copies: but doubtless these variations
were arbitrary, the discrepance of
reading having vanished some cen-
turies earlier. In three MSS de-
rived from a common original, 20 2 15
3oo, the scholium strangely stands
within the text between vv. 15 and
16, as though the omitted verses were
16–20: the obvious explanation
that it was originally a footnote,
referred to at v. 9 by a marginal
asterisk which the scribe of the
common original overlooked, is
singularly confirmed by its present
position as the last words of a page
of text in all three MSS. These
MSS, as also A and a few cur-
sives, profess in subscriptions to
AVOTES ON SELECT READ/AWGS MARK XVI 9–20
the Gospels to have been written
with collation of “the ancient
copies at Jerusalem'' (some add
“which are laid up in the Holy
Mountain”), much in the same way
as the Pseudo-Victorian scholium
(above, p. 35) appeals to “the ac-
curate copies” and ‘‘the Palestinian
Gospel of Mark”.
For many details of fact respect-
ing the MSS of the Victorian com-
mentary, and also of the scholia
generally, we are indebted to Dr
Burgon's indefatigable researches,
the results of which are given in his
book already named, and in his
supplementary letters to the Guar-
diazz newspaper of 1873-4.
The positive patristic evidence for
the omission of vv. 9–20, it will
have been seen, is supplied by Euse-
bius and his various followers, among
whom Victor and probably Jerome
alone carry additional weight as in-
dependent witnesses, and , by the
unknown author of the Útróðeats.
The negative evidence cannot how-
ever be passed over, as the peculiar
contents of these verses confer on it
an unusual degree of validity. They
contain (1) a distinctive narrative,
one out of four, of the events after
the day of the Resurrection ; (2) one
of the (at most) three narratives of the
Ascension; (3) the only statement in
the Gospels historical in form as to
the Session at the Right Hand ; (4)
one of the most emphatic statements
in the N. T. as to the necessity of
faith or belief; and (5) the most
emphatic statement in the N. T. as
to the importance of baptism ; be-
sides other matter likely to be
quoted. The silence of writers who
discuss with any fulness such topics
as these is evidently much more sig-
nificant than the mere absence of
quotations of passages which it was
equally natural to quote or not to
quote; and, even where there are no
MARK XVI 9–20 AWOZ’AS ON SEZECT READ/WGS
such express discussions, the chances
that one or other of these verses
would have been casually quoted in
voluminous writings, if it had been
known and received, are unusually
high. -
In the whole Greek Ante-Nicene
literature there are at most but two
traces of vv. 9–20, and in the ex-
tant writings of Clem.al and Ori-
gen they are wholly wanting. Un-
fortunately no commentary of Origen
On any Gospel narrative of the Re-
Surrection and the subsequent events
has been preserved ; and the evi-
dence from the silence of both these
writers is of the casual rather than
the special kind.
On the other hand the negative
evidence of Cyril of Jerusalem (about
349) is peculiarly cogent. Lectu-
ring the candidates for baptism on
the Creed of Jerusalem, he illustrates
copiously from Scripture the clause
Kai kaffigavra ék 6eštáv Toff Tarpós
without referring to xvi 19 (Catech.
Xiv 27–30). It is true that a little
earlier (c. 24), in speaking of the
preceding clause on the Ascension
itself (kai diveX6óvra eis Toys otpavo's),
he reminds his hearers of a public
Sermon. On the Ascension which he
had preached in their presence the
day before ; and, though he reca-
pitulates in a cursory way some
points then expounded at length,
he quotes no passage from the N. T.
But with the clause on the Session,
which peculiarly interested him on
account of his aversion to the doc-
trine of Marcellus, he pursues a
different plan. His whole list of
illustrative passages had evidently
included a considerable number from
the O.T.: but, after citing Is vi I
and Ps xciii 2, he now (cc. 27 f.)
stops short, proposes to cite “a few
only out of many” texts, contents
himself with one more “clear ’’ tes-
timony from the Psalms (cx I), and
37
then proceeds to the N. T., from
which he quotes no less than eleven
passages. For the topic which alone
here engaged him (kaff. &K Šeštáv)
the list is virtually exhaustive : the
only omissions are the parallels in
Mc and Lc to Mt xxii 43, which
evidently did not need repetition ;
Heb viii 1, which adds nothing to
i 3 ; and Act vii. 55, which relates
to “standing’ (éa Tóta ék 6eš.). Such
a list could not have omitted what
would have been to Cyril the most
pertinent and fundamental passage
of all if he had found it in his Gos-
pels. Again his lectures on Baptism
(iii: see especially c. 4) and on Faith
(v : see especially c. Io) are no less
destitute of any reference to xvi 16,
though he is especially fond of quo-
ting terse and trenchant sentences.
It would be strange indeed if all
three omissions were accidental. .
With respect to slighter evidence,
it is at least worthy of notice
that vv. 9–20 have apparently left
no trace in the voluminous writings
of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of
Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril
of Alexandria, and Theodoret. With
some of these authors the silence
may well be accidental, and espe-
cially with Theodoret, but hardly
with all. It may be added that the
£rima facie significance of Cyril's
silence is not materially lessened by
the fact that he transcribes without
remark Nestorius’s quotation of v. 20;
for, unlike the other quotations in
the extract from Nestorius, it does
not affect Cyril's argument: see also
the case of Macarius below, p. 4o.
Passing to the Latin Fathers, we
find strong negative evidence that
vv. 9–20 were unknown to Tertul-
lian and Cyprian. Tertullian's book
AX baptismo, in 20 chapters, is a
defence of baptism and its necessity
against one Quintilla, dealing spe-
cially with the relation of baptism
38 AVOTES ON SELECT READ/WGS MARK xvi 9–20
to faith. To those who said Baż-
£ismus more est necessarius quibus
ſides satis est he replies that after
faith had come to include the Na-
tivity, Passion, and Resurrection,
ſex tinguendº imposita est et forma
praescripta ; Ite, inquit, docete na-
tiones, tinguentes eas in nomine
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti ;
Attic legi collata definitio iſla Nisi
quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu
non intrabit in regnum caelorum
obstrinxit ſidem ad baptism? necessi-
tatemz (c. 13) : yet neither here nor
elsewhere does he refer to the verse
which would have supplied him
with the desired authority in five
words. Some imaginary references
to these verses by Tertullian in other
books hardly deserve a passing no-
tice : for Apol. 2 I see Mt xxviii 19;
LC xxiv. 47; Act xi 19; Col i 23 &c.;
for Apol. 5 I Mc xii 36 &c.; for
Anim. 25 Lc viii 2.
The baptismal controversies in
which Cyprian was engaged afforded
no such stringent motive for addu-
cing Mc xvi 16, though it might
have been expected to be cited some-
where in the epistles bearing on this
subject: but there can be only one
reason for its absence from the third
book of his collection of Testimonies
from Scripture, which includes such
heads as these, Ad 7%gzzzzzzz ZXe: 727s2
baptizatus et rematus quis fuerit
£erzemire non fosse (25), Eume qui
anon crediderit ſame judicatum esse
(31), Fidem żolume prode esse et #an-
&zeme zeos fosse 724azzfume credimzes (42),
Posse eum statiºn consequi [baptis-
mum] qui zere credialerit (43). This
evidence of the earlier Fathers of
North Africa is specially important
on account of the local and genea-
logical remoteness of their text from
the texts which supply nearly all the
other evidence to the same effect.
It may be added that Lucifer and
Hilary, who have purer texts than
any other Latin Fathers of Cent. Iv,
leave vv. 9—20 unnoticed : but their
silence may be due to the absence
of sufficient motives for quotation.
Jerome, in condensing the remarks
of Eusebius, seems studiously to
avoid coming to a decision, aut enim
nonz recipimus &c., aut hoc respon-
dendum & "c.
The Shorter Conclusion II&vra öé
—orwtmptasis found (with unimportant
variations) in L as an alternative to
vv. 9—20 and preceding them (see
above, p. 30); in 274 in a footnote
without introductory formula (Bur-
gon in Guardian, 1873, p. II 2); in
A continuously with v. 8, (which
takes the form il/ae autem cum exi-
zemed a monumenzio fugeruzzi fezzebat
emime illas tremor et favor propter
timorem,) and without notice of
vv. 9—20 ; in Syr.hl in the margin
with the note “These also are
in a manner [or ‘somewhere’, i.e.
in some authorities: cf. p. 30]
added,” and followed by duºju, the
text having vv. 9–20 ; in the mar-
gin of the best Oxford Memphitic
MS (Hunt. 17: see Lightfoot in
Scrivener’s Introduction” p. 332);
and in at least several AEthiopic MSS
continuously with v. 8, and followed
continuously by vv. 9–20, without
note or mark of any kind (Dr
Wright). No mention or trace of
the Shorter Conclusion has been
found in any Father. -
The Longer Conclusion, vv. 9—
2O, is found in ACDXTA2 and all
late uncials, (in L, as the secondary
reading,) in MSS known to Eus and
probably Hier, MSS known to the
scribe of B, all cursives, c f n o g
lat.vg syr. (vt)-vg-(hr)-hl.txt memph
(aeth, as the Secondary reading) [the
later MSS of arm] and goth : on
Fathers, Greek, Latin, and Syriac,
see below.
MARK xvi 9–20 No.72s ow SEZEcz READ/WGS 39
The only extant fragment of Mc
in Syr.vt contains vv. 17–20 ; so
that it cannot be known whether
vv. 9–20 were continuous with v.
8, or divided from it by the Shorter
Conclusion or in any other way.
Syr.hr is not in this instance an
independent witness: it is known
only from Melkite lectionaries,
which reproduce the Greek lec-
tionary of Antioch and Constanti-
nople, and naturally would not omit
a whole lesson. The Thebaic ver-
Sion is lost from xv. 32 to the end of
the Gospel: what is sometimes cited
as a loose rendering of xvi 20, on
which verse (perhaps in combination
with the Shorter Conclusion) it is
doubtless founded, is not a biblical
but a quasi-patristic text: it is a
detached fragment of a translation
of some apocryphal Acts of Apostles
(for illustrations see Lipsius in Smith
and Wace's Dict. Chr. Biogr. i 19 f.),
preserved by adhesion to the Askew
MS of the Pistis Sophia (Woide in
Ford Cod. Alex. Aſſº. 45, 19); and
the age of the unknown original
work is of course uncertain.
The Greek patristic evidence for
vv. 9–2 o perhaps begins with Jus-
tin (4%. i 45), who interprets Pa-
(360 v čvy duews éatrootexe? orot &
'IepovaaXiju (Ps cx 3) as predictive
to 0 \ 6 yov too laxwpod ów &Trö 'Iepov-
oaXilu ol diróa Toxot at Toij čeX 66 v-
tes Tavt axoj čk hp v$av. On the
one hand it may be said that the
combination of the same four words
recurs in v. 20 ; on the other, that
they were natural and obvious words
to use and to combine, and that v.
29 does not contain the point spe-
cially urged by Justin, & iro 'Iepov-
o a Nijk. £86X06vres (cf. Až. i 39,
49), which is furnished by Lc xxiv.
47 ff. ; Act i 4, 8, On both sides
the evidence is slight, and decision
seems impossible. It should be
added however that the affinity be-
tween Justin's text and that of Ire-
naeus (see below) leaves the supposi-
tion of a reference to v. 20 free from
antecedent improbability as regards
textual history.
Irenaeus (188) clearly cites xvi 19
as St Mark’s own (Ziz fine autem
evangelić ai; Marcus, corresponding
to Marcus àzeźer/res ef sectator Aetrž
initium evangelicae conscription is
fecit sic); and the fidelity of the
Latin text is supported by a Greek
scholium.
Irenaeus and possibly Justin are
the only Greek Ante-Nicene Fathers
whose extant works shew traces of
vv. 9—20. The name of Hippoly-
tus has been wrongly attached to an
undoubted quotation of vv. 17, 18
in the first paragraph of the Eighth
Book of the Apostolic Constitutions.
His name is indeed connected indi-
rectly by a slight and suspicious
tradition (see Lagarde A’ell. jur.
ecc. ant, p. viii.; Caspari Quellen 2.
Gesch. d. 7aufºymö. iii 387 ff.) with
an extract from a somewhat later
part of the same Eighth Book ; and
he is recorded to have written a
treatise entitled IIept Xaptop draw
dTootoMukº Tapáðoots, while an ex-
tract including the quotation bears
the title Auðagka)\ia Tóv Gºytov &To-
a TóAwu trept Xaptopad. Twv. But, even
on the precarious hypothesis that the
early chapters of the Eighth Book
were founded to some extent on the
lost work, the quotation is un-
touched by it, being introduced in
direct reference to the fictitious claim
to apostolic authorship which per-
vades the Constitutions themselves
(Toºrav Tóu Xaptopad.Twu trporépov učv
juſt v 606évray To?s à To a TóNot s
pé\\ovat Tö et a yºyáX vov K at a y-
ºy & \\ety ºr do m T \ k T to et K.T.A.).
IMoreover the Xaptopara about which
Hippolytus wrote can hardly have
been anything but the prophetic
giſts of the Church, which he would
4O
naturally defend, as his master
Irenaeus (p. 192) had done, against
both the disparagement of his an-
tagonists the Alogi and the per-
version of the Montanists; while the
Xapiapata of the passage of Const.
Ap. are miscellaneous and vague,
and what is said about them bears
no trace of the age and circum-
stances of Hippolytus.
In the ſourth and early part of
the fifth centuries vv. 9—20 were
used by Marinus the correspondent
of Eusebius, the anonymous hea-
then writer cited by Macarius Mag-
nes (96; and P Macarius himself,
Io8), the Apostolic Constitutions
(Books VI and VIII), Epiphanius
(AZaer. 386, 517), Didymus (7%rin. ii
12), (? Chrysostom), and Nestorius
(ap. Cyr. Adv. Mest. p. 46); and
also the apocryphal Gesta Pilafi
(c. 14, etöopaev Tów 'Imaoüv kal Toys
p.a.077&s at Toº kaffe; 3pwevov els Tô &pos
Tô ka)\otºpºevov ºf Mapſ3ſixt, kal éNeyev
Toſs pathyta's autoſ IIope v.0.6 vt es—
&#ovo tu &rt rod 'Imaoü XaXojvros
Tpós Toys gaff mTās aſſroi, etóopaev at Töv
diva)\mp0évra, eis Töv oëpavóv). The
Dialogues of a ‘Caesarius’ and the
Synopsis Scripturae Sanctae of an
“Athanasius’ belong to later times,
when the verses were doubtless uni-
versally received; and the same may
be said of the scholia of Pseudo-
Victor. Whether Chrysostom should
be included in the list, is less easy
to decide. The ultimate authorship
of a passage containing a very clear
recital of vv. 19 f. is attributed to
him (Opp. iii 765) by Montfaucon,
though it is extant only as part of
an anonymous Homily on the As-
cension, preached at an unknown
date on the Mount of Olives. The
supposition is a mere conjecture (ib.
757), resting on the somewhat pre-
carious ground that the contents
agree with the known subject of a
lost Homily of Chrysostom, but is
AVOTES ON SEZECT RAEADINGS MARK xvi 9–20
not improbably true. Another sup-
posed reference in Chrys. Homz. in
I Cor. 355 B may be either taken
directly from Mc xvi. 9 or deduced
from Jo xx 1–18. Chrysostom’s
text might reasonably be expected
to contain vv. 9–20 ; and it is
strange that his voluminous works
have supplied to one so well ac-
quainted with them as Matthaei
these two doubtful examples only.
A doubt of another kind hangs
about the apparent ratification by
Macarius Magnes of his heathen
predecessor's quotation. It is highly
improbable that they used precisely
the same text, and yet Macarius in-
variably takes the successive quota-
tions as they were offered to him,
with all their details, including some
peculiar readings.
The only Ante-Nicene Latin evi-
dence that can in any way be cited
in favour of vv. 9—20 is derived
from the opinion officially delivered
by one of the 87 North African
bishops at the Council of Carthage
under Cyprian (Sezzº. episc. 37) in
256. Vincentius of Thibaris is said
to have referred to the rule of truth
“quame ZXaminus fºraecepto divino
mandavić aposto/is dicens Ite in
nomine meo manum inponite, dae-
monia expellite, et aſio loco Ite et
docete &c. (Mt xxviii 19): ergo primo
per manus impositionem in exorcis-
mo, secundo per baptism; regenera-
tionem,” &c. It is not easy to de-
termine the origin of the words first
put forward as a quotation. If they
were founded on vv. 17, 18, Xeipas
étuffºorovalv must have been detached
from éiri àppūg Tovs, shifted back two
lines, and intercalated between év T.
Övöplatt prov and Öatpºva èk{3a)\otio-tu,
to make up an authority for exorcism
as a rite preceding baptism. The
argument in favour of this possible
though difficult supposition is the
absence of any other passage in
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES OW SAEZACT REAZ2/AWGS 4. I
which the laying on of hands is
spoken of with reference to the ſu-
ture. On the other hand vv. 17, 18
contain not a command to the apo-
stles, but a promise of powers to
those who should believe. Other
sources can likewise be found for
the seeming quotation. Its first and
last words, ſte and daemozzia expel-
life, are copied from the charge to
the apostles in Mt x 6–8; the as-
sociation of £72 7zomºrze meo with
exorcism is a natural adaptation of
Mt vii. 22; Mc ix 38 f.; Lc ix 49;
x 17; and the introduction of the
imposition of hands might be sug-
gested by the various passages in
which it is mentioned as accompany-
ing Christ's own acts of healing.
Neither in vv. 17 f, nor anywhere else
in the New Testament is the imposi-
tion of hands coupled with exorcism.
On the whole the balance of the
Somewhat ambiguous evidence is
against any reference to vy. 17 f. in
the words of Vincentius. It should
be added that the few biblical quo-
tations in the opinions delivered by
other bishops contain some distinct
differences of text, Greek and Latin,
from the quotations in Cyprian's
writings. " . ' I
In the fourth century vv. 9–20
are quoted freely by Ambrose and
Augustine, and thenceforward by
Latin, writers generally. Jerome,
who (about 383) had allowed them
a place in the Vulgate, adopted, as
we have seen (p. 33 f.), the language
of Eusebius some 24 years later.
In two other places he shews ac-
quaintance with them; once (Cozz/ra
A elag. ii I 5) in noticing a remark-
able interpolation (see note on v.
I4), and once in referring to Mary
Magdalene's delivery from posses-
Sion, recorded also, but with a
different verb, in Lc viii 2. What-
ever may have been his own judge-
ment, the phrase quoted above, in
7 aris fertur evangeliis, ownſeiðus
Graeciae libris Žeme hoc capitulum
mon habendibus, implies by the in-
sertion of Graeciae that, as far as
his knowledge went, the verses were
proportionally of commoner occur-
rence in Latin than in Greek MSS.
The testimony of the Old Syriac
in favour of vv. 9—20 is confirmed
by quotations in Aphraates, who
lived early in Cent. IV.
“'The Lection-systems of the
churches constitute in this instance
a fourth class of documentary evi-
dence, which would be of great
value if records of the practice of
the earlier ages had been preserved.
Unfortunately this is not the case.
Beyond a few slight indications,
nothing has survived of the lection-
systems anterior to the middle of
Cent. IV, apparently a time of great
liturgical change. All analogies
from the early history of ecclesiastical
antiquities render it morally certain
that wide diversity of local use
prevailed for a while, and then
gradually passed away, or became
nearly conterminous with the range
of isolated communions, as wider and
wider spheres came under the control
of centralisation. Moreover the di-
versity found in all or nearly all the
extant lection-systems excludes the
hypothesis of their having proceeded
from a single or almost single com-
mon origin in earlier times, except
to a certain extent the Latin sys-
tems. The only coincidence worthy
of attention is in the practice of
reading the Acts between Easter
and Whitsuntide, attested by Chry-
sostom from Antioch and Augustine
from N. Africa, aud found to Some
extent elsewhere : but so natural a
sequel to the last chapters of the
Gospels, which were read as a
matter of course at the Paschal
season, and so appropriate an ac-
companiment to the ‘Pentecostal’
42 MOTES ON SEZECT READ/WGS MARK xvi 9–20
period, might easily be adopted in
many regions independently.
The existing lection-systems of
great churches may often have to
some extent preserved local arrange-
ments of the earliest centuries; but
to what extent is quite uncertain :
there is indeed reason to doubt how
far it was in accordance with early
custom to assign chapters to days
as well as books to seasons. The
large prevalence of “discontinuous’
lections (that is, lections chosen
out in Some such manner as the
“Gospels’ and ‘Epistles’ of the
West, as distinguished from con-
secutive portions of a book of
the Bible,) throws great difficulties
in the way of discriminating later
accretions by means of internal evi-
dence : and from the continuous
reading of the Gospels the last
chapters in particular seem to be
always excepted. It was at Easter-
tide and on Ascension Day that Mc
xvi 9–20 was chiefly read; and
this circumstance would render it
impossible to assume a high anti-
quity for the reading of lessons
taken from these verses, even if
a high antiquity could be assumed
for the main framework of any of
the extant lection-systems in which
they occur. It could rarely happen
that a church would fail to read
them publicly at one or both of
these Seasons, so soon as it possessed
them in the current copies of the
Gospel itself: an accepted change
in the biblical text, bestowing on it
a new narrative which touched the
Resurrection in its first verse and
the Ascension in its last, would
usually be soon followed by a cor-
responding change in public read-
ing. Now, whatever may have been
the earlier history of these verses,
they were very widely current in the
biblical text at the time for which
any lection-system is known in its
details, and thus would naturally
by that time enjoy an almost equal
range of liturgical use, either by
recent acquisition or by ancient
custom : whether they had been
read publicly for one half-century
or for five, the phenomena now ac-
cessible to us would be the same.
For the sake of completeness,
the extant evidence from lections
may be briefly noticed, though for
the reasons just given it is with-
out critical value. Some incidental
references in Chrysostom's Homilies
sufficiently shew the substantial
identity of the system which was in
use at Antioch in the closing years
of Cent. IV, and at Constantinople
a little later, with at least a large
part of the Greek lection-system of
the eighth and all following cem-
turies, as recorded in Lectionaries
and in Gospels provided with tables
or marginal indications of lections.
In other words, the local use of
Antioch, and probably of N.W.
Syria, became first the local use of
the imperial city, and then grew.
into the universal use of the Greek
Church and Empire, that is, of so
much of them as remained after the
Saracen conquests of Cent. - VII
(compare Introduction $, 195); as
also of those members of the same
(Melkite) communion whose lan-
guage was Syriac, including the Mel-
kites of Palestine, to whom we owe
the “Jerusalem Syriac’ Lectionaries.
Nothing is known of this lection-
system before Chrysostom, or out-
side of Antioch and Constantinople
in his days. Its Palm Sunday lec-
tions contain no reference to the
Ascension and Session at the Right
Hand, which the elder Cyril (xiv
24) states that he had been led by
the lections read to make the sub-
ject of his sermon on that day at
Jerusalem. It fails to exhibit a
combination of lections for the use
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES ON SEZECT READINGS 43
of which at an intermediate time,
doubtless in Cappadocia, we have
the authority of Basil (Aſom. viii
p. I 14). Its supposed attestation
by the Epiphanius of Cent. Iv is
found only in a homily which the
editor Petau, with the general assent
of later critics, assigns to one or
other of the Epiphanii of a later
age. Chrysostom alleges “the law
of the fathers” (Aſſom. in Act. ix,
Off. iii Io2 B) as the authority for
the arrangement of lessons; which
cannot therefore have been intro-
duced in his own memory, that is,
later than about 360 : of more de-
finite historical knowledge the vague
phrase has no trace.
In the extant Constantinopolitan
Lectionaries and other records, and
therefore probably in the Antiochian
System, Mc xvi 9–20 is read on
Ascension Day, and forms one of
the II “Morning Gospels of the
Resurrection’ into which Mt xxviii
(except I–I 5), Mc xvi, Lc xxiv,
and Jo xx xxi are divided, and
which have various liturgical uses.
There is no sufficient authority for
the addition of 9–20 to the pre-
ceding verses in the Matins lection
for the 3rd Paschal Sunday (see
Matthaei Aºzy. Gr. Goſh. 16; Scholz
i 456; Scrivener /ntrod.” 75; as
against Matthaei” i. 731); and the
reading of them on St Mary Mag-
dalene's day was apparently occa-
sional and late.
A fragment of the (late) Alexan-
drian Greek lection-table (Zacagni
Coll. Mozz. xci f.; 712 ff.), pre-
served in a single cursive of Cent.
XI, does not contain the Gos-
pel, lections. The Jacobite Copts
read vv. 9–20 on Ascension Day
(Malan Orig. Doc. of Coff. Ch. iv
63; Lagarde. Orientalia i 9); the
Jacobite Syrians on Tuesday in
Easter-week (Adler Perss. Syr. 71 ;
Payne Smith Cat. Bodl. 146; both
cited by Dr Burgon); and the Arme-
nians on Ascension Day (Petermann
in Alt Kirchenjahr 234). The lec-
tion-systems of the Nestorian Sy-
rians (Mesopotamia) and of Ethiopia
are as yet difficult of access.
Three of Augustine's sermons
(ccxxxi I, Coxxxiii passim, ccxxxix 2)
shew that in his time, early in Cent.
V, the narratives of all four evange-
lists were read at Easter in N. Africa,
and that vv. 9—20 was included.
The tabulation of the Capuan lec-
tions in the Codex Auldensis (Cent.
VI) does not include the Gospels.
The better preserved lection-systems
of Latin Europe, namely the Roman,
which ultimately more or less com-
pletely superseded the rest, the Am-
brosian (Milan), the Mozarabic
(Spain), and the two Gallican, from
the Luxeuil Lectionary and the
Bobio Sacramentary respectively,
are preserved only in a compara-
tively late shape. With one or two
ambiguous exceptions they all read
vv. 9—20 for Easter-tide or Ascen-
sion-day. Careful investigations df
the Roman and (Luxeuil) Gallican
systems have been published in se-
parate works by E. Ranke: and his
article Perikoften in Herzog's Real-
Ancyklopädie as yet stands alone,
brief though it be, as a comparatively
critical and systematic account of
the ancient lection-systems generally.
To recapitulate what has been
said as to the evidence of lections.
All or nearly all the various extant
systems, Eastern and Western, so
far as they are known, contain vv.
9–2O : many or all of them pro-
bably, the Constantinopolitan cer-
tainly, represent with more or less
of modification the systems of Cent. V
or even in part Cent. IV; and these
in their turn were probably in most
cases founded on earlier local sys-
tems. On the other hand N. Africa
is the only region in which VV. 9–20
44 AWOTES ON SEZECT READ/AWGS MARK xvi 9–20
can be certainly shown to have been
read at the beginning of Cent. V : .
in all the other cases these verses
might or might not be an adven-
titious supplement inserted in some
late century without giving any sign
of extraneousness; while their mani-
fest appropriateness to two great
festivals would naturally bring them
into liturgical use so soon as they
became part of the current biblical
text, on the hypothesis that they
were absent from it before. Thus
the only tangible testimony which
the extant systems render to vv. 9–
20 belongs to a time at which all
testimony on behalf of these verses
has become superfluous. Lastly, any
early lection-systems that may in
some sense be preserved in extant
systems are but the survivors of a
multitude that have perished. Even
if all regions from which a single
local system has apparently risen
into wide jurisdiction are set aside,
there remain Asia Minor, Greece
and Macedonia, Greek Italy, and
Palestine, as homes of numerous
Greek churches whose native ar-
rangements of Scripture lections are
entirely unknown. -
The nature of the documentary
evidence affecting this important
variation has necessitated a length-
ened exposition. It remains to
arrange and interpret the scattered
testimonies.
The Shorter Conclusion has no
claim to be considered part of St
Mark's true text. Its attestation
proves its high antiquity, but is not
favourable to its genuineness. Its
language and contents have no in-
ternal characteristics that make up
for the weakness of the documentary
authority: the vagueness and gene-
rality of the last sentence finds no
parallel in the Gospel narratives,
and the last phrase is slightly rhe-
torical. Nor, secondly, is it credi-
ble that the Shorter Conclusion ori-
ginated with a scribe or editor who
had vv. 9–20 in the text which lay
before him. The petty historical
difficulty mentioned by Marinus as
to the first line of v. 9 could never
have suggested the substitution of 4
colourless lines for 12 verses rich
in interesting matter; and no other
reason can be found for so wholesale
a change. It remains then, thirdly,
certain that the Shorter Conclusion
was appended by a scribe or editor
who knew no other ending to the
Gospel than v. 8, was offended with
its abruptness, and completed the
broken sentence by a summary of
the contents of Lc xxiv. 9–12, and
the Gospel by a comprehensive
sentence suggested probably by Mt
xxviii 19; Lc xxiv. 47; Jo xx 21.
Hence the documentary evidence
for the Shorter Conclusion resolves
itself into additional evidence (indi-
rect, it is true, in form, but specially
certified by the nature of the indi-
rectness) for the omission of vv. 9–
20. The early date at which the
Shorter Conclusion was originally
composed and appended is shown
by the variety of its distribution,
Greek (including syr.hl, which is
virtually Greek: see /ntrod. §§ 119,
215), Latin, Memphitic, and AEthio-
pic; the various lines of which must
have diverged from a common origi-
ginal, itself presupposing a yet earlier
MS or MSS which ended with V. 8.
It may be assumed that the exem-
plars from which L (according to
the interpretation of the double end-
ing suggested above, p. 30) and the
AEthiopic took their primary text,
antecedent to the addition of vv.
9—20 from the text current around
them, were descendants of this origi-
nal; and that the marginal records
in 274 Syr.hl memph were taken
from three other descendants of it.
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES ON SEZECT KAZAD/AWGS 45
These several lost exemplars must
have simply concluded the Gospel
with Távra öé—gatmpias, following
continuously on époğouvro ydp, and
this is precisely the form of text
which Ā presents: but, curiously
enough, the text of Å in this place
must have had a less simple origin.
The habitual fundamental text of Á
is pure early African or Cyprianic
(§§ 113); so that either the early
African text must itself have had
the Shorter Conclusion, which is
possible but hardly, likely, or the
fundamental text must here, as is
found occasionally, have been sup-
plemented from another source; and
in that case, since the Shorter would
never have been substituted for the
Longer Conclusion, the fundamental
text must have had neither. The
two alternatives alone are possible:
either the Shorter Conclusion stood
in the early African text, and is thus
carried visibly back to a high anti-
quity; or the early African text
closed the Gospel with vv. 9—20,
and the addition in Å represents only
a sixth descendant of the original
above mentioned, and has nothing
to do with the early African text,
which must on this supposition have
closed the Gospel with v. 8. In the
one case the absence of any supple-
ment after v. 8 is attested for the
African text itself, in the other for
a text which preceded it.
It is now evident that the docu-
mentary authority for the Shorter
Conclusion is, when reduced to its
elements, a fortiori documentary
authority for the omission of both
Conclusions, and that the original
list (p. 29) must be enlarged accord-
ingly. The following statement of
it includes, within [], the principal
negative evidence, to the exclusion
of inconsiderable names ; capitals
being used for those writers whose
silence cannot with reasonable pro-
bability be regarded as accidental,
as well as for Eusebius, Victor, and
the author of the Útróðeorus.
A MS or MSS antecedent to the
Shorter Conclusion (which is
attested by the primary texts
of L aeth, by AE as it now
stands, and by the margins
of 274 Syr.hl me.cod)
Most of the MSS known to Eus
and probably Hier
MSS antecedent to 22.
Lat.afr (as latent in A : and see
[TERT CYP] below)
Arm. codd.opt -
[Clem Origl EUS [CYR.HR Ath
Bas Greg, naz Greg-nys
Cyr.al Thdt] VICT.ANT
AvCT. HYPOTH [TERT CyP
Lucif Hill (HIER neutral)
The list of documents supporting
vv. 9—20 may be repeated here in
the same form for comparison.
ACDXTA2, all late uncials, and
all cursives -
MSS known to the scribe of B
(The Secondary reading of L and
of 22)
MSS known to Eus and probably
Hier
c f 7z og lat.vg and Latin MSS
known to Hier
Syr. (vt)-vg-(hr)-hl. tzt
Memph (and the secondary read-
ing of aeth)
Goth
(? JUST) IREN MARIN AvCT-
ETHN (?? MAC. MAGN) const.
AP EPIPH DID (?? CIIRYs)
NEST GEST.PIL PS-VICT
expressly (appealing to MSS)
and other late writers
(?? VINCENT. THIB) AMB (HIER
neutral) AUG and later Latin
writers
APHRAATES
Lection-system of N. Africa early
in Cent. V, and later Lection-
Systems generally.
26
46 NOTES ON SEZECT READINGS MARK xvi 9–20
The genealogical relations of this
variation cannot be made out with
certainty from the extant evidence:
there is good reason to think that
vv. 9—20 are Western and the
Shorter Conclusion probably Alex-
andrian; but it would be unsafe to
treat this supposition as clearly esta-
blished. Yet Internal Evidence of
Groups affords safe grounds for a
decision. The unique criterion sup-
plied by the concord of the inde-
pendent attestations of S and B is
Supported by three independent in-
dications as to lost ancient Greek
MSS (including a strong statement
by Eusebius, or perhaps Origen, as
to the MSS known to him); by two
independent versions (one of them
being the earliest extant Latin); and
by three independent writers (one
in the middle of Cent. IV, the two
others probably in Cent. V), without
taking into account any one whose
silence can reasonably be misinter-
preted. Omission was accordingly
at least very ancient; it was widely
spread; and its attestation includes
a group (S+B+lat.afr) on which
the habitual character of its readings
confers a specially high authority.
The testimony of Old Latin MSS is
unfortunately very defective here:
we have neither the (predominantly)
African e, nor the two best of the
European class, a 6, nor the middle
European i: all the extant MSS
are either Italian, or else European
of a comparatively late and Italian-
ising type. But the phrase employed
by Jerome (above, p. 33), and the
reading of D render it likely enough
that vv. 9–20 were current in the
European Latin texts generally.
More important testimony is borne
to these vv. by the Memphitic. In
the case of a passage so likely to
steal in from Greek texts, it is diffi-
cult to suppress a suspicion as to the
incorruptness of the existing MSS.
If the text of the extant MSS, none
being older than Cent. XII or possibly
X, is incorrupt, as it well may be,
still the number of early interpola-
tions which found a place in the
Memphitic is not small. The Syriac
evidence adds no important fresh
element to the other attestation of
vv. 9–20 : of the three other Ori-
ental versions one is defective, and
two adverse. The Greek patristic
evidence proves, if proof were need-
ed, the great antiquity of these
verses; but it is all of one colour,
and belongs to the least pure line of
Ante-Nicene transmission. When
every item has been taken into
account, the conclusion to be drawn
from the Documentary evidence
alone is that vv. 9—20 are a very
early interpolation, early and widely
diffused and welcomed ; though not
so widely as to be known at the
place at which the Shorter Conclu-
sion was inserted, or at the several
places at which it was accepted;
and not so widely as to prevent the
perpetuation of copies wanting both
Conclusions, in Palestine or else-
where, on into the fourth and fifth
centuries.
This provisional conclusion is
however at once encountered by a
strong show of Intrinsic evidence.
It is incredible that the evangelist
deliberately concluded either a para-
graph with époğoëvro y dip, or the
Gospel with a petty detail of a se-
condary event, leaving his narrative
hanging in the air. Each of these
points of intrinsic evidence is of
very great weight: but the first
admits, as we shall See, a two-sided
application ; and such support as
either of them lends to the genu-
ineness of vv. 9—20 is dependent
on the assumption that nothing but
a deliberate intention of the evange-
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES ON SEZACT READ/AWGS
list to close the Gospel at v. 8
could have caused its termination
at that point in the most original
text transmitted to us. The assump-
tion fails however, for two other
contingencies have to be taken into
account: either the Gospel may
never have been finished, or it may
have lost its last leaf before it was
multiplied by transcription. Both
contingencies are startling when first
presented to the mind: but their
possibility is included in the fact of
human agency. The least difficult
explanation of the omission of vy.
9–20 on the hypothesis that they
are genuine is by the loss of a leaf
in a MS of some later but still very
early date; and an external incident
possible in the second century can-
not safely be pronounced impossible
in the first. .
These considerations are of course
negative only: they remove a prima
facie difficulty in the way of rejecting
the genuineness of vv. 9–20, but
they contain no argument against
the genuineness. . On the other
hand, though the presence of these
verses furnishes a sufficient conclu-
sion to the Gospel, it furnishes none
to the equally mutilated sentence
and paragraph. The author of the
Shorter Conclusion perceived and
supplied both wants: his first sen-
tence is just such a final clause as
v. 8 craves, and craves in vain. Once
more, the verbal abruptness is ac-
companied by a jarring moral dis-
continuity. When it is seen how Mt
xxviii 1–7 is completed by 8–Io,
and Lc xxiv 1–7 by 8, 9, it be-
comes incredible not merely that
St Mark should have closed a para-
graph with a ydp, but that his one
detailed account of an appearance
of the Lord on the morning of the
Resurrection should end upon a
note of unassuaged terror. To es-
cape this result by treating the terror
47
as due to unbelief, and thus asso-
ciating it with the thrice recounted
unbelief of the Eleven in vv. 11,
I 3, 14; only introduces fresh diffi-
culties: for (1) the women receive
no reassurance in vv. 9–20, vv.
I5 fſ, being addressed to the Eleven
alone; and (2) the discord between
v. 8, as the intended close of a group
of verses, and the other Gospels
becomes aggravated. Mt relates
that the women “departed quickly
from the tomb with fear and great
joy to tell the disciples”, Lc that
they did actually tell the tale “to
the Eleven and all the rest”. If
v. 8 of Mc was only a circumstantial
account of the immediate terror of
the women, and their consequent
silence on their way to the Eleven,
and was followed (or was intended
to be followed) by the telling of the
tale to the Eleven, as recorded by
Lc and implied by Mt, with or with-
out the interposed meeting with
Christ recorded in Mt, the verse is
congruous with its own position and
with the parallel narratives. But, if
the story was meant to end with
v. 8, (or only to be taken up after
a fresh start by vv. Io, I I, which
speak of Mary Magdalene alone,) the
fear and the silence implicitly obtain
from their position a different cha-
racter, at variance with the spirit as
well as the letter of Mt and Lc ;
and the difference is but emphasised
by the accession of the idea of un-
belief.
A second considerable item of
Intrinsic evidence prima facie fa-
vourable to the genuineness of vv.
9—20 is derived from their general
character. Whether they are his-
torically trustworthy or not, their
contents are not such as could have
been invented by any scribe or
editor of the Gospel in his desire to
supply the observed defect by a
substantial and dignified ending.
48 AWOTES ON SEZECT READINGS MARK xvi 9–20
They have every appearance of being
founded on definite written or oral
traditions. But, though this charac-
teristic distinguishes them broadly
from the Shorter Conclusion, and
shews that they do not owe their
original existence to any ordinary
incident of transcription, it does
not thereby identify their authorship
with that of the preceding verses.
A third alternative remains, to which
we shall return presently, that they
were adopted by a scribe or editor
from some other source. -
We do not think it necessary to
examine in detail the Intrinsic evi-
dence supposed to be furnished by
comparison of the vocabulary and
style of vv. 9–20 with the un-
questioned parts of the Gospel.
Much of what has been urged on
both sides is in our judgement
trivial and intangible. There remain
a certain number of differences
which, taken cumulatively, pro-
duce an impression unfavourable to
identity of authorship. Had these
verses been found in all good docu-
ments, or been Open to suspicion on
no other internal evidence, the dif-
ferences would reasonably have been
neglected. But, when the question
is merely whether they confirm or
contravene an adverse judgement
formed on other grounds, we can
only state our belief that they do to
an appreciable extent confirm it.
On the other hand the supposed
indications of identical authorship
break down completely on examina-
tion. The vocabulary and style of
vv. 9–20 not being generically
different from that of the first three
Gospels, it is naturally easy to dis-
cover many coincidences with Mc
as with the others. But we have
failed to recognise any coincidences
which point to identity of parentage
with Mc in a trustworthy and sig-
nificant manner; and we believe the
supposed harmonies with the general
purpose or structure of Mc to be in
like manner illusory.
. These various internal relations of
vv. 9—20 to the whole of Mc afford
however much less important In-
trinsic evidence than the structure
of the section itself in relation to
the preceding verses of c. xvi. The
transition from v. 8 to v. 9 is, when
carefully examined, not less sur-
prising on the one side than on the
other: the abrupt close of v. 8 is
matched by a strangely retrospective
leap at the beginning of v. 9. In
vv. 1–8 it is told how Mary Mag-
dalene and the other two women
prepared spices, came to the tomb
\tau Tpot [tſ] puá têv gaggóraw...
divaret)\avros toū ſixtov, found the
stone rolled away, saw within the
tomb a young man robed in white,
received from his lips a message from
the Lord to the disciples, and then
fled away in fear. If vv. 9 f. are
genuine, they must correspond to
Mt xxviii 9 f. There however the
narrative proceeds naturally; the
women ran to tell the disciples,
‘‘and behold Jesus met them”.
Here on the other hand we en-
counter a succession of incongrui-
ties: (1) there is no indication to
mark the appearance as an incident
of the flight just mentioned;—(2)
Mary Magdalene alone of the three
is mentioned, though nothing is
said of her being in advance of or
detached from the rest;-(3) her
former unhappy state is noticed
(trap' is k.T.A.), opportunely if the
writer were here first mentioning
her, and if he knew the incident in
a form corresponding to Jo Xx I-18,
inopportunely if he had mentioned
her a few lines before, and if, in
accordance with Mt xxviii 9 (airgºs),
he believed her to have still had
the companions named in v. I ;—
(4) the position of Tpājrov, whe-
MARK xvi 9–20 NOTES OW SEZECT AAAZ2/AWGS
ther absolutely or in relation to
vv. 12, 14, suits the beginning of a
narrative, whereas in a continuation
of vv. 1–8 it would naturally be
inserted in a more accessory man-
ner;-(5) duaa Tès 6é reads excel-
lently as the beginning of a com-
prehensive narrative, but, as a state-
ment of antecedent fact not witnessed
by human eyes, it is out of place
in the midst of an account of the
things actually seen and heard by
the women;–(6) trpal Tptºrm orać-
8&rov is without force as a slightly
varied repetition from v. 2, though
almost necessary to an initial record
of the Resurrection;–and (7) the
absence of Ó 'I'moods in v. 9 (wrongly
inserted in many documents) agrees
ill with the exclusively indirect
references to Christ in vv. I—8, and
contrasts remarkably with the em-
phatic phrases used in the analogous
places of the other Gospels (Mt
xxviii. 9 kal ióot 'Imaoüs; Lc xxiv
15 [Kat] attös 'Imaoüs; Jo xx 14
6eape? Töv 'Imaoûv čotára); while,
if vv. 9–20 belonged originally to a
different context, the name might
easily have stood at the head of
preceding sentences on the Death
and Burial. Separately and collec-
tively, these various peculiarities of
language are inconsistent with an
original continuity between vv. 1–8
and what follows, and, with the
qualified exception of the last, mark
v. 9 as the initial sentence of a
narrative which starts from the Re-
Surrection. } *
It remains to consider the Trans-
criptional Probabilities of the two
readings; that is, to enquire how far
it is possible to account for the in-
troduction of vv. 9–20 on the hypo-
thesis that they are an interpolation,
or for their omission on the hypo-
thesis that they are genuine. If they
are genuine, the cause of omission
49
must have been of some unusual kind.
Neither the slight historical difficulty
mentioned by Marinus, nor the
strangeness of the transition from
v. 8 to v. 9, nor any other strictly
internal ground of offence can have
led to so violent a remedy as the
excision of the last twelve verses of
a Gospel, leaving a sentence incom-
plete : remedial omissions on this
Scale, and having such results, are
unknown.
Nor again can omission be ex-
plained by misunderstanding of the
word TéA0s which often stands after
v. 8 in cursives, as it does in other
places of the N.T., few in some
MSS, many in others. Wherever the
word is a remnant of the significant
double réAos found in 22 (see above,
p. 30), it was probably handed down
from an early copy, but a copy the
form of which already presupposes
the existence of both readings. For
the common liturgical use of TéAos,
as denoting the end of a (Constantino-
politan) lection, there is no evidence
earlier than Cent. VIII: the addi-
tion of Tô TéAos [kal j čpa] to dTéxet
by D cubº lat.vt syrr in Mc xiv. 41
cannot possibly have had this origin
(see note ad Z.). But, even on the
hypothesis that TéAos was so used in
MSS of Cent. II, it is incredible
that any scribe should be beguiled
by it into omitting the subsequent
verses which according to the very
hypothesis he must have been ac-
customed to read and hear.
There remains only the supposi-
tion of accidental loss. The last
leaf of a MS of Cent. II might easily
be filled with vv. 9–20, and might
easily be lost; and thus the MS
would naturally become the parent
of transcripts having a mutilated
text. It is not so easy to under-
stand how a defect of this mag-
nitude in so conspicuous a part
of the Gospels could be widely pro-
5O AVOTES ON SEZFCZ" RAEAD/WGS MARK xvi 9–20
pagated and adopted, notwithstand-
ing the supposed existence of a fuller
text in the copies current all around.
Nevertheless the loss of a leaf in
Cent. II, does afford a tenable mode
of explaining omission, and would
deserve attention were the Docu-
mentary and the Intrinsic evidence
ambiguous. r
On the other hand the question
whether the insertion of vv. 9—20
can be readily accounted for, on the
hypothesis that they are not genuine,
at once answers itself in part; that
is, as regards the probability that
some addition would be made after
v. 8. The abruptness of termination
could escape no one, and would
inevitably sooner or later find a
transcriber or editor bold enough to
apply a remedy. What was here
antecedently probable is confirmed
by the actual existence of the Shorter
Conclusion, the manifest product of
some such editorial audacity: and
its testimony to this effect remains
unchanged, whether the antecedent
text which lacked vv. 9—20 was
itself preceded or not by a fuller text
which contained them.
It is not however an addition in
the abstract that has to be accounted
for, but the definite and remarkable
addition of vv. 9–20. Here the
Intrinsic evidence already adduced
against the genuineness of these
verses (pp. 46–49) is from another
side a prima facie difficulty in ex-
plaining how they could be inserted.
A scribe or editor, finding the
Gospel manifestly incomplete, and
proceeding to conclude it in lan-
guage of his own, would never
have begun with the words which
now stand in v. 9. If he noticed
the abruptness of v. 8 as a sentence
and as the end of a paragraph, he
must have at least added some such
words as the first sentence of the
Shorter Conclusion. If he noticed
perfect end of the Gospel.
only the abruptness of v. 8 as the
end of the Gospel, and was provided
with fresh materials from traditional
or other sources, still he must have
expressed some kind of sequence be-
tween the old part of the narrative
and the new, instead of turning Sud-
denly back to the Resurrection and
its day and hour, and bringing Mary
Magdalene freshly and alone upon
the scene, as though she had not
been one of three whom the pre-
ceding verse had left fleeing from
the tomb in speechless terror.
This consideration, equally with
the intrinsic character of the con-
tents of vv. 9–20 (see pp. 47 f.),
excludes the supposition that these
verses originated in a desire of a
scribe or editor to round off the im-
It is in
like manner fatal to an intermediate
view which has found favour with
some critics, that vv. 9—20 are a
supplement added by the evangelist
at a later time to the work pre-
viously left for some reason un-
finished. This mode of attempting
to solve the problem is not alto-
gether inconsistent with the docu-
mentary evidence: but it leaves v. 9,
both in itself and in relation to v. 8,
‘more hopelessly enigmatic than it
stands on any other view. On the
other hand the language of v. 9
presents no difficulty if it is the
beginning of a narrative taken from
another source.
When the various lines of In-
ternal Evidence, Intrinsic and Tran-
scriptional, are brought together,
they converge to results completely
accordant with the testimony of the
documents, but involving limitations
to which ordinary documentary
evidence, taken by itself, has no
means of giving expression. If the
transition from v. 8 to v. 9 were
natural, omission might be explained
MARK XVI I4
by a very early accidental loss of a
leaf; but both sides of the juncture
alike cry out against the possibility
of an original continuity. The case
is hardly less strong (I) against an
intended conclusion of the Gospel
with v. 8; and (2) against the in-
vention of vv. 9—20 by a scribe or
editor. But neither of these two
suppositions is a necessary element
in the result suggested by the
Documentary attestation, that vv.
9—20 and the Shorter Conclusion
were alike absent from the earliest
and purest transmitted text, and
alike added at a later time owing
to a sense of incompleteness. There
is however no difficulty in supposing
on the contrary (1) that the true in-
tended continuation of vv. 1—8
either was very early lost by the
detachment of a leaf or was never
written down; and (2) that a scribe
or editor, unwilling to change the
words of the text before him or to
add words of his own, was willing
to furnish the Gospel with what
seemed a worthy conclusion by in-
corporating with it unchanged a nar-
rative of Christ's appearances after
the Resurrection which he found in
some secondary record then sur-
viving from a preceding generation.
If these suppositions are made, the
whole tenour of the evidence be-
comes clear and harmonious. Every
other view is, we believe, untenable.
The opening words of v. 9 'Ava-
a rās 6é Trpaſt, without 6’Imaoûs or any
other name, imply a previous con-
text, and mark vv. 9—20 as only
the conclusion of a longer record:
but to what length the record ex-
MozAS OW SEZECT READINGS 5 I
tended, it is idle to speculate. On
the other hand it is shown by its
language and structure to be com-
plete in itself, beginning with the
Resurrection and ending with the
Ascension. It thus constitutes a
condensed fifth narrative of the
Forty Days. Its authorship and its
precise date must remain unknown:
it is however apparently older than
the time when the Canonical Gospels
were generally received; for, though
it has points of contact with them
all, it contains no attempt to har-
monise their various representations
of the course of events. It mani-
festly cannot claim any apostolic
authority; but it is doubtless founded
on some tradition of the apostolic
age. ... • -
xvi. I4 ſin.] + Zºº ill; satisfacie-
bant dicenſes Saeculum isſud inigui-
tatis eſſ incredu/ićačis substantia [al.
sub Satana] est, quae 7zon simić per
immundos spiritus veram /Jei appre-
hendi virtutem : idcirco jammunc
7 evela justițiam tuam “some copies
and especially Greek MSS...in the
end of the Gospel according to
Mark” according to Hier. ZXia/. c.
Aelag. ii 15, who begins with
quoting the whole verse (Posſea...
mon crediderunt). “If you dispute
this authority (Cui sã contradicitis)”,
he continues, “at least you will not
dare to repudiate the saying Mundus
2n maligno positus est (1 Jov 19) and
Satan's audacious temptation of his
Lord” &c.CompareTert. De res.carm.
59, . Sed futurum, inquis, aevum
alterius est dispositionis et aeterizae :
igitur hujus aevi substantiam moſt
aetername diversa fossidere moſt £osse.
52 AWOZTA'S OAV SAE ZAZCZ" R.A.A/O/WGS
LUKE I 28
ST L UIKE
i 28 fin.] ++ evXoympévm at év
ovvaišív. H Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. AEth. Goth.); incl. Eus.
D.A. Tert. Virg.zel. Ephr. Diat.
arm. 49. Text NBL I-131 81* al
syr.hr me the arm pp"; also pro-
bably Petr.al.47Routh Ps.Tit. Man.
82 Lag Sever.jo. Cram. 30 auct. A home.
I 72, who quote no further.
From v. 42, perhaps through
the medium of the apocryphal Book
of James I I f. (according to most
MSS), where v. 42 is omitted at its
proper place.
i 35 yewv&ºevovl-Hék o'où Western
(Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth. [Arm.]);
incl. Just Valentinian.a.p.Hipp Iren.
lat Greg.thaum Ath Tert. Prax.26;
not D b f f q vg Eus. D. E. Tert.
Arax.27 Cyp : Tert. Marc.iv. 7 has
Žzz že zzascefutzº.
Supplied from a desire of sym-
metry after the two preceding
clauses; and suggested by the con-
text. . .
i 46 Mapudul Flisabe: a 6 rhe
Iren.lat. 235 (codd.opt) and copies
known to Orig (or Hier his translator)
Aſomt. LC. vii p. 940 : Mary’s name is
said to be here “in some copies”
while “according to other MSS” it
is Elizabeth that prophesies; other
passages of this and the following
Homily (e.g. viii p. 940 ſin. Amate
Johannem £7'ophetaf Elisabeth, ante
ortum Domini salvatoris prophetat
AZaria) shew that text was assumed
to be right. All the evidence is
probably Western, but of limited
range; text being found in D ce
f?) f q vg | Tert Iren.lat.[235
codd.]; 185 Amb Aug.
Probably due partly to an as-
sumption that the hymn was in-
cluded in the subject of v. 41
(étr) floºm Tvetºuatos dylov), partly
to the use of avTâ in v. 56.
ii 2 airm, dToypaſp?, trpcºt') &Yé-
veto] alſT) iſ diſroypaqº) TrpióTºm éyé-
veto Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian) and
Syrian (Gr.; vv ambiguous); incl.
8°ACLR Eus.As.”; D.A. (cod.opt.).
Also airm diroypad) eyāvero Tp(3rm
probably Western (N*D [?Just] Orig.
Mł.lat): the early correction pro-
ducing this reading in S was pro-
bably, as Tischendorf thinks possi-
ble, made by the original scribe, who
at first wrote &YTHNATOTP2 (pHN,
doubtless rather by mechanical as-
similation of airm dºtroypaqº) to the
preceding Tào av Tiju oikovgåumu than
by misreading of 2XTHHATIOTP2 (pH.
Text B 8r 131 203. -
The peculiarity of the language
was thus removed or diminished in
two different and independent ways,
by inserting h (a mere repetition
of the last preceding letter) between
aúrm and &Troypaqºſ, and by placing
the verb before Tp(6tm. *
ii 7 pätvmī oſtrmXalq, repeated-
ly Epiph. i 43 I A, C, D; 47D (his
double phrase év p & Tv m k at [év]
a trºm A at 9 in one place seems to be
partly from v. 12), but doubtless by
a confusion with the apocryphal
Book of James (18 ff.); cf. Ephr.
AXiaf. 266. See on Mt. ii II.
ii I4 ejöokia's] (margin) ejöokia
Pre-Syrian (perhaps Alexandrian)
and Syrian (Gr. Syr. Eg. Æth. Arm.);
incl. Origº (Cels. i. 6o; Ps. xlvi. 9
[Cord.]; }o. 15) *[Ps.]Meth Eus”
(/). Æ. 163,342) Cyr.hr.xii 32 Epiph.
Aſaer.i 354 Greg.naz. Or. xlv. I Did”
([?"|Ps. lxxi, 18; lxxxv I; Zºrin.i 27
p. 84) Cyr.al” (loc. [gr Syr, and again
Syr]; xv 28 [gr Syrl; /s. xliv 23;
LUKE II. I.4
Aſid. 6 [= Witc.unig. 681]; 15.4; Homt.
in Oſº. v. 459 Pusey; Dial, ad
Aerm. ap. Pitra Spic...Sol. i. 341 ;
*Anthropomorph.28); but the con-
texts are neutral in all the places not
marked with *, and the supposed
quotation from Meth is taken from
a work of very doubtful authen-
ticity, the Or. in Symz. et Anname:
to the evidence must be added
the Gloria Žzz exce/sis in Greek,
on which see below. Text S*ABD
latt.omn go Iren. lat. 186 Orig.lat.
Hier. Aſomt. ZC. xiii p.946(and con-
text) Orig. Mt.lat. 537 Ps. Ath.Synt.
ad polit. p. 587 pp.lat.onn; also
the Latin Gloria Žiz excelsis.
The only assured Ante-Nicene
patristic testimony for either vari-
ant is the passage from Origen's
Homily translated by Jerome, the
reading in hominibus bonae zo/un-
tatis of the actual quotation being
confirmed by what follows: “S:
scriptum essef Super terram pax et
hucusgate essed finita sententia, recte
quaestio 7tascerefur [sc. as to dis-
crepance with Mt x 34]: nunc zero
tit eo quod additum est, hoc est quod
£ost £azeme diciºur, in hominibus
bonae voluntatis, solvić quaestionem,
pax enim quam aton daf Dominals
Super terram nozz est pax bonae
voluntatis: negate enime aſſº simpli-
citer Non veni pacem mittere, sed
cum additamento, super terram; ºne-
gate e contrario dixit Non veni pa-
cem mittere super terram hominibus
bonaevoluntatis.” Here Orig, whose
style can be recognised throughout,
especially in the clause beginning
fax enzimt, manifestly reads evöokias,
combining it in construction with
elpſium, not with divöpaſtrous.
The reading of Iren must remain
uncertain. The actual quotation
may be due either to himself or to
the Latin translator; and Origen's
interpretation shews the ambiguity of
a sentence on the next page: “In ed
Mozzs ow SELECT READ/WGS
53
emim quod dicunt Gloria in altissimis
Deo et in terra pax, etc/t 7zeź się
altissimorum hoc est supercaelestium
factor, et eorum quae Super terram
omnium conditor, his sermonibus
glorificaºlerunt, 7tti suto plasmati,
/hoc est hominibus, steam benignita-
fema salutis de caelo misiſ.” The
pause at the outset on elphum recurs
in Origen, and Öertignitas salutis
may be a paraphrase either of eipſium
eijóoktas or of ejöokia alone.
It is no less uncertain, though on
different grounds, whether Origen
used a different text of this verse in
different writings, or whether the
three places in which his extant
works exhibit eijóokia have been
altered in transcription of printing.
No stress can be laid on the quota-
tion in Mt.lat, as it may have been
modified by the translator, and the
corresponding Greek text has suf-
fered condensation. But, as re-
gards the Greek quotations, few
changes could arise more easily
than the dropping of a single letter,
where its removal produced assimi-
lation to two previous nominatives;
and in this case the usual influence
of the current Constantinopolitan
text of the Gospel would be power-
fully reinforced by the influence of
the text of the yet more familiar
Gloria in excelsis. - *
The same remark applies to
most of the other patristic quota-
tions indicated above. It is proba-
ble enough that evöokia was the
original reading of many among
them; while no less probably it is
in some cases due to transcribers
or editors: in such a variation as
this the need of verifying quotations
by contexts (see Introd. §§ 156, 276f)
is at its highest. Some uncertainty
likewise attaches to the solitary Post-
Nicene patristic testimony in favour
of ejöoktas, that of a little treatise
wrongly ascribed to Athanasius;
54 NOTES ON SELECT READ/WGS
since here too the context is neutral
and a modern editor might follow
the Latin Vulgate: but in any case
the evidence is late and unim-
portant.
In the Codex Alexazzdrizzzz's the
Psalter is followed by various hymns,
including the Gloria in excelsis or
Morning Hymn, which begins with
Aóša—eijóok. ; and there the reading
is et àokia, while in Lc it is eşāoktas.
There is however no real inconsis-
tency: in matters of text the Gloria
272 excelsis stands in the same rela-
tion towards the New Testament as
the Epistle of Athanasius to Mar-
cellinus, which is in like manner
prefixed to the Psalter in the same
MS; and no one would expect the
quotations in the Epistle to be con-
formed in text to the biblical books
from which they are taken, or z/ice
zersa. The true bearing of the
reading of A in the hymn is two-
fold; it is an important testimony
as to the text of the hymn, which is
itself one of the documentary au-
thorities for the text of Lc; and on
the other hand, by shewing that the
scribe was likely to be familiar with
the reading eijöökta, it increases the
probability that when he wrote
eijóokia's he was faithfully repro-
ducing what he found in his ex-
emplar of the Gospels. The other
early Greek Bibles furnish no similar
evidence: B and 8 add nothing at
the end of the Psalms, and in C the
Psalter is one of the books that have
perished.
The Gloria inz excelsås is extant in
three forms. First, as appended to
Greek Psalters. Greek Psalters have
as yet been little examined; but
efföokia will probably be ſound a
constant reading: it is certainly the
reading of the Zurich Psalter (Cent.
VII) as well as of A. Second, as
contained in the Apostolic Consti-
tutions (vii 47), where some varia-
uncials.
LUKE II. I.4
tions are evidently due to the author
of the work, but others seem to be
original differences of text: here
too eijóokta is the reading. Third,
as included in Latin Liturgies, with
differences which in like manner
appear to be original: here the
reading is always eijóokias (bonae zo-
Juntatis). Whatever may be thought
of Bunsen’s attempted restoration of
the original form (Æippoly/us” ii
99 f.), he is probably right in his
view that none of the three extant
forms (compared in Anal. Antemic.
iii. 86 f.) exhibit the hymn in a
pure and unaltered state; and, if so,
the Greek reading etàokta cannot
stand above all doubt. On the one
hand the Latin reading may easily
come from a Latin version of Lc
(not the Vulgate, -which has allis-
simis for excelsis and prefixes in
to homeinzibats, -unless it be in a
‘Mixed’ form): on the other hand
the Psalters might easily follow the
current biblical texts of their time,
which certainly had eijóokia; and no
composition taken up into the Apos-
tolic Constitutions was likely to
escape assimilation to their habit-
ually Syrian text. Thus the Gloria
272 exce/sis is on the whole favourable
to eijóokia; but its testimony is not
unaffected by the uncertainty which
rests in such a case on all unverified
patristic evidence. . . .
The agreement not only of S with
B but of D and all the Latins with
both, and of A with them all, Sup-
ported by Origen in at least one
work, and that in a certified text,
affords a peculiarly strong presump-
tion in favour of eijöoktas. If this
reading is wrong, it must be West-
ern; and no other reading in the
New Testament open to suspicion
as Western is so comprehensively
attested by the earliest and best
The best documents Sup-
porting ejóokta are LPE 33 memph
LUKE II I4
(C and theb are defective); and
the distribution of evidence presents
no anomaly if eißokia was an Alex-
andrian correction, adopted in the
Syrian text. The only question that
can arise is whether internal evi-
dence enforces an interpretation of
the historical relations of the two
readings different from that which
the documentary distribution sug-
gests. . .
As regards Transcriptional Proba-
bility, eúðokia's might conceivably
arise by mechanical assimilation to
the preceding duffpaşTrots in the final
letter, or by an instinctive casting
of the second of two consecutive
substantives into the genitive case:
but either impulse would be liable to
restraint from the greater apparent
difficulty of eijóoktas. On the other
hand the seeming parallelism of
éTl yīs eipſum with év čv6púTrous
eijóok. would strongly suggest as-
similation of case for the two final
Substantives; and the change would
be aided by an apparent gain in
simplicity of sense. . . .
Consideration of Intrinsic Proba-
bilities is complicated by the variety
of possible arrangements and con-
structions. With eşāokia the pas-
Sage falls into three clauses. If
these are strictly coordinate, as is
usually assumed, two or three serious
difficulties present themselves. The
Second clause is introduced by a
conjunction, while the third is not
(Some versions shew a sense of the
incongruity by inserting a second
conjunction before év čvěpátrous);
“men” are not naturally coordinated
with ‘the highest ' and with the
‘earth’, while ‘the highest’ and the
‘earth’ stand in the clearest antithe-
sis; and, to regard these terms from
another point of view, “men” and
the ‘earth’ do not constitute two
distinct spheres. If therefore evöokta.
is right, the second and third clauses
MöTES ON SEZECT READ/NGS
55
must together stand in antithesis to
the first.
Other difficulties however emerge
here. The words of the third clause
may be taken in two different senses.
If, according to the analogy of €550-
kéïv. čv (iii. 22 || Mt. iii 17 || Mc i II ;
Mt. xvii. 5; I Co x 5; He x 38
from LXX), they are taken to refer
to God as “well pleased in man-
kind, the order is unaccountable, as
we should expect Ču dvěpátrots to
come last ; and the absence of any
intended parallelism between €irt
'yºs and év čv60%trous renders an
apparent parallelism peculiarly im-
probable. Nothing is gained by
mentally supplying év autoſs and
thus keeping éu dvěpátrous in true
parallelism to éiri y?s by changing
its sense. Not to speak of the
harshness of phrase, God’s good
pleasure in mankind cannot be said
to have its seat in mankind. Simi-
karly, in whichever way €v čvöpú-
Trots be understood, evöokta in the
nominative is implicitly represented
as “on earth’, and a evöokia which
is “on earth’ can hardly be God’s
eijóokia in mankind. . ..
These difficulties may be avoided
if we change the reference of eijóokia,
and understand it as the universal
satisfaction of mankind, the fulfil-
ment of their wants and hopes (cf.
Ps cxlv. 16 divot yets at Tós Xeſpás
gou kal épirit) is Tráv Óov eijóoktas).
Yet, though the words will bear this
sense, and the sense itself is not out
of place, they are not a natural ex-
pression of it; and their obscurity
is at least sufficient, in conjunction
with the still more serious difficulties
attending the other interpretation
of eijóokta, to leave the current
Greek reading destitute of any claim
to be accepted as preeminently Satis-
factory ſor its own sake. . . . .
. The difficulties of the reading
eijóoktas are two, the apparent ob.
56.
scurity of eijóoklas and the inequality
of the two clauses if the first ends.
with 66.3. Origen's combination of
eijóoktas with eipſium would deserve
serious attention if no better inter-
pretation were available: the tra-
jection would be similar to that in
Heb xii II, §o repov 6é kap Töv
elp mut köv roſs 6t’ attàs yeyvuva-
opévôts &Troötöwouv 6t ka to a ſv ms,
and would be perfectly legitimate
and natural in the sense “peace
in men, [even the peace that comes]
of [God’s] favour”: the unques-
tionable trajection of év Óváuart
Kvptov in the similar passage xix
38 is no easier. But it is simpler to
take éu div0pútrous eşöoktas as nearly
equivalent to év čvápétrous et àokm-
Toſs, eúðokmTós being an extremely
rare word, not used even in the
LXX, in which eşāokéw and ejöokia.
are comparatively common. Mill
(Prol. 675) supplied the true key
to the expression by calling it a
Hebraism ; and the Greek of Lc
i ii, especially in the hymns, has a
marked Hebraistic character. The
sense corresponds closely to the use
of eijóokéw, -ta, in the Old Testa-
ment, and of their Hebrew originals
ITST), Îls, sometimes rendered by
other Greek words. There is no
need to take eijóokias as distinguish-
ing certain men from the rest:
the phrase admits likewise the
more probable sense “in (among
and within) accepted mankind”:
the Divine “favour’ (Ps xxx 5,7;
lxxxv I ; lxxxix 17; cvi 4) or “good
pleasure', declared for the Head of
the race at the Baptism (iii. 22), was
already contemplated by the angels
as resting on the race itself in virtue
of His birth.
The difficulty arising from un-
equal division, Aóša Čv Šibiotous 666
being overbalanced by Kai étri Yās
elpjvºm év div6paštrous evöokias, is of
little moment. Parallelisms of clauses
MO 7 ES ON SEZZCT READ/WGS
LUKE II 14
not less unequal abound in the
Psalms; and the difference of sub-
ject will explain the greater fulness
of the second clause. -
[Moreover the words admit of a
more equal division, which has
considerable probability on other
grounds:— -
Aóša év tºpia Tots 663 kal étri yºis,
elpju") éu dvěpátrous evöoktas.
The position of kai éiri yºis would
of course be unnatural if it were
simply coordinate with év Úbiotous,
but not if it were intended to have
an ascensive force, so as to represent
the accustomed rendering of glory
to God óv Úºpia Tous as now in a
special sense extended to the earth.
Other examples of similarly ascen-
sive trajections are LC vii. 17 kai
£fiX6ev Ó Xó-yos ojtos év ŠX m Tiff
'Io vö at g Trept at Tod k at T âq m
Tú Trept x&pg; Act xxvi 23 otöèv
ěkrös Xéywy &v Te o i trpo p?t at
é\d'Amorav plex\ávrov ylvegöat Kal
Maj v or ſis. The sense recalls the
first and last verses of Ps viii, the
Psalm of the visitation of man by
God. In this arrangement “glory”
and “peace” stand severally at the
head of the two clauses as twin
fruits of the Incarnation, that which
redounds to “God” and that which
enters into “men”. H.]
