CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES
A Study and an Indictment
PART |
BY
H. C. HOSKIER
AUTHOR OF
“CONCERNING THE GENESIS OF THE VERSIONS OF THE N.T.”; **CONCERNING THE DATE OF THE BOHAIRIC VERSION’; AND EDITOR OF CoLLAtrions oF ‘‘THEr MorGANn GOSPELS,” AND OF THE GREEK CURSIVES 1§7 AND 604 (700).
5 Bios Bpaxts, h 6 réexvy paxph, 5 B& xaipbs dkds, 4] BE welpa opareph, 7 SE Kpiois yaAremh. Act 38 od pdvoy éavrdby mapéxew ra SdovTa modovTa, AAA xal voy voogovra, kal robs wapedvras, Kal Ta ewer.
— Hippocrates (Aphor. I.)
Codex B and Its Allies
By Hoskier, H.C.
Bernard Quaritch - 1914.
THIS ESSAY 1S RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED TO THE NEXT BODY OF REVISERS IN THE HOPE THAT iP MAY PROVE OF SOME SERVICE
TO THEM.
Note - This book was originally posted FREE at www.archive.org Many other Free Ebooks available there.
Books for your consideration
It would be a mistake to suggest that we agree with all of the books we will list below. No book or author is perfect, and neither is this list.
However, there is material in these sources, that do relate to the topic of the book in which this list is found, and these Ebooks are therefore listed for your potential consideration.
Agree or disagree with them, Freedom of Choice and thinking belong to each individual. Make up your own mind.
Codex B and Allies by Hoskier (review of Vaticanus, Sinait. and NKJV) Relevant to all versions and manuscripts, including Tischendorf, Wescott & Hort, J White, Burgon, Riplinger, Cumbey, etc
Battle for the Bible by Professor Harold Lindsell
All books by John William Burgon, Oxford, including Revision Revised
New Age Bible Versions by Riplinger (often attacked though not much substantiated against, her own videos are available online
and for Free) [Hidden Dangers of Rainbow by C.C. Is an old Standby as is New Age Messiah by same]. A Time of Departing by Youngen, and Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith are relevant here.
Greek Text for comparison should be the 1550/51 version of Stephens(Estienne) [Textus Receptus] also versions 1860 Scrivener or Cura P.Wilson.
Canon of the Old and New Testaments by Alexander (Princeton)
All Books by George Stanley Faber (watch for other fabers)
All books by Robert D. Wilson
All Books by R.A. Anderson
Sources of the Koran by Sir William Muir is significant in Textual
Criticism concerning Apocryphal and Islamic literature, though not always in other contexts.
PREFACE.
od yiip ey Adye H Baordeia rot end GAN’ év Surdpet.—l Cor. iv. 20. ...ékagtos 66 Breréra Tas erotcodopet—l Car, ili, 10. 8 8é Aoerdy Cyretras év Trois oixovspuors iva mioTés Tis ehpeOH.—1 Cor. iv. 2.
1. Ibis high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked.
It had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently. TI had thought that time would cure the extraordinary Hortian heresy, but when I found that after a silence of twenty years my suggestion that Hort’s theories were disallowed today only provoked a denial from a scholar and a critic who has himself disavowed a considerable part of the readings favoured by Hort t it seemed time to write a consecutive account of the crooked path pursued by the ms B, which—from ignorance [ trow— inost people still confuse with purity and ‘‘ neutrality.”
I proceed to ‘‘name” the aforesaid scholar, since he has challenged me. Dr. A. Souter began a review of my ‘Genesis of the Versions’ by saying that— It is the business of a eritie first to destroy his enemy's position before he seeks to build up his own.”
He ended by expressing gratitude for my collations of Mss as such, but added some very strong advice to hold my tongue as regarded commenting on the evidence so painfully accumulated, which he and others would use—but which I must not use or discuss. He said: “ We cannot afford to do without his valuable cooperation in New Testament textual criticism, but would suggest that he confine his energies to the collection and accurate presentation of material, and leave theorizing to others, at least meantime.”
I refuse to be bound by such advice. I demand a fair hearing on a subject very near my heart, and with which by close attention for inany years I have tried to make myself sufficiently acquainted to be able and qualified to discuss it with those few who have pursued a parallel course of study.
T present therefore an indictment against the ms B and against Westcott and Hort, subdivided into hundreds of separate counts. I do
+ When this was written I believed that the Revised text to which Dr. Souter added gome critical apparatus (published by the Clarendon Press in 1910) really represented his views as to the text. He informs me, however, that I am mistaken, and that he favours practically the whole text of Hort, Yet I prefer to allow to stand what I have written above, because Dr. Souter withholds in his notes in certain places (¢.g. John xiii. 18 as to rivas pro ods) the evidence of B al. upon which the readings of Hort were founded, and which the Revisers rejected in those places. The inference is obvious and almost indubitable that Dr. Souter must agvee with the Revisers against Westcott and Hort in such places, or he would have given the alternative readings and the evidence for them in his notes.
b
i CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
not believe that the jurymen who will ultimately render a verdict have ever had the matter presented to them formally, legally, and in proper detail.
A comparative study of the Versions has been made but by few. Tischendorf did the best he could, but often neglects a Latin Ms or the Aethiopic version when, for instance, standing alone with N. -In such cases N appears to be the only witness, but has support. Mr. Horner’s apparatus in his edition of the Gospels in the Sahidic dialect has some improvements on Tischendorf, but he has also overlooked many important little keys.
I have endeavoured to bring out other points of vital interest for a full and complete understanding of the matter.
Many errors of omission may yet be found in my own apparatus. I do not ask the critics to favour me with corrections of manifest slips, or of a printer’s error of a Greek accent, or as to whether Schepps is spelled Schepps or Schepss, I ask for a categorical answer count by count to my indictment of B,. I ask for intelligent discussion of how it would have been possible for an ‘‘ Antiochian ” revision to have dis- placed certain B readings had they been really genuine. And I ask for a proper explanation of certain Egyptian and Alexandrian features amounting to clear revision in the text of B and &, if we are to divorce them from Alexandria and Egyptian soil where they belong properly.
I had not intended simultaneously to write out the history of &, which I have sketched in Part II. But this was early forced upon me, and will I think materially contribute to a proper grasp of the problems involved.
Dr. Souter has said that “it is the business of a critic first to destroy his enemy’s position,” but I beg to observe that the enemy, under deepest cover of night, has already abandoned several important positions. And there is such a thing as a flanking movement which compels retirement or surrender without striking a more direct blow in front. Thirty years and more have been allowed for them to retire in good order. If the finale is to be a rout and a “sauve qui peut,” it is not owing to lack of patience on the part of the other side. But it will be owing to apathy, to unfaithfulness, to pride, to imcomplete examination of documentary evidence, and to an overweening haste to establish the “true”’ text without due regard to scientific foundations.
If now I throw some bombs into the inner citadel, it is because from that Keep there continues to issue a large amount of ignorant iteration of Hort’s conclusions, without one particle of proof that his foundation theory is correct.
It is impossible to reproduce or restore the text of Origen. Origen had no settled text.| A reference to the innumerable places where he is
+ This is strong language, but compare Mark xi. 1/12, where Origen at different times employs two different recensions without seeming to observe it.
PREFACE. iii
upon both sides of the question, as set forth in detail herein, will show this clearly. Add the places where he is in direct opposition to N and B, and we must reconsider the whole position, pending which a return to Wetstein’s text might be an improvement.
I ask for a patient hearing of what must take a considerable time in the telling (although I have condensed the matter as much as seemed possible), while I proceed to sing the Death-song of B as a neutral text,
2. Now as to the supposed Antioch revision, and as to an Egyptian revision, history is very silent. I know of no book where the matter is succinctly sketched except ‘The Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,’ by Dr. Swete (1900). Here (p. 78 seg) Dr. Swete distin- guished between the later and the earlier Hesychius, and seems to accept as probable that Phileas and Hesychius (the earlier) at the end of the third century, with or without Pachymius and Theodore, engaged in Egypt in a revision of the Greek New Testament scriptures as well as of the Old Testament. And it is to be assumed that St. Jerome was referring to this Hesychius as to a revision possibly of both Testaments. The Decret. Gelasii to which Dr. Swete refers (p. 79) speaks of an Hesychins, but of whom it is difficult to judge as the date of the Deer. is uncertain.t But whether the labours of the earlier Hesychius. and of Phileas may not be involved in the charge, some things in the following pages seem to suggest, and possibly the labours of the several men of the name of Hesychius were somewhat confused in later times.
As to Lucian, with or without Dorotheus, and his presumed revision of the Scriptures at Antioch, probable as this may be, we are again in a difficulty. This Lucian died in 312, but he is not the same Lucian [circa 120-190] to whom Origen [186-253] refers as having probably altered the Scriptures (contra Celsum ii. ch. xxvii). ‘“ Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel save the followers of Marcion and those of Valentinus and I think also those of Lucian.”
To Lucian and Hesychius together Jerome refers in his letter to Damasus: ‘ Praetermitto eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nun- cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio quibus utique nec in (toto) veteri instruamento post septuaginta interpretes emendare quid licuit nec in novo profuit emendasse cum multarum gentium linguis scriptura ante translata doceat falsa esse quae addita sunt.” This certainly refers to the second Lucian and probably to the first Hesychius.
In his praefatio ad Paralip. Jerome says: “ Alexandria et Aegyptus in Septuaginta suis Hesychium landat auctorem. Constantinopolis usque Antiochiam Luciani martyris exemplaria probat. Mediae inter has pro- vinciae Palaestinos codices legunt; quos ab Origene elaboratos Eusebius
t As to the date of the Decretum Gelasii itself see article by F. C. Burkitt in ‘ Journal of Theol. Studies’ for April 1918, p. 470,
b 2
iv CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
et Pamphilius vulgaverunt: totusque orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat....’’ Here he is certainly only referring to the O.T. directly.
Whether or not Hesychius 1 and Phileas are the ones responsible for the Egyptian revision of the New Testament, there was evidently such a revision, which is what the following pages are concerned to exhibit.
I do not deny that Lucian 1 perhaps also revised the New Testament about the same time (circa 290 A.D.) at Antioch, and that therefore, as Hort allowed, the Textus receptus foundation is synchronous | as to age with the other forms of text.
But Ido not see how it is possible to accord to the NB group any general neutral base as against the other text, or to see any way out of the difficulty except an assumption that the NB group represent this Egyptian and Hesychian (1) revision, with traces here and there, it is true, of a foundation common to an earlier form shared by both Antiochian and Egyptian bases before either revision took place.
The principal point involved is: ‘“‘ Who ts responsible for the greater revising?” And the answer seems decided that the NB group should be given the palm. Otherwise we cannot explain the facts. For it is inconceivable that Lucian Ir or anyone else removed what are con- sidered such good readings in NB as:
Matthew vi. 7. uoxperast (pro eOvixot) XVii. 15. xaxws eyes (pro xaxws Tacye.) xix. 4. xricas (pro romoas) xx. 34, oppatov (pro opParpav) xxii. 10. vupdov (pro yapos) Mark v. 36. wapaxoucas (pro axovcas) vii. 4. pavtic@vtat (pro BarticwvtTat) x. 16 xarevroye (pro evroyet)
Luke xi. 33. dws (pro peyyos) xii. 28. audiaber (pro audsevvucr) xii. 56.. ova odare Soxtpatkew (pro ov Soxipalere) xxii. 55. weptaravrav (pro ayavrwv) xxiv. 33. 7Oporcpevous (pro curd poropevous)
John iv. 15. Ssepywpae (pro epywpar) xi. 57. evrodas (pro evrornr) xix. 41. nv tePetyevos (pro ereOn)
On this ground alone then, however pure or impure, neutral or expanded, may be the narrative in the Antiochian or Constantinopolitan text, it shows a base in such places free from the “ improvements ”’ made in Hgypt.