Evöoktas cannot therefore be pro-
nounced improbable, to say the
least, on Intrinsic grounds, and
Documentary evidence is strongly
in its favour. [As however &v6pdº-
Trots ejöoktas is undoubtedly a diffi-
cult phrase, and the antithesis of
•yńs and divöpétrous agrees with RO
viii 22f., eúðokia claims a place in
the margin. W.]
ii 33 Ó rathp at Tot, kal # uſirmp)
*Iwaſhq, kal h pºſtmp auroj Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Goth.);
but not D. Both readings are com-
bined by 157 cant aeth; and various
documents supporting text add a
LUKE IV 44
second ańToſ) at the end. The sub-
stitution of the name evidently pro-
ceeded from an unwillingness to call
Joseph G Tathp at Toij. In like
manner in v. 4I of yove’s aſſroß be-
comes in lat.eur (not e nor lat.it-vg)
Joseph eff!/aria [maſſer ejus]: in v.
48 ióo.) 3 Tatip orov käytó is wholly
or partly omitted by lat. vt syr.vt
and the apocryphal Book of Thomas,
c. 19 : and in v. 43, by a more widely
Spread corruption, êyvaja'au ol yovets.
aúTod becomes éºyva, Iwoºp ka? )
pañTmp atroß, Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth. Goth.); but
not D a evg Aug. It may be noticed
here that in Mt i 16 a similar cause
has led to the change of Töv ‘Iwaz)4,
Töv čvápa Maptas ÉÉ Ās éyévváðm
Ima'ots à Xeyópevos Xplotós to Tów
'Igoºd, ć, plung rev6eiga trap64vos
Mapúp. Éyévvmaſev "Imoroúv Töv Xeyópe-
wou Xplotów in 346 d (D is defective)
lat-vt Syr.vt pp.lat, Western.
iii I hyenovečovtos) + £Titporeč-
ov70s H. Western (Gr.[D Eus Chron.
Pasch] Lat.).
iii 16 áYig) < 63 64 Clem.995
(or possibly Heracleon quoted by
him) Tert. Bapt(apparently) Aug
(very expressly). A remarkable
reading, apparently Western : if
better attested, it would be highly
probable. See also on iv I.
iii. 22 ×) et à viós pov 6 dya-
TºmTós, év oſot ejöökmaa] - Tiós plov
et ov, &yd, a fluepov yeyévvmká as H.
Western (Gr. Lat.); incl. MSS (evi-
dently Greek as well as Latin) men-
tioned by Aug, and Just. Dial.88, Io;
Clem. I is Meth. Symp; but not e
nor latit-vg nor Eus.Steph. Aug
Speaks of this version of the words
spoken from heaven as the reading
of “some MSS ’’, “though it is
stated” (perhibeatur), he says, “not
to be found in the more ancient
Greek MSS ’’. The ‘Ebionite” Gos-
pel read by Epiph. Haer. 138 com-
bined both representations of the
AWOTES ON SEZZCT ACAA D/AWGS 57
voice from heaven, inserting’Eyð or j-
pepov yeyévvmká are between text and
Mt. iii 17, very slightly modified.
Doubtless from a traditional source,
written or oral, and founded on Ps
11 7. -
# 24. Tod Matödt roſ, Aevel] &
Africanus ap. Eus (Iren apparently,
for he counts only 72 generations)
Eus.Stepſ, Amb. According to
Sabatier c reads merely . Alevi,
omitting 747 fuit Mat. Qui ſuit.
iii 33 Toj 'Aduelu too 'Apwell roß
‘Aguačd£(-ó.g.) Toč 'Apóſ, Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Goth.;
cf. Afth.); evidently from Mt i 4,
itself founded on Ruth iv. 19 f.; I
Chrii Io. Text B (PI31. PI 57) (ap-
parently syr.hl.mg): also Too 'Aéâu.
Toj ‘Abutv Toij 'Apuet S*, Toj 'Aéâu.
being likewise prefixed to the Western
reading by aeth. Textis moreover a
factor in other conflations. With or
without addition of other names or
forms of names, 'Aépétu (-iv) and
'Apuet (-vi) are attested by NBLXT
I 3-69-124-346 13 I 157 alP Syr.
hl.mg arm ; and they will account
for all the other readings except
perhaps toū ‘A6áp of S aeth, which
may however be only the latter half
of 'Aptuačáp, a form of 'Apavaðd6
found in various documents. Amin-
adab and Admin, Aram and Arni,
are evidently duplicate forms of the
Same pair of names, preserved in
different family records, as is the
case with many names in the Old
Testament. Many late Greek MSS
and some versions add toº 'Iapóp.
after Toij 'Apdip.
iv I dytov] sº Ath. ÆA.Seraft. i 4
expressly. No other evidence is
known; and it seems not unlikely
that Ath wrote with a confused
recollection of iii 16. -
iv 44, 'Iovöatas] - Taxi}\atas F
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
AEth. Arm. Goth.). Text SBCLQR
I-13 I-209 22 157 al” lt 59 al” me
58 AWOTES ON SEZ ECZ" R.A.A.A)/AWGS
syr.hl.txt. Two lectionaries have
avröv. From Mc i 39; cf. Mt. iv
23. - -
v Iof stand as fia’av Šē kotvojvot
airod 'Idikagos kai 'Iodvils viol Zegs-
ôatov’ 6 Öé etirev atroſs Aetire ka? pum
•yeived be āXue's lx0%av, Trovão ao Y&p
Üuás àAleſs divöpúTravº oi 6é àkoúgav-
tes Trávta katéAeuyav étri Tàs y?s
kai jºcoMotºffma'av at rig. in D e (but
e has Quz [sic] aif ad! Simontemz Zhs
AVoſite esse for Ö 6é... yetveaffe).
v I4 els paprčptov aurois]+ ºva
els paptºptov m [mu D*] juéïv Tooro H
Western (Gr.[D Marcion] Lat.);
incl. Tert, but not e lat.it-vg.
vi I év ga}3árqp} + + 6evrepo-
Todºrº, H. Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat.[a ſºft vg|Syr. Arm. Goth.);
incl. Greg.naz (see below). Epiph”
Amb” Hier: e has (sabóafo) mane,
which cannot be meant to render
6évreporpiórg: it may either stand
for Tp(3rºp (see further on) or be
an independent interpolation. Text
SBL I-II8-209 22-69 33 I 57 (lec-
tionaries) & cf.” g 7%e syr. vg-hl. mg-
(hr) me aeth.
The excellence and comprehen-
siveness of the attestation of text
is decisive against this curious
reading, which has no other clearly
Pre-Syrian authority than that of
D a ſ (syr, vt is defective), and is
commended by Transcriptional evi-
dence alone. It certainly could
not have been introduced in its in-
tegrity through any of the ordinary
impulses that affect transcribers, and
its patent difficulty might have led
to omission: but all known cases of
probable omission en account of
difficulty are limited to single docu-
ments or groups of restricted an-
cestry, bearing no resemblance to
the attestation of text in either va-
riety or excellence. No evidence is
extant from any Source that ÖevTépô-
Tporos, or any similar word in
Greek or Hebrew, was a term of
LUKE IV 44
the Jewish calendar; nor, to judge
by the usual practice of the evange-
lists, was a technical term of this
kind likely to be employed in this
manner, without article or intro-
ductory formula. All purely nu-
merical renderings, of which the
least untenable is ‘second in a first
pair of sabbaths’, break down by
the want not merely of sufficient
etymological analogies but of justi-
fication in the narrative: the In-
trinsic difficulty of the reading lies
in the context as well as in the
word itself. -
If a reasonable sense could have
been established for ÖevTepotpaſtºp,
it might have been supposed to
come from an extraneous source.
But a more probable explanation
has been suggested by Meyer. The
occurrence of év čTépºp ga}5&T4) in
v. 6 might naturally suggest the
insertion of Tp(3rg, which then
might be changed to ÖevTépg on
consideration of iv. 31 ff. Suppo-
sing the dots intended to cancel
Tp(3Tºp to have been negligently
omitted, or to have been over-
looked by the next transcriber, as
experience shews similar dots to
have been often omitted or over-
looked, he would naturally com-
bine the two words in one. A few
Greek MSS even now read Öevrépg
Tpºrºp, but perhaps only by corrup-
tion of ÖevTepotpaşrg. .
Aſtriţa frons inter?refaſeer saepe
Quod nesci: ; et quum allis £ersua-
serić sibi quogue usurpaſſ scientiamz.
Araeceptor quondam meets Gregorius
AWazianzenus, rogatus a me [doubt-
less at Constantinople in the year
38o or 381] att exponered guid sibi
Zellet in Luca Sabbatum 6evrépá-.
Tpa Tov, id est Secundo-primum, ele-
ganter lusiº, ZXacebo te, inquiens,
suffer hac re in ecclesia, in gua
Żnihi omni populo acclamante cogeri's
invitats scire quod nescis, attá certe,
LUKE IX 55
si solus facateris, solus ab omnibus
stultitiae condemnaberis. Hier. Ep.
52 p. 263.
vi. 5 is transposed by D to the
end of the next sabbatical miracle,
after v. Io, the following being Sub-
stituted here: Tº airfi juépg beaod-
pºevós Tuva èpyağperov Tºg aağ8áTºp
etirev airá, "Avôpaire, el pièv oiðas
Tt Trotéïs, pakápuos ei ei Öé pºſſ oldas,
étrukaráparös kal tropagatms et Tod
wópov. Possibly from the same
source as the Section on the
woman taken in adultery (IJo] vii
53—viii 1 I).
vi 17 'Iepovaa)\mu}+ ka? IItpatas
S*; et frames freſume a b c ſ ſº ger,
7%e cant; probably also e, which has
cá de transmazimis, omitting the
following kai Tàs trapa)\lov, rendered
et maritima by most Latins. The
Latin reading probably represents
kał IIepaias (of which kal TItpatas
must be a corruption), which must
thus be regarded as Western: Perea
is not named in the New Testa-
ment. Perhaps from an extraneous
source, written or oral. For kal
'Iepovo axºn->töðvos D has only
kal &\\@v troXéajv, which is inserted
by conflation after 2.50wos in c e go.
vii. 14 Neavia Ke] + - veaviake H
Western, D a ſº (cant). -
viii 26, 37 Tepagnuſºv) Tepyearm-
v31 Alexandrian (Gr. Syr.[hr] Eg.
AEth. Arm.); incl. Cyr.al.loc.gr.
(Mai) in v.26. Taëapmvöv Syrian
(Gr. Syr. Goth.). Text in v. 26
BD latt syr. hl.ng Cyr.loc.syr.
(text and comm. &is); in v. 37
EC*D latt the. See on Mt viii. 28.
viii 51 ka? 'Iajávnv] → Iren. 151
expressly. Arguing against here-
tics who ascribed special Sacredness
to certain numbers on the ground of
Scriptural examples, and for this
purpose gathering together nume-
rous similar examples of the number
five of which they took no account,
he says “Quizztus azºtem ingressus
AVOTES ON SELECT REAA)/AWGS 59
Alomimus ad mortata/, fuel/a/z sus-
citazițeam, nullum enim, inequit, per-
misit intrare nisi Petrum et Jacobum
et patrem, et matrem puellae". No
other authority is known for the
O]]]ISSIOil. -
ix 27 Töv 8aat)\etav Toí, óeoû] Töv
viðv too divěpºtov ćpxãpºevow év ºff
6óšn avTod D Orig.j'o. 366, quo-
ting verbally the reports of Mt Mc
Lc. From Mt xvi 28 combined
with Mt xxv 3 1. Orig. Joc. (Galland
xiv b 95, ff. = Migne vii. 34o ff.)
confuses the readings, giving first
Töv viðv Too divöpúTov čA66vra év
Tú 3agºeig adroń, almost as Mt xvi
28 (cf. Lc xxiii. 42), and then the
same with kal év tá 6óšm at Too
added. The reading of syr.vt
seems to be conflate, “the kingdom
of God coming in glory”.
ix 37 Tā éñs huépg]- Ötö. Tös
huápas H. Western (Gr.[D] Lat.).
Evidently due to a desire to keep the
two incidents connected in time,
no interval being expressed in Mt
Mc. The same motive has given
rise to the renderings of some vv,
illa die f, ‘on that day again
syr.vt, ‘on the same day” theb.
ix 54 duaxóo at airo'ſs]+ + dºs kal
'H\eta's étroimaſev H Western and Sy-
rian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.] AEth.
Goth.); incl. a clear allusion in
‘Clem.” Iorg f. (see below). Text
NBLE 71 157 e vg syr. vt me.codd
arm Cyr.jo;loc.syr; (PEphr. Diaț.95).
ix 55 €TreTip maſev autoſs]++ kal
eitſev Ouk otóate Totov Tvetøatós
éare F Western and (with otov for
Trotov, and ºpe’s added after éo Te)
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.] [AEth.]
Arm. Goth.); incl. ‘Clem.’ IoI9 f.
(in a fragment the last words of
which, containing the reference to
this passage, are somewhat more
likely to be Clement's own than to
have been added by the catenist
Macarius Chrysocephalus, since they
give Oök...éare according to the
6O MOZA'S OW SEZECT READINGS
Western form, not the Syrian)
Epiph (Did). Text NABCLXF
unº 28 33 7 f 281 157 al" lat.
vg. Codd me.codd aeth.codd Cyr.
jo; loc, Syr. -
Also -i- + [Ö viðs roß &v0p67 ov
oùk fiX6éu buxás [duffpaşTajul diro)\éa’at
dNAd 0.60 at..] H Western and, with
ydp inserted after 6, Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. [Eg.] [AEth.] Arm. Goth.):
several vvomit divöpūjirav, and some
Greek MSS read dTokretvai for dro-
\éa'at. D, which retains kal eitrev...
éo Té, omits this third clause: in
other respects the distribution of
documents is virtually the same in
both cases. -
In v. 54, it will be seen, the
distribution differs considerably in
both directions. There e syr.vt arm
support omission, while ACX un"
(as well as D), nearly all cursives,
and aeth retain the inserted clause.
The documents which omit all three
clauses are NBLE 71 I57 lat.vg.
codd me.codd Cyr: those which
retain all are uncials of Cent. IX, a
large majority of cursives, the Euro-
pean and Italian Latin, the Vulgate
and later Syriac versions, and the
Gothic; with some Memphitic and
AEthiopic MSS. It thus appears
that the two latter clauses were in-
serted first, and then the addition
to v. 54; but that a common source
of ACX &c., probably an eclectic text
antecedent to the Syrian revision,
stopped short without adopting the
earlier and bolder interpolations:
D may in like manner have refrained
from adopting the last, though we
have thought it safer to mark the
defection of the one early Greek
testimony by [ ]. There can be
little doubt that the second and
third clauses, if not also the first,
were derived from some extraneous
source, written or oral: for the
third cf. xix Io; Jo iii 17.
... ix 62 €truga)\dºv...óTigal - els T.&
LUKE IX 55
6trigg &\étraju ka? §truśāXXav Tiju
xeſpa alſToč, ćT' àporpov H Western
(Gr.[D Clem] Lat.). - * ,
xi 2 €A6dra, i, 3aort)\eta orovl éAffé-
Tao to dytov Tveijuá orov ćq’ huàs kal
ka.0aptorata, juás Greg.nys. Prec. 738
very expressly twice over, as given
by Lc, not Mt: at least two MSS,
as cited by Krabinger p. 141, have
Tô Tveijud, orov Tó &ytov. A similar
statement by Maximus Confessor is
doubtless borrowed from Gregory.
In commenting rapidly on the suc-
cessive clauses of the Lord's Prayer
in Lc, whether according to his
own text, or Marcion's, or both,
is as usual uncertain, -Tert(//arc.
iv. 26) places first after Pater a
petition for the Holy Spirit, follow-
ed by a petition for God’s kingdom.
An early Western text (Marcion's or
Tertullian’s) must therefore have
had either the clause noticed by
Gregory or at least the first part of
it ; but it must have stood in the
place of Öylagöörg Tà èvopé gov.
In D dylaq 0#Taj čvouá gov (sic) is
followed by ép' muás, which, as
Dr Sanday suggests, may be a trace
of éX9éra, Tó Čºvov trueūpid gov
& q' juá s [k. T.A..]. No other record
of this singular reading is extant:
it is passed over by Orig. Oratº
as well as by later writers: unfortu-
nately only four lines have been
preserved of Orig, loc, and nothing
of Orig on Mt vi 9 f. Possibly
suggested by V. I.3. { %
xi. 13 Tveijua &ytov] + dyabów
66p.a. H Western (Gr. [D] Lat.):
Orig(Mz.65o ; Orat. 213) refers pro-
bably to this reading, though perhaps
he is but loosely combining the two
clauses; but on Mt vii II (Galland
xiv b 75 = Migne vii. 292 : also,
under Cyril's name, Mai AV. P. B.
iii 130) he expressly ascribes trueºpa
ãºylov to Lc, dyaffā to Mt: So also
Amb. Evidently derived from 66-
para dya% in the former clause of
LUKE XII 38
the verse. Various forms of con-
flation present themselves, L cup
(chiefly lectionaries) lat.vg syr.bl.
mg Cyr.loc.syr (text and comm.
distinctly) having Tveijua &yabów,
7/17 spiritum bonum datum, and
aeth dy&ſjöv čápa Tveiºpatos dylov.
xi 35, 36 (t) (v. 35) akótret...éotiv)
el offv Tó pós rô &v ool orkóros, Tö
a kóros Trögow Western (Gr. Lat.: cf.
Syr.), most of the Latins adding
Žsae or Zzzae to the second tenebrae
and inserting suzet. Syr.vt adds
this sentence after text. From Mt vi
23.
(v. 36) et offu... ſhortºn ge]<Wes-
tern (Gr. Lat. Syr.). The omission
is probably in like manner due to the
absence of any similar sentence in
Mt.
dºs &rav.portſm] kal dis [3] Aftyvos
[Tàs), datpatrös portaſet c f vg (me)
aeth (<kat). A curious recasting of
the verse is substituted in q and,
with some variations, added at the
end in f: its original, to judge by
Comparison of the two forms, which
are both corrupt, was probably el
oùv Tó adºpa Töv čv got Aéxvov gh
éxov (portvöv okotavóv éo Tuv, Tóorg
MāXXov Štav 6 \ºxvos [gov) darpartm
$9tt{et ore (or patioſet ore). Before
Tā āq Tpairfi + šv B me Orig.loc.”
(Galland xiv b Ioz f = Migne vii
356): Cyr. Ze is deſective here in
Syriac as well as Greek.
All the extant variations are pro-
bably due to the extreme difficulty
of the verse. The passage probably
contains a primitive corruption some-
where, though no conjecture that
has yet been made has any claim to
be accepted.
xi 42 kptolv) k\figu Marcion ac-
cording to Epiph. i 313, 332 and
Tert. Marc. iv. 27. Perhaps only
due to an itacism and an easy inter-
change of liquids, though Kptoſiv
might possibly be distasteful to
Marcion.
AVO 7'E'S OW SEZZOZ’ RAEA D/AWGS Ó I
xi 44 dºs Tà pumpeta Tāj- avlºve?a H
Western (Gr.[D] Lat. Syr.).
xi 48 Kai ovyevöokeire]+ ph ovvev-
ôokéïv H Western(Gr.[D] Lat.).
xi 52 #pare]+ éxptºpate H. Western
(Gr.[D 157] Lat. Syr. : cf. AEth.
Arm.): aeth arm combine both
readings. -
* * 5 * p
xi 53 f. Käketóev ... ortópatos
aúTool- Aéyovros 6& atroß rajra
Tpós attoºs évêtriov Tavrós Toij \aoû
*pśavro of paptoratot kai of voulkot
ôetvás éxetv Kal avv8á\\ew airó
Tept TXetóvow, ºntoëvres dºpopujv
Tuva Aageºu attoſ, ºva elipaja tv karm-
'yopſia at atroſ; H Western (Gr. Lat.
throughout: Syr. in parts). For a
Syrian conflation and other varia-
tions in v. 54 see Zntrod'. § 144.
xii 18 Tov attou kal Tū āya.06 povl
+ Tà yevljuard gov H Western (Gr.
Lat. Syr.): also Tots Kapirows ucu
(Gr. Lat.). For a Syrian conflation
See /ntrod. § 145.
xii 26 el own...Nottróv) + kal Tepi
Töv Nottröv tí F Western (Gr.[D]
Lat.).
xii 27 at #&vel" oi kotrič obôé väffel]
- otite vöffel oiſte §qatvet H. Western
(Gr.[D Clem] Lat. Syr.); partially
adopted by other Latins.
xii 38 kāv éu Tà Öevrépg...otºrws,
+ kai éâv čA0m Tà éo Tepui, pu)\aki,
Kai et påget, oùTws Trovãael, kal éâv év
Tā āevrépg kai Tà Tpirm' F Western
(D throughout): parts of the reading
are also attested as follows:–
T. &otreptufi ºp. Gr. Lat. Syr. ; incl.
Marcion (ap. Epiph) Iren.lat Meth :
postponement of K. Čv Tim 6evrépg k.
[év] Tà Tpitſ, Gr. Lat. Syr.; incl.
Iren.lat Meth: Trovão et Gr.[D]
Lat. [e]. After otta's 1-1 18-209 and
some vv add Trouot vTas instead of
Trovão et ; and I-1 18-209 lat.vt.codd;
ser.codd syr.vt Iren.lat further add
[uakáptot eigtv) 6T1 fivak)\lveſ at Tots
kal 6takovºja et aſſroºs, partly from the
end of the verse, partly from v. 37.
The Syrian reading is the same as
27
62.
text, slightly modified by one form
of the Western reading.
xiii. 8 kóTpta] + köpivov kotſpiov H
Western (Gr.[D] Lat.); incl. Orig.
A.ez.lat. Ruf. 190 (apparently with
context). . T 1 !
xiv 5 viðs] §vos Pre-Syrian (? Alex-
andrian) (Gr. Lat.[eur-vg] Syr. Eg.
[AEth.] Arm.), from xiii 15: Syr-vt
aeth. cod add ſi èvos to text. IIpó-
Barov D aeth.cod, from Mt xii II.
Text (also Syrian) AB un" cup lat.
afr—it syr. (vt)-vg-hl the (aeth.cod)
Cyr. loc.gr.syr. Authority is remark-
ably divided, Besyr.vt the Cyr being
opposed to NLX, the best cursives,
and some early vv. . There is no in-
trinsic difficulty in either reading:
the falling of children into wells
must have been a common occur-
rence, and Wetstein quotes from
the Mishna (Bava Kamma v 6) Si
in Żułeum incidač 50s aut asinus, ...
ſilius aut filia, servus aztá ancil/a.
The obvious temptation to change
viós to the easier word, Supported
by parallelism, and the difficulty of
accounting for the converse change
constitute strong Transcriptional
evidence, which agrees with the
specially high excellence of the
group attesting viós. In adopting
ôvos, Erasmus, and after him the ‘Re-
ceived Text”, abandoned Syrian au-
thority to follow the Latin Vulgate.
xv. 16 xopra.00%vat] - yepio at Tiju
kot)\tav at Too H. Western (late) and
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Arm.);
incl. Cyr.loc.syr.txt. Text NBD
LR I-131 13-69-124-346 al” ef
syr. (vt?)-hr the aeth (go) (Orig. iii
982 Kopec 6%uat) ‘Chrys’(ap.Wetst.)
anon. Cram. (? Tit)/oc Cyr.frag.gr
(Mai P.M. B ii. 346, not on Lc).
Both readings are combined by a.
The combination étruffupºv Xopta-
offivat in xvi 2 I might give rise
to text, though the contexts are
altogether different. But the West-
ern reading may as easily be a para-
AVO 7ES O.W SEZZCT READ/WGS
LUKE XII 38
phrastic exposition of the supposed
meaning of xopra067 wal. It misses
the true point however, for the
Prodigal Son could easily “fill his
belly’ with the ‘husks”, though he
could not “be satisfied’ with them.
The documentary evidence here is
in any case decisive.
xvi. 22 f. kai étáq m. kal év tá,
$6m étrépas] kai étáq m év tá áðm
étrépas & q' aeth (lat.vt-vg syr.hr
Adamant), the words allowing a
full stop after either étápm or £6m.
The latter punctuation is assumed in
lat.vt-vg syr.hr Adamant(in Orig.
Opp. i 827), which prefix or add a
conjunction to éirápas, Some docu-
ments further adding in (or de) int-
ferno. With the other punctuation
the reading would deserve considera-
tion if it were better attested. In its
origin however it was probably com-
bined with the division assumed by
the translators, being apparently an
early Western attempt to amend
the brief ending of v. 22 by joining
kal étáq m to words answering to els
Töv kóXTov 'A8padu.
xvii. 11 kai Taxi.Aatas]+ et Şericho
(Hiericho) Western (Lat. Syr.); not
D: syr.vt has eis for kai. A sin-
gular addition, perhaps derived from
an extraneous source, written or
oral. -
xviii. 3o Tox\airMagíoval - éirta-
TXaatova. F Western (Gr.[D] Lat.
Syr.[hl.mg.]). Perhaps from an ex-
traneous source, written or oral.
xx 20 traparmphoravtes] + &roxw-
pija'avtes H. Western (Gr.[D] Lat.
AEth. Goth.): syr.vt substitutes
“afterwards’, and Syr.vg omits al-
together. The absolute use of Trapa-
Tnpägavtes was evidently a stum-
bling block. * ,
xx 34 Oi viol rod atóvos toūrov]
++ yeuvâvrat kal yewv&olv, H (some
'yevvčo tu kal yeuvøvrat) Western (Gr.
Lat. Syr.: cf. AEth.); incl. (probably
Clem. 551 Iren. 168 gr.lat.) Orig. Mé
LUKE XXII 19, 20
(probably Method. 79 Mac.magn.
214, 22 I). The insertion in aeth
is after yaputokovtat: lat. vt (exc. a)
omits yapotatu kal yapºtokovtat.
Probably from an extraneous source,
written or oral.
xx 366&vavtat]+ p.é\\ovatv H West-
ern, (Gr.[D] Lat. Syr.[hl.mg.]);
incl. Marcion or Tert.
Žbid. iodºy'yeXot ydp cloſuv, Kal viol
elaiv 6eoû] loºdyyevot yáp eigtv - tº
6e:3 H Western (Gr.[D] and virtually
Lat.); not Orig. I Cor. 250 Cram. :
lat.vt has aeqztales enzim sunt angelis
APei or similar words, perhaps imply-
ing 6600: d\\& dis &yye)\ot elot 0600
Kal I57. -
xxi II fin.]+ (? kal Xelpêves) et
hiemes (tempestates) Western (Lat.
Syr. AEth.); incl. Orig.//t.lat. 355
(apparently from the Greek, which
is defective here); but not D e.
Probably from an extraneous source,
written or oral. In the Mc xiii 8
kai Tapaxai is similarly inserted.
xxi 181 < Syr.vt Marcion ap.
Epiph ; not Orig. Mart. Probably
due to absence from the , espe-
cially Mc xiii 13.
xxi 38 fin.] The common source
of 13-69-124-364 here inserted
the Section on the woman taken
in adultery ([Joj vii 53—viii II).
The Section was probably known
to the scribe exclusively as a church
lesson, recently come into use; and
placed by him here on account of
the close resemblance between vv.
37, 38 and [Jol vii 53; viii. I, 2.
Had he known it as part of a con-
tinuous text of St John's Gospel, he
was not likely to transpose it.
xxii 19, 20 [Tö UTép Up.3v Štóópe-
vov' Toºro..ékxvvvöuevowl- Western
(Gr.[D] Lat.: cf. Syr.): D a fi rhe
simply omit; b e likewise transpose
vv. 17, 18 to the end of v. 19, after
Tö origuá pov: syr.vt differs from
them by inserting Tô UTrép Up &v'
Touro trouéºre els Thy đuju dvdplumaſiv
AWOTES ON SELECT READ/WGS 63
between rô a 6pºd prov and vv. 17, 18.
The Latins which onlit and trans-
pose nothing are cfq vg, f q being
Italian, and c having many Italian
readings. Lt 32 and some MSS of
Syr.vg omit vv. 17, 18, but probably
only by homoeoteleuton. Text is sup-
ported by Marcion or Tert (iv 40)
Eus. Carz Cyr.loc.syr. txt: the refe-
rence in Orig. Mt.823 is uncertain.
The only motive that could appa-
rently in any way account for the
onnission as a corruption would be a
perception of the double reference
to the Cup. But this explanation
involves the extreme improbability
that the most familiar form of the
Words of Institution, agreeing with
St Paul’s record, should be selected
for omission; while the vaguer, less
sacred, and less familiar words, in
great part peculiar to Lc, were re-
tained. In the case of D a fi rhe
the selection would be improbable
likewise as seeming to identify the
Cup of v. 17, preceding the Bread,
with the Cup of the other records,
following the Bread. A sense of
this discrepance is presupposed by
the transposition in be syr.vt; and
again their reading adds a second
difficulty to the supposed selection
by involving a gratuitously double
process, Gmission and transposition.
On the other hand, if the words
were originally absent, the order of
vv. 17—19 being as in the common
text, the two other readings at once
explain themselves as two inde-
pendent attempts to get rid of the
apparent inversion of order. In & e
(syr.vt) this is effected by a simple
transposition; in most documents by
an adaptation of St Paul's familiar
language. When the apostle's account
of the Cup was being borrowed, it
was natural to introduce with it, for
the enrichment of the Gospel narra-
tive, the immediately preceding line
concerning the Bread. The only
64
substantive element not derived from
St Paul, the last clause rö UTrép Ü-
pºv čkxvvvópevov, causes no diffi-
culty: St Paul's corresponding sen-
tence being implicitly contained in
his Tooro. trouette els Tºv ćuju dvd-
plumoſu, already appropriated, a neat-
er ending was obtained by taking
a phrase from Mc (cf. Mt) with the
substitution of judov for Tox\ov in ac-
cordance with St Paul’s UTrép judov
in the former verse. Some trifling
variations from his diction are only
such as are commonly found to ac-
company the adoption of additional
matter from parallel places. The
insertion of TööTrép judov...dváuvm.giv
(without Övöögevov) in syr.vt was
probably independent, and due
merely to the desire of making the
account more complete.
Intrinsically both readings are
difficult, but in unequal degrees.
The difficulty of the shorter reading
consists exclusively in the change of
order as to the Bread and the Cup,
which is illustrated by many phe-
nomena of the relation between the
narratives of the third and of the
first two Gospels, and which finds an
exact parallel in the change of order
in St Luke's account of the Temp-
tation (iv 5–8; 9–12), corrected in
like manner in accordance with Mt
in some Old Latin MSS and in Amb.
The difficulty of the longer reading
is that it divides the institution of
the Cup into two parts, between
which the institution of the Bread
is interposed. It has long been a
favourite expedient to identify the
cup of v. 17 with the first (or
second) of the four cups which ac-
companied the Paschal supper ac-
cording to the Mishna. The identi-
fication involves however a startling
displacement both of the only com-
mand to drink or receive recorded
by Lc in connexion with a cup, and
“f the declaration Aéºyo Upºv, où pai)
AVOTES OW SEZEC7 RAEAD/WGS LUKE xxII 19, 20
Tlw K.T.A. attached to the Institution
of the Cup by Mt and Mc; divorcing
them from the Institution itself, and
transferring them to the time of the
rites preparatory to the Supper. The
supposition that vv. 17, 18 contain
an anticipatory reference to the In-
stitution of the Cup, as recorded in
v. 20, is no less improbable.
These difficulties, added to the
Suspicious coincidence with I Co
xi 24 f., and the Transcriptional
evidence given above, leave no
moral doubt (see /ntrod. § 240) that
the words in question were absent
from the original text of Lc, not-
withstanding the purely Western
ancestry of the documents which
omit them.
xxii 42 et 800Aet...ylvéa:00.]+ pº
Tö 0é\muá pov di)\\d. Tô gov yevéo 60
ei 300\et rapéveyke Toijro Tô Torºptov
&T' &goû. H. Western (Gr.[D] Lat.).
Compare the inversion in ix. 62.
xxii.43, 44 || @0m 6é attig dyyeMos
—éti Tày y?v. T = N*ABRT MSS
known to Epiph “very many MSS’
known to Hil (?rmany) MSS known
to Hier MSS known to Anast.
sin (13-69-124, see below) f (?very
many) Latin MSS known to Hil
(? many) Latin MSS known to
Hier syr.hl. mg me.codd.opt(cf.
Lightfoot in Scrivener’s Zºrod.”
332 ft.) the.cod arm Cyr. loc.syr
(text and comm.) Dam. Par.(proba-
bly) Amb./oc. The suitability of .
these verses for quotation in the
controversies against Docetic and
Apollinarist doctrine gives some
weight to their apparent absence
from the extant writings of Clem
Orig (? Ath, see below) Cyr.hr
Greg. nys. Their controversial use
led to gratuitous accusations of wil-
ful excision; as by (timid) “‘Orthodox
persons” according to Epiph, by
“some of the Syrians” according to
Photius, and by the Armenians ac-
cording to late writers; while an
LUKE, XXII 43, 44
Armenian writer cited by Wetstein
retaliated by urging that the verses
were inserted by Saturnilus the
Syrian ‘Gnostic’ (Cent. II). Anast.
sin (//odeg. p. 338 Gretser=lxxxix
289 Migne) speaks of the attempt of
“some' to remove them as having
failed owing to the testimony of
translations: “the passage stands”,
he says, “in all the foreign [éðviko’s]
Gospels, and in most [TMetaTots]
of the Greek’’. Their absence from
“Some copies’ is noticed in a scho-
lium in the cursive 34. -
In a few late uncials, a few cur-
sives, and Syr.hl. cod.mg they are
marked with asterisks or obeli. In
S the passage is cancelled by curved
marks at the beginning and end and
by dots, and the marks and dots
have been subsequently expunged.
In Tischendorf’s judgement they
were inserted by the corrector A
and expunged by the corrector C.
His identification of the hands in
respect of mere marks may be pre-
carious, though he had nobias against
the passage, which he retains: but it
is in the highest degree improbable
that it would be marked for de-
letion by a corrector of late times.
His decision is therefore probably
right : but the point is of little con-
sequence. The testimony of A is
not affected by the presence of Euse-
bian numerals, of necessity mis-
placed, which manifestly presuppose
the inclusion of vy. 43 f. : the dis-
crepance merely shews that the bibli-
cal text and the Eusebian notation
were taken by the scribe from dif-
ferent Sources, as they doubtless
were throughout. -
In the Greek lectionaries and in
Syr.hr (which like them follows the
lection-system of Constantinople, see
p. 42) vv. 43, 44 are omitted in the
lection which would naturally include
them, but inserted after Mt xxvi 39
in the long Gospel for the Liturgy on
AWOZES ON SAE LAECZ" RAEAD/AWGS 65
Thursday in Holy Week, which
likewise in a manner includes part
of Jo xiii imbedded in the text of
Mt (see below): in syr.hr they dis-
place Mt xxvi 40,41 except a few
words.
In most lectionaries the
opening phrase of v. 45 is attached
to them : but in M and others (cf.
Matthaei,” on v. 45) the inserted por-
tion ends with yūv. As one among
the many liturgical notes added to
the margin of C by the second cor-
rector (= third hand, Cent. IX P),
they stand opposite to Mt xxvi 40.
In 13-69-124 likewise they are
found (without the clause from v. 45)
in Mt xxvi, and there alone. Their
presence in that position is doubtless
owing to ecclesiastical use : whether
the same may be said of their absence
from Lc is doubtful, as xxi. 38 ſize. af-
fords an example of a large analo-
gous interpolation made by the scribe
of the original of these cursives,
due apparently not to transposition
but to fresh insertion from a liturgi-
cal source. The compositeness of text
in 13 is illustrated by the presence
of the words ºpón Öé, after which
the scribe broke off and followed that
exemplar of his which omitted the
verses. In commenting on Mt xxvi
39–41, which he quotes continu-
ously, Chrys refers incidentally to
points contained in vv. 43 f.; and it
is quite possible that he wrote under
the influence of the liturgical con-
nexion, as the Constantinopolitan
lections for Holy Week may well
have been used at Antioch in his
time (see p. 42): but a mere com:
parison of the parallel narratives of
the evangelists would suffice to
suggest to him the reference.
Text N*“DLQX unlā MSS
known to Epiph (see below) to Hil
to Hier “most MSS' known to
Anast.sin cup lat. vt-vg Syr.vt-vg-
hl [me.codd] the.cod aeth [arm.
codd] Just Iren.gr.lat Hipp Dion.
66 AVO ZZS OAV SZZZCZ' A'AAA)/AWGS LUKE XXII 43, 44
al. Mart Eus. Can Arius ‘Ath.'(?) Ps.
1121 (this fragment appears in a
condensed shape under the yet more
improbable name of Cyr;al in Mai
AV. P. B. iii 389) Epiph(“in the un-
corrected copies”) Greg.naz Did”
anon. Cram(PTit) Syrian and later
pp Hil(see above). Hier(see above)
Aug pp.” Ephr. Diai.arm.235. -
The documentary evidence clearly
designates text as an early Western
interpolation, adopted in eclectic
texts. . With the apparent exception
of Dion.al, which it is not difficult to
account for, the early patristic evi-
dence on its behalf is purely Western:
on the unfavourable side, the silence
of Clem might be accidental, but
hardly so the silence of Orig (or, later;
of Cyr.hr, [Ath, and Greg-nys); and
unfavourable evidence other than
negative, if not furnished by an ex-
press statement, could exist only in
the form of a continuous quotation
or comment including the preceding
and following verses, whereas no
such comprehensive quotation or
comment is extant in Greek before
Cyr.al. Setting aside the mixed
MSS LQX and good cursives with
similar texts, the non-patristic Pre-
Syrian evidence for text consists of
S*D latt syrr, a frequent Western
combination. -
Notwithstanding the random Sug-
gestions of rash or dishonest hand-
ling thrown out by controversialists
there is no tangible evidence for the
excision of a substantial portion of
narrative for doctrinal reasons at any
period of textual history. Moreover,
except to heretical sects, which exer-
cised no influence over the trans-
mitted text, the language of vv. 43 f.
would be no stumbling-block in the
first and second centuries; and to a
later time than this it would be im-
possible to refer the common original
of the documents which attest omis-
sion.
The supposition that these verses
were omitted in the biblical text
because they were intercalated in
Mt xxvi in a Constantinopolitan
lection is equally untenable. It is
true that they are dropped in the
Constantinopolitan lection for the
Tuesday after the Sunday answering
to the Western Sexagesima, con-
sisting of xxii 39—xxiii I, and their
absence from that lection may be
explained by their occurrence in the
Holy Thursday lection. But several
considerations deprive this fact of
relevance to the question as to the
biblical reading. First, direct in-
fluence of the gap in the lection
xxii 39—xxiii 1 is excluded by the
at least relatively late date of the
ordinary (not special) week-day lec-
tion-system, to which this lesson
belongs, and which is absent from
the earliest lectionaries, and more-
over betrays by its structure its ad-
ventitious and supplementary charac-
ter (see E. Ranke in Herzog A. Z.
xi. 376—38o). Next, other similar
transpositions occur elsewhere in the
Constantinopolitan system : yet the
resulting onissions in lections have
notaffected the biblical text. Thirdly,
as has been already stated (p. 42),
the Constantinopolitan system is
either only the local system of An-
tioch or a descendant of it, and the
Antiochian or Syrian system cannot
be traced back beyond the latter
part of Cent. IV. Fourthly, vv. 43 f.
are retained in St Luke's Gospel not
merely by the Syrian Greek text but
by all Syriac versions from Syr.vt on-
wards, that is, by the only documents
that could be affected by proximity
to the Antiochian lection-system ;
while most, perhaps all, of the
documents which omit these verses
must have been in their origin
remote from any such influence
of neighbourhood. With respect
to the Homilies of Cyr.al, which
LUKE, XXIII 34
clearly omit vv. 43, 44 in the
midst of a cited portion of text,
vv. 39–46, it may be added that, if
they are founded on fixed eccle-
siastical lections, which is doubtful,
the distribution does not harmonise
with the Constantinopolitan system.
Lastly, it is in the highest degree
improbable either that a passage
long enough to fill II lines in N
should be unconsciously dropped
under the spell of the Sexagesima
week-day lection, or that a recollec-
tion of both lections should persuade
a scribe to exclude from St Luke's
Gospel three important sentences
which lay before him in his ex-
emplar.
On the other hand it would be
impossible to regard these verses
as a product of the inventiveness of
scribes. They can only be a frag-
ment from the traditions, written or
oral, which were, for a while at
least, locally current beside the ca-
nonical Gospels, and which doubt-
less included matter of every degree
of authenticity and intrinsic value.
These verses and the first sentence
of xxiii 34 may be safely called the
most precious among the remains of
this evangelic tradition which were
rescued from oblivion by the scribes
of the second century.
xxii 68 oë gº dirokpt0%re]+ + i)
diroNúa mºre H Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth.). Text NBLT
I-131-209 22 157, for me the
Cyr. Aid.91;loc.syr (not added by
Vict. Mc. 430Cr.[= 331 Pous.] Amb):
Some of these documents subjoin plot.
Added apparently to bring out more
clearly the assumed sense.
xxiii 2 ötao Tpéqovta Tó #6vos º-
pºul + kal kata)\}ovra Töv vöploy Kat
toūs irpoq àras Western (Gr.[Mar-
cion ap. Epiph] . Lat.): some of
the later Latins add 7tostram to
legem. After the next words ka?...
ötöðvat (given by Epiph as ke^etſovra
AVO 7TES OAW SELECT A*/A D/AWGS
67
%povs pai) ātāāvat, but probably only
through his loose manner of reference)
Marcion's text had kal diroatpéqovra.
Tös Yuvaikas Kai Târékva (see on v. 5).
xxiii 5 ſin.] + et ſilios nostros et
zºrores azerāţ a nobis, moſt entime baff-
tizanſter [-ætter c) sicut [eſ] nos [nec
se mundartſ] (c) e : see Marcion under
v. 3. Doubtless Western, though of
limited range. f
xxiii 34 [ć 3& 'I'moods—Totojou.]
< SºBD* 38.82 435 a 5 me.codd.
opt(cf. Lightfoot in Scrivener's In-
£rod.” 332 ft.) the Cyr.loc.syr; Juli-
azz. ap. Areth. Apoc. 287 Cram. (trept
du kal 6 xplorës Aeye IIárep, ... trot-
oùatv, el Kal Kvpi}\\@ Tig ’AXešavöpe.
€v Vy [no longer extant] Töv kard
'IovXavoú ºf éAéyxºg trpós + (? &\éy-
Xourt (ºs) vöðoy Toºro Tô Đmtöv čāošev
diroakv6a)\to at d\\’ et ékeſvos oj-
Tws, juïv of todro Šoke?. Text Wes-
tern and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.]
AEth. Arm.); incl. N**ACD"LQX
e Iren.lat.2 Io(cf. 198,207) Hom. Cl
Orig. Zez.lat. Ruf Eus. Caſt Const.
Ap” Gesſ. Pilaf. Io ‘Cyr.’/c. gr. 196
anon. Cram(? Tit) Chr Thdt Dam.
Par Ephr. Diaf, arm. I 17, 256, 265.
The fragment (on Lc vi 27) ascribed
to Cyr.al bears his name in the three
MSS in which Mai found it and
in Cramer's MS (p. 52), and there
is nothing in its language inconsis-
tent with Cyr's authorship : yet it
is difficult not to suspect Some
confusion of names in the face of
the distinct and forcible testimony
of Arethas as well as the reading
of the text prefixed to the (Syriac)
Homily on vv. 32–43, which
itself unfortunately breaks off in
the only extant MS before v. 34
is properly reached. The Greek
fragment omits IIátep, as do A and
one MS of the Gesta Pilafi. Accord-
ing to Hegesippus (Eus. H. A. ii.23
16) James the Lord's brother at his
martyrdom by stoning of paſſels
80mké 76 yövara Aéywv IIapaka Nº
68 AVOTES OW SAEZECT AAAZ)/AWGS
k'pte 6eê Tárep, dºpes attoºs, où ydp
otöaori Ti trotodou.
The curved marks denoting dele-
tion in S are referred by Tischen-
dorf to the corrector A somewhat
less confidently in this verse than in
xxii 43 f., where see the note. Here
too they have been expunged, and
must therefore be due to a corrector
who was not the last; and here,
even more strongly than in the
former case, the early extinction of
the reading points to at least an
early date for the marks. The
corrector who introduced the sen-
tence into ID is pronounced by Dr
Scrivener to be not earlier than
Cent. IX.
The documentary distribution sug-
gests that text was a Western inter-
polation, of limited range in early
times (being absent from D a 3
though read by e Syr.vt Iren Hom.
Cl Eus. Can), adopted in eclectic
texts, and then naturally received
into general currency.
Its omission, on the hypothesis of its
genuineness, cannot be explained in
any reasonable manner. Wilful ex-
cision, on account of the love and
forgiveness shown to the Lord's own
murderers, is absolutely incredible:
no various reading in the New Tes-
tament gives evidence of having
arisen from any such cause. Nor
again can it be traced to a break in
the Constantinopolitan lection for
the Thursday before the Sunday an-
swering to the Latin Quinqua-
gesima. The break does not occur
immediately before 6 6é’Imaoûs, but
after ékét éo Taºpaioav at Töv in the
middle of v. 33 ; and the lection
does not begin again before v. 44 :
so that only a small fraction of the
gap in the lection, 3 lines out of 59
in S, is taken up with 6 6é 'Imgods...
Trovovoruv, and this fraction and the
gap have different beginnings and
different endings. This long gap is
LUKE XXIII 34
moreover the second in the lection,
for v. 32 is likewise omitted, the in-
tention probably being to shorten
the chapter by dropping all that is
said about the two robbers, together
with the intervening matter except
part of v. 33, which was indispensa-
ble to the coherence of the narra-
tive. Further, this lection belongs
to the apparently later portions of
the lection-system (see p. 66), where-
as there is no gap in two probably
earlier lections which likewise cover
the same ground, the eighth Gospel
of the Passion, and the sixth Gospel
of the Vigil of Good Friday. On
the fundamental irrelevance of the
Constantinopolitan lection-system to
all questions as to the origin of early
readings, especially in the case of
readings attested by no Syrian au-
thority, enough has been said al-
ready (pp. 42 ff., 66).
Few verses of the Gospels bear in
themselves a surer witness to the
truth of what they record than this
first of the Words from the Cross:
but it need not therefore have be-
longed originally to the book in
which it is now included. We can-
not doubt that it comes from an ex-
traneous source. Nevertheless, like
xxii 43 f.” Mt xvi 2 f., it has excep-
tional claims to be permanently re-
tained, with the necessary safe-
guards, in its accustomed place.
xxiii 43] Marcion according to
Epiph onlitted a ſpepov...Tapačetorg,
7. e. doubtless the whole verse. Orig.
}o states that ‘some’ were so trou-
bled by the apparent discordance
with Mt xii 4o as to suspect that
a juépov K.T.A. was a spurious addi-
tion to the Gospel. Taken literally,
this would imply that the words
were absent from other texts than
that of Marcion, as he did not recog-
nise St Matthew’s Gospel. But it is
more likely that Orig had Marcion
in mind, and conjecturally attributed
LUKE XXIII 45
to him a sense of the apparent dis-
crepance which he himself thought
it necessary to subject to a careful
examination. . . In that case the
onnission was probably one of Mar-
cion's arbitrary tamperings with the
text. • *
In D vv. 42, 43 stand thus:—kal
orpaq eis Tpès rêv Kūptov eitrey at Tø
Mvºja 6m Tt plov ću Tà muépg Tàs éAeº-
ore&s orov. & Tokpuffets 6é à 'Imaoûs
eitreu at Tig Tø et)\maſovrt [Z. éirit)\ºjoſ-
oróvril 6&pget, a juepov K.T.A.
xxiii 45 Évérms toū j\tov čk\eltrow-
Tos] - évárms, [kal] &a kottaſön 6 #Atos H.
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Arm.: cf. AEth.); incl. “most copies’
known to Orig(Mt.) (? Marcion
ap. Epiph) (Jul. Afr) Orig. M.lat.
293 (Chr) (?? Cyr, loc.gr) (scholia):
Čakottaſön 6é à #. D: < kal a 6 c e
arm : 251 aeth combine both read-
ings, aeth Substituting kóapos for
#Atos : Syr.hr and the Gesta A'iſat:
(see below) have Toij \tov okott-
offévros: syr.vt is defective. Also
< kai égkortorffn Ö #\tos Ca 33, as
| Mt Mc. Text NBC*(vid L *most
copies' known to Orig. Mſ.lat.82
Some lectionaries in one lection(see
below) me the (cf. aeth) syr.hl.
mg (?? Iren.lat) Orig. Ce/s”; Zc ;
Cant.lat. Ruf. (Cyr-hr”Y.8) Cyr. al.
Mt (anon. Pous.) (Ps. Dion) Max:
NL ltP Origº have ék\viróvros. A
liturgical note cited by Matthaei.”
states that some lectionaries read Tod
7\tov čk\etirovros in the lection for
the Thursday before Quinquagesima
(els Tiju & Tàs Tupoqāyov) instead of
kal éo kottaſöm...éaxlo'67 [sic, but evi-
dently meaning #A0s], but that in
the two other lections (see above, p.
68) they agree completely with
the other copies.
The words kal éakotta 6m 3 #Atos
close a very brief summary of three
lines, answering to vv. 33–44, which
Epiph. Haer.317 in his loose manner
Sets down as a foundation for ac-
NOTES ON SELECT READINGS
69
cusing Marcion of inconsistency in
not omitting the Crucifixion. His
comment (347) dwells only on éa rat-
pajaav : but he probably took the
last words of his abridged quotation
from Marcion's text of Lc, not merely
from his own. . An allusion of Iren.
275 suggests, T., A. &A., though
not conclusively (sol medio die occi-
dit). Jul.Afric (Routh Rel/. Sac. ii
297 f.) shews that he must have read
éokotta 6 m by arguing that the dark-
ness was not an eclipse without re-
ferring to the word which was inter-
preted in this sense. Besides the
well known passages of Orig, a scho-
lium attributed to him in at least
two sources (Matthaei" on Mtxxvii.45;
Galland xiv b 82 = Migne vii 308
IIept Taºrms...ékpepºda.0m), and, to
judge by internal evidence, with
good reason (notwithstanding the
ascription of the first few lines to
Greg.nys in Nicet. Mé.798 Pous.),
speaks of the darkness as Taºrms Tās
ék\etyears. Chrys. Mt on the other
hand repudiates the idea of an ec-
lipse, and is followed by one or two
late scholiasts. An anonymous Scho-
lium printed by Poussin (Mc. 350) has
the remarkable words 2kótos éyéveto
dio Tep to 5 j\tov Š.To X (op ſo a v Tos
Tú karū tod óea TóTov trapovig, kal
oùk divea youévov čotivat Thu oiketav
pørayanytay toſs 6eoktóvots, wrongly
attributing them to Gregory [Naz.]
év roſs Tpós KAmöövtov: their au-
thor is possibly Cyr.al (see below),
whose Homilies are defective here.
The words 6 p.év yöp j\tos éakott-
§ero occur in a Greek fragment bear-
ing his name in a MS elsewhere too
liberal in what it assigns to him (Mai
AV. P. B. ii 436): it may be his, but
it is more likely to be by Tit.bost.
On the other hand part of the verse
is quoted with T. j.A. §k\. in another
fragment likewise bearing his name
(Nicet. Mt. 797 Pous.), which has
points of connexion with the frag-
7 O AVO ZZS OAW SEZAZCZ" A&AEA D/AWGS
ment attributed to Greg.naz. In
the Gesta Pilati (II) the reading
is Toi) j\tov aſkotta 6évros, due either
to conflation of the two principal
readings or to an independent at-
tempt to obviate the misinterpreta-
tion of ék\elitovtos: the same pur-
pose is carried out further, after a
few lines, by putting the words &-
k\elpis m)\tov yeyovév Katë to eið6ós
into the mouth of the unbelieving
Jews.
Transcriptional evidence fully con-
firms the clear testimony of docu-
ments. The genitive absolute of
text might easily be changed to a
finite verb with a conjunction, an-
swering to the finite verbs on either
side; the converse change would be
improbable. The familiar a kotićopat
applied to the sun (as Mt xxiv. 29 |
Mc xiii 24; Ap ix 2; Eccl xii. 2;
cf. Is xiii i o) could never be a
stumblingblock: the less common
ék\etarø, nowhere else applied to
the sun in the Greek Bible, might
easily provoke paraphrase, even if
it did not give more serious offence
by suggesting the in this place im-
possible sense of eclipse. We learn
from Orig (for his in substance, not
the Latin translator’s, the long and
elaborate discussion certainly is)
that already in his day attacks
were made on the Gospel not only
on the ground of the silence of his-
torians about the darkness, but also
on account of the impossibility of an
eclipse at full moon. He notices
and warmly repudiates the answer
of some Christians, that there was
the special miracle of an eclipse
under unwonted conditions; and
himself meets the difficulty by ac-
cepting the reading kai égkóttaſöm
6 #\tos. To account for the exis-
tence of the other reading he first
suggests that it may have arisen
from a desire of greater explicitness,
with an assumption that the dark-
LUKE XXIII 45
ness could not be due to anything
but an eclipse ; but he thinks it
more likely that the change was
insidiously made by enemies of the
Church, that they might use it as a
point of attack on the Gospels. A
little further on he strangely asserts
that “the evangelists made no
mention at all of the sun in this
place”, and argues that the darkness
was probably due to clouds of ex-
treme murkiness, as though he
omitted both readings with Ca 33.
In the earlier Comm. on Canticles,
and even in the contemporary (Eus.
A. AE. vi. 36) books against Celsus
(ii 33, 35), Orig follows the reading
of text, for he assumes the oc-
currence of an eclipse (33 s. ſize.),
apparently a miraculous eclipse (35);
so that he seems in his Comm.
on Mt to have written under the
influence of the Western MS or
MSS which have so largely affected
the text of this work elsewhere. A
writer, in Cent.VI, who personates
Dionysius the Areopagite (AEp. vii
p. 775), describes the circum-
stances of a miraculous eclipse as
witnessed by himself at Heliopolis
at the time of the Crucifixion,
eltré Öé at Tø Ti Aéyets trept Tàs
év Tó orajtnpig a raupið yelyovvias €-
KXeipews; duºpotépay yūp Töre katū.
‘H\tov IIóXuv dua. Tapóvre Te Kal
ovved Tóre trapačóšws rig j\tº Thu
orexhumv épiritrovoſav čapópev, où
yöp fiv ovvóóov [a conjunction of
Sun and moon] kaupés' K. T. A. In
commenting on this passage (ii 31 I
Cord.) Maximus Confessor says
‘‘Note here the solution of the
difficulty (&tropjuatos) in the evan-
gelist Luke. Now no one has ex-
plained the strangeness of the man-
ner ſome. and of the marvel save he
[Dion] alone: for, the divine Luke
having said diró S dºpas a kóros év
tº a tavp3 Toij Kuptov yewé00at Tod
7\tov čk\et Tov Tos, it was a mat-
LUKE XXIV 13
ter of debate (āpººpe/3&NXero) among
all how he described as an ék\eupus
&c. Nearly all the commentators,
being later than , these times [sc.
those of Dion] supposed that the
sun himself lost his rays (áToğa)\eiv
T&s &krºvas) for the three hours.”
These examples, with others given
incidentally above,
temptation which would be ſelt to
get rid of the difficulties arising from
the assumed interpretation of ék\et-
Troy TOS.
On the other hand the word
ék\etira, contains no such intrinsic
difficulty as need raise a scruple as
to its acceptance now. It might
be applied to any striking Occul-
tation of the sun, whether by the
moon or through any other cause.
Indeed the wide and various use of
ék\et Tao in the LXX Suggests that,
as employed by a Greek-speaking
Jew, it might easily preserve its
original force, and the Sun by
a simple figure be said to “fail”.
Some such sense is implied in the
interpretations of the commentators
noticed by Maximus, and of the
anonymous scholium (p. 69); and
probably in the paraphrase of
Irenaeus. . .
xxiii 48 fin.]+ dicenſes Vae mobis
quae facta sunt hodie propter peccata
zºostra ; appropinguazú entiºn deso-
/atio Hierusalem ge/1(syr.vt): Syr.vt
differs by prefixing “and”, substi-
tuting “woe to us’ for hodie, and
omitting the last clause. The Syriac
JJoctrina. Addaei (Cureton Azec. Syr.
/Joc. Io), evidently referring to these
words, seems to have had the longer
text. r .
xxiii 55 aij - 600 H. Western (Gr.
[D 29 Eus. Mar] Lat.); cf. Mt xxvii
61 ; Mc xv 47: similarly in xxiv. I
after pºvăua some Mixed (British)
Latin MSS add Maria Magdalena
et altera Maria et quaedam cuve eis.
Also - at Alexandrian and Syrian
illustrate the
AVO 7TES OAV SAE/ASC 7" /CAEA D/AWGS 7 I
(Gr. AEth. Arm.); incl. SAC Eus. 2/3.
Text BLPX I-131 13-69-346 22 33
157 alP me the Syr.vt-vg-hl.
xxiv. 3 |Toti Kuptov "Imoroſ)] →
Western (Gr. Lat.: partly Syr.
Eg.): <the whole D a be f rhe Eus.
1). AE.: < kvptov D 42 a 5 eff, rhe
syr.vt-vg the Eus. D. E.; not Eus. Ps.
A Western non-interpolation, like
that in xxii 19, 20; and the first of
a series of Western non-interpola-
tions in this chapter, which illus-
trate and confirm each other: the
omission of darò Tod plumuelov in v. 9,
being more doubtful than the rest,
is marked with [ ] only.
The combination 6 köptos "ſmoods
is not found in the genuine text
of the Gospels, though perhaps in
[Mc] xvi 19. - -
xxiv 6 ſočk éo Tuv (36e &AX& #yép-
97.| < Western, D a b eff rhe; not
syr.vt Eus. Ps; Mar: c has the pro-
bably independent insertion resur-
7 exit a mozzatis; Marcion (ap. Epiph)
*Yépôm only, unless Epiph has loosely
omitted the rest; aeth has ºry&p0m,
očk éa Tuv (36e, exactly as Mc; C*gers
syr.vg omit G\\d. Text comes from
Mt xxviii. 6 || Mc xvi 6, thrown into
an antithetic form.
A Western non-interpolation.
xxiv. 12 . ['O 6é IIárpos... yeyo-
vós.]]< Western (Gr. Lat.), D a be
rhe Eus. Cazz; not c f Syr.vt Eus.
Mar (distinctly). Omitted hikewise
at the beginning of one lection
(first hand) in syr.hr, and in the
harmonistic narrative of fiz; but
probably in both cases by accident.
Text from Jo xx 3—Io (except
dvao rós and 6avpdºwv Tó yeyovás),
condensed and simplified, with
omission of all that relates to “the
other disciple”.
A Western non-interpolation.
º ** e t 3., f
xxiv. 13 &#kovraj čkarov čákovta.
Alexandrian (Gr. Lat.[vg.codd] Syr.
[hl, txt z. mg] Arm.); incl. S, pro-
bably Orig and perhaps Cyr, al,
72 AVO ZZS OAV SAE/ACC 7" RAEA D/AWGS
implicitly Eus. Onoma Hier. Æp. 108
p. 696; Soz v 21. So “the ac-
curate copies and Origen's confir-
mation of the truth” according to a
scholium in 34 194 (Birch V. Z. i
cvii f.; Burgon in Guardiant 1873,
p. Io95). A fragment ascribed to
Cyr.al (Mai A. P. B. ii 440), perhaps
rightly, appears anonymously in the
Cramerian catena (p. 172) in a some-
what fuller form, which contains
ëkatov čákovta, though Cramer
omits ékatov as a blunder. An
Alexandrian geographical correc-
tion, though not of the type of
Tepyeomvåv or Bnflagap&; evidently
arising from identification of this
Emmaus with the better known
Emmaus which was later called
Nicopolis. The identification is
distinctly laid down by Eus Hier
Soz, though they do not refer to
the distance. . .
xxiv. 27 dipšćuevos... àteppijvevorev]
+ fiv dipšáuevos dirò Majvoſéa's Kal
trávrov táv troopmróv ćppmweiſelv H
Western (Gr.[D ; cf. N*] Lat. ; cf.
Syr.) with variations (lat.eur inter-
prefans but -are mem): N* has ka?
ôteppamueiſelv, probably a vestige of a
form of the Western reading: fiv
tºpääpºevos and kal 6tepp'ſvevew ap-
parently (e) syr.vt-vg.
xxiv. 32 juāv kauopačum fiv] + ºv
juāv keka)\vppévm H Western (Gr.
[D]: cf. Lat.); probably from 2 Co
iii 14 f. : excaecatum c, oftusum 7/he,
both implying Tetrºmptopºv'm accord-
ing to the renderings of Tmpów else-
where, from Mc vi 52 ; extermina-
tum (= externatum) e, which is per-
haps a third rendering of the same
original, and certainly expresses ut-
ter bewilderment (ékrös (ppevčv):
ce rhe transpose fiv and juáv : also
8paôeta syr. vt the arm, from v. 25:
aeth has an obscure conflate reading.
These various corrections attest the
difficulty found in kavouévn, its true
force not being understood.
from Jo xx 19.
Arm.);
*
LUKE XXIV 13
xxiv. 36 [kal Xé yet airo’s Elpſum
ūgīvl|<Western, D a bef rhe; not
c syr.vt Eus. Mar expressly. Text
After text-- éyò
elut, u% pogeio 6e GP cu” c f. vg
me.codd(non opt) syr. Vg-hl-hr (aeth,
transposing the clauses) arm Amb
Aug; from Jo vi 20.
A Western non-interpolation.
xxiv. 39 p.mxaq,7aaré ple] → pe
Western (Gr.[D] Lat. Syr.). Also
ordpka Kalj < Marcion (Epiph and
perhaps Tert) Tert Hil”. Apparently
a Western reading of limited range.
Another. Western reading is the
substitution of the common classi-
cal ordpkas for adpica (S*D Iren.lat
Adam. I/2); both pp place kal ord p-
Kas last. - .
xxiv. 4o [kai Tojto eitröv čöelieu
aúroſs Tās xeſpas kal Toys tróðas.]]
< Western, D a bef rhe syr.vt; not
c Eus. Mar. Text from Jo Xx 20,
with a matural adaptation.
A Western non-interpolation.
xxiv. '42 ix950s 6Troö pepos]+
- Kal diró pe)\tootou kmpto; H Western
and (with kmptov changed to Kmptov)
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.] AEth.
incl. Ps.Just. Æes Cyr.hr”
[Ath. Or. c. Ath. codd, see below]
Epiph. Haer.652 Aug ‘Vig.” Parim.
i 56; but not D e or any Greek
uncial better than NX. Text SAB
DLII e me.cod.opt syr.hl." (Clem)
(Orig. Cels; Mt). (Eus. Mar”) Ath.
Or. c. A2-. iv. 35 cod(in Mai AV. P.B.
ii 582) (Cyr. Ze; ?? Yo). The re-
ferences in Clem: Orig Eus Cyr. LC,
though not quotations, are such as
to render it highly improbable that
the writers would have left out all
allusion to these words had they
stood in their MSS of Lc. Clement’s
omission is the more remarkable
because he proceeds trpès toūTots
oùöé TpaymgáTau Kat Kilpítov Trepto-
paréou Tois àet iſ votivras kató Nóyou,
language which in its context is
decisive. In Montſaucon's edition
JOHN I 4
of Ath the words are present and no
variation is noticed : but, as they
are wanting in Mai’s MS, a corrup-
tion of Ath from the current bibli-
cal text must be suspected. Epiph.
Aïaer. I43 certainly has Jo xxi. 9, 13
chiefly if not solely in view, and can-
not be cited for omission : elsewhere
he clearly has the inserted words.
Cyr. Jo. 1108 quotes vv. 36–43:
but his comment refers only to the
fish, the text of the passage is
virtually dependent on a single
late MS, and the reference in the
fragment on Lc omits the honey-
comb. -
A singular interpolation, evident-
ly from an extraneous source, written
or oral.
xxiv. 43 ſin.]+ kat [\aftövl rô Tt-
Xoltra éðwkev attois Pre-Syrian (? late
Western), KII* I 3-346 alP and all
vv except lat.vt.codd.opt (a & eff)
syr.vg me. Cod. opt; also Ath
Epiph. Haer. 143 Aug ‘Vig.’
xxiv. 46 oëTws yéypattal]+ Kal
oùra's 86et Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.):
also otra's #6et omitting oëtays yé-
'ypatrrat kal cut arm Eus.7%eoffſ.
syr. iv 2 (Epiph): also - otitas ce
Cyp. Probably three independent .
corrections of the (in the sense in-
tended) abrupt phrase ouros YéYpa-
*~~~~
AVO 7TES OAV SAE Z/ZC 7" ſº ÆA D/AWGS 73
Trat Traffeiv; though the Syrian read-
ing might be a conflation of text
and the Second, had the second
more substantive attestation: éðel
comes from the similar v. 26.
xxiv 51 || kal &ved €pero els Tov
oùpavóvil-Western, N*D a 3 c ſ ſhe
Aug. 1/2; not c Aug. 1/2 : syr.vt is
defective. .
A Western non-interpolation.
Text was evidently inserted from an
assumption that a separation from
the disciples at the close of a Gospel
must be the Ascension. The As-
cension apparently did not lie with-
in the proper scope of the Gospels,
as seen in their genuine texts: its
true place was at the head of the
Acts of the Apostles, as the pre-
paration for the Day of Pentecost,
and thus the beginning of the history
of the Church.
xxiv 52 |Tooo-kvvågavres at Töv ||
< Western, D a be f rhe Aug. 1/1:
<aúròu cu' c vg.
A Western non-interpolation.
Text is a natural sequel to kal
dive pépeto els Töv ovpavów ; also cf.
Mt xxviii 9, 17. -
xxiv. 53 e5Xoyoſivres] + aivodures H.
Western, D affeſ; rhe vg.codd. For
a Syrian conflation see Złºtrod. § 146.
ST JOHN
i 4 ºv) - éariv H Western (Gr. Lat.
Syr.); incl. SD and some copies
known to Orig.j'o ; regarded with
some favour by Orig himself (iv
72 Táxa oëk dTuffāvas). A change
arising naturally out of the punctua-
tion universally current in the earliest
times, 6 yeyovev čv at Tø ºw) āv,
since the combination of y&yovev
with ºv has considerable superficial
difficulty. -
The punctuation in the margin
seems to be little if at all older
than Cent. IV: Amb.P.793 speaks
of it as the punctuation of ‘the
Alexandrians and Egyptians’; i.e.
probably Hesychius, certainly not
Clem or Orig, or apparently Ath:
it is ſound in Epiph. Haer. 379, Gog,
179; Anc. 8o B; Did. Zºzº, i I5
p. 19 f.; and the Syrian Fathers.
[Yet the punctuation of MSS Ver-
74 AVO 7TES OAV SAE/L.A. C.7" A £A/OAAWGS
sions and Fathers has no textual
authority, being only an embodi-
ment of ancient interpretations, not
a part of the transmitted text, nor a
transmitted record of the punctua-
tion intended by the original wri-
ters ;
margin has high claims to accept-
ance on internal grounds. H.] A
singular modification of this con-
struction is found in Epiph. Anc.
8o D and Greg.nys. Euzz. 348, (443,)
who join év attig as well as 6 yeyo-
vev to the preceding verse.
i 13 oi...éyévvíðmoſavl gui...natus
est. Western, as a reading of the
text possibly Latin only; so & Tert
(Fren. lat”, verified by context) (Amb)
Aug (Sulp); the indirect quotations
in Iren Amb Sulp admit of being
taken as adaptations only, and the
same may be said of a possible
allusion in Just. Z)ia/.63.
i 18 Movoyevås 6éðs] + 6 povoyev’s
viðs H Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. [AEth.] Arm.); incl. (Iren. lat.
2/3) Eus(once noticing txt) Eustath
Alex.al Ath Greg.naz pp”. Text
N*(omitting 6 &v)BC*L(33).syr.vg-
hl. mg (me, apparently) Valentiniani
(cited by Iren and Clem) Iren.lat.
1/3 Clem.al Orig (Eus, see above)
Epiph (Bas) Did Greg.nys Cyr.al:
ô is prefixed by N° 33 me. The pa-
tristic evidence is in some cases un-
certain and conflicting. In Cent. Iv
and even later the phrase provoyeums
6eós detached from the biblical con-
text was widely used by theologians
of opposite schools, as Ath Bas
Greg, naz Greg.nys Cyr.al on the
one side, Arius and Eunomius on
the other; and also by Hil Fulg
on the one side, and various ob-
scure Latin Arian writers on the
other, though all the Latin biblical
texts have ſilius.
The whole attestation (D is de-
fective here) distinctly marks 6 povo-
'yevºs viós as in the first instance
and the construction in the
JOHN I 4
Western; while the evidence of
early Greek MSS (B, N, CL) for
text is amply varied. . . . .
. Both readings intrinsically are
free from objection. Text, though
startling at first, simply combines
in a single phrase the two attributes
of the Logos marked before (6eós
V. I, provoyevſis v. 14): its sense is
‘One who was both 6eós and povo-
'yevis’. The substitution of the
familiar phrase 6 povoyevås viós for
the unique provoyevns 0éés would be
obvious, and govoyev is by its own
primary meaning directly suggested
viós. The converse substitution is
inexplicable by any ordinary motive
likely to affect transcribers. There
is no evidence that the reading had
any controversial interest in ancient
times. And the absence of the
article from the more important
documents is fatal to the idea that
6C was an accidental substitution
for YC. The variation has been ex-
amined fully in one of Zºo ZDisser-
tattoºs by F. J. A. Hort, Cambridge,
1877.
i 28 Bºffavig) Buffağap& probably
Alexandrian (Gr. Syr. [AEth.] Arm.);
incl. C*Th some good cursives syr.vt
Orig. loc". Eus. Onoma Epiph Chr :
adopted by Orig (and apparently
found by him in some copies, iv. 14o
oxeóðv év táat Tots duriypdºots
Keſrat Tajra év B76avíg éyévero) on
geographical grounds. Epiph, who
like arm (Lagarde) reads B76agpd,
speaks of B76avig as found ‘in other
copies’. Chr, doubtless following
Orig, gives Bh6agapd as the reading
of ‘the more accurate copies’. The
form varies in the present text of
Orig, which has chiefly Buffapa (with
two cursives), Babapti, or Bm0apagá
(with Nº.syr.hl.mg aeth; cf Jós zv
6, 61; xviii.22). His interpretation
oikos Katao Kevās points however to
B79agapó.
JoHN III 13
i 34 6 viðs] + 6. Ék\ekrós H Western
(Gr.[N] Lat.[e Ambl Syr.) : D is de-
fective. Some documents (Lat.[eur.]
Syr.) variously combine the two
readings (electus ſilius Dei &c.).
ii 3 joirepºja'avtos oivov; H oivov
oùk eixov &rt ovverexéo 6 m 6 oivos toū
Tyáuovº eira. H Western (Gr.[S] Lat.
[Syr.hl.mg] AEth.): D is defective.
A characteristic paraphrase. In e
(and approximately in rhe) per mul-
tamt turbam vocitorum (-atorum) is
added. -
iii 5 yewvnºj čvayevvmtºn Western
(Gr.[pp. Lat.); incl. Just Hom. Cl
Iren. Afragme Eus./s and some later
Fathers (Dr E. Abbot) : D is de-
fective. The Latin renderings are
rematus abce f m sess vg (? Cyp. 1/4)
Tert. 1/3 Philast. 1/2 al”; regenera-
tus Philast. 1/2 ; demeato ſeafaes auct.
A'ebaſt; demento rematus Ruf Orig.
Mt.lat : (text) natus f (Tert.2/3)
Cyp. 3 v. 4|4 Faust: denuo comes
doubtless from v. 3, where it re-
presents diva,6ev in all Latin docu-
ments : in vv. 3, 4 bis, 7, 8 7-eneascor
has always some Latin evidence,
doubtless by assimilation to v. 5;
denuo being also found in ef in v.
4 (1°). .
- % Thy Saori Metav rod 0600] Tºv
8agiXétav Tóv otpavčv. Western
(Gr. Lat.); incl. N e me Just Docetae
(ap.Hipp) Hom.Cl ‘Iren.’ Fragm,
Eus. Is Tert Orig. Mt.lat; A'om.lat.
Ruf. 1/3 ; not syr.vt Cyp : D is
defective. Perhaps derived from a
traditional form of the words; but
also naturally suggested by the same
phrase eioſépxoplat eis Thu 8aat)\etav
Töv oëpavów in Mt, where it occurs
five times (elaep). eis r. 8. Too 6eoû
once only, xix 24), while the com-
bination of làeiv with T. 8. Töv oſſ-
pavóu (v. 3) occurs nowhere. Here
N*M have ióeiv.
iii. 6 ordp: éorv] + &rt ék Tös gap-
kös é-yévvå0m Western (Gr.[161*]
Lat. Syr.); incl. e Tert; not ºn
AWO TAES OAV SEZ EC 7' A&AEA/O/AWGS 75
Cyp. 2/2 Nemes.thub(Conc. Carth.)
Hil.2/2 : D is defective.
Żóid. Tvetipºd, ća ruv} + Quia Oents
spiritus es: Western (Lat. Syr.); incl.
e m Tert Nemes Hil. 1/2 Ambr(Z)e
Sã. iii II) expressly, not Cyp.2/2
Hil. I/2 : D is defective. In some
documents (Lat. Syr.) the gloss (cf.
iv 24) is enlarged by the addition ef
&c (de) deo ſeaſus est. In corre-
spondence with the former gloss
161* adds Šti čk Toij tryeºpatós éarty.
iii. 8 €k] + 4 Toi) jöaros ka? H. Wes-
tern(Gr.[N] Lat. Syr.) : D is defec-
tive. From v. 5.
iii 13 too div0p67tov] + + 6 dºv čv
Tô oëpavºg F Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.] Arm.); incl.
A (< &v) Hipp Epiph Bas Did”
Orig. Gen. lat. Ruf.; Áºom. lat. Ruf
(with context). Text NBLT, 33
me.cod. opt aeth Cyr.loc.com.m (the
addition in the printed text is evi-
dently due to Aubert, as in many
other cases). No continuous Greek
commentary on this part of Jo earlier
than Chr has survived ; and there
are no quotations including at once
v. 13 and v. 14, doubtless owing to
the want of obvious connexion
between the two verses. But there
are many quotations of v. 13 which
stop short at T. &v0p6trov; and it is
morally certain that most of them
would have included 6 &v év Tºg
oùpavºg, if it had stood in the texts
used by the writers. So Orig. Aroz.
I IoTisch; /s.lat Eus.2/2 Adamant
(in Orig. Opp. i. 855) Epiph. Haer.
487, 9 II Greg, naz. Cled.87; AVect.
168 Did. Acá, 41 Cramer(= 1657 Mi)
Greg. nys. Apoll. 6 Ps. Jul. rom. I 19
Lag Cyr.al. 13/13 (see P. E. Pusey
on /ncarn. Onig. p. 128) Hier. Æ/h.
iv. Io Ephr. Diaz.arm. 168, 187, 189.
CD are defective,
The character of the attestation
marks the addition as a Western
gloss, suggested perhaps by i 18:
it may have been inserted to correct
76 AVO 7'ES O.W SEZ EC7' W. EAA)/AWGS.
any misunderstanding arising out of
the position of dva (3é8mkev, as coming
before kata/33s. - -
iv I (+) dis...6aºrtišet [?] 'Twówns]
< *; AB"LGT cuP Or.jo Epiph.
Aſaer. 48o Dindorf (the passage is
wanting in earlier editions): not
NBaCD vv.omn Cyr.al.ſoc. For
6 köptos the Western text, with all
the earlier vv, has Ó 'Imaoüs; so
ND(A) 1-1 18-209 22 61 81 al”
lat. afr-eur-vg syr.vt-(vg)-hl.txt me
arm Chr, A cup syr.vg omitting the
subsequent 'Imaoüs: while 6 köptos
is attested only by lat.it Syr.hl.mg
aeth and the Syrian Greek text in
addition to ABCLT).
The Western change is doubtless
due to the apparent awkwardness
of the combination d kúptos...
'I'moroús: but the difficulty lies rather
in the absence of any perceptible
force in the double naming ; the
most probable explanation being
that 8T, is “recitative’, and that 'Im-
o'oùs...'Iwdvºys are in oratio 2'ecta as
the very words of the report. [It
remains no easy matter however to
explain either how the verse as it
stands can be reasonably understood
without #, or how such a mere slip
as the loss of H after €l should have
so much excellent Greek authority,
more especially as the absence of jj
increases the obvious no less than
the real difficulty of the verse. The
dissent of the versions may easily
have a connexion with their prevail-
ing support of the Western reading;
that is, d "Imoroús and j may have
come in together : the authority for
the combination of 6 kiptos with ºf
consists of BaCT, later MSS fg
syr.hl.mg aeth Nonn Cyr, a group
of mainly Syrian complexion. On
the whole the text of the verse
cannot be accepted as certainly free
from doubt. H.] -
iv 46, 49 6agiXukós] + 8aaixtakos F
JOHN III 13
Western (Gr. Lat.).
v I opt)] # €opti, Alexandrian
(Gr. Eg.); incl. SCLA 1-1 18 33
(me the) Cyr.al.loc.txt(s.7); not
ABD. Orig.jo Epiph. Haer. p.481
Dind.(ſwetā TaüTa “ ºu Čopt?) Tów
*Iovöaiwu, oiaat 6é Ött trept åA\ms
éopt?s 'Iovöaiwu Xéyet, 7, Tevrm-
Koo Tijs º oxmuoirmºyuáv). The in-
sertion of the article, easily made
after HN, seems to have been an
attempt to define the chronology.
If it were genuine, the reference
would be to the Feast of Taber-
nacles, emphatically ‘the Feast of
the Jews' (see note on vi 4), and not
to the Passover. The additions róv
dºugou and m Grºvotrºyia are found
in A and 131 respectively.
v 2. čtri Tà Trpoſłatukň koxvg|3%pg]
Trpošarukh ko)\vpſ3;0pa, Western (Gr.
Lat. AEth.) incl. Eus Theod.mops
(Epiph. Aſaer. p. 481 Dind.): lat.vg.
codd Syr.vt-vg omit éirl . Th trpo-
8atukň, which was strangely misun-
derstood by some Latin translators
(in inferiorem partem).
ibid. Bm9;affā] (marg.) Bºmbaatöá
B c vg me(Bºmba. cod.opt) theſB750.)
syr.hl.txt-mg.gr aeth (Buffaq.)Tert:
Bºmbeg öö Syrian (Gr. Lat.[it] Syr.
Arm.); incl. Did. ' Text N 33 (rhe);
also Bm{affä L e Eus. Onom ; also
BeX&effd D (a), Betzatha (-aſa, -eča)
& ſºvg.codd: hence -: -6a NLD 33
lat.vt Eus. Text and margin are
but slight modifications of the same
name; and perhaps its purest form
would be Bºjóðavöá, the House of the
Olive. Bm90 atód may however be
right, as it is supported by B and a
great variety of vv.: a tank hewn in
the rock might naturally bear the
name Æouse of Fish.
v 3 &mpáv] + trapa)\vrtków West-
ern, D a b 2%e can: almu. This
Western addition was not taken up
into any known later text: not so .
those that follow.
JOHN VI 4
+ éxöexoptèvov Thu Toj čaros ki-
vmaſty Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. [Eg.] AEth. Arm.); incl. A*
D, but no better uncial ; also Chr.
Text SA*BC*L 18 157 31.4 g syr.vt
me.codd. Opt(I5 at least, see Light-
foot in Scrivener /ntrod.” p. 331 ff.)
the. -
+ (v. 4) dyye) os 3& (v. Yöp) Kuptov
[karū kalpövl katé8auveu (z. ÉNoveto)
€u Tà ko)\vpºiſ0pg kai érapdoo’eto (z.
érápagoſe) to jöwpº 6 otiv Tpótos ég-
{3&s [uetá Tiju rapax.ju roi, jöaros]
ūytºs éyiveto olg (v. §) Örjirot' of v
(zy. Öſtore) kareixero voahuatl. Wes-
tern and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. [Eg.]
AF'th. [Arm.]) incl. AL, but no bet-
ter uncial; also Chr (?? Nonn) Amm,
also Tert (? Ephr) allusively. Text
SBC*D 33 157 314 fg rhe vg.codd
Syr.vt me.codd.opt.(15 at least, but
not bodl. opt) the arm.codd: cant
has in its text after v. 4 hoc inz Grecis
exemplarióus more habetur: Abulfeda
states that “according to some ' this
v. is not by St John (Nestle Zheol.
A.Z. I878 p. 413). SAII and at
least 17 cursives mark this verse
with asterisks or obeli.
The first Greek Father who shews
any knowledge of either interpola-
tion is Chr. Cyr.al does not com-
ment on either, though both stand,
in the text which Aubert has sup-
plied without MS authority at the
head of the section. The Comm.
of Orig is defective here.
The documents which omit ékóe-
Xopévaju K.T.A. but not dyye) os K.T.A.
are AL 18 me.bod.l.opt, probably
Alexandrian; those which omit āy-
Tye Nos K. T.A. but not köexopévalv
K.T.A. are D 33 f rhe vg.codd, al-
most certainly Western: the clearly
Pre-Syrian documents which sup-
port both insertions are lat.afr-eur.
It would thus appear that the first
interpolation was €köexopévov K.T.A.,
easily suggested by v. 7, Tiju Klumoſuw
being simply intended to prepare
AVO 7ES OAV SAE ZEC Z' Me EAD/AWGS 77
for érapdoo’eto without reſerence to
any special cause of the troubling
of the water; and that the rest was
added somewhat later in explanation
of Tāv kivmarty, perhaps embodying
an early tradition. A late Alexan-
drian text seems to have adopted
the last interpolation, for the sake
of its interesting detail, but to have
rejected the earlier explanatory gloss
to which it was attached. The Sy-
rian text adopted both.
vi 4 (+) fiv 63 Čy'yū's rô Táaxa, j
éopti) Tów 'Iovčatwul - Tö Téa Xa
apparently some Fathers and other
ancient writers, though it stands in
all extant Greek MSS and vv.
[According to Epiph. Haer. 444
the persons whom he calls Alogi
found fault with St John's Gospel
as assigning two passovers to the
Ministry while the other Gospels
spoke of one only. Against the
supposition that the Ministry lasted
but a year (see below) Iren. 146
ff. maintains three passovers, the
second being the ‘feast” of v i ;
while he is silent as to vi 4, though
he goes on to refer to particulars
furnished by the neighbouring
verses. Orig.j'o. 25o, whose Comm.
is defective for the whole of co. v.–
vii, in contending that the saying
in iv. 35 was uttered at an earlier
time than the winter following the
passover of c. ii, urges that the un-
named feast of v I was not likely to
be the passover, giving as a reason
“that shortly afterwards the state-
ment occurs’ (uet' 6\tya €Tuqāpérat
ött) "Hv éºyyös i éopt, Táv 'Iovöatav,
# a knvoirmyta : as these words now
stand only in vii 2, either he must
have treated vi 4 as referring to the
feast of tabernacles (whether as
containing the name iſ a knvoirmla,
or as containing no name of a feast,
and therefore to be interpreted by
vii. 2), or his text must have lacked
vi 4 altogether; nor indeed could
28
78 AWOTES ON SEZZCZ" RAEAD/WGS
he have failed to appeal to the
stronger and more obvious argu-
ment furnished by Tà Tráo Xa, had
he known it in this place. The
comment of Cyr.al on vi I has the
two indirect quotations fiv ćy'yū's Tö
Trágºya Tóu 'Iovöatav, Yºyt's eivat Tö
Tráoza Tów 'Iovöaiwu, in the printed
text, which here rests on two MSS;
but what is evidently the same
feast he shortly afterwards twice
names as Tās aſkmwormylas. This
contradiction, pointed out by Mr
H. Browne (Ordo Saecloratma 87 ff.),
disappears in the Latin condensed
paraphrase of George of Trebisond
(Cent. XV), which has At quoniam
festus dies [the common Latin ren-
dering of j čoprij] } udaeorum prope
erat, ut faulo post legitur, in quo
lex Mosaica omnes undique att Zaber-
7taculorum solemnitatem &c. (i 151
Bas. 1566), where the first eleven
words stand for kai étreitep ºu èyyös
Tô Tráoxa Tóv 'Iovöatov, dºs 6\tyov
év toſs éqeśńs eiphoopºev. George
of Trebisond's paraphrases enjoy no
high reputation for fidelity; and he
may possibly have adapted the first
part of the passage to the second :
but it is no less possible that he had
access to purer MSS, which had
merely j čopt” rôv 'Iovöatov. The
only other tenable explanation of
the contradiction would be to Sup-
pose that Cyr in the second part of
his comment made free use of a
predecessor's language without ob-
serving its discordance with his own.
On this supposition, to judge by the
manner of writing, the predecessor
can hardly have been any other than
Origen. The most obvious inference
from the language of both passages
would be that jokmvoirmºyla was read
for Tô irdoxa : but it is more probable
on other grounds that no particular
feast was named in the text or texts
commented on. In this case the
language used would arise naturally
JOHN VI 4
out of the identification suggested
by vii 2, supported by the familiar
sequence,—Passover (ii 13, 23), Pen-
tecost (v. 1), Feast of Tabernacles
(vi 4; vii. 2): the reference of v I to
Pentecost is distinctly laid down by
Cyr, and is assumed in Origen's
argument. -
Besides the Alogi, Iren, Orig,
and (perhaps) Cyral, whose testi-
mony has direct reference to the
presence or absence of the name of
the passover in vi 4, several writers
are shown indirectly to have known
nothing of a passover in this place
by their reckoning of the interval
between the Baptism and the Cruci-
fixion as a year, or but a little more.
The idea was manifestly suggested by
a misinterpretation of évvavröv Kuptov
êekrów in Lc iv. 19 (from Is Ixi 2):
but it could never have been main-
tained without strange carelessness
by any one who read Tö irdoxa here,
since Jo distinctly speaks twice of
an earlier passover (ii I 3, 23) as
well as of the final passover. In
Cent. IV Epiph ingeniously at-
tempted to harmonise the single
“acceptable year’ of early times
with the longer chronology by add-
ing to it a ‘year of gainsaying’
(Æaer. 447, 45o; cf. p. 481 Dind.):
in the original sense however it was
certainly conceived to include the
Passion, as may be seen by the
distinct language of the passages
marked below with an asterisk.
The writers who assume a single
year are *Ptol.ap.Iren. I 5, 144, 148;
Hom. Cl. xvii 19; Clem. Strom.* i
407; vi. 783 Orig. AErinc. 160 gr.lat.
(évvavröv yáp trov kal unvas 6\tyovs
éðiðašev); Zez. lat. Ruf.239; Zc.lat.
Hier. 970; Hipp. Chron. A.D. 234
(Oft. i. 56 Fabr.); Archel. Dia/.lat.
34; *Philast. Iof ; *Gaud.iii p. 51 f.
Gat. ; *Aug. Ep. cxcix 20 ; *auct.
Prom.i 7 ; v 2.; Evagr. Alferc. lat.
(Migne xx I 176); also apparently
JOHN VI 4
Just. Apol. i 46 (yeyevvia flat ... &T.
Kupmvtov, Šešušaxévat 6é ... to Tepov
Xpóvous étrº IIovrtov III)\árov). The
single year is assumed with especial
distinctness in the */2xpositio de die
Żaschae et mensis of Julius Hilaria-
nus, written in 397: 21720 ſºroinde ant-
7to Sºudaicae gență ad Qatamº Zenerał
praedicaºit, in quo amazo mozz solume
regnum caelorum adventre praedixit,
sea et zºº crederezzá 272 zirčutibus [=
miracles] manifestume se Dominazm
ostenedit: hoc usque in annum sex-
Zuma decimum imperium Złóer: Cae-
saris; in 72to jam nozz att assolet } at-
daicae solemniţafi agnus ex oz/ióus,
sed ºffse Zºro nobis ZXamizzzes, immola-
tus est Christus : * * * eo quippe
anno, atº supputation is ſides ostendºt
efratio iſºsa persuaded, passets est idem
Dominus Christus luna xiv, viii Áal.
April. ſeria sexta (Migne xiii II 14).
More or less distinct traces of the
same view occur in several commen-
taries on Isaiah, known to be partly
taken from Origen's lost Comm.;
especially on xxxii Io Eus. 482;
(Hier,430;); Cyr.al.446; Procop. 386
f.: on xxix I (évvavröv éirt évvavróv)
the evidence (Eus. 470 ; Hier. 390 ;
Cyr.al.408; Procop.356) is confused;
but suggests that Orig spoke of ‘the
acceptable year of the Lord’s preach-
ing, and perhaps also a second’, and
that Eus (followed, as often, by
Procop) added ‘or even a third’. A
more clearly marked change of view
in Orig will be noticed further on :
the limitation to a single year he
doubtless inherited from an earlier
time. The arrangement of Tatian's
Diatessaron, so far as it can be
traced in Ephrem's Commentary,
Suggests that it was constructed on
the basis of a single year (Harnack),
but the evidence is not clear.
Ephrem (Serm. in Maž. xiii. Opp.
Syr. ii 432) speaks of Christ as
having ‘sojourned on earth poor and
needy for 30 years’; yet cf. ZXiat. 166.
AVO ZZS ON SEZAZCZ" A.A.A.Z)/AWGS 79
A third class of patristic evidence
is furnished by a series of writers
who directly or indirectly identify
the year of the Passion with the
15th (or 16th) of Tiberius, and who
would thus be manifestly contra-
dicting the notice of the 15th of
Tiberius in Lc iii 1 f. if a passover
intervened at this place. The evi-
dence is clearest where 15 (or 16)
Tib. is expressly named ; as by
Clem. Stroma.i./.c.; Jul. Afric. (Cent.
III) ap. Hier.ime ZXuz. ix 24 p. 683
B (in the Greek as preserved by
Eus. D. E. 389 f. the Passion is
apparently implied but not named);
Ps. Cyp. Comp.20 (A. D. 243); the
zusitation tradi/io in Prosp. Chron.
p. 702 (in Some MSS, guidam in
others); Jul. Hilarianus A33%.pasch.
(see above); De mund, dur. 16
(Migne xiii. I IoA). The consular
year corresponding to 15 Tib. is
assigned to the Passion by the
Latin writers Tert. Aud. 8; Lact.
Anst. iv. Io; //or f. pers. 2; the
Chronogr. Rom. Of A.D. 354 (619,
634 Momms.); Sulp. Sev. Chrone. ii
27; Aug. C. D. xviii. 54. The same
year is indicated by the position of
the words IIA6OX XT in the Pas-
chal Canon of Hipp inscribed on
his statue (A.D. 222 [H. Browne
Z. c. 75, 474 f.] or 224 [Salmon in
IZermathema i 88]). Thus Hipp,
like Clem, supplies evidence under
both the last heads. It is of course
impossible to tell how far the several
writers who adopt or assume this
date of the Passion were conscious
of its connexion with the text of St
John, or even (Hilarianus excepted)
with the length of the Ministry.
Their testimony is therefore quite
compatible with the presence of Tö
Táoza in their copies of the Gospel:
what it proves is the wide diffusion
of a tradition intrinsically incom-
patible with this reading.
The Ante-Nicene patristic testi-
8O
monies at variance with this date,
or with the reckoning of less than
three passovers after the Baptism,
are as follows. Melito (or the author
of a fragment quoted in his name by
Anast.sin from a book not included
by Eus in his list) speaks of Christ
as shewing His Deity by His signs
in the three years (Ti, Tpterig) after
the Baptism (Fragm. vi. p. 416
Otto). Iren, cited above, speaks of
three passovers, though v I is the
only place with which he connects
the second. Possibly however he
confused v I with vi 4: the third al-
ternative, that he interpreted €yyús
as meaning ‘lately past’, can hardly
be reconciled with Greek or biblical
usage. Orig in two of his latest
works (Cels. 397 ; ///.lat. 859, a
very difficult and confused passage)
seems to reckon the length of the
Ministry at “not so much as three
years” (ow8é rpta èrm), ‘about three
years' (ſere annos tres). A condensed
and corrupt fragment of Hipp on
Daniel (p. 153 Lag.: cf. Barden-
hewer Hipp. Comm. /)an. 37) states
that Christ ‘suffered in the 33rd
year’ (§traffe àé étet Tpualcoa Tig Tpt-
Tºp): but the discrepance with the
Paschal Canon and Chronicle raise
a suspicion of Some corruption (Lip-
sius Pilatus-acierz 23 f.) : indeed the
clause as it stands has no apparent
bearing on the context. Mr H.
Browne (Z. c. 82 ff.) has produced
some evidence which shews that the
three years might in early times in-
clude a long period between the
Resurrection and the Ascension, the
words 6' huepòu Teggepákovta in
Act i 3 being interpreted, as they
certainly were by Eus. Z2. Z. 400
and perhaps by Orig. 424. /oc., and
as Greek usage fully permits, to
mean “at intervals of 40 days”. But
Orig. Ce/s refers to Judas Iscariot,
and therefore to a period ending
with the Passion.
AVO7 ES OAV SEZ AEC 7' READ/WGS
A
JOHN VI 4
The first extant appeal to St John
for the three years (that of Irenaeus
excepted), and the first reference of
the Passion to the later date, are
made by Eus. Chron (cf. A. AE. i Io
où6’ 6Aws 6 perašū Tapia Tata,
Terpaerºs Xpºvos), who places the
Baptism at 15 Tib. and the Passion
at 18 (Arm. 19) Tib., calling as wit-
nesses Phlegon (see below), St John,
and Josephus, as though the ar-
rangement specially needed defence:
and in this as in other respects his
chronology soon became a widely
accepted standard. Epiph, whose
chronology is peculiarly elaborate
and apparently independent of Eus,
fixes the Passion at a consular date
two years later than 15 Tib. (Baer.
448); and as against the Alogi (see
above) appeals to the Gospels as re-
cording three passovers. Three pas-
sovers are likewise maintained by
his contemporary Apollinaris (ap.
Hier. Dazz. 690) on St John's au-
thority ; as they are also by Hier
on Is xxix I (p. 390 : See above).
It is difficult if not impossible to
account for the large body of indi-
rect evidence which points to the
neglect of Tö tródźa here except on
the supposition that these words (or
the whole verse) were absent from
various texts of Cent. II and III.
In some few cases a traditional date
might hold its ground for a little
while beside a text of the Gospels
manifestly inconsistent with it : but
this consideration affects only a part
of the evidence. On the Supposition
that the words are genuine, they
might be omitted by assimilation to
v I. Supposing them however to
be not genuine, it is no less easy to
explain their insertion by assimila-
tion to ii I 3 (kai éy yūs fiv Tó Tráo Xa
Töv 'Iovöatov) and by the gain in
explicitness: it is true that no addi-
tion of Tô Tráaxa has taken place in
v I ; but there the absence of éy yús
JOHN. VI 5.1
makes the resemblance to ii 13
much slighter. A wide acceptance
of Tó trioxa, when once it had been
inserted, would also be natural. An
identification of the darkness of the .
Crucifixion with a notable eclipse
recorded by Phlegon (Cent. II) found
favour, as confirming the truth of
the Gospels against heathen gain-
Sayers: and the date of Phlegon’s
eclipse was Ol. 202. 4, four (in Eus.
Chrome three) years later than 15
Tib.; so that the acceptance of the
identity of the two events could not
fail to introduce or favour a length-
ened chronology of the Ministry.
Their identity was assumed by Ori-
gen when he wrote against Celsus
(ii 33, 59), though shortly afterwards
(Mt.lat. 923 : see note on Lc xxiii
45), probably under the influence of
Africanus (Lipsius Z.c. 25), he rejected
it. In Eus. Chrone however it holds
the foremost place as evidence for
the date of the Passion, St John's
supposed testimony to a Ministry of
three years after 15 Tib. being re-
ferred to in confirmation : and the
precedence which Eus thus gives to
the Supposed testimony of Phlegon
illustrates the manner in which the
identification of his eclipse with the
darkness of the Crucifixion may at
an earlier time have affected the text
of this passage.
In itself the shorter reading pre-
sents no difficulty: “the Feast of
the Jews” was a fitting designation
of the feast of tabernacles, which was
known to the Jews preeminently as
“ the Feast” (cf. Cheyne on Is xxx
29), and was regarded by them as
not only the last but the greatest of
the primary series of feasts; for its
representative character see Zech
Xiv 16 f. The same is indeed the
probable sense of the phrase in vii
2, as otherwise the article is un-
meaning. The reservation of the
name of the feast till the second
AVO 7'ES OAV SEZACC Z" R.E.A.D./NGS 8 I
passage might be accounted for by a
purpose of associating it with the
events of the feast itself (vii. 3-14,
37). On the other hand, apart from
the debateable ground of chro-
nology, the longer reading is by no
means easy. . It has at least the ap-
pearance of bestowing on the pas-
sover a preeminence unknown else-
where, or else of repeating informa-
tion already given in ii 13, 23. . .
The difficulty interposed by the
common text in the way of construct-
ing a probable chronology of the
Gospels has led G. J. Voss, Mann,
and others to suspect the genuine-
ness of Tô Trāaya, or of the whole
verse. The question has been re-
opened and ably discussed by Mr
Henry Browne (l.c. 73–94), with
especial reference to the patristic
evidence; and his materials (as also
those of Lipsius and Dr E. Abbot)
have been freely used in this note.
The supposition that rô Táaxa
formed no part of the original
text must remain somewhat pre-
carious in the absence of any other
apparent corruption of equal mag-
nitude and similarly attested by all
known MSS and versions. But as
a considerable body of patristic evi-
dence points to the absence of the
words in at least some ancient texts,
and Internal Evidence is unfavour-
able to their genuineness, while the
chronology of the Gospel history
is fundamentally affected by their
presence or absence, it has seemed
right to express Suspicion, and to
justify it at some length. H.]
vi 51 ka? 6 diptos.....; afts] ka? 6
d'pros 6& 6v éyò 6&ga, ÚTrép Tâs toū
kóopov čoſis # ordpå pov čotiv 8 m
Tert, probably Western of limited
range: kal 6 áptos 68 Su èyè 660 aſ
# ordpå goû éarly ju èyº 5:00a, titrép
Ths toū köopov ša's Syrian (Gr.
Lat.[it.] Syr. Eg. Arm. Goth.);
incl. Clem.codd. Orig. Oratº (s.7):
82 AVO 7A.S OAV SAE ZAZCT ACAA/)/AVCS
A is defective. Text BCDLT33. 157
al lat.vt-vg syr.vt the aeth Clem.
cod.opt Orig.jo” Ath Cyr.alſoč .
Un. Chr.; Zc.syr.667 alº Cyp. The
transposition and the addition, which
is perhaps due to a conflation of
text with the transposition, are ob-
vious attempts to bring out the
sense of the passage.
vi 56 &v attøj + kaffès év éuol
6 mathp käytä év tº trafpl. duńv
Gujju Xéya Updiv, Édu pº NóðmTe Tö
gópa toû viot, Too &vöpétrov (3s Tów
āprov rās ºwns, oùk éxete {wiju èv
avrò. D: a f have a modification
of the last sentence (s; accepertà
Aomo corºus...... Aačebit...). Western
of limited range. - -
vi 59 Kapapuaoû] + 4 o'afféârg H
Western of limited range (Gr.[D]
Lat.).
º 39 v Trvedaa] + 6eóopévov lat.
eur-vg syr.vg Eus. Zc pp”, Wes-
tern. .
+ &ytov LX uncº cup' (cf. Syr.hl)
(aeth) Or.M/.lat. 1/3 Ath Did Chr
Thd:, . Pre-Syrian (? Alexandrian)
and Syrian. d
+ £ytov ćir' atto's D fgo : D has
Tô Tveijwa [to] úytov.
+ &ytov Šešouévov B (254) e g Syr.
hr-h1(6éð.”) epit. Chr (Or...//t.lat.
1/3): 254 has 600év, perhaps from
gloss of Chr.jo. 3o I A. , *
Text NTKII, 42 91 lat.vg.codd
syr.vt me (the) arm Orig. Mt.gr.;
jo”; (//flat. 1/3) Cyr. al. 5/5 al auct.
Ateşapt. 14.
The singular distribution of docu-
ments is probably due in part to the
facility with which either dytov or
ôeóogévov or both might be intro-
duced in different quarters indepen-
dently. Text explains all the other
readings, and could not have been
derived from any one of them.
vii 52 €yeiperat.] + (vii 53–viii.
1 1) + kai étropeč0mgav... &pſiptave. H
Western and (with verbal modi-
fications) late Constantinopolitan
JOHN VI 5.1
(Gr. Lat. [Syr..] [Eg.] AEth. : [cf.
Arm.]); incl. D Const.Apii 24 ‘Ni-
con’(see below) (Euthym.jo with a
reservation) Amb Aug Hier. Pelag.
'ii I? and later Latin Fathers. On
lectionaries see below.
Amb. AZ, i 25 speaks of semper
7ttident decantata quaestio et celebris
absolutio mulieris. Aug. Conf.adult.
ii 6 shews knowledge of the differ-
ence of text by saying “Some of
little faith, or rather enemies of the
true faith, I suppose from a fear lest
their wives should gain impunity
in sin, removed from their MSS the
Lord’s act of indulgence to the
adulteress”. He also notices the
ridicule directed by some “sacri-
legious pagans’ against Christ's
writing on the ground (AFaust. xxii
25); and one of his quotations from
his contemporary the Manichean
Faustus includes a reference to
Christ’s ‘absolution’ of in injustifia
ed in adulterio deprehensame muzzlierem
(xxxiii I). According to Hier. Z.c.
“in the Gospel according to John
many MSS, both Greek and Latin,
contain an account of an adulterous
woman º' &c.; at the close he im-
plies that the narrative belonged to
Scripture. A Nicon who wrote
a Greek tract On the impious
7-eligione of the vile Armenians
(printed by Cotelier Patr. Apost, on
Const. Ap./.c.), and has been with
little probability identified with the
Armenian Nicon of Cent. X, ac-
cuses the Armenians of rejecting
Lc xxii 43 f. and this Section, as
being “injurious for most persons to
listen to ”: like much else in the
tract, this can be only an attempt to
find matter of reproach against a
detested church in the difference of
its national traditions from Constan-
tinopolitan usage. The Synopsis
Script. Sac. wrongly ascribed to Ath,
a work of uncertain date printed
from a single MS, has near this
JOHN VII 53-VIII I I
place (c. 50) the words évraúða td.
Trept Tàs karmyopmfletons étrl polyeig:
but they can only be an interpola-
tion; for (1) they betray insertion,
made carelessly, by standing after
the substance of viii 12–20, not of
vii 50–52; and (2) évraúða suits
only a note written at first in the
margin, while the author of the
Synopsis habitually marks the suc-
cession of incidents by the use of eita.
Euthymius Zygadenus (Cent. XII)
comments on the Section as “not
-destitute of use”; but in an apolo-
getic tone, stating that “the accurate
copies” either omit or obelise it,
and that it appears to be an interpo-
lation (rapéyypatra kal Trpoo 6%km),
as is shown by the absence of any
notice of it by Chrys. The evi-
dence of syr.hr is here in effect that
of a Greek Constantinopolitan lec-
tionary (see p. 42). It has vii 53–
viii 2, instead of viii 12, after vii
23—52 as the close of the Whitsun-
day lesson, doubtless following a
Greek example: the variations of
Greek lectionaries as to the begin-
nings and endings of lections are as
yet imperfectly known. In the Me-
nology of syr.hr viii I, 3–12 is the
lection for St Pelagia's day, as in
many Greek lectionaries (see below).
The Section is found in some Syriac
MSS, some Memphitic MSS (not
the two best and some others:
Lightſoot in Scrivener /ntrod.”
331 ff.; cf. E. B. Pusey Cat. Bod/.
Arab. ii. 564 f.), and some Armenian
MSS; but it is evidently a late in-
sertion in all these versions.
Text N(A)|B(C) LTXA MSS
known to Hier 22 33 81 131 157 alP"
(besides many MSS which mark the
section with asterisks or obeli) a fg
rhe Latin MSS known to Hier and
to Aug syr.vt-vg-hl me.codd.opt
the arm go (Orig. 70, see below) (Eus.
A.A., see below) (Theod.mops.j'o,
see below) (Apoll.%0, see below)
AVO ZZS OAV SAE/A. CT READ/WGS’ 83
Chr.jo Nonn.j9 Cyr.al.% (Amm.
jo. Cram. 272 apparently) Thphl.}o
(Ps. Ath. Syn, See above). A and C
are defective; but the missing leaves
cannot have had room for the Sec-
tion. In L and A blank spaces in-
dicate (see pp. 29 f.) that the scribes
were familiar with the Section, but
did not find it in their exemplars:
in A the blank space is an after-
thought, being preceded by IId}\ly
...Aé'yov, written and then deleted.
Origen's Comm. is defective here,
not recommencing till viii 19: but in
a recapitulation of vii 40—viii 22 (p.
299) the contents of vii 52 are im-
mediately followed by those of viii
12. One scholium states that the
Section was “not mentioned by the
divine Fathers who interpreted [the
'Gospel], that is to say Chr and Cyr,
nor yet by Theod.mops and the
rest”: according to another it was
not in “the copies of (used by)
Apollinaris”. These and other scho-
'lia in MSS of the ninth (or tenth)
and later centuries attest the pre-
sence or absence of the Section in
different copies : their varying ac-
counts of the relative number and
quality of the copies cannot of course
be trusted. The only patristic tes-
timony which any of them cite in
favour of the Section is Const. Ap
(oi &Tóa Toxot travtes év ais ééffevro
6tatášeatu els oikoãopºv Tós ékk\m-
glas). No Catenae as yet examined
contain notes on any of the verses.
Negative evidence of some weight is
supplied by the absence of any allu-
sion to the section in Tertullian's
book ZXe £udicitia and Cyprian's
55th epistle, which treat largely of
the admission of adulterous persons
to penitence; nor can it be acciden-
tal that Cosmas (in Montf. Coll.
AV. P. ii. 248) passes it over in enu-
merating the chief incidents narrated
by St John alone of the evangelists.
Eus. A. Z. iii. 39 16 closes his ac-
84 NOTES ON SEZECT READINGS John vii 53-viii 11
count of the work of Papias (Cent. II)
with the words “And he has likewise
set forth another narrative (laroplav)
concerning a woman who was mali-
ciously accused before the Lord
touching many sins (étri troX\ats àuap-
Ttats Ötagxmbetorms étri Toij Kuptov),
which is contained in the Gospel
according to the Hebrews”. The
notice is vague, and the language
is probably that of Eus himself: but
it is natural to suppose that the nar-
rative referred to by him was no other
than the Section. The only discre-
pance lies in the probably exaggera-
tive word troX\ats: duapriats is jus-
tified by dpaptiQ in D in place of
polyetg, and by érépav Šé Tuva juap-
Tmkviav in Const. Ap (cf. in injustifia
in Faustus above): āuagd NX& almost
always implies malice and frequently
falsehood, but is used of open no
less than secret modes of producing
an unfavourable impression. The
form of expression leaves it doubtful
whether the Gospel according to
the Hebrews was cited by Papias as
his authority or mentioned inde-
pendently by Eus: no other evi-
dence of use of that Gospel by
Papias occurs in our scanty informa-
tion respecting him. If the Section
was the narrative referred to by
Eus, his language shews that he
cannot have known it as part of the
canonical Gospels. -
The Section stands after Lc xxi 38
(on which see note) in the closely
related MSS I.3-69-124-346; after
Jo vii. 36 in 225, this transposi-
tion with the preceding paragraph
vii. 37–52 being probably due to
some such accidental error as the
misplacement of a mark referring to
the Section as written in the upper
or lower margin ; and at the end of
the Gospel in a few cursives (inclu-
ding I) and in the later Armenian
MSS. In some cases the introduc-
tory verses (or parts of them) vii 53
—viii 2 do not accompany the bulk
of the Section.
The Constantinopolitan lection for
the ‘Liturgy’ on Whitsunday con-
sists of vii. 37—52, followed immedi-
ately by viii 12; and examination
confirms the prima facie inference
that the intervening verses did not
form part of the Constantinopolitan
text when this lection was framed.
If read here as part of the Gospel,
they constitute a distinct narrative,
separating the conversation of vii.
45—52 from the discourses that ſol-
low, and marking out v. 12 with
especial clearness as the opening
verse. The process involved in over-
leaping the narrative and fetching
back v. 12 out of its proper context.
would be difficult to account for :
whereas, if the Gospel is read with-
out the Section, there is no con-
spicuously great breach of continuity
in passing from vii.52 to viii 12, and
the advantage of ending the lection
after viii 12 rather than vii 52 is
manifest. The verses thus wanting
do not appear elsewhere among the
Constantinopolitan lections for Sun-
days or ordinary week-days; and
their absence is the more significant
because they are the only distinct
and substantive portion of St John's
Gospel which is not included in
these lections, unless we except the
short passage i 29–34, read on the
very ancient festival of John the
Baptist, and xiii 18–30, replaced by
the parallel account from Mt. Their
presence, or rather in most cases
the presence of viii 3–1 I only, in
such Greek lectionaries as contain
them is confined to the Menologium
or system of Saints' days, which is
probably for the most part of late
date; and the variety of their posi-
tion in different MSS implies late
introduction into the Menologium.
They form a lesson sometimes (e. g.
in syr.hr) for St Pelagia's day, some-
John v11 53-vii.I I I WOTAES ON SEZZCT READ/WGS 85
*...
times for the days of St Theodora
(or Theodosia) or St Eudocia or St
Mary of Egypt, or, without special
appropriation, els petavooëvtas Kai
pºtara étri Yvvauków or eis aximua
'yvvaukós, &c. (Matthaei” i. 568 f.;
Griesbach” i 479; cf. Scrivener Zn-
trod.” 81 and in Dict. of Chr. Anč.
965). It is worthy of notice that
Lc vii. 36--50, a lection used on
saints' days having the same pecu-
liar character, is not omitted in the
ordinary week-day system, being
read on Monday of the fourth week
of the (Greek) New Year.
Since the Section stands in the
text of St John according to the
Latin Vulgate, it naturally finds a
place in at least two of the Latin
lection-systems; in the Roman on
the fourth Saturday in Lent, and in
the Mozarabic on the fourth Friday
in Lent. It is included in the Ar-
menian system as now in use, but
only as the last part of a lection (for
the fifth Thursday after Easter: see
Petermann in Alt Kirchenjažr 232)
which begins at vii. 37, and which,
if it ended at vii 52, would be fully
as long as the neighbouring Gospel
lections; so that it is reasonable to
suppose the lection-system to have
been in due time adapted to the in-
terpolated text of the Armenian
Bible. A Jacobite Syriac lectionary
in the Bodleian Library (Cod. Syr.
43 : see Payne Smith Cat. I43)
reads vii. 37-52 followed by viii 12-
21 on the Eve of Thursday in Holy
Week, as M. Neubauer kindly in-
forms us : another in the British
Museum (Add. 14,490 f. I 13°) ter-
minates the lection at vii. 49 (Dr
Wright). The Section is absent from
the documents from which Malan
and Lagarde (see p. 43) have edited
the system in use among the (Jacob-
ite) Copts. -
The documentary distribution o
the Section may be resumed in a
in inferior MSS.
few words. It is absent from all
extant Greek MSS containing any
considerable Pre-Syrian element of
any kind except the Western D;
and from all extant Greek MSS
earlier than Cent. VIII with the
same exception. In the whole range
of Greek patristic literature before
Cent. (X or) XII there is but one
trace of any knowledge of its exist-
ence, the reference to it in the Apo-
stolic Constitutions as an authority
for the reception of penitents (asso-
ciated with the cases of St Matthew,
St Peter, St Paul, and the épapTw-
Xös Yuvià of Lc vii 37), without
however any indication of the book
from which it was quoted. This
silence is shared by seven out of the
eight Greek Commentators whose
text at this place is in any way
known; while the eighth introduces
the Section in language disparaging
to its authority. In all the Oriental
versions except the Ethiopic (where
it may or may not have had a place
from the first), including all the
Syriac versions except that of the
Palestinian Christians in communion
with Constantinople, it is found only
In Latin on the
other hand it had comparatively
early currency. Its absence from
the earliest Latin texts is indeed
attested by the emphatic silence of
Tert and Cyp, and by the continuity
of vii 52 with viii 12 in rhe (the
non-vulgate element of which is
mainly African) and a ; nor is it
found in the ‘Italian MSS fg: the
obliteration in b is of too uncertain
origin to be cited, for it begins in
v. 44. But the Section was doubt-
less widely read in the Latin Gos-
pels of Cent. IV, being, present
even in e, as also in b c ſºft vg and
the Latin MSS referred to by Amb
Aug and Hier. Thus the first seven
centuries supply no tangible evi-
dence for it except in D, Greek
86 AWOTES ON SEZZCZ" RAEAD/WGS John v11 53-viiI 11
MSS known to Hier, and Const.
Ap;—in e, the European and Vul-
gate Latin, and Amb Aug Hier and
later Latin Fathers;–and in the
AEthiopic, if its known texts may
be trusted. It follows that during
this period, or at least its first four
centuries, the Section was, as far as
'our information goes, confined to
Western texts, except in a single
late reference in Const. Ap, which
is, almost wholly Syrian in its quo-
tations. The Section cannot have
been adopted in the Syrian text, as
it is wanting not only in the later
Syriac versions proper but in the
Antiochian Fathers and the older
part of the Constantinopolitan lec-
tion-system, as well as in seventy or
more cursives. At some later time
it was evidently introduced into the
text and liturgical use of Constanti-
nople. As a Western reading,
and that of comparatively restrict-
ed range, being attested by D e
lat.eur aeth but not (lat.afr) Syr.vt
or any Greek Ante-Nicene writer,
owing its diffusion in Greek in the
Middle Age to an admission which
must have taken place after the
rise of the eclectic texts of Cent. IV,
it has no claim to acceptance on
Documentary grounds.
The Transcriptional evidence leads
to the same conclusion. Supposing
the Section to have been an original
part of St John's Gospel, it is im-
possible to account reasonably for
its omission. The hypothesis taken
for granted by Aug and Nicon, that
the Section was omitted as liable to
be understood in a sense too indul-
gent to adultery, finds no support
either in the practice of scribes else-
where or in Church History. The
utmost licence of the boldest tran-
scribers never makes even a remote
approach to the excision of a com-
plete narrative from the Gospels;
and such rash omissions as do occur
ſamiliar
are all but confined to Western
texts; while here the authorities for
omission include all the early Non-
Western texts. Few in ancient
times, there is reason to think,
would have found the Section a
stumbling-block except Montanists
and Novatians. In Latin Christen-
dom, if anywhere, would rigour
proceed to such an extreme; and it
is to three typical Latin Fathers,
men certainly not deficient in Latin
severity, that we owe the only early
testimonies to the Section which are
not anonymous, testimonies borne
without reserve or misgiving. Ac-
cording to a second hypothesis,
which is easier in so far as it postu-
lates no wilful and direct mutilation
of the Gospel, the omission was first
made in the Constantinopolitan lec-
tion-system, assumed to have been
the one lection-system of all Greek
and Eastern Christendom from the
earliest times, and then, owing to
a misunderstanding of this purely
liturgical proceeding, , was repro-
duced in MSS of St John at a time
early enough to affect the multitude
of ancient texts from which the
Section is now absent.
But this
view merely shifts the difficulty;
for no scribe of the Gospels was
likely to omit a large portion of the
text of his exemplar because the
verse following it was annexed to
the verses preceding it in a lection
to him. Moreover the
whole supposed process implicitly
assigns to the Antiochian lection-
system an age and extension incom-
patible with what is known of
ancient liturgical reading (see pp.
42 f.). Once more, no theory which
appeals to moral or disciplinary
prudence as the cause of omission,
whether in the biblical text or in
liturgical use, is competent to ex-
plain why the three preliminary
verses (vii 53; viii 1,2), so important
JoHN VII 53-VIII I I WOTES ON SEZECT READ/WGS 87
as apparently descriptive of the
time and place at which all the
discourses' of c. viii were spoken,
should have been omitted with the
reSt.
On the other hand, while the
supposition that the Section is an
interpolation derives no positive
transcriptional probability from any
difficulty or other motive for change
in the context, it would be natural
enough that an extraneous narrative
of a remarkable incident in the
Ministry, if it were deemed worthy
of being read and perpetuated,
should be inserted in the body of
the Gospels. The place of inser-
tion might easily be determined by
the similarity of the concluding sen-
tence to viii 15, jue's katē Tiju ordpka
Kptvete, éyò, ou kplvø of 5éva, the in-
cident being prefixed to the dis-
course at the nearest break (Ewald
Joh. Schr. i 27.1): indeed, if Pa-
pias used St John's Gospel, he may
well have employed the incident as
an illustration of viii 15 (Lightfoot
Contemp. /čez. 1875 ii. 847) in ac-
cordance with his practice of ‘ex-
pounding’ the written “oracles of
the Lord’ by reference to indepen-
dent traditions of His teaching.
The Intrinsic evidence for and
against the Section is furnished
partly by its own language and con-
tents, partly by its relation to the
context. The argument which has
always weighed most in its favour
in modern times is its own internal
character. The story itself has
justly seemed to vouch for its own
substantial truth, and the words in
which it is clothed to harmonise
with those of other Gospel narra-
tives. These considerations are
however independent of the ques-
tion of Johannine authorship: they
only suggest that the narrative had
its origin within the circle of apo-
stolic tradition, and that it received
its form from Some one in whom
the spirit of apostolic tradition still
breathed. On the other hand, it
presents serious differences from the
diction of St John's Gospel, which,
to say the least, strongly suggest
diversity of authorship, though their
force and extent have sometimes
been exaggerated. .
In relation to the preceding con-
text the Section presents no special
difficulty, and has no special appro-
priateness. In relation to the fol-
lowing context there is, as noted
above, a resemblance between vv.
II and 15; and the declaration “I
am the light of the world” has been
supposed to be called forth by the
effect of Christ's words on the con-
science of the accusers: but in both
cases the resemblances lie on the
surface only. On the other hand,
if v. 12 is preceded by the Section,
the departure of the Scribes and
Pharisees, leaving the woman stand-
ing alone before Christ (v. 9), agrees
ill with ačTots in v. I2, and oi Papt-
oratov in v. 13. Still more serious is
the disruption in the ordering of
incidents and discourses produced
by the presence of the Section. If
it is absent, “the last day, the
great day of the Feast” of Taber-
nacles is signalised by the twin de-
clarations of Christ respecting Him-
self as the water of life and the
light of the world ; answering to
the two great symbolic and com-
memorative acts, of pouring out the
water and lighting the golden lamps,
which were characteristic of the
Feast of Tabernacles; and followed
by two corresponding promises, 6
Two retjaju eis épé K. T.N., 6 &koMov6&v
plot K.T. A. The true relation between
the two passages is indicated by
TIá\tv oſſy in v. 12. If however the
Section is interposed, the first pas-
sage alone falls within the time of
the feast, while the second is de-
88 MOZA'S OW SEZFCT READ/WGS JoriN VII 53-VIII 11
ferred till the day after the conclu-
sion of the feast, and a heterogene-
ous incident dissevers the one from
the other. Thus Internal Evidence,
Intrinsic as well as Transcriptional,
confirms the adverse testimony of
the documents.
When the whole evidence is taken
together, it becomes clear that the
Section first came into St John's
Gospel as an insertion in a com-
paratively late Western text, having
originally belonged to an extrane-
ous independent source. That this
source was either the Gospel ac-
cording to the Hebrews or the Ex-
positions of the Lord's Oracles of
Papias is a conjecture only; but it
is a conjecture of high probability.
It further appears that the Section
was little adopted in texts other
than Western till some unknown
time between the fourth or fifth
and the eighth centuries, when it
was received into some influential
Constantinopolitan text. The his-
torical relations between the ad-
dition to the biblical text and the
introduction of at least viii 3—r I
into liturgical use as a lection ap-
propriate to certain secondary saints
cannot be exactly determined. . The
original institution of the lection
seems to presuppose the existence
of the interpolated text in the same
locality: but the diffusion of the
lection probably reacted upon the
text of biblical MSS, for instance
in the addition of the Section, or
the principal part of it, at the end
of the Gospels. These complexi-
ties of mediaeval Greek tradition
are however of no critical impor-
tance. Heing found in the bulk of
late Greek MSS and in the Latin
Vulgate, so considerable a portion
of the biblical text as the Section
could not but appear in the six-
teenth century to have in a manner
the sanction of both East and West.
Erasmus shewed by his language
how little faith he had in its
genuineness; but “was unwilling”,
he says, “to remove it from its
place, because it was now every-
where received, especially among
the Latins”: and, having been once
published in its accustomed place
by him, it naturally held its ground
as part of the ‘Received Text'.
The text of the Section itself
varies much in the several docu-
ments which contain it. ... As in all
cases of Western readings, adopted
with modification in later texts, we
have endeavoured to present it in
its early or Western form, believing
that the Constantinopolitan varia-
tions are merely ordinary corruptions
of the paraphrastic kind. We have
accordingly given most weight to D,
to those of the other Greek MSS
which seem to preserve a compara-
tively early text, and to the Latin
MSS and quotations. So much
complexity of variation however ex-
ists between these best authorities
that we have been obliged to print
an unusual number of alternative
readings, and are by no means con-
fident that the true text can now be
recovered in more than approximate
purity.
viii 38 & 3) w...tratpøs] - éyò &
épaka Trapó, Tig Tarpt uov [Tajraj
XaXá'. Kai Üpleſs oëv ć éopâkate
trapd. T& Tratpi juáv H Western and,
with 5 twice substituted for Č, and
Taüta onitted, Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
AEth.); but aeth omits pov, and
ipºſov. :
x 8 mA6ov ºrpè épool - Tpô épcot,
Western and perhaps Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. Eg. Goth.); incl. Sº Cyr.al
Chr Aug(expressly) and scholia:
but not D me (Clem) Orig Ephr.
AXiat.arm. 200. The omission perhaps
seemed to emphasise the sense of
#A0ov; or to be a natural simplifica-
tion on the assumption that irdvres
JOIIN XVIII I
means ‘they all’ (rów &\\orptww v.
5: cf. v. 1), as Šoot &AdXmoray Act iii
24; or to obviate or lessen risk of
reference to the prophets. .
xi 54 x&pav) + 2augboupeiv D
(Saſſurim d): perhaps a local tra-
dition, though the name has not
been identified with any certainty.
Sepphoris is apparently excluded
by its geographical position.
xii 28 Tö Övopa] Töv viðv Alex-
andrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.[hl.mg] Eg.
AEth. Arm.); incl.Or. Cant.lat. Ruf.77
Ath Cyr.al(giving both readings).
xii 32 Távra's] + Távra F Western
(Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth.) incl. Aug ex-
pressly: D aeth, as also me the,
place Tavt. after éNkūow. Cf. ii
24 v. Z. - -
xii 4.1 &rt] &re Western and Sy-
rian (Gr. Lat. Syr. AEth. Goth.);
incl. [Orig. Æom.lat. Ruf. codd] Eus.
Z). Æ.” Did. Zºri [Cyr. al. Heb. p. 118
Mai (s.7.); /s. Io2 cod (s.7)]. Text
NABLMX 1 33 al” e me the arm
Orig. Æom.lat.Iºuf Epiph Nonn
Cyr.al.jo. 505; 2 Co.85 Mai; Zs. Io2
cod. -
xiii 31 év a trigº] + et à 6eós
éöość00m év a 57%, Pre-Syrian (? Alex-
andrian) and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Eg. [AEth.] Arm. Goth.); incl., e
me the Orig.jo”(expressly) Nonn
[Cyr.al. Zo.syr. 716]. Text N*BC*D
LXII I alP a 6 c fg vg. codd (incl.
rheº) syr.hl
Tert (vdtr) Amb. The clause, which
might easily have been added by
accidental repetition, or no less
easily lost by homoeoſelectfozz, mars
the true symmetry of the passage;
and the documentary range of the
omission excludes the hypothesis of
accident.
xvii. 7 &yvajkavl - #yvay H Western
(Gr. [8 ‘some” according to Chrl
Lat. Syr. Eg. Goth.): a few cursives
have &Yvoka. A natural return to
the first person: cf. v. 25.
xvii II Špxopat] + oëkért elui év
aeth.codd Cyr.loc.”
AOTES ON SELECT READINGS - 89
Tó Kóagg, kal év Tó Kórug elut
Western, D a (omitting the first
clause of the verse) c (first part only)
e (second part only, inserted before
Kai atrol): Orig. Mt. 599 (cf. lat) has
perhaps a trace of the first part of
the same reading.
xvii. 21 v \ſiv] + & Pre-Syrian
(probably Alexandrian) and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth. Goth.);
incl. SLX me Clem Orig. Hos. 439
(from Philocalia); %. 28 (but see
below), (395;) (/2/h. I Io Cram.); lat.
saepe Eus. Marc. 1/3 Ath. (509,)567
codd, (574) Cyr.al (Hil. 1/4). Text
BC*D a b c e the arm Orig. Mart.
3oo;%. 28(cod. Ferr) Eus. Marc. 2/3
Ath. 567codd Cyp.codd.opt Firmil.
lat. codd.opt Hil.3/4. The addition
comes directly from the first clause
of the verse (cf. II, 22): confusion
between these clauses renders several
of the patristic quotations ambigu-
OllS. - -
xvii. 23 ºry&T ma'as] jºydºrmaa Wes-
tern (Gr. Lat. Syr. E.g. Æth. Arm).
Cf. xv. 9. *
xviii. 1 Töv Kéópavl - Too Kéðpov H
Western, N*D a b (both, as d, cedri)
e (caedrum, following torrendem) me
(with ‘tree’ prefixed) the aeth : Tow
Keöpdºv (Pearly Syrian) ASA cu', and
apparently c lat.it-vg syrr Parm
go Amb Aug; this is the form
used by Josephus, except that ac-
cording to his custom he gives it
Greek inflexions; and it occurs I Re
xv. 13 in A. Text, which is also the
late Syrian reading, N°BCLX uncº"
cup. Orig.j'o Chr.jo; this is the
reading of LXX in 2 Sam XV 23
1° B cu and 29 A cu, I Re ii 37 in
N cul”, I Rexv 13 in AB and most
MSS, and elsewhere in a few cur-
, SIVéS.
Also Töv kévôpov cu", Tów
ãévôpov 9 Cyr.loc. •
Text, though not found in any
version, is amply attested by Greek
MSS. It cannot be a mere error
of scribes of the N. T., being
90 No7 FS ON SELECT READ/WGS
already in the LXX. It probably
preserves the true etymology of
lººp, which seems to be an archaic
(? Canaanite) plural of Yip, “the
Dark [trees]”; for, though ho name
from this root is applied to any tree
in biblical Hebrew, some tree re-
sembling a cedar was called by a
similar name in at least the later
language (see exx. in Buxtorf Zex.
Talm. 1976); and the Greek kéðpos
is probably of Phoenician origin. In
this as in some other cases ºny (pā-
payá, xetuappois) denoted less the
stream than the ravine through
which it flowed, the valley of Je-
hoshaphat (Tó 6é doxalq, trepiflóAg
a jvattov [the third wall] eis Thu
Keöpóva ka)\ovuéumu bâpayya kaTé-
Amyev Jos. B. J. v 4, 2 &c.; cf.
Grove in Dict, Bib. ii 13 f.). Iso-
lated patches of cedar-forest may
well have survived from prehistoric
times in sheltered spots. Even in
the latest days of the Temple ‘two
cedars’ are mentioned as standing
on the Mount of Olives (Zaazzi//,
iv 4, cited by J. Lightfoot Chorog.
AXec. iv. 2, and thence Stanley Sin.
and Pal. 187). Another Keöpóv, a
town in the region of Jamnia, was
likewise near a xetſ, appois (I Mac
xv. 39, 41; xvi 5, 6, 9). .
xix. 4 o'6églav airlaw eiptaka čv
aúrû] alriav oëx euptaka S”; cf. 131°,
which likewise omits év airó. For
oùöeputaw the Western reading is oux.
There is much variety of order in
different documents.
xix 14 &rn] 7pirm N*D*PLXA
cu% Nonn Chron. Pasch (stating this
to be the reading of ‘the accurate
copies’ and of the evangelist's auto-
graph preserved at Ephesus). Eus.
Mar, as cited by Sev, maintains
that the numeral T (3) was misread
by “the original copyists of the
Gospel” as F (6); and the same
conjectural explanation of the ap-
JOHIN XVIII I
parent discrepancy with Mc xy 2.5
(where see note on the converse
corruption) is repeated more briefly
in a scholium of Ammonius. Text
NAB uncil cuºmº vvonn Marcus (ap.
Iren Hipp) Hipp Eus(see above)
Amm(see above) Hesych Cyr.al.loc
Aug. •
xxi 25. According to Tischendorf
in N this verse, with the concluding
ornament and subscription, is not
from the hand of the scribe (A) who
wrote the rest of this Gospel, but of
another (D) who wrote a small part
of the Apocrypha and acted as cor-
rector (Ötop60Tijs) of the N. T., of
which he likewise wrote a few
scattered entire leaves; the same
scribe in fact to whom he with
much probability (see /ntroduction
§ 288) ascribes the writing of the
Vatican MS. Tregelles, who exa-
mined the MS in Tischendorf’s
presence, believed the difference in
handwriting to be due only to a
fresh dip of the pen. At the same
time however he disputed the dif-
ference of scribes throughout the
MS, apparently on insufficient
grounds. It seems on the whole
probable that the verse and its ac-
companiments were added by the
corrector; but it does not follow that
the scribe A intended to finish the
Gospel at v. 24, that is, that his
exemplar ended there. Some acci-
dent of transcription may well have
caused the completion to be left to
the scribe D, who in like manner,
if Tischendorf is not mistaken,
yielded up the pen to the scribe A
after writing two thirds of the first
column of the Apocalypse: for it is
not likely that A would have left
what he considered to be the end of
the Gospel without any indication
to mark it as such. He concludes
Mt with the ornament, and Lc with
the ornament and subscription: the
last leaf of Mc, which likewise has
John XXI 25
the ornament and subscription, is
by D.
According to various scholia an
unnamed writer stated this verse to
be a marginal note of some careful
person (Tuvös Tóv ptAotróvalv), which
was incorporated by mistake with
the text. Abulfaraj (Nestle Zheol.
A.Z. 1878 4 13) likewise mentions
the verse with v 4 as said “by some’
not to have been written by the
evangelist. The omission seems
however to have been conjectural
only, arising out of comparison with
v. 24. Verse 25 stands not only in
all extant MSS and vv but in a
considerable series of Fathers, in-
cluding Orig Pamph Eus Cyr.al.
AVO 7TA'S OW" S.A. Z.A.C.T RAE AD/M/GS 9I
SECTION ON THE WOMAN TAKEN
IN ADULTERY
See note on [Jo] vii 53–viii 1 r.
9 (f) &trö Tóv Tpea:3vrépov] Va-
rious evidence makes it probable
that Távres évéxºpmaav originally
followed here as an independent
clause; it would be naturally altered
or omitted as seeming merely to re-
peat ééâpxovto. D adds Gate ºrdv-
tas Ščex0eiv: c f arm add omnes
zecesserunt: for épxovro M 264
substitute träutes duexºpmagu : and
Nicon's brief paraphrase includes
&vexºpmoſav Štravres.
Io karékpivey] lapidavit ſº Amb
(often and distinctly): 7zedicazit e.
92 AVO ZZS OAV SZZA, CZ" A*AAA)/AWGS
ACTS II 9
A CTS
ii 9 Iověalavl Armeniam Tert
Aug: (habitantes in) Syria Hier.
Evidently suggested by the colloca-
tion of regions.
ii 3o Tris ào'gºos atrooj + ſkatá
orépka] &vaarºa at Töv xpatów [Kat]
Western and (with Tó prefixed, and
readingövaartha'elv) Syrian (Gr. Syr.);
incl. Orig. Ps. (XV Cord. Gall.) Eus.
Aºs: but not latt Iren.lat Eus. A cl.
Perhaps from 2 Sam vii. 12.
iv 25 (+) d too tratpés jučv Ště.
Tvetplatos &ytov otöparos Aaveló trai-
Šás orov) Western texts (Gr. and
most or all v.v.) in various ways
separate 61& T. &. from otówatos A.
T. g., simply inserting 6tá or kat
before a Tóttaros, or reading a Tópart,
or reading trueſpatu and Ötö, a Tó-
patos; and further either omit too
tratpós àpºv (D syr.vg me) or join
it to A. tr. G. (latt syr.hl the aeth
arm Iren. lat): Hil Aug omit 6t&
Tvetſgatos dytov, which syr.hl arm.
codd transfer to the end. The Syrian
text (Gr.) omits both Tow Tarp3s juáv
and Tvečuatos àytov. Text NABE,
(13) 15 27 29 36 (38) it 12 Ath. The
various Western and Syrian read-
ings are evidently attempts to get
rid of the extreme difficulty of text,
which doubtless contains a primitive
error. [A confusion of lines ending
successively with Alò A&A Alò, may
have brought Tvečgaros &ylov too
high up, and caused the loss of one
ôta. W.] [If Tot Tatpós is taken as
a corruption of Toſs tratpáguy, the
order of wolds in text presents no
difficulty, David (or the mouth of
David) being represented as the
mouth of the Holy Spirit. H.]
iv 32 pux) pºta]+ kal oºk ºv Štá-
Kptorus év auro's ow8eputa (Xaptopads év
autoſs Tis) Western, DE, Cyp” Amb
Zen ; not g ml Orig.lat.
v 38 digere atroës]+, u% pºtávav-
Tés (21. AoAövovres) Tâs xeipas [judovl
Western, D(E2) 34; not g.
vii 16 áv 2vYéu.] Toij > v).éu. Wes-
tern and Syrian (Gr. Lat. AEth.):
Tot, €v 2vXéu. Nº AE2 27 29 40 fo/
(Syr.h]), perhaps conflate. Text
S“BC 364469 Ioo 105 al” me the
2LIII].
vii 43 "Popºpój ‘Peggpép. Western,
lat. vg Iren.lat: "Pepiºpd 61 lat.codd
arm Olig. Cels.cod: ‘Popaqāv N* 3
Chr. cod : "Patºpáv or ‘Peqāv Alex-
andrian (Gr. Syr. Eg. Æth.): "Pep-
‘páv Syrian (Gr. ), incl. Orig. Ceſs.cod.
Text S*B 3 lat.vg.cod Orig. Cels.
cod Chr. cod, as regards "Pop-;
SBD 61 cup latt arm Orig. Cels Chr
Iren. lat, as regards -pºp-; B 61
lat.vg.codd arm Orig. Cels, as regards
-qā; B Orig. Cels.cod throughout.
In the LXX of Am v 26 the form
used is ‘Pauqāv or ‘Peºpów, which is
similar to Repa or Repha, one of
the names of the Egyptian Saturn
(Seb).
vii 46 (+) 73 0eş 'Iakó8]< rig oika,
'Iakó8 N*BDH2. Text S*ACE.P.,
cu°mn vvomn Chr. Documentary au-
thority, supported by the improba;
bility that Tot, 6eoû and Tó beg would
stand so near each other, and that
683 would be altered by scribes,
renders it nearly certain that 6eig is
a very ancient correction of oikg.