Until this matter be disproved, and I see not how it can be done away with, we must refuse to allow the priority or purity of the NB recen- sion over that of Constantinople and Antioch as to genuine neutral base.
PREFACE, v
My thesis is then that it was B and & and their forerunners with Origen who revised the ‘‘ Antioch ” text. And that, although there is an older base than either of these groups, the “Antioch ” text is purer in many respects, if not ‘‘ better,” and is nearer the original base than much of that in vogue in Egypt.
I have recently published a fresh collation of Evan 157. I was anxious to do this for several reasons, but I was surprised at the result; principally because I found that the text of the ms had, like so many others, passed through Egypt at some time and become imbued with a good many coptic readings which are of such a nature that they could only have been obtained through the agency of a graeco-coptic document.
This matter illustrates our point very thoroughly and very decidedly. Where 157 opposes NB and coterie we are to suppose that upon its return to Constantinople the archetype of 157 was subjected to a rigorous comparison with a standard which caused the removal of all the ‘‘ good” readings of the NB group! Such a thing is unthinkable. On the contrary, 157 is a good example of a text full of “old” readings and having a very ancient base, yet not ‘improved ” on the principles of 8B. Bui all this will develop as we proceed with our examination.
Dr. Souter has said further of me in his review of my ‘ Genesis of the Versions,’ ‘‘ It is rhetoric and perhaps something worse to say that Hort’s whole classification is now admitted to be wrong (p. 387). Mr. Hoskier would find it difficult to prove this.”
In reply to this, I will only say that in the same volume under review T had quoted Burkitt and others on this very point, and given their own language. But I will be still more precise here and subjoin some of the remarks which can be gathered from a rapid glance at the writings of Kenyon, Burkitt, and Turner, without mentioning Merx.
“There remain the ‘ Neutral’ and ‘ Alexandrian’ groups, tf we accept Hori’s classification.” —Crum and Kenyon, J.T.8. vol. 1. p. 432, ‘Of the middle-Egyptian graeco-coptic fragment.’
“ Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where the text of Hort is wrong; but it is right, as it were, rather because a sort of divining instinct, the result of his long acquaintance with his material, led him to the truth, than because he had really, at least In the sense that Hort and von Soden have done, argued out his principles.” —-C. H. Turner, J.T.S. vol. xi. p. 183, ‘ Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the N.T.’
[But Tichendorf ‘argues out his principles” on every other page of his N.T., and although he often follows B against &, it is N as a “neutral” text that he is following just where Turner no doubt agrees with his critical acumen.—H.C.H. ]
:
Vi CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
“ Some few of these ‘ interpolations’ may possibly not be interpolations at all, but portions of the true text which have fallen out of NB... .
“As soon as the Latinity of the ‘Italian’ group is studied without special reference to the type of Greek text represented by the various mss, tt becomes at once evident that Dr. Hort’s classification ts unsatis- factory. The first blow to it was dealt by Mr. White in his edition of g....”-—-F. C. Burkitt, Texts and Studies, vol. iv. No. 3, ‘The Old Latin and the Itala,’ pp. 52 and 55.
The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of SB. The Old Syriac sometimes supports the true text of the NB family, where N singly or B singly deserts the family to side with a later variation; is it not therefore possible, and indeed likely, that in some instances X and B may both have deserted the reading which they ought to have followed, and that they and not S (= syr sin) are inconsistent? That’ & and B occasionally ” [over 3,000 real differences betweeti N and B are recorded in the Gospels alone !—H.C.H.] “ are inconsistent with themselves appears certain in several places. Carefully as B is written, now and again it presents an ungrammatical reading, which proves on examination to be the fragment of a rival variant. Thus at Matt. xxiii. 26.... Other instances are... . In all these instances” [Matt. xxi. 31, xxiii. 26, xxvil. 17, Luke xi. 33, xix. 37] “B presents us with what is evidently a doctored text.”—F. C. Burkitt, ‘Hiv. da Mepharreshe,’ vol. ii. pp. 2383/4.
Now in the following pages I submit a vast number of other instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored. Hort and my side cannot both be right in their estimate of this “‘ neutral ”’ text. I claim merely that it is not neutral, and may not be followed unless standing with strong independent company apart from the other usual ‘Egyptian’ supporters. I had thought von Soden agreed with me, but his new text is very eclectic, and I wish to submit my side of the question independently of his views. I have had no correspondence with him on the subject. Adalbert Merx is decidedly on my side.
{Notz.—As to Hesychius referred to on p. iii we have really to distinguish between four men of this name (and possibly a fifth may lurk between them).
Hesychius circa 200 in Egypt.
Hesychius the Alexandrian and lexicographer ca. 880.
Hesychius of Jerusalem stated as 0b. 609 by Gregory, but in Gallandius vol. xi. Pref. p. vii as ob. in 433 or 436. To this man is attributed the Concordance or harmony republished (?) by Severus in 513.
Hesychius of Miletus circa 540, author of an Onomasticon and Chronicon. |
INTRODUCTION,
Havra boxiudfere * rd xaddv xaréyere.—1 Thess. v. 21.
Tiveode rparefira: Séxiwou.—Apelles Epiph. Origen Job
Zou yap, hnolv [6 Kiptos}, dvepwre, rots Méyous pov ds dpy’ptoy emi rpaneCiray Kai &s Xphyara Soxtpdoat,—Clembhon.
I suppose that it will readily be conceded that C. H. Turner is without question the most brilliant writer on Textual Criticism today. It is always a pleasure to read him, and to be carried along in his racy and well-balanced style, which shows large mastery of the historical side of the problem as far as we have gathered it to-day. But there are certain weak points in his argument. I refer particularly to his article in the J.T.S. for January 1910,t which I think shows a smaller
t ‘Historical Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament.’ V: The Languages of the Early Church; (B) Syriac and the first Syriac Gospels.
Turner’s two examples in textual criticism (Matt. i. 16 and Luke xiv. 5) are distinguished, as usual, by a perfectly lucid view of matters which would surely lead him a long way as a helpful master in the science if he would collate certain texts with each other and get at the many suggestions for the origin of error which abound when the documents themselves are consulted. Thus, as to ovos and wos in Luke xiv. 5 the origin of the change may perhaps be referred merely to the propinquity of other words With similar commencement or termination. If he will turn up the Codex Sinaiticus the following will be found:
CENKAIANOKPIOle
NPOCAYTONEINEN TINOCYMWNONoe HBOYCEIC@PEAPNE
At first sight it looks as if the corrector had misplaced YC (YIOC) over the wrong ON, but he is apparently correcting avrov to avrovs. It is possible that a similar change where YC was written by mistake over the wrong ON (in ONOC) led to the trouble.
Now if we turn to B: AYTONKAIAMEAYCEN KAINPOCAYTOYCEINE TINOCYMWNYIOCHBOY:s ElICPPEAPMECEITAIK
we find veos comes below avrovs, a8 in N oves comes below avroy. Hence there was a possibility of error oculi in both places, making for vios in one and ovos in the other. A faint or interlined original therefore may be the cause of the trouble, as we see from syr cu’s conflation.
Note further that AS and U have OYIOC, retaining an O, while D’s zpofaroy is faithfully reproduced in @ OVIS (ovis et bobis), We may even hazard that OVIS might have influenced ONOC in that dim reriod when “‘ Western” and ‘“‘ Alexandrian ”’ texts were linking up,
viii CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
acquaintance with the testimony of the mss themselves than I expected to find in his writings.
On p. 1883/4 he says ‘‘ Hort was the last and perhaps the ablest of a long line of editors of the Greek Testament, commencing in the eighteenth century, who very tentatively at first, but quite ruthlessly in the end, threw over the later in favour of the earlier Greek MsS: AND THAT ISSUE WILL NEVER HAVE TO BE TRIED AGAIN. In Hort’s hands this preference for the earlier MSS was pushed to its most extreme form....”
This sentence seems to me to lack a grasp of what the testimony of the later documenis ts (as evidenced by the contents of those which we know) and what the testimony may be of those which are yet unexamined, of which of course there are hundreds and hundreds.
To take Rendel Harris’ 892, published in 1890, or Schmidtke's Paris nat®’ for example (the latter variously known as Scrivener 743, or Gregory 579, or von Soden ¢ 376, olim Reg 2861, olim Colbert 5258) which was published in 1903, we find texts which at first sight are in large accord with NBLYW. Yet if we examine them more closely, as I have had occasion to do in reading them a score of times, we find a strange state of things. For if, where they accord with NBLY, they are supporting the genuine reading, what are they doing when they are aberrant, as we find on every page? What are they doing when they accord with the ‘ Antioch” side, or with 28 or 157 or the Syriac alone, or when they have their own peculiar way of exhibiting the text? If the question be closed, as Turner says: ‘and that issue will never have to be tried again,” how are we to judge of the issues where N and B are opposed, in over 3,000 places? for he says on p. 183 just previously: “Tischendorf’s text is, in my own opinion, right in many places where the text of Hort is wrong....” It is in such places that I claim the testimony of 892 or Paris®’ as invaluable for ‘‘ control.” A deep study of the phenomena involved in this is imperative, for the question which arises in such cases is whether this text antedates the common base of XB or not.t
Turner has a reference to an Oxyrynchus papyrus which claims our attention next. In this connection let it be understood that the oldest documents in profane literature unearthed by Grenfell and Hunt are
t It is well. to bear in mind at all times that the questions at issue are not those of the xvi century versus those of the rv. It is a question of the mss of the iv" + L¥ of vur/ix + RTQ of vi/v [WX with D occupying a position midway] against a large band of other uncials of nearly the same dates. The textual questions involved are all back of the iv“ cent. In other words it is not a question of Turner’s “later mss in favour of the earlier Greek mss,” but as to who was right a.p. 125-400, when these questions arose. Turner is misstating the case. Hort did not do this. He recognised the Textus receptus aa being quite as old as 850 a.p. or older.
INTRODUCTION. ix
often woefully inferior in places to more modern documents of the same citings, and often very corrupt.t
On pp. 185-6 Turner writes: ‘“‘The discovery, since Hort wrote, of a papyrus leaf containing most of the first chapter of St. Matthew in a text closely agreeing, even in spelling of proper names, with the text of B, may be fairly held to carry back the whole B text of the Gospels into the third century.”