Yet otrºp can hardly be genuine, and
seems to be a primitive error. The
common reading 6e 3 is that of LXX
ACTS XI 2C
in Ps. cxxxii (cxxxi) 5, (Éws of etpø
Tótrov Tó kvpig, okhvoga tº 6eó
'IopañA); but it represents the pecu-
liar and rare word has (Strong
One), rendered Šuváotºs in the fun-
damental passage Gen Xlix 24. The
true reading may have been Some
nearer equivalent of the Hebrew
than 9e3s, and the following 1&$60B
would facilitate the introduction of
Oſko). [Probably the lost word is
kvpig, the two clauses of the Psalm
being fused together: TOOKO) might
easily be read as TCOOIKCO. H.]
viii 24 fin.]++’ &s troXX& K\atov ot
ôtexipºravev H Western, D* syr.hl.
mg ; not g’.
viii.36 fin.]+ (v. 37) + eitrev 6é at Tø
[ó pi\tTirosl El Trigºrciſeus é ÖAms
Tâs kapātas gov (, Šeativ]. Garokpuffels
ôè eitrev IIvo Teja, Tów viðu Toij teow,
eſvav Tóv’Imaoüy [Xptatów]. H. Westein
(Gr. Lat. Syr.[hlºl Arm.); incl. E2,
Some good cursives, and g in Iren.
gr.lat Cyp : D is defective : there is
much variation in details. This in-
terpolation, which filled up the ap-
parent chasm left by the unanswered
question of v. 36 with matter doubt-
less derived from common Christian
practice, stands on the same footing
as the other Western amplifications
in the Acts. Though not contained
in the Greek MS chiefly used by
Erasmus (2), and found by him in
the margin only of another (4), he
inserted it as “having been omitted
by the carelessness of scribes”: it is
absent from the best MSS of the
Latin Vulgate, as well as from the
Syriac Vulgate and the Egyptian
versions; but it soon found its way
from the Old Latin into the late text
of the Vulgate, with which alone
Erasmus was conversant. From his
editions it passed into the ‘Received
Text”, though it forms no part of the
Syrian text.
AVO 7TES OAV SZZAZCT ACAA/O/AWGS 93
viii 39 Tvetipa Kvptov] Tveſpa
&ytov ćirétreaſev ćirl Töv et voixov,
&yºyeMos 6& Kuptov Western (Gr. Lat.
Syr.[hl°] Arm.); incl. A (correction
by first hand) and apparently Hier
Aug; not g : D is defective.
x 25'0s...IIérpov, IIpogey'yūovros
ôë roſſ IIárpov [eis Thy Kato'aplavl
Tpoôpapadºu ets Töv čoiſ) gºv Štegāpmaev
Trapayeyovéval attöv. & 58 Koppij)\tos
[ékirmáña as kaij Western, D g syr.
h].mg:g omits the bracketed words.
xi.2 “Ore... Treputopffs] ‘O prev oſſºv
IIétpos 6d. ikavod Xpóvov #9é\maev
(-oat) Topev67vat eis Iepoa 6\vga'
kai Tpoo pavija as Toijs déexpo's kal
étrug-rmpišas at Toys troXèv \óryov trot-
oùevos 6& Tów Xopæv [? 6.’ gºtów
éxépetl 6tódio Kov attois' és kal ka-
Tºurmgev attois [? awroël kal &Tºjy-
TyctXev (-yl)\ev) at Tots Tiju Xápu Too
6eoû. oi Öé ék reputop.ºs 36expot 8te-
kpivovto Tpós at Töv Western, D (syr.
hl); not g : this corrupt passage is
but partially preserved in Syr.hl,
which marks 6tódalcaov attočs with a
*, and then recommences the verse
according to the common text.
xi 20 EAA mutatás] "EX\mu as pro-
bably Western, Nº AD 112 (Eus)
(? Chr). Text BD”.E.H.L.P, 61
and all cursives but one; also Sº ei-
ayye) to Tás, which presupposes text.
Versions are ambiguous; they ex-
press only ‘Greeks', but would na-
turally have found it difficult to find
a distinctive rendering for so rare
and so peculiar a word as ‘EX\m-
wwo Tºffs. It occurs twice elsewhere;
vi I, where in like manner all ver-
sions seem to have ‘Greeks’; and ix
29, where the versions (except Syr.
vg, ‘Jews who knew Greek’) have
the same, and A has, as here, "ENA")-
vas, D being defective.
The testimony of the best docu-
ments in favour of text is strongly
confirmed by transcriptional evi-
dence. A familiar word standing
in an obvious antithesis was not
29
94
likely to be exchanged for a word
so rare that it is no longer extant,
except in a totally different sense,
anywhere but in the Acts and two
or three late Greek interpretations
of the Acts; more especially when
the change introduced an apparent
difficulty. In the two other places
there was less temptation to make
the change, as the locality was ma-
mifestly Jerusalem, so that a refe-
rence to Gentiles would seem to be
out of place. "EX\mvas has prima
facie Intrinsic evidence in its favour,
as being alone in apparent harmony
with the context. This is true how-
ever only if it be assumed that 'Iov-
ôaſov is used in a uniformly exclusive
sense throughout the book; whereas
it excludes proselytes in ii Io and
(T. gegouévois) xvii. 17 (compare xiii
43; xvii 4. [taken with I]; and the
double use of 'Iovãatov in xiv 1),
and may therefore exclude ‘Helle-
nists’ here. Indeed the language of
vv. 19, 20 would be appropriate if
the “Hellenists’ at Antioch, not
being merged in the general body
of resident Jews, were specially sin-
gled out and addressed (éAá\ovu ka?
Tpós Toys "E., not as in v. 19, Aa-
Noüvres...’Iovóatous) by the men of
Cyprus and Cyrene. Moreover, if
Gentiles in the full sense are the
subjects of vv. 20–24, the subse-
quent conduct and language of St
Paul are not easy to explain. In
this as in other passages of the Acts
the difficulty probably arises from
the brevity of the record and the
slightness of our knowledge. It is
certainly not serious enough to
throw doubt on the best attested
reading.
xii 25 (+) els 'IepovaaXhu] (marg.)
ěš Iepovo axip. A 13 27 29 44 69
1 Io al” syr.vg.hl.txt me the aeth.
codd arm Chr. Codd : &lrö 'Iepovaa-
Xilu DE, 153640 68 Ioo 112 180 al”
g vg Chr.cod (on B see below):
AVO 7'ES OAV SAE ZAZ CZ" R.A.A.A)/AVGS
ACTS XI 2C)
with both readings E. cumu-bº syr.vg
the add els’Avttoxiav (-etav). Text
SBH,L.P., 61 Ioz al" syr.hl. mg
aeth.codd Chr. codd : according to
Tischendorf the scribe of B had
begun to write émé. -
A perplexing variation. "Eč and
diró are alike free from difficulty.
Neither of the two was likely to give
rise to the other, still less to els; and
the attestation on the whole suggests
that diró is Western, Čš Alexandrian.
On the other hand els 'Iepovo ax%u,
which is best attested and was not
likely to be introduced, cannot pos-
sibly be right if it is taken with
JTéa Tpe pau (see xi 27 ff.). It makes
good sense if taken with arXmpégav-
tes Tiju 6takoviav. But this is not a
natural construction of the words as
they stand; and it may be reason-
ably suspected that the original
order was Tiju eis Iepovaa)\?\, t \m-
péravres 6takoviav. The article is
more liable than other words to
careless transposition.
xiii 18 &rpoiſoqêpmaev) érpoºpogópm-
aev AC*E., 13 68 Ioo IoS al” d (acsi
7tutrix aluit) g (aluit) [e 7zztáriziº
syr. vg-hl.txt me the aeth arm. The
word occurs in other Fathers, but
without any indication that this
verse was the source. Text NBC*
DH,L.P., 61 al” lat.vg (mores...
setsänzeit) Syr.hl.mg(gr) Chr.
Roth readings occur in the LXX
rendering of Deut i 31, to which
passage reference is evidently made
here. The original word Sº,
meaning simply to ‘bear’ (‘carry’
[so Aq. fipev, Sym. §360 Taa’ev ; and
cf. Ex xix 4; Is xlvi 3 f.; lxiii. 9],
or ‘endure’, ‘be patient with '),
was much less likely to be rendered
by Tpoqoqopéal (so AFMN cqP* Cyr.
al), to ‘nourish’, than by Tpotropo-
péw, which in the only two places
where it occurs independently of
Deut and Acts (Orig treats it as
ACTS XIII 42
coined by the LXX) means dis-
tinctly to ‘be patient with ' (Cic.
Att. XIII 29 Zn hoc Töv Túpov prov Tpós
6eów Tpotropópmaov; Schol. Aristoph.
A’art. 1432 # pººl kata.6éšaq 0at
# Karaöešapévows Tpotropopeſv), and
which has the authority of B" [sic]
culº Orig.9%r. 248 (expressly). When
however the Original was forgotten,
the immediate context (‘bare thee
as a man doth bear his son ') natu-
rally led to the change of a single
letter so as to introduce explicit
reference to a nurse or nursing
father, though Tpopogopéa, means to
‘supply nourishment to?, not to
‘carry as a nurse does’. This plau-
sible corruption of the LXX was
doubtless widely current in the apo-
stolic age, and might easily have
stood in the text of the LXX fol-
lowed here. But there can be no
reason for questioning the genuine-
ness of the reading of NB 61 (with
many good cursives) lat. Vg, when it
is also the best authenticated read-
ing of the LXX and agrees with the
Hebrew, and when it was peculiarly
likely to be changed by the influence
of the common and corrupt text of
the LXX. J3oth here and in Deut
either reading gives an excellent
SeſlSë,
xiii 32 (+) toſs Tékuous juáv] T. T.
aúròu (? Western) g the Amb.cod:
T. r. me: T. T. awºrów juſv Syrian
(Gr. Syr. Arm.); incl. 61 : T. T.
jūſu ‘76 ° (Scholz). Text NABC*D
lat.vg aeth Hil Amb.codd. Text,
which alone has any adequate au-
thority, and of which all or nearly
all the readings are maniſest correc-
tions, gives only an improbable
Sense. It can hardly be doubted
that juáv is a primitive corruption
of fluºv, toys trarépas and Toís Té-
Kvots being alike absolute. The sug-
gestion is due to Bornemann, who
cites x 41 in illustration. A similar
primitive error occurs in Hexi 4.
AVO 7'ES ON SEZAZCT READ/AWGS 95
xiii 33 ÖevTépg] Tp(679 Western,
D g Latin MSS known to Bede
Orig. Æs.(expressly) Hil. Accord-
ing to Orig (followed in looser lan-
guage by Eus Apoll Euthym Ps.
Hier. Psalt) Psalms i and ii were
joined together, in one of the two
Hebrew copies which he had seen;
as they are in many extant Hebrew
MSS. The same arrangement must
have passed into some copies of the
LXX, for Justin (Ap. i 4o) trans-
cribes both Psalms continuously as a
single prophecy; and Tert Cyp.
codd.opt (at least Z'est. i. 13, and
probably elsewhere) and other Afri-
can Latin writers cite verses of Psii
as from PS i. In other words, the
authorities for Tp(6Tºp here and for
the combination of the two Psalms
are in each case Western; so that a
“Western’ scribe, being probably
accustomed to read the two Psalms
combined, would be under a tempta-
tion to alter ÖevTépºp to Tptºtºp, and
not zice Zersa. Accordingly Tran-
scriptional Probability, which prima
facie supports Tp(#Tip, is in reality
ſavourable or unfavourable to both
readings alike. -
xiii 42 (f) ‘EŠtóvrov Šē ačTöv tra-
pekd'Aovv...taúTaj- Tapeká\ovy BE.2
(? 81); but B (and 281) inserts jštov,
after orá88atov ; while Chr (Mill),
though not ad Z., substitutes #lovy
for Tapeká\ovv. Two late Constanti-
nopolitan glosses, ék Tös avvayoyās
Töv 'Iovöaíðv after or for at Töv,
and Tà éðvm after Tapeká\ovv, are
due to a true sense of the obscure
and improbable language of the text
as it stands. This difficulty and the
curious variation as to trapekáNovu
suggest the presence of a primitive
corruption, probably in the opening
words. [Perhaps 'Aétoivrov should
replace ’EŠtávrov, and TapeköNovu
and the stop at the end of the verse
be omitted. The language of VV.
42 f, would then be natural if the
96 AWOTAES ON SEZ/ECT READ/AWGS ACTs xIII 42
requests for another discourse on
the following sabbath were inter-
rupted by the breaking up of the
congregation by the épxtovváYoyot
(v. 15), e.g. for prudential reasons
(cf. v. 45). H.
xiv. 2 fin.]+ d 6é Kºptos éðakev
[taxºleipäumu. Western, DE, g deme
codd.lat syr.hl.mg (Cassiod). . .
xv. 2 &tašav...é; at Tów) āAeyev Y&p
6 IIa.0\os péveu oëTws Kaffdºs étria Tev-
oray 6ttaxupiščaevos" of Öé éAm\v0óTes
Giró Iepovaa\j, traphy)et)\av attoºs
Tø IIa ºp kal Bapuá3g Kai Tuatu
&\\ots divagaivetv Western, D. Syr.hl.
mg; also g ‘bod!’ as far as étrio Tév-
Q Cºl/. . - -
xv. 18 yuwaitā āt’ atóvos.] + yua-
grów dir’ atóvás [ćativl Tig kvptºp Tö
goyov affroë. F Western, AD lat.vg
syr.h].mg Iren.lat (the two latter
having beg); not g : also, by confla-
tion with text, yuga Tä, ät' alóvás
égriv rig 0e? [trövtc.] Tà épya aútoo
Syrian (Gr. Lat.[g] Syr.). Text
SBC 61 27 29 3644. Ioo 180 al” me
the arm : á, éart Yuwa Tó, attg
dir’ alóvos cup (aeth). Since the quo-
tation from Amix 12 ends at tauta,
and the connexion of the concluding
words with the rest was not obvi-
ous, it was natural to make them
the foundation of an independent
Sentence. * * * -
xv. 20 fin.]+ kal &ga du pº 66AQ-
atv attoºs yivea'0at érépots wº Totefu
Western, (D) 27 29 69 IIo al’ lat.
codd the aeth Iren.lat Leg. Alfr; not
g. Similarly in v. 29 after tropweias
the clause Kai Ša'a pºſſ 66Aete éavroſs
'ytvegóat étépg (2. čTépots) ºf Troteſte
is added by nearly the same docu-
ments, with the addition of Syr.hl.”
Cyp; not g Clem. Paed Orig. Æomt.
lat. Ruf Tert. Pud. This negative
form of the ‘golden rule' of Mt vii
12 || LC vi 3 I appears to be quoted
separately without indication of the
source by Theoph. Azú, ii. 34; and
also in Const. Ap.vii. 2 I (IIáv 6 a.)
6é\eus yeuéo 6at orot Tooro &\\g oë
trothgets), where it is followed by a
similar quotation from Tob iv. 15
(6 at patoeſs &\\p ow trouñorets, a say-
ing likewise attributed to Hillel).
In the interpolated recension of To-
bit the resemblance to these read-
ings of Acts is closer still. Com-
pare Lamprid. Alex. Sez. 51 Cla-
mabaigue saeſius Quod a 7uibusdam
size ºudaeis size Christianis audie-
7ad eſſ tenebag... Quod tibi fieri non
vis alterine feceris. -
xv. 33 fizz.]+ (v. 34) - éðošev Šē
Tø 2i\g éirigetvav attoºs (v. aštoff)
[, p.óvos 6& 'Iow8as étropeč0m]. H. Wes-
tern and, for the first clause, pro-
bably Alexandrian (Gr. Lat. Eg.
AEth. Arm.): the second clause D g
vg.codd. Text SABE.H.L.P., 61
alP" lat. Vg syr.vg-hl.txt me.cod Chr.
The first clause was inserted by
Erasmus, doubtless under the influ-
ence of a late text of the Latin Vul-
gate, though he found it only in the
margin of one of the Greek MSS :
he supposed it to have been omitted
‘by an error of the scribes’.
xvi. I2 (f) Tpdºrm Tās peptóos Make-
3ovias] Tp(677 peptóos Tàs M. B: Tp(3.
Tº uépis M. E., dem arm: Kepax?) Tâs
M. D syr.vg: Tp(67m Täs M. 105 I 12
137 al” syr.hl aeth (vdtr) Chr. Tp(3rm
Tøs ueptôos Tijs M. H.L.P., cup".
Text SACE, 61 31 36.40 68 69,180
al+ (vv). [None of these readings
gives an endurable sense. Mepts
never denotes simply a region, pro-
vince, or any geographical division :
when used of land, as of anything
else, it means a portion or share, i. e.
a part in a relative sense only, not
absolutely (gépos). Secondly, the
senses ‘of its district’, ‘of that dis-
trict’, would not be expressed na-
turally by Tàs p. Thirdly, Tptºrm as
a title of honour for towns (used ab-
solutely) is apparently confined to
Asia. Nor can it mean ‘capital',
for Philippi was not the capital of
ACTS XX 4
its district, but Amphipolis, a much
more important place. Nor again
can it mean “first on entering the
country’; for trpáros unaccompanied
by any interpretative phrase never
has this local force, and moreover
Neapolis would come first on the
route in question. Both towns alike
were politically in Macedonia, in
popular language in Thrace; so that
no kind of frontier would lie be-
tween them. There is therefore
doubtless some primitive corruption.
It is not impossible that peptóos
should be read as IIzepióos (M for
TTI), for Philippi belonged to the
Pieria of Mount Pangaeon, and might
well be called “a chief city of Pie-
rian Macedonia’’: so Steph.Byz.
I(pmutóes, tróAus IIuepias (codd. Xuke-
Xtas), Ös pi\virtros pºetwvápage ºpt)\lar-
Tovs : cf. Herod. vii. 212 ; Thuc. ii
99. The name j IIvepts Makeóovia
does not seem however to occur
elsewhere, and would more natu-
rally be applied to the more famous
Pieria in the S. W. of Macedonia.
For the present the reading must
remain in doubt. H.] -
xvi. 30 &#60]+ Tots \otirot's do pa-
Xto duevos Western, D Syr.hl.” ; not
g Lucif. . . . . . .
xviii 2 r IId}\tv] - Act ple. Távrays
Töv čoptºv Tiju èpxopévmu Tou?a'at els
'Iepoo &\vua ſet iterum] H Western
and, slightly modified, Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. [AEth.]): the last two
words, answering to text, are omit-
ted by D (as also by theb, which is
free from the interpolation) but pre-
served in Latin (g dem); Trávra's 6é
is Syrian. Text SABE, 13 3669 Io;
IIo 180 al” lat.vg (me the) aeth.cod
all Iſl. , . . -
xviii. 27 8ov\opévov... aštávºl - év
ôé Tâ’Eq}éorg Tvåmploëvrés Tives Ko-
plvöuot kal &Koča'avtes attoſ, trapeká-
Xovv Štex0eºu Gºv ańroſsels Tºv trarpiða.
aúTów avvkaraveča'avtos 63 attoo ol
AVO Z.E.S OAV SAE ZAZC 7" /CAA D/AWGS 97
'Eqéatol &ypapay toſs év Koptv99
pathyra's Öſtra's diroöéðurat Töv div-
ôpa’ H Western, D syr.hl.mg.
xix I, 2 'Eyðveto...eltrév Tel - 66-
Novros 3& Tod IIaúNov Kard. Tºv tátav
8ovXàu Tropečea 6at eis IepooróAvga el-
Trev at Tø to Tveijua Jiroa Tpéqely els
Tàu 'Aaſtav ŠueMjøv 6é Tó, &varepukč.
piépm épxetat els "Eq}eaſov, kal eiptów
Tuvas gaffmrås eitreu F Western, D syr.
hl.mg: the Syrian text (Gr. Syr.)
adopts the last five words. .
xix 9 Tupévvov]++ dºró dºpas à éa's
ôékárms F Western, D 137 syr.hl.
mg. -
xix 28 0wpool-- - 8papóvres els rô
ăuſpočov H Western, D (137) Syr.hl.
mg. . - -
xix 40 (+) trepi Tàs a fittepov...Taº-
Tms] → trepi Tàs 1° Western, D g
aeth. Also - of Western (? and
Alexandrian), DE, cu" g vg me
the : text NABH,L.P., cup" (61 is
defective) seld syr aeth arm. Also
< Trept 3° Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. [? Syr. Eg.]): text NABE, cu" d
g (Paeth arm). OU might be easily
either added or lost after of ; but the
plausible omission of ov, adopted
from the Latin by Erasmus and the
‘Received Text”, though not found
in the Syrian text, escapes the diffi-
culty of construction only by giving
a forced sense to airtov...trept ot.
[The difficulty is however too great
to allow acquiescence in any of the
transmitted texts as free from error.
Probably airtot Jirápxoutes should
be read for airtov Útrápxoutos, with
the construction pumöevös atriot Utráp-
Xovtes Trept of ot, K.T.A. (‘ although
we are guilty of nothing concerning
which &c.). The usage of the
N.T. admits this use of uſ with a
participle, and the interchanges of
I and Y, e and o, in uncials are of
the commonest. H.]
xx 4 airój--- éxpt Tàs 'Aglas H
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
98 AWOTES OAM SAE ZZCT ACAA D/AWGS
Arm.). Text SB 13 (61 is defective)
lat.vg me the aeth.
ibid. 'Aoſtavot] 'Eq}éotot Western,
D the ; not g : Syr.hl.mg combines
both readings. - . . .
xx 15 Tä, öé] + kal pºetvavres év
TpayvXiq, Tú F Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.): many of the
later Greek documents have Tpa)-
•yvX\tg. Text SABCE, cu% lat.vg
me aeth arm.
xx 18 trós... yewópmv] dºs Tpteriau
# kal TAeſov troTatrós pºeff’ pºſov ju
Travrös Xpóvov D. , -
xx 28 (+) fleod...lótov] kvptov (for
6eoû) AC*DE, 13 15 36” 4o 69 95*
I Io 130 180 alº g me the Syr.hl.mg
arm Iren.lat Ath(probably) Did pp.”
Lucif auct. Quaest Hier (? Amb):
kvptov ka? 0600 Constantinopolitan
(Gr.) : Xptoroij (? Syr.vg) aeth (pro-
bably) pp.; }esus Christi m. Text
NB 68 lt 12 al” (61 is defective) lat.
vg syr.vg(probably)-hl.txt Epiph
Bas (Const. Ap, see below) Th.mops.
I 7%.gr.lat Cyr.al, Dei? pp.” (?Amb)
pplater.
It is impossible to examine here
the documentary evidence in detail:
much of it is obscure and uncertain.
Much has been done towards a
rigorous sifting of it by Dr Ezra
. Abbot in an elaborate article in
defence of T. kvptov, contributed to
the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1876, pp.
313 ff., where will also be found
an account of the variations of Syriac
and AEthiopic MSS on Dr Wright's
authority. Unfortunately no certi-
fied patristic evidence is extant for
the Ante-Nicene period ; and the
controversial purposes which the
passage might naturally serve were
not such as would justify inferences
from the silence of extant writers.
It is probable however that Iren
had the same reading as Iren.lat.
The documentary evidence for kvptov
is very good and various. On the
other hand the combination SB,
ACTS XX 4
further supported by latvg, which
in Acts exhibits a singularly good
text in its Non-Western readings,
and by Cyr.al, is a group which by
Internal Evidence of Groups de-
serves all confidence in the absence
of strong adverse Transcriptional or
Intrinsic evidence.
Transcriptional evidence is in our
opinion more favourable than un-
favourable to Too 6eoû : although
even in early times, and much more
about the fifth century, there were
some to whom the immediate asso-
ciation of T. 0eoû with what follows
would not be repellent and might
even be attractive, this was by no
means the case with the main body
of the Church. The prevalent in-
stinct, as far as we can judge, would
always be to change T. 6eoû to T.
Kuptov, and not z/ice versa: the fear
of Sanctioning language that might
easily be construed in a ‘Monarch-
ian' or, in later times, a ‘Monophy-
site’ sense would outweigh any other
doctrinal impulse. Some are seen
to have avoided the difficulty by
giving a special force to too lötov
(see below); and some whose in-
terpretation is unknown probably
did the same: but the other inter-
pretation suggested itself so easily
that it would naturally act as a mo-
tive for the preference of the safer
phrase T. Kuptov. No similar diffi-
culty would be found in the con-
flate reading (and mediating phrase)
T. kvptov kal 6eoû, which naturally
found favour in the Church of Con-
stantinople, the special depositary
of Chalcedonian doctrine. It is
doubtless possible that T. 6eoû might
arise from recollection of the fami-
liar apostolic phrase j čkk\mata T.
6eoû, if the Subsequent language
were overlooked : but this is the
less probable contingency. The ex-
istence of the variant T. Xptortoi) may
be left out of account altogether, as
ACTS XX 28
it might with equal facility be a
synonym of T. Kuptov or an inde-
pendent means of escaping from the
difficulty of T. 6600.
This difficulty must itself be
counted as Intrinsic evidence against
T. 6eoû. On the other hand impor-
tant Intrinsic evidence in its favour
is supplied by the manifest deriva-
tion of the peculiar combination of
Tºv čkk\matav with Treptetrovägaro
(ad/uisiziº latt) from Ps lxxiv 2 (the
LXX rendering Tſis ovvaiyayyās gov
?s éktha Go ||congregationis Čuae quame
adquisisłº Cod.germ] gives nearly
the same sense), following, on tº
Tolpuig (“the sheep of Thy pasture’
Ps lxxiv. 1); and by the consequent
probability that the subject of Te-
pterotºja aro would be the same in
both places. . . .
[While however T. 6eoû is assured-
ly genuine, the difficulty suggests a
possibility of corruption in the fol-
lowing words. The supposition that
by the precise designation tod óeoû,
standing alone as it does here, with
the article and without any adjunct,
St Paul (or St Luke) meant Christ
is unsupported by any analogies of
language. The converse supposi-
tion, that, while too 6eoû retains its
ordinary sense, the passage impli-
citly contains the purport of the
phrase Toij aluatos toū 0eoû, though
illustrated and to a certain extent
supported by isolated rhetorical
phrases of two or three early wri-
ters, is equally at variance with
apostolic analogy.
Doubt is moreover thrown on
both these interpretations by the
remarkable form Öuć. Too Cºpatos Too
iðtov (not, as in the Syrian text, Övö.
Too lötov aluatos), which seems to
imply some peculiar force lying in
the word tötov. On the supposition
that the text is incorrupt, such a
force would be given by the sense
‘through the blood that was His
AWOZTAES OAV SAE ZAZCZ" RAEAD/AWGS 99
own’, i.e. as being His Son’s. This
conception of the death of Christ as
a price paid by the Father, is in
strict accordance with St Paul’s own
language elsewhere (Ro v. 8; viii
32). It finds repeated expression in
the Apostolic Constitutions in lan-
guage evidently founded on this
passage (ii 57 13; 61 4; vii 26 I;
viii [I I 2 ;] I 2, 18; 4.1 4). All these
places contain a prayer addressed to
God for His Church (or heritage, or
people), #v Teptetrotºjoa, rig tipſig aſ-
patt Too Xpto-Tob a 0u (or with some
almost identical phrase, always in-
cluding Tiptºp from I Pe i 19); so
that, though MSS differ as to T.
6eoû or T. Kvptov in the only place
where either phrase occurs (ii 61 4),
the language used throughout pre-
sumes T. Geoſ on the one hand and
an interpretation agreeing with the
supposed special force of Too lötov
on the other. One of these pas-
sages, from the liturgy in Book VIII
(12 18 "Ett öeópe64 gov, köpte, kal
Utrép Tàs &ytas a ov čkk\matas Tàs diró
Trepatov čaws repārav, ºu repletrotºjoſa,
Të Tipſig aſpart too Xplotov orov,... kai
titrép Tāorms étrugkorms tºs épôoTopioiſ-
orms Töv Aóyov Tijs dAmfletas) has in-
directly made the same interpreta-
tion familiar to English ears; being
imitated in one of the Ember Col-
lects of 1662 (“who hast purchased
to Thyself an universal Church by
the precious blood of Thy dear
Son”). - - -
It is however true that this gene-
ral sense, if indicated, is not suffici-
ently expressed in the text as it
stands. A suggestion often made,
that T. lötov is equivalent to T. lötov
vioſ, cannot be justified by Greek
usage. Since, however the text of
the Acts is apparently corrupt in
several other places, it is by no
means impossible that Y1OY dropped
out after Toy1A10Y at some very
1 OO
early transcription affecting all ex-
isting documents. Its insertion leaves
the whole passage free from diffi-
culty of any kind. H.]
xxi I IIárapa] + + kal Mūpa, F
Western, D (g) codd.lat the.
xxi 16 £evua 6&pſev] + kai trapaye-
vögevot eſs Tuva koºpmv ćyevópºeffa trapá
Western, D syr.hl.mg.
ibid. Mvágavi] 'Idolovt 8 g dem
seld al me.
xxiii 15 diveXelv airóv] +, Čáv 6ém
kai &Toffavetv Western, 137 syr.hl.
Ing; not g (Lucif): D is defective
here, and to the end of the book.
xxiii. 23 #360pſikovral ékarów Wes-
tern, 137 syr.hl.mg the aeth.cod:
XX (doubtless error for LXX) g.
xxiii 24 ſizz.] + £4,08%0m yūp ph-
Tore àpirão'avtes at Töv ol 'Iovöaſov
dirokrévaloſt [? -eivajoril, kal attös ple-
rašū āyk\mſta éxm dºs dipyūptov el}\m-
ºptós. Western, 137 codd.lat Syr.hl. *;
Inot g. -
xxiii. 29 #yk\mual + ššāyayov at-
Töv LóXts Tfi 8ig Western, 137 (g)
syr.hl. *. - -
xxiv 6 ékpatharapev, + kal Karð.
Töv juérepov vópov 76exha'apev (z.
égovXºj%mpſey) kpivat. (v. 7) IIapext?dºv
6é Avorias Ó X1Xtapxos però, troX\ſis
8tas €k Tów Xelpów judov diriyayev,
(v. 8) keVeča as toūs karmyópovs avrot,
épxed 6at éiri (v. Tpés) are Western
and (with kpivat changed to kplvety,
and kal irpós aſe &n'éa retxev probably
inserted after diriyayev) Syrian (Gr.
Iat. Syr. AEth. [? Arm.]) incl. E2.
Text SABH,L.P., cu" lat.vg.codd.
opt me the ; also, to judge by
the space, C, which has lost a leaf
here.
xxiv. 27 0é\tov... àeóépévov] Töv 6é
IIa8Now eiaa’ev ću Tºpºgeu äuä Apot-
ot)\\av Western, 137 Syr.hl. mg ;
not g. - t
xxv 13 (+) do Tao duevot] do tragó-
pºevod (?? Western and) Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. Arm.); incl. 61. Text
SABE.,H.L.P., 13 31 6895 Io.2 Ioff
AWOTAES OAV SAE ZZC 7" ſº ÆAZ)/AWGS
ACTS XX 28
180 al" me aeth. [The authority
for -áplewot is absolutely overwhelm-
ing, and as a matter of transmission
-ópevot can be only a correction.
Yet it is difficult to remain satisfied
that there is no prior corruption of
some kind. H.] -
xxvi. 28 (f) Trotmaaij yewéo-0at
(? Western and) Syrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr. [? AEth.] [? Arm.]); incl. Ea
Cyr.hr. Text 8(A) B 61 13 17 4o me
(? aeth) syr.hl.mg (Cassiod). Both
authority and the impossibility of
accounting for Toufia at as a correc-
tion leave no doubt that yewéorffat
(from v. 29) was introduced to re-
move a felt difficulty. There must
however be some error in text, for
Toufio at used epexegetically in the
sense of diate trouha'at gives Agrip-
pa's abrupt exclamation a languid
and halting form, and the absence
of a second pſe throws doubt on the
construction. The difficulty is some-
what lightened by reading TTelêH
for TTeléec with A. [Yet Tretón can
hardly be equivalent to Tétrov6as or
to Teiffels areavrów, as the Sense re-
quires; more especially since Tetêo-
pat has been used in the sense ‘am
persuaded’, ‘believe’, just before
(v. 26). Possibly TTeTIO10&c should
be read for MeTTelêelc, for the per-
sonal reference expressed by pe
loses no force by being left to im-
plication, and the changes of letters
are inconsiderable: but it is no less
possible that the error lies else-
where. H.] .
xxvii. 5 Stat)\eta'avtes] + + 6' hue-
póv Šekdîrevte F Western, I 12 137
Syr.hl.” ; not g. t
xxvii. 15 €Tučóvres] -- Tó TXéovrt
kal orvo retMavTés Tū iaTia. Western,
44 II 2 137 codd.lat Syr.hl.*; not g.
xxvii 35 €0.0teuv] + &rtóvãoës kal
#ſiv Western, 137 the syr.hl. “; not
§. -
ACTS XXVIII 28 AVO7'A'S OW SAE Z/ZCZ" RAEA/O/AWGS
xxviii 16 áiretpáTm Tó IIa&Ag] - 3
ékarówrapyos trapéðakev Toys 5é-
optovs tº a Tpatoirečápx9, Tó 6é
IIaș).9 éiretpáirm F Western and Sy-
rian (Gr. Lat.[g] Syr.[h].”] AEth.).
Text SABId 13(vdtr) 40 61 lt 12 lat.
vg syr.vg-hl.txt me arm Chr.
ſibid. Čavrövl + + šša, Tºs trapeg-
IOI
85Xhs H Western, 137 g dem syr. hl.”.
xxviii. 28 ſizz.] + (v. 29) kał Tadra
avrot, eltrávros & Tºffou ol 'Iovöa?ot,
Tox\}v čxovtes év Šavroſs fºrmatv
(z. ovčármolu) Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr.[hl.”] [AEth.]). Text
SABE, 61 I 3 4o 68 s lat.vg syr.
vg-h1.txt me arm aeth. cod.
IO2
AWO 7'ES ON SEZEC Z" RAEA D/AWGS
I PETER I 7
I P E TER
i 7 (f) Tó Šokiutov] to 63kupov 23
69 IIo al. . [This reading, supported
by two of the better cursives (69
IIo) but by no primary document,
is apparently right. Tö Öokipºtov is
the instrument of trial, not even the
process of trial, much less the thing
tried; while it is only the thing tried
that can be compared, as here, to
gold refined in the fire. The neuter
adjective might naturally be changed
to a substantive, and that the sub-
stantive used in the similar passage
Ja i 3; and I might easily be read
in after M. H.]
iii. 21 (+) 6] § cup; conjectured by
Erasmus in the note to his first edi-
tion; printed in the Complutensian
text (§ ºvtirvitov vov Kal muás), pro-
bably by conjecture; and thence
adopted by Beza: < 5 S" 73 aeth.
[The order of the words renders it
impossible to take duritvirov with
8árrugua, whether in apposition to
& or to the sentence; and it is
hardly less difficult to take durity-
Tov with 6, as though it were either
duritvirov čv or GvTuróTws. Accord-
ingly & seems to be a primitive
error for 3, the force of which might
be hidden by the interposition of
kal juás before dutitutrov : this de-
viation from the more obvious order
is justified by the emphasis on kal
Juás. Both by sight and by sound
the interchange of letters would be
easy. H.]
iii. 22 6eoû]+ degſuffiens mortem ºut
zitae aetermae haeredes efficeremur
lat. v.g.codd pp”; apparently from a
Greek original which had the aor.
part. Karairvºv (cf. 1 Coxy 54).
iv 14 66&ms]+ ka? §vváuea's Pre-
Syrian (? Western and Alexandrian)
(Gr. Lat. Syr. E.g. Æth. Arm.);
incl. (N) AP, cub” (Ath Did) Cyp.
2/2; with various modifications, as
the omission of ka? Tó (cub” vvº."
Cyp), and the insertion of Övoga for
or in combination with Tveijua (cu"P"
syr.hl Cyp). Text, which is also
Syrian, BK, L, cup" (lat.vg Syr, vg)
Clem Cyr. al. Un. Chr. 753 pp.” Tert
Fulg: < kal lat.vg Syr.vg.
ibid, fin.]+ kará pºšu autoi's 8Aa-
a pnge?rat, karð 6é juás Óošášetat
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
[hl”] Eg.[the]; incl. Cyp. 2/2. It is .
to be observed that lat.codd Cyp”
prefix quod, agreeing in Cyp with
7tomen, and this was probably the
original form of the reading (cf. v.
16; Ro ii 24 ; Ja ii 7 : Ap xiii. 6;
xvi. 9), intended as an explanation
of the phrase Tö...óvopa šp’ (p.ás
CLI/CLTCLUETCLt.
v 2 9eoû,]+ štruo-koTroövtes Pre-Sy-
rian (? Western and Alexandrian)
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth.
Arm.); incl. N*AP, 7, 7. Text SB
27 29 pper.” Hier ‘Vig’.
Żóid, ékova tws]+ karð 6eóu Pre-
Syrian (Western and Alexandrian)
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth. Arm.);
incl. NAP, cubo" (m) g : in the
paraphrastic rendering of me it is
included in a phrase added at the
end of v. 3. Text, which is also
Syrian, BK, L, cup” syr.vg | Vig’.
1 JoFIN v 7, 8 AVO ZZS OAV SZZZCZ" A&AEAZ)/AWGS
IO3
2 PETER
i Io a Tovöáorate] + £va Ötö. Töv
Ka}\@v [ºpºv) épywu and Toteto fle
(-700e) for Troteio 9at Pre-Constan-
tinopolitan, probably Alexandrian,
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Æth. Arm.);
incl. SA 5 36 6869 73 Iro II2 137
alP : Q is defective from i 4 to the
end of the Epistle. Text, which is
also Constantinopolitan, BCP2K2L2
cup" ppser Amb.
iii Io (f) elſpethaerat] oix etpet)#-
o’etat Syr.bod[= an obscure Syriac
version of the three Catholic Epistles
not in the Syrian Canon] theb: ka-
Takaºja’etat (? Alexandrian and) Con-
stantinopolitan (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.
AEth.); incl. AL, lat.vg.codd Cyr.al
Aug: ágavva 6maſovrat C: < * :
< the whole clause (kal y?... katak.)
lat.ygpp”pplatºr. Text NBK, P., 27
29 66** Syr.hl.mg arm: cf. syr.bod.
the. The great difficulty of text has
evidently given rise to all these varia-
tions (Zºrod. § 365). It is doubt-
less itself a corruption of fivägeral
(Šećaetal) or of one of its compounds.
iii I2 (f) Täketail Takija era, C 364o
Ioo 137 alP: -govtc., P., Thphl; fu-
ture lat.vg syr.bod arm pp”. [Takij-
Getat, -ovtat, are evidently mere
corrections: but the sense appears
to require a future, and Tåket at
might easily be a corruption of the
rare Théétat. H.]
I JOHN
ii. 17 aióva]+ gºzomodo [eſ] ille
manet in aeternum Western, (the)
Cyp”; also, with ZXeus for ille, tol
Cyp” Lucif Aug Vict, tun.
v 6 ka? ałuatos]+ ka? Tveijuatos
Western and Alexandrian (Gr. Lat.
Syr.[h]] Eg.); incl. RA cuboºm" Cyr.
al": + kai Tveijuatos kal aſpiatos P.
cu” aeth arm : cu? Cyr.all substitute
Trveſ gatos for alpatos. Text BK.L,
cup" q vg syr.vg Cyr.al” pp.” Tert
auct.A’ečaft. 15.
ibid, rö Trvedaa] iChristus lat.vg
(also 34= cod. Montfort., from lat.vg);
not nt g. The reading has appa-
rently no Greek authority, nor that
of any version but lat.vg: it is
perhaps only a clerical error, XPS
for SPS, though Jo xiv 6 may have
helped to give it currency.
v 7 f. to Tveijua kal Tj jøap kal rô
diual in terra, Spiritus [et] agata et
sanguis, et hä &res zenzume suzzá 272
Christo jesté ef Żres sunt gatz fesſi-
720727tume diczzzzz 272 caeſo, AEazer Ver-
Özuma et Spiritus me to/ caz);
also, omitting in Christo #eszt, and
reading sicut [ed] tres for et &res, vari-
ous MSS of vg.lat, with slight
variations, as dant for diczz???. In
q, which has lost nearly half of each
line, zuzzatma...?res seems to have
dropped out by homoeodelettſon,
leaving the presence or absence of
in Christo Wesat uncertain; the only
other differences ſrom Zzz are ef aſyzſa.
and (with Cassiod Epiph. Cant) festi-
ficantur. The later MSS of lat.vg
transpose the clauses, reading £ze
caeſo, Ptler Verbum et Spiritus
Sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt : et
IO4
tres sung gui destimozziume dazzá in
terra, spiritus eff agua et sanguis,
many of them omitting the clause
which ends v. 8, et ſº tres unum,
sunſ. Two late Greek cursives
contain the interpolation in forms
which are manifestly translations
from this latest state of the Latin
Vulgate, 162 (about Cent. Xv), a
Graeco-Latin MS, and 34 (Cent.
xv.1). In fulfilment of a rashly
given pledge, Erasmus introduced
it into the text of his third edition
on the authority of 34, keeping
however the genuine Kai ol 7pe's els
Tô #v elaſtv at the end of v. 8.
Various crudities of language were
subsequently corrected, partly by
the help of the Complutensian text,
which was a third independent
rendering of the Latin Vulgate into
Greek; till at length, by editorial
retouching without manuscript au-
thority, the interpolation assumed
the form which it bears in the ‘Re-
ceived Text”, Év Tó oëpavò, 6 rathp,
ô Xóyos, Kai Tô &ylov rvetua, kai
oùrot of Tpe’s év elau Ka? Tpe's eigtv
oi gapTupouvres év Tà yń, followed by
Tô Tveijua kal Tó jöap kal T6 alua.
There is no evidence for the in-
serted words in Greek, or in any
language but Latin, before Cent.
XIV, when they appear in a Greek
work written in defence of the
Roman communion, with clear
marks of translation from the Vul-
gate. For at least the first ſour
centuries and a half Latin evidence
is equally wanting. Tert and Cyp
use language which renders it
morally certain that they would
have quoted these words had they
known them; Cyp going So far as
to assume a reference to the Trinity
in the conclusion of v. 8 (eſ iterum
de Patre effºlio et Spiritu Sancto
scrizºum es: Lt tres unum Sunt), as
he elsewhere finds sacramenia. Zºz-
zzăſaſis in other occurrences of the
MOTES ON SEZZCT READINGS 1 JoſiN v 7, 8
number three (/)om. Oraí.34), and
being followed in his interpretation
more explicitly by Aug, Facundus,
and others. But the evidence of
Cent. III is not exclusively nega-
tive, for the treatise on Rebaptism
contemporary with Cyp quotes the
whole passage simply thus (15 : cf.
19), guia fres festimonium ſer/º-
bent, spiritus et aqua el sanguis, et
Žsći fres zenzemz satná. The silence of
the controversial writings of Lucif
Hil Amb Hier Aug and others
carries forward the adverse testi-
mony of the Old Latin through the
ſourth into the fifth century; and in
449, shortly before the Council of
Chalcedon, Leo supplies positive
evidence to the same effect for the
Roman text by quoting viv. 4–8
without the inserted words in his
epistle to Flavianus (AEp. xxviii. 5).
They are absent from lat.vg accord-
ing to its oldest MSS ame fit and
many others, as also from the (Vul-
gate) text of the Gallican (Luxeuil)
Lectionary.
The words first occur at earliest
in the latter part of Cent. V, that is,
about the time of the persecution
in N. Africa by the Arian Vandals.
They are quoted in part in two of
the works attributed on slender
grounds to Vigilius of Thapsus (one
of which has the -whole passage,
with the curious variations 272 Zezºra,
aqua sanguis et caro, et &res in
zzobis sunt), and in an argumentative
/ibe/lats found in the MSS of the
History of Victor of Vita (written
about 484), and professing to be a
memorial presented in 483, but now
justly suspected of being a different
work, inserted aſterwards (Halm p.
26, referring also to Papencordt).
The conventional date of this ob-
scure and as yet unsiſted group of
controversial writings rests on little
evidence, but it is probably not far
from the truth. At all events a quo-
1 John v 7, 8 AWOZ’ZS OAV SZZZCZ" A&EAZ)/AWGS
tation of some of the disputed words
occurs early in Cent. VI in another
North African work, written by
Fulgentius of Ruspe; and soon after
the middle of Cent. VI they stand
paraphrased in the Complexiones of
Cassiodorius, written in the southern
extremity of Italy. A prologue to
the Catholic Epistles, falsely pro-
ſessing to be written by Jerome,
impugns the fidelity of Latin trans-
lators, accusing them , especially
of having placed in their text the
‘three words’ aquae sangzzini's ef
spiritus only, and omitted Patris ef
Aſilii et Søiritus testimonium. This
extraordinary production is found in
the Fulda MS written at Capua in
546,7 (E. Ranke in his ed. p. viii),
the biblical text of which is free
from the interpolation, as well as in
many later MSS, and probably
belongs to the Vigilian period and
literature. Even aſter Cent. VI the
references to the inserted words are
few till Cent. XI.
The two Old Latin MSS in
which they are extant have texts of
a distinctly late type : they are q, of
Cent. VI or VII (Ziegler) and wº, of
Cent. VIII or Ix (Tregelles, Reiffer-
Scheid, Hartel), m being in strictness
only an arranged collection of quo-
tations from an Old Latin MS. A
MS like that which supplied me
with its text must have contributed
the foreign element to the common
ancestor of the Toledo and La Cava.
Vulgate MSS; and it is remarkable
that me quotes the spurious Ep. of
St Paul to the Laodicenes, which is
included in both these copies of the
Vulgate. -
These two interesting MSS like-
wise illustrate the manner in which
the interpolation probably arose.
After v. 9 tol adds these words,
quent ºf sit salvatorem super terram,
et Filius testimonium perhibuit in
terra scripturas £erficiens ; et zºos
IO5
festimonium few hibemus Quoniazz
zidimus et/7/z, et amzzzzzz/ia7izes
zobis zui cred'aſis ; eſ ideo 7ui &c. :
and in v. 20 after zenit they both
add (with me, two London MSS
cited by Bentley, and virtually Hil)
eč carneſſ, induit nostri causa, et
fasszús est, ef 7&stºrexit a mortatis,
adsum/sić 770s, ef dedić &c. Para-
phrastic interpolations like these
argue strange laxity of transcription,
such as we find elsewhere in the
quotations from the Catholic Epi-
stles in m; but they do not imply
deliberate bad faith: and theinterpo-
lation of vv. 7, 8 doubtless seemed to
its author merely to place explicitly
before future readers an interpreta-
tion which he honestly supposed to
give the true sense of the passage,
as it had been indicated by Cyprian
and expounded by Cyprian's suc-
cessors. This interpretation was
the more plausible since the Latin
text did not contain the significant
els of the original (omitted likewise
by Cyr.al and apparently others),
which probably was early lost after
Tpets; and it is no wonder that
controversial associations should lead
Latin readers to assume such words
as eſſ fres 24722/me szt??? to contain a
reference to the Trinity. Even in
Greek there are traces of a similar
interpretation: one scholiast writes
ets 6eós, pia. ffeóTms in the margin of
v. 8; and another first explains the
spirit, water, and blood, and then
adds OI. TPEIX 5é eitrey dpa.evikós,
ðrt a ſp;8oNa TaüTa Tàs Tpić60s K.T.A.
The adverse testimony of Greek
MSS and of all the oriental versions
is supported by the silence of all the
Greek Fathers; and positive evi-
dence is added by Cyr.al, who three
times transcribes vv. 7, 8 with the
context (Zhes. 363; Fid. 95 ; AVest.
I43). -
*še most essential facts as to the
history of the reading were well set
IO6
forth by Simon in 1689 (His/. Crit.
due texte die AV. T. 203 ff.). The evi-
dence as enlarged by Mill and Wet-
stein was rigorously examined by
Porson (Zetters to Zºrazºs) in 1790 ;
and admirably expounded afresh in
a more judicial spirit by Griesbach
in his second edition (ii App. I–25)
in 1806. Three new and interesting
testimonies on behalf of the inserted
words have subsequently come to
light, those of me in 1832, of 7 in
1875, and of the occurrence of the
Pseudo-Hieronymic Prologue in fit
in 1868. They all however leave
AWOZZS ON SEZZCZ" RAEAD/WGS 1 JoHN v 7, 8
unaffected the limit of date which
was indicated by Simon and fixed
by Porson.
v. Io (f) Tô 6eój Tó við A 5.27 29
66** 112 albo P lat.vg syr. hl.ng
(the aeth arm) Cyr. al. Fid. 33 codd :
Jesu Christo me : < a.m.". Text
NBK, L.P., cup" q syr.vg-hl.txt me
Cyr. al.**ppser Aug “Vig’. None
of the datives yield a good sense in
this context; and it is probable that
6 pm trio Tetºwu should stand abso-
lutely, as in Jo iii 18: cf. Jo vi 47
Z). Z.
2 JOHN
11 Tovmpoſs]+ ecce £7 aedix; zoöis
ztá in diem (v. die) domizzi [moséré
Jesu Christi) moſt confundamini
(v. 7ze in diem domini condemnemini)
(m) lat.vg. codd.
JUDE
I (+) év 666 Tarpi myairmuévous ka?
*Imaoû Xptatiº termpmuévous] . Tots
&6peaty is prefixed by 27 29 (66**)
syr.bod-hl arm: intaguévous (for hya-
Tnuévous) Constantinopolitan (Gr.):
*I. Xptgroß 4o 180 alº" Orig. Mt.gr
ppº"; áy 'I. Xplorø m vg. codd
syr.bod the aeth Orig. Mſ.lat Lucif
Cassiod: < ka?...Tetmp. I63 Syr.hl.
Text SAB cup lat.vg me Aug. [The
combination év 0ég ratpl jyaarm-
pévous is without analogy, and ad-
mits no natural interpretation. Ap-
parently the év was intended to
stand before 'Imaoû Xptatiº (so in
part J. Price [Pricaeus]). H.]
5 (+) Távra.] Távras syr.bod:
Toºro Constantinopolitan (Gr.
Eg.[the]). [Possibly trávtas may be
right (cf. I Jo ii 20 v.l.) : C would
easily be lost before O. H.]
5 (+) Kūptos] 'Imaoûs AB 6, 7 13
29 66° lat.vg me the aeth Did. Ps”
(expressly: lxv 6; cxxxv Io) Cyr.al.
Thes:302(expressly) Hier(expressly)
(? Cassiod): 6 633s Ca 68 al” tol
syr.bod arm Clem Lucif (Domintºs
Aeus Clem.A.A.lat.). Text NC"
(syr.hl) and, with 3 prefixed, Con-
stantinopolitan (Gr. 2 Syr.). The
best attested reading ‘Imaoüs can only
be a blunder. It seems probable
that the original text had only 3, and
that OTIO was read as OTIIC and
perhaps as OTIKC.
6. §eopo's dióious]+ &ytøv dyyá-
Xay (Clem. AEaed(d.yptov dy). s. 7.) 72
Lucif (all apparently in connexion
with Jiró Kópov); not Clem. Æy?.lat
Orig Cyr.al Hier.
22, 23 (+) oijs pièv éNeāte Öuakpuo-
JUDE 22, 23
pévous ordſete ék Tupés àpiráčovres,
oùs 68 €Xéâte év pó89] oš's pºèv
éAéyxete Öuakplyopévous, oùs Öé
oréere K.T.A. A 56 13 27 29 66**
alP lat. vg me aeth arm “Ephr’;
also (omitting ot's 6é é\eåre) C*:
as text with oùs 6é inserted after
ãuakptuouévous S ; also (omitting oils
6é éAéâte) C* syr.hl: oës Aév a dºere
ék Trupós &ptrášovres, oùs 6& ſóvakpuo-
Auévovs]éAée’re év pô89 approximately
syr.bod. Clem. Strom; Hºp.lat Hier:
oùs Aév é\ee?re budkptuópevot, oùs 6é
év pó8q, a differe ék Tupés dpiráčov-
tes Constantinopolitan (Gr.). There
are other variations. Text B.
The Smooth reading of A &c. has
every appearance of being a correc-
tion of the difficult double éAcăte
AWOTZES OAV SAEZZCZ" R.E.A.D./MGS
Io?
of S and B; and the intermediate
reading of S is intrinsically impro-
bable, and may easily be due to con-
flation. The triple division found. In
both these readings gives no satis-
factory sense; and two clauses only
are recognised by BC syr.bod-hl
Clem. Strom ; Hºyſ.lat Hier, as well
as by the artificial Constantinopoli-
tan text. The reading of B involves
Athe incongruity that the first ot's
must be taken as a relative, and the
first éAéâte as indicative. Some
primitive error evidently affects the
passage. Perhaps the first éAéâte,
which is not represented in
syr.bod. Clem Hier, is intrusive,
and was inserted mechanically from
the second clause.
IO8
AVO 7"ZS OAV SEZ/EC 7" A £A D/AWGS
ROM. I 7
R O M A NS
i 7 &v ‘P&um and v. 15 Toºs éu
‘Péum]< G3 (anon, see below); not
D2 in v. I 5 or d (D., being defective)
in v. 7, or Orig. loc.lat. Ruf(text
and comm) Amb Ambst in either
place, or Orig.jo; AVºtml.lat, Ruf
Aug in v. 7. The second rendering of
Toſs otiatu by g in v. 7 is satàstantibats,
resembling subsistentibus in Eph i I.
A scholium on v. 7 in 47 states that
“he [orit] mentions év ‘Púpºn neither
in the exposition nor in the text”:
the reference is probably to what is
called “the old copy” in another
Scholium in 47 on viii 24, perhaps a
late uncial copy with a marginal
commentary, like E of the Gospels.
i 32 (f) Towcôolv...avvevöokoúatvl
Trototivtes ... ovvevöokojutes B, and
(with of prefixed in both places) lat.
vg. Codd and apparently ‘some who
appealed for the reading to “the
ancient copy” according to Isid.pel,
also (Clem.rom.) Epiph (‘Ephr’)
Orig. loc.lat. Ruſ” Lucif pp'at; not
Cyp. codd.opt Ambst: the Latins
however (with D. Bas. 1/2) insert ow-
k évôngay before Štt. This reading
is perhaps due to assimilation with
oi...trpágoroutes: but text seems to
involve an anticlimax, and probably
contains some corruption. The
change from Totoja tv to Tpágorovoſiv
suggests that ovyevöokoúatv Tots [or
ovvevöokoúatu only (W.)] may have
arisen from ovyevöokoëvres.
iii. 22 els Trávtas]+ kal étrº Trávtas
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.);
incl. Orig./oc.lat. Ruf(text) Did. Zºriaz.
Text S*ABCP, 47 67** 137 me
aeth arm Clem Orig. AE’s ; Mºomz.1at.
Ruf3 Did. Ps. Cyr.al” Aug. For
text lat.vg.codd.opt Dam substitute
étrº Trávras; and this may be an early
reading which contributed to the
common reading by conflation.
iii. 26 "Imoroúj < G3 52 : + xpta toû
lat.vg. Codd me (syr.vg.) Orig. loc.lat.
Ruf(text) pplat : 'Ingoûv D.L., cumu
Clem, by an easy clerical error.
iv I2 (f) d\\& kal Toſs a rotxotiatvl
[Text implies that the persons in-
tended are distinct from oi ék Trept-
Topºffs, whereas the context (v. II)
shews that they are a class of oi ék
treputopiis. Apparently Kai Toſs is a
corruption of kal autoſs, KAITOIC for
KAIAYTOIC, or, as Mr VanSittart
suggests, for KAYToic. The diffi-
culty was noticed by Beza, who
suggested either the transposition
of Toſs and kai or the omission of
To?s. H.]
iv 19 katevångevl of Karevóngev
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.);
incl. Orig. loc.lat. Rufº. Text NABC
67** 93 137 lat.vg. Codd.opt Syr.vg
me aeth arm Orig. Gen.lat. Ruf
Meth.cod.opt(ap. Epiph) Cyr. hr
(v 5) Dam al.
v 6 (+) et ye] &rt Yáp, with ērt
below, Nº ACD.” 31 137 syr.pl
Marcion (ap. Epiph) Dam; without
a second ætt, Syrian (Gr. [Lat.]
P Arm.); els Tú yöp Western, D.PGs
lat.vg Iren.lat ppl": el yáp cul ſº
(cf. me) Isid.pel Aug: el ydp &rt
me: el 6é syr.vg. Text B. [Text
gives a more probable sense than
any of the other variants: but et
Trep (cf. 2 Co v 3 2. / ; Ro iii 30;
2 Th i 6) would better explain all
the variations, and be equally ap-
propriate. H.]
v. 14 Tous pºſſ duaprhaavtas]<ph
MSS known to Orig.loc.(Ruf) to
Ambst and perhaps to Aug (see be-
ROM. IX 5
low) 67* alº (? d”) “most Latin
MSS” known to Aug the older
Latin MSS known to Åmbst Orig.
}ol".” Orig.loc.lat. Ruf(often and ex-
pressly) Ambst(expressly, and re-
ferring to Tert Victorin and Cyp as
having the same: s. 7.) Sedul(ex-
pressly). Text SABCD,G3K.L,
“some [Greek] copies” known to
Orig. Ruf Greek and Latin MSS
known to Ambst and to Aug cup"
lat.vg syrr me aeth arm Iren.lat
[Orig.joſ s. g.: cf. Griesbach Opusc.
i 282 ff.] Archel.lat Cyr.hr Ath
Cyr.al” pp” Pelag Amb Aug
Hier.
viii 1 'Imaoû]+ pºi) kató adoka trept-
tratojaw Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. Goth. [? Arm.]); incl. me
Victorin. Text S*BCD, (G3 by the
space) 47 67** al me the aeth
arm.’ cod Orig./oc.lat. Ruf Adam
Ath Cyr.al Aug.
Also + d\\d. Kard. Tvegua Constan-
tinopolitan (Gr. Syr.[h]]). Text the
same documents as above, and also
AD.” I 37 ºn vg Syr.vg arm go
Bas Chr Victorin Pelag Ambst Hier
al.
Both additions are from v. 4.
viii. 2 (+) ore.] (marg) pe ACD,
2LP, cu” lat.vg syr.hl the
arm.codd go Clem Orig, ſoc.lat.
Ruf.txt Ath Didº Cyr.al” ppal
Tert. Res.cod: muffs me aeth Adam.
Text SBG3 m syr.vg Chr.codd Tert.
Aces.cod; Fud. The distribution of
documents, combined with internal
evidence, favours the Omission
of both pronouns, which is sup-
ported by some MSS of arm and
perhaps by Orig. loc. Ruf.com: ore,
a very unlikely reading, is probably
only an early repetition of -Ce.
ix 5. The important variation in
the punctuation of this verse belongs
to interpretation, and not to textual
criticism proper: but a few words on
the alternative punctuations adopted
NOTES ON SEZFCT READ/WGS
IO9
here may not be out of place. The
oldest Greek MSS NBA, as written
by the original scribes, have no
punctuation in the passage: C and
some good cursives have a full stop
after orópka. Versions are either
ambiguous or imply a comma after
orápka. This last construction is
taken for granted by Iren Tert Cyp
Novat, and in the Antiochene epistle
to Paul of Samosata. On the other
hand this treatment of all the words
from kal é du to alówas as “a single
clause’ (govokéAøs), when put for-
ward by Noetus, was condemned
by Hipp ; his ground of objection
being apparently the combination
of éirl Trávtwv with 6eós as favour-
able to Patripassianism: referring
the concluding words to Christ, he
nevertheless makes them a separate
sentence having three affirmations,—
oëtos é Öv étrº Távtov is 6eós, He is
become (yetyévmtav) 6eós ej)\o'ymtós
He is eis Toijs alóvas (AVoet. 3, 6).
In Rufinus's Latin rendering of
Orig.loc. the comma after orápka is
taken for granted: but there is not
a trace of Origenian language, and
this is one of the places in which
Rufinus would not fail to indulge
his habit of altering an interpretation
which he disapproved on doctrinal
grounds. With this questionable
exception, there is no evidence to
shew what construction was adopted
by Orig, or indeed by any Ante-
Nicene Alexandrian writer: but
it is difficult to impute Origen's
silence to accident in the many
passages in which quotation would
have been natural had he followed
the common interpretation. Euse-
bius is equally silent, probably for
the same reason: his repeated use
of 3 &tri Tävray 6eós as a name of
the Father points in the same direc-
tion, though it is not conclusive.
The Apostolic Constitutions and the
interpolator of the Ignatian epistles
30
I IO
(cf. Melito p. 413 Otto) still more
emphatically distinguish á čtri Távrov
6eós from Christ, but do not notice
this passage. With these two pro-
bable though not certain exceptions,
the construction with a comma after
orépka is found universally in Post-
Nicene times in East and West
alike. All these particulars how-
ever belong merely to the history
of ancient interpretations, and have
no textual authority.
The punctuation in the margin,
[which alone seems adequate to ac-
count for the whole of the language
employed, more especially when it
is considered in relation to the con-
text, (H.)] though it may be under-
stood with more or less difficulty
in other ways, is here taken as an ex-
pression of the interpretation which
implies that special force was in-
tended to be thrown on étri Tráv-
Tov by the interposition of div.
This emphatic sense of éirl Trávrov
(cf. i 16; ii 9 f.; iii. 29 f.; x 12;
xi 32, 36) is fully justified if St Paul's
purpose is to suggest that the tragic
apostacy of the Jews (vv. 2, 3) is
itself part of the dispensations of
“Him who is God over all”, over
Jew and Gentile alike, over past
present and future alike; so that
the ascription of blessing to Him
is a homage to His Divine purpose
and power of bringing good out of
evil in the course of the ages (xi
13–16; 25–36). [Yet the juxta-
position of 6 xptotôs karð ordpka
and 6 &v K. T. A. Seems to make a
change of subject improbable. W.]
ix 28 orvytépºvgov]+ év Čukatoo ſwim,
§rt X.6)ov orvyterpmuévov Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Goth.
Arm.); incl. Eus. Z). AE. I./2(in part)
Orig.loc. lat. Ruf. Text S*AB 23*
47* 67** syr. vg me aeth Eus. Æs.;
D.A. 1/2 Dam Aug. From Is x
22 f. LXX.
xi 6 xápts.]+el 6é éé špywy ow-
AVO 7'AºS OAV SAE Z/2C 7' A2A2AA)/AWGS’
ROM. IX 5
kért Xàpts, étrel Tô pyov oºkéta éotiv
Xápts. B, and (with éa riv added
after oùkéru and with a second pyov
for the second Xàpus) Syrian (Gr.
Syr.); incl. Sº: part is omitted in
some cursives, but probably by
homoeoſeleuton. Text S*ABCD,G3
47 lat. Vg me the (aeth) arm
Origſociat.Ruf (? Cyr.al) Dam
at
xii II kvplg] kaupið Western (Gr.
Lat.). Perhaps a clerical error only,
but probably supported by a sense
of the difficulty of the position of so
comprehensive a clause as T3 kvpig
ôov\etſovres in the midst of a series
of clauses of limited sense.
xii 13 Xpelats] pºvetals Western
(Gr. Lat.); incl. ‘some copies’
known to Theod, mops. Probably
a clerical error, due to the hasty
reading of an ill written MS (XP
being liable to become somewhat
like a ligature of M with N), but
yielding a passable sense (cf. He xiii
7). There is no probability in the
supposition that it originated in a
desire to find a sanction for the
practice of commemorations at the
tombs of martyrs.
xiii. 3 (+) Tø &ya.03 pyg] Toi) āya-
600 épyov lat.vg pp”: Tóv dyabây
épywy Syrian (Gr. Syr. Arm.). [The
harshness of the phrase gives pro-
bability to a very slight change sug-
gested by Patrick Young, who would
read Tºg āya.0oepyg (so apparently
aeth); cf. I Ti vi 18: the apparent
antithesis to Tig kaicó could hardly
fail to introduce rig Gya.043. H.]
xiii 8 6¢etNete] 6¢et\mte S*(óptX-)
B(-ette): āqet\ovres S* cu” Orig.
}er (not Orat).
xiv. 6 ºppove?]+, kal 6 paſſ ºppověv
Tiju juépav kvpig oij (bpove? Syrian
(Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm.). Suggested
by the similar clause at the end of
the verse.
xiv. 23 ſin.] The great doxology
(xvi 25–27) is inserted here as well
ROM. XIV 23
as at the close of the Epistle in
A.P., (? MSS known to Orig, see
below) 5 17 al arm.codd. (? Cyr.al),
probably Alexandrian; and in this
place alone in the Syrian text (Gr.
Syr. Goth.); (? incl. Cyr.al:) a va-
cant space in G.3 apparently attests
the scribe's acquaintance with the
Syrian text (see p. 29). Its omis-
sion here by Erasmus (and the ‘Re-
ceived Text”) is due to the influence
of the Latin Vulgate. The cause of
its insertion here cannot be known
with certainty. Possibly, as Bengel
has suggested, in an early lection-
system it was appended to the latter
verses of c. xiv. For this combina-
tion there would be a twofold reason:
the latter verses of c.xiv form an
unsatisfactory close to a lection; and
again it would not be strange if xvi
I—25 were passed over in the selec-
tion of passages for public reading,
while the grandeur of the conclud-
ing Doxology might cause it to be
specially reserved for reading in
combination with another passage,
since it was too short to read alone.
The Syrian revisers may well have
thought it superfluous to retain a
passage of this length in both places;
and have preferred to keep it here
rather than at the end of c.xvi, which
had been already provided with a
conclusion of a more usual type by
the Western transposition of the
Benediction from xvi 20. In closing
the Epistle without the Doxology
they would be supported by the pre-
cedent of Western MSS.
In connexion however with the
question as to the original insertion
of the Doxology after c. xiv. it is right
to notice a curious feature of the
table of Latin capitulations or head-
ings prefixed to the Epistle in many
Vulgate MSS. These headings cor-
respond in number, and also sub-
stantially in subject, to the Brezes
or paragraphs likewise found in
AWOZTAES ON SEZZCZ" RAEAD/WGS
III
many MSS of the Latin Vulgate.
The last heading but one begins at
xiv 15 and may easily cover the rest
of c. xiv, with possibly the opening
verses of c.xv as far as v. 13, but
not more; and then the last heading
passes at once to the Doxology (De
mysterio Domini &c.). It has been
naturally inferred that this table of
headings, which abounds in language
derived from the Old Latin version
and implies some Western readings,
was drawn up from a MS of the
Epistle which lacked co.xv, xvi, but
in which nevertheless the Doxology
was appended to c. xiv. This textual
combination however has no other
attestation; and the interpretation
must be doubtful while the origin
and purpose of the Brezes and cor-
responding Capitulations remain un-
known. The analogy of the com-
mon Greek Capitulations shews how
easily the personal or local and as
it were temporary portions of an
epistle might be excluded from a
Schedule of chapters or paragraphs.
In three epistles the first heading
begins expressly pietà. Tö Tpoolpatov,
to the exclusion of Ro i I—I 7;
I Co i I–9; Ga i I–II: and
no trace of anything after xv 21 is
perceptible in the last heading for
Romans, or after the end of c.xv in
the last heading for I Corinthians.
Thus it would not be surprising that
another schedule constructed under
similar limitations should include
RO xvi 25–27, and yet pass over
XV I4—xvi. 23. - !
The rest of the supposed evidence
for the omission of co. xv. xvi, with or
without the Doxology, is very slight
and intangible. The table of head-
ings in the Fulda MS comes from
two sources; the first 23 headings,
which extend to xiv. 20, being un-
known elsewhere, and the remaining
28, which begin at ix I, being identi-
cal with the last 28 of the common
II
2
table of headings. It is thus pos-
sible that the common table was
used to eke out the deficiencies of
the other table, as by making up
the number of headings to the LI of
other MSS; and that ce.xv, xvi were
absent from the MS (of the Epistle)
on which the specially Fuldensian
headings were founded, since the
contents of xiv. I4–23 might in
some sense be covered by the 23rd
heading. It is however at least
equally probable that, having begun
to copy a local table of headings,
the scribe changed his mind in the
midst; and, without cancelling what
he had written, preferred thence-
forward to substitute the common
headings, going back to the chief
break in the middle of the Epistle,
and starting afresh from that point.
The Fulda MS has no trace of any
other than the common headings to
the rest of St Paul's own epistles;
and the comparatively rare headings
which it prefixes to Hebrews break
off likewise in the midst (c.x), the
contents of the remainder of the
Epistle being left unnoticed. -
Tert once (Adv. Marc. v. 13) re-
fers to xiv. Io as in the close (c/alt-
sula) of the Epistle: but it would
be unsafe to infer that his copy
ended with c. xiv, since he is speak-
ing in express antithesis to passages
standing early in the Epistle (i 16ff.;
ii 2), and he uses the word clausula.
elsewhere (De fug. in pers. 6) in
a still more comprehensive sense.
Again the absence of quotations
from cc.xv, xvi in Iren Tert and
(with one doubtful exception) Cyp is
Żrima facie evidence that they were
wanting in Some Western texts; but,
as these chapters contain no passages
which any of these writers had spe-
cially strong reasons for quoting, and
many of their verses are quoted no-
where in patristic literature except
in continuous commentaries, this is
AWOTAES OW SAE ZAZCT A&AEA D/AWGS
ROM. XIV 23
not a case in which much weight can
be attached to silence. -
Lastly, it is usually assumed that
we have the direct testimony of
Orig to the absence of ce.xv, xvi
from Marcion's text. But internal
evidence is strongly at variance with
thisinterpretation of Rufinus's words,
though it is their most obvious mean-
ing according to the form which they
assume in the printed editions. The
supposed testimony, given not ad loc.
but on xvi 25, follows immediately
on a statement that Marcion (to
whom alone Orig refers in either
place) “completely removed this
passage” (caput hoc), xvi 25–27,
“from the Epistle”. Now it is
hardly credible that he would de-
scribe the omission of the part and
of the whole by the same person in
two separate and successive allega-
tions. The natural logic of the pas-
sage requires rather that the second
sentence should be taken as an ex-
planation of the strong phrase cited
above; its purport being that Mar-
cion retained the Doxology neither
at the end of the Epistle nor after
c.xiv, where, as Orig goes on to
mention, it was found in some MSS.
As it stands, the text of Ruf will
hardly bear this sense; for, though
nozz solume hoc may as easily mean
“he not only [did] this [act]’ as “he
not only [removed] this [passage]', .
the act referred to is complete re-
moval from the Epistle, not simply
removal from the end of the Epistle.
But the apparent contradiction be-
tween the required and the expressed
sense vanishes by the slight change
of hoc to hic, more especially if with
what seems to be the best MS we
read eſſ in ea loco for et aſ eo loco.
It must also be remembered that we
do not possess Origen's own lan-
guage in full, but merely a loose
Latin abridgement. The interpre-
tation here given is at least illus-
ROM. xvi 25–27 AWOZ’AºS OAV SAEZA, CZ' AAA/D/AWGS
trated by a passage of Hier, cited
on xvi 25, in which the omission of
xvi. 25–27 alone is noticed, Mar-
cionite doctrine being referred to
shortly after, and in which Hier is
evidently following a longer exposi-
tion of Origen. Moreover, if Mar-
cion’s list really lacked the whole of
these two chapters, the silence of
Epiph would be hard to explain:
imperfect doubtless as is his list of
Marcion’s readings, he could hardly
have passed over an omission of 6o
verses. In his own person he quotes
c. xv two or three times.
xv. 31 6takovia] 6apopopta Western
(Gr. Lat.); incl. B.
xv. 32 (+) 6.e00] kvptov "Imoroú B,
perhaps only a clerical corruption
(K for X) of Xploroſ, *Imaoû, Western
(Gr. Lat.): "Imoroú Xpta toû Sº Ambst.
Text N°ACD, L.P., cu%mn lat.vg
syrr me arm Orig.doc.lat. Ruf ppser
Pelag. This singular variety of
reading suggests that St Paul wrote
only 6t& 6eXīpatos, in an absolute
sense: cf. I Co xvi 12 ; Ro ii 18;
(Sir xliii 1.6 [B];) also Ro xii 19.
Dr Lightfoot, to whom the sug-
gestion is due, refers likewise to
Ign. Atom. I; Aph.20; Smyrna. I codd.
(On a fresh revision of the AEmglish
AV. Z. Iof f.) - - -
xvi. 5 'Aqitas] 'AXatas Syrian (Gr.
[?? Lat.] Syr.). From I Co xvi
I 5. - -
xvi. 20 j xápts...ipºdºvl - Western
(Gr. Lat.) here, being transposed to
follow v. 23 and thus to form a close
to the Epistle, vv. 25—27 being
omitted. In 1 Co xiv. the Western
text similarly transposes v.v. 34 f. and
36–40. - - - -
xvi. 23 ſin.] + (v. 24) # , x&pts
Too kvptov juáv 'Imgoú Xptoroij però.
Trávtwu juáv' dwijv. Western and
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Goth.): <’Im-
oroú Xploroſ, G3: <Xptoroú 71. The
double Benediction is found under
II 3
three conditions. (1) In v. 20 and
at the end of the Epistle, but pre-
ceded by the Doxology; so P., 178o
Syr.vg arm Ambst. (2) In v. 20 and
at the end of the Epistle, the Dox-
ology being here omitted ; Syrian
(Gr. Syr. [? Goth.]). (3) In v. 20
and after v. 23, but followed by the
Doxology; so two or three obscure
cursives, and the inferior MSS of the
Latin Vulgate. This last combina-
tion, which rests on hardly any au-
thority, and is due to late conflation,
was adopted by Erasmus from the
Latin, and is preserved in the ‘Re-
ceived Text”. The single Benedic-
tion in xvi 20 (text) is attested by
NABC 5 137 lat.vg. codd.opt me
aeth Orig. loc.lat. Ruf; the single
Benediction in xvi 23 (Western) by
D.G3 (?go) Sedul.
xvi 25-27] → G3 Marcion(ap. Orig.
loc.lat. Ruf: see on xiv. 23). Probably
Marcion is also intended in a passage
of Hier on Eph iii. 5, in which the
Montanists are said to appeal to
“that which is found [in the epistle]
to the Romans in most MSS, reading
A. azºtem qui £otest” &c.: Hier goes
on immediately to what is evidently
a condensation of an argument a-
gainst Marcionite doctrine, contain-
ing likewise allusions to the Dox-
ology; and the exceptions to his
generalstatement about “mostMSS”
are thus not unlikely to have been
Marcionite MSS. The whole pas-
Sage abounds in matter evidently
derived from Orig, and the quota-
tion itself agrees exactly in reading
and extent with the form which it
repeatedly assumes in Origen’s writ-
ings (see on v. 26), and nowhere
else. Thus this passage and the
fuller account in the Comm. on Ro-
mans (quoted on xiv. 23) explain
each other. . .
Indirectly D, and Sedul likewise
attest complete omission of the Dox-
ology; for they join in attesting the
II.4.
Western transposition of the Bene-
diction, the motive of which must
have been to place the Benediction
at the end of the Epistle. The
accession of the Doxology imme-
diately following the Benediction
seems therefore to be a later addi-
tion to their texts. *
These Western authorities, direct
and indirect, for the absolute omis-
sion of the Doxology receive at least
a formal support from the Syrian
"text (Gr. Syr. Goth.), which omits
it in this place but inserts it between
cc.xiv and xv. For further particu-
lars see note on xiv. 23.
Text NBC(Da) “most’MSS known
to Hier(i.e. Orig) 8o I37 al” lat.vg
MOTES ON SELECT READINGS ROM. xvi 25–27
syr.vg me aeth Or.loc.lat. Puf Dam
Ambst Pelag (Sedul); besides the
documents (cited on xiv. 23) which
have the Doxology in both places.
xvi. 26 ºrpopmruków] + kal Tºs
ériqavetas Toij kvptov judov 'Imaoû
Xploroſ Orig. Princ. 163; Cels. (389,)
488; (Ps. 724;) }o. Ioff, 226, 257;
Atom.lat. Ruf.672 (perhaps not loc);
also Hier after Orig in a passage
cited in the last note; not Clem
Cyr.al. This strangely constant mis-
quotation has probably arisen from
an instinctive interpretation of Te as
‘both’, combined with a recollection
of 2 Ti i Io: in all cases the quota-
tion stops at this point, omitting
kat' étuta yºu... duffv.
I CO RIN THIANS
v 6 Où kaxov Ka}\}v‘some MSS,
especially Latin,” known to Aug;
also Lucif Ambst; not Hier Sedul.
Probably an accidental loss of OY
due to the preceding kvptov or
Xptatoti, but accepted as giving an
ironical sense.
ibid. 'wuo?] 50\07 Western, D.”
Bas.”codd (? Hesych. Zex), corrum-
2it lat.vg pp”; not G3 m. The
same Western correction occurs in
Gal v 9.
vi 20 60%arare 6)] + et portate
(follite) g ºn vg Tert Cyp Lucif
pplatmu; not D.G.Agr Iren.lat. This
curious Western reading doubtless
represents dipate (with et prefixed in
translation), an easy corruption of
&pd ye (-Te for -Te), which is ac-
tually found, prefixed to 60&gate
(without 6%), in Meth: Chr has
ăpate after 6%. Apparently 603do are
ôň gave rise to various changes,
āpá ye being one, oùv another, and
omission of 6% (N*d meſ?? Orig. loc]
Did. 1/3 pp”) a third.
ibid. odºuart juáv]+ kal év tá,
Tveijuatt jutºv, drivá ča-Tuu Toij 0eoû
Syrian (Gr. Syr. Arm.). Another
attempt to soften away St Paul's
abruptness, and complete his sense.
vii 33 f. Several variations af-
fect the punctuation of these two
VerSeS : — -
v.33 kal] → Western and Syrian
(Gr. Lat.; cf. Syr.); incl. Tert; also,
I COR. IX 5
with 66 after peg., syr.vg. Text SAB
D." (gr)P2 6 17 31 46 67 73 137 alº
lat.vg syr.hl me basm aeth arm
Meth Eus Cyr.al pp." Pelag Hier.
joz, (expressly) Aug. The clearly at-
tested genuineness of this Kat leaves
it open whether pepiáptotal is to be
taken with what precedes or with
what follows: if it were spurious,
the latter construction alone would
be possible.
v.34 ka? I*]< Western of limited
range (Gr.[D.”] Lat. Syr. Eg.
Arm.); incl. Tert; not G3 d vg Meth
(Cyp. 2/2, who however each time
substitutes Sic for kai pepiáptoral):
in Syr.vg me basm arm the omission
may be only a natural accident of
translation. The adoption of this
comparatively unimportant reading
by Erasmus, and hence in the ‘Re-
ceived Text”, must be due either to
a blunder (in his note he cites the
Greek both with and without this
kal) or to the influence of Amb and
Latin MSS known to Hier, referred
to in his long note. :
7 yuv) 7 &yapºos kai j trap6&vos]
7 yuvº Kai ) trap66wos ºj čºyapos
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Arm.); incl. Meth Tert Cyp:
yvyi) ā āyapos kai º Tap66wos )
āyapos (? Alexandrian) SA 17 al
(aeth) Bas.codd Euth. cod Aug”:
3) yuy?) kai º Tapffévos lat.codd. Text
BP2 6 31 4671 73 137 al” lat.vg me
basm Eus. Z). Æ. Amb” Pelag Hier.
joz, (expressly, apparently on Greek
authority): also virtually Epiph.
Aſaer. 98 cod, 523, 710 (<ā Yuvº);
and indirectly Ps. Ath. Virg. 2 (< kal
ºff T.) Dam. AEar (Yapıñaaga for trap-
6évos). -
The variations appear to have
arisen from the difficulty of distin-
guishing # y. # &yapos from 7 trap-
6évos; and partly also from a refer-
ence of peptéptoral to the two follow-
ing substantives, causing it to be
interpreted in the ill attested and
MozAs ow SEZECT READINGS
II 5
improbable sense “differ from each
other’, (5teo Tºkagu áX\{\aſy Chr),
instead of ‘is distracted’. A stop
after ºff trap66wos is necessary for the
Syrian reading: with the reading of
NA there may be either two stops,
after yvyatkt and trap66wos, or after
Rep.épta Tat only. The sense given
by these several readings is too
feeble to afford any ground for dis-
trusting the best group of docu-
ments. The difficulty would be
lessened if the second m were absent:
and H might easily slip in before TT.
But, since the kat before j yvy'ſ
certainly belongs to the whole clause
down to kvptov, &yapos may well
be the more comprehensive term
answering to 6 áyapºos in v. 32, and
% trap66wos the narrower term spe-
cially suggested by the question of
the Corinthians (vv. 25, 36 ff.). The
true Sense of pepiáptorrat, with the
consequent punctuation, was vigo-
rously maintained by Hammond
Soon after the reading of A became
known.
viii. 6 6t’ attoºl-- kai éu Trvedpa
äytov, Šv (; 7& Trávra kal jue's év
aúró cu” (Greg.Naz) Cyr.al. Adori
and later pp referring to Greg.naz;
also in some MSS of Bas. Søjr. p. 4,
but apparently wrongly, the con-
text which prima facie confirms the
addition being probably founded
on Ro xi 36 (cf. Euzz. p. 3 II; also
p. 315; Æð. p. 83); Greg.naz omits
all the three clauses beginning with
Kat ºpets. The addition is absent
from the quotations of Iren.lat Orig
Eus Cyr.hr Ath Epiph Apol Did
Cyr. al(except once) al pp'at: Chr
and others expressly mention the
absence of a clause on the Holy
Spirit. -
ix 5 &öeXq}}v yvyatkal Yuvaſkas
Western,G3(?Clem. Paed;not Strom*)
Tert Hil Helvid Hil (auct. Sing.cſ)
Sedul; not Aug: áðexpós Yvvaſka:
II6
arm Hier: Yuvačka ščeXpºv lat.vg.
codd: Yvyatka Ambst.
xi Io &#ovoſtav KáAvupra (Ptolem
ap. Iren), zelamen har!” al (Pelag)
Hier Aug Bed: (zelament et potes-
fatem Orig. Caveſ.lat. Hier :) not
D.G3 lat. Vg Valentinianiſap. Clem)
Tert Ambst. Doubtless only a con-
jectural gloss. Notwithstanding the
obscurity of the phrases éovoſtav
#xetv ćirl Täs Kepaxºs and Ötö roës
&yºyéAovs the text does not appear
to be corrupt. Certainly mone of
the known emendations of it can
possibly be right; and the intrin-
sic and obvious difficulty is itself
enough to set aside the suggestion
that the whole verse is an interpo-
lation.
xi 24 Tooro] Ad6ere påyere, Todto
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Goth.): aeth
prefixes Aé8ere only. From the
in the Gospels.
Žbid. To UTép jučv]+ k\dºptevov
Western and Syrian (Gr. Lat.
[Ambst] Syr. [Arm.] Goth.), from
ëk\ao'ev above, &c. : 6pvirtépévov D2,
specially used of the breaking of
bread (as 6taffpiſtra, Lev ii. 6; Is
lviii 7): ‘given 'me the aeth arm.ed
Euth.cod: tradeſur (perhaps a very
early corruption of -itzer, the reading
of at least har!) lat.vg. Text S*ABC”
17 67* arm.codd (“Ath.’ Serm.
majjid. 29) Cyr.al. Mest Cyp. codd.
opt. 7/8 (quod pro vobis est) Fulg:
the same was doubtless the reading
of Syr.vt, which in Lc xxii 19 pre-
sents the interpolation from I Co in
this form.
xi 29 Trivov)+dvašta’s Western and
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg. Arm.
Goth.); perhaps incl. Orig.}o; Proz,
Cyr. Ao ; Ador; but all four quota-
tions are free, and partly taken from
v. 27. Text N*ABC* 17 the aeth.
codd. From v. 27. - .
xii 2 (+) &rt &re]<öre Western
G3.gr K2"4 cup d nev" syr.vg me,
AVO 7'ES OAV SEZAZCT A2AA D/AWGS
I COR. IX 5
Ambst; not D2.gr g vg Pelag
‘Vig’: < 8tt K,” 23 37 al” (aeth)
pp Aug; also cum autem, Orig. A/u/z.
lat. Ruf. Both corrections are un-
Satisfactory in themselves, as well as
ill attested. There is nothing in
this short and detached sentence to
account for a participle where a
finite verb would be naturally ex-
pected. Probably 6tt öre is a primi-
tive error for Ört Toré (TI for TITT):
cf. Eph ii II ; and also ii 2 f., 13;
v 8; Roxi 3o; Tit iii 3.
xiii. 3 Kavyºffa apat] kav6%roplat
(-owuat) Western and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. [AEth.] Arm. Goth.); incl.
C Greek and Latin MSS known to
Hier Meth Cyr.al+ Tert Cyp auct.
Åeb Aphr Ephr. Text NAB Greek
MSS known to Hier 17 me the
(aeth. Codd) go.mg (? Clem.rom)
(Clem,al) Orig. loc. Hier. Ga/.499,
517 f.; /s.688 (in the two latter
places noticing the difference of
reading; in all three probably fol-
lowing Orig) “Ephr’. -
This is distinctly the reading of
memph in both editions, though
mistranslated by Wilkins: Mr A.
W. Tyler (in an elaborate article in
Jºiól. Sacr. 1873, p. 502) points out
that Tuke's Grammarp. Io'ſ gives this
reading for both memph and theb.
The Roman text of aeth, perhaps
conflate, contains zef Żraemio aff:-
ciar. The coincidence with Clem.
rom. 55 (Tox\ol 3aat)\ets kal jyotº-
pºevot ... ºr a péð w K av č a v Tot s els
6ávarov, ºva fitſa wyrat ātā roß &avrčv
aluatos rows troXtras. ... & Two Tàueffa.
troX\otºs év huſv trap a 6e 6a, kó T as
é a v To & s els öeopæ à Tws étépovs
AvTºgovtat. troAAol éa v Totºs Tra-
pe 6 (0 K av [so A and apparently syr:
ěšéówkav C] els öovXetav, kal Xagóv-
tes Tās ripas airóv Štěpovs é p 6 ut-
of a v) is not likely to be accidental;
and, if it is not, it implies the ab-
sence of Kav0.: besides the heathen
1 COR, XV 47
example two cases of trap a 60 ov at
éa vºrów are here noticed, one of ex-
changing places with prisoners, the
other of selling oneself as a slave to
obtain the means of feeding the
poor (épépua av). Clem.al similarly
twice omits ºva. K. (Strom. 867 o're
diró Tàs airfis alrias Tú yuayatt-
kó oëTe Kai Tô alôTô Tpofféuevot,
où6’ &v Tô a 3p a Štrav ć tra à tê 30 t v,
dºy & T my yūp ow k #x0 vot katū, Tov
dirógtoNow K.T.A.: 614 &&. v Tó a 6p, d.
pov čtra 66, pnotv, & y & T mºv 8 & 9 m
éxa, K.T.A.), evidently following a
text in which trapač6 was absolute,
but substituting éirtóð which in this
sense is a commoner word; and a
few lines below the second passage
he says Šatt “yāp kal & Aaos & Tots
xet\equ äyatróv, Šart kal &\\os Tra-
p a 6töot s Tô o (op a £v a ka v X #0 m-
Tat, for so the parallelism to Tots
Xel'Nealy makes it necessary to read,
though the only extant MS has
Kav6%a'état. Similarly the text from
which Cramer (p. 252) has printed a
scholium of Origen has ſcav6%a'apat,
but evidently wrongly, for it pro-
ceeds dis 6vvaroj čvros popula at Tuvé.
Tö, üTápxovta of Ötö. Töv GyáTºv
&\\d 6tá Tijz kevoãošíav, kal dºs 6vva-
Too Šutos kal paprupna at Tuva èvelcev
Kavyńgews kal 66&ms is 603&ſoural év
Ta’s éKKAmorials oi pāptupes. -
Text gives an excellent sense, for
as v. 2 refers to a faith towards God
which is unaccompanied by love,
So v. 3 refers to acts which seem by
their very mature to be acts of love
to men, but are really done only in
Ostentation. First the dissolving
of the goods in almsgiving is men-
tioned, then, as a climax, the yield-
ing up of the very body; both alike
being done for the sake of glorying,
and unaccompanied by love. Three
causes probably led to the early
corruption of text. First, the fami-
liarity with Christian martyrdoms,
which led even writers who retained
AVO 7TES OAV SEZAZCT A2AA D/AWGS
kūptos.
I 17
the true text (Clem.al Orig Hier,
though not Clem.rom) to interpret
in this manner the “ yielding up
of the body, would soon suggest
martyrdom by fire. Secondly, the
words might easily be affected by
their similarity to what is said in
Dan iii. 28 (95 LXX) of Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, that trapé-
60kav Tó, a dºpata aúròu els ēutvpt-
opºv. Thirdly, the unfamiliar abso-
lute use of Trapačíðapat (cf. Jo xix. 30)
might cause difficulty, more espe-
cially as ºva might seem to intro-
duce a description of some special
mode of surrender. For the phrase
itself cf. Plut. Demet. 49 f. (p. 913 f.)
ToMuñgavros 6é Tuvos eitreºu Tu, dis
Xexeºkg Xph Tô a dºg a trap a 500v at
Amujitptov, &pamare pºv Tó Étgos
a tragópºevos diveXéïv éavTöv K.T.A.,
and again et kal Tpórepov ć6óket
Tºju trap & 60 a ty to 0 or &g a Tos
aia Xpāv retrol?o 6at K.T.A.
xv. 5 666eka] §vöeka Western
(Gr. Lat. Syr.[hl. mg] Goth.); incl.
Eus. Mar. 2/4 Archel.lat. Evident-
ly a correction made to exclude
Judas Iscariot.
xv. 47 6 5.e5 repos div6poros] + 6
köptos Pre-Syrian and Syrian (Gr.
[? Lat.] Syr. Arm. Goth.); ...incl.
AD.P Marcion(ap. Tert Adamant)
[Orig. Ps. 559, but in a context that
suggests interpolation in the catenae)
[Hipp.cod"] Bas. Søir. 40 ed. Garn.
Cyr. al.jo.994; Glaſ/º. II; Fid. 92;
Scho!.gr.syr. 507 Pusey (=78o Aub.)
Maximin(ap. Aug). The text of
Cyr.al is a little uncertain, the un-
certainty being increased by his
constant reference of 6 6. d. to
Christ; but apparently he knew and
used both readings. . The testimony
of the Gothic (Arian) bishop Maxi-
minus is probably in strictness Greek
or Gothic rather than Latin; there
is no other Latin authority for Ö
Text NBCD, “G3 17 67**
lat.vg me aeth arm.codd, mg Orig.
II 8
Jºo.302 ; Gen.lat. Ruf?; Zc.lat. Ruf;
Atom.lat. Ruf Hipp, Genes.codd.2/3
Petral. Anime ‘Ath’. Serm. maj. ſia.
25 Photin(ap. Epiph) . Bas. Spir, ed.
Erasm, Greg.naz. Af. 87, 168(citing
also Apoll) Greg.mys. Orat. I Co.xy
(p. 1312 Mi) Cyr.al. (ſoc;)Zab.397
Pusey; Unz. Chr. 725,771; Aſom.pasch.
228; 4?.adw. Orient. 194(and perhaps
elsewhere) al Tertº Cypºppiat. -
xv. 51 travtes ov koupmºmorópºeffa.
Trávtes 6é &\\aymatópe6a) + pºu after
Távres Pre-Syrian (? Western) and
Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.); incl.
NAC*D.9%)G3 Greg.nys Cyr.al Tert.
Text BC*D,” Greek MSS known
to Pelag and to Hier 23* all (syr.
vg) aeth arm Orig. This insertion,
evidently intended to strengthen the
antithesis, is best noticed separately,
though in its origin it may have
been connected with the important
complex variation which follows.
The evidence as to the position of ot
claims attention first. * -
Transposition of oij to the second
clause (before Távres) is attested by
a great mass of ancient authority,
8(? A) CD,” G3 17, with Greek MSS
mentioned by at least six ancient
writers, lat.vg aeth arm, Orig. Æs.
552; Mt.lat. 872; (?/s.lat. Ruf, Io;)
Adamant.cod Acac Did(both ap.
Hier) Cyr.loc.com.m.316 Pusey(dis-
tinctly); %.645, all Latin writers
but (apparently) Tert (none however
before Cent. IV), and finally Aphr.
Retention of oij as in text (after for,
loosely, in some quotations before]
the first travres) is attested by B and
all the inferior Greek MSS, Greek
MSS mentioned by the same ancient
writers as above, syrr me go,
Orig. Cels.589; Thess.lat. Hier.692
distinctly (and apparently elsewhere)
Adamant.cod Theod.herac Apoll
(both ap Hier) Greg. nys. Home. Io:3
[Cyr.al. Æos. 3o: ol travtes 66 makes
the reading doubtful] pp“, and ap-
parently Tert. Æes. 42 by the sense
AWOTES OAV SAE ZAZCZ" RAEA D/AWGS
I COR. XV 47
of the context, despite the MSS, as
Sabatier has pointed out. . .
A” has OITIANTec...OITIANTecăe
[cf. Cyr.al above], the second ol
being altered (? by the first hand)
into OY : an early hand has also
Superadded OY after of Trávres pév,
leaving the text unchanged. G3 has
likewise (without a Latin rendering)
OYN in the same place. These petty
variations are perhaps only relics of
mixture, OY being easily confounded
with OY and ol. For Távres 34 17
(pp”) have &XX& Trávres.
Further, the documents which
transpose oč fall into two groups.
'Avaarma 6pºeffa is read for Rotunóm-
oëpeta by D* lat.vg and Latin MSS
mentioned by several ancient writers
(the language of Hier implies that
he knew of no such Greek MSS)
arm.codd.mg. (? Tert) Hil.3/3 pplat
Aphr.: Kolpºnºma dueóa by N(PA)C
G3 17, Greek MSS mentioned by
Aug, Latin MSS mentioned by the
Same ancient writers, aeth arm, the
Greek patristic evidence, and Hier.
"Avagºrno Šueffa comes from I Th iv
I6, which has in like manner sug-
gested the Western &vaa throwtat for
éyépôňa ovrat in v. 52.
It is possible to extract a meaning
from either reading, as may be seen
from the comments of the Fathers,
several of which are quoted at length
by Hier in his A.A. 1 19: but the
reading of text is alone strictly con-
Sonant to St Paul’s language in the
context and in 1 Thess, and it is
supported by B me Orig (though
perhaps not in all his quotations),
as well as by less considerable au-
thorities. The position of ot; after
Távres has probably a corrective
force, ‘We all — I say not, shall
sleep, but we shall be changed’.
The other pair of readings is doubt
2 COR. III I7
less Western in origin, like some
other readings in St Paul which at-
tained a wide currency in Cent. IV
and yet were not adopted in the
Syrian text (see Introd. § 324 f.).
In all probability the transposition
AWOTES ON SEZEC 7' READ/WGS
II9
was in the first instance accompa-
nied or preceded by the change to
divagtmaſópºeffa, the other form
being due to a later (possibly Alex-
andrian) combination with the ori-
ginal reading.
2 CO RIN THIANS
iii. 3 (+) ºr \ašiv kapātats a apki-
vats] kapātas for kapātavs (probably
Western and) Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.
Eg. Æth. Arm. Goth.); incl. F.,
(doubtless by assimilation to the
annexed lat.vg) [Iren.lat.txt Orig.
Ps.(from a single catena); Atom.lat.
Ruf" [Adamant.txt] Did. Ps.ip.272
Cord. Cyr.loc. (s.g.); /3. 504 (3.7.).
Text SABCD,GSLP, cu” syr.hl
Iren.com (? Clem. Aaed. 307) Eus.
AMart Adamant.com Did.loc (Ma-
car. Homº. 91), Cyr, al. Fid.65(Pusey)
Euth.cod: Iren.]at and Adamant
have Kapòiat ordpkivat (corda carma-
lia) in the immediate context. The
testimonies of Orig Didº Cyr.all for
Kapòlas must also be held doubtful:
the change was exceptionally slight
and easy for scribes and editors.
Intrinsically the correction is weak
and improbable, though superfi-
cially easy. Text is possibly right:
but the apposition is harsh and
strange, and it is not unlikely that
the second TNašºv was a primitive
clerical error suggested by the line
above, and immediately discovered
and cancelled by dots which escaped
notice at the next transcription.
iii 17 (+) od ść to Tveijua Kuplov,
éXev6epta] [These words contain no
obvious difficulty: yet it may be
suspected that Kvptov is a primitive
error for köptov (Y ſor N). First,
the former clause of the verse does
not in sense lead naturally up to
this clause, whether the emphasis
be laid on Tveipºa or on Kuptov (or
kuptov). Secondly, in dird kyptov
rvetgaros at the end of v. 18 neither
principal word can naturally be
taken as a substantive dependent on
the other, nor both as substantives
in apposition. The simplest con-
struction is to take kuptov as an ad-
jective (‘a Spirit exercising lord-
ship’, or, by a paraphrase, ‘a Spirit
which is Lord’); and apparently
the Scriptural source of the remark-
able adjectival phrase to köptov in
the (so called) Constantinopolitan
Creed (ro Tveja to #ylov to köpto",
Tô worotów) can be only V. 18 Con-
strued in this manner, the third in
the triad of epithets being likewise
virtually found in this chapter (Y. 6)
as well as elsewhere. This adjec-
tival use of kvptov in the genitive
would however be so liable to be
I2O
misunderstood, or even overlooked
altogether, that St Paul could
hardly use it without some further
indication of his meaning. If he
wrote of 6é Tó Tveijua Kūptov, ČXev-
6epta, not only do the two clauses
of v. 17 fall into natural sequence,
but a clue is given which conducts
at once to the true sense of &md
kvptov Tveiſuatos. H.] .
vii 8 (+) 8Xéraj-i-yöp Pre-Syrian
and Syrian (Gr. [Lat..] Syr. Eg.
Arm. Goth.); incl. SCD,”G3:
z/idents lat.wg Ambst.cod: z/idens
entime lat.vg. codd. Text BD,” (aeth)
Ambst, cod. There can be no
doubt that ydp was inserted to ease
the construction: but the harshness
of 8Xéraj Suggests that lat.vg
alone has preserved the true reading,
8Xétrov, CŞ being read as Co. Lach-
mann makes the same suggestion.
xii 7 (f) jud)- Western and Sy-
rian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm. Goth.);
incl. Iren.lat Orig.AWump.lat. Ruf;
Lc.lat. Hier. Text NABG3 17 (67,
omitting ºva) (aeth) Euth. cod.
ºva ph Utrepaipajpat 2°]< Pre-Sy-
rian (? Western) (Gr. Lat. AEth.);
incl. Nº AD,G3 17 Iren.lat. Text,
which is also Syrian, 8°BK.L.P.,
cup syrr me arm go pp.” Ambst;
AWOZ’’AºS OAV SAE ZAZCZ" RAE A D/AWGS
2 COR. III 17
also, but beginning at éð697, and
therefore perhaps only by a free
transposition, Orig. Oraž;}er Macar
Chr. 1/6 Tert Cyp”. -
... The documentary and transcrip-
tional evidence place the genuine-
ness of Övö above doubt: its omis-
sion is a characteristic Western
attempt to deal with a difficulty by
excision; rounded off by the Latins,
who place ºva pºſſ next to kai; and
completed by the omission of the
second tva pº tºrepaipapal. A broken
construction is not in this context
improbable: but the logical force of
Ötö is unfavourable to the supposi-
tion that kal Tă jnr. T. &trok. is the
beginning of an unfinished sentence.
If then there is no corruption, these
words must either be connected with
v. 6, as in text, or with v. 5 (el gº èv
T. Goffevetats) after a parenthesis, as
by Lachmann. Neither construc-
tion however justifies itself on close
examination; and in all probability
there is a corruption somewhere.
In itself the repetition of iva pº)
ūtrepaipapaw presents no great diffi-
culty, as was seen by the Syrian
revisers; but it may have arisen out
of a disarrangement of text.
GALATIANS
ii 5 ots ow8é]< Western, D* ‘very
many Greek and Latin MSS’ known
to Victorin Latin MSS known to
Hier Iren.lat(apparently confirmed
by context) Tert Victorin Ambst
(all three expressly) Pelag.com; not
G3 “certain’ [? MSS] known to Vic-
torin ‘the Greeks’ according to
Ambst “[the] Greek MSS” known
to Hier lat.vg Marcion(ap. Tert)
Amb Aug Hier(expressly) Pelag.txt.
The omission may have been caused
GAL. IV 25
partly by the preceding broken con-
struction, partly by Öé in v. 4, which
might seem to require a sense in
Some degree adverse to that of v. 3
(‘Titus was not compelled to be
circumcised, but I did think it right
to shew a temporary personal defer-
emce’): it thus apparently presup-
poses, the probably erroneous inter-
pretation of oiâè...ºvaykāq-0m as a
statement that Titus was not cir-
cumcised at all. - -
ii 12 #A00w) āA6ev SBD,”G3 73
al" (Orig. Cels distinctly, ŚA96vros
'Iakó8ov). Text ACD2"H3K.L.P.,
cuPł z vg syrr me arm go (? Iren.
lat. 200) Euth.cod ppser Victorin
Ambst Pelag. It is not easy to
decide whether Affew is an unusually
well attested Western reading (see
Introd. § 303), none of the extant
Latin evidence for Affov being early,
or a primitive error (e for O). It
cannot in any case be genuine, and
is probably due to Öre 68 ºffew
(Kmpās) in v. II.
ii. 20 roß viot, Toj 6.e00] Toij 6eoû
kal Xpta toû Western, BD,” G3 Vic-
torin.com : filii Dei et Christi (con-
flate) Victorin.txt Hier.txt.codd (but
against context). Txt SACD.hka
L.P., cuomº rvg syrr me the aeth
arm go. Clem Adamant Cyr.al.6/6
Euth.cod, ppser Ambst Hier Aug
‘Vig’ pp'at.
iii I &akavev]+ tº d'Amfleig pº)
Tretëe00at probably Syrian (Gr.Lat.
Syr. AEth. Arm.); incl. C. “some
[Greek] MSS’ known to Hier Orig.
AWum.lat. Ruf. From v 7.
iv 7 Ště, 0eoû] 6t& Xptoroſ, lat.
cod” the Hier: Ötö, 'Imaoſ, Xptotoč
cu”: 0eoû 6t& [*Imaoû] Xploroú (per-
haps conflate) Syrian (Gr. Syr. AEth.
Goth.); incl. D2. Text S*ABC”
17 vg.lat me Clem Cyr.al.}o;
Aeb. 155(Cram) Bas Did” (all but
Clem expressly) pplut: also 61&
6eów G3 ; ‘of God’ aeth arm.
AWOZ’AS OAV SAE ZZCZ" A&AEA/D/AWGS
I 2 I
iv 25 Tô 6é "Ayap (marg.) Té
Y&p SCG.3 rs vg. the aeth go Orig.
Cant.lat. Ruf Epiph Cyr.al. Glaph.
75; Zech. 782 cod Dam ppla": also
Tô 6è (by loose rendering) lat.vg.
codd the (aeth) Ambst.txt: omitted
altogether by goth : Tô yöp "Ayap
(by conflation of text with Tô ydp)
Syrian (Gr. [? Lat..] Syr.); incl.
(d, omitting 21u4) Cyr.al. Zech.cod;
Glaſ/.433(s.7) (?Ambst.com). Text
ABD." (? I7*) 37 73 8o lt 4o me
syr.hl.mg (?Ambst.com).
Both the early readings, which dif-
fer only by the presence or absence
of AeA, are perplexing and hard to
interpret; but there is no need to
have recourse to Bentley's violent
remedy, and to suppose Xuvé, épos
éotiv ću Tà 'Apašíg to be a marginal
gloss, the intrusion of which led to
the insertion of 6é after avvorouxei.
[The difficulties which he points out
seem however to be fatal to the pre-
sence of both "Ayap and Xuvá in the
text, and thus to indicate the mar-
ginal reading as alone probable.
W.] [On the other hand the un-
favourable presumption created by
the Western character of the attes-
tation of Tö yáp is borne out by the
difficulty of accounting for the refer-
ence to Arabia with this reading,
'for it assumes the connexion be-
tween Arabia and Hagar to be ob-
vious to the Galatians without ex-
planation. This difficulty vanishes
if we keep the reading of text, and
take Öpos as common to subject and
predicate (cf. Ro ii 28 f.; iii. 29).
Hagar and Sinai, St Paul appa-
rently means to say, are connected
by literal external fact as well as
spiritual relationship: the home of
both is in the same land, Arabia ;
“Mount Hagar [in the full sense of
‘Hagar’,‘Hagar with her children’]
is Mount Sinai, in Arabia.’ The
term ‘Mount’ (hill-country) is si-
I 22
milarly joined in the Old Testa-
ment to “Amalek’, ‘the Amorites’,
“Ephraim”, “Naphtali’, &c.; but
the closest parallel is ‘the Mount
of Esau’, in Obad 8,9, 19, 21 ; Esau
being, like Hagar’s son, an elder
brother rejected in favour of a fore-
father of the chosen race. The
Aſagră ("Aypaſot of Greek writers,
‘A’yapmvot LXX) are known as in-
habitants of northern Arabia from
the days of Ps. lxxxiii 7 and I Chr
till quite late times (Gesen. Thes.
i 365); cf. Epiph. i 9 at ºpw)\al Tów
‘Ayapnvöv, Tów Kai Iowam Mºtöv,
Xapakāvov Šē, tavāv KaNovgévøy).
IDuring St Paul’s sojourn in ‘Arabia’
(i 17) he must often have heard their
name; and thus their traditional
origin might come to be associated
in his mind with the higher memo-
ries of the Sinaitic peninsula. The
difficulty of text is so patent that,
though it might often be disguised by
allegorical interpretation, it would,
when taken literally, lead naturally
to alteration. The difficulty of the
marginal reading on the other hand
lies below the surface ; and it is
hardly likely that scribes would
be perplexed by the simple state-
ment that “Sinai is a mountain in
Arabia’. H.]
v I (f) Tà éXev6eptg] ú, Aev6eptg
Western (Gr. Lat. Goth.); incl. G3 r2
Orig. Gen.lat. Ruf; Cant.lat. Ruf Tert:
+ š, with omission of otiv after
a Tijkere, Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr.).
The Western reading was doubtless
intended to connect the detached
first clause of v I definitely with
iv 3 1. In the absence of punctua-
tion however it might be hastily
read with a täkete; the artificial con-
nexion thus created would seem to
be confirmed by the apparent anti-
thesis between éAévôepig and Švy®
ÖovXetas, a tºkere and évéxed fle ; and
thus the Syrian reading would be
suggested, consisting in resolution
AVO 7TA'S OAV SAE ZAZCZ" A2AA/O/AWGS’
GAL. IV 25
of the initial relative and extrusion
of otiv. A third change (Constanti-
nopolitan, Greek only) completed
the transformation by inserting otv
after éAévôepig. Text SABC*H3P,
17 73 (me) the (aeth) (Cyr.al.
G/ap/2.75; ZŽes. 280): me differs only
by inserting yap after Tä, while aeth
has virtually the same (“of the free,
because Christ set us free: stand ye
therefore also, and’) but omits Tfi
é\ev0eptg: Cyr.al” (at least as edited)
adds after éNev6eptg.
The documentary distribution
shews that text is certainly the
parent of all the other readings, and
it will easily account for the exist-
ence of them all. The difficult ab-
ruptness of text would prima facie
be removed by the adoption of the
* after Tà éAévôepig, as having been
lost before juás. This simple change
however has virtually no authority:
the documents which attest it, them-
selves a Syrian group, simultane-
ously omit of v after a Thkere, the
only exception being Cyr, al, and
that only in books which have not
been critically edited. But even as
a conjecture the insertion of fi is
improbable, the resulting diction
being languid and redundant. [Yet
it is difficult to believe that St Paul
would either use tº €Aévôeptg in the
sense of eis Tºv č\ev6eptav, or insert
an article in such a construction as
Trapayye) ig trapmy yet\apev. Itseems
more probable that Tă is a primitive
corruption of éir’: in early papyrus
writing H and N are often not to be
distinguished, and the Sagitta of e
is sometimes so near the top of the
“arc”, not seldom also crossing it,
that confusion with a hastily written
T would be easy. It is natural that
étrº èNev6epig should recur in v. 13,
where the thread of v. I is taken up
afresh after the digressive appeal
of vv. 2—I 2.
EPH, I I
v 8]< oëk Western (Gr. Lat.);
incl. (apparently Orig. Princ ;) Lu-
cif; not G3 Orig. Cels(distinctly)
(? Ambst Pelag) Aug.
AVO 7TES OAV SAE ZAFC 7' A' A' A D/AWGS
piph); not G3.
I23
v 9 ºvgo?] 50Xof Western (Gr.
Lat. Goth.); incl. Marcion(ap. E-
The same Western
correction occurs in I Co v 6.
EP HE SIANS
i II ~ſév 'Eq}éag|Nº|B “the older
of the MSS ’’ consulted by Bas
67** (Marcion, see below) Orig. loc.
(distinctly) Bas (expressly). Orig
interprets Toſs otiatv absolutely, in
the sense of I Co i 28, as he could
not have done had he read Év
'Eq'éog: Bas probably has Orig in
mind when he refers for this reading
to “predecessors’, from whom how-
ever Bas manifestly distinguishes
MSS consulted by himself (otta,
'yāp kal of trp3 juáv trapačeb&Kaoru
kal hueſs éu To's Taxato's Tøv ćutt-
Ypáðwu euphKapºev). It is doubtless
again to Orig that Hier reſers when
he speaks of “certain’ as interpret-
ing the passage in this manner ‘with
unnecessary refinement’ (curiosius
(7ttam necesse est):—a remark which
shews on the one hand that Hier
was not himself acquainted with the
reading, and on the other that Orig
in his unabridged commentary can
have made no reference to any MSS
as containing év 'Eqāgg, since other-
wise Hier could not have treated
the question as though it affected
interpretation alone. Tert distinctly
states that Marcion retained this
epistle, but under the title ‘To the
Laodicenes’. Epiph is silent on this
point in his short account of Mar-
cion's readings in the Ep., but after
the conclusion of his remarks on all
the epistles (374. A Tpos, Pixtºrtm-
giovs tº otra's Yap trapd tº Mapktov,
Keirat éaxdtm Kai Öekárm) he subjoins
a confused notice of a reading of
Marcion (Eph. iv. 5) “from the so
called Ep. to the Laodicenes, in
harmony with the Ep. to the Ephe-
sians”; so that the unknown source
from which he borrowed his infor-
mation about Marcion’s text seems
to have contained a misunderstood
reference to the title used by Mar-
cion. It is hardly credible that the
Epistle should have received this
title, either in a text followed by
Marcion or at his own hands, if the
words év 'Eqāorg had been present.
It does not follow that év Aaobuktg
replaced it: a change of the address
in the body of the Epistle itself
would hardly have been passed over
in silence; and it seems more likely
that the title was supplied from a
misapplication of Col. iv. 16 in the
absence of any indication of address
in the text of the Epistle. , Text
NºAD.Gºk,L.P., later MSS con-
sulted by Basſed above) cup vvomn
Cyr.al.7%es.28oppier pp.'",
Transcriptional evidence strongly
supports the testimony of documents
I24.
against év 'Eq,éog. The early and,
except as regards Marcion, univer-
sal tradition that the Epistle was
addressed to the Ephesians, em-
bodied in the title found in all ex-
tant documents, would naturally
lead to the insertion of the words in
the place that corresponding words
hold in other epistles; and on the
other hand it is not easy to see how
they could come to be omitted, if
genuine. Nor again, when St Paul's
use of the term ol āylot (e.g. I Co
xvi. 1) and his view of triatus in
relation to the new Israel are taken
into account, is it in itself im-
probable that he should write “to
the saints who are also faithful (be-
lieving) in Christ Jesus”. The only
real intrinsic difficulty here lies in
the resemblance to the phrases used
in other epistles to introduce local
addresses.
The variation need not however
be considered as a simple case of
omission or insertion. There is
much probability in the suggestion
of Beza and Ussher, adopted by
many commentators, that this epistle
was addressed to more than one
church. It is certainly marked by
an exceptional generality of lan-
guage, and its freedom from local
and personal allusions places it in
strong contrast to the twin Ep.
to the Colossians, conveyed by the
same messenger. St Paul might na-
turally take advantage of the mission
of Tychicus to write a letter to be
read by the various churches which
he had founded or strengthened in
the region surrounding Ephesus
during his long stay, though he
might have special reasons for wri-
ting separate letters to Colossae and
Laodicea. . Apart from any question
of the reading in i I, this is the
simplest explanation of the charac-
teristics of the Epistle; but, if it re-
presents the facts truly, it must have
AVO 7A.S OAV SAE/A2C 7" A&AEA/OAAWGS
EPH. I. I
a bearing on the reading. An
epistle addressed to a plurality of
churches might either be written so
as to dispense with any local ad-
dress, or it might have a blank
space, to be filled up in each case
with a different local address. The
former supposition, according to
which kal Truo Tots would be con-
tinuous with Toſs &yiots, has been
noticed above. In this case ép
'Eq,éoºp would be simply an inter-
polation. On the other view, which
is on the whole the more probable
of the two, Év 'Eq,éag would be a
legitimate but unavoidably partial
supplement to the true text, filling
up a chasm which might be per-
plexing to a reader in later times.
Since it is highly probable that the
epistle would be communicated to
the great mother church first, and
then sent on to the lesser churches
around, there is sufficient justifica-
tion both for the title IIPO2. EqbH,-
XIOTX and for the retention of év
'Eq,éorg in peculiar type in the text
itself. Whether Marcion’s title was
derived from a copy actually sent to
Laodicea or, as seems more likely,
was a conjectural alteration of IIPOX
Ed EXIOTX, Ephesus must have had
a better right than any other single
city to account itself the recipient of
the Epistle.
i 15 kai) -- Tiju äyármy Western
and Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Eg.
P Arm. Goth.); also + &Yáirmv after
âytovs 3980 alPº (? aeth). Cyr.al.jo
(s.d.) Euth.cod. Text S*ABP,17
Orig. loc. Cyr.al. ZXia!. Zºrin Hier.loc.
(probably after Orig) Aug. Praed.
sancé. 39 p. 816. From Col i 4.
The at first sight difficult reading
of text is illustrated by Philem 5; as
also by Tit iii 15; Roi I2; cf. Ga v
6; Eph iii 17. It is remarkably
confirmed by the peculiar phrase
Tºv Kaff" (p.6s, which stands in an-
tithesis to Tºv eis Távras, K.T.A., and
COL. II 2
which would have little force as a
mere substitute for Tºv Špačov : the
single phrase of Ga v 6, triarus 6t’
dyáirms évépyovuévy, harmonises the
language of Col, in which love to
men stands simply by the side of
faith, with the language of Eph, in
which the faith which exists within
is represented as itself the source of
deeds done to men.
iv 19 dºrm) yºnkóTes] &tm\trukótes
(āq,x)\ir.) Western (Gr. Lat. AEth.
Arm. Goth.); incl. Orig.9er.lat.
Hier; not Clem Orig.loc.;jergr;
As. The resemblance of TTI to TH
doubtless contributed with the para-
dox of the sense to suggest the cor-
rection.
iv 29 Xpetas] tria rews Western
(Gr. Lat. Arm. Goth.); incl. Greg.
nys Cyp”; not ‘the Greek' accord-
ing to Hier Clem Orig. loc.
v I4 &Tuqaiya et got 5xptorós] étra-
Watſoets toū Xota Too Western (Gr.
Lat.); incl. MSS mentioned by
Theod.mops.lat by Chr and by
Thdt (the two latter probably not
independently) Orig.jos.lat. Ruf;
Cant.lat. Ruf; not G3 Marcion(ap.
Epiph) Naasseni(ap. Hipp) Clem
Orig./oc.; Ps” Hipp. Ant Amb Hier
‘Vig’. The supposed intermediate
reading étrºpaifa'el got 6 xpta Tós ap-
pears to be due to the transcri-
bers of Chr, though Aug once, at
least as edited, and Ambst.cod have
AVO 7TA'S OW SAEZAZCT RAEA/O/AWGS
certainly his)
I 25
continget te Christus. The two im-
peratives doubtless suggested that
the following future would be in the
second person, the required C stood
next after étruſbaúget, easily read as
étrºpačget, and then the rest would
be altered accordingly.
v 30 too otóuatos alſToj] + šk Tºs
gapkos auro5 kal ék Töv doºréay
aúroß Western, and Syrian (Gr.
Lat. Syr. Arm.); incl. Iren.gr.lat.
Text N*AB 17 67** me aeth Meth
(anon.[? Tit.bost]Zc.88Cramer) Eu-
thal. cod; also probably Orig. Cant.
lat. Ruf, who quotes nothing after
gašparos alſTow. From Gen. ii. 23.
v 3 1 Kal ºrportko)\mbºja’etat irpos
Tiju yvyatka aúTool -: (Marcion,
see below) Orig. loc.expressly (the
Scholium, though anonymous, is
Tert(apparently, as
well as Marcion) Cyp. Aft. 52.codd.
opt Hier.loc(doubtless from Orig).
Text NABD,G3K,L.P., cuoma vvomn
Orig. Cels;(? Mt.gr.lat) Meth Victo-
rin pp”. A singular reading,
which would not be improbable if
its attestation were not exclusively
patristic: the words might well be
inserted from Gen ii 24. They are
absent from the quotation as it occurs
in the true text of Mc x 7; but were
there inserted so early and so widely
that the only surviving authorities
for omission are SB lt 48 go.
CO LOSSIA NS
ii 2 rod beoſ, Xploroúl Several
independent variations appear here.
(1) Too 6eoû, 8 &airli Xptorrós
Western of limited range, D.” Aug
‘Vig’ (PEphr. Dial. arm. p. 3 Consi-
Aium arcazzzzzzz Dei Christºls est, a
quo revelata sunt omnia mysteria
sapientiae et scientiae).
31
I 26
(2) rod 0eoû kal Xpta toû Cyr.al.
Thes.
(3) toº 6eoû D."P., 37 67** 71
8o 116.
(4) roſ. 6eoû Tarpos [roël Xptotoº
Alexandrian, S^AC 4 lat.vg me.cod
the (< roº 2° Nº): whence
Tojº 9eoû kal Tarpès toū Xpta too
No cu” syr.hl.txt ; and
Too 6éoù Tratpás Kai Toj xpta Too
Syrian, 47 73 vg.lat. Codd Syr.vg
me.cod Theod. Mops.lat Chr Pelag:
and by combination of the last two
toū 6600 kal trarpós Kai Toi, Ypuatoº
Constantinopolitan, D.” K.L., cu"
syr.hl.” Thdt.txt(s.g.) Dam al.
(5) Tod Beoč, ću Xptatiº (17) (aeth)
arm Clem” Ambst: 17 adds a second
toū before év, and aeth expresses
rather Tept than év.
No account is taken here of the
insertion of 'Imaoû with Xplorot, or
Xptoró in Some secondary docu-
mentS.
Text B Hil(distinctly) (? Ephr.
Džaf: see above).
It is at once obvious that all the
variations may easily be corrections
of text, and that this is unquestion-
ably the origin of all except (5).
The reading of B Hil is therefore
amply sustained by documentary
and transcriptional evidence, not-
withstanding the narrow range of
its direct attestation. In considering
the intrinsic difficulty of the phrase
Toff pºvaTmptov rod beoû, Xptoſtoù it
may be safely taken for granted
that, as a matter of interpretation,
Xptoſto0 must stand in apposition to
toū pºvaTmptov. [With this construc-
tion, the phrase may on the whole
be accepted as genuine : it is illus-
trated by I Ti iii 16. W.] [Yet
elsewhere in the New Testament
(Col i 27 being included) Christ
always appears as the subject of the
mystery, not as the mystery itself;
and in I Ti iii 16 Tó Tàs edge6etas
uvarſipuou need not be the antece-
AVO 7TA'S OAV SZZACC 7" R.A.A/D/AWGS
COL. II 2
dent of 8s if, as seems likely, 8s...
ôóšm is a quotation. The apposition
too, without even an article before
Xptoroú, is unusual in form, and so
liable to be misunderstood that St
Paul is hardly likely to have used
it when it was open to him to say
& éo Tuv Xplorós (cf. i 24; ii Io). A
very slight change of letters will
remove the whole difficulty : Toij
pºvaTmptov too Ču Xpto Tø harmonises
completely with what follows and
with other language of St Paul, and
differs from text only as eNXa)
differs from 0YXY, while the mis-
reading of eN would be facilitated
by the preceding Oy of Toj, and this
misreading would inevitably change
XY to Xa). It may be reasonably
suspected that Too 6eoû &v Xptotg
(5, above) is derived from Tot, €v
Xptorré, either by conflation with
text or by a mere repetition of the
last two letters of Toy as 0Y. H.]
ii 18 (+) 0é\ov čv tatretvoºpoo.jum]
< £v S*(not S"). [This phrase con-
tains two apparently insuperable
difficulties. First, no reasonable
sense can be obtained from 6é\ov
used absolutely ; and the combina-
tion of 66Awy with év (‘delighting
in '), though common in the LXX,
is not merely without precedent
but without analogy in St Paul,
whose style, except of course in
quotations, is singularly free from
crude Hebraisms. Secondly, tatret-
voq'podium having invariably in the
New Testament a good meaning,
St Paul was not likely to use it as
a term of reproach without at least
some preliminary indication of what
he had in view. There is appa-
rently some corruption, perhaps 66-
Xav čv Tateivoq'poor ſum for év éðexo-
Tatreuvoſppoo ſum : this last word is
employed by Bas; and compounds
of éðexo- were used freely when St
COL. II 23
Paul wrote. Cf. Aug. Eff.149 $ 27:
Nemo vos convincat volens: hoc
sº fer zerbum: graecume diceretter,
ečiam in latina consuetudine populi
sonaret at sitatius ; sic enime et z/u/go
dicitur qui divitem affectat thelo-
dives, et qui sapientent thelosapiens,
et cetera hatſusſmodé. Argo et hic
thelohumilis, quod plenius dicitzer
thelon humilis, id es# volens humilis,
quod intellegitur ‘zolens zideri humi-
/is', ‘ affècians humilitateme’. * * *
AZ77-affi/iter ºff? eatme dixit inflatum
mente carnis Suae atóź thelohumilem
suffra diºcerat. H.]
ibid. (+) & 6pakev ćugateway] +
pº) (? Western of limited range
and) Syrian (Gr. Lat. Syr. Arm.
Goth.); incl. C(G3) Ps. Iren. Fragme.
A3/aff.35[Orig. Cels.ed.Ru.(apparent-
ly without authority from MSS);
A’om.1at. Ruf.txt] Ambst. cod Amb:
G3 has owy, which is perhaps the
original (? Western) form of the
reading. Text 8°ABD,” 17 67**
al Greek MSS known to Hier m2
(? Latin) MSS known to Aug me
aeth Marcion (ap. Tert) Orig. Cels;
A’ome.lat. Ruf.com(exfol/atºzè enzime se
272 his quae zidentur et inflat; seen:
de zyższóilibats zebels) Lucif Ambst.
cod al. Many MSS (not NBCD,P3
cu”) have the form éðpakev.
The insertion of the negative
glosses over without removing the
manifest difficulty of the phrase,
and must in any case be rejected on
documentary grounds. Dr Light-
foot has with good reason revived a
Suggestion of Alexander More and
AWOTES OAV SEZAZCT REA/0/AVGS
W. 27
Courcelles that the last word must
be taken with the three preceding
letters, so as to make Kevepgaretſav :
at the same time in place of &
épaſkevl he suggests €tópg or altºpg,
a word twice used by Philo in
similar contexts and appropriate
here. On the whole however &épa,
conjectured by Dr C. Taylor
(%urn. of Philol. (1876) xiii 130
ff.), is still more probable : the
transitive construction is amply
attested for épéareča, and pre-
sents no difficulty with dépa.
&epokeNeMB&Teyoon differs from
AeoPAKéNeMB&Texon only by the
absence of e before O.
ii 23 (+) [Kat] dºpetàig...... orapkós]
< kai B (d)?/2 Orig. Æom.lat. Ruf Hil
Ambst Amb Paulin. AEff. 50*(p.298 f.
Le Brun): Clem omits the previous
kai, reading however ratelvogºpogº-
wns (if his text is rightly preserved):
+ et nozz after Tuvu lat.cod(gigas):
+ et diligenetiam after TAmagovºv
Ambst Amb. [None of the current
explanations of oilk &v Tupi...orap-
Kós appear to be tenable, and the
preceding clause is hardly less sus-
picious. On the other hand no
probable emendation has been sug-
gested. This Epistle, and more
especially its second chapter, ap-
pears to have been ill preserved in
ancient times; and it may be that
some of the harshnesses which we
have left unmarked are really due
to primitive corruption. H.]
128
Mozzs ow SELECT READINGS
I THESS. II 7
I THESSALONIANS
ii 7 värlot] #Tuot Syrian (Gr.
Syr. Eg. Arm.); incl. SºACA [Clem.
Jºaed. Io9 codd; Strom. 319(3.7.) Orig.
Mt. 724 (s. 7.); 1 Co. 84 Cram. (s.g.)].
Text N*BC*D.G3 5. 23 31* 37 137
alP lat.vg me aeth Clem. AEaed, codd
(with context)* Orig. M. (609;)662
(with context, Čºyévero vitrios Kal
trapatrºja tos Tpopº 6a)\tročan Tò
éavrìs travölov, kal XaXoja m \óryovs
dºs Trauðtov Ště, Tö Trauðtov: cf.
659); lat.878; Zs.lat. II6 Cyr. Thes
pplatomn. The second v might be
inserted or omitted with equal fa-
cility; but the change from the bold
image to the tame and facile adjec-
tive is characteristic of the difference
between St Paul and the Syrian
revisers (cf. I Co iii 1,2; ix 20 ff.).
It is not of harshness that St Paul
here declares himself innocent, but
of flattery and the rhetorical arts
by which gain or repute is pro-
cured, his adversaries having doubt-
less put this malicious interpretation
upon his language among the Thes-
salonians. Further, the phrase
éu péag, juáv exactly suits vitriot,
and would be an unlikely peri-
phrasis for eis juás with #irtou: it
corresponds to a position of equal-
ity, like that which St Paul would
assume in making himself a babe
among babes, not to the gracious-
ness of a Superior speaking or act-
ing as a superior. Compare the
use of ovvvmtrudźo in Iren. 284
and Cyr.al.%. 237C, and Aug. ZXe
catech. 7-ud. I 5 Quomodo enim, pa-
ratus esset impendi fro animabus
eorum si eum pigeret inclinari ad
aures eorum ? A:/inc ergo factus
est parvulus in medio nostrum tam-
quam nutrix fovens filios Suos. AWum
emima delectat, misè amor invitet,
decuriata et mutilata verba immur-
murare #
2 THESS AI, ONIANS
i Io (f) étruateſ 6m] &ruaré0m 31
I39: ſidenz haëzeit Ambst. [It seems
hopeless to find , an intelligible
meaning for ép’ Ugás (< mez) in
connexion with étuateſ;9m. Appa-
rently, as conjectured by Markland,
étruatevöm is a primitive corruption
of étrardón, suggested by the prece-
ding trug Teijoaqu as well as by the
familiarity of Two reiſa, and its prima
facie appropriateness to paprºptov.
The reference is probably to vv.
4,5: the Christian testimony of
suffering for the faith had been con-
firmed and sealed upon the Thessa-
lonians. Cf. I Co i 6 Ka8&s to
paprºptov Toij Xpta toû 63e3al60m év
Upºv; also Ps xciii (xcii) 4, 5 & a v-
p.a. a Tös év Ú/mNots à kùp tos' T &
paptºp td. orov ć tra o T (66 m or av og á-
ôpa; and, for an analogous use of
Tua Toija,0at followed by éirt with the
accusative, I Chr xvii. 23; 2 Chr
i 9. H.]
AVO 7A.S. OAV SAE ZZCZ" RAEA/OAAWGS I29
IIEB. IV 2
HEB REWS
ii 9 xápºrt 6eoû] xºpis 6.e06 alone, has special force as linking
M. MSS known to Orig and
(? Greek, P Latin) to Hier. Gal 67**
Syr.vg.codd Orig.jo”(twice express-
ly); A'om.lat. Rufº. Theod. Mops.loc.
(expressly) Thdt.loc.; Phil Anastas.
abb.judſ Migne lxxxix 1265) Ambº
Fulg “Vig’. Text SABCD,K,I, P.,
MSS known to Orig and (? Greek,
PLatin) to Hier cupi lat.vg syr.hl
me aeth arm Eus. As Ath Chr Cyr.
alsaepe (Hier. Gal) Faustin: some
MSS of syr.vg have a strange ren-
dering which must represent xàputt
6eós, doubtless a corruption of text.
The reading x&pts, apparently Wes-
tern and Syrian, but not Constanti-
nopolitan, was in late times attri-
buted to the Nestorians, probably
because it had been stoutly defended
by Theod, mops. Transcriptional
evidence is in its favour, as it was
more likely to be perplexing to tran-
Scribers than Xàpttu. Intrinsically
however it will not bear close ex-
amination. To take it (as do Orig
and Thdt) as qualifying jtěp Tavrós,
like €któs in I Coxv 27, is against
the order of words: and the quali-
fication would be too readily sup-
plied by every reader to be thought
to need expression. A better sense
may be put upon it by connecting
it directly with yelſant at 6avárov :
but both the order of words and
the logical force of the clause (§tras)
shew the true connexion to be with
Utrép Tavrés; and conversely xápurt
6eoû, which would be almost otiose
here in relation to yet a mrat 6avátov
AWest [pl. acc. by sense] al)
corruption.
to its text.
8tra's and Útěp Tavrós together.
X&pts probably arose from a con-
fusion of letters which might easily
take place in papyrus writing.
iv 2 (f) gº ovukekepaap,évows tº
Tigret Toºs & koča aoruv) orvukekepa-
aſpévos for -vous probably Western,
S (avykekpapaevos [??3 I 41] II.4 [-ºp-]
Cyr.al. Glazà.ed(s. 2.) [Thdt. Aoc. ed",
against context]) (? d) lat. vg.codd
Syr.vg Lucif: the avykekpapaevos
of the ‘Received Text” comes from
Erasmus, who can have had only
Latin authority for it. Text, which
is also virtually Syrian, ABCD, “M,
(17) 23. 37 71 73 137 al (? Iren.
lat, see below), Theod.mop Euth.
cod (also ovykekpapévous Syrian,
D.,"K,L.P., cup Chr Thdt Cyr.al.
lat.vg
syr.hl me aeth arm: cf. Iren.lat,
who has perhaps a reference to
this passage in the words “Zerse-
zerantes inz servitute pristinae ino-
bedientiae [cf. iii 18), nondum com-
mixti verbo Dei Patris’, and below,
‘commixtus verbo ZXei'. Also toſs
*
dicoſoragul Tóv ćkovgåvray D* 31
syr.hl.mg Lucif: Tots &kova 6eſouv
7 : Theod, mops Thdt(apparently af-
ter Theod.mops); cf. vg.lat ex is
quae (7ttà codd.) azadieruzzº.
After much hesitation we have
marked this very difficult passage
as probably containing a primitive
This Epistle contains
several traces of very early injury
[The apparent sim-
plicity of avvKekepagºvos leads to
I3O
no satisfactory result: it identifies
ékelvous with toſs droño'aatu, which
thus becomes a Superfluous and at
the same time ambiguous repetition;
and it obscures the purpose of the
clause by expressing the cause of
the inoperativeness of the Divine
message in a neutral form, which
suggests accidental failure in the
message rather than culpable luke-
warmness in the receivers. Hence,
though a pertinent sense may be
obtained from the words, they are
hardly such words as would have
been naturally used for the purpose
of conveying this sense. On the
other hand ovukekpāorffat, like &va-
kekpāa 6at, is used (1) of close inti-
macy with another person, some-
times coupled with kolvøvia, and
(2) of inward reception of an in-
fluence from without. The reading
of text thus makes good sense if
To’s dikoúa'aqu may be interpreted,
in accordance with Tów dicovo divray
in ii 3, to mean the original or im-
mediate hearers (in the one case
the Apostles, in the other Moses)
through whom the Divine word was
conveyed to those who were hearers
in the second degree; compare oſ-
Tuves éAá\ma'av Úpºu Töv Aóyov too
6eoû in xiii 7. It is however difficult
to understand why the bare phrase
Toſs &koúa'ao up should be used to
denote the true and faithful hearers
in a context which seems to contem-
plate a ‘hearing’ unaccompanied
by faith (iii 16–19). H.] [The
reading ovukekepaguévos seems to
give a fair sense; but on the whole
is suspicious. W.] Perhaps the
most probable sense would be sup-
plied by a combination of avukeke-
paopičvows with the slenderly Sup-
ported reading roºs &kovo.6etow (from
ii 1), which is possibly genuine.
Noesselt’s conjecture roºs &koúapaolu
however, which would give the
same sense, has the advantage of
AWOZTAES OAV SAE ZAZCT A&AEA D/AWGS
IHEB. IV 2
accounting better for roºs &koúa'aoruv;
and dikoúapata, often coupled with
6edpata or öpápara, is a common
word to denote simply ‘things
heard’.
vii I & ovvavrha as] §s ovvavtha as
NABC"D,K, 17 al. Text (Syrian)
C*L,P_cupi (?? vvonn) pper. It seems
more likely that Ös is a primitive
reduplication (occ for oc), per-
haps suggested by § in v. 2, and
Ö a right emendation of the Syrian
revisers, than that the writer broke
off the sentence two lines below
without apparent cause.
ix 2 öpravl -- kal Tó Xpwootiv 69-
pºvaThotov (with omission of xpvQ'oùv
and 0uptathplov kai in v. 4) B basm
aeth; not Orig. Ax.lat. Ruf. I62; Cyr.
al. Ador. 338;/o. Iojo. Doubtless in-
tended as a correction of the ap-
parent misplacement of the golden
altar of incense.
x 1 (+) 690 laws]+ abrów NP., (r.
aúròu 6 wortats 37): (isdem) iſ sis hos-
tiis lat. vg. Also dis] ais D.” H3L,
5 73 96 137 har! (guibus) pp”; also
d's or ais r vg me basm aeth : <
Čs A 7”. 17 47 syrr arm. Text (às)
NCD,"K.P., cupm (vv, see above)'
ppºr: B is defective from ix 14 to
the end of the N.T. Also Šumvekés]
+ at A* 31 (? syr.hl arm). Also
6úvavrat] §§varat probably Western,
D.,” “H3K.L., 5 39 alP rvg me basm
ppser Orig. Ps.lat. Ruf: the adoption
of this reading by Erasmus, and
hence in the ‘Received Text”, is
probably due to Latin authority.
Text SACD b.R., 17 37 47 67** 73
8o alpm syrr arm pp.”. .
Structure and sense together sug-
gest that the opening sentence is
perhaps interrupted somewhere, to
introduce parenthetic illustration,
and never completed. This conside-
ration however by no means suffices
to clear up the difficulties of read-
If kar’ &vvavtów and els Tö
ing.
HEB. XI 37
Šumvekés are to retain, as might be
expected, the sense which they have
in neighbouring and cognate pas-
sages, they must stand in antithesis
to each other, each being placed for
emphasis at the head of the follow-
ing words. [In conformity with this
arrangement of words it seems pos-
sible to obtain a good sense by ad-
opting the reading 6üvatat, and
placing a comma after Ös Tpoo pé-
povoiv. W.] [The analogies of ix
9; x II (the sacrifices) and x Io
(the Levitical priests, answering to
the true High Priest) are in favour
of Śēvavtat, the better attested read-
ing. Also trpoo pépovo tu seems to
crave the virtual predicate afforded
by the preceding or the following
phrase; and yet eis Tó 5umvekés, if
taken with it, loses its proper and
antithetic sense. There is excellent
authority for omitting is; but the
dative Taºs atta's 6vaſtals can hardly
be taken with Trpoo pépovolv in the
sense “make offering with the same
sacrifices’. It is difficult to think
that we have the text quite com-
plete. If it were written thus, ka0° àu
kat' évvavròu Tàs air&s 6 vaſtas Tpoor-
ºpépova'u, aſ els Tô 6tmvekës oë6é-
Tote 60yavtat Tot's trpooepyouévows
teNeuda'at, the sentence would run
clearly and easily to the point of
interruption by éiret, and ka0° àu
would find confirmation in the sim-
ilar verse ix 9, where TapagoNij
answers to a któw here. The altera-
tions here supposed would involve
no transposition, being in character
like the commonest errors of tran-
Scription; they would be the loss of
KA6HN before KATeN and of Al
before el, and the change of AC
to AIC in three consecutive words.