Why “the wHoLE B text”? I wonder. Does Turner not know that it is unallowable for a serious textual critic so to express himself. The four Gospels are most frequently in Mss found to be of different recensions although bound together. After the many Christian per- secutions during which the fragile documents of the Faith were in jeopardy every hour, it seems that it was difficult to obtain the four Gospels together to be recopied. Indeed—judging from certain early Syriac documents in the British Museum, as well as from the varying order of the Gospels as recopied and bound—it was the practice in the early centuries to carry one or two Gospels bound together. Hence, after the stress of a persecution had abated, and a Church copy of the Tetra-evangelion was required, it was often unconsciously made up of different recensions. Therefore, because B accords in St. Matthew with the Oxyrynchus papyrus, No. 2 (plate i) vol. i. 1898, it does not necessarily follow that the same applies to the other three Gospels.t This in first place. But, secondly, does B find the support claimed by Turner here (and by Burkitt, ‘Introduction to Barnard’s Clement of Alexandria,’ Texts and Studies, vol. v. No. 5), or is not thig exaggerated ? The biblical piece referred to is the merest fragment, a veritable trifle, containing Matt. i. 1-9, 12, 14-20. As to date G. and H. say: ‘‘ There is no likelihood of its being subsequent to the beginning of the fourth century, and it may with greater probability be assigned to the third.” Shall we call it ap. 275 then? This only carries the B text of this portion back fifty or sixty years or so anyhow. After a collation, G. and H. sum up thus: ‘The papyrus clearly belongs to the same class as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and has no Western or Syrian proclivities. Except in cases where it has a reading peculiar to itself alone, the papyrus always agrees with those two mss where they are in agreement. Where they differ, the papyrus does not consistently follow either of them, but is somewhat nearer the Vatican codex, especially in matters of spelling, though in one important case (rod &¢ "Invot Xpsorod) it agrees with the codex Sinaiticus,”
+ Note also the following opinions: “There is this peculiarity about the mss of the treatise De statu anwmae [of Claudius Momertus] that their value is in almost inverse ratio to their age.”-—Sanday, ‘Classical Review,’ Feb. 1888.
“ However, a8 we shall see later, age is no certain criterion of value,”—L. J. M. Bebb, ‘ Studia Biblica,’ vol. ii. No. 5, p. 201 (1890).
t Obs. Soden's us 050 with N in Matt. and John, with BD in Mark, avith B in Luke.
x CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Now hear Dr. Burkitt before we proceed (op. cit. pp. viii, x/xi) : ‘‘Mr. Barnard has. paid a longer and less hurried visit than Dean Burgon’s flying call. He has copied out all the marked places in Clement’s bible as far as the Gospels and Acts are concerned..... Before actually examining Clement’s quotations let us for a moment consider what we might have expected to find. Since the publication of the Revised Version and Dean Burgon’s strictures on it, investiga- tions and discoveries have been made which bear directly on the subject. The general result is quite clear. Whether S and B are, as Dean Burgon has it, ‘two false witnesses,’ B, at least, can no longer be regarded as a mere ‘curiosity.’ There can now be little doubt that this ms represents in the Gospels with great accuracy the type of text current: in Egypt from the middle of the third century AD., although B itself may very well have been written at Caesarea in the famous library of Pamphilus. The Egyptian proclivities of B have been well illustrated by three comparatively recent publications. .... The most striking discovery of all remains. In the Oxyrynchus papyrus fragment of St. Matthew, discovered and edited by Grenfell and Hunt, we have at last an undoubted piece of a third-century Gospel us. The fragment is older, probably by a century, than any known ms of any part of the New Testament, and most fortunately covers a passage where the variants are extremely well marked (viz. Matt. i. 1-20). What, then, does this. voice from the dead say? Does it support Burgon or Hort? The answer is most decided. It sides with N and B. With & and B (and of course ‘ Westcott and Hort’) it has Boest for Booz, Iobed for Obed, Asaph} for Asa. Nor is this agreement confined to the spelling of the names of Jewish kings, seeing that it has yéveows in Matt. i. 18 (not yévvnows), & reading characteristic enough of B and Dr. Hort to draw forth three pages of Dean Burgon’s indignation. Other readings of B similarly attested by the new fragment are Sevyparicas for wapadevypatioas (ver 19) and the omission of o Bacidets in ver 6, and of yap in ver 18. Nor does the papyrus give support to ‘ Western’ texts any more than to the ‘ Received Text.’ Both in vv. 16 and 18 it rejects the readings of Codex Bezae and its allies. In one word, it is just such a document as Dr. Hort would have expected it to be.” So far Burkitt,
Commenting on this, the first thing which attracts our attention is the notice of —o Baordrevs in ver 6, followed by the statement that “the papyrus gives no support to ‘Western’ texts.’ Yet, the omission of ‘6 Baotheus is found in the Latins § g g. k gat dim and vulgates JM with
ft = Coptic, as the Coptic in Luke iii. 82, but there not NB.
} Consult Salmon, ‘Some Thoughts on Textual Criticism,’ as to this.
§ I take this opportunity of correcting a mistake in my ‘Gen. of the Versions,’ vol. ii. p. 200, where I ssid “(non Oxyr*]” for this omission. G.and H. professed to give a collation with the Text. recept, and W-H, but were silent as to verse 6, and I failed to compare the original text.
INTRODUCTION.
Auct op imp. However this is a small matter.
xi
There is practically no
opportunity in these few verses for much variation. What I object to is the generalisation as to the conformity of B to the Oxyrynchus fragment
from these very few verses. overrated and quite spasmodic. fragment:
CoLLATION OF B WITH Oxy".
As a mutter of fact the agreement is Here is a collation of B and the
AGREEMENT. DISAGREEMENT. Matthew. ae | Oxyr. YY B YIOY i, oy AAYIA B AAYEIA 3 ZAPE ! 4 |, AMMINAAAB dis B AMEINAAAB bis 5 BOE (but so also § copt k) IWBHA ( 5» NCA copt al.) | 6 ~-ofasirevs ( 4, 4, NMaletlait’)! , AAYIA dis B BAYEIA bis COAOMWNA( ,, —,,. most Mss) » THC OYPEIOY B THC TOY OYPEIOY 7 | » ABLENA prim B ABIA jos ABEIA see B ABIA 7/8 ACAD { » » NCDal) | 8/9 OZEIAN -OZEIAC (but papyrus is faint | and pr loco looks like OZIAN) ‘ 9-12" missing i eI e 12 | » SPELNHCEN] prim BO CENNA prim t (4 tleg B TON CEAABIHA i 4, leg B CEAASIHA AE i TENNA t 13 : 13/14 Oxyr. illeg but: N ABIOYT (ef lat) 14 = 15 ( Oxyr. MAGC@AN bis B MAGEOAN sic dis 16 io «=©6IWCHd B TON IWCH 17 | os CENEGAI B AI CENEAL (ag AYIA prim B AAYEIA prim ' 5, AAYLA’ sec B AAYEIA sec oo» ter B AGKATECCAPEG i ter 18 TENECIC (but so also NCPSZa) 4 TY X¥ B XY iY ~— yap ( oo» oy RC*Z ete} i 19 | 4, AGIFMALTIEICAlt B AEITMATICAI AAYIA B AAYEIA
20 : : My
+ Cf Protev™ ad Lue i. 31.
¢ Burkitt claims this as against wapaderyuatioos but it is not absolutely clear whether the papyrus
i \ | had zapa,
G. and H. merely say “ there is barely
room for rapa at the end of the line.”
Now this more complete tabulation is rather interesting. proves Burkitt’s case as against Burgon then “figures lie.”
Tf ié I do not
wish to draw any conclusions against B from the comparison, but as to the few agreements supporting the views of any particular school of criticism the matter is simply absurd. Far more important than BOEC
XH CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
IWBHA or —o Bacvrevs is the Oxyr opposition to B’s yewva in ver 12. And to dogmatise about a matter of 17 verses is unworthy of serious consideration when the real weighty matters are outside of the range of comparison. This ‘“ voice from the dead’’ no more supports Hort than Burgon. The questions at issue do not turn on spelling (and here even the deductions drawn are wrong) but on what is the ‘‘true” text: whether Lucian’s revision (if it equate ‘“ Antioch”) or Hesychius’ revision (if it equate “‘ Higypt’”’) is the right text. To close the matter, as Turner suggests, is to sit down and be content with NBLTWY as repre- senting merely an ‘‘ Egyptian’ agreement inter se. But, as I have said, what are we to do when they differ? We are certainly not going to waver simply between N and B. That would be a reductio ad absurdum. I write this feeling most earnestly that we have much to learn from the junior documents, and Turner is so capable a man that I dislike to read his dictum “and that issue will never have to be tried again ”—that is to say the issue between the later and the earlier (= NB) mss. It is not so. The issue is not decided as to whether the “revision at Antioch” or the “revision in Egypt” represents the best text. In each case it is to be presumed that the revisers thought they were perpetuating the “‘ best” text; but whether the “true” text (as the self-appointed arbiters t of the text of the N.T. since Hort are prone to write) remains a question still absolutely sub judice.
Before leaving Turner’s article a most important matter must be referred to. He writes (pp. 204/5) : ‘‘ The first stages, then, of the history of the Syriac New Testament are represented for us by-a Gospel Harmony constructed out of a Roman Greek ms of the Gospels i in the third quarter of the second century..
Observe, a Boman-Greek Ms, but by this he does not mean a graeco- latin (for on p. 184 he accepts the common view of the Latin: ‘ the first stratum of the old Latin version in the African Mss k and e’’), but he means only a Greek ms of Roman provenance. So much then is definitely accepted today, 7.e. that Tatian’s harmony was based on a Greek ms used by him im Rome and no doubt carried away with him circa A.D. 175. Hence, then, the matters which we find in agreement between Tatian and certain “‘ Western’ authorities. Good, so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough. In the first place, we find in Tatian many cases where his text agrees with the Latin, not the “ Western” Greek, but only with the Latin. How does this occur if the Latin was non-
«
+ In the general scheme of textual criticism the examples given by Hort to sustain his theory of families are painfully inadequate. ‘“ Syrian” or later readings are found abounding in certain documents like Paris” side by side with what are probably judice Hort “ pre-Syrian,” yet the text does not carry signs of a revision which made an eclectic text. This document when carefully read bears evidence of being a whole before a.p. 400, and the “Syrian” part of this text cannot be separated from “pre-Syrian.”
INTRODUCTION. Xiil
existent in Tatian’s day in Rome? The answer has been given that it is the Diatessaron which has so largely influenced the Latin. I deny this in a large measure and look on the contrary for the origin of this sympathy to a Latin-Greek bilingual at Rome before a.p. 175 and not only to a ‘‘ Roman-Greek ms.”
If I am correct, this destroys the theory, accepted by Turner purely on historical grounds (but how silent is history as to most of the matters involved!), that the separate Gospels in Syriac followed and did not precede the Harmony. Because at the outset it seems to be a fact that the Latin did not influence the Syriac, but the Syriac the Latin. There is a priority of action of Syriac on Latin as against Latin on Syriac.
Therefore if there was a Graeco-Latin in Rome in 175 A.p., there must have been a Syriac still earlier.
Next, if to the Diatessaron we are to attribute reflex action on Latin documents, how are we to account for the cases where the whole mass of Latin documents (widely separated geographically as to their recopy- ing and revision) together oprosE the Syriacs?
I have stated before and repeat here that there is every evidence remaining in certain Greek and Latin documents, taken in conjunction with the varying elements in the existing mss of syr vet, syr pesh, syr lier and the diatess arab (not to speak of pers, which combines elements of all the Syriacs but principally of sy7 vet), to show that a lost or hidden Syriac precedes them ; and that this lost Syriac influenced both Latin and Greek documents, when running concurrently in the early part of the second century, and before Tatian’s Diatessaron was planned. I wish to see this disproved if possible, not by the historical method, but by a reply based on documentary evidence, before surrendering the position to which my study of the documents has led me.
The diatessaron alone cannot be responsible for the spasmodic agree- ment between Latin and Syriac documents, because the various Latin documents often as a whole oppose the Syriac documents as a whole. Attention is directed to this in many passages coming under discussion in the following pages, and Dr. Vogels is requested to observe this carefully. Note Dr. Meinertz’ review of Vogels in Theologische Revue 1918, No. 18, p. 588 col. 1, as to Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40: “ Solche Beobachtungen weisen auf Schwierigkeiten hin, die noch der Lésung harren.”
Preface
CONTENTS.
PART I.
Introduction
CHAPTER
Il.
III.
IV.
VII.
VIII.
Hort’s critical principles B in St. Matthew's Gospel ,
Editing—Solecisms—Latin syiipachy=<Coplic: aympathy — Syriac traces—Form—Synonyms — Grammatical changes (32-44) — Harmonistic — General improvement (48-68)— Conflict with Origen.
B in St. Mark’s Gospel
General—Editing—Solecisms—Latin seiiithiy Oo pis Latin and Coptic—Syriac— Form —Synonyms— Homoioteleu- ton—Grammatical changes (91-104)—Harmonistic—General improvement (107-114)—Diction of Mark—Improvement and Change without improvemert—Opposition to the harder reading—Conflict with Origen.
Concerning the Latin Version of St. Mark .
General—As to D# a and d—As to b—Testimony of the Catacombs—As to c—The Irish texts—Base of St. Mark— Mark vi. 36—Retranslation in W—In others.
Two or more Greek recensions of St. Mark
Selected examples of varieties of readings and renderings throughout the Gospel.
Concerning the Latin base of St. Mark. ‘
Farther remarks as to the unity of @ and the Ttala as a whole—As to difficulties at i. 41, iv. 6, iv. 15, vi. 31, xiv. 72, ii. 7, ii. 12—-As to the Greek article— General.
Concerning the Greek of D and the. testimony of the Fathers in St. Mark’s Gospel r
Concluding remarks — The methods of De _— Patristic testimony—Clement of Alexandria (x. 22 seg.)—Tertullian (xiv. 18)—Justin (viii. 31).
Map of Courses of Transmission of St. Mark’s Gospel B in St. Luke’s Gospel.
Editing —The longer text in B—Soleciame—Latin sympathy —(N.T. use of gus 221/5)—Coptic—Latin and Coptic—Syriac traces—Syr-Lat against Coptic—Syr-Lat and Coptic—Syr- Copt against Latin—Synonyms—Form—Grammatical changes (242-263) — Genitive before the noun—Harmonistic — “Neutral” “ Pre-Syrian ” ‘“ Pre-Alexandrian” misnomers— General improvement, etc. (272-297)—Conflict with Origen.
PAGES i-vi vii-xili
1-13 14-71
72-125
126-139
140-171
172-194
195-206
207 208-298
CHAPTER
CONTENTS.
TX. Bin St. John’s Gospel
X.
Editing — Solecisms — Latin sy mpathy — Coptic — The corrector of B—Coptic and Latin—Syriac traces—On_ exexvos in St. John—Form—Synonyms—Homoioteleuton and homoio- arcton—Compound and simple verbs, on epxopat and Scepxopac (344-347)—Grammatical changes (348-363)—Order—Con- cerning ix. 21 and the Diatess.—Hopelessness of considering B neutral—Harmonistic—Conflation—General improvement (374-396)—Change without improvement—-Indeterminate— Conflict with Origen.
Epilogue . :
Luke xxii. 43/44, Medical language of St. Luke—As to yevopevos and eyevero—Xxili. 34 new evidence for and against— As to Cicumenius—Hesychius and Origen~—Dean Burgou’s position—Codex B outside the Gospels (416-419)—Patristic testimony—Finesse of B—“ Higher” and “ Lower ” criticism -——Further test of “ Neutral” text applied to sccond-century witnesses, Aristides, Theodotus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Naasseni, Hippolytus, Marcion, efe.—Eustathius and Antioch —On changing symbols of codices—Singular cursive testimony (435-454)—Von Soden’s N.T.—The Kowy (458-460)—As to Merx, Ramsay and Soden—Burkitt, Merx and Vogels—The verdict—Hortian heresy—Other pscudo-scientific heresies, Robinson Smith, Dean Inge on St. Paul, efe.—Conclusion.
Postscript (on wept and v7ep) General Index .
PART IT.—VOMW. II.
VARIATIONS BETWEEN X anv B. St. Matthew St. Mark St. Luke St. John
Postscript (“ Gleanings ”)
Index of Scriptural Quotations, covering vol. I. and vol, IT. :
XV
PAGES
299-405
406-187
488
489-497
1-57 58-112 113-195 196-341
343-582
383-412
Views of Dr. Sanmon, ‘Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,’ London, 1897.
“Yet, great as has been my veneration for Horf and my admiration of the good work that he has done, I have never been able to feel that his work was tinal, and I bave disliked the servility with which his history of the text has been accepted, and even his nomenclature adopted, as if now the last word had been said on the subject of New Testament criticism ....” (p. 33).
“That which gained Hort so many adherents had some adverse influence with myself—I mean his extreme cleverness as an advocate; for I have felt as if there were no reading so improbable that he could not give good reasons for thinking it to be the only genuine... .” (p. 33/4).
“On this account I am not deterred by the general adoption of W-H’s decisions from expressing my opinion that their work has too readily been accepted as final, and that students have been too willing to accept as their motto ‘Rest and be thankful.’ There is no such enemy to progress as the belief that perfection has been already attained.” (p. 38).
“In Hort’s exposition the student is not taken with him along the path that he himself had followed; he must start with the acceptance of the final result, Consequently one of the first things at which I took umbrage in W-H’s exposition was the question-begging nomenclature.” (p. 43).
“T strongly feel that Hort would have done better if he had left the old nomenclature undisturbed, and distinguished his neutral text from that which he calls ‘Alexandrian’ by the names ‘early Alexandrian’ and ‘later Alexandrian.’ Names will not alter facts, though they may enable us to shut our eyes to them... .” (p. 52).
“Naturally Hort regarded those Mss as most trustworthy which give the readings recognized by Origen; and these no doubt were the readings which in the third century were most preferred at Alexandria. Thus Hort’s method inevitably led to the exclusive adoption of the Alexandrian text.” (p. 53).
“To sum up in conclusion, I have but to express my belief that what Westcott and Hort have restored is the text which had the highest authority in Alexandria in the third century, and may have reached that city in the preceding one. It would need but to strike out the double brackets from the so-called non-Western interpolations, and to remove altogether the few passages which W-H reluctantly admitted into their pages with marks of doubt, when we should have a pure Alexandrian text. Their success is due to the fact that W-H investigated the subject as a merely literary problem; and the careful preservation at Alexandria of a text which had reached that city was but a literary problem.” (p. 155).
“That W-H should employ the Alexandrian ‘use’ as their chief guide to the recovery of the original text may be quite right; but that they should refuse a place on their page to anything that has not that authority is an extreme which makes me glad that the Revised New Testament, which so closely follows their authority, has not superseded the Authorized version in our Churches. For, if it had, the result might be that things would be accounted unfit to be read in the churches of the nineteenth century which were read at Rome in the second century, during the lifetime of men who had seen members of the apostolic company who had visited their city.” (pp. 157/8).
PART LI.
“Hort (p. 171) makes the suggestive remark that documents which have most Alexandrian have also most ‘neutral’ readings. It is a little surprising that he did not draw the obvious inference that this is because the documents which contain the neutral readings are Alexandrian.”’—Salmon, op. cit. p. 52, note.
‘* However there is nothing that Hort fights more against than the idea that his neutral text can properly be called ‘Alexandrian,’ He eagerly catches at the notion that B, its principal representative, was written, not at Alexandria, but probably at Rome. The reasons for regarding the text of B as Alexandrian remain the same no matter where this particular MS chanced to be copied.”—Salmon, op. cit. p. 60.
CHAPTER I. CopEx B.
Hort’s CRITICAL PRINCIPLES.
Dr. Horr sought for a “neutral” text, uninfluenced by ‘‘ Western,” Alexandrian,” and “ Syrian” readings, and claimed to have found it in B alone. This view has been accepted in England, and nearly as much in Germany, although the late Adalbert Merx did his best to discredit B as a foundation text, and to put the matter in the right light to his countrymen. Great has been our loss by the death of Blass and Merx, and more recently still by that of Nestle.
It seems time to call attention to the lack of basis for Hort’s theory, because scholars and writers still speak of a ‘neutral text” (by which B or readings supported by B is practically always implied), whereas the present writer knows of no such text.
There is ample ground for the opposite view that B had already been influenced by the Syriac and the Latin version, besides the peculiarities visible in the B text, many of which are grammatical and some seemingly due to Egyptian surroundings.
Hitherto we have not known fully the history of textual criticism in Greek Egypt, but every important document, including the new W, which has affinity for the B group, ties the matter more and more down to Egyptian soil, and this simplifies the problem. When W and the cursives of the family oppose B we must weigh these places carefully.
Leaving aside the claims made in the Introduction of W-H, the principles upon which the text was founded as it left Hort’s hands are fixed for ever, and graven in stereotype for us; and those principles are reduced to one rule, viz., to follow B whenever that ms has any support,
B
2 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
be it only the adhesion of one other ms. This is seen (in one Gospel for example) in conjunctions of BL soli at Luke xi. 12, of BT sola at Luke xiii. 27,f of NB soli at Luke xviii. 12, xix. 48, of BA sole at Luke xxi. 24, of BK soli at Luke xiv. 1 (square brackets) and of B fam 13 solt at Luke vi. 42.t
Further, readings of B absolutely alone are dignified by textual notice. Matt. vi. 18 eveyxew..zrovew is read absolutely alone by B (see note on this elsewhere), and in Luke iii. 33 tov apswada8, omitted only by B, finds no place in Hort’s text; observe also Luke v. 2 wAoa dvo order of B alone among Greeks; v. 3 ex Tov adovov edivdackey B alone ; the omissions by B only of av’ Luke xii. 58, of év Luke x. 31, of pos avrov Luke ix. 62 are enclosed in square brackets; or they are given a place in the margin (as if ‘‘many ancient authorities read thus”) as oravpwcat Luke xxiii. 23, Oponfevres Luke xxiv. 37. Observe also the extraordinary es to ev tpv8dvov Mark xiv. 20 by B alone, forced into Hort’s text in square brackets because C* ?? possibly read thus.
In the light of this, had B left out in John xiv. 6 cae » adnOea in the threefold claim ‘‘ I am the way and the truth and the life,” which Evan 157 does, it is practically certain that Hort’s text would have done so also. Had B added évrperrixn in Luke xviii. 3 as an attribute of the importunate widow, as does Evan 28, we should surely have found it in Hort’s text.§ Had B omitted ey avty tn wpa in Luke xii. 12 with 33 and Origen we should have been favoured with this omission. Had B omitted tyv before awiotw in Luke xviii. 8 with D 240 244 we should have been asked so to read. Soden adds two fresh cursives for omission.
Had B added o enoous after ta Oavpacia a eromoev in Matt. xxi. 15, as does Evan 28 with Origen and syr hier and i! (abcef fisgrh rs dim gat Wurz’ vg?®8®) we should certainly have found it in Hort’s text [dg 1 q vg" do not add, but ¢ does. Tisch. errs in the N.T. as to this witness]. Soden adds 630 and ¢ 1091 for this. Observe Origen and 7, alone omit ev Tw cepw in this verse.