The suggested text may at least in-
dicate the probable tenor of the
sentence generally, though in such a
case it is impossible to be confident
AVO 7'ES OAV SAE/ACC 7" ſº EAD/AWGS
I3 I
about details. H.] It is at all
events difficult to be satisfied that
any one form of the transmitted text
is free from error.
xi 4 (f) papTwpoovros étri Toſs 36-
pots at Too Too 6eoû] p. 3. T. 5. airod
Tø 6eg S^AD,” 17 Paeth Euthal.
cod”; g. ē. T. 5. airó too 6eoû Clem.
Text N°D2"K.L.P., cup, r vg syrr
me arm pp”. The reading of the
best MSS is apparently a primitive
error, due to mechanical permuta-
tion, the true reading being that
which Clem alone has preserved.
The common text, an easy correction
of either of the other readings, gives
substantially the true sense.
xi 23 ſin.]+ Tſotet (-tu) pāyas ye-
vögevos Movgås dive?Aew (avi)\ev) Töv
AiyêTTuov Katavočv Tàu Tatretvoja tv
(-Tivogu) Töv dàexpów airoö D."
lat.vg.codd (dolorenz for Tiju Tatrei-
vagu latt). . - -
xi 35 (+) éXagov Yuvaikes] . yu-
vaſkas N*AD." (me). Text N'D.PK,
L.P., cu” (? lat.vg) syrr aeth
Cyr. al.ſul, 189. The reading of the
best MSS must be a primitive error,
due to the immediate sequence of
ºyvv. On &\agov, and rightly emended
in the later text.
xi 37 (+) éirelpádiómarau, &mpto-0mgavl
(marg.) éirpio 6maav, & Telpá00ma'av
AD,"K, cup” (d) vg me arm Orig.
Cels. codd ; /er, gr; //t. 465; /o. 268;
Mt.848 ppº Amb (and so probably
D.” in intention, though étupág 670'av
[sic] is written twice): < Štreipá00m-
gav cup syr (aeth.cod) Orig. Afric.;
Mł.218.lat. Hier Eus Acac al : <
érptoºmgau fu” nev” Clem: < both
words aeth.cod. Text SL.P., 1739
syr.hl Euthal.cod. -
It is difficult to find here a
natural interpretation for a word so
general in its sense as étréºpâq 0mgav.
Possibly it is only a reduplication
of éirpla:0mgau, as ºpóvot of ºpóðvot in
Ga v 21 ; Topveig of troumptg. in Ro i
29; and dairóvãovs of datópyovs in
I 32
Ro i 31: but it may with at least
equal probability be a primitive cor-
ruption of some other word. The
most probable of the various sug-
gestions that have been made are
grpha:0mgau (Gataker) or éveſtphaën-
gav (Lücke: it is cited, but with
{&vres, from a somewhat similar
passage of Philo Flacc. 20), eNetIPH
for emelp2, as the three nearest verbs
denote modes of death (érpha:0m-
gav is actually read for étrpio 6 morav,
though perhaps only by itacism, in
two cursives I Io III [Rinck]); or
again étºmpé0mgau (Tanaquil Faber),
which is commended by éiretpé0mgav,
the reading of at least one of Hö-
schel’s MSS in Orig. Cels, perhaps
itself the right form (cf. diváirelpos
Lc xiv. 13,21 [all the best MSS];
2 Mac viii 24 [A, the Only extant
uncial]). --
xii II (+) uévi (marg.) 6é N°A
D. K.L, cupm lat.vg syrr me pper
Cyr.al. Hom.fasch. 298 pp.” : ef...
AVO 7TES OAV SAE/LA. CT ACAA/D/AWGS
HEB, XI 37
guidem (? ka?...uév P Kal...88) d har!:
enim Hier Aug: < D.” 31 al”
arm aeth (Orig. Mt.gr.lat . Cyr.
Aſos.38 al). Text S*P., 17 21
Orig. Ps.lat. Ruf auct. XZ// Mans.
[None of the particles are satisfac-
tory, though 6é was sure to be in-
troduced: nor again is the author
of this Epistle likely to have put
no particle here. Añ is not impro-
bable; but it hardly accounts for
pºv. H.] -
xiii 21 (+) Totòv) (marg.) airó
Totòu sº AC” 17 (€avré Gregºnys
i 853=i 1325 Mi): airós Totòv 71
(d :pso faciente). Text N°CPD.M.,
K.P., cup lat.vg syrr me (Paeth)
arm ppº. The marginal reading is
strongly supported by both documen-
tary and transcriptional evidence :
but it is impossible to make sense
of airó, and at Tø has but slender
probability. There can be little
doubt that adrós Totòu is the true
reading.
I TIMO THY
i 4 oikovopuiavl oikočopºv Western,
D2" g ml vg Syr.vg-hl.mg go Iren.
gr.lat Hil pp”; not G3 : oiko-
ôopatavº D.” IQ2 Dam.txt; and so
Erasmus, and after him Beza and Elz.
(though not Estienne), but doubtless
only by a conjectural adaptation of
oikovopºtav to aedificationeme.
iii I trio Tós] &věpáTuvos D.” g
(as an alternative) m Ambst Sedul;
not G3. A singular correction, per-
haps due to an assumption that the
clause belongs to what follows,
rightly condemned by Chrys. The
same reading, probably transferred
from this place, occurs at i I 5 in 7°
Tatin MSS known to Hier Ambst
Julian.pel Aug. 3/4. .
iii 1.6 °Os] 3 Western, D.” g
vg [Theod.mops. Zoc.lat] Hil Vic-
torin Ambst Julian.pel Aug Fulg
‘Vig’ al.: 6eds C*D, K.L.P., cup"
Did. Zºrin(expressly) Greg.nys(ex-
pressly) (? Diod.tars. Æome. I 24Cram :
1 TIM. III 16
context neutral) Chrys.(? loc;) Home.
Philog, tip. 497; }o.86 Thdt.loc.;
Anconf. 19, 23; Qu, Gent. 92 [Cyr.al.
Aºid. 124, 153 codd; Expl. Capp. codd:
see below]: supposed allusions in
Hipp and others have no charac-
teristics that connect them with this
passage. Text NA"C* (see below)
G3 1773 181 Syr.hl.mg me the go
?Orig. Æom.lat. Ruf(ticut apostolus di-
cit Quia [? Qui) manifestatus est in
carne &c.) Epiph Theod.mops.loc.lat
(by context, text quod); Zincarzz.988
Migne (ös) [=Syr.53 Sachau (740d)];
Syr.64(gui) Euther.lat Cyr. al. Fid.6
(= /7tc. Unzig.680); (124, by sense,)
I 53; Æxft/. Caft. I48; Schol. 785 (for
Cyr.al see especially ſitcarzz. Ortig.
TXavão be ui, elööTes Tàs ypaqīās
pºſite pºv Tó puéya. Tàs eſſa'egetas
pºvo Tiptov, toot’ earl Xplotów, Ös
épavepaś0m K.T.A.). The result of
the most careful examinations of A,
with the help of the microscope,
is to shew that it had originally Oc
without a transverse stroke, and
without a bar above, such as would
mark the contraction 6C, though
both have been added in compara-
tively modern times: in C they are
also present, and of older date, but
certainly due to a corrector, not to
the original hand : in N the letters
0e are added above the line by the
latest of the various correctors of
this MS, who is assigned to Cent.
XII. Either ös or ö is attested
by syr.vg-hl.txt aeth arm (?Clem.
Hyp.Ior 5) (?Apollinſap. Greg.mys]).
There is at first sight a similar
ambiguity in two of the passages of
Theod, mops: but the context points
to Ös. The change of Šs to 6eós was
one of the readings unjustly charged
against the patriarch Macedonius at
the time of his expulsion by Mono-
physite influence in 5 Io-1 : so
Liberat. Brez, cited in part in note
on Mt xxvii. 49 : See also Bentley in
AWO TAES OAV SAE/ACCZ" A'AA/O/WGS
I 33
Works iii. 366 f. :
The Western 8 is a manifest cor-
rection of Ös, intended to remedy
the apparent breach of concord be-
tween the relative and Tö pºvaTºptov.
Thus all the better MSS agree with
all the versions against Öeós in favour
of either ös or a reading which pre-
supposes 8s. There is no trace of
6eós till the last third of Cent. Iv,
as there could not have failed to be
if it had been known to Orig Eus
Cyr.hr Ath Bas or Greg.naz; and
the limits of patristic attestation
mark it as late Syrian, though not
accepted in either Syriac version.
Did. Zºriaz abounds in Syrian read-
ings, and they are not rare with
Greg.nys. The language of Theod.
mops throws doubt on the uncerti-
fied quotation of his predecessor
Diod. tars: but Chr, though his
Comm. (in its uninterpolated form)
is ambiguous, seems in the other
two places to have probably 6eós,
which was unquestionably read by
Thdt. From these circumstances,
as well as from the virtual univer-
sality of its reception in Greek in
subsequent times, 6eós may be safely
classed as a late Antiochian read-
ing.
It may perhaps have had an acci-
dental origin, permutation or con-
fusion of Oc and 0c being peculiarly
easy: but the change from 8s to 6eós
would be facilitated, if it was not
caused, by the removal of an appa-
rent solecism, obtained concurrently
with the acquisition of increased de-
finiteness for a theological statement;
while there is no similar way of
accounting for the converse change.
The intrinsic evidence is to the
same effect. 9eós is not a word
likely to be chosen deliberately to
stand at the head of this series
of six clauses, though it might seem
to harmonise with the first of the
I 34.
six. The documentary evidence
however being unambiguous, the
only question that can arise is whe-
ther ös is intrinsically improbable.
Its difficulty is solely grammatical,
at least on any interpretation which
allows the virtual antecedent of Šs
to be Christ. If He might be Him-
self described as Tô Tàs edge6etas
pºvaThotov (see note on Col. ii. 2), this
condition is directly satisfied, and
the sentence runs without interrup-
tion. But, however this may be,
the concurrence of three independ-
ent data, ÖpioMo'youpévos, Šs, and the
form of the six clauses, suggests
that these clauses were a quotation
from an early Christian hymn; and,
if so, the proper and original ante-
cedent would doubtless have been
found in the preceding context
which is not quoted.
iv 3 (+) kaj)\vóvrov yapetu, diréxe-
a 6at 8pdºparajul There are, strictly
speaking, no various readings in this
very difficult passage, though there
are several indications that the diffi-
culty was felt in ancient times. No
Greek usage will justify or explain
this combination of two infinitives,
adverse to each other in the tenor
of their sense, under the one verb
kaj)\vóvraju ; and their juxtaposition
without a conjunction in a sentence
of this kind is at least strange.
Some primitive corruption is doubt-
less present; and it is likely to have
created both difficulties. Bentley
suggests that ke?\evövtov has fallen
out before &Téxed 6at. [A misread-
ing of 7 áTTeq 0a or kal yelſeaffat
would be easy, and would account
for the missing conjunction. Both
AVO ZZS OAV SAEZAZCZ' Me AEA ZOAAWG.S.
I TIM. III 16
verbs occur in a similar passage,
Col. ii. 21, and are specially used
in reference to ceremonial absti-
mences, e.g. Diog. Laert. vi. 73 p.möév
Te drotrow elvat...?) Töv ºftwu Tuvös
Tye iſ a a a 6 a. º., p.mö' divögtov civat Tö
Kai Tóv čvápa,Tetov kpečv ći iſ a q 0 at:
cf. Porph. Abst. ii 31. The former
correction has the more probable
words, but implies the loss of H
after N, or its virtual transposition :
the latter comes the nearer to the
ducăus lifferazzam. Neither how-
ever implies an improbable amount
of change, as may be seen by the
juxtapositions
eINHATTTe elkAITe Ye
eINATIeye elNATTexe. H.]
v 19 Škrós...paptºpavl - Latin
MSS known to Hier; also appa-
rently Cyp Ambst, who quote no
further than trapačéxov ; not Da 7-
nor (<étri) G3.
vi 7 (+) &rt] &\m0és àrt Western,
D,” m sess go Ambst; zerum
Cyp.2/2 Paulin.” Aug!: áAN’ (Polyc)
Aug saepe: haut dubium quia (Quod)
lat.vg: haut dubium zerum ta-
men fu (? al): 37Nov 3rt Syrian,
R&D,bº K.L.P., cup' (syrr) Bas pp:”:
‘ and’ me aeth : < arm Cyr. LC. 35o
Mai(gr. syr); 167 syr; 658 syr Orsies
(Galland v 45). Text S*AG3 17 7"
(? vg.codd) the. Text is manifestly
the parent of all the other readings,
which are futile attempts to smooth
away its difficulty. A primitive
corruption must lurk somewhere.
[Perhaps 8tt is no more than an
accidental repetition of the last two
letters of Kóapov, ON being read as
OTI. H.]
TIT. III IO
AVO ZTES OAV SAEZAZCZ' A&AEA D/AWGS’
I 35
2 TIM OTHY
i I 3 (+) ºroróirworty éxe ôytauáv-
Twu Xóyov čv trap' époo #kovo as]
[The order, the absence of Táv, and
the use of éxe (not kärexe, as I Co
xi 2 ; xv.2; I Th v 21) shew that JTo-
TúTrøgtu has a predicative force;—
‘hold as a pattern’, not “hold the
pattern’. If this be so, what had
been heard from St Paul must have
been what he desired Timothy to
hold as a pattern. But this sense
cannot be obtained from text except
by treating &v as put in the genitive
by an unusual and inexplicable at-
traction. It seems more probable
that CON is a primitive corruption of
ON after TTANTON, aided by the
unreal semblance of attraction. The
force that would be given to Aóyov
in the singular, as implied in Öv,
is justified by the comprehensive
use of 6 Aóyos in the Pastoral Epis-
tles. H.]
iii. 8 'Iapópfis] Maggp?s Western,
G3 d me vg go Orig. Mt.lat” (? Const.
Ap.cod! Macar al”, not referring to
this place) Cyp pplºt mu; not Da.gr.
Orig. Mt.lat. 916 refers to an apo-
cryphal book, jammes et Mambres
/iber. The names were at all events
largely current in both forms in
Jewish tradition (Buxtorf Zex. Talm.
945 f.), and the Western text pro-
bably derived Mapſ3p?s from a Pa-
lestinian source. For 'Iavvis C*
Euthal.cod have 'Iwóvvms, which
agrees with the form SIT used in
some of the Jewish authorities: but
the coincidence is doubtless acci-
dental, as there is no trace of 'Iajáv-
vms here in Western documents.
iv. Io Taxatiavl Tax\tau appa-
rently Alexandrian, SC 23 31 39 73
8o lat. v.g. codd (? Eus. H. E.) Epiph.
A natural correction in accordance
with the later usage as regards
Gaul, both Galatia and Gaul having
in St Paul’s time been usually if not
always alike called Taxatta by the
Greeks. The interpretation may be
right. See Dr Lightfoot Galaț. 3,
3I.
iv 19 'AköNav] +, Aékrpav Tiju
ºvvaºka attoo kai Xualav (2 mu, Io9)
kai Zīvaya Toys vious attoº, 46
Io9. Probably from an apocryphal
SOUllſce.
TITUS
iii Io kai Öevrépau vov6eoſtavl v.
ral 600 D.” . v. kal 6evrépav D,”:
v. § 6evrépa (l, -pav) G3: < kai Öev-
Tépav MSS (? Greek 2 Latin) known
to Hier m Iren.lat. 1/2(not gr)
Pamph.lat. Ruf Tert Cyp Lucif
pplat mu; not lat.vg Iren.gr.2/2
(lat. 1/2). Hier, refers to text as
found in Zafinis codicibus; but the
context suggests that he meant to
Say Graecis.
AWOTES OAV SAE ZAZCT ACAA/D/AWGS
PHILEM, 9
PHILEMO N
9 (+) Tpeog&rms] There can be no
doubt that Bentley and others are
right in suggesting that the meaning
here is “ambassador’ (Trpeggevtås:
cf Eph vi 20). Dr Lightfoot ad Z.
has collected a number of instances
of the omission of e in at least
single MSS in places where an am-
bassador is meant; SO that here too
it is possible that TſpecBYTHC in
this sense (Tpeogvrhs) can be main-
tained as the original reading. [But
in the absence of a verb Tpeogúw it
appears safer to attribute the form
to a very early scribe than to St
Paul, who was not likely to choose
the misleading as well as the incor-
rect form. A natural misunder-
standing of the meaning would
certainly help much to introduce
TſpecBYTHC, i.e. Tpeogúrms, in place
of TſpecBeYTHC. H.]
A POCALYPSE
i 5 Añoſauru] Aoûgavri (? Alexan-
drian and) Constantinopolitan (Gr.
Lat. Eg. Æth. [Arm.]); incl. g.: cup
And Areth combine both readings.
Text NAC I 38 79 alº h syr arm.
codd And, cod.txt Prim Cassiod.
Due to failure to understand the
Hebraic use of év to denote a price
(v 9; cf. I Chr xxi. 24), and a natu-
ral misapplication of vii. 14.
i 20 (f) at AvXvtat at étré, ékk\m-
ortal elatul [al] §. AvXvial é. ékk\mortat
eiglu (some adding is eióes) S cup”
And: < éirrö 7 al h Prim : + ai
before ékkX. cu% arm Andº. The
second étr+ó, omitted by lat. vt but
without sufficient Greek authority,
must be an erroneous repetition of
the first, due to a feeling that the
number of the lamps was likely to
be specified as well as of the stars:
it is morally impossible that Tów
ëTrà ékk\martów should be followed
by éirtà ékk\mata, without the article.
ii. 12 (f) Tº dy)é\g Tàs] In five
out of the seven addresses prefixed
there is some good authority for Tø
&yºyéAg rà in place of rºg áyyé\p
rås. Prim expressly calls attention
to the peculiarity in his comment on
ii I : Dativo hic casu angelo £osuit,
7ton genetizo, ac si diceret Scribe
angelo huic ecclesiae; tıf ſtore taſ/?
APOC. II. I 3
angelum et ecclesiam separatiºn zº-
deatur dixisse quame guis ange/us
exponere voluisset, unam Sciliced
faciens angeli ecclesiaegue £ersonant.
At ii I he makes no change in
the translation, having merely the
name transposed so as to stand
after ékkA. (angelo ecclesiae AE?/test),
as have Aug at the same place,
Orig. Ze.lat. Hier at ii I.2, vg at iii I,
and fu at iii 14: but at ii 18; iii I, 7
he expresses tº in his rendering,
angelo ecclesiae qui est Z'hyałł'ae (gui
es; Sardis ; qui es: Philadelphiae).
Another probable indication of the
same reading as having caused diffi-
culty is the occasional omission of
ékk\matas: the substitution of ék-
RXmaſtats in ii I2 (91); iii I (C);
and iii. 7 (N*) deserves mention, but
is difficult to explain.
The evidence as to the several
passages is as follows.
ii I. r. &. Tú AC (36) Prim(ex-
pressly): 36, a good cursive, is re-
ported by Alter to have T. &. Tig tis
'E. &.
ii. 8 T. G. Tº A (95); 95, one of
the best cursives, has T. d. 6: < ék-
k\matas (? 95) am".
ii I.2 no evidence.
ii 18 T. G. Tº A (Epiph) Prim :
tº 3. Tots (?? ToiceN for ToeN)
† 28 31 : < rās C: < ékk\matas A :
Epiph. Haer.455, in a passage pro-
bably taken mainly from Hipp, has
once T. d. tºs ékk\matas tº €v 6.,
once T. &. Tú Tâs év 6. Ékk\matas.
iii 1 T. &. Tºg (? syr) Prim : < ék-
K\matas Syr.
iii. 7 T. G. Tº Prim.
iii I4 - ékk\matas 95.
The evidence here points to tº as
the true reading throughout, for it
is incredible that the several ad-
dresses should differ from each other
in form in this word alone. The
small amount of the evidence is not
surprising in the Apocalypse, the
AVO 7ES OAW SAE ZAZCZ" R.EAD/AWGS
I 37
representatives of the most ancient
texts being very few. The tempta-
tion to alter Tø to ràs would be
strongly felt; and intrinsically rig
receives a singular corroboration
from the form of the title given in
numerous inscriptions to the high
officials of the new imperial (‘Au-
gustan') worship, at this time po-
pular and dominant in Asia Minor.
Their style, as set forth in numerous
inscriptions, was dipxtepe Üs Tās 'Aoſtas
waoû roß (sometimes vačv Tów) āv
’Eçãorg (Kvěkg, IIepyāug &c.), vaoû
(-dov) being always left without a
preceding article, as is ékk\matas
with the reading Tà. These per-
sonal representatives of the tyran-
nical “Babylonian 'power and hier-
archy (cf. cc. xiii, xvii, xviii) might
well suggest a pointed contrast to
the obscure heads of the persecuted
little Christian communities in the
same cities.
We have accordingly ventured to
give Tig a place in the text where it
is supported by Greek MS authority
(AC, A, A), and to mark the other
four passages as containing a primi-
tive error.
ii I 3 (+) év ra’s huépals 'Avrátras,
ô pláprus pov, 6 tria Tós [uov], Ös ātre-
Kráv6m] variously altered, the chief
change being the insertion of [év]
als after huépats, a few further omit-
ting $s. Text is attested by (N*)
AC lat.vg me (Prim) Haymo. If
however 'Avritas is genuine, it
must be taken as indeclinable; for
the apposition of the nom. 6 pºdprus
to a preceding genitive is in accord-
ance with the usage of this book,
while a nom. 'Avtºtras after Tats
juépaus would be unprecedented and
inexplicable. It seems not unlikely
that 'Avriira should be read, as
Lachmann suggests, C being easily
taken up from the following O.
The corruption may however lie
I 38
deeper; though little stress can be
laid on the curious itacism &NTel.TT&C
in NºA cu%, read also as the verb
dvtéïtras by Syr me.
iii 1, 7, 14 See on ii I.2.
iv 4 6póvot] (marg.) 6póvous SA
34 35 87 And.cod (anon.lat) : C is
defective, versions mostly neutral.
Text B.P.cup! And.codd Areth
Hier. Dam.668. Standing between
ipts and trpeggvrépous, 6póvous was as
likely to be altered as 0póvot, and
it is well attested. There is indeed
apparently no authority for reading
elkoat Téa gapes as elkoat Téa o'apa's :
but the analogy of what is found in
other places (see Notes on Ortho-
graphy, p. 150) suggests that Téo'o apes
was sometimes used as an accusative,
so that it might be consistently
combined with 6póvows.
viii 13 detoj] dyyá\ov P., I 7
28 36 47 79 al arm And Victorin;
and so Erasmus (after I) and the
* Received Text”: 13 Prim (not g)
have the conflation &yºyéNov &s
derot. -
ix Io (+) éxova'uv otpás Ópotas
a koptriots] (marg.) é. oë. Öpotots aſk.
&A 14: C is defective. Text B.P.,
cup g. vg (?vv) Prim. Neither read-
ing is probable: apparently weshould
read Šuota, as an adverb (so perhaps
me aeth); it would easily suffer
assimilation to otpés on the One
side and a koptriots on the other. A
different adverbial use of Špotov (as
though it were otov) occurs i I 3;
Xiv I4.
xi 3 (+) repušešNnuévous adkkovs]
TrepušešXmpévot a dºckovs SºC cup" lat.
vg Hippº And Areth Prim pp”.
Text N*AB.P., 4 7 28 48 79 96.
The authority for text shews that it
must be the source of the other
reading, which is quite easy. The
accusative may perhaps be due to
the virtually transitive sense (cf. v.
18; iv. 4; vii. 9; xiv. I4), as though
AVO 7TAZS OAV SAE CAEC Z' Me A2AA)/AWGS
APOC. II 13
e.g. 0%ra, Toys 600 pºdptupds plov had
been written. But it is likewise
possible that -vous is an assimilative
corruption of -vots (so apparently g,
amictis ciliciis), which, though itself
difficult, would be explicable on the
probable supposition that Tpopm-
Teša'ova-tu represents or includes Tpo-
pmrečja’at following 6&ga, K.T.A.
xiii Io (†) &rokreveſ] (marg.) &nto-
kretvet S 28 (35) 79 (95) And.cod gº
(syr me): diroktav6ºvat A : < cu”.
Text CBAP, cup vg Iren.lat And.
codd Areth Prim. The reading of
A gives the right sense; for the
former clause, as well as Jer XV 2,
on which both clauses are founded,
shews that not requital but fulfil-
ment of a Divine appointment is
intended. But the same Sense would
be given more vividly, and in a
form better answering to the pro-
phetic terseness of et Tis eis, alxua-
X&gtav, by dirokretvelu (or dirokreſ-
val), which would account naturally
for all the existing readings.
xiii 15 (+) airfil at Tig SB.P.”
cuoma Hipp And Areth. Text
ACP.” (via). Versions ambiguous. It
is impossible either to account for
text as a corruption of avTø, or to
interpret it as it stands. [Perhaps
aúró and atti, are alike interpola-
tions. W.] [Or there may be a
reference to the earth, mentioned
five times in the four preceding
verses, and distinguished from the . .
dwellers on the earth in v. 12 (cf.
v. 4): the conception of a spirit of
the earth as given to the image of
the beast agrees with the obvious
characteristics of heathen Oracles.
But the obscurity of the expression,
as it stands, suggests that ti, Yū
may have been lost after atti, or
have given place to it. H.]
xiii 16 (f) 600ty] (marg.) 6&get
I (cf. Nº 6600's); 6&am Hippº, this
being also the reading of Erasmus
(by conjectural correction of I) and
Apoc. xix 13 NOTES ON SEZECT READINGS
the ‘Received Text”: zeź dež £7s
anon.lat: 660 worly, -ovatu, cu" And”
al: dari (Iren.lat): Xà8wort (< at-
Tots and followed by Tô x. ašto") 26
95 (Victorin): habere vg Prim. Text
N*ACB.P., cumu g (ut dent sibi in-
zºiceme) And”. It seems probable that
the true reading was 6&aſet, and that
an itacistic transcription of it as
6ajort caused the tense to be mis-
understood; when the insertion of
v would naturally follow, AOCſ for
ACOCl. The singular construction,
which is intrinsically justified by
xiii 13, would render the misinter-
pretation inevitable.
xiii 18 €akógvot Śākovta él
ěšakóquot 6éka & C II ‘some ac-
cording to Iren (who speaks of
text as found “in all the good and
ancient copies”, “and attested by
those who had themselves seen John
face to face”) Tich. Text NAB,P2
cup vvom” Iren(as above) Orig(ex-
pressly) And Prim.
Xiv 2.0 x,\tav čakoalay] XiXtav
ôtakootary S* 26: /ai//e sexaginia
lat, vg.cod: mille 7zzingentis g : ééa-
Koaſtav ame”; XaAtov Šakootav č
And' (whence ax5' 79).
xv 6 Atôov] Alvov P2 cup vg.codd
(lino) syr arm And Areth Tich
(limo); also Alvoúv B2 cu" (? § lin-
theamen) (? Orig.}er. 192), Alvous
S cod.lat known to Haymo me
Prim (lințea): < aeth. Text AC
‘some MSS' known to Andr 38ms
48 5o 9o lat.vg. Codd. Opt(ſaffide).
The bold image expressed by this
well attested reading is justified by
Ez xxviii 13, Travra. Atôov Xpijatov
évôéðeo'at, orápétou kal Totráºzov K.T.A.,
where évôéðva'at is a various reading
(cu” Thdt Cyr.al Tert Hierſboth
indulus); cf. Chrys I Zº. 682 €v
Naptºp; Tô oxhuatl Tpoffew eite
ôTAt{eq6at éðel, Xpworó kal Xitſots
Tupulous 6TAušópevos éðel etre év
elpfum, &\ovpytóa Tepukeipevos. On
I 39
the other hand Nivov, as distinguish-
ed from Alvoúv (used in the LXX),
never denotes a fabric or garment
made of flax except according to
Etym. Magn. and possibly in AEsch.
Suppl. I2I ; but always flax, whether
in its rough state or spun into cord,
or a net, or a sail. In the Apoca-
lypse Alvov does not occur else-
where, while fine linen is five times
mentioned under the definite name
Búa'alvov.
xviii 12 (f) papyapuráv) (marg.)
papyapitas CP2: papyapitats A
fit al: plural Syr me Prim: papyapt-
Tov B2 cup lat.vg aeth arm Hipp
Andr. Text N 35.87 95 (?g Prim).
Text is suspicious as failing to
account for the other readings.
The marginal reading is doubly sus-
picious because in the only docu-
ments which attest it, themselves of
little authority when standing alone,
it is but the last of a series of accu-
satives, yópov Xpwoovu Kal &pyvpotiv
kai Xiffous Tuptovs: moreover, as its
sense is not generic, its position as
a solitary accusative among geni-
tives is unaccountable. The read-
ing of A makes no sense, but may
conceal Some unusual form, such as
papyaptôos (-Oc, -ec, -ats) from
papyapts, which is used by Philos-
tratus and others.
xix. 13 (F) fiepayrtopévov) 666ap-
pévov A.B., cup! And”. Areth: éppapa-
pévou (Orig.jo. 1/2.ed): Treptpepappé-
vov Nº: trepipepavruggévov Nº. Text
P., 36 Orig.jo. 1/2. cod; also (€ppav-
Tuapévov) 32 35 87 95 Hipp Orig.
Jo. 1/2 And'. The versions are some-
what ambiguous: but all the Latins
(including Cyp” Iren.lat Hier Prim)
have sparsam, aspersawa, or cons?eº-
same (-sum, -sa, -so), all of which
renderings point to faiva or flavTišw,
or one of their compounds, rather
than to 84tta. A word denoting
sprinkling seems also to agree best
I4O
with the context, and with biblical
symbolism generally: see especially
Is lxiii 3, where éppavttaſöm, or ac-
cording to some MSS ºppáv0m, is
used by Aquila and Symmachus.
All the variations are easily ac-
MozAS ON SEZECT READINGS
APOC. XIX 13
counted for if the form used was
£epappévov (on which see Notes on
Orthography, p. 170) from Åalvø. In
Mc vii 4 authority is in like manner
divided between £avría wura, and
8attia wwrat.
II. NOTES ON
WITH ORTHOGRAPHICAL
The principles which have been
followed as to the orthography
adopted in this edition have been
explained in the Introduction (§§
393—405). Often however the
decision in favour of one spelling
as against another is more or less
precarious; SO that a wrong im-
pression would be produced if those
spellings which, though not pre-
ferred, are also not rejected were
left unrecorded. While therefore
alternative readings of an Ortho-
graphical character have been ex-
cluded from the margin of the text
(Zntrod. § 403), it is fitting that
they should have a place in the Ap-
pendix.
What spellings are sufficiently
probable to deserve inclusion among
alternative readings, is often diffi-
cult to determine. Although many
deviations from classical ortho-
graphy are amply attested, many
others, which appear to be equally
genuine, are found in one, two, or
three MSS only, and that often with
an irregularity which suggests that
all our MSS have to a greater or
less extent suffered from the efface-
ment of unclassical forms of words.
ORTHOGRAPHY
ALTERNATIVE READINGS
It is no less true on the other hand
that a tendency in the opposite
direction is discernible in Western
MSS : the Orthography of common
life, which to a certain extent was
used by all the writers of the New
Testament, though in unequal de-
grees, would naturally be intro-
duced more freely in texts affected
by an instinct of popular adapta-
tion (Introd. § 176). For these
reasons the limits of orthographical
alternative readings can be only
approximately fixed; and readings
not marked as alternative have
sometimes been cited in the ac-
companying notes.
The accompanying notes are not
intended to form a complete or
systematic account of the Ortho-
graphy of the New Testament.
Their chief purpose is to elucidate
the alternative readings (marked
ALT.), and to indicate the preva-
lence or the exceptional occurrence
of particular spellings. Local re-
ferences are given but sparingly, as
it is presumed that Bruder's Con-
cordance will be in the hands of
any one who is likely to read this
part of the Appendix: but the dis-
32
I42
tribution of spellings among the
books or the writers of the New
Testament is often marked by ab-
breviated names, usually accom-
panied by numerals indicating the
number of times of occurrence.
Sometimes the proportional oc-
currence of one form as compared
with others is expressed by a frac-
tional notation : thus at p. 1681. 14
the abbreviation ‘Mc.4/4. Jo. 1/3’ de-
notes that Öot occurs in St Mark
four times, and that there are but
these four opportunities for its oc-
currence; and that it occurs in St
John once, whereas there are three
opportunities for it, so that 69 re-
mains in two places. Occasionally,
as under ‘Breathings’, the total
number of places in which a form
occurs in each principal MS has
been given. Some few of the notes
refer to points of orthography as to
which no doubt has been enter-
tained and therefore no alternative
readings have been given; but for
the most part only where they illus-
trate doubtful points, which without
Some such accessory elucidation
might appear to have a more acci-
dental and irregular character than
really belongs to them, or where
they required notice for some special
reason : on such well-known forms
as Affulbopat it would have been
beside our purpose to comment.
Illustrative evidence from the
Septuagint and other extraneous
sources has often been added, but
only to a limited extent. The MSS
of the New Testament, in their
genuine and their corrupt spellings
AVO 7TES ON OA” TA/OGRAAAZY
alike, furnish important materials
for the history of the variations of
the Greek language, and have not
yet received due attention from
philologers. It was sufficient how-
ever for our purpose to let it be
clearly seen by a series of illustra-
tive examples that the orthography
of these MSS is no isolated phe-
nomenon. Many additional par-
ticulars of various kinds are brought
together in the Grammars of the
New Testament by Winer and A.
Buttmann, in Dr Moulton's addi-
tions to his translation of Winer,
and in scattered statements in
Tischendorf's editions. Consider-
able details of language will be ſound
in all the larger general grammars,
especially the elder Buttmann's still
invaluable work, with Lobeck’s
additions, in Lobeck’s own various
treatises, in Didot's Stephanus, in
the writings of Curtius and other
living representatives of scientific
etymology, and (for One large class
of forms) in Dr Veitch's Greek Verb:
Irregular and Defective. But nu-
merous facts still remain to be ga-
thered from such sources as the
Greek versions of the Old Testa-
ment, the Apocrypha proper, the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
and the Apocryphal literature gene-
rally, the writings of the Fathers of
the second century and of such later
Fathers as Cyril of Jerusalem and
Epiphanius, who was virtually a
Palestinian writer, the lexicon of
Hesychius, and not least from in-
Scriptions.
MOZTES ON OR7A/OGAAAAYY
I43
I, LETTERS . 143—155 III. VERBS . • . 161—172
BREATHINGS * I43 AUGMENTS . e º g I61
CRASIS, CONTRACTION, AND If ... I p. -
SYNCOPE . . tº e I45 SINGLE AND DOUBLE p . º 163
ELISION . . e & s I46 FUTURES OF VERBS IN -ićto . 163
MOVEABLE FINAL LETTERS . 146 TERMINATIONS OF AORISTS
SINGLE AND DO U BLE CONSO- r AND PERFECTS —16
NANTS . e º gº 148 4.
CHANGES OF CONSON ANTS . I48 FORMS OF CONTRACT VERBS . I66
ASSIM ILATION OF THE FINAL
* FORMI E. * Kºe Le e &
v OF onjv év ETC. IN COM- FORMS OF VERBS IN -put 167
POSITION . º e * I49 MISCELLANEOUS FORMS OF
CHANGES OF WOWELS . ſº I 50 VERBS . e & & I69
CONJUNCTIVES AND INDICA-
II. NOUNS 155–16o TIVES AFTER PARTICLES,
DECLENSIONS I II . . . I 56 AND AFTER RELATIVES
DECLENSION III . . . I 57 WITH Civ . . . . 17x
FORMS OF PROPER IN AMIES IN-
DEPENDENT OF INFLEX- r
ION . * e tº e 159 IV. PARTICLES . * º 173
I. LETTERS
BREATHINGS
On some unusual aspirated forms
found in good MSS of the N. T.
and LXX, as also in inscriptions,
see /ntrod. § 408. "Eq,’ \triët, ac-
cepted Ro 8 20, has some primary
authority (Nº. A. B. C1. D4, D.º.
G3”) 8/9 times, besides dºpextráčovtes
1/1. Kaff’ iótav (Nº. Bº. D3. Aſ) oc-
curs 9/16 times, the phrase forming
virtually a single adverb : where
the lötav is strictly adjectival (kató.
tötav. Tpé6eatu 2 Ti I 9), there is no
elision. Another form noticed with
these two by Curtius Gr. Ætym.”
687 f., áros, is unknown to the N.T.,
kat’ &ros being the reading of all
MSS in Lc 2 41. The occasional
aspiration of etàov (and compounds),
accepted Phi 2 23 and (marg.) Act
2 7, is found 6/12 times in good
MSS (Nº. A8. Bº. D3. A. E.”. D.I.
G3'. 611 of Acts. 174 of Paul &c.),
and stands on the same footing as
these forms, being evidently due to
the digamma. Otx ÖXiyos, which
good MSS (84. A8. B. D') exhibit
6/8 times in Acts, has no lost di-
gamma to justify it, but may never-
theless have been in use in the
apostolic age : it occurs in good
MSS of LXX 2/2, Job Io 20 (B);
Is Io 7 (NA); but kar’ 6Aiyou SABC
in Sap 12 2, just as in the N. T.
étrº 6Xtya Mt”. These four unusual
forms, of which the first two are
specially well supported by extra-
neous evidence, stand alone in the
N.T. in the amount and quality
I 44
of their attestation. Peculiarities of
aspiration, more or less constant,
are common enough in the late
MSS which have breathings, and
especially in many cursives: but in
the better uncials the consonantal
changes that indicate them are so
very slightly and irregularly attested
that they can hardly be more than
casual clerical errors. The trans-
posed aspirate of éptopk. (Curtius
Gr. Verð.” ii Io9; Gr. Ætym.” 517)
is probably Western only (Mt S,
I Til D.P.). The singular but
amply attested €trio Tarat (alputótos
at Toºs é. ÖNeffpos) of I Th 5 3 (so
also Sap 6 9 in B) is difficult to
explain except as due to a confusion
with the other verb (étrl-orapat):
aspiration is universal in the other
I4 examples of compounds of iaT.
with a preposition capable of shew-
ing aspiration, except once in D2
and also in the unique and doubtful
form dirokatua Tävel, on which see
below, p. 168.
Of breathings as to which the
best uncials are indirectly as well as
directly neutral two peculiar ex-
amples need special notice, àpiet-
pop at and Üorgatros. In favour of
ôu., printed here on Lobeck's au-
thority, is the absence of breath-
ing in the MS of Photius (Cam-
bridge, Trin. Coll. B x 1), oſtelpetu
6p100 hpuða flat opeipovtat étruffvgoû-
oru (wrongly transcribed and edited
by Porson), where the assumed de-
rivation from époi has apparently
withheld the scribe from copying a
smooth breathing : in both I Th 2
8 (where see Matthaei") and Job 3
2 I cursives differ. In Jagatros we
have simply followed custom ; but
the smooth breathing is supported
by the Hebrew ; even the English
Bible had /sope and ſysope till the
Genevan revisions of 1557–60, as
German usage virtually has still.
Both elAtkpuris (-ta) and etMkplvås
AVOTES ON OR 7A/OGAEAAAZY
have good ancient authority: the
Smooth breathing, suggested by the
(very late) compound direuxukplugaj,
is perhaps only Attic : a similar
doubt affects d'Aodø, notwithstand-
ing the compounds dira)\odø, kata-
\odºw. For &\vous see Herodian. i
539; ii to8 Lenz. On the breathings
of proper names see /ntrod. § 411 f.
The question as to the admission
of the form autoſ, in the New Tes-
tament is complicated by the fre-
quent difficulty of deciding between
éavrot, and avTod on documentary
grounds; and the difficulty is the
greater because this is a point in
which, as , in the interchange of
hueſs and ügeſs, B shews less than
its usual superiority in purity of
text. The extent to which simple
personal pronouns are replaced by
strong reflexive forms is variable in
all Greek literature, being partly
dependent on individual taste : but
in the New Testament reflexive
pronouns are certainly employed
with unusual parsimony. Moreover
oëk and the prepositions capable of
indicating aspiration in elision of
the final vowel hardly ever exhibit
an aspirate before avT., and that
only in single MSS. For these
reasons it is safest to adopt the
smooth breathing wherever it can
be used without absolute harshness,
that is, wherever the reference to
the subject of the sentence is com-
paratively mediate and indirect.
There are places however where
documentary evidence shews avt.
to be certainly or probably the true
reading, while yet the reflexiveness
is so direct that a refusal to admit
the rough breathing intróduces lan-
guage completely at variance with
all Greek usage without the con-
straint of any direct evidence, and
solely on the strength of partial
analogies. In the face of such ex-
amples as ačTös 6é 'Imaoûs oëk éirí-
y
AVO 7/2S OAV OA’ 7A/OGA’A/P//Y
a Teveu avròu attoºs (Jo 2 24), or
St Luke’s account of the reconcilia-
tion of Herod and Pilate, TpoijTip-
Xov yöp Šu éx0pg &vres Tpos avroſs
(23 12), it is not easy to justify
the unwavering enforcement of the
smooth breathing. Accordingly,
after some hesitation, we have ab-
stained from following recent edi-
tors in their total exclusion of the
form airod. In all the places in
which avt. is preceded by a hard
consonant it is either not reflexive
or too indirectly reflexive to make
the smooth breathing difficult; so
that they afford but weak grounds
of inference for the present pur-
pose: and the analogy of the re-
flexive use of éyò hue's oiſ Ugets,
which is restricted almost without
exception to cases of indirect re-
flexiveness (A. Buttmann Gramm.
96 f.), is in favour of a similar re-
striction in the reflexive use of airós,
in its oblique cases as weak a pro-
noun. An additional reason for not
banishing the aspirated form is the
existence of passages where avT. can
be taken either reflexively or not,
a difference of interpretation being
involved in the ambiguity: thus in
I Jo 5 Io alternative interpreta-
tions are expressed by the alterna-
tive breathings; and in such places
as I Jo 5 18; Eph I 5, Io; Col
I 20; 2 15 the smooth breathing is
intended to exclude a reflexive
sense. The aspirated form has been
introduced nearly twenty times, and
likewise stands as an alternative to
éavſ. for a few places enumerated
under the next head. As between
aúT. and at T., alternative readings
are not needed.
ALT. &@ext{{ovres Lc 6 35;
é@ é\ttöv Act 2 26; Ro 4 18; 5. 2;
I Co 9 Io bis; Tit I 2 ; kað’ éXtríða
Tit 3 7. Kaff’ ióíav Mt 14 23; 17
I, I9; 2d 17; 24 3; Mc 4 34; 6
I45
31; 9 28; 13 3: €dečev Lc 1 25;
épuée Act 4 29; otx ió!ytes I Pe
I 8; oix eiðoy Ga 1 19. oix d'Aty,
Act I 2 18; 14 28; 17 4; 19 23, 24;
27 20. Öpielpºuevo I Th 2 8. §o-
a &Trg (-ov) Jo 19 29; He 9 19. el-
Xukpueſs (-i), -tas, -íg) 2 Pe 3 I ; I
Co 5 8; 2 Co I 12; 2 17; Phi i Io.
&Aoûvta (-àv) I Co 9 9, Io; I Ti 5
18.
CRASIS, CONTRACTION, AND
SYNCOPE -
Rat often coalesces with éºyd (and
its oblique cases), €ket, Čke?0eu, Ékeſ-
vos, and Čv ; but there are many ex-
ceptions, and especially where there
is distinct coordination of éyò with
another pronoun or a substantive.
There is much division of evidence.
Once, where Tô &voua has the
sense of Övöpiatt, it becomes Toivoua
in almost all MSS (Mt 27 57 Toiſ-
vop.a. 'Iwo ſq.). The contracted form
Taúrá has no good authority except.
in Lc : as Paul” has Tā ai, Tá, the
accentuation raûrč, où Néyet in I Co
9 8 is improbable. *
Terpačpxms (-apxéa) has good
authority, N (or once Sº) and me
7/7, and also Cº. Z. A'; but it is
nowhere found in B, and may pos-
sibly be Alexandrian. -
Neopmvías (Coll) is the rarer and
less classical form; but may perhaps
be Western. 'Ayatovpyóv stands
without variation Act", āya.00épyetv
I Til [cf. note on Ro 13 3]. 'ENél-
vós Apl (best MSS); but I Co" in
G3 only. . {
Noggoſ's (from LXX), vogota,
vogatav are certain, 2/3 without Va-
riation: áX\otpleiriakoros Iſ I codd.
opt: Tapeſov always, Mt”.L.cº.
Somewhat different is the hutº-
pov (not -óptov) of Ap" (best MSS).
"Eo:6a), a twin rather than a synco-
pated form of €0.0tw, occurs Mc" and
I46
probably Mc Lc, mostly in the
participle; elsewhere twice in D
and D, only. On Trety see below.
ALT. kāyú (-yd) Lc 2 48; Act
26 29; kai éyò Mt 26 I5; Lc IQ 23;
kal époi Jo 176; kápºol Ga 28; káv
Jo 8 16; kal éðv I Co I32 bis, 3 bis;
Ga I 8; kai éke? Mt 28 Io; káke?
Mc I. 38; Kal ékeſffew Mc 9 3o: kā-
Kelvos Jo I9 35.
Taüró, Lc 6 23, 26; 17 30.
Tetpdpxms (-ov) Mt I4 I ; Lc 3
I9 ; 9 7; Act 13 I ; Terpapxotivtos
Lc 3 I bis.
vovanvías Col 2 16.
éo-0íaju Lc 7 33, 34; £orðlovres Lc
Io 7; É00tmre Lc 22 30 ; Karea 9tov-
tes Mc I2 4o. arapötövv$ Ap 21 20.
éaur. Mt 6 34; Lc I2 I7, 21; 24
I2; Jo Ig 17; Ro I 27; 2 Co 3.5
(2%); Ap 8 6: also 2 Th 2 6 (-05).
at T. Lc Io, 29; 23 2: Act 1o 17;
12 II; 28 16; 2 Pe 2 I (-ots); Ap 2 20.
ELISION
Elision takes place habitually
and without variation before pro-
nouns and particles; also before
nouns in combinations of frequent
occurrence, as ār āpx?s, kar’ oikov.
In other cases there is much diver-
sity, and Occasional variation.
In dANd elision takes place usually
before articles, pronouns, and par-
ticles, but with many exceptions and
much variation. The passage Ro
6 I4–8, 32 is remarkable as hav-
ing consecutively (with a single ex-
ception 7 I5 &AA’ 6) 9 non-elisions
attested by 3 or more primary MSS:
in the six following cases (to Io 16)
there is no evidence for any non-
elision. Before nouns and verbs
non-elision is habitual, and there
are few cases without variation.
Elision is commonest before words
(of all kinds) beginning with e,
AVO 7A.S OAV OR7A/OGAEAAEATV
rarest before those that begin with a.
Aé is never elided except in Ös
6’ div, once or perhaps twice in Tö
ô’ aſſºró (not Phi 2 18), and perhaps
in #vuka 5’ div 2 Co 3 16 (see mar-
gin); otö’ occurs a few times.
ALT. diró divo9ev Mt 27 51; Mc
I5 38. 61& drºpogvarias RO 4 I I ;
ôtà diruatiau He 3 19 ; 6té, direiffeway
4 6. ÉT' &6vos Mt 24 7; Éirl #990s
Mc I. 3 8; Lc 2 1 Io; ÉT’ oikov Lc
I I I7 ; ép' vig LC 12 53 : étri Trots
Ap 19 I4. kað’ eis Mc I4 19 ;
Kat' dºptéetav Act 22 3. pietà épkov
Mt I4 7: pºet' 2. pet” opkapoatas
He 72 I ; pietà eixapuatlas Phi 4 6.
vir’ divöpútrav I Pe 2 4 ; Śir' airijs
3 Jo I2 ; Virò diplapttav Ro 3 9 ;
ūq,' épapriav Ga 3 22.
dAA’ Mt 9 12; 17 12 ; 18 22;
Mc I. 45; 329 ; Jo 3 16; 7 Io; Act
I5 20; I Pe 2 25 ; I Jo 3 18; RO
I 2 I ; 4 20; 5 I4; I Co 9 27; 15
35; 2 Co I 9; 3 I4; Io 18; I2 I4
(GAA’ ol); Eph 2 19; 4 29; 5 24:
Phi 2 17; 3 7; I Th 2 7; 2 Th 2
I2; Philem 16; Ap 2 14. d\\&
Mt 16 17; Mc 2, 17; 7 19, 25; 12
I4, 25; Lc 8 16; 22 53; Jo 38;
7 28; 8 I2; 99; Io 8; 13 Io; 16
2, 20 ; Ja 2 18; I Pe 3 14; I Jo 4 18;
5 6, 18; 3 Jo 13; Ro 2 29 (dAN&
ék); I Co 24, 5; 4 I4 ; 14 17; 2
Co 2 I 7; 5 4; 13 8: Ga 3 12, 16;
Col 3 22; 1 Th I 8; 4.7; 2 Th 38;
Ap Io 9; 2d 6.
Tô 6’ at Tö I Co 12 4.
LC I6 3 r ; otö’ He 9 18.
očáš Čáv
MOVIEABLE FINAL LETTERS
In dealing with final v and the
final s of oğTws before consonants
we have been led by the limitations
of the evidence to adopt a mechani-
cal rule. In the best uncials, as
well as in not a few later MSS,
these letters are inserted in a large
AWOZ’ZS OAV OAQ ZZZOGAEAAEA/Y.
majority of cases, after éort and elot
almost always: but sometimes, es-
pecially in datives plural, and in the
third person plural of the present or
future active of long verbs, their
omission is well attested. The
traces of omission in MSS other
than the four early Bibles NABC
are however too scattered to be
often useful ; and again they are
much more abundant in N and B
than in A or C. We have failed to
detect any clear uniformities con-
necting differences of attestation
with differences of the following
Consonant or other circumstances of
collocation. On the whole it has
seemed best to trust, here those
MSS which we have found worthi-
est of trust where there are better
means of verification; and even, in
a matter of so little moment, to be
satisfied with collecting the evidence
of the four great MSS, except where
Joss of leaves or diversity of reading
materially diminished its amount,
and thus made it desirable to obtain
accessory evidence elsewhere. Our
general practice has been to accept
any omission of v or s vouched for
by either 8 or B supported by one
or both of the two other MSS;
while in a few cases of defective or
anomalous evidence we have been
guided partly by analogy, partly by
other comparately good uncial au-
thority. The alternative omissions
of v or s here given are chiefly
on the authority of N or B: the
alternative insertions are chiefly
given for places where the whole
evidence is specially scanty. It is
worth notice that Övorſ and Övatv be-
fore consonants are each well at-
tested three times.
ALT. Mt 46 dipofford; 5 15 tràort;
65 pavógt; 6 16 dºpavíčoval, pavó-
ot, diréxovat ; 12 To gé68aat; 12 36
àiro5&o ovov ; 13 5 etxe ; 13 49 dºo-
I47
plotſot: I 5 2 Tapaſaivovort ; 15 32
Tpoopévovoſt ; 18 28 &Tvvye; 19 22
âtröAffe ; 2d 17 trapéAage ; ; 21 26
éxoval ; 22 21 Aéyovoſt ; 22 34. Śq'l-
page ; 24 II tràavijo ovov; 24 I4, 47
Tâat ; 26 51 diréatrage; 27 3 dpxte-
peūgt. Mc I. 34 jºbue; 2 19 &xovat ; 2
23; 3 2 off3ao, ; 3 14 &gt; 4 5 eixe;
4 I2 iówou ; 4 I6 dicotſawat ; 4 17
éXovoſt ; 4 20 dicotſovort ; 5 I4 &ott ;
5 I5 6.etopotat ; 6 17 kpótºmore ; 6 45
ºváykage : 7 2 &offiovaſt ; 7 25 eixe ;
7 30, eſpe; 7 34 &otévaše, éort ; 8 2
Tpoop.évovort, #xoval; 9 18 €kfláxwort;
Io 33 dpxtépétat ; I2 42 €att; I4 3
#Affe ; I4 47 &tratore; 15 Io €ylvajo-ke.
Lc 2 37 6effaegu ; 2 38 Tráort ; 4 II
dpoto'ſ ; 4 33 divékpaše ; 6 9 &#eart ;
8 45 ovvéxovat ; 9 27 towart; 9 43
eitre ; 9 56 marg. A6e ; Io 34
katéömore; Io 39 jkove; I I I Ščičaše ;
I2 23 &ott ; I 3 12 trpooſepúvnoſe ; I4
2 I eitre ; 14 33 Tâat ; 15 7 #xovoſt ;
I5 I3 Ötégköpiruge; 19 43 trepukvKA&-
o'ovat ; 20 34 yap,000, ; 2d 36 elot
6eoû ; 20 41 Aéyovoſt; 20 47 kateo 6t-
ovov; 22 50 diſpet)\e; 22 61 &véâXeye;
23 8 #ATuše ; 23 15 &vétrépye; 24 9,
2 I Tägt. Jo 2 Io webva 6&gt; 332
Girovae; 334 6tówort; 4 27 eitre; 439
Eire; 4 47 ºuex)\e; 5 25 drova ovat ;
66 uéx\e ; 6 15 Toujo wort, diveX6-
pmote ; 6 19 6ewpovot ; 6 45 &oti ;
6 46 &paké ; 7 37 &Kpaše ; 8 29
dºñké; 9 30 åvotéé; Io 4 otöaot; Io
12 dºping, ; 12 14 Éart ; 12 4o vom-
orwart, a Tpaçãat ; I 3 16 áott ; 15 21
otôaoru ; 16 17, 18 €ott; 17 13 & Xavort;
I 724 0ewpóat ; 18 4, &#7A9e ; 18 Io
ëtratore; 18 16 eigºyaye; 18.19 p6-
Tºge ; 18 22 #66/ke; 18 26 &trékope ;
1833 &ºumore ; 19 4 &6e; 19 21
eitré; 19 35 prepaptºpmke; 19 4o £o Ti;
20 4 Nöe; 20 20 €6euše ; 20 22 €ve.
ºpºſa mge. Act 2 24 aveatmore ; 4 16
Tāort ; 5 19 jvoušev ; 7 25 ötöwou ;
8 38 €ké\evae; 9 26 €Teipaſe ; 9 4o
jvouše ; 10 Io #ffeXe ; I I I5 étrétréole;
12 9 eart; 12 14 #votée ; 12 16.éré-
pere; 12 23 #6ake ; 16 17 §kpaše ;
148
19 17 "EX\mat ; 19 38 &xovat ; 1941
dºréAvge; 20 2 1 "EX\mat; 20 38 w8A-
Novoſt ; 23 2 €Tétaše ; 23 I4 dipxte-
peão, ; 23 18 #yaye; 23 2 I Šveópeū-
ovoſt; 24 27 kaTé\ltrey; 25 23 divöpact;
26 25 pmoſt ; 27 3 Étrérpepe ; 28 7
iträpxe. Ja I 6 áouke ; I I I &##pave.
I Pe 4 5 diroödoſovoſt. 2 Pe I. 9 &rt.
I Jo 2 II otöe ; 5 16 ápaptávoval.
Ro I 5, 7 trägt ; I 27 ápa eat ; 2 7
{mtovoſt ; I Co I 2 trägt ; 3 13 Éart ;
7 29 eart; 9 22 Tāort ; 14 23 XaXágt;
I4 35 €ott. 2 Co I I trägt ; I2 12
Tépaot ; I2 I4 yovedov. Ga 2 14
dpffotročoval ; 3 Io Tāort ; 5 24 traffā-
page. Eph I 22 &ówke ; I 23; 3 18
trägt. Phi I I Tägt. Col I 6 ágr.
I Th 5 27 traoru. 2 Th I 4, Io trägt.
He I I4 elot ; 2 I drova 6eſort ; 2 4
Tépaort ; 8.6 TérvXe; 8 13 TreTraxatwke;
9 5 €ott; II 7 karékpue. I Ti I 4
trapéxovou ; I 20 trauðev6óguy; 6 3
Jytalvovalv; 6 9 8v6tſova tw. 2 Ti
2. To Túxoat ; 4 8 trägt. Ap 6 5
ºffvotéev ; 7 Io kpášovolv ; 8 9 &Té-
6avev ; 94 &Xovatv; Io 5 mpe ; 12 16
katétrue; 13 6 #voušev ; 17 16 puorº-
govolv; 19 17 trägtv; 20 8 Téagapaty ;
2 I 8 povetſov, Tràgiv.
oùTaj Mc 7 18; Ja 2 12 ; Ro II
26; I Co 7 17; Phi 4 I.
Eſkog, precedes a vowel I/I (Act)
in all good MSS ; elsewhere it pre-
cedes consonants. IIépwort 2/2 pre-
cedes consonants (2 Co). .
"Axpt usually precedes vowels (14–
16 times), Ga. 3 19 dxpts du or où
being the only certain exception :
pºéxpt preceding a vowel is certain
only Lc I6 16, pºéxpus 2–3 times.
All good MSS have divrukpus Xtov
Act 20 I5.
ALT. dxpts oë Ro II 25; dxpt
où He 3 13; p.éxpt aſſatos He
M2 4-
AWOZTAES OAV OAC 7TP/OGA’AA’ATY
SINGLE AND ID OURLE CON-
SON ANTS
"Evaros, éveußkovta, ćveós, yéunga
in the literal or figurative sense of
“product of the earth” (but yew-
vàuara éxióvãov), Čkyūvva, a vux'ſuwa,
8a)\\dutiou, kpá8atros (N Ioſ I I has
the strange form kpá8akros), paſſwuás,
fiákos, plaq-dopat are all certain. IIa-
pmata (-td. opal) is too uncertain for
text and is unattested 27/4o times,
but stands in different places in
NBCDLXD.G.3 : ápagºv seems to
be only Western. IIvpós (cf. Steph.-
Didot vi 2275 D, 2284 A) for Tuppás
has some good authority Apº, Tv-
pd{w less Mt”,
ALT. trapma'ig (-uds, -taščplewos,
-takópºevot, -ičeoffat) Mc 8 32; Jo 7
I3; Io 24; I I I4, 54; 16 25; 18
20; Act 2 29; 9 28; I4 3; 18 26;
Eph 6 19; Étrapmatagdpºeffa I Th 2 2.
Tvpós Ap 64; I2 3.
CHANGES OF CONSON ANTS
×pupts (so Nº.A.B.C.D4, cf.
Steph.-Didot vii 634 B, 1639 B; Cur-
tius Gr. Æt." 503) for a trupts is proba-
bly right. Zuápwa. Ap” (N lat.vg)
is probably Western (Latin) only,
though it held its ground on the
coins of Smyrna till Trajan’s reign,
when it was displaced by Xpºpua.
(Waddington Voy. arch. 894): śad-
payóos (-áyötvos) has no Greek at-
testation, ºutſpua (-tºw) very little
(Mtº D, Joº gº. [sic] N), (3evvija,
proportionally (3/8) less (Mt” D,
Paulº BDAG3, §§egrov Mc1 N); all
evidently, Western. The following
words have no exceptional character.
TIpágow (and compounds) always:
Kpetogov Paulº, kpéïtrov Paul’, cer-
tainly ; Kpelt Tøv (-ovos, -ova, -oguv,
kpeſtrov) He” (kpeta.gova. He doubt-
ful); Kpeſtrov 1 Pe! (2 Peº doubt.
AVO 7'ES OAV OA. THOGAEAAEATY
ful): éXatrów”, ČXatrovéal (from
LXX), but áAdora'avº, 3Ådrravº, all
almost without variation: Žagov
Paul” and maratºffmre Paul", but #T-
rmud. Paul” and #TTøvrat (#TTojrat)
2 Pe*: éée TXhoſaeto (-ovro, Škºr) ja'-
aegôat) always (1 1), but Act" doubt-
ful (-6pºevos). Baparécº, Gospels Acts,
all imperative ; 6appéaj%, 2 Co He,
none imperative : épa mu except per-
haps Paul 4/4. Mao Tós Lc” and
probably Ap": gaa 66s in each place
seems to be Western. "Apkov Ap',
not dpktov. 26pótov Ap”, nowhere
oãpólvos or -ov. More peculiar is
a pučpá Act", not a pupá. (9mwo avpós
in D 2/14 is of course of Latin
origin.) "Oputé Lc (not Mt') for
ôputs is perhaps only Western (ND).
‘Pó876pov (so also Is 19 17 B) and
ºpó8mTpov are both well attested 1/1:
On twin forms in -6pov and -tpov see
Lobeck in P. Buttmann G.G.” ii
413 f., cited by Dr Moulton.
ALT. atruptóas (-wv, -º) Mt 15
37; 16 Io; Mc 88, 20; Act 9 25.
Zutpuav (-m) Ap I II; 2 8. ŠkirAma-
Gópevos Act 13 12. Kpelagov 2 Pet
2 2 I ; Kpelttova. He Io 34. Öppeves
Öis and dippeo tv Ro I 27; dippew Ga
3 28. Maçois Ap I 13. Öputé Lc I3
34. £687Tpa Lc 2 I II.
ASSIMILATION OF THE FINAI, p OF
otiv čv ETC. IN COMPOSITION
The best MSS usually concur in
retaining a vu and év unchanged be-
fore T, V, 6, ©, k, y, x, & G, A, A.;
but in Some words assimilation is
constant according to all or at least
all primary MSS; while in a com-
paratively . Small number of cases
authority is divided. Speaking
generally, assimilation is the rule in
compounds of év, retention of v in
those of otiv ; and further, as might
be expected, assimilation is most
frequent where the original force of
I49
the preposition is somewhat lost in
the current sense of the compound
word. In the Catholic Epp., among
which I and 2 Peter supply nearly
all the examples of compounds of
a ſy or év, authority preponderates
for assimilation to an unusual ex-
tent, with but two clear exceptions:
but this may be partly due to the
paucity of extant uncials. The N.
T. contains no compounds of otiu or
év in which the following letter is :
Or p.
The certain and constant forms
are a vutrāaxw, ovvtrafféo, avutrapa-
'yū'opat, ovutrapaka)\éø, orvytrapa)\ap-
8ávo, ovvirópeºpºl, avutreptX&pgåva',
ovvirvíya), orvytroXirms, avviropetop at ;
but ovgºróata. oºvy!'vXos. avy/3aot-
Xeſa, ovv848áčw ; but ovg|3atva', a ſp-
BovXos, ovg|300Xeūw, orvpgoûAtov. Gºv-
©mpt; but a vpºpépa', oripºopos, ovº-
ºvXérms, a pºpuros, a úpºptovos, dotſp
‘povos, ovgºwvéa, orvplºymots, ovº-
ºpovia. Ovvká0mpat, avuka.0t{w, ovv-
kakotafféa, ovukakovXojuat, orvuköp-
Trray, orvukata/3atva', orvukatariffmut,
ovvkaTaympt; w, ovukekepaopičvos, ovy-
k\eta, ovvKAmpovógos, ovvKotwavós,
avvkouvøvéal, 'Agºvkputos. ovyyevås
(-eis, -ts), ovyyáveta. ovuxptºpat; but
otyxvous. avvšč, avy&mréal, Givv8.htm-
aſus, avyšntmTijs. Gºvarapos, ovva Tav-
pów, ovoitevāśa, a vua Touxéa, ovua Tpa-
Tudºrms; but a vaſtatukós, avatpépa), ov-
otpopff. ovvXaXéw, ovvXUTowpat; but
ovX\appáva (15/16: not in the sense
“help' (-vov) Phi 4 3), a v\\éyò. a-vu-
paffºrths, orvuſ,aptupéw, avvuétoxos,
ovupipmths. £utratºw, ČuTatypová,
éutralypés, éptaikºrms, épirit)\áø,
épatriºtta, ćpairMéka, ČuTAokh, ēatropos,
éºtropia (-tov), Épatropetopat,éuTpoo dev,
épatrúa, ; but Évreputratég. ēpſ3aiva,
épéateſ w, Šušá\\w, TapeppäNAQ,
Tapeg|Soxh, épéAétra, Épéâtrºw. &#1-
‘pavās, épºq’avíča, Šupogos, éºpwros.
éyka)\éal, éºyk\mpa, dwéykAmros, éy-
KaraXetta (except perhaps in Acts),
éYkpaths, éykpáteta, ćykpatetſop.at ,
I 50
but évKatvia, ćukawûo, évKatotkéw,
évkauxájuat, Évkévrpiša, ćvkplvø. év-
npáºw. &\\oyda. Éppſaivopal, éppéva.
All other compounds of Gºv and év
are included in the list of alternative
readings.
'Eupéag, is found in good MSS
wherever év p.60.9 occurs, but never
in S, B, D, or D2; it is apparently
Alexandrian: other occasional modi-
fications of év (as Jo 2 II &Y Kavá
AF) are ill attested : the converse
êvirpoo 6ev is exclusively Western.
Other examples of non-assimila-
tion are traXu'yevégia, travit)\möel,
Kevypeat, the last two being how-
ever doubtful.
ALT. avvtraffeis I Pe 3 8; avy-
Tr}\mpoña 6at Lc 9 5 1 ; orvpatrpeggū-
Tepos I Pe 5 I. oupga)\. Lc 2 19;
I4 31. oupºveto at Lc 8 7. avyka)\.
Lc 9 I; 15 6, 9; ovykatáðeous 2 Co
6 16; ovykeka)\vpuévov Lc 12 2;
ovykexupéum Act 19 32; ovykptu.
2 Co. 1 o 12 bis; ovyköTTovara Lc
I 3 I I ; ovvkvptav Lc Io 31. Ovy-
'yvép.mu I Co 7 6. avyxápmté LC 15
6, 9; a vyxaípet I Co 13 6; ovyxºv-
veral Act 2 I 31. Gºvye (28.) Phi 4 3.
Góvo muov Mc I4 44, ovoxmpatuğ-
pºevol I Pe I I4. O'vpºpepiáovtat I Co
9 I3; avvuopp. Ro 8 29; Phi 3 Io,
2 I. Špirvéau. Act 9 I. Šv3ptpºpuevos
Jo II 38. §yka94 rows Lc 20 2.0;
éykak. 2 Co 4 I, 16; Ga 6 9; Eph
3 13; 2 Th 3 I 3 ; Éykata Netpets Act
2 27; ÉvKateNet p0m Act 2 31 ; Év Kopſ-
8&aagøe I Pe 55; 6 yrotriſu I Co 9
12 ; Śvkóirreaffat I Pe 3 7; 6-ykög
Lc 2 5. €vXptorat Ap 3, 18.
trapºtrâmtel Lc 23 18. Keyxpeats
Act 18 18.
CHANGES OF WOWELS
A AND E
The substitution of e for a is well
attested in several words. In Téa -
AWO TAES OAV OR7A/OGAEAAEATY
capes and its compounds it is abso-
lutely confined to forms which have
a in the third syllable (Téa gepa,
Teaorepákovra, Teoraepakovtaerûs,) and
is thus apparently due to dissimila-
tion. For réorgepas however there
is no evidence: but tégorapes has
some good authority as an accus.