Had W-H known that Sod 604 supported B at Luke viii. 25 for the omission of xas viraxovovew avtw we should doubtless have lost the
¢ Such mss can easily be shown to be but ome in stem. For instance B*R together alone at Luke v. 30 eyyoyufay for eyyoyvtov, and again vi. 23 ev ras ovpavos for ev tw ovpave. For some reason WH do not like this combination. R is the famous v"* century ms from the Nitrian desert. In the second case the BR combination is supported by fam 18 and ten other minuscules and by e f goth Cypr.
$ Many are the places where NBL are followed alone, and this also represents but one single tradition.
§ This is a reductio ad absurdum of the critical principles which people do not seem to grasp or follow. This would have resulted in perpetuating blunders of two mss contra mundum. Many others, probably as grievous, are to be found in the text. It is thereby rendered unfit for serious study as a whole, and must be banished from our class rooms.
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 3
clause, especially as aeth favours this omission also, and W-H must have sought at that time in vain for another Greek witness. The same applies to Luke vi. 26 —o. matepes avtov B 604 (+ sah syr sin), neglected by W-H, yet vi. 81 —xae vues B then alone (omitted in W-H txt) has support of 604 and Paris. There is absolutely no science in intro- ducing Oponfevres into the margin of Luke xxiv. 37 on the authority of B alone and in neglecting to record in the margin at viii. 25 that B omits «at vmaxovovow avtw, especially as aeth shows it is not an accident. For observe that at Luke iii. 8 on the sole authority of B and Origen they introduce the order afsovs xaprrovs into their margin. While at x. 1 —avtovs B e Eus (now supported by 604 and Paris” and Sod: **) is not omitted by W-H. Atvii.47 +«ae ante odsy. ayara B* [negl Hort] is added by 892 Paris*’.
I do not want to multiply ad nauseam instances of arbitrary judgement. These remarks should suffice as to definite examples of the unscientific use of the margin as well as of the text whether bracketed or not. For it is to be observed that at Luke ix. 62 W-H bracket mpos avrov in the text on the sole authority of B; as a matter of fact however 604 omits also (and sah 1/3) which they did not know. The whole treatment of such things is entirely unequal. I wish to point out that their intuition in such matters was quite wrong, because a little further in Luke x. 1 they leave avrovs alone and do not brand or bracket it although B omits. Yet here B had support from e Hust™ and now we find that both 604 and Paris” also omit. Had Hort known this he would of course have banished it. It is useless for Souter to get up and defend Hort on any specious plea which I may offer him by stating the matter thus. Souter’s own text condemns Hort’s method while he still clings with a curious loyalty to the man.t
Further as to Origen, observe Luke xviii. 31 reAetwPnoeras (for Tedeo- @noerat), which is found in Paris’ 60 y*" 2° and some other important cursives, is Origen’s reading, yet not found in NB.
Or as at Luke xxii. 4 where Orig reads ows (and Hus wa), with the 13 family only, for ro mws of NB and all the rest [except D d arm ras; d follows D with guomodo against quemadmodum of the rest].
Or as at Matt. xv. 22 where 1 [non fam] and Origen read Sewws for kaxws, but not SB or any others known (although there may be other cursives) ; Seyws occurs at Matt. viii. 6 and Luke xi. 53.
Or at Matt. xvi. 25 jin for evpnoe: avrnv where Orig Iren and fam 1 33 read ovrws cwce avrTny.
Or as at Luke xxii. 22 where Origen (recollecting eypayrev reps avrov of Matt Marc) adds avtw after tw wpicwevoy with sah syr hier, syr cu [non sin] aeth wept avrov. Had B done this we should have been told it was
t Dr. Souter has informed me since this was written that he had nothing to do with the text itself of the Oxford edition of 1910 and that he favors the Hort text practically entire.
BQ
4 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Lucan. It is clearly an addition, as sah mss are divided among them- selves, four for avrw, and one for wept avtov; while syr sin by its silence accuses cz of harmonizing.
Origen says we must pay attention to the letter of Scripture down to the very presence or absence of an article in the Greek. Yet observe what he does at Luke xxii. 10/Mark xiv. 13. For at Luke xxii. 10 he uses St. Mark’s avavtnces with D min® (against vravrncee CLX, and ovvavtnoes NB unc" rell), while at Mark xiv. 13 he incorporates into the narrative eedOovtwy vuwy evs Thy todw from Luke xxii. 10 with only fam 13 28 91-299 2Pe,
Again, at Matt. xx. 13 he is to be observed very carelessly on both sides of the question. Once *’ with LZ 33 sah boh syr sin aeth Nyss writing ovyt Snvapiov cuvepwrnca cor, and again °°, again thro’ int 3.907 giyyy, Snvapiov cuvehovnacas wot with NB and all the rest, and laté syr rell arm Auct? imp et de voc gent, This place should be very carefully considered. Was the archetype of LZ 33 then on Origen’s desk and annotated by him to conform to a turn of the versions ?
We have another illustration of Origen’s rank carelessness in St. Mark’s Gospel. In one place, *”” concerning Mark xi. 1, he says pre- cisely : “‘ kas 0 wapxos Se Kata Tov ToTOY ouTws aveyparpe* Kat oTE eyytovow els vepootoAupa Kat eis BnOaviay pos...” and again *7 * Swpev de reps rns BnOpayn pev kata pat@aov, BnOavias Se cata papKov, BnOdayn Se kat BnOavias Kata Tov AovKay.”
Nothing could be plainer as to the Marcan reading of es IepocoAupa kat es BnPavav without evs BnOpayn, and yet when in another place Origen comes to write out Mark xi. 1-12 he has there evs sepocoAuua evs Bn Oday Kat Pnbavav,
We note in these two places—these two codices as it were—ot Origen that they vary in the spelling of evOus and evfews (xi. 3) and doubtless he was using different copies, without realizing it, when he penned the two passages. For instance in the one place (ver. 2) he leaves out ov7w, in the other it is present; again ver. 3 he leaves out in one place wadw, in the other it is present.
Again ver.3 one place tz vrovevre rovro; in the other tz AveTe Tov TwAov with D.
Ver. 4 one place xa amndOov in the other xa azreAOovtes
” ” ‘ Gupay ” ” THY Oupav 1 Tov rwAdov diserte ,, two others 7waAov.
Further than that Origen does a thing at Matt xviii. 27 which throws a lurid light on the proceedings of the entire coterie, whose joint testimony we are asked to accept and whose mutual support is considered to bolster up the individual witness of a very small clan. This place both dates several witnesses and affords much help.
I refer to this substitution: For xa: to Savetov adnxev avtw, Origen with 1 only and ff; sah boh (ex xviii. 32) says wacay Thy opetrAny.
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 5
Origen’s quotation, as given in Tischendorf, is 0 Se omAayyvicbers eT avTw KUpLOS OVK ... abNKEY aUTOV povoy adAa... Tacav THY opetdny avtw. While this does not convict Origen absolutely of appropriating the wording of verse 32, and inserting it in verse 27, it comes so near to it that 1 and sah boh must have thought it a good idea to make the transfer. In other words they were following Origen, as Vulgate mss followed Jerome’s other writings. (Soden adds his family ¢*.)
The principal point is this (for SB do not agree to make the substitution): For many verses previously the testimony of Evan 1 (without 118-209) has been bolstering up B. I use this expression advisedly, for on the testimony in Matt xviii. 25 of B 156 58 124 Orig 1/2 Hort has inserted in his text eyes WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST MARGINAL ALTERNATIVE. Evan 1 is contradicted by 118-209, 124 is contradicted by the rest of its family; 56 and 58 are of no account whatever [Dobbin is silent as to 61], for they are most notorious polyglot abusers of the truth, and Origen contradicts himself. They have been used here simply to bolster up B in his use of the historic present [see elsewhere under this head ].
Again, upon the testimony of B 1 124 (again against their families) and sah 4/7 we are asked in Matt xviii. 27 to suppress exewov [by Hort in square brackets].
Now such mss do not really support B as a neutral text at all, for we find that 1 and sah and Origen are all in the same circle playing tricks on us; as at xvili. 27 in this very same verse where they ask us to read Tacav thy opecrnv for To daveiov.
This dates the vagaries and other like ones observable in 1 Orig and copt, and makes us demur to use them as supporters of B as a neutral text. On the contrary B is supporting them for an Egyptian and private post-Origenian recension. I will illustrate further :—
Matt. xvii. 8. Hort prints avrov Ijcovy povov. This is read by B and by B only. & supports with Incovy avrey povov, both readings being obtained via the Coptic by & and B. Hort did not know this, for the Coptic or Syriac has never been alleged in the critical apparatus as containing this avrov, nor does Horner connect the readings of NB with Coptic in his sah apparatus. Butitseems perfectly clear to me where NB got the avrov. Hort’s margin has tov in place of avrov. [Sod = B.]
14, edovrav (—avrwv) NBZ 1 124 245 sah is the only support. Hort’s text gives no alternative, and we are to swallow the reading of this vicious little circle (whose joint eclecticism is now in process of demonstration) against Origen because it is a “shorter” text. Hort counts seven witnesses I suppose, but it is merely one.
xviii. 1. Hort’s margin is dignified by the addition of Se here, to read ev exetvn SE TN wpa With BM e sah** boh°™., These are the
6 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
only witnesses (+a syr cu). Boh™ ¢ is very suggestive, against the shorter text for Gr™ Lap™ Syr*4 Orig.
xvii. 11. Another similar little coterie (observe the members are never homogeneous) ask us to omit this verse altogether. It is composed of NBL* 1 (against family) 13 (against family) 33 892* e fi sah boh®" syr sin hier and Orig, and Hort promptly accepts their verdict with much gusto, referring in his margin to the Appendix, where three half-column lines are devoted to explain that it is ‘“‘ Interpolated either from Luke xix. 10 (a different context) or from an independent source written or oral.” Where were NL above if right here? Why was Orig on the other side above? I mean merely that the whole editorial process is intuitive and has no scientific foundation whatever.
16. Hort’s margin receives the order wapadaPe ers eva 7 dv0 peta cov of B ff, and boh (these only). Where is the science? B is evidently the controlling factor. But B got this from looking att an Egyptian copy of the Scriptures with this order (cf. also sah).
To go back a little xvi. 21 iC XC stands in Hort’s text without the alternative 0 1G. I beg to say that only &*B* read thus (both corrected) and that their only support is sah?/? boom Practer duo. Whereas N* 892 Orig and Iren omit altogether.
If right here then in the name of all that is consistent why does Hort reject the +7ore in xiv. 3 of B and fam 13 with sah most decidedly : “ev tovTw Tw Kkaipw”? Hiven & suggests it with ‘‘cum detinuisset” against “Herodes enim tenuit” but Hort prints xparnoas.$ For at viii, 18 Hort does not scruple to accept B and sah alone for his text of oyAov against oxdovs etc. And at ii. 21 he reads esondAOev (for mOev) SBC alone, merely confirmed by sah boh aqBwK eg pat, Aci eDoren.
Now these conjunctions NB and NBC and NBD have been given too much weight when insufficiently supported otherwise.
Observe xii. 17 wa (pro omws) NBCD 1 33 Orig Hus boh. If I oppose this I shall be told that I am a madman, and that this evidence is absolutely conclusive. I deny it. And I point to vii. 34 where wa (pro ows) is read by B alone and boh. [Soden adds nothing. ]
Hort does not follow B here in viii. 34, but why not? If we is neutral in xii. 17, why not in viii. 34? Bohairic uses it in both places. Did Hort have a glimmer that B after all was copied from a Graeco- Coptic ms and that pa caught B’s eye instead of orws? If so, where is the neutral text ?
The same remark applies to ews and ews of. In Matt. xviii. 30
{ As N in Matt. xiv. 1 etc. rerpaapyns more copt. }{ Soden’s text accepts +rore with ™,
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 7
NBCL write ews azodw for ews ob amodw of the rest; but in xviil. 34, only four verses beyond, B alone writes ews aod. (See full list in Luke.) Possibly ov is dropped for fear of confusion with ov.
After a thorough re-examination of the subject I re-affirm my belief that however good a base the ms B may have in places, it is absolutely to be disregarded as representing any such thing as a “neutral” text; that in many places it is as far removed from “neutrality” as night from day; that “neutrality”? can alone be sought among the documents which are in agreement with the witnesses of pre-Origenian date.
To rank B ‘neutral’? as a whole is to discredit testimony of Clement of Alexandria when supported by a host of witnesses; to discredit Tertullian and EHpiphanius jointly when they reproduce faithfully the text of Marcion [as regards language, not as regards brevity], equally supported by a large array of authorities; to discredit much of the “‘ western” text even when it is undoubtedly the “ shortest,” in the face of two differing lines of addition, with or without conflation of these two lines; to discredit Origen himself when he opposes B but has good support otherwise; to discredit the old Syriac when opposing B in favour of & or of D; and finally to shut the door on a possible neutral text reproduced in no Gk. uss extant but witnessed to strongly by pre-Origenian Fathers, backed by Latin, Syriac, or Coptic mss. (Cf Adalbert Merx, 11. Theil, 1. Halfte p. 20, etc.)
T re-affrm my belief that a polyglot text influenced & throughout.t And I charge B with being the child of a Graeco-Latin recension, and by its scribe or by its parent of being tremendously influenced by a Coptic
recension or by a Graeco-sahidic snd a Graeco-bohairic Ms.{
I cannot allow that NB influenced the sahidic or bohairic versions (except perhaps a few separate mss of each or either of them); for the sympathy visible between N or B or both and the Coptic versions is a sympathetic bond which antedates the mss & and B, and which contributes to place these versions (where they oppose NB) on an independent footing implying a Greek text of older date than that of NB, and when supported by other good witnesses to be followed.
And I charge Westcott and Hort with having utterly failed to produce any semblance of a “neutral” text. I charge them with the offence of repeated additions to the narrative on most insufficient evidence.
I charge the Oxford edition of 1910 with continual errors in accepting Westcott and Hort’s text for many verses together where the absence
f In the list of differences between § and B in Part II will be found plenty of material to support this proposition. } Proof to this effect may be seea throughout the following pages.
8 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
of footnotes shows that the editors consider their text as settled. I acknowledge and make confession freely that the Revisers have retraced steps in a number of places and ejected Hort’s readings sometimes even without the pro and con in a footnote, where Hort blindly followed a phantasma of evidence. But this text is still founded on too high a regard for B, and I pray for an entire reconsideration of the matter in the light of what follows.
One word here as to the ‘“‘ Western”’ text may not be out of place, Upon many occasions this ‘‘ Western” text is the one which furnishes the shortest text (against B). We have been taught that the “‘ Western ” text is the one which has the most additions and accretions. This feature is quite distinct from the other, and whether the additions be all glosses or not, the other feature of omission has to be separately considered as to its bearing on the basic or fundamental text for purity or shortness, for the text of D is, as we know from Clement of Alex., ore which was in Egypt very early, at a date before the “African” Latin was known, is confirmed often by W, and has come down to us less influenced by side influences than the other recensions.
Take one instance. At Luke xix. 2 there are great varieties of reading, where D d ¢ and sah preserve the shortest text, giving us (as to Zaccheus) simply doves for cas mAouvacos of 1 s, nae nv mAovotos of NL 245 892 goth syr hier (and W-H marg), xat mrovaws nv boh syr cu sin, Kat autos TAovaotos BKII big vg (W-H tat), cas avtos nv rrovawos U al. latt, nas ovtos nv mAovaotos A unc” al. f, ovros nv mrovovos W 108 157, wrAovetos ny ante Kat apyttehwvns syr pesh, wrovatos (tantum) ante nat apyvred@vns diatess arab, (V and Evst 47 omit altogether). W-H adopt B’s reading in text and &’s in marg, and neglect D d e sah (diatess) altogether. Then why at Luke xxiv. 12, 36, 40, 51, 52 double-bracket the ‘“‘ Western non- interpolations’? Where is the science involved of the “ shorter” text ? Dr. Salmon (‘Some Thoughts,’ eéc. p. 98) says “I am persuaded that critics will be forced to acknowledge that the Gospel as read in the 1" century in the Church of Rome differed in a few particulars from that read at the same date at Alexandria. Critics may discuss which of these texts is authoritative, or whether both may be so; but I am sure that an arbitrarily created hybrid between the two is wrong; and this is the kind of text more than once exhibited by W-H in the closing verses of St. Luke.”
The claim of W-H to have resurrected the texts of Origen certainly holds good except in certain places. But in doing so they far exceed Origen’s own claim. Origen’s citations are full of conflations, where he knew two recensions and incorporated both. If he was not able to judge which of these was original, why should he be a perfect judge of other double readings similarly situated but of which he chose one? Now W-H profess that they have not only restored the text of Origen but that they know that this is “‘ pre-Syrian” and “ pre-Alexandrian” and, as
HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 9
represented by B, is “‘ neutral” and fundamentally correct as opposed to all others.f Their “selected readings,’ few and far between, can certainly not be considered proof of their contention, and we are prepared to challenge their assumption as to the supremacy of B. Meanwhile we would like to place on record again what Canon Cook had to say about the personality of Origen in connection with these matters, for that feature is of vital importance. The Church at large disagreed with Origen’s conclusions. W-H after nearly 1700 years merely wish to replace us textually in the heart of an Alexandrian text, which after a.p. 450 or thereabouts fell into discredit and disuse. For Dr. Salmon says (‘Some Thoughts,’ etc. pp. 106/7) : “ Giving to the common parent of B and & as high antiquity as is claimed for it, still it will be distant by more than a century from the original autographs, and the attempts to recover the text of mss which came to Alexandria in the second century may be but an elaborate locking of the stable door after the horse has been stolen.”
Again the same authority (pp. 128/9): “‘When W-H refuse to give a local name to the readings they prefer, and designate them as neutral, that is to say, as free from corruptions of various kinds, they are disguising from themselves and from their readers that the question what text has the most early attestation cannot be decisively answered.”
And again (pp. 181/182): “Thus the task of discrimination may be difficult; but we must not conceive that we have solved a problem because for our convenience we have simplified it. The problem has not been completely solved until we have taken account of the evidence which has been temporarily neglected.”
And again (p. 157): ‘I hold, on the contrary, that in critical science the rule nullwm tempus prevails; that it is never too late to reverse a wrong decision.”
And now to hear what Canon Cook has to say about Origen :—
“We go back one step further, a most critical and important step, for it brings us at once into contact with the greatest name, the highest genius, the most influential person of all Christian antiquity. We come to Origen. And it is not disputed that Origen bestowed special pains upon every department of Biblical criticism and exegesis. His ‘Hexapla’ is a monument of stupendous industry and keen discern- ment: but his labours on the Old Testament were thwarted by his very imperfect knowledge of Hebrew, and by the tendency to mystic interpretations common in his own age, but in no other writer so fully developed or pushed to the same extremes.
‘In his criticism of the New Testament Origen had greater
+ However Origen and B are not infrequently in conflict. Observe Hort on those occasions. See beyond at the end of my notes on each Gospel.
10 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
advantages, and he used them with greater success. Every available source of information he studied carefully. Manuscripts and versions were before him; both manuscripts and versions he examined, and brought out the results of his researches with unrivalled power. But no one who considers the peculiar character of his genius, his subtlety, his restless curiosity, his audacity in speculation, his love of innovation, will be disposed to deny the extreme risk of adopting any conclusion, any reading, which rests on his authority, unless it is supported by the independent testimony of earlier or contemporary Fathers and Versions. The points in which we are specially entitled to look for innovations are: (1) curious and ingenious readings, such, for instance, as those which we have noticed in St. Mark and St. Luke; (2) the removal of words, clauses, or entire sentences which a man of fastidious taste might regard as superfluities or repetitions ” [see my remarks on “ pairs ” and Origenistic “ niceties’”’]; ‘‘(3) a fearless and highly speculative mode of dealing with portions of the New Testament which might contain statements opposed to his prepossessions or present difficulties which even his ingenuity might be unable to solve. In weighing the evidence of his citations for or against any doubtful reading, while we should feel assured of his perfect honesty of purpose, we ought to be extremely cautious in adopting his conclusions. A text formed more or less directly under his influence would of course command a certain amount of general adhesion; it would approve itself most especially to minds similarly gifted and similarly developed; when brought to bear upon the course of critical enquiry it would produce an enormous effect, especially if it came with the charm and interest of novelty; but not less certainly would it be challenged, and its verdict be refused, if it contravened principles of fundamental importance and affected the veracity of the sacred writers and the teaching of Holy Writ.” (Canon Cook, ‘ Revised Version of the first three Gospels,’ pp. 155/6.)
Hear also Bishop Marsh on the same subject (‘ Lect.’ xi. ed. 1838, p. 482): ‘“ Whenever therefore grammatical interpretation produced a sense which in Origen’s opinion was irrational or impossible, in other words irrational or impossible according to the philosophy which Origen had learnt (sic) at Alexandria, he then departed from the literal sense.”
This sums up many other matters connected with Origen’s treat- ment of textual matters (to which the following pages bear witness), so that we do not necessarily recover Origen’s manuscripts when we are inclined to follow NB Orig, but very likely only Origen himself. (The MS 83 seems to represent a copy annotated by Origen himself with suggested “improvements.” They are sometimes together quite alone. The same applies to the ms 127, and observe that 127 is related toa graeco- latin: Matt. xxii. 9 mpos (pro ets) 127 sol = latt AD exitus viarum.)
To begin at the very beginning, when Hort says:
“ But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any
ALEXANDRIAN READINGS OF B. 11
readings of B in any book of the New Testament which tt
contains ’’ (vol. ii. p. 150) had he never noticed the frequent preference given by B (and &) to eavtov and eavtwy over avtovand avrwv? In order to keep small detail out of my apparatus I began stupidly enough by not chronicling these things in N and B, but some examples will be found. Now turn to Clement of Alexandria and see his preference for the same course: (on Matt. xx, 28, Mark x. 45) «as Sovvas tyv yroyny Thy eauTou.
Then turn to Athanasius :
1 Pet. iv. 19 (where B alone omits avrwy after yuyas) Ath says tas eavtwy wvyas in the coptic manner.
Observe further :°
(1) Jo.x.81. “ eRactacay sine copula cum NBL 33” says Tischendorf. Follow the apparatus a little further and you find ATHANASIUS, Surely then this is an Alexandrian reading. Observe further that after two words more ATHANASIUS drops ov sovdato with the new Egyptian ms W, and the Alexandrian picture is complete there.
() Jo. xvii. 15 referred to by Burgon as to an omission by B and Ath is questionable.
(2) Matt. xii. 81. apeOnoeras vary tos avOpwros B 1 sah and ATHANASIUS only. —
(8) Matt. xxvi. 45. dou-+yap BE and sah ATH",
(4) Luke xi. 19. autos voy xpitas ecovtas BD 604 Paris only of Greeks, a,¢ dt of Latins, with ATHANASIUS, choosing this order out of five or six differing orders by the other authorities.
(5) tJ0.i. 18. ~ovde ex Oednuatos avdpos B* 17* Hus Clem“ and Aryans vid Pgs, xxi,
(6) Jo. v. 87. exewvos (pro autos) NBULW a (goth) and ATHANASIUS (D d exewvos avros), Om avros 892 = syr cu pers georg.
This exetvos is so thoroughly Johannine in such a connection that it is difficult to judge whether it may be basic or only an endeavour by NBLW Ath to improve the passage to a conformity with Johannine diction. But the action of D is suspicious. See as to exewvos beyond under ‘‘ Syriac” heading in St. John’s Gospel at iv. 11.
(7) Jo. vi. 42. was vuv (pro ras ow) BCTW doh?! goth syr hier only and ArHanasius™4 (teste Tisch). Add Sod.
(8) Jo. x. 82 fin. Order >ewe AHalere of NBLY 33 157 Paris®’ Sod’? only of Greeks, but of 2t! vg, is the order of ATH. against DW and the rest and c d f 1 & sah boh syr goth Epiph Hil
+ And this matter hag some bearing upon our contention as to “pairs” of expressions,
HORT’S SYSTEM. EGYPT FREE FROM ANTIOCH BY REVISION. 138
Paris” is not extant for control in St. Matthew in Schmidtke’s edition, and V only begins at Mark ix. 6, but 892 is valuable in Matthew.
I do not overlook the fact that the side opposed to NB sometimes also tried its hand at improvement. See Matt. xv. 6 rnv evtodnv (ea Marco vii. 8) for tov Aoyov of BD and versions, but even here & is not agreed with B and writes tov vouoy with CT* fam 13 and Ptol. The support of Ptol puts tov voyoy into the second century, and is not far removed from tnv evtodny.
Burkitt says :
“The Antiochian Greek text seems never to have influenced Kgypt—at least not before the x century. Freedom from specifically ‘Antiochian’ readings is a characteristic of all forms of the Egyptian N.T.”—Burkitt in ‘ Texts and Versions,’ Encye. Bibl. 1903.
But precisely because long ago Egypt had revised this Antiochian text. This revising process will now engage our attention for many
pages.
12 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Thdt. When NBL oppose sah boh and have Athanasius with them we may surely take it into account.
(9) Jo. xii. 28. Sofacov pov to ovoya (pro S0&. cov to ovoya) BY cum Evan 5. But sol X and Arwanasius Sofagov cov tov utoy (Cyr refers to both).
(10) Jo. xv. 21. adda tavta rravra romoovew e615 vuas BD*LN?* 1 33 Paris” Petr, all others vzas or yuu.
(11) Jo. xix. 31. 1 nuepa exetvyn tov caBBarov (pron nuepa exetvou tov caBRarov B*H min pauc Elz pers ¢ f g vgg and Cyrille, all others exezvov.
(12) 1 Peter i. 11. Of the prophets of old: epevvwvtes evs Tia n Trotov Katpov edndouTo ev avTos Tvevpa (~Xpiotov) mpopaptupomevov 7a es Xpiotov waOnuata.... B
Von Soden now adds the testimony of ATHANASIUS to that of B for omission of Xpuorov. In the Benedictine edition of 1698 of Ath. the word is not omitted, but if Ath, presumably examined by Soden, really omit, we are thoroughly justified in connecting this strange omission with Alexandria.
But in another place Hort writes as follows:
“The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be laid to the credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria ; its best representatives among the versions are the Egyptian, and especially that of Lower Egypt; and the quotations which follow it are most abundant in Clement, Origen (Dionysius, Peter), Didymus and the younger Cyril, aLu ALEXANDRIANS.” Hort, vol. i. p. 549.
As to whether the Alexandrian School preserved the true text, or modified it by attempted improvement, is what we are to inquire into.
Hort’s system involves dragging in readings of B whenever support can be found from another ms. Since Hort’s day his true system thus demands and compels the acceptance of further ‘‘ monstra” exhibited by B owing to support forthcoming since from other mss or versions (such as 604 892 Paris” syr sin). I make free to prophecy that other documents so far unknown will add to this list a further crop of vicious survivals which might give us eventually all of B’s misreadings. The system is thus demonstrated to be unscientific in the extreme, notwithstanding the praise so fulsomely lavished on it by a certain school.
I propose to sketch the matter in St. Matthew. In St. Luke I will go into the matter a little more thoroughly in some respects. And in St. Mark I will add a section on the differing recensions visible in that Gospel. The treatise might run to undue length if all four Gospels were handled quite exhaustively. In St. John I have been obliged to go into great detail owing to the character of the Gospel and its pleonastic expressions leading to textual difficulties.
CHAPTER II. B in St. MattHew’s GOSPEL. Example of editing by B.
Matt. v. 87. ‘‘ Let your word be yea yea, nay nay.”” For ecto B alone with = min‘ Eus substitutes ecras. Hort actually dignifies this with a place in his margin. Now if B be right, & and every other ms and Father are wrong and the copies in their hands most curiously mutilated.
For Justin Martyr, Clement and Clem>™ several times, Tertullian, Cyprian and Iren. all witness to éo7w, while John Damascene confirms it absolutely, for quoting the same saying from St. James v. 12, where the rare form 7tw obtairs (and is constant in all mss), he quotes it as éoTw.
(Clem"** as a matter of fact seems to be on both sides and both in Strom. This is not indicated by Tisch.)
Examples of Solecisms or practical Solecisms of B.
v. 11. evera B* vi. 18. > vnorevewy tos avOpwrots B (&) only 21. —Kae B and one boh codex 33. > thy Stxatocurny Kat THv Baciderav avtov = B* ibid. xpnre (pro xpngere) BF
xii. 20. No one seems to have emphasised Azvov by B (for Auwov, flax). I do not think this is an itacism because & and vg® check us. Aves OL Aavos Means wool (“smoking wool”), but also in a sense wood (wooden winepress, trough, coffin, etc.), hence probably the lignum of k, which the very old Vulgate text of vg® confirms. B and & draw together elsewhere, but I have not seen notice taken of it here. Lignum is not necessarily therefore an error for Linum. Indeed in an ancient Graeco-latin B may have seen lignum, since k has pre- served it.
Sah boh imply a wick of flax, but aeth suggests the woody fibre of flax. 82. ove abeOnoera (pro apeOnaerar primo loco) B*
B IN 8ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 15
Matt. ibid. ov un adeOn (pro ovx apeOnoetat sec loco) B
38. ~—Kav papicaiov B min? against all others 48 fin. — pov (post o1 aderpor) B@ vid cum Ev Ebion®rirh Rill. 4. xas eAOovTa ta merewa xatepayey B fam 13 only vid (and not from a parallel) but cf. von Soden 5. Tas yns (pro yns) B*! (De novo B®! rns yns Marc iv. 5) 6. exavpatwbn B (rell et N exavpaticbn et D cxavpaticOnocar) 7. —xat Sexacoe Bt 4, eAadnoev (pro TapeOnxev) B* vid et k | Negl. Soden] xiv. 2, —6va Tovto Be {Habet Marc vi. 14] 5. eres (pro ott) B**" cum 604; emetdn ZN (sah expresses this curiously) Cf. xxi. 46 which B was considering.
19. xerevoare (pro KeXevoas) B* Sod'## 36. aapexadovy (—avTov) B 892 Orig 1/2 Chr xv. 11. epyopuevor (pro evcepxopevor) Be! 15. avtw eve (pro evmrev avTw) B" pers 17. evrepyouevoy (pro ecatropevopevorv) B Orig 1/2. Add Sod™° 82. —7dn B 106 301 7 vg" (cf syr copt aeth) xvi. 4. acres (pro Snre) Be" (cum pers arabe; cf. syr ancipitem curam linguae) 14. a: 8 (pro adnrou Se) B@ et Hus (Chr) 17. —ore B!, Add Sod™ teste Sod, sed contraed.
21. Secevuvac (pro Secxvvev) B®! cum Origs™* 22. Neyes auTw emitipoy B" (pro npEato emitipav avtw deyor) and W-H marg xvii. 25. azo Tivos ( p70 aro Tw?) B 288 sol. Cyr 2/4. Add Soda KVili. 9. cxavdaree (pro cKavdarrter) B*', Correctors have not changed. It is accented cxavdanrel?. 28. —exewwos B 245 pers sol (arm? contra codd) 30. > avrov ot cuvdovAot B™ et copt xix. 22. ypnuata (pro xrnuata) B*" (Chr) Is this “simple” and ‘‘inartificial”’? Hort says “no,” for he rejects it from his text and margin.
Cf Liddell and Scott sub ypjya: ‘The interchange of ypjya and «tha is frequent, yet the same distinction holds as between ypdoyac and «Tdopat, So that xrjua is strictly a possession, ypjua what one wants or uses.”
In other words ‘‘money” to B or the scribe of B was more familiar (ypjuar’ dvyjp “money makes the man,” Pindar) than landed possessions. B*"™* was a city man, a town man, as is seen all through his attitude.
St. Mark differentiates between xTnuata and ypynyata in x. 22/23 of the parallel.t
{~ See further remarks as to this in section on Patristic quotations and Clement of Alexandria.
16
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
St. Luke (= Mark x. 23) uses ypyuarta, having in the previous verse said merely yv yap mAovews ofodpa. In Mark x. 22 it is D which sub- stitutes ypnuata for xrnwata.
In this connection consider next (out of the regular order) :
Matt.
XXV. 27. Ta apyupia pou (for to apyupiov pov) N*BW 604 only; “my
monies” for ‘‘my money” although referring only to the one talent as Tisch points out. All the other Greeks, sympathising cursives, Latins, boh and sah have the singular. One solitary sah ms No. 8, by the change of mt to x, gives the plural with NB. I think these two places looked at together are very instructive.t
. «us Oavarov vel Bavaro B aeth . KaTAKUPLEVoOUGL. B 124 al. perpauc (contra rell et verss) . VAL UpwV TpwTOS B alone among many variations,
apparently the nearest to copt.
. oy pers (for pyxeri) BLM only, being a strengthened
negative but against all the rest and Orig Meth and even Peter of Alexandria.
. After varying the order of vv. 29/30 B with only a very few
cursives and sah boh etc., remains alone at verse 31 with 6 varepos, for Evan 4 has o Sevrepos, and D with the other few o ecyaros. Hort places o vorepos in his text.
xxii. 39. opowws (pro opota) B* vid ) The one change hangs on
tbid. 27. 37.
RX.
Xxiv.
XXvV.
XXVI.
—auTn B™ vid the other. opoatete (pro mwapopoatere) B1 [non fam] —eauTns B 604 sols (bere Clem 1/8 Orig 2/6 Hus 4/5) . e« (proato) B 4 Soden 3544 (syr) Of Mare xiii. 1 . WUeTEVETE B 262 Orig 44 (¢f Mare xiii. 21) . yapucxovtes Bet Sod” . eyeveto (pro yeyover) B (ef xxiv. 21 eyevero BD 604) . murros ns (pro ns miatos) Bhr (Iren™) syr . —Twv adeAdav jou Ba fh. 2 vg? arm ? Clem 4/5 lib Ath . —oux pr. (ante edwxare) B* et vg™ soli +xa (ante ediupqoa) BL aeth syr pesh diatess (contra rell omn et copt) . KGL aTrOKTELVOUaLY B mint r, vg" [non al.] . —Aeyov B gi soli vid . geT avTov (pro peta inoov) Bd cum Hil . Suvouas . orxodopnoar (— avtov) B 1-209 [non 118] 69 [non fam]
Orig 2/4. Sod. (Origen gives three readings here.)