7/8 times, Ap 4, 4 (2°) being the
only exception: for the peculiarity
of the reading in Ap 4 4 (1°) See
note on the passage. In the LXX
likewise Téa gapes has usually some
good authority as an accus., Téo &epas
The Ver. -
The tenses of kaffapiša, which
have an augment or reduplication
(aor. act. and pass., and perf. mid.),
and no others (nor ka9apuapés),
change the second a to e in 8/8
places in some good MSS (never in
S): but the evidence is variable
and indecisive.
A small number of the best un-
cials (N7.B.S.A4.C”.T.) 8/8 times
have épavváø, ééepavvdoſ, dvešepay-
wntos, which are doubtless right.
More doubtful are éry'yapeia (S*. B")
2/2, x\tepós Iſ I : pºtapós is not a
word of the N.T., and Je)\os (Ap”)
and JéAlvos (Ap”) are found only in
cursives. 'Auguášo and āuºté; a 1/1
have both good authority. . The
interchange of a and e affects also
some proper names.
ALT. Tégorapes Jo II 17; Act
27 29; Ap 7 I ter; 9 I4. £ka9aptaff m
Mt 8, 3; Mc I. 42 ; Śkaffeptaff m
(-ma’av) Lc 4 27; 17 14, 17; Éraffé-
puaev Act 1o 15; I I 9; kekaðept-
opºćvows He Io 2. čyyapeño et Mt 541;
éry'yapetſovo tu Mc IF 2 I. X\tepôs Ap
3 16. dupté et Lc 12 28.
E AND AI
The substitution of e for at is
merely the shortening of an identical
sound, and stands virtually on the
same footing as the late ori)\os for
AVO 7'ES OAW OR7"HOGAEAAA/Y
otöXos and kpiga for kptua. In the
N.T. it must certainly be accepted
for pe).óums 1/1, and almost certainly
for kepéa 2/2 and kpetráXm 1/1 :
even for ééépums and éputévos autho-
rity is usually (5/7) preponderant:
\é\atros 2 Pe 2 17 (SAC) is made
very doubtful by the certainty of
Xa7Way, 2/2 (Mt Lc).
All uncials, strange to say, have
fied&v, not fiatóðv, Ap 18 13 (re-
d'arzºn game, raedarum fu). All
early uncials but A have avkopopéa,
not -pata. -
'Etravāykals or ét’ &váykaus (Act')
is perhaps Alexandrian only; but it
has good attestation.
The compound form āvāyatov,
found in Mc Lck in most MSS, in-
cluding the best, may be noticed
here: divāyeov, dváyeov (so Erasmus
and the ‘Received Text' but not the
Syrian text), ávdºyatov, and &vdºyedºv
have all only trifling authority.
ALT. kepata (-av) Mt 5 18; Lc
16 17. KpaltráAn Lc 21 34. ££atqvns
Mg 1336; Lc 2 13; 9 39; Act 9 3;
ééébums Act 22 6; alpyiótos Ló 21
34; ɺvíðuos I Th 53. Ét’ &váykaus
Act 15 28.
E AND EI
Et becomes e (before tº in the
verb ſixped,0moſav 1/r (from LXX);
but áxpetov &xpelot stand without
variation. IIAéov is certain 3/21
times, and is found occasionally
elsewhere in one or two MSS,
TAetov 18/21, TAetov TAetovos &c.
always. i
E AND I
The natural interchange of a after
a liquid with e is exemplified in
d^eets, the reading of the best MSS
5/5: the peculiarity of e before els
finds a parallel in AekeNee's (so four
inscriptions) and similar forms cited
by Lobeck Paralºp. 27. NnºbóAtos
I5 I
(3/3) alone is well attested, and the
best evidence is decisive for \eywów
4|4. - .
H AND EI
Authority is decisive for diváirepos
against dud Tºmpos 2/2 : it is found
also 2 Mac 8 24 (A, see note on
He I I 37), and it is stigmatised as
incorrect by Phrynichus: the cog-
nate direpos is the reading of the
principal MSS in Herod. i 32. The
el utiv of He 6 I4 (from LXX) is
proved by abundant evidence in the
LXX to be no mere itacism, and is
distinctly recognised in A. M. 416
5o : its difference from ºf pºv how-
ever is not strictly orthographical.
H AND I
Xuptkós (not a mptkós) Ap. I/I (so a
Neapolitan inscription, C.J. G. 5834,
otpukotrotós), and yuputtetºw Paul I/I,
in all the better uncials. The once
popular substitution of Kápºt}\os (a
form noticed by Suidas and a Scho-
liast on Aristophanes) for Káum\0s in
Mt 19 24; Lc 18 25 occurs in a few
late MSS only: the sense “cable’,
which it was intended to subserve,
is at least as old as Cyr.al (on Lc,
Greek and Syriac), who attributes
it to kāpºos, stating that “it is the
custom of those well versed in navi-
gation to call the thicker cables
‘camels’”; but it is certainly wrong.
H AND A
Of ‘Doric’ forms 66ayéto occurs
only in single MSS (B 1/8, D 3/7);
págow for fligow (= dpágga, not
#yvvu). Mc 9 18 (in D.81), but
phºwgiv Mt 76 (all; D being defec-
tive) and éppmåev Lc 9 42 (all). On
the other hand the marginal read-
ing Tpooaxeiv (B, = resortare 3) is
strongly commended by internal
evidence in Act 27 27 (where the
other readings are trpoo &yely [-aya-
I 52
'yeſv}, Tpoãyetu [-ayayetvl, trpoo’ey-
ºytčeiv, aſparere), as expressive of
the roar of the surf from which
alone the nearness of land could be
inferred in the dark night: compare
the converse kvpd. Tov alyva)\ots
Trpoo`myoëvraju Themist. Or. p. 32.
I AND Y
ALT. 8hpi}\\os Ap 21 20.
I AND OI
XT-865&s is much better attested
than a Toupéðas Mc II 8.
I AND O
The best MSS have Óuelpópºevot
for iuelpópºevot I Th 28 (as Job 3 21
codd.; PS 62 2 Sym.; intepopºeipeg 6at
Iren.60): on the breathing see
above, p. 144.
E AND O
The better uncials vary, as they
do in the LXX, between ÖAé0peºw
(-evtås, ééoMe6petſa) and the curious
form ÖA00petºw, which seems to have
prevailed in late times, and is
adopted in the Syrian text and in
the ordinary editions of the LXX.
In Act 3 23 alone the evidence for
the form with e is decisive; else-
where it is much weaker.
- ALT. ô\eópevroſ I Co Io Io;
ÖAetºpečav He 11 28.
A AND O
The best MSS have Tarpoxçais
kai Amtpoxçais I Ti I 9: for extra-
neous evidence see L. Dindorf in
Steph.-Didot v Ioz 3 c. Megaviſ-
kTuov (cf. pièorapov, plea adºptov) is not
without authority in 2/4 places ;
and 8atta)\oyéal (cf. 8at Tapišw) must
probably be read for 8attoxoyéal,
which seems to be due to wrong
etymology.
AWOZTES OAV OA. TAZOGAEAAA/Y
ALT. peaſavvKrtov Mc 13 35;
Lc I I 5 ; 8a.TToxoyhoºnTe Mt 67.
O AND Q
>vKogopéa, not -gapéa (and not
-paia), is much the best attested
form, and agrees with ovKópopov :
So also XpeoptAérms (not Xpeºp-), on
which see Herodianus(Choerob.) ii
606; trpótuos, but Tpa lugs, both
with the best MSS of the LXX ;
and perhaps XToikós; and on the
other hand évôtéumorºs (as 66pmats
Hesych., and 6&pmaa the Venice
MS of Eus. H. F. X 4 43 : cf. Lob.
Ahryza. 587 f.). ‘Ieparativm and the
three other (later) forms in -worſum
specified by ancient grammarians,
dyabajo ſum, Öyvajo ſum, preya Majorſum,
all having a short vowel in the pre-
vious syllable (P. Buttmann G. G.”
ii 420; Lobeck Pro/. Paſſ/h. 238 f.),
are read by the best as well as most
late MSS in the N. T., the forms
in -oo jum having little but Western
authority. -
ALT. Stoikºv Act 17 18.
OY AND Y
The evidence for Kox\otipuov as
against Kox\iptov preponderates, but
not greatly: both forms are well
attested elsewhere.
ALT. Kox\iptov Ap 3 18.
I AND EI
Confusions between t and et due
to mere itacism in the MSS of the
New Testament are certainly nu-
merous; but genuine peculiarities
of original Orthography abound
likewise : there are also many
ambiguous cases. Two principal
causes introduced extensive depar-
tures from the classical usage of
t and et in the popular Greek in
which the New Testament is to a
AVO 7"ZS OAV OA'7"AſOGAEAAAZY
certain extent written; the tendency
to shorten many long sounds, ex-
hibited especially in words of many
syllables, and the widely spread
habit of using et to denote the long
Sound of t in such words and forms
as still retained the long sound.
This use of et to denote long t (e.g.
in Telpºda) is widely spread in in-
Scriptions of good character. The
writers of the N. T. appear to have
employed it much more sparingly,
but still to a considerable extent.
Thus the very slender attestation of
hueſv and pečv, for which there
is ancient grammatical authority
(Lachmann i p. xl), marks them as
due to scribes alone. But the evi-
dence for yetvouat and yetvéoka,
(and their compounds) is so con-
siderable that they would probably
have been admitted to the text but
for an unwillingness to introduce
words of frequent occurrence into
a manual edition in an entirely un-
familiar guise. The forms contain-
ing yetv. must therefore be regarded
as alternative readings everywhere
except in I Pet 5 3 (yuāuevoi); Ap
3 2 (Ytvov); I 3 (divaytvágkøv): in
all other places there is at least
Some, and often much, early uncial
authority for yetv.; though it should
be mentioned that 8/91 times for
'Yelvopat and compounds, and 29/108
times for yetvágkø and compounds
(chiefly in Acts and Epp. Cath.),
the only attesting document is B,
which has little authority on behalf
of et as against t.
Of rare words keptats Jo II 44
and o'etpoſs 2 Pe 2 4 are certain, and
Tuffo's I Co 2 4 hardly less. The
only exact parallel to this last sin-
gular word is ºptè6s, written betóós
by some, but distinctly said by
Herodianus(Choerob.) ii. 598 Lenz
to have : compare Lobeck Rhem.
279, who cites puyós from pejºya.
All early uncials, and some others,
I 53
have elöéa Mt 28 3, a form well
attested in late literature (compare
Field Hex. Dan i 1.4). It may be
suspected that eipts (for ipts) lurks in
the strange tepets of N*A 79 al"
(‘priests’ aeth arm) and upels of
S“B2 in Ap 4 3, and upsts of A (pms
C, 0puš S) in Ap Io I : but no direct
authority can be cited. For Xel-
Towpyós and its derivatives the best
attested reading on the whole is
\tToup), in St Paul and Hebrews
(but I 14 N Only): in Lc.1/1 it is
fairly well attested, while in Act.
1/1 it stands in E, alone. This
spelling is well supported by in-
scriptions and other evidence (com-
pare Steph.-Didot), though proba-
bly due in the first instance to a
confusion ; and indeed the use of
these words in St Paul and Hebrews
suggests that associations derived
from the sense of Attº may have
become attached to them. On the
whole it has seemed best to place
Xutovpy. On the same footing as yet-
wouat and yetvdºorka.
The shortening of et to t takes
place in some abstract substantives
in -eta from verbs in -eča' (-ečop.a.);
&\ašovia, dpeakia, É06X00pmarkta (but
6pmoketa), eiðaj)\oxarpta (but \atpeia),
épuffia, Éppmvia, tepatia, KoMakia,
Kv3ta, payta, pºeffočía, 6%0a)\poãov-
Xia (but ÖovXia at least doubtful),
trpayparia, pappakſa ; doubtful cases
being &yvia, trauðia, troMºtia, tropia.
(in the same sense as tropeia), TTw-
xia, a Tparta (not to be confounded
with otpatud : compare Krüger on
Thuc. i 3 4; Stallbaum on Plat.
Ahaedr. 26o B): but there is no
sufficient evidence adverse to the
ordinary forms in other cases, as
6epaireta, pºol)(eta, vomoteta, Teptogeta,
Topveia, trpeggeta, trpoºm reta, ºbvreta,
and also pºveta, Xpeta. To these
may be added the geographical
names’ATTa)\ta, Katoſapta, Aaobukia,
dºt\aôe) pla, and probably Xapiapia,
I 54.
XeXevkia (but 'Avruoxeta). A similar
change takes place in a very few
proparoxytones, āvatóia, elAuxptuta,
6trueukta, Kakombia, kakotraffia, Tpaij-
traffia, and also digexia (a form which
has abundant classical authority);
doubtful cases being dkpugia, directºia.
(in Hebrews, not doubtful else-
where), ÉRtevta : but &Xà6eta, doré-
8éug, and many others, are fully
attested, as are also dirtóNewg, 80%ffeta,
ovvréAeta. Conversely there is some
good evidence for eitpatréAeta (Sup-
ported by the considerable classical
authority for Öva TpatréAeta); and
somewhat more for étrépzeta (€tráp-
xévos): but ko)\wveta is confined to
late MSS. On duplicate forms in
-ta and -etc. see AE. M. 462 (= Hero-
dian. ii 453); also P. Buttmann
G. G.” ii 4.17. Substantives that in
the best MSS have -lov for -etov are
6&vtov (see Öavića, below) and elödº-
\vov; also a Touxtov and still more
Travóóxtov are too well attested to
be rejected altogether, but pumpetov
and Gºmpetou are above doubt.
Adjectives that in the best MSS
have -tos for -etos are aſylos (so appa-
rently in LXX 4/4), 'Etrukoúptos, and
perhaps "Aptos (IIáyos), dottos (cf.
Hesych.), €truthètos, and peºyáNua,
preya)\tórms (but 8agiXétos, Yuvalketos).
Adjectives that in the best MSS
have -wós for -euvós are éptuás, orko-
Tuvös, paſtuvēs. There is a clear
predominance of authority for Tá-
xetov (Jo” He”: see Boeckh on C. Z.
G. 3422), but 8éAttou and K&\\tov
are above doubt. - -
Of substantives in -ettºms for -ttºms
Tpaire; eitms is the only example
among appellatives (the attempt of
grammarians to assign different
spellings to different senses being
doubtless, as often, successful for
the literary language only), wegitims
(-treča), troXirms with its derivatives,
and texvirns, as also papyapitºms,
being above doubt. Of proper
AVO 7TES OAV OR THTOGAEAAA/Y
names of like form Aeveirms (with
Aevettukós) has good though not
abundant evidence, and is justified
by the amply attested'Aévet, Aévets;
'EXapettys (-etrus) and Nuveveitms are
likewise morally certain ; Xapapet-
Tns, adopted by the Syrian text,
and Xapiapirms (-irts) vary in rela-
tive authority in different places,
-ettºns being on the whole better
attested in Jo Act than in Mt Lc ;
but there is no reason to change
'Apeotrayirms or NukoWairms, , or
again Tpaxovirus. All good uncials
support travouket against Tavouki :
cf. P. Buttmann G. G.” ii 453 f.
The forms àavi{w, Ödvtov, Öavtoths
are alone well supported; so NABC
in the LXX with hardly an excep-
tion, and various non-biblical evi-
dence. Xpeoqi)\érms 2/2, must cer-
tainly be read : but tabulation of
evidence confirms 6 pei)\@, . Tpooro-
getAw, Öqet\}, ÖgetAmpua, Óðét}\éTms,
notwithstanding the occasional at-
testation of -t}\- by a greater or less
number of good MSS. The autho-
rity for dAtºw, Éaxtºw, consider-
able in Mc I.6 I, is not on the whole
satisfactory: but we have accepted
éča)\tºp6%ivat Act 3 19, in which
NBC concur, and which has the Sup-
port of some recognised forms.
Similarly it is enough to mention
here the not unimportant attestation
of dirtóñs (-ta, -éa); diročeótypévos,
6t-yua, ÜTöövypa, [trapajówypariśw ;
dóváXvirtos, dvék\tTros : it is on the
whole safest to refer these and other
still more irregularly attested Spell-
ings to mere itacism. Authority is
amply sufficient however for Kata-
AéNippat, Aippa, KaráAppa (compare
Field Aſſex. Lev 18 6), which follow
the ancient rule against the reten-
tion of a diphthong before a double
consonant (Herodian. ii. 270 : cf.
Lobeck Paraliſ. 36 f.): the express
reference to kpetorowu as an excep-
tion (ibid.) is borne out by the
AWOZTES OAV OA. TAZOGRAPHY
scantiness of the evidence for kplo-
owv in the N. T. A curious prob-
lem is presented by the constancy
with which the better MSS (ND2
excepted, which have -\lt-likewise
in He Io 25, where it is clearly
wrong) have forms in -ettrov (-ettrev)
for the indicative of compounds of
Xeſtra, in places of the Pastoral
Epistles (cf. Lc 745; Io 40) where
the aorist would be the most natural
tense (2 Ti 4 Io, 13, 16, 20 ; Tit
I 5 ; cf. 3 I 3).
Of Hebrew names having a Greek
termination in -tas or -eias three have
on the whole sufficient authority for
-etas (3/33 times however B alone,
Mc 6 I5; Jo I 21; Ja 5 17), 'HAetas,
'Iaja’etas, and 'O'etas; while almost
all the evidence supports, ‘Avavtas,
Bapaxias, ‘Eſektas (less exclusively
than the rest), Zaxaptas, 'Iepeputas,
'Iexovias, Maff0ías, Mattaðias, Où-
pias. The inscription on the statue
of Hippolytus (see below, p. 159)
contains "Ečekias &is and Ta'oeias.
The Greek transcripts of all Hebrew
names ending in "-- take -ei, 'A6öet,
'Appet, Eo Met, H\et, Mexxet, Nºmpet;
as also of the Hebrew appellatives
pag|3et, faggovvet, + \et F (but ÉXwt),
oraćax0avet : analogous forms are
'Axetu, EXuakeipi,'Iopelu, (Neq6a)\elp.
in Mt,) 2a)\eta, 'Aépeiv, Bevapºeiv,
2épéeiv, Xopa;eiv (but 'Eqpaipa, Naiv,
and in Ap, if the best evidence
may be trusted, Nepôa Mip.), as also
Xepov6elv; and again Aavetà, Kels,
and Aevels. The penultimate and
earlier syllables of names take et for
the same Hebrew vowel, not only
in 'Idetpos, Budreupa, 24trºpelpa, but
in 'Iepetx%, and probably in 'EXetoa-
8ér, and (on slighter evidence) Ta-
Selbö and Taxelöä: but t stands
for "-- in other names, as 'Apava-
643, Mexxiorečék, Xuyá, Xuév. Of
I55
proper names of other origin the
form Iſet\átos has sufficient autho-
rity (2/55 however B alone, Mt 27
2; Act 4 27); and Elkóvtov, though
probably due in the first instance to
erroneous etymology, has good at-
testation, and is supported by ex-
traneous evidence, including that of
coins.
ALT. Attowpy. Lc I 23; Act 13
2; Ro 13 6; I5 16, 27; 2 Co 9 12;
Phi 2 I 7, 25, 3o; He I 7, 14; 8 2,
6; 9 21 ; Io II.
âyweig I Ti 4 12; 5 2; d.Kpfltav
Act 22 3; direubiau (-tas) He 46,
II; Sovkias (-tav) Ro 8 15, 21 ; Ga
4 24; 5 I ; He 2 I 5 ; Śkrevig Act
267; trapxias Act 23 34; trapxtg
(margin étrapxtg) 25 I ; eWTpatréAeta
Eph 5 4 ; travóia (-tav, -ías, -íg)
Eph 64; 2 Ti 3 16; He 12 5, 7, 8,
II; TroMuttav (-tas) Act 22 28; Eph
2 12; troplav (-tats) LC I 3 22; Ja I
II; Traxta (-law, -lg) 2 Co 8 [? 2,19;
Ap 2 9; otpatias (-tau) 2 Co Io 4;
I Ti I 18. Xapºdpewa (-ápetav, -apetas,
-apeig) Jo 4 4, 5, 7; Act I 8; 8 I,
5, 9, 14; 9 31 ; I5 3; 26Nevketav
Act 13 4. Tavóóxtou Lc Io 34;
otolyta Ga 4 3, 9; Col 2 8, 20; He
5 12; 2 Pe 3 [no evidence Io, I2.
"Aptov ('Aptov) Act 17 19, 22;
ãottos (-ov) Act 7 20; He II 23;
étrºthéua Ja 2 16; peºyd Ala Act 2 II;
perya)\tóTºtt (-ta, -tos) LC 943; Act
1927; 2 Pe 1 16. Xauapitms (-frat,
-itats) Lc Io 33; 17 16; Jo 49, 4o;
8 48; -ttów Mt Io 5; LC 9 52; Jo
4 39; Act 8 25 ; -ºrus, -ittàos, Jo
4. Rºad, Ap 7 6; 'EXuaré8er Lc
I 5, 7, 13, 24, 36, 40, 41 &és, 57;
Tabúð Act 9 36, 40; Taxifló, Mc 5
41; Elkövtov (-ovtov, -ovig). Act 13
51; 14 1, 19, 21 ; 16 2; 2 Ti 3 II.
I 56
II.
DECLENSIONS I II
Substantives in -pa form the gen.
and dat, in -pus, -pºl, in the best
MSS, with the dissent however of
B in Act. 3/5 ; they are pºdżaipa,
TAffuſivpa, Tp(gpa, a reſpa, Xàt peºpa:
so also ovvetóvims Act 5 2. The
genitive of Að66a, indeclinable in
acc. Act”, is A&6öas in the best
MSS (Act): all MSS have Mápôas
(Jo).
Alyn for Öipet 1/1 (B and cursives)
need not be an itacism.
On forms in -ta, -eta, -uśs -euvös,
and the like, see pp. 153 ff.
Topºppov is attested by the best
MSS Mt': Top 5ppas, which stands
almost without variation 2 Pe", is
the only gen, of the LXX, Tógoppa
being as constantly the accusative.
Aða-Tpa takes without variation
the acc. -av (Act”) and the dat. -ots
(Act” Paul'); and similarly evd Telpav,
which is well attested, may be right
Ap', though evatetpots stands above
doubt Act'. Ap”.
2a)\aptum, a well attested substi-
tute for 2a)\apſut, is perhaps only
Alexandrian : Justin and Orosius
have the Latin acc. Salamzinam.
The variations between Mapta.
and the indeclinable Mapuáu are
singularly intricate and perplexing,
except as regards the gen, which is
always -tas, virtually without varia-
tion, and without difference of the
persons intended. The Virgin is
always (and usually without im-
portant variation) Mapudu (nom. voc.
acc. dat.), except twice in a few of
AVO ZTAES OAV OA” ZTAZOGA2AAAſ}^
NOTNS
the best MSS, Mt I 20 (acc.) and Lc
2 19 (nom.). The sister of Martha is
also probably always Mapúa (nom."
acc.”), though the attestation curi-
ously dwindles down to B 1 33,
B 33, B I, and 33 in Jo I2 3; II 2 ;
Lc Io 42; Jo II 20 respectively.
Mary of Clopas on the other hand
is always Mapia (nom."), as is (acc.")
St Paul’s helper (Ro 16 6). The
difficulties arising from gradation of
evidence reach their climax in the
case of M. Magdalene. She is cer-
tainly Mapuáp, Mt 27 61, and per-
haps 27 56; 28 I (all nom.); almost
certainly the same Mc I5 4o; but
not I 5 47; 16 I (all nom.), nor
apparently (dat.*) in the Longer
Conclusion, 169; Mapia again Lc
(nom.”); and apparently the first
3 places of Jo, 19 25; 2d I, II
(all nom.): but a clear accession of
good evidence certifies Mapuáp, for
the peculiar and emphatic vocative
of 20 16, where the Hebrew form is
specially appropriate; and it is
naturally repeated immediately af-
terwards in the nom. of 20 18.
The variations in good MSS be-
tween the forms belonging to ékatov-
Tápxms and -óvrapyos are not wholly
irregular. In Mt” the nom. sing. is
almost certainly -xos (not so Sº,
N* cul, ND Orig'), there is no acc.,
and the dat. sing." is -xm : in Lc.”
(some good MSS being adverse)
and Act" the nom. sing, is -xms,
and the dat. sing. (Act”) and acc.
pl. (Act") are in like manner -xm
and -Xas respectively, the acc. sing.
alone (Act”) being of the second
AVO 7A.S. OM OAC 7TAZOGA2AAA/Y
declension. XiXtapxos stands with-
out variation, as do €623 px?s sing.,
TaTptópxms, Toxtrápxms, and TeTpad.p-
xms (reſpápxms). &
The genitives of proper names in
-as pure end in -ov, except 'H\eta
once, Lc I 17 (not 4 25).
2Táðua Jo. 1/1 for a raóious (Lc. 1/1
Ap. 1/1 marg.) seems to be only
Western.
Por a 438aatu, the usual dat. of
a.d53ata, B twice has gagéditots.
*Ogroºv, which stands Joº (from
LXX), has the uncontracted forms
ôo Téa Lc" (in most MSS, including
the best) and 60 réov Mt. He'. The
uncontracted forms of adjectives in
-00s are almost confined to N, and
that in Ap”: but AC have Xpworéaſu
Ap'. The best MSS have acc. Xpw-
orāv Ap': but nom. Xpwai, stands
IIel. -
Some adjectives usually of three
terminations are of two in the N.T.,
köopatos I Ti", oùpdvtos Lc Act", āquos
I Til; padratos is of three I Pe!
I Col, of two Jal Tit"; ároupos of
three Mt', of two I Pek 2 Col;
alºvios is of three 2 Th. 1/1 He.
1/4, of two 52/54 times, though
single MSS (chiefly B) have alwviav
Mc Io 3o; Act I 3 48; 2 Pe I I I ;
I Jo 2 25.
As Apſás is feminine 2/3 times
(Lc Act"), some doubt rests on the
masc. LC", though I 3–69 alone
support the fem.; and the doubt
may be fitly expressed here.
Aavvij)\ov (Mt. D) and Tapa)\tº\ov
(Act, B) may safely be rejected.
The acc. of 'AtroXX&s is 'AtroX-
Xów Paul”, 'AtroXX& Act", but with
Some evidence for-Xùv, which would
easily be changed in MSS, AGS be-
coming AC0. In all good MSS the
acc. of Kós is Kö Act.
ALT. Tpºpas Act 27 30; greipas
Act Io I ; 2atrøelpg Act 5 1. 6tym
2 Co II 27. 6váretpav Ap I iſ.
I57
XaXautum Act 13 5. €katovrápxms
Mt 8 5, 8; 27 54. Jaggårous Mt 12
I, 12. Xpworéov Ap 2 I, Nipºs pre-
7&m Lc 4. 25. Attox\@v Act 19 .
IDECLENSION III
The best MSS have k\sióas Mt.
1/1, and all but D k\etëa Lc. 1/1 :
but k\eſs" (acc.) and k\eiv% stand in
Ap. "Epets in Paul. 5/6 has consi-
derable attestation, and has often
been naturally taken as a plural;
but all MSS have épubes I Co I II :
we have with hesitation allowed
êpets (with {n}\ot, the attestation of
which is a perplexing element of
the evidence) in Ga 5 20, though it
is probably at once an itacistic error
for épus, and an assimilation to
neighbouring plurals (as in 2 Co 12
20, and still more certainly I Ti 64 :
cf. I Co 3 3): similarly it stands for
épu Tit 3 9. The plural of via rus
is vºjo Tets Mt. Mc"; viiatus, appa-
rently recognised by some ancient
grammarians (C. F. A. Fritzsche
A/c. 796 f.), is found in no early MS
but S, which cannot be trusted for a
as against et. For the substantive
Xáplv (without var. 4o times, incl.
Act”) Xapita is well attested Act. 1/7
and sufficiently Jud", and found in
A in Act. 1/7. - -
The uncontracted gen. pl. Tmyéauv,
common in LXX, is attested only
by A Cyr in Jol and N in Ap".
A final v is often appended to ac-
cusatives sing. in a or m (m) in one or
more good MSS. The irregularity
and apparent capriciousness how-
ever of its occurrence, the usual in-
sufficiency of the amount of evidence
for it, and its extreme rarity in B
have induced us to regard these
forms as due to transcribers, even
where the evidence is less slender
than usual, as in the case of Xéſpaw
33
I58
Jo 20 25, avyyevåv Ro 16 II, 30 pa-
Afiv He 6 19. -
For ovyyevſis (which stands Jol;
ovyyevſ, [–våv ABD”] Ro!) Lc, has
the fem. ovyyevts, and Mc Lc,
probably the dat. pl. ovyyevedov (as
I Mac Io 89) from ovyyeve's.
As an acc. &\a is fully attested
1/1, Mc 9 50 (3°): as a nom. it
always occurs as a 2. /. in one or
more good MSS; so also Lev 2 13
(1°) in ABG cus. -
The variations in the inflexions
of jutovs in MSS are curious. In
Ap” #patov each time has the zy. Z.
mutorov (A”, SA, N* : cf. Is 44 16 B),
which likewise is one of the vari-
ants for jutorovs. Mc". In Lc 198
MSS clearly certify Tàºjutorua (Lalone
has -a.eta), apparently from a form
mºtorios, against Tô jutov and still
more against të mutam : this peculiar
form occurs in an inscription from
Selinus in Cilicia (C. Z. G. 4428),
Tāv 6é [mpalatav (the restoration is
certified by the context); cf. He-
sych. Huttlews’ ºutgevrijs. Huittov:
Terpáxovv. The evidence is deci-
sive for 8a0éa's Lc, and sufficient
for Tpača's I Pe".
It is convenient to place here as
alternative readings a few nomina-
tives (without à) used as vocatives,
and differing only in the length of a
vowel: 0uyármp Mc Lc, Jo", Tărmp
Jo°, Čºppov Lcl I Col (cf. viós Mt.*T*)
claim a place in the text: 8aat-
Nečs (B) Act 26 13, 27 may appa-
rently be neglected. -
A few substantives in -os, usually
of the second declension, are wholly
(éXeos, aſkóros) or in part of the third
in the N.T.: TNoüros in nom. and
acc. is 8/Io times of the third in St
Paul, but of the second in other
cases and other writers; fiXos 2/7
times of the third (acc. dat.) in St
Paul, and perhaps 1/5 (gen., as good
MSS in LXX) in other writers:
conversely there is but little au-
No7ES ON OR THoGRAPHY
thority for 6dp3ov 1/f. Whether
mxovs in Lc 21 25 (év ćiroptg mxovs
6a)\dota ms) comes from fixos or from
mx3 is doubtful : fixos is apparently
an acc. in Jer 28 (51) 16 (NAB),
and Iren.68 according to Epiph has
the dat. #xet (but Hipp #x9); but
there is no other evidence for ºxos
in the third declension (rod fixovs in
I Reg 1841 is merely a Compluten-
sian conjecture), and ſixtá, might
well be used in an equally general
sense, as Job 4 13 and apparently
Philo Mut. Anoma. 9 f. (i 588 f.):
the same uncertainty recurs in Ps 77
(76) 17; (?) 65 (64) 7; Sir 47 9; and
in one text of Jer. Z. c. - -
The best MSS (in Mt I 6 nearly
all MSS, for the acc.) in the Gospels
(Mtº Lc” Jo") have XoAopºvos, im-
plying 20\opºv (or 20Xópov : See
Chandler Gr. Acc. 650, 661) in the
nom. : in Act. 1/2 20Åopſovros is as
decisively attested (implying 20Xo-
pºv in the nom.), while in Act. 1/2
authority is divided : in Mt I 6 Nº
I-209 have the indeclinable acc.
-udºv, which is of frequent occur-
rence in the LXX. -
Since St Luke makes 'EXatóvos
the gen. of 'EXavdiv in Act 1 12, it
may be reasonably inferred that the
'EXatav of Lc 19 29; 21 37 is not
an indeclinable in agreement, with
the accus. Tó, but the gen. Of €Aata.
(“the Mount that is called [the
Mount] of Olives”); as is also
suggested by the shortly subsequent
use of Tô "Opos rôv 'EXatów (as Mt
Mc) in each case: the accent must
therefore be 'EXavóv. -
The dat. of Majvažs is every-
where (Mt. Mc Lc, Joº Rol 2 Til)
Majvoreſ except Act 7 44, where -gã
may come from the LXX : the evi-
dence is decisive except 7/9 times.
The acc. is Movača, Lcº, Movgºv Act”
I Col. He', all without var. 'Iwdivet
is sufficiently attested as the dat. of
'Iwdums Mt. Lc", and probably Ap",
AWOTAES OAV OA’7”HOGA2A/2//Y
but is unattested Act" (see Majvore?
above). -
The gen. of 'Ida'ſs is ‘Iwaº in Mt
27 56, if Iwaſhq is not the true read-
ing; in Mc. 3/3 it is ‘Iwaiiros.
The name of the king Manasseh is
in Mt acc. Mavagaſi, followed by
nom. -a-fis: but NBD may be right in
having -aſ, in both places, i.e. in-
declinable (so 2 Chr 32 33 A*B), as
is the name of the tribe in Ap (so
Gen 48 5 AB, &c.).
ALT. Xápura Act 25 9. ovyye-
véauv Mc 6 4; Lc 2 44. &\a Mt
5 13 bis; Mc 9 50 bis (1° 2°); LC
14 34 &is. 6vyáTºp Mt 9 22; ºrdrºp
Jo I2 28; 17 5, II. §Aovs Act 5 17.
ºxovs Lc 21 25. 20Xopºvos Act 5
12. Movo'ſ Mc 9 4; Ro 9 15.
*Iwdum Ap I I. Mavaggi, Mt I ſo
2 - -
(2°).
FORMS OF PROPER NAMES INDE-
PENDENT OF INFLEXION
Few of the numerous variations
in the form of proper names require
to be mentioned here. The cases
in which decision is difficult are not
many. . - -
'Iwāvms stands for ‘Iwdvvms almost
always (12 1/130) in B (in S only in
parts written by the scribe of B,
namely Mt 16 14; 17 I, 13; LC I
I 3; Ap I I, 4, and perhaps 9; and
the correction of Jo 21 5, where
S* omits), and frequently in D: no
MS has it Act 4 6; 13 5; Ap 22
8; but this is doubtless accidental.
No difference of evidence can be
clearly traced with regard to the
several persons who bear the name.
'Iodiums occurs in Christian inscrip-
tions from Seleucia (C. J. G. 9237,
for a native of Alabanda), Bithynia
(8869), Athens (9307), and Rome
(9640). It is likewise the form used
in the list of writings inscribed on
I59
the base of the Roman statue of
Hippolytus, accompanied by a pas-
chal canon which must have been
framed in 222 or shortly after (see
. 79); and the inscription itself,
notwithstanding the doubts raised
(not on palaeographical grounds) by
Kirchhoff. (C. J. G. 8613), , who is
inclined to refer it to the latter part
of Cent. IV, belongs assuredly to
the same generation as the canon.
The absence of Latin attestation
and the range of inscriptions render
it improbable that 'Iwdvms is due to
Western scribes: but it would be
hardly safe to reject 'Iwávvms alto-
gether. 'It'éva (LC*) is open to a
similar doubt, especially in Lc .24
Io. 'Iowaváu Lc. 1/1 is amply assured.
Maô0aſos is sufficiently attested;
and also, somewhat less, Maffºdiv,
Maô0at (-66), Mað0ías (compare
Mað0äs in two Palmyrene inscrip-
tions, C.J. G. 4479, 4502; Tibówy, in
Palestine, Eus. A.A. ii 13 3 cod.
Ven.); but 'Aqqāta and 24%petpa
appear to be Western only. . . .
'EXtoratos (LC") and conversely
Bapa aggås (Act”) are alone well
attested; 'EXtora’atos and Bapatagós
being Syrian. p5-yexos is the right
form (2 Ti"), not pºlye? Wos; as also
TpayúAtov, not Tpanyù Nuov, in the
Western interpolation of Act 20 15.
For BeextegoûX NB substitute
Beef effotſ\ Mt. 3/3 Lc.3/3, BMc. 1/1;
and there is no sufficient reason for
discarding this form of an obscure
name (see Weiss Mt. Ez. u. s. Zuc.
Aar. 27 1, 275: cf. Mc. AEz. z. s.
Syn. Par. 126 f.), unknown except
from the N.T.: but the form with
X, analogous to the Heb. Baalzebub
(LXX Baa\ºvićv) of 2 Reg I 2, 3, 6,
demands recognition. In the N.T.
Beelzebub has no Greek authority;
and Belial for BeXtap (BéAuá3, BeXtav
Western) is exclusively Latin. . . .
'AtreWXàs for 'AtroXX&s (Act”, not
Paulº) is Alexandrian. Neepadu (Lc")
I6O
is a late, apparently Syrian, cor-
ruption of Natuáv (so also the better
MSS of LXX).
There is everywhere much varia-
tion between documents in the
spelling of the name Mazareth ;
but the evidence when tabulated
presents little ambiguity. Našapá
is used at the outset of the Ministry
in Mt. 1/3 (4 I3) and Lc. 1/5 (4 16);
Našapé0 in Mt. 1/3 (21 11), the only
later place in the Gospels where the
name occurs, and in Act. Iſ I ; and
Našapér certainly or probably in all
other places, Mt. 1/3, Mc. Iſ I, Lc.4/5,
Jo.2/2: Našapá6, ſound 8/11 times
in A, has little other attestation.
Between 'Iepovo axiſ, and 'Iepoo.5-
Xupa there is usually no variation,
though each form is wrongly intro-
duced a few times: Act I 5 4 ; 20 16
are the only places where it would
be possible to hesitate about deci-
sion. 'Iepogéxupa is used in Mt
always except once in the voc., in
Mc and Jo always, sometimes in Lc
(a seventh), Acts (roughly two
fifths), and St Paul (3/Io); 'Iepovaa-
Xºja in Mt 23 37, the remainder of
Lc Act Paul, and Heº Ap”.
Ratepwabük, is everywhere a dis-
tinctively Syrian corruption of Ka-
qapvaoüit; and Mayóa Ná (Mt 15 39)
is a Syrian modification of Mayóa-
Xdiv, an apparently Alexandrian cor-
ruption of Mayačdv.
Some other local names vary in
termination between -d and -áv.
Mt (acc.) Jo'(nom. with v. Z. Tox-
yó6) have Toxyo0á, Mc"(acc.) in the
best MSS —div. Lc"(acc. voc.) Jo”
gen.) have Buffaatöá, Mt (voc.) Mc”
(acc.) -áv. Bm0avlá as an acc. is
sufficiently attested Lc 19 29, and
stands in B Mt. Mc. 1/2, but else-
where is virtually unattested.
AeXparta 1/1 (which has good ex-
traneous authority) and IIatépa I/I
are probably Alexandrian but pos-
AWOTES OAW OR7A/OGRAAAZY
sibly genuine.
only Western.
The true form of several geogra-
phical names in Acts is preserved
in only a few documents, chiefly B
and versions. Thus Kaijôa replaces
KXavömu (Syrian, a modification of
the Alexandrian reading KXajôa) in
27 16 (see Ewald ad loc. p. 292):
both forms were current. MeXtrºvn
replaces Mexit” (preceding # who'os)
in 28 I (either of the groups of
letters HNHHNH and HHNH might
be corrupted into the other with
equal facility): it is worth notice
that all the MSS of Ptolemy (ed.
Wilberg ii 15) have the longer form
as the name of the island on the
Dalmatian coast. ‘A6papºvurnvið
(TAoig) replaces 'Aépapºvrtmvº (27
2). Sometimes the variations are
more complicated. Müppa (27 5)
suffers but slight change as Mūpa,
in the Syrian text, but becomes
2pºpuav in the Western, and Aū-
a Tpav in the Alexandrian. Aao'éa
(27 8), which by a lengthening of
the sound of e becomes Aagata in
the Syrian text, and also Aao Gala,
suffers change in other texts through
a confusion of the written character
of the same letter with 0 (€ C),
being read as "ANaaga, 9:Nago'c.,
and Aatoga.
2éXafflix is perhaps
ALT. Mað9a0tov Lc 3 25; Maff-
6á6 Lc 3 24, 29. ‘Eoptºſ, LC 3 33 ;
Naffäu Lc 3 31; Kalváv LC 3 37.
'Iw8ñó Lc 3 32. "AXaš Mt I 9.
'Iwdvvms (-nu, -ov, -et, -m) passim ;
'Iwävva Lc 8 3 ; 24 Io. Beex{e}oëN
Mt Io 25; I2 24, 27; Mc 3 22 ;
Lc II 15, 18, 19; Tevvmagpè0 Mc
653; Našapé0 (-66) LC 2 4, 39, 5 I.
‘Axexöapáx Act 1 19. Bm0autá (-13)
Mt 21 17; Mc I. I. I. AeApartav
2 Ti 4 Io; IIárepa. Act 2 I I ; 2eXa.
6wj\ (-\) Mt I 1.2 bis.
WOZ’ES ON OA. THOGRAPHY
I6I
III. VERBS
AUGMIENTS
'Epyd opat, Tpogepyāšopat, and not
improbably(Paulº) katepyášouat have
m- for their augment (see Curtius
Gr. Verð.” i I.28), . but not in the
perfect (Joº 1 Pe"): this form is well
attested elsewhere. Conversely, all
good authority is in favour of eixkw-
pºvos LC", for which there is other
evidence. -
All early MSS read Övepgivewaev
Lc 24 27, and Öveyelpeto Jo" is pro-
bably right: but Övöyetpav Lc" and
ôtºpx.6 6t?\0.6 are almost exclusively
attested.
The augment w- for o- is often
neglected by some of the inferior
uncials; but the short vowel aimost
always (even in Öpovº0muew Ro 9 29
[LXX] and &qopotapévos He 7 3)
lacks sufficient authority, the only
certain instance being trpoopówmv.
Act 2 25 (from LXX, with the best
MSS of LXX): there is however
good evidence for divop660m Lc",
which likewise occurs twice or more
in LXX.
MSS differ much as to the pf. of
ôpá0 : épaka is certain in the
Gospels, and probable in St John's
Epp., where however B has uni-
formly €o-; while in St Paul’s Epp.
(3 places) the balance is in favour
of éépaka.
The usual augment is retained by
all MSS in trapq,xmuévals and by
almost all MSS in évotkéw, katotkéa,
Trapotkéw, Karolkić w, peroukića, ; but
neglected in several and perhaps in
nearly all places (imperf., aor., and
perf) of oikoãogéo (and étroukočo-
pºéa), the only certain exceptions
according to known evidence being
Mt 21 33; LC 4 29: See Curtius Gr.
Verð.2 ii I66. All good MSS but
S* have traig yúv67 2. Ti I 16: but
kaTmaxivovto Lc. Katmarxivěmp 2 Co".
stand without variation. . .
The augments of divolºyo, and 8ta-
votya, exhibit much intricate varia-
tion. The ‘aor. I’ act, is certainly
#votéa in Act.4/4 Ap. Ioſ Io (with
6thvotéa Lc. 1/1 Act. 1/1); and pro-
bably or possibly in 5/6 places of
Jo 9, but not in the first (v. 14),
where and where alone divégéa.
is well attested, fiváção, being also
twice (vv. 17, 32) well attested.
For the ‘aor. I’, pass. #veºx6mu
is certain Jo. 1/1, and divides the .
better evidence with dive@x0my Mt. 3/3
Ap.2/2 and with ºvoixdºw Act. 1/1,
while 6tmvoix0mv is sufficiently at-
tested Lc, and Ic" almost without
var. has dive@xôvat: Mc Act" Ap”
have the ‘aor. 2' votymy. For
the perf. mid. Act" has āumvot-
ypévos, Act” Paul” dive@ypºvos,
while all three forms must be re-
garded as possible Act", and with
one doubtful exception ºvegºyptévos
stands Ap". Jol Paul” have the
strong or ‘second perfect dvépya.
The augmented tenses of eſſay-
yeXtºoga, are always of the form
I62
ečny. : in eſſapea Téa. He the evi-
dence is evenly divided; in LXX the
augment appears to be never absent.
On eioëótat see below, p. 172.
Eööokéw has eşā, everywhere in
the Gospels, though mî6. is some-
times well supported: in the Epistles
the evidence strangely fluctuates.
The evidence for müXoy, in the aor.
is less slight than in the perf. and
imperf., but yet insufficient. Eighpat-
vogat Acts” (jūq). from LXX), eú-
Kaupéal (mēk. Act, eúk. Mc), and
ečxaplotéal (mēx, Ro, eúx. Act), the
last with some uncertainty as to
möx., exhibit divided pairs of read-
ings. Eötropoſpat and ečºopéo, each
in a single passage, have no aug-
ment. So also eijövőpopuéa.
In eptorka, the good evidence for
müp., in no case quite conclusive, is
confined to the imperfect. But in
eūxoplat and Tpoorečyopat, aor. and
imperf. alike, the forms with mu are
commonly and perhaps universally
employed. Eijvouxt{& Mt” has no
augment. - - . . . . . .
There is no sufficient evidence
for a double augment in Čvéxoplat .
&veryögqu Act" and diveuxópºmu 2 Co!
(and marg. 2 Co') are the forms used.
The aorists of ātrokaðio Tnut have
always (Mt. Mc" Lc) a double syl-
labic augment (twice with the dis-
sent of B); but durukatéarnte Hel
is almost certain. TIpopmreča, in-
variably takes a single augment at
the beginning. .
Of the verbs in which - may
replace the ordinary syllabic aug-
ment 60yapat has always (8 times)
#- in the aor. (#6vviſiómv, #6vvá00mv);
with little variation: in the imperf.
there is more irregularity, the 3 pl.
being #6'ſvavro (Mc, Lcº Jo"), the
2 pl. g60paaffe (1 Co'); while as to
the sing. authority fluctuates between
é6. and #6. in the Gospels, and is
generally favourable to éð. elsewhere
(Act! Ap.4/5). MéA\o has some-
AWOZTAES ON OA27"HOGAEAAA/V
times éu., sometimes àu., and that
within the same books. These
variations of form do not appear to
depend on the preceding word.
Bow\opat takes only the ordinary
syllabic augment.
'Q0éal (&Téa aro Act” Roº; #30 ev
Act 745, where ééogey is an Alex-
andrian correction) and divojuat
(Act') do not take a syllabic aug-
ment. Not only karéašav Jo” but
katea')&otu Jol and (from LXX)
kated £w Mt. stand without var. :
see Veitch Z.Z). V. 356; Cobet AV. Z.
Praef. lxxix. -
The pluperfect of to rapat (and so
trapto Tapai) is not eta Tijkeuv but
to Tăketv. The evidence varies in
the 14 places; and in Jo I 35; 7 37;
and still more LC 23 49, it prepon-
derates for eio Tijkeuv : but tabulation
renders it morally certain that iaTº-
ketv is nowhere a mere itacism ;
more especially since even the habi-
tual addiction of B to et for a has
not prevented it from supporting
ia Tăket 5 times, and once (LC 23 Io)
the e of the first hand appears to
have been deliberately cancelled by
the original corrector. This form
is also at least of frequent occur-
rence in the LXX. - - -
Between eiðov (étréfèov") and £60
the better MSS vary greatly and
irregularly, but with complete gra-
dation. Tabulation is however de-
cisive for eiðov in the Gospels (even
Jo I 39), Acts, and Epistles; and
the larger proportion of places where
the balance favours àov in the Apo-
calypse is probably due only to the
paucity of MSS, though it has ap-
peared safest to mark the possible
alternative. r
'Aq,40mgav Rol (from LXX) and
&véðm Act" stand in all good MSS.
AI.T. carnºcaro Ro 78; 15
18; 2 Co 7 11 ; Katmpyáq-0m 2 Co
: I 2 I 2.
AVO ZZS OAW ORTATOGRAPHY
6tmyelpero Jo 6 18. - -
ăvop660m LC I3 13. Çopákapev
I Jo. I I, 2, 3; £6pakev 3 6; 4 20 bis;
3 Jo II ; éðpaka I Co 9 I; Śēpakav
(-ev) Col 2 1, 18. -
olko6ópºmorev Mt 7 24, 26; Mc 12
I ; Lc 7 5; olkočágovu Lc 17 28;
çkoôópmgev Act 7 47.
#vépéeu Jo 9 14; #voićév Jo 9 17,
32; dive@x670'av Mt 3 16; 9 30;
jveićx0 morav Mt 27 52 ; jvoix0mgau
Act 16, 26; five&x0mgau, -ºx6m, Ap
20 I2; fivot ypévay Z. hwe.gypévajv
Act 9 8; &vegyptévnu Ap 3 8.
eūmpeo Tnkéval He II 5.
eū6ókmgau (-orev) Ro 15 26, 27;
I Co Io 5; eWöokīgapºev 1 Th 3, 1 ;
ečāokoúgev 1 Th 28; míðókmaa (-gev,
-oras) 2 Pe I 17; I Co I 21; Ga 1
I5; Col I 19 ; He Io 6, 8. etxapt-
atmoſav Ro I 2 I. -
eūptorkov Mc I4. 55; Lc 19 48;
Act 7 I I ; etpia Keto He 11 5
(LXX); Tpoorečavto (-aro) Act 8
15; 2d 36; etxouro Act 27 29.
durekatéo TºmTe He 12 4. -
éöövaro Lc 193; jöövaro Mc 65;
Lc I 22; Jo II 37; Ap 5 3. ŠueN-
Xev (-ov) Lc 9 31 ; He II 8; Ap Io
4; #ueX\ov (-ev). Jo 7 39; II 51 ;
Act 21 27.
toolſ (-es, -ev) Ap passim, especi-
ally 6 8, 9; 8 2; 14 I4; 15 I; 19
I9. j
SINGLE AND DOUBLE P
In most cases verbs beginning
with p do not double the p after the
initial é of the augmented tenses,
and the compounds of these verbs
do not double the p after either the
augment e or the final vowel of a
preposition or & privative. Usually
the evidence for the single p is over-
whelming ; in a few places it is
scanty in amount but good. All
MSS however have ppmåev Lc 942,
and 6tappijšavrés Act 14 14 (not-
I63
withstanding replpjšavres, Stapfia-
orwu, and the like); and Ötépmčev
Mt 26 65 6taphéas Mc I4 63 reston
single (good) MSS. Probably pp is in
all these cases due to the scribes. 'Ep-
pét}ºm or éppijth) (-no av) stands every-
where without variation. Of ad-
jectives formed from these verbs
dipa pos and Čvavtipmros are probably
the right forms: but all MSS have
āppmros 2 Co 12 4. . Of perfects we
have épuppévot" and possibly ept-
TTat": but éppu' (op.évot (Eph 3 18;
Col 2 7) and éppa'a 6e (Act 15 29)
stand without variation. All the
early MSS have the reduplicated
Éepavttapºpot Heb lo 22, and the
same form (probably, a correction
for the lost gepappuévov, see note)
stands in our text of Ap I9 I3,
similar forms being among the rival
variants : D alone has fiepippévot Mt
9 36. We have followed Lachmann
(cf. P. Buttmann G. G.” i 28; Küh-
ner G.G.” i 217, 508) in using the
smooth breathing for pep-: the limi-
tation to 'Pāpos and its derivatives
(Herodian. i 546 20 ff.; ii 22 16 f.,
402 I3) is apparently arbitrary. -
ALT. 6téppmåev Mt 26 65; 6tap-
pmãas Mc I4 63; Éppūorato 2 Pe 2 7;
2 Co I Io; Col 1 13; 2 Ti 3 II;
éppúa'07, 2 Ti 4 17. dippagos Jo 19
23; &vavrippūTws (-ov) Act Io 29;
1936. §putt at Lc I7 2.
FUTURES OF VERBS IN -IZQ
The 3 pl. act. of the future of
verbs in -iča) takes the ‘Attic’ form
-toãot except perhaps in Yugºpláw
I/I ; such also are the only 2, pl.
mid. Kopite?obe", and one I sing. act.
trapopyvö (LXX) against two in -o w.
The 3 sing. act. is habitually in
-get: but ka9apte? He' and 6taka-
6apte: Mt. are unquestionably right;
and there are three or four doubtful
I64
cases. The other forms are 6eptoro-
pºev”, Xaptoetat", and Once if not
twice kopio'etat.
ALT. yuwptoſio’iy Col 4 9. dºo-
pte? Mt 25 32 ; &yºyuet Ja 4 8; ‘porteº
Ap 22 5; Xpoviet He Io 37. Ko-
pºweſt at Col. 3 25.
TERMINATIONS OF AORISTS AND
PERFECTS
The N. T. contains various ex-
amples of strong or ‘second 'aorists
having the termination' of weak or
‘first? aorists; not only eitra, #vey-
Ica, ćtrea'a (see P. Buttmann G. G.”
164 f., 313 f., 277 ff.; Veitch /. D. V.
232 ff., 666 ff., 54o f.), which have
a recognised place in the classical
language, and are apparently as Old
as eitrov K.T.A., but other forms
which may possibly be due only to
late assimilation. On both classes,
if indeed they are distinct, see Cur-
tius G7. Verð.” ii 306–312.
Forms belonging to eitra stand
without var. in those persons of
the imperative which contain T (et-
Tate, eiträTw, -ta/aav), while eltrów
(this is not the ‘Attic' accentuation,
but we have followed C. F. A.
Fritzsche [Mc. 515 ff.] and Lach-
mann) is sufficiently attested to
claim a place in the text in about
half the places, the exceptions being
chiefly before consonants. In the
indicative directrópºeffa stands with-
out var. 2 Co 4 2, and Tpoeltrapev
is amply attested I Th 4 6, these
two being the only places of any
I pl.; while eitra itself is rare: eitas
stands without var. Mt.” Lc", eitres
being the best attested form in Joº
and probably Mc": for the 3 pl.,
which is confined to the historical
books, eitav has good evidence
everywhere in Acts and (with fewer
places) Mc, in most places of Mt Lc,
AVO 7TES OAV OAQ 7A/OGA2AAA/Y
and in Jo. 3/4. The participles
eūras, eitraora are rare : the forms in
-avros, -autes, -avta have no suffi-
cient authority anywhere.
The indicatives #veyka, fivéykapev,
-éykare, #veykav are exclusively at-
tested; as also the imperative évéy-
kate. In Mt." Tpooſéveykov is also
probably right, but it stands alone:
in Mc I 44 || LC 5 14 Tpoorévé'yke
and in Mc I4 36 || LC 22 42 Tapé-
veyke are certainly the true read-
ings, and the rival forms in -al,
though supported by good MSS in
the last two places, may be safely
neglected. The infinitive is always
in -éiv except I Pe 2 5, where &ve-
véykat stands equally without varia-
tion. -
The indicatives étrea'a, §trea'av
(and compounds), and (Gaº) ééeTé-
gate are everywhere overwhelmingly
attested. But the balance of evi-
dence is decidedly against the im-
perative Téa are (LC1 Ap"); and this
fact sustains the similar preponder-
ance for the active ‘aor. 2 ° àvátreoſe
as against a (supposed) middle ‘aor.
I &vátrea'at in Lc I4 Io; I 7 7.
The imperatives éAðate, éA6ára,
(and compounds) are everywhere
amply attested, though B five times
dissents. . The other forms of the
‘aor. I occur but irregularly: they
are j\0av and #A0apev with their
compounds, and once probably &TâN-
The indicatives eiðav and etóagev
must certainly be accepted in a few
places, perhaps in more. . For el-
ôare the evidence is less satisfactory:
eiða (or £6a) is fairly probable Apº.
In the imperative, infinitive, and
participle the ‘aor. 2” forms alone
are found.
'Aveſ pav and ečpapev are suffi-
ciently attested each in one place,
and may well be right elsewhere :
eipäuevos is still better attested He'.
But eipov sing., eúpeºv, and eiptºv
NOTES ON OR THOGRAPHY
with its cases are found without ex-
ception.
* The indicatives dive?Xav", &vet-
Xate", ášet)\áſºmvº, el}\ato", &vel»ato",
éet\ato” are abundantly attested,
and no others are found elsewhere.
The other moods belong exclusively
to the ‘aor. 2 °. - -
In other verbs the occurrence of
forms containing a instead of the
aor. 2 is rare even in single MSS;
#3a)\avl and étré8a)\av° alone being
entitled to a provisional place in the
text. For éé8a)\avº (Mc 128), #Aa-
6ay (Jo I 12), áAd6ate (1 Jo 2 27),
éAá3agev (LC 55), širvav (I Coro 4),
dºréðavav (Mt 8 32 ; Lc 20 3r; Jo 8
53), 'yevåuevos (see P. Buttmann
G.G.” ii 136) and &Toyevăuevos (a few
places), and others, the evidence at
present known is insufficient. •
On the whole the imper. Ékxéere
Ap 16 r (only the later MSS have
ékxéare) may be better referred to
an otherwise virtually unknown
‘aor. 2' (Ééxeov 2 Mac I 8 cu”) than
to the pres., notwithstanding the
use of ééxeav in v. 6. The seven
responsive acts denoted by the in
itself ambiguous ééxeev of vv. 2, 3,
4, 8, Io, I2, 17 would naturally be
expressed by an aor., and thus they
Seem to point back to an aor. in
the previous command. To the
‘aor. 2” should probably be like-
wise referred ovvéxeov (-av C cup-bo)
Act 21 27, though here the context
favours both tenses alike: elsewhere
in Acts the pres. and imperf. are
ovyx juveral (21 31) and ovuéxvvvey
(9 22).
Even the imperfect sometimes has
forms containing a, as in the LXX
and elsewhere.
evidence for at least eixay (Mc 8 7)
and trapetzav (Act 28 2).
The curious termination -ovav
for aorists and imperfects (see Mait-
taire-Sturz Dial. 298 f.; P. Butt-
mann G.G.” i 346) is exhibited by et-
There is sufficient
I65
×oarau Jo 15 22, 24, and (from LXX)
éðoxtowa'av Ro 3 13: Tapex.d300 av,
which is excellently attested 2 Th 3
6, is rendered somewhat suspicious
by the comparative correctness of
St Paul's language elsewhere, and
by the facility with which it might
originate in an ocular confusion
with -oatv (trapáðoatv) in the cor-
responding place of the line above.
In a few other places forms in -ogav
have some Western attestation.
ALT. elitë Mt 4 3; 22 17; 24
3; LC Io 40; Jo Io 24, eitra Mt 28
7; Act II 8; 22 Io, 19; He 3 Io.
eitras Mc 12 32. eitrov (pl.) Mc I.6
8; LC 6 2; Jo 4 52; 6 6o; Act 2
37 (-6v). eſtras Act 7 27; 20 36;
Ja 2 II. -
Tpogéveyke Mt 8 4.
7\ffov (pl.) Mt 7 25, 27; 14 34;
Mc I. 29; 38; Lc I 59; 6 17; 8
35; 23.33; 24 23; Jo 3.26; I2 9;
Act 14 24; 28 23. &trix60V (pl.)
Mt 8 32 ; Mc I.2 I2; LC 24 24 (-6v);
&T)\0av Jo II 46. elgºëav (pl.)
Act 16 4o. éâX0ov (pl.) Jo 21 3;
Act 1640 ; 2 Jo 7; Ap 15 6. Tpoor-
7\}ov (pl.) Mt 9 28; 19 3 ; 21 23 ;
Jo 12 21. avv^\}ov (pl.) Act Io 23.
#A9aueu Mt 25 39. Affouev Act
2 I 8. elgºffopaev Act 28 16. . . ka-
TâNôogey Act 275. &Tºffov (sing.)
Ap Io 9.
eiðoy Mc 633; 9 14; Act 6 I5;
28 4. etóopaev Mt 25 38 ; Mc 2 12 ;
9 38 (-61); Lc 5 26 (Eö-); 9 49
(-Év). etóate LC 7 22 ; Jo 6 26.
eiða Ap 17 3, 6.
eipov Lc 835.
Act 5 Io; 13 6.
bis. All pl.
ë8a)\av Mt 1348; Ap 18 19. 88a-
Xov Act 1637. §§é8a)\av Mt 2 I 39;
Mc 128. &ré8a)\ov Mc I4 46; Act
21 27. §§egåXaptev Mt 7 22. All pl.
eixay Lc 4 40. etxov Ap 9 8, 9.
etxoplew 2 Jo 5. eixate Jo 9 41.
Tpogeºxau Act 8 Io. All pl.
ejpay Mt 22 Io;
eūpapev Act 5 23
I66
There are a few well attested ex-
amples of the curious substitution of
-av for -aol in the 3 pl. of perfects
(see Curtius Gr. Verð.”ii 187), a pecu-
liarity called Alexandrian by Sextus
Empiricus (Adv. Gramm. 213), but
certainly of wider range. They are
êyvakau Jo", etpnkav Ap' (but eipſika-
otu Act"), eigexiſNv6av Ja” (but ášexm-
X&ffaatu I Jo"), diréo Taxkav Act",
ºyé yovav Roº. Ap' (but yeyóvagup 1
Jo"), -áčpakav Lck Col' (but €opá-
kaatu Jo"), Teriipmkav Jo". The evi-
dence for -es -eté in place of -as -are
in perfects, and in aorists ending in
-ka, is much scantier. These last
forms have a better claim to accept-
ance in the Apocalypse than else-
where: but they are nowhere free
from doubt.
ALT. &pakes Jo 857. &\#Nv6es
Act 2 I 22. Tréttajkas Ap 2 5. el-
X7%as Ap II 17. Kekoiriakas Ap 2
3. dºñkas Ap 2 4. £60kés Jo 17
7, 8, dºñkere Mt 23 23.
FORMS OF CONTRACT VERBS
There is a remarkable consent of
the best MSS for pºtovº Mt 15 23.
This substitution of -éa, for &a, occurs
here and there elsewhere in one or
two good MSS in the same and
other verbs, as vuká0, avoiráð, ka-
Tayexãº; but hardly ever has any
probability, Kottojou, Mt 6, 28 has
better authority (B 33), but may
be due to accidental coincidence in
assimilation to the preceding at-
Šávovatu and the following viðovgºv.
Conversely €Aedas 4 and éXXoyá0%
are sufficiently attested, except each
in one place (the difference of at-
testation in Ro 9 16 and 18 is
singular): the former word has good
authority, 5/5 times in LXX (not
Apocr”). 'Eºſ3ptpºp at and -otpat are
MozAS ON OR7:HockAPHY
both well attested. The best MSS
have moatáðmre 2 Co 12 13 after the
analogy of éAagada (the verb is
known in its Ionic form égoºd from
Herodotus); 2 Pe” has #TTmrat,
mTrôvrat, Paul” ºrtmua. A form
airléouai, otherwise unknown except
through airtworts cited from Eusta-
thius, seems to be implied in the
abundantly attested airlºuata of
Act 25 7 (Ro" has ºrpomraorépºeffa):
airiapia finds a curious parallel in
oromza (Špapa), “vision’, in the Pass.
Aerp. et Felic. 7, Io. -
In I Co II 6, where no MSS have
$vpeto 6at, we have followed our
predecessors in printing £upâq6at :
but the combination with kelpag flat
justifies Heinrici in preferring $8-
paaffat, an aor. cited by Dr Veitch
from Plutarch and “Lucian’.
'Eğov6évéa is the only tolerably
attested form 9/11 times (LC Act
Paul), though éov0évów or éov-
ôevóð or both have some slight evi-
dence 5/9 times. But Mc. 1/1 -99m,
though less probable than -mófi, is
too well attested to be rejected: the
consonant is certainly 6.
. The contracted €6éïTo is better
attested than éð6ero Lc. (see P.
Buttmann G. G.” ii 150 f.; Schäfer
Greg. Cor. 43 I f.), though not free
from doubt: TAéety Act 27 2 is Sup-
ported by two good cursives only
(112 137), and &Tot)\eiv Act" &#éràet
Act" stand without var. : L Chr"
alone have Trvéet Jo". On ékxéete
and ovvéxeov see above, p. 165.
In Paulº and Apº €ppé0m (-morav)
alone is well attested: in Mt" ēppå0m
is throughout supported by BD, and
is perhaps right.
On the inf. -oiv of verbs in -ów
see Zntrod. § 413. The evidence is
Small, but of good quality. Ap-.
parently the only exception, and
that probably due only to accidental
defect of evidence, is TAmpoïv Lc 9
31 (TAmpotu It 59).
AVO 7A2S OAW OR7A/OGA’AA’//Y
... [The occurrence of {\offre (Ga
4.17) and @woſto006e (I Co 4 6) after
lva is noticed below, p. 171. In two
other cases the context gives reason
to suspect that forms of verbs in -ów
apparently belonging to the pres.
indic. ought perhaps to be referred
to the pres. conj.:—# trapašºxoduéu
(aemulemur g am) tow Kiptov ; pil
to XupóTepot attoo €apéu ; 1 Co Io 22 ;
ph voojvres pºſite & Aéyovatv uſire trept
Tivov Švage6atoſivtat I Ti I 7 (cf.
Ro 8 26). On the other hand the
N. T. contains no distinctive form
of the pres. conj. of verbs in -ów,
unless it be eijoðūrat I Co 16 2,
noticed below (p. 172) as more pro-
bably a perſ., whether indic. or con-
junctive. Thus on the whole the
evidence points to an identity of
the pres. indic. and pres. conj. forms
of verbs in -ów in the N. T. H.]
For the 3 pl. aor. I opt. the best
evidence favours Totºjoſatev Lc 6 1 1,
Wm.Nagphaetav Act 17 27; while -etev
is a well attested Alexandrian cor-
rection in both places.
ALT. jpgrovy Me 4 Io; Kotrioſi-
ouv Mt 628; vukočvrt (-tas) Ap 2 7,
17; 152; Aeg Ro 9 18; Évégpuojvro
(-Motºevos) Mc I4 5; Jo II 38.
é\\oyeitat Ro 5 13. ÉÉovševo,0ñ Mc
I 2:
éöéero Lc 838.
éppñ97 Mt 5 21,
27, 3I; 33, 38, 43- -
FORMS OF VERBS IN “MI.
'Ajimu, and ovulnut sometimes
have forms that presuppose &pta,
and ovutw. They are &ptopeu Lc",
dºtovolv Ap", diptovrat Joº marg.
(but dºptev Tat Mt.” Mc”), #4tev McA
without var., avviovaſiv Mtl (but
ovvuágu 2 Co'), and ovvíðv Rol from
LXX without var. (but avviets Mtl,
ovviévros Mt). The evidence for
have -eaſav Mck Act".
167
these forms is ample in the places
cited, though elsewhere they ap-
pear merely as Western readings.
That they do not belong to con-
tract verbs is proved by diplovrat
and #ptev. But & pets, (2 sing. pres.
ind.) of Ap 2 20 is best explained
by the supposition that dºpéo existed
by the side of &pta, and must thus
be accented dºpets; and this analogy
accounts for ovvette (pres. ind. from
avvéw, not aor. from ovvi mu), the
reading of B in Mc". Compare P.
Buttmann G.G.” i 523.
Atówpat (with its compounds), as
often elsewhere, has the ‘contract’
imperfect Čátóov: it has also €6tôovy
pl. Mct Act”, but the best MSS read
-oa'av Jol Act". The verb Övööw im-
plied in the contract imperfect is
also seen in the I sing, pres. ind.
ôtö3 Ap 3 9, which follows the
analogy of &pets, and probably in
the neuter participle diroötöoov Ap
22 2 (text): the masculine participle
Trapaštóðv is a zy. Z. of Sº Mt 2646,
and of D Mc I4 42; Jo 18 2; 2 I 20.
In Sap I 2 19 6tóoſs (2 sing, pres. ind.)
is the reading of AB cu”. Tiffmut
likewise has not only (with its com-
pounds) the usual ‘contract’ im-
perfect sing. ēríðel”, but also the pl.
érôovy Act”, though the best MSS
Here too a
contract present existed in the late
language, and possibly in the N.T.,
for it is found in Mc in good cur-
sives (15 17 reputt0000 tu in 13-69-
I24-346; Io 16 Tuffāv in the same
together with I-28), though not
in uncials: tw66 (indic.) occurs in
Hermas Vis. i. 1 3; ii 1 2. On these
forms generally see P. Buttmann
G. G.” i 50o; Matthiae G. G.” i 482
f.; Kühner G.G.” i 644 f.; Lobeck
Phryn. 244. The uncontracted 6tów
of modern Greek cannot be recog-
nised in the termination -ero of the
imperfect, found in the best MSS of
the N. T. (8teótáero Act" traped tâero
I68
I Co'), as in the LXX generally; for
it belongs no less to the aor. 2 mid.