+ Cf Hawkins’ ‘Hore Syn.’ p.4. Plural never used in the LXX, where the singular ocours over 850 times. Soden adds © for the plural. $ Male Horner opoca.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 17
xxvil. 6. kopBav B* (fg. qr. aur gat vg®, corbam ad hr) aeth 18. o¢a (pro roca) B@ (D roca) 17. tov BapaSBav B 1 Sod" Orig soli vid [non copt] (21. tov BapaBBav NBL 1 33 122 892 (sah boh xe Rappakac ef syr) If improvised in ver 17, probably also here) 24. xaTevayte (pro amevavi) BD soli vid et W-H [non al. Sod] 29. mepteOneay B 131? for eOnxav of KNWATI syr boh latt longe plur and ereOnxav & unc?! min? dh vg? Eus (sah) This is a clear improvisation by B, and would equate such a thing as qepienevyov of 157 at Luke xvi. 21, except that it comes from Mark xv. 17 “‘ «as mepitiOeacw avtw mrckavtes axavé. ated.” 33. eis Tov Torov tov B' (pro ets rorrov) cf. sah boh et Luc xxiii. 33. See under ‘‘ Harmonies.” 43. emt tw Oew (pro ems Tov Oeov) B 218 soli latt Hus 1/2 Juvenc. W-H™: This seems to be a delicate choice of the dative after mezovBev. The acc. or dative can accompany 7resOw according to its various shades of meaning. Here apparently “ He was fully persuaded of and conformed to God.”
B and Latin Sympathy.
It is quite impossible to divorce B from Latin affiliations. In the detail of this matter will be found much food for reflection in this Gospel and in the others.
These lists are compiled to assist in differentiating between a possible common base of the Greek and Latin witnesses and a real appropriation by B of Latinisms or Latin readings. The full force of the matter is felt when we see where W goes with B and where it does not.
Matt.
i. 22. xvpiou(—Tov) NBCDW2ZA (observe both D and A are present) 25. ews erexev (pro ews ov etexev) B"[W-H] (of Luc xii. 59)
ii. 13. epavn (pro pawerat) B 872 and laté
vi. 10. az ere yns (— TNs) NBWZA Clem Orig 18. > vnotever rows avOpmrois B (&) solt
ix. 28. > rovto duvvayat tromoas Blq vg
x. 4. kavavatos (pro xavavirns) BCD (yav.) L min pauc copt it vg et 8 16. evs To pecov (pro ev Tw pew) AvKav B! cum ff, k vg? Lucif.
23. lopanr (— Tov) BD [W-H] latt (ef Marc xv. 32) xi. 1, 12. caBBarous (pro caBBacw) B*! et vett sabbatis xii, 4. 3 (pro ods) BDW 18 22124 b dk q aur vg" syr
xili. 5. e€averechav (pro cEaverernev) B! Cf lattexortasunt. See “Change of Number.” 8. execev ecg = B* (pro emecev ert) sed B ipse vid em substitutt 39. atwvos (—Tov) NBD fam 18 88 Orig 1/2 latt (contra sah et boh diserte rovtou Tov atwvos) Cc
18 Matt.
xiii.
[ xiii.
xiv.
XV.
Xvi.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
40. The above is followed suspiciously closely by xaraxarerau
46
NB (D —ovra ) 1 [non 118-209] Cyr and lati “ comburuntur,” “exuruntur” (contra rell Gr). The Coptic word, one chosen out of many, cepoKg,o (hence ‘“‘sirocco”) may also intimate caraxacerae rather than caerar, W with the rest KQLETAL,
. A very curious case occurs here, where NB and all agree in menpaxev against the aorist of D alone erwAncer |
9. AvmnOecs (pro edkurnOn) BD 1 fam 13 604. Some Latins
29.
31.
37.
contristatus without est (against the other Greeks and the important witnesses c f k g* copt arm syr). This AwvrnOes looks strangely like the Latin contristatus (—est), for the copula Se wanting in BD is found in the Latins ¢ f k q* (copt syr), which have contristatus est, showing that est did not slip in there by mistake. . twavyny (—Tov) only BN*Z@ 1 as lat. Otherwise sah boh “he took off the head of John.” ametTpos (—6) NBD [non minn] W-H . avaBavtwv (pro euSavtwv) NBDT° 892 (Jatt: ascendentibus) xoovs axovovtas (pro kwh. NadovvTas) B® 59 115 238 and e “ surdos audientes”’ (while d using surdos yet has loquentes, as also &). All the rest and lati have AaAourtas. I class this here because of the acceptance by d ek of surdos for mutos. xogos is used in N.T. both for dumb and deaf (vide our Eng. transl.). Boh turns the difficulty by beginning mutos loquentes, continuing et clodus ambulantes et caecos videntes, and closing with the addition of surdos audientes, while a cuts out nearly the whole verse. > To wepigcevoy Twy Kr. npav. Latin order, supported only by BD 1 33 892 against the Greeks and other versions. . ofOn (pro apOncav) [pwvons kat nrevas following] corres- ponds to latt mult “ paruit.” The polyglot character of NB is shown in this same verse where they change the order per avrov ovAAadovyTes (cum e0 loquentes) to cuvAan. pet avtou with W 1 ffi2 g sah boh aeth and syrr Cyr. So again xvii. 7 mpoondOev o imoovs Kat avvapevos NBD fam 13 604 it?! vg syrr against mpoceAOwr ... nyato of the rest.
. svotpedopevav Se avtav (pro avactped. Se avrwv) NB 1 892.
Cf la! conversantibus; etre....ce ffi; et Orig (“ neutral ”’) otpedopevoy Se avrwv.
. papicaios (—o.) BCLMWATIE al. pauc boh Dam.
. ox (pro exw) BD Sod™ latt Orig 1/2 (contra NL kAnpovopno) . eyes (pro epyn) B Sod” fam 18 only of Greeks with all Latins. . —oTt 3B plur and latt (but against NCLMZ copt syr)
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 19 Matt.
xx. 20. am avtou (pro wap avtov) BD 604 W-H. Cf latt sah 33. > ov ofOarpote nuov NBDLZ 33 892 Sod’ *""'4 Jatt xxi. 28. > dvo rexva Bi 142 299 Sod™* lattom
xxii. 4. nrowwaxa NBC*DL 1 22 33 604 892* ; against nrowuaca of the rest, strengthened by Orig Cyr Chr Dam. Hort uses yroipaxa
here without a sign in the margin. This is not Origen. 5. ere Tnv ewropiay (pro es ryv eum.) NBCDT*3®@ fam 13 33
125* 157 [non 28] 604 Orig and Lar.
30. —Tov Geov BD fami1[non fam 13] 604abcdef fahqr vg™=@ syr cu sin sah arm Orig*® W-H, but cf Marc xii. 25 Note that W has tov @cov with the rest and does not go
with D here. xxiv. 8. —rys (ante cuvtederas) NBCLM Sod™ fam 1 33 157 892 Cyrtier 88. +exewvaus BD Sod™® laté and sah
xxv. 16. exepdycev (pro erouncev), and —tadravra fin by BCDL, and BL respectively, shows very strong Latin affiliation, both being against % and the mass.
29. rou Se pn exovtos (pro amo Se Tov wn exovtos) NBD 1-209 {non 118] 33 124 [non fam] = Lat.
41. xatnpapevor (—or) NBLT" 33 Sod'** boh Cyr 1/2 (contra rell et Patr Gr permultos) et Orig’,
xxvi. 45. xadevdete Nouroy (pro xa. To Nowrov) BCLW 273 348 m** p* 892 Sod seems to equate 757 and the Latin jam [see Liddell and Scott]. Syr with sah and aeth = “ergo.”
53. mwdece (pro mAevovs) N* BD W-H[non minn ]latt (against Origen) xxvii, 48. ee tw Oew (pro emt tov Oeov) B 218 soli latt?! et W-H mg. 49. evray B fam 13 (and evrov D 69) W-H tzt=abed fr g2q but not the others and no vulgates. All other Greeks oppose with edeyov. XXVili. 14. vio Tov nyeuovos (pro emt Tov ny.) BD 59892 only with W-H marg. Cf lat “a praeside.”’ 15. apyupia (—7a) N*B*W Sod! e¢ W-H tat. Cf lat “ pecunia.” tbid. onzepov +nuepas BDL and Latin against N and the rest. These three places coming so close together after a long while seem particularly interesting and noteworthy. Origen opposes B definitely in the last place and probably at xxviii. 14, certainly once out of twice there. This is again followed by: xxvill. 17. mpocexvynoav (—avtw) NBD 33 only and latt (except ¢) vg Hus Chr against all other Greeks +avtw with q syr and Coptic. Observe now from xxviii. 19 where B adds ovv with ATI, and where D adds vuv (and some Latins both ovv and vvuv), that this Latin text favoured by B was not of the purest most neutral stock, for N and all other Greeks add nothing, having rropevOevres only with EVERY GREEK AND Latin FatHer from Irenaeus to Amphilochius. And the same remark c 2
20 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
applies to the Bamticavres of BD (soli; Soden adds none) latt in this verse against Samrifovres of all the rest, and the same array of Fathers. I am sorry to say that Hort swallows ovy without marginal comment, and ventures to put Bamticavres in his margin.
As to B and Coptic sympathy.
[Again here observe W, Where W joins is for the Egyptian method of the possessive before the noun (vii. 24, 26) and for «va instead of ores (viii. 34), which 9,1ma would appear in the bohairic column or at any rate be familiar to the ear of an Alexandrian].
This feature has been recognised to some extent, but many details have been overlooked which make for definite Coptic influence upon the parents of B, rather than for mere common basic sympathy with a Greek text underlying the Coptics.
Matt.
i. 5. Boes NB Ozyr? k sah boh W-H ii, 21. evondOev (pro nrOev) NBC 157 278 soli et sah (aqBuoK €9,pat) bok (aqr eHow
iii. 2. —«av (ante Neywv) NB sah boh aeth g2 q W-H Sod.
vii. 17. Amid vastly differing orders (see under NB in Part II for details) B alone with vg™® gives us Coptic order xapzrous moter Kadous, bringing xadous last. Tischendorf does not notice this and Horner for some extraordinary reason is here absolutely silent. Yet Hort places this grandly in his margin. If anyone will take the trouble (it takes a good half hour) to run through the differing orders, he will rise from his examination convinced that B here does not alone retain a “neutral” order, but has ‘accommodated ” at some time in his career. Soden adds no support for B.
24, avrouv thy oxcav = NBCWZ 1 33 892 Orig sah boh (ex more copt) contra rell omn et latt ryv oxiay avrov. [Anyone who will compare what N does elsewhere in this chapter (see Part II. under &% and B) will bear me out that he sat there playing with the versions, ringing changes in syr, lat and copt, as well as improvising himself, as he does in the verse previous to this, adding voAna to Sapo).
26. avrov thv oxtcav = NBWZ 1 604 892 Sod*4 sah boh (more
copt). Contra rell et Orig (hoc loco) !
Vili. 8. amoxpifes Se N*B 33 372 sah [non boh] W-H atrexpiOn. .xat ecrev = syr et k t Kat atroxptOets > C et rell et latt
¢ This is rather a