(ééðero Mt. Mc Lc, diréðero He'),
and the change in the vowels is here
probably euphonic: yet Ötöets (zy. Z.
Štóms) occurs in the “Apocalypse of
Moses’ (Seth) c. 19 p. Io Tisch.
The almost certain reading ééekpé-
Aero I/I seems on the other hand to
be derived from a form kpéptopat,
of which there are other traces (P.
Buttmann G. G.” i 518 f.; ii 224 f.).
In Mc.4|4 Jo. 1/3 according to the
best MSS the 3 sing. aor. conj. of
ôtówpat (with its compounds) is 60t,
which likewise is sometimes found
(as also diroão's 1/2) in Western
MSS only (Lc Jol Paulº): the 3
sing. pres. conj. occurs but once (I Co
15 24), and there Tapaévôot (BG3)
may safely be treated as Western
only: the mood is certainly always
the conjunctive (see Dr Moulton in
Winer G. M. Z. 360), not the opta-
tive. A similar monosyllabic 3 sing.
aor. conj. in -ot according to the
best MSS is yuo? Mc” Lc" (but yuá,
Jo°, émiyu & Act").
A more perplexing form is 6am as
used Eph I 17 (text); 2 Ti 2 25
(also as a z. l. in inferior MSS Jo
15 16; Eph 3 16). , Elsewhere (2
Th 3 16; 2 Ti 1 16, 18) it is dis-
tinctly an optative, 6%m; but in
both places, and especially in Eph
(cf. 3 16), the sense points to a
conjunctive: yet its use for two
different moods in the same epistle
would be strange, and the evidence
of a conjunctive form 6&n (except
in epic poets) is not satisfactory
(Nu II 29: cf. Lobeck Phryne. 346).
Aövapºat has in 2 sing. ôüvn §.
Lc. 1/3 Ap. 1/1 (but Öiſvaa’at Mt.3/3
Lc.2/3 Jo. 1/1; I Co. 1/1), a ‘tragic’
form revived or retained in later
Greek (see Lobeck Phryſz. 359 f.).
The ample attestation in these four
places throws doubt on Öğvm Mc",
öövogat Mt', 5uvópºeffa Mc' Act", and
finitives.
AVO 7ES OAV OK? TH/OGAEAAEATV
6vvögevos (-vopºvov Mt. Act”); all in
B only (cf. 6vvów.effa. Is 28 20 J3;
möövouro Is 59 15 S").
The aor. imper. of the compounds
of 8atva, takes the ‘contract’ form ;
karagóra, Mt.” Mc” Lc and &vá8ate
Ap", in all or nearly all MSS; and
also perá3a. Mt" (best MSS only)
and dvd 3a. Ap' (but perá876, Jo",
kará870, Mt. LC1 Jol Act). The
similar ‘contract’ intransitive aor. of
to Tmut (and its compounds) is con-
fined to 2 sing., áváata Eph 5 I4;
Act 12 7 and, with the alternative
Čvao Tás, 9 II (the same v. Z. recurs
Io 13, 20; II 7): but elsewhere
a Tij918, Čºrtarmóil; as also a tire”,
duría Tºmté”, dirão Tºmté?, dirogrätw".
There is much variation in MSS
as to the present active of com-
pounds of to Tmut, which often stands
in rivalry with iaTáva, and a con-
tract form to Táo. 2 vularmut Rol
and ovy to Tºmat Ro” 2 Co”, all with-
out var., alone exemplify the ordi-
nary type. Except in 2 Col the
contract forms to Táo), ášta Téa, Kaffe-
otów, pºeffia Tăw, avvua Täto may all be
safely rejected. We have uniformly
printed forms of the to Távo type, for
which there is always excellent evi-
dence, though the balance of autho-
rity can hardly be said to be in its
favour in I Co I 3 2 ; 2 Co 3 I. In
Mc 9 12 we have printed dirokatt-
arável, the reading of B, but with
hesitation: it may be either the
parent of the two diverging forms
or a mixture of them : dirokata.oré-
wet, the reading of N*D (cf. the zºz.
//. dirokaraatövets Act I 6; Kara-
a Tävcytes Act 17 15; both in D), is
illustrated by the Cretan gravča,
(C. Z. G. 2556).
Variations between the forms of
verbs in -vput and -ëa, are rare, and
doubt is confined to 2/3 active in-
The few other forms in
-öw, in addition to those of Öguiſa,
(Mc' perhaps excepted), are 3/3 im-
AVO 7TES OAV OAQ 7THOG/CAP/7 Y
perfects, diróX\ve Rol, diroN\{ets
Jo", Öeukview Mt", āeukvěovros Ap";
to which may be added 'AtroX\{wv
Ap".
ALT. avve?re Mc 8 17. §toôt-
ôéTa' I Co 7 3. Šekpéuato Lc 19
48. 80pm Mc I 4o; 6üvouat Mt 26
53; 5uvópºeffa Mc Io 39; Act 4 20;
ôvvópevos Mt 19 12; 6vvopévov Act
27,15. p 3. f
&Toka Tao Távet z/. dºrokaffia Tóvel
Mc Q 12 ; ple6to Tavat I Co 13 2;
ovvua Távtes 2 Co 64; avvua Tův 2 Co
3 I. -
ôeakviðvat Mt 16 21 ; 6pyūeiv Mc
I4 7 I.
MISCEI.L.A.NEOUS FORMS OF
VERBS
The rare act. &ya)\\1&0 occurs
LC" (I 47) Ap' and perhaps I Pe.
I/3, dya)\\1&opal elsewhere.
The aor. of 65uapat is jóvvá00mv
Mc. 1/2 (SB), and perhaps Mt. 1/2 ;
not Mt. 1/2 Mc. 1/2 Lc Act 1 Col
Ephl Hel.
For éſ Gov as the I sing. imperf.
of Šáo B has &mv Ro", perhaps
rightly: éðre occurs Col. 3 7, but
no other person of the imperfect.
"Hkagu as a perfect of #ka, in Mc
83 is merely a Western paraphrase
of elaiv after pakpóðev, corrected in
turn to #kova up in the Syrian text:
it is common (with #kapºev) in the
LXX. XThka, a verb analogous to
ºjka), exhibits arrºkere after & ray Mc1
and édiv 1 Th" with much better
authority than -ete (or -e.g. 0s) else-
where obtains as against -mte (or
-mode) aſter these or similar par-
ticles, as though the form a rººm Te
were purposely avoided: Chrys.
AA/. I7o C uses éa's div othkopey;
the best MSS have orrākovres Mc
3 31 (arfikov being also a Western
variant for the difficult éatmkóra of
I69
Mc 13 1.4), and B a Tijkeuv I Reg
8 II.
The use of the pres. conj. of
6t&ka', likewise a verb in -ka, is
also uncertain : Övökouev is the best
attested reading Ro 14 19, where
any indicative sense is difficult to
maintain; and va. ... pil 6tdºkovtat
has much good authority (though
not SBD.) Ga 6 12: in Mt Io
23 however, the only remaining
instance of a pres. conj. in form or
sense, there is no satisfactory evi-
dence for ÖTav... Övökovo tw.
'E0avuá06 mu, a true passive 2 Th",
is found in a middle sense in a few
of the best MSS Ap 13 3, and so
6avuagóño'opiat 17 8 (APA). For
illustrative evidence see Veitch
A. Z). V. 305 f.
The perf. part. of £atapat is com-
monly €grés, occasionally €atmkós.
The variations of dirokretva, and
dTokrévva, are somewhat difficult.
'AtrokTévva, must certainly be read
Ap 6 II (dTokretvoja tv 9 5, 15 is an
aor.), and perhaps everywhere else:
it is supported by all MSS but B in
Mt Io 28 || LC 12 4; 2 Co 3 6 (in
these three passages it might pro-
perly stand in the text); while -civa
has the better evidence in Mt 23 37,
and still more in the Lc 13 34.
In Mc I2 5 &trokTévvvvres, the read-
ing of B and two or more lectiona-
ries, indirectly supported by other
unique variants (dTokTivvvvres, dro-
Kreivuvures, &Tokruvvoſīvres, dirokre-
voivres), is probably right: the MSS
of Plutarch /l/or. Io94 C have diro-
Krévvvalu (Wyttenbach /nd.); dro-
KTévvvoróat has been substituted for
Petau’s conjectural (Attic) diroktív-
vva 6a, by W. Dindorf in Epiph. i
43o D on undivided manuscript au-
thority; and other evidence is given
by L. Dindorf in Steph.-Didot ii
I 506; iv. 2031 A. Compare Curtius
Gr. Veró.” i 17o.
Aeitra (with its compounds) has
I70
the ‘aor. I’ once (Act") kata)\etypav-
Tas (but kara)\ttrövtes Act'): there
is some good authority Mc" for
kara)\etym (so doubtless must be read
the variants KataNiſm, kata)\elpet),
and it may be right.
The best MSS have àtopux6?vat
LC", but Ötopvyāvat is as well at-
tested Mt". Analogous forms are
puytja’état Mt'; hpirá) m, Öpirayévra,
2 Co”, &piraymorépé0a I Th". (but
joiráq-6m Ap" in the best MSS);
ékpó8m Lc, Jo” Hel, kpv6ºva, Mt.
I Ti", treptékpwéev Lc" (these eleven
virtually without var.); ºvotyma'av
Mc", ºvotnym Act" (these two in the
best MSS only: also Lc 24 31 in
8" (D) Ap", ávovyāqerat Mtly.”
Lck Yº, besides other forms of Čvotºya,
mentioned above, p. 161.
'Avatraja'ovrat Ap. 1/2 (NAC) and
étravatrama’etat Lck (SB) are suffi-
ciently attested (but divatraúgovrat
Ap', Tañam Act", traúgovrat I Co').
Analogous forms are Katekām Ap”,
katakajgerat I Co' (but Katakavt/#-
a'état Ap"); Tapapuájuev He' (but
fielja ovatu Jo"); and trapeugeóðmorav
(B) Judº (6tékövåvat is cited from
Hippocrates); and the compara-
tively common puév Lc.”, avvºpveta at
Lc.
The singular form dikata Trágrows
(AB) of 2 Pe 2 14 might be ex-
plained as equivalent to the dkata-
traúa Tovs of the common texts on
the strength of Čvaraja outaw (also
étrémy, divetrámu, cited by Veitch
I. Z). V. 516); of dvairáegóe, the
reading of D in Mc I4. 41 ; and of a
Roman epitaph (C.A. G. 6595) with
the words (36e &vatráétat: compare
dvairapós=dväravats in a glossary
quoted by Ducange p. 70. The
same sense might be obtained from
another dialectic modification of
Traúw preserved in two glosses of
Hesychius, duTášovrat Guatraúovrat
and duTášav Taüoat. A&Køves. But
the better sense ‘insatiable’ is pro-
AVO 7'ES OAV OA! ZTAOGAEAAEATY
vided by an altogether different verb
Táoaq 0at (from Taréoual). After
pointing out that in Homer this word
means no more than ‘to taste’,
Athenaeus adds in contrast (i 43
p. 24 A), Oi Öé veóTepot kai étrº Too
TAmpawfºu at Tufféaat Tô Tágaoréat :
abridged in a Frag/z. ſex. Gr. (in
Hermann Ze em. p. 323) with kope-
a 6 fival substituted for TNºmptoff fivat.
'Akardtrao Tos is therefore exactly
similar to dragſtos (áTaotia, &Taa Tt).
IIeſu (kata Teiv) as the aor. 2 inf.
of Trival occurs everywhere but Mt
20 22 among the variants, and has
much good evidence Jo. 3/3 I Co.
2/2. It is often found in MSS of the
LXX; and its actual use is shown
by an epigram (A. P. xi 140, Lucil-
lus), and by the unfavourable notice
of Ps. Herodianus (in Hermann De
em. 317). The testimony of MSS is
in favour of Trety (A.J. Cº. D6. L2. Th”.
D.*. G3', besides Bº) as against traw
(A. C. L. D.'. Gs', besides 88).
"Pepagpövov (Tepupépappévov N”),
from jaivaſ, suggested in the note
On Ap 19 13 as the one reading
which will account for the several
variants, is a word containing two
peculiar elements, for each of which
independently there is some little
extraneous evidence. Lobeck cites
the reduplicated form katapepagué-
vos from two places of Galen; and
the termination -appévos, more com-
monly -aopévos or -apaévos, occurs in
2 MSS of Athenaeus (iv 18, p. 140,
from Persaeus), āA®tta éAaig óppapº-
puéva. See Veitch Z, Z). V. 571;
Kühner G. G.” i. 508, 9or. -
The fut. and aor. of ornpiša, are
in the better MSS 60thpia'ev Lc,
(and perhaps étrea Tſipuoſav Act"),
othpta'ov Lc" Ap" (and perhaps arm-
pigel 2 Th"), but not fut. I Pe", aor.
Ja” Paulº. Analogous forms are
oaXTioſa, I Co", áo d'Atriga. Mt. Apº,
oraxtrio Tàs Ap'. -
The existence of éo Tpépômy for-
AVO 7TA'S OW OR7A/OGA’AA’ATV
bids the total rejection of -eupévos
Mt" (Z) Act (B): in Lc. Act Phil
there is no variation. • * *
The best MSS have XéXovagávos
He'; but this form has very little
authority Jol. - .
Théopal as a fut. of Tſika (see note
On 2 Pe 3 12, where Tášétat is sug-
gested by one of us as a correction
of Tālcerat) is cited from Hippocra-
tes by Veitch Z. D. V. 632, who
likewise cites Tºšavo and Tºmčáuevos
from Nicander.
Tétuxe is probably the perf. of
Tvyxdva, He'; but B as well as the
Syrian text has rétevže, retúxmke
being apparently Alexandrian. -
Of the twin forms a kotić w okotów
the N. T. has €akotagévos Eph!
Ap", and probably once (Ap') égko-
Tóðm ; but elsewhere (Mt. Mc1 Roº
Ap"). Čakotta 007 and a kottaſöögopal.
Similarly B has once ékavua Tajón
(-to-0m. Mc1 Ap", Kavuatio at Ap").
Zm\ów is replaced in the best MSS
by the rare £7Meča, Ap 3 19, Kvk\ów
by the rare kvk\eta, Ap 20 9, the
rare diroöekatów (without var. Mt.
Lc. He') by the rarer diroöekateča,
(S*B) Lc 18 12; and again the
unmeaning éké pa)\aiworav of Mc 12
4 by the otherwise unknown but
intelligible ékeſpa)\taugav.
ALT. dya)\\tågøe 1 Pe I 8.
76vváo 6 morav Mt 17 16. &mu Ro
79. ŠarūTov Mc 9 I ; traped Tºrov
Mc 15 35. &Toktevvövtov Mt Io
28; LC 12 4; dirokrévvovres Mc 12
5; dirokrévvovora Mt 23 37 ; Lc I3
34; dtrokTévvel 2 Co 3 6; Ap I 3 Io
(marg.). Kata)\elyn Mc I.2 19. 6.0-
pvy fivat Mt 24 43. Öumvolº)morav Lc
24 31. Téïv Mt 27 34 bis; Mc Io
38; Katatre’v 1 Pe 58; true?v Act 23
I 2, 2I. étréo Tiptoſav Act I 5 32:
ormptoet 2 Th 3 3. Övealtpeppévn Mt
17 17; Kateo Tpeppéva Act 15 16.
égkorto'67 Ap 9 2. čkavuataj9m
Mt 13 6.
I7I
CONJUNCTIVES AND INDICATIVES
AFTER PARTICLES AND AFTER
RELATIVES WITH &v
Substitutions of the indicative in
dependent clauses in which the
conjunctive would normally be em-
ployed belong properly to Syntax:
but it is convenient to treat alter-
native readings coming under this
head as in a manner orthographical.
Although variations are numerous,
doubtful cases are comparatively
few, the aberrant forms having usu-
ally but little evidence, and that.
for the most part probably due to
itacistic accident. -
The tense of the indic. which
thus replaces the conj. is almost
always the future. The only forms
belonging to the present indic. (or
simulating it) that have appeared to
claim a place in the text are the
following:—(a) ºva yuágkopaev I Jo
5 20 (cf. the alt. reading ºva yuá-
orkova'u Jo 17 3), where there seems
to be a pregnant sense (cf. 3 I);-
(b) éâu oióaptev I Jo 5 15 (all good
MSS), probably due to the tense;—
(c) &raw at #kete Mc II 25 ; Śāv...
a rifficere I Th 3 8;- and (d) va...
{m\oſite Ga 4 17; £va pil, pugioſio 6e
I Co 4 6 (in both cases all MSS but
a few unimportant cursives). The
third and fourth classes probably
owe their existence to special char-
acteristics of othko (see p. 169) and
of verbs in -ów : but it is doubtful
(see p. 167) whether the fourth class
properly belongs to the indicative.
On iva...pl?) 6taškovtat (alt. reading)
see p. 169.
The last of a series of verbs fol-
lowing ºva is oftener found in the
future than verbs with which ºva
stands in a more immediate rela-
tion. In these cases the distance of
two might affect writers, no less than
transcribers. The expression of
I72
final result is a natural close to the
expression of intermediate purpose.
Except in six places, the fut. in-
dic. has no considerable support
after relatives with āv or éâu, though
it is often found in some MSS (chiefly
late uncials), evidently by itacistic
error. In the six places the evidence
is large and good, though not con-
clusive except Mc 8 35 (29). The
case of Śrt éâu etočárat I Co 16 2
(text) is peculiar. The context
[supported by considerations derived
from the form itself: see p. 166 H.]
suggests that the tense is probably
the perfect ; and the absence of
augment creates no difficulty, for in
the LXX (also Sap"; not I Mac: 4/4)
the best MSS have eijoð. in the 13
places (the N.T. offers none such,
having only the fut. and pres.) in
which an augment could exist. It
is less easy to decide whether eto-
6&Tat is here a perf indic. (cf. 6&v
otöapev above) or one of the very
rare perf. mid, conjunctives, on
which see Curtius Gr. Verð.” ii
247 f.; Kühner G. G.” i 565 f.
The supposed future conjunctive
may be safely dismissed as regards
the N.T. on comparison of the only
places where it has any good evi-
dence (560 m Jo 17 2 ; Ap 8 3: see
also kavěřígapat for Kav6 horopat,
itself a corruption of Kavyºfforwpat,
I Co 133), the best evidence being
AVO 7TA'S OAV OAC 7A/OGAEAAEATY
unfavourable to it: in Lc 13 28
ôpmote, if right, as it seems to be,
is an aorist (see Veitch Z.Z. V. 496).
ALT. Štrays... 6avatdºorovalv Mt
26 59. Štrøs div Šukawółis...kai vukň-
gºls Ro 3 4 (LXX). Čua Ndºm...kai
éavao Tijaret Mc 12 19 || LC 20 28;
Żva o Tavpdºgovolv Mc 15 20; ºva...
...6Métrovalv Lc II 33; (See also
marg. Lc 22 30 ;) iva ºn Ölºpæ
p.möé Ötépxopat Jo 4 I 5 ; ºva...
6avgåkete Jo 5 20 ; (see also marg.
Jo I 5 sº Čva yudºorkova'u Jo 17
3 (cf. I Jo 5 20); iva...étrio Kláo m
Act 5 I 5; ºva Šuphowvtat Act 21 24;
ºva dºpi... Kai kaffaptoet I Jo I 9;
Šva...éxopiev I Jo 4 17; ºva...p.h 6.0-
Kovrat Ga 6 I2; tva...Kduºpm...kal
... &op0)\oyffa'etat Phi 2 I I (LXX);
iva orwºpovićovoſt Tit 2 4; iva dva traw-
owvrat Ap 6 II ; va pil dótkºja waiv
Ap 9 4; ºva...Tpépova'u Ap 12 6;
(see also marg. Ap 13 I5, 17;) ºva
...perphael Ap 2 I I 5. ph...Tatrel-
vögel 2 Co I2 2ſ. pºſitrote a vyāortu
kal étruo Tpépovaly (followed by Kal
lágopal) Act 28 27 (LXX). Čáv...
orvpaq (ovºjoſovo.uv Mt 18, 19; Éāv...
orrhizm're I Th 3 8. §tav oſtikmte
Mc I. 1 25; see also marg. Lc I3 28.
Ös &v jud).oyffa m Lc 12 8; Ös 6' du
&roXéo m Lc 17 33 ; (; āv čovXeūgo-
aw Act 77 (LXX). 60'a du XaXīget
Act 3 22 (LXX); 30 ot éð.9 pil Tpoor-
Kvu%aſovo w Ap I 3 15.
AWOTAES OAV OA&THOGAEAAA/V
I73
IV. PARTICLES
Variations between äu and éâv are
very numerous, and the distribu-
tions of evidence peculiarly irregu-
lar and perplexing. Predominantly
div is found after consonants, and
éáv after vowels; but there are many
exceptions. .
Of Švekev Šveka. e.vekev, between
which there is often variation, êvekev
is the commonest, and is almost
always one of the variants. Eirew
(see Steph.-Didot iii. 346 A; 1471 C)
replaces éira in Mc. 2/4 in the best
MSS.
ALT., du Mt 7 12; 14 7; 16 19
&is, 25 (1°); 18 5, 18 bis; 20 4;
23 3; Mc 3 28; 8 35 (19); 9 18;
I4 9, 14; Lc 7 23; 9 57; 17 33
(1°); Jo 15 7 (2%); Act 2 21 (LXX);
Ja 44; I Jo 4 15; 5 I5 (2°); I Co 16
2, 3; Ga 5 I 7; 6 7; Col 3 17; Ap
3 19; II 6; 13 15. €du Mt Io 42;
II 6; 20 26, 27; 21 22 ; Mc 656
(1°); 9 41 ; Lc 46; 9 5, 24 (1°),
48 bis; Io 22, 35; 13 25; Jo II 22;
I5 I6; Act 3 23; 7 3, 7; I Jo 3 22.
évéka Mt 5 Io, II; 19 29; Mc
13 9; $vekev Act 28 20.
46 yes Lc 9 39.
III.
The following is a list of the pas-
sages and phrases which are marked
by uncial type in the text as taken
from the Old Testament (see Zn/ro-
duction $ 416), together with re-
ferences to the places from which
they are derived. Many of the quo-
tations are composite, being formed
from two or more definite passages,
or from one passage modified by the
introduction of a phrase found in
one or more other definite passages.
Sometimes also it is difficult to tell
from which of several similar pas-
sages a phrase was taken, if indeed
it was taken fiom one more than
another. In all these cases we have
given a plurality of references. On
the other hand we have abstained
from multiplying references for the
purposes of illustration; and have
therefore passed over such passages
of the Old Testament as neither had
an equal claim to notice with the
passages actually referred to, nor
contributed any supplementary and
otherwise unrepresented element to
the language of the quotations in
the New Testament. But in all
these points, no less than in the
selection of passages and words for
QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT
marking by uncial type, it has not
been found possible to draw and
maintain a clear line of distinction.
The numeration of chapters and
verses is that of the ordinary English
editions. It has not seemed worth
while to add the numeration current
in Hebrew editions except in
the few cases in which it differs by
more than a verse or two. The
same principle has been followed as
to the numeration used in editions
of the LXX; for instance, that of the
Psalms or of chapters in Jeremiah
has been given in brackets through-
out: but petty differences in the
reckoning of the verses have been
neglected. Where a quotation, or a
substantive element of a quotation,
agrees with the Massoretic text but
not with the LXX as represented
by any of its better documents, we
have added ‘Heb.’ or ‘Chald.’ to
the numerals, and in the converse
case ‘LXX’. But we have seldom
attempted to mark the limitation in
mixed cases (as Mt xxiv 7), or in
cases where the difference of texts
amounts to no more than a slight
modification of the one by the
other.
MATT.
We are much indebted to Dr
Moulton for a careful and thorough
revision of the list. It was unfortu-
nately too late to make use of his
suggestions in the text itself: but
we have thought it best to incorpo-
rate at once with the list such, addi-
tions as we should now for any
reason desire to make. References
to passages that are thus left for the
present without uncials in the text
are marked with asterisks. In
Mt x 6, Lc xxiv. 5, and I Ti v 5 the
uncials may be treated as errors.
"
ST MATTHEW
Is vii 1.4
Mic v 2
Hos xi I
Jer xxxi (xxxviii) I5
Is xl 3
Deut viii 3
Ps xci (xc) I I f.
Deut vi I6
Deut vi 13
f. Is ix. I f.
ſ. Is lxi I f. (*)
Ps xxxvii (xxxvi) I I
Ps xxiv. (xxiii) 4.”
21 Ex xx 13; Deut v 1.7
27 Ex xx 14 ; Deut v. 18
31 Deut xxiv I (3)
33 Num xxx 2; Deut xxiii
2 I
34 f. Is lxvi. I
35 PS xlviii (xlvii) 2
38 Exxxi 24; Lev xxiv. 20;
Deut xix 2 I
43 Tev xix 18
48 Deut xviii 13
:
W
vi 6 Is xxvi 20 ; 2 Reg iv 33
vii 2.2 Jer xxvii 15 (xxxiv. 12);
XIV. I.4.
23 Psvi 8
viii 4 Lev xiii.49
I 1 Mali II ; Is lix 19
, XIX
viii 17
ix I 3
36
x 35 f.
xi 5
IO
23
... 29
Xll 4
7
18 ff.
4O
xiii. 14 f.
32
35
4I
43
XV 4.
8 f.
xvi. 27
xvii II -
xviii 16
:
I
xxi
xxii. 24
... 44
xxiii 38
QUOTATIONS FROM THIE OLD TESTAMENT I 75
Is liii 4.
Hos vi 6
Num xxvii. 17; Ez Xxxiv
5
Mic vii. 6
Is lxi I
Mal iii I
Is xiv. 13, 15
Jer vi 16 Heb.
I Sam xxi 6
HoS vi 6
Is xlii I-4; xli 9
Jon i 17 (ii I)
Is vi 9 f.
Dan iv 12, 21 Chald.
|Ps lxxviii (lxxvii) 2
Zeph i 3 Heb.
Dan xii 3
Ex xx 12 ; Deut v I6
Ex xxi. 17.
Is xxix I 3
Ps lxii (lxi) I2; Prov
xxiv. 12
Mal iv 5 f. (iii 23 f.)
Deut xix I5
Gen i 27
Genii 24
Deut xxiv I (3)
Ex xx 13-16; Teut v
17-20
Ex xx 12 ; Deut v 16
Lev xix 18
Gen. xviii 14; Job xlii 2;
Zech viii. 6 LXX
Is lxii. II . .
Zech ix 9
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 2.5 ſ. (*)
Is lvi 7
Jervii II
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 5 *
Ps viii. 2
Is v I f.
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 22 f. ,
Deut xxv. 5; Gen xxxviii
8
Exiii.6
Deut vi 5
Lev xix 18
Ps cz (ciz) I .
Jer xxii. 5; xii 7
176
xxiii 39
xxiv 6
7
IO
I5
2 I
'24.
29
xxvii 9 f.
3 4
35
39
i 2
3
44
ii 26
iv I 2
29
32
vi 34
vii 6 f.
I O
s - •
viii I8
QUO7A 7ZOVS ATROM
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 26
IDan ii 28
Is xix 2
Dan xi 4r LXX
IDan ix I 7; xii I I
Dan xii I
IDeut xiii I
Is xiii Io
Is xxxiv 4
Zech xii I 2
Dan vii 13
Is xxvii I 3
Zech ii 6; Deut xxx 4
Gen vii 7
Zech xiv 5
Dan xii 2
Zech xi I 2
Ex xxiv 8; Zech ix I I
Zech xiii 7 -
Ps xlii (xli) 5
lDam vii 13; Ps cx (cix)
I II.
Zech xi I 3
Ps lxix (lxviii) 2 I
Ps xxii (xxi) 18
Ps xxii (xxi) 7 ;
(cviii) 25 •
Ps xxii (xxi) 8
cix
Ps xxii (xxi) I
Ps lxix (lxviii) 2 I
ST MARIX
Mal iii I
Is xl 3
Lev xiii 49
I Sam xxi 6
Is vi 9 f.
Joel iii (iv) 13
Dan iv I 2, 2 I Chald.;
Ez xvii 23
Num xxvii 17 ; Ez xxxiv
Is xxix I 3
Ex.xx I 2 ; Deut v 16
Ex xxi I 7
Jer v 2 1 ; Ez xii 2
ST MATTHEW
ix I 2 Mal iv 5 f. (iii 23 f.)
48 Is lxvi 24.
x 4 Deut xxiv I (3)
6 Gen i 27
7 f. Gen ii 24
I 9 Ex xx I 3- I6 ; Deut v
I7-2o .
— Ex xx 1 2 ; Deut v I6
27 Gem xviii I 4; Job xlii 2 ;
Zech viii 6 LXX
xi 9 f. Ps cxviii (cxvii) 25 f. (*)
I 7 Is lvi 7
— Jer vii I r
xii I Is v I f.
1 o f. Ps cxviii (cxvii) 22 f.
I 9 Deut xxv 5; Gen xxxviii
8
26 Ex iii 6
29 f. Deut vi 4 f. (two texts of
LXX)
3 I Lev xix I8
32 Deut vi 4
— Deut iv 35
3 Deut vi 5
— Lev xix 18
— I Sam xv 22
36 Ps cx (cix) I
xiii 7 Dan ii 28
Is xix 2
I 2 Mic vii 6
I4 Dan ix 27 ; xii I I
I 9 Dam xii I
22 Deut xiii I
24 Is xiii Io
25 Is xxxiv 4
26 IDan vii I 3
27 Zech ii 6; Deut xxx 4
xiv 18 Ps xli (xl) 9
24 Ex xxiv 8 ; Zech ix I I
27 Zech xiii 7
34 Ps xlii (xli) 5 -
62 Dan vii 13; Ps cx (cix)
I ff. -
xv 24 Ps xxii (xxi) 18
29 Ps xxii (xxi)7; cix (cviii)
25 -
34 Ps xxii (xxi) I
36 Ps lxix (lxviii) 2 I
xvi I 9 2 Reg ii I I
Ps cx (cix) I
ST LU. KE
TAIAE O/A) 7TZSTAMEAWT
ST LUKE
i 15 Num vi 3; I Sam i II
LXX.
17 Mal iv 5 f. (iii. 23 f.)
32 f. Isix 7”
35 Exxiii 12
37 Gen xviii I4
46 f. I Sam ii I
48 I Sam i II
49 PS czi (cx) 9
50 Ps ciii (cii) 17
51 Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) Io “
52 Job xii I.9
— Job v II; I Sam ii 7 f.
53 Ps cvii (cvi) 9; xxxiv.
(xxxiii) Io LXX; I Sam
ii 5
54 f. Is xli 8 f. (*)
54 PS xcviii (xcvii) 3
55 Mic vii. 20 *
68 Ps, xli (x1) 13; lxxii
(lxxi) 18; cvi (cv) 48
— Ps cxi (cx) 9
69 Ps cxxxii, (cxxxi) 17;
I Sam ii Io
71 Ps cvi (cv) Io
72 f. Ps cv (civ) 8 f.; cvi (cv)
45; Mic vii 20
76 Mal iii I
79 Isix 2
ii 22 Lev xii 6
23 Exxiii 12
24 Lev xii 8; v II
3o f. Is xl 5; lii Io “
32 Is xxv 7 Heb.; xlii 6;
xlix 6
— Is xlvi I3 *
52 I Sam ii 26
iii 4 ff. Is xl 3 ff.
iv 4 Deut viii 3
8 Deut vi 13
Io f. Ps xci (xc) II f.
12 Deut vi 16
I8 f. Is lzi I f.
26 I Reg xvii 9
v I 4 Lev xiii.49
vi 4 I Sam xxi 6
vii. 22 Is lxi I
vii. 27
viii Io
ix 54
X I 5
I9
27
28
xii 53
xiii 19
27
29
35
xvii I4
27
29
3 I
XVIIl 2C)
xix Io
38
44.
46
XX 9
17
28
37
42 f.
xxi 9
xxii 20
xxiii 3o
177
Mal iii I
Is vi 9
2 Reg i Io
Is xiv. 13, 15
Ps xci (xc) 13
Deut vi 5
Lev xix 18
Lev xviii 5
Mic vii. 6
Dan iv 12, 21 Chald.
PS vi 8
Mali II; Is lix 19
Jer xxii. 5; xii 7
Ps czviii (cxvii) 26
Lev xiii.49
Gen vii 7
Gen xix 24
Gen. xix 26
Ex xx 12-16; Deut v
I6-20
Ez xxxiv. 16 °
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 26
Ps cxxxvii (cxxxvi) 9
Is lvi. 7
Jer vii Ir
Is V 1
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 22
Deut xxv 5; Gen. xxxviii
Exiii. 6
Ps cx (ciz) I
IDan ii 28
Is xix 2
Hos ix 7
Zech. xii 3 LXX; Is lxiii
18; Pslxxix (lxxviii) I ;
Dan viii Io
Ps lxv (lxiv) 7 *
Is xxxiv 4
Dan vii 13
Is xxiv. 17
Pxxxiv. 8; Zech ix II
Is liii 12
Dan vii 13; PS cz (ciz)
I f.
Hos x
Ps xxii (xxi) I8
Ps xxii (xxi) 7
Ps lxix (lxviii) 21
Ps xxxi (xxx) 5
178
xxiii.49
xxiv. 5
i 23
ii. 17
vi 3 I
... 45
V11 42
x 16
... 34
X11 I 3
I5
27
4O
xiii 18
XV 25
xvi. 22
xix 24
28 f.
37
i 20
gºsº
QUOZAZZONS FROM
Ps lxxxviii (lxxxvii) 8
xxxviii (xxxvii) II
Is viii 19
ST JOHN
Is xl 3
Gen xxviii 12
Ps lxix (lxviii) 9
Exxvi 4, 15; PS lxxviii
(lxxvii) 24
Is liv 13
Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 3 f.
Mic v 2
Ez xxxvii. 24; xxxiv. 23
Ps lxxxii (lxxxi) 6
Ps czviii (cxvii) 2.5 f. (*)
Zech ix 9
Ps vi 3; xlii (xli) 6
Is liii I
Is vi Io
Ps xli (x1) 9
Ps xxxv (xxxiv) 19: lxix
(lxviii) 4
Is Ixvi 14
Ps xxii (xxi) 18
Ps lxix (Ixviii) 21
Ex xii 46; Num ix. 12;
Ps xxxiv. (xxxiii) 20
Zech. xii Io
ACTS
Ps lxix (lxviii) 2.5
Ps ciz (cviii) 8
ii 17-21 Joel ii 28-32 (iii 1-5)
25-28 Ps xvi (xv) 8-II
3o
3 I
34 f.
39
iii 13
22 f.
23
Ps cxxxii (cxxxi) II
Ps xvi (xv) 10
Ps cx (ciz) I
Is lyii 19
Joel ii 32 (iii.5)
JEx iii 6
Is lii 13 *
Deut xviii 15 f., 18 f.
Lev xxiii. 29
ST LUKE
iii.25 Gen xxii. 18
iv I f Ps. cxviii (cxvii) 22
24 Ex xx II ; PS cxlvi
(cxlv) 6
25 fſ. Psii 1 f.
v 30 Deut xxi 22 f.
vii. 2 PS xxix (xxviii) 3
3 Gen. xii I ; xlviii.4
Deut ii 5
— Gen. xvii 8; xlviii. 4;
Deut xxxii. 49
6 f. Gen. xv. 13 f.; Ex ii 22
7 Ex iii 12
8 Gen. xvii. Iof.
— Gen. xxi 4
9 Gen. xxxvii II
— Gen Xlv 4.
— Gen. xxxix 2 f., 2 I
Io Gen. xxxix 2 I
— Gen. xli 4o f., 43, 46;
& Ps cv (civ) 21
I r Gen. xli 54 f.
— Gen. xlii 5
12 Gen xlii 2
13 Gen xlv. I
14 f. Deut x 22
15 Ex i 6
16 Jos xxiv. 32
— Gen l 13
17 f. Exi 7 f.
19 Ex i 9 f.
— Ex i 18
20 Exii. 2
21 Ex ii 5
— Ex ii Io
23 Exii II
24 Ex ii. 12
27 f. Exii 13 f.
29 Exii IS, 22
3o Exiii 1 f.
32 Ex iii 6
33 Ex iii 7
— Exiii 5
34 Exiii 7 f, Io; ii 24
35 Exii I4
36 Ex vii. 3; Num xiv. 33
37 Deut xviii 15, 18
39 Num xiv. 3 f.
4o Ex xxxii I, 22
41 Ex xxxii 4, 6
I PETER
vii 42
7TA/AE OZA) 7ESTAMAEAVT
Jervii 18 LXX; xix 13
42 f. Am v 25 fſ.
44
45
46
47
Ex xxv I, 4o
Gen. xvii 8; xlviii 4;
Dcut xxxii. 49
Ps cxxxii (cxxxi) 5
I Reg vi I, 2 (6)
49 f. Is lxvi. I f.
5 I
viii. 2 I
3
X 34.
36
38
... 39
X111 IO
17
I8
I9
*-
22
*-
26
33
34
Ex xxxiii 3, 5
Jerix 26; vi Io
Num xxvii. 14; Is Ixiii Io
Ps lxxviii (lxxvii) 37
Is Iviii. 6
2
32 f. Is liii 7 f.
Deut x 17
Ps cvii (cvi) 20; cxlvii 18
Is lii 7; Nah i 15 (ii I)
Is lxi I
Deut xxi. 22 f.
Hos xiv. 9
Ex vi I, 6 “
Deut i 31
Deut vii I
Jos xiv. I
Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 20
I Sam xiii 1.4
Ps cvii (cvi) 20
Ps ii 7
Is lv. 3
34 f. Ps xvi (xv) Io
36
4. I
. 47
Xlv I 5
xv. 16
I Regii Io; Jud ii Io
Habi 5
Is xlix 6
Exxx II; Ps czlvi(cxlv) 6
Jer xii I5
I6 f. Am ix II f.
I8
Is xlv. 2 I
xvii 24 f. Is xlii 5
3 I
Ps ix 8; xcvi (xcv) I 3;
xcviii (xcvii) 9
xviii. 9 f. Is xliii. 5; Jeri 8
xx 28
32
xxi 26
xxiii 5
Ps lxxiv (lxxiii) 2
Deut xxxiii 3 f.
Num vi 5
, Ex xxii 28
xxvi 16 f. Ezii 1, 3
17
I8
Jeri 7 f.; I Chr xvi 35
Is xlii 7, 16
xxviii.26 f. Is vi 9 f.
28
Ps lxvii (lxvi) 2
I79
ST JAMES
i Io f. Is x1 6 f.
I 2 Dan xii I.2 *
ii. 8 Lev xix 18
II Ex xx 13 f.; Deut v 17 ſ.
21 Gen xxii 2, 9
23 Gen xv 6
— Is xli 8 Heb.; 2 Chr xx
7 Heb.
iii. 9 Gen i 26
iv 6 Prov iii. 34
v 3 Prov xvi 27
4 Deut xxiv 15, 17; Mal
iii. 5
— Is v 9
5 Jer xii 3
6 Hos i 6; Prov iii. 34
7 Deut xi I4; Jer v 24;
Joel ii 23; Zech x 1
II Dan xii I.2 *
—- Ps ciii (cii) 8; cxi (cx)4 *
20 Prov x 12 Heb.
I PETER
i 16 Lev xi 44; xix 2 ; xx. 7
17 Jer iii 19
18 Is lii 3
23 Dan vi 26
24 f. Is xl 6-8
ii 3 Ps xxxiv. (xxxiii) 8
4 Ps. cxviii (cxvii) 22
4, 6 Is xxviii 16
7 Ps cxviii (cxvii) 22
8 Is viii 14 f. ...”
9 Is xliii. 20 f.
— Ex xix 5 f.; xxiii.22 LXX
Io Hos i 6, 8 f.; ii I (3),
23 (25)
1 I Ps xxxix (xxxviii) I 2
12 Is x 3
17 Prov xxiv. 21
22 Is liii 9
24 Isliii 12
24 f. Is liii. 5 f.
iii. 6 Gen. xviii 12
I8O
iii
iv
li
iii
ii
iii
6
Io ff.
14 f.
22
I 4.
17
I8
22
I 2
I 3
I 2
I4.
23
I7
24.
Io ff.
I 3
I4.
I5 fſ.
I8
2O
QUOZAZZO.VS FROMſ
Prov iii 25
Ps xxxiv. (xxxiii) 12-16
Is viii 12 f.
Ps cx (ciz) I
Prov x 12 Heb.
Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 5o f.
Is xi 2
Ez ix 6
Prov xi 31
Prov iii 34
Ps ly (liv) 22
2 PETER
Is lii 5 °
Prov xxvi II
Ps xc (lxxxix) 4
Is xxxiv. 4
Is lxv 17; lxvi. 22
JUDE
Dan xii I
Zech iii. 2
Ez xxxiv. 8
Deutz.xxiii. 2; Zech xiv 5
Zech iii 2 f. -
ROMANS
Hab ii 4
Ps cvi (cv) 20
Ps lxii (lxi) 12 ; Prov
XXIV I 2
Is lii 5
Ps cxvi II (cxv 2)
Ps li (1) 4
Ps xiv. (xiii) I f.
Ps v 9
Ps cxl (cxxxix) 3
Ps x 7 (ix 28)
Is lix 7 f.
Ps xxxvi (xxxv) I
Ps cxliii (cxlii) 2
Vll
viii
xi
I PETER
3 Gen. xv 6
7 f. Ps xxxii (xxxi) I f.
9 Gen. xv. 6
II Gen. xvii II
17 f. Gen. xvii 5
18 Gen. xv. 5
22 f. Gen xv 6
25 Is liii 12 LXX
5 PS xxii (xxi) 5
7 Ex xx 14, 17; Deut v
18, 2I
33 f. Is 18 f.
34 Ps cx (ciz) 1 °
36 Ps xliv (xliii) 22
7 Gen xxi. 12
9 Gen. xviii Io
12 Gen. xxv 23
13 Mali 2 f.
15 Ex xxxiii 19
17 Ex ix. 16
18 Ex vii.3; ix. I2; xiv. 4, 17
20 Is xxix. 16; xlv. 9
21 Jer xviii. 6; Is xxix 16;
xlv.
22 Jer 1 &i) 25; Is xiii
5 Heb.
— Is liv 16
25 Hos ii. 23
26 f. Hos i Io (ii I)
27 f. Is x 22 f.
29 Is i 9
32 f. Is viii 1.4
33 Is xxviii 16
5 Lev xviii. 5
6-9 Deut xxx 12 f.
II Is xxviii 16
13 Joel ii 32 (iii. 5)
15 Is lii 7 Heb.
I6 Is liii. I
18 PS xix (xviii) 4
19 Deut xxxii. 21
20 f. Is lxv I f.
I f. Pszciv (xciii) 14; I Sam
xii 22
3 I Reg xix Io
4 I Reg xix 18
8 Is xxix Io; Deut xxix 4
9 f. Ps lxix (lxviii) 22 f.; Ps
xxxv (xxxiv) 8
II Deut xxxii. 21
GALATIANS
7TÆVÆ O/LD 7TÆS 7TA MAEAV7"
xi 26 f. . Is lix 2o f.
27
34 f.
xii 16
I7
I 9
2o f.
xiii 9
xiv I I
XV 3
9
IO
I I
I 2
2 I
Is xxvii 9
Is xl I 3 f.
Prov iii 7
IProv iii 4 LXX
Deut xxxii 35 Heb.
PrOV XXV 2 I f.
Ex xx I 3 ff., I7 ; Deut v
r 7 ff., 2 I
Lev xix I 8
Is xlv 23; xlix 18
Ps lxix (lxviii) 9
Ps xviii (xvii) 49
IDeut xxxii 43 .
Ps cxvii (cxvi) I
Is xi Io
Is lii I 5
I CORINTHIANS
i I 9
2O
3I
Il 9
I6
iii I9
2O
I3
vi I6
ix 9
2O
2 I
2 2
26
xi 7
25
xiii 5
xiv 2r
25
xv 25
27
32
Is xxix I4
Is xix I I f. ; xxxiii 18 (*)
Jer ix 24
Is lxiv 4
Is xl I 3
Job v I3
Ps xciv (xciii) I I
Ex xii 2 I
IDeut xxii 24
Gen ii 24
I)eut xxv 4
INum xiv I6
INum xi 34, 4
IEx xxxii 6
IDeut xxxii 17
Mal i 7, I 2
Deut xxxii 2 I
IPs xxiv (xxiii) 1
Gen v I
IEx xxiv 8; Zech ix I I
Zech viii I 7 Lxx *
Is xxviii I I f.
Is. xlv I 4 Heb.
Ps cx (cix) I
IPS viii 6
Is xxii I 3
45, 47 Gen ii 7
54.
Is xxv 8
55, 57 Hos*xiii I4
I 8 I
2 CORINTHIANS
• iii 3
7, '? Ex xxxiv 29 f. ; 34 f. (*)
13» I
I8
iv 13
v 17
vi 2
9
I I
I6
I7
I 8
viii 1 5
2 I.
ix 7
9
IO
x 17
xi 3
xiii I
i 15
ii I6
iii 6
8
I O
I I
I 2
I3
16
iv 27
3o
V I4
vi I6
Ex xxxi 18; xxxiv 1
Prov iii 3 ; Ez xi 19:
xxxvi 26
Ex xxiv 17
Ps cxvi Io (cxv 1)
Is xliii I8 f. *
Is xlix 8
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 17 f.
Ps cxix (cxviii) 32
ILev xxvi I I f. ; Ez xxxvii
27
Islii I I ; Jer li 45 Heb.;
EZ xx 33 f., 4 I
2 Sam vii 8, I 4; Hos i Io;
Is xliii 6 ; Am iv I 3
LXX
Ex Xvi I8
Prov iii 4 LXX
JProv xxii 8 LXX
Ps cxii (cxi) 9
IHos x 12 ; Is lv I o
Jer ix 24
Gen iii I3
Deut xix I 5
GALATIANS
Is xlix I
Ps cxliii (cxlii) 2
Gen xv 6
Gen xii 3; xviii 18
Deut xxvii 26
Hab ii 4
I,ev xviii 5
Deut xxi 23
Gen xii 7; xiii I5; xvii 7
f.; xxii I8; xxiv 7
Is liv I
Gen xxi Io
Lev xix 18
Ps cxxv (cxxiv)5; cxxviii
(cxxvii)
I82
i
iv
vi
i
:
iii
QCWO TATIONS FROM
EPHIESIANS
18 Deut xxxiii f.
20 PS cx (ciz) I
22 PS viii.6
i 13 f., 17 Islwii 19; lii 7
20 Is xxviii 16
8 f. Ps lxviii (lxvii) 18
25 Zech viii 16
26 Psiv 4
2 Ps xl (xxxix) 6
— Ez xx 4 I
18 Prov xxiii 31 LXX
31 Gen. ii. 24
2 f. Ex xx 12; Deut v 16
4 - Prov iii II; Is 1 5
— Prov ii 2 LXX, 5
I4 Is xi 5
— Is lix 17
15 Is lii 7
– Is xl 3, 9
17 Is lix 17
— Is xi 4 ; xlix 2 ; li 16;
Hos vi 5
PHILIPPIANS
19 Job xiii 16
Io f. Is xlv. 23
I5 Deut xxxii 5
16 Is xlix 4; 1xv 23
EPHESIANS
iv 5 Jer x 25 ; PS lxxix
(lxxviii) 6
6 Ps Xciv (xciii) I
8 Ez xxxvii. 14
v 8 Is lix 17
22 Job i. 1; ii 3
2 THESSALONIANS
i 8 Is lxvi. 14 f.
— Jer x 25 ; PS lxxix
(lxxviii) 6
9 f. Is ii I of., 19, 21
Io Ps. lxxxix (lxxxviii) 7 ;
Ixviii (lxvii) 35 LXX;
Is xlix 3
I2 Is Ixvi 5
ii 4 Dan xi 36 f.
— Ez xxviii. 2
8 Is xi 4; Job iv. 9
13 Deut xxxiii 12
HEBREWS
3 PS cx (ciz) I
5 Psii 7
— 2 Sam vii 1.4
6 Deut xxxii 43 Lxx; Ps
xcvii (xcvi) 7
7 Ps civ (ciii) 4
8 f. Ps xlv. (xliv) 6 f.
Io ſf. Ps cii (ci) 25 fſ.
13 PS cx (ciz) I
ii. 6 ff. Ps viii 4 f.
II f. Ps xxii (xxi) 22
13 f. Is viii 17 f.
3 Ps lxix (lxviii) 28 °
18 Ez xx 41
COLOSSIANS
3 Is xlv. 3; Prov ii 3 f.
22 Is xxix 13
1 Ps cx (ciz) I
Io Gen i 27
4.
I6
I THESSALONIANS
Jer xi 20
Gen. xv. 16
I6
17
Is XIi 8 f. *
Ps xxii (xxi) 22
iii 2, 5 f. Num xii 7
7-II, I3 g }*
I5-19 'Ps xcv (xciv) 7-11
17
Num xiv. 29
iv I, 3 PS Xcy (xciv) 11
3 f.
5 f.
7
Gen. ii. 2
Ps xcv (xciv) II
Ps xcv (xciv) 7 f.
TITUS
iv
v
vi
, , 2O
vii
. viii
ix
X.
xi
7ÄÄE O/,/) 7Z£S7A/MAEAV7"
Io Gem ii 2 • • »
Io f. Ps xcv (xciv) I I
5 Ps ii 7 -
6 Ps cx (cix) 4
9 Is xlv I7 *
Io Ps cx (cix) 4
7 Gem i 1 I f.
8 Gem iii I 7 f.
I 3 f. Gen xxii I6 f.
' I 9 Lev xvi 2, I 2
Ps cx (cix) 4
I f. Gem xiv I 7 ff.
3 - Gen xiv 18; Ps cx (cix) 4
4, 6 ff., Io Gen xiv I 7 ff.
íí, j; ;? Ps cx (cix) 4
28 Ps ii 7
I Ps cx (cix) I
2 Num xxiv 6
5 Ex xxv 4o -
8-I3Jer xxxi (xxxviii) 3 I-34
2o Ex xxiv 8
28 Is liii I2 .
5-Io Ps xl (xxxix) 6-8
I 2 f. Ps cx (cix) I
I6 f. Jer xxxi (xxxviii) 33 f.
2 I Zech ºvi I I ff. ; Num
xii 7 (*)
27 Is xxvi I r LXX .
28 IDeut xvii 6
29 Ex.xxiv 8
3o Deut xxxii 35 f. ,
37 Is xxvi 2o *
37 f. Hab ii 3 f.
4 Gen iv 4
5 f. Gen v 24.
8 Gen xii I
9 Gen xxiii 4 .
I 2 Gen xxii I 7; xxxii I 2
13 I Chr xxix 15; Ps xxxix
(xxxviii) I2 ; Gen xxiii
4
I7 Gen xxii I f., 6 ;
18 Gem xxi I 2
2 I. Gen xlvii 3 I
23 Ex ii 2
24 'Ex ii I r -
26 Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 5o f.;
lxix (lxviii) 9
28 Ex xii 2 I ff.
xii
xiii
ii
iv
2
29
I83
Ps cx (cix) I
' Num xvi 38 (xvii 3)
IPrOv iii I I f.
Is xxxv *3 Heb.
IPrOv iv 26 LXX
Ps xxxiv (xxxiii) I4
IDeut xxix I8 LXX
Gen xxv 33
.' Deut iv II f.
Ex xix I6
» I)eut v 23, 25 f.
Ex xix I 2 f.
Deut ix I 9
Hag ii 6
IDeut iv 24
IDeut xxxi 6, 8; Jos i 5
Ps cxviii (cxvii) 6
1 I, I3I,ev xvi 27
I5
Ps 1 (xlix) I 4; Lev vii
' I 2 (2); 2 Chr xxix 3 I
Is lvii 19 Heb. ; Hos
xiv 2 •* ,
Is lxiii I I
Zech ix I r.
Is lv 3; Ez xxxvii. 26
r TIMOTHY
I8
I9
Deut XXV 4.
Deut xix 15
a TIMOTHY
I9
I4.
I7
ii
INum xvi 5
Is xxvi I3 -
JPs 1xii (lxi) I 2 ; Prov
xxiv I 2
IPs xxii (xxi) 2 I .
TITUS
Ps cxxx (cxxix) 8 *
IEz xxxvii 23
IDeut xiv 2
ii
iii
QUO747/ONS FROM
APOCALYPSE
I Dan i 28
4 Exiii 14; Is xli 4
— Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 37
— Ps lxxxix (lxxxviii) 27
— Ps cxxx (cxxix) 8; Is Xl 2
6 Ex xix 6
7 Dan vii 13
— Zech. xii Io, I 2, 14
8 Ex iii 14; Is xli 4
— Am iv 13 LXX
13 Dan vii 13; Ez i 26;
viii. 2
— Ez ix 2 f. LXX, II LXX
— Dan x 5 Chald.
I4 Dan vii. 9
14 f. Dan x 6
I5 Ez i 24; xliii. 2 Heb.
16 Jud v 31
17 . Dan x 12, 19
— Is xliv 6 Heb.; xlviii 12
Heb.
19 Is xlviii 6; Dan ii 29
Chald.
20 Danii 29 °
7 Genii 9; iii 22; Ez xxxi
8 Is xliv 6 Heb.; xlviii 12
Heb.
io Dan i 12, 14
14 Num xxxi 16
— Num xxv I f.
17 PS lxxviii (lxxvii) 24 *
— Is lxii 2; lxv 15
18 Dan x 6
20 Nu xxv I f.
23 Jer xvii Io; Ps vii. 9;
lxii (lxi) 12
26 f. Ps ii. 8 f.
5 Ex xxxii 33; PS lxix
(lxviii) 28
7 Is xxii 22
9 Is xlv. I4; xlix 23; lx 14
Heb.; lxvi. 23
— Is xliii 4.
12 Ez xlviii 35
— Is lxii 2.; lxv I5
14 Ps. lxxxix (lxxxviii) 37
iii 1.4
vi
I 7
I9
5
-
6
:
:
f.
APOCALYPSE
Prov viii. 22
HoS xii 8
Prov iii 12 (two texts of
LXX)
Ex xix 16, 24
Danii 29
Is vi I; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Ez i 26 f.
Ez i 13
Ex xix 16 (Heb. --LXx)
Ez i 5, 18, 22, 26; x I
Is vi I f.
Ezi Io; x 14
Is vi 2 f.
Ez i 18; x 12
Am iv I 3 LXX
Exiii 14; Is xli 4
Is vi I ; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Dan iv 34 ; vi 26; xii 7
Is vi I; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Ezii 9 f.
Is xxix II
Gen. xlix 9
Is xi Io
Is liii 7
Zech iv. Io
Is vi I; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Ps cxli (cxl) 2
Ps cxliv (cxliii) 9
Ex xix 6
Dan vii Io
Is liii 7
Is vi I; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
2, 4 f. Zech i 8; vi 2 f., 6
8
IO
*memº
I 2
I3 f.
I5
Hos xiii 1.4
EzzXxiii.27; xiv.21; v 1.2
Ez xxix. 5; xxxiv. 28
Zech i 12
Deutxxxii.43; 2 Regix 7
Hos iv. I
Joel ii 31
Is xxxiv. 4; xiii Io
Pszlviii (xlvii) 4LXX; ii.2;
Is xxiv. 21 ; xxxiv. 12
Jer iv 29; Is ii Io
Hos x 8
Is vi I ; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Joel ii II ; Zeph i I4 f.,
8
I
Mal iii 2.
APOCALYPSE
vii
xi
I
–
*
I-
i
2
O
f.
Ez vii. 2
Ez xxxvii. 9; Zech vi 5
EZ ix.4
Is vi I ; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Dan xii I
Gen xlix II .
Is wir; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
. Is xlix Io
Ez xxxiv. 23
Jerii 13
Is xxv 8
Jer xxxi (xxxviii) 16
Am ix I
. Ps cxli (cxl) 2
Lev xvi I.2 -
IEx xix 16 (Heb.--LXx)
Exix 24; Ez xxxviii. 22
Joel ii 3o
Jer li (xxviii) 2.5
Ex vii. 19 °
Is xiv. 12
Gen. xix 28 Heb.;
xix. I8
Joel ii Io
Ex x 12, 15
EZ ix.4
Job iii. 21
Joel ii 4 f.
Joel i 6
Joel ii 5
Gen xv. 18; Deut i 7 ;
Josi 4 * .
Is xvii 8; Dan v 3, 23
LXX
Dan v 4, 23 Chald.
Deut xxxii 17
Ps cxv 7 (cxiv. 15)
2 Regix 22
Dan viii 26; xii 4
Ex
. T)an xii 7
Gen xiv. 19, 22
Neh ix 6; Ex xx II; P
cxlvi (cxlv) 6 -
Am iii 7 Heb.; Dan. ix
6, Io; Zech i 6
. Ez iii I ff.
Jer i Io; xxv. 30 (xxxii
I6); Dan iii 4; vii I4
Ez xl 3
Zech. xii 3 LXX; Is lxiii
7 'AAA. O.L.D 7'ESTAMENT
X
i
4.
xii
xiii
;I
ii*19
I 5
I85
18; Pslxxix (lxxviii) I;
T)an viii Io
Zech iv 2 f., II, I4
2 Reg i Io
2 Sam xxii. 9; Jer v 1.4
Ps xcvii (xcvi) 3
I Reg xvii I
Ex-vii I'7, 19
I Sam iv 8
Dan vii 3, 7 f. LXX, 2I
Is i Io
. Ps cv (civ) 38 (*)
Ez xxxvii 5, Io
2 Regii II
Ez xxxviii 19 f.
Dan ii 19 Chald.
Obad 21; Ps xxii (xxi) 28
Exxv 18; Ps XI6 (ix 37);
Danii 44; vii. I4
PS iſ 2
Am iv 13 LXX
Tx iii 14; Is xli 4
. Ps xcix (xcviii) I “
Psii 1 Heb., 5; xlvi (xlv)
6 Heb. -
Ps cxv 13 (cxiii 2.1)
Am iii 7; Dan ix 6, Io;
Zech i 6
I Reg viii I, 6; 2 Chr v 7
IEx xix 16 (Heb. --LXX)
Ex ix. 24.
Is lxvi 6 f.
Dan vii 7
Dan, viii Io
Is 1xvi 7
Ps iſ 8 f. . f
Dan x 13, 20
Gen iii I -
Zech iii 1 f. (Heb. --Lxx)
Is xliv 23; xlix 13
I)an yii 25; xii 7
Dan vii 3, 7
Dan vii 4 ff., 8
Dan viii 12, 24
Dan vii. 8 LXX, 2I
Danxii I; Pslxix (lxviii)
28
Is liii. 7
Jer xv.2
Dan iii 5 f.
I86
xiv. ... I
XV
IO
I I
I4
I5, 18
I
3
–
4
xvi
:
+s
6
QUOTA TVONS FROM
Ezix 4
Ez i 24; xliii 2 Heb.;
Dan x 6
Ps cxliv (cxliii) 9
Is liii. 9; Zeph iii 13
Exxx II; Ps cxlvi (cxlv)
Is xxi 9; Dan iv. 30 (27);
Jer li (xxviii) 7 f.
Is li 17
Ps lxxv (lxxiv) 8
Gen. xix 24; Ez xxxviii
22
Is xxxiv. Io
Dan vii 13; x 16 .
, 20 Joel iii 13 (18)
Lev xxvi 2 I
Ex xv I
Jos xiv. 7
Ps cxi (cx) 2
Ex xxxiv. Io; PS cxxxix
(cxxxviii) 14
Am iv 13 LXX.
Deut xxxii 4.
Jerz 19 Heb.; [marg.Jer
x 7 Heb.]
Jer x 7 Heb.
Ps lxxxvi (lxxxv) 9; Mal
1 II
Deut xxxii. 4;
(cxliv) 17
Ex x1 34
Lev xxvi 21
Ez xxviii 13
Is Vi 4
Exxl 34 f. (28 f.)
Ps cxlv.
JLev xxvi 21
Is lxvi 6 -
Ps lxix (lxviii) 24; Jer x
25; Zeph iii. 8.
Exix 9 f.; Deutz.xviii 35
Ex vii. 20 Heb., 21
Ps lxxviii (lxxvii) 44
Ex vii. 2d Heb.
Ps cxix (cxviii) 137
Exiii 14; Is xli.4
Deut xxxii. 4; PS cxlv.
(cxliv) 17
Ps lxxix (lxxviii) 3
Is xlix 26 *
xvi
Io
xviii
7
... e-º-e
I I
I 2
17
| —
APOCALYPSE
Am iv 13 LXX
Ps xix (xviii) 9; ‘Ps cxix
(cxviii) 137
Ex x 22
Dan ii Ig Chald.
Is xliv 27; Jer I (xxvii)
38 Heb.
Gen. xv. 18; Deut i 7 ;
Jos i 4 *
Is xli 2, 25
Ex viii 3
Am iv 13 LXX
Zech xii II Heb. . '
"Is lxvi 6 -
Exxix 16 (Heb.4 LXX)
f.
TJan xii I
Dan iv 30 (27) :
Is li 17 ; Jer xxv I5
(xxxii. 1)
Exix 24
Jer li (xxviii) I 3 Heb., 7
Is xxiii 1.7 Heb.
Dan vii. 7
Jer li (xxviii) 7
Dan iv. 30 (27)
Dan vii. 3 *
Dan xii I ; Pslxix (lxviii)
28
Dan vii. 24 .
Deut x 17 ; Dan ii 47
Jer li (xxviii) I 3 Heb.
f.
f4
Ps ii. 2; lxxxix (lxxxviii)
27 * -
Is xxi. 9; Dan iv 30 (27)
Jerix II
Is xiii 21 ; xxxiv. I4 :
cf. Lev xvii. 7 Heb. ;
2 Chr xi 15 Heb.
Jer li (xxviii) 7, [49 Sl;
xxvi 6, 27 (xxxii 2,13);
cf. Is li 17, 22
Is xxiii 17 *
Jer li (xxviii) 6, 9, 45
Ps cKxxvii (cxxxvi) 8
Jer 1 (xxvii) 29
. Is xlvii 7 ff.
Jer 1 (xxvii) 34
EzzXvi 16 f.; xxvii.30, 33
Ps xlviii (xlvii) 4 LXX;
Ez xxvii 35
APOCALYPSE
xviii. 9 Is xxiii 1.7 ..
Io Dan iv 3o (27) *
— Ez xxvi I? "
II Ez xxvii. 36, 31
13 Ez xxvii I.3
15 : . Ez xxvii. 36, 31
17 Ez xxvii. 28 f.
18 Ez xxvii. 32
19 Ez xxyii 3of, 36, 33, 9;
XXVI IQ
20 Deut xxxii 43
2 : Jer li (xxviii) 63 f.; Ez
xix
22 f.
23
24.
17 f.
I9
2O
2 I
xxvi 2 I
Dan iv. 3o (27)
Ez xxvi 13
Jer xxv Io Heb.
Is xxiii. 8
Is xlvii 9
Jer li (xxviii) 49
Ps civ 35 (1)
Ps, xix., (xviii) 9 ; czix
(cxviii) 137
Deut xxxii 43; 2 Reg
ix 7
Is xxxiv. Io
. Ps civ 35 (1)
Is vi 1 ; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Ps cºxxiv (cxxxiii) I ;
cxxxv (cxxxiv) I
Ps xxii (xxi) 23; cxv 13
(cxiii. 21)
Dan x 6
Ez i 24; xliii. 2 Heb.
Ps civ 35 (I)
Ps xciii (xcii) I ; xcix
(xcviii) I
Am iv 13 LXX
. Ps xcvii (xcvi) I (*)
Ezi I
Ps xcvi (xcv) 13
Dan x 6
Is xi 4; Ps ii. 8 ſ.
Joel iii 13 (18)
Am iv 13 LXX
Deut x 17; Dan it 47
Ez xxxix 17 f., 20
Ps ii. 2
Gen Xix 24; IS xxx 33 ;
Ez xxxviii. 22
Ez xxxix 17 f., 20
XX
xxi
TAZZ OZA) 7A.S7AMAZAV 7"
93. 2.
I2 f.
*I
3:5
4.
9
IO
II
I 2
I5 fſ.
I6
I8 f.
22
187
Gén iii I
Zech iii 1 f. (LXX,+ Heb.)
TJan vii 9.f., 22
Is lxi 6.
Ez vii. 2
Ez xxxviii. 2
Hâb i 6
Jer xi 15; xii 7: cf Ps
lxxxvii (lxxxvi) 2.;
lxxviii (lxxvii) 68
2 Reg i Io,
Gen. xix 24; EzzXxviii.22
Is vi I ; Dan vii. 9
Ps cxiv (cxiii) 7, 3
Dan ii 35 Chald. *
Dan vii. Io
Ps lxix (lxviii) 28
Ps xxviii (xxvii) 4; lxii
(lxi). 12; Jer xvii Io
Dan xii I ; PS lxix (lxviii)
28
Is lxv 17; lzvi 22
Is lii I
Is lzi Io
Ez xxxvii. 27 ; Zech ii
Io f.; Is viii. 8
xxv 8; Jer xxxi
(xxxviii) 16
Is lxv 19, 17
Is vi I ; Ps xlvii (xlvi) 8
Is xliii 19
Is Iv I ; Zech xiv. 8
2 Sam vii I4; PS lxxxix
(lxxxviii) 26 -
Gen Xix 24; IS xxx 33 ;
Pz xxxviii. 22
I,ev xxvi 2 I ?”
Ez x1 I f.
Is lii I
Is lyiii 8; lx I f., 19.
Ez xlviii 31-34 Heb.
EZ xl 3, 5
Ez xliii 16
Is liv 1 I f.
Am iv I 3 LXX
Is
23-26 Islz 1 ff., 6, Iof, 13, 19
24.
27
Ps lºxxix (lxxxviii) 27 *
Is lii I ?”
Dan xii ( ; Pslxix (lxviii)
28
I88 QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENZ Apoc.
xxii I Zech xiv. 8 xxii 1.2 Ps, xxviii (xxvii) 4; 1xii
f f. Gen. ii 9 f.; iii. 22 ; Ez (lxi) I2; Jer xvii Io
xlvii I, 7, 12 13 Is xliv 6 Heb.; xlviii 1.2
3 Zech xiv II Heb.
4 PS xvii (xvi) 15 14 Gen. xlix II
5 Is lx 19 — Gen. ii. 9; iii. 22
— Dan vii. 18 * - 16 Is xi Io
6 Danii 28 17 Is Iv I ; Zech xiv. 8
7 Is xl Io 18 f. Deut iv. 2; xii 32; xxix
Io Dan xii 4 2O
12 Is xl Io 19 Gen. ii. 9; iii.22
III
89734
- s - n
WE i *
ND REMD * 4 ;
!.
**
MUTILATE CARD








º-º:
º
**
§
º
*¿:§§
}}§§§
*&
* …
ſº
º
§§§ ¶ ¡ ¿
ſaeae
£;
º
º
º
§:
V &
sº
ſº
†:
ſº
*::::::
º
º
º
º º
sº tºº
§: § sº
…∞∞∞
， ， ，§§
ſae·
§§§§
ae¿¿.*
§§§§§}}
*
№
！ 5 *）, §. 3:r.
;“（.* # s
！
$$$$$
ģķ
§§
§§
* * * * * * * * • • • ••••• • • • ！= <> º
¿•）› ‹› ſ.:
§§§
º ：::： ***
ſº º ******** ••••••••••• -
w.
§:（-8，5)
ºº -f.
r.
§ .
sº.
gº-
s= ！ ） ■ ■ ■ ■ .
*
§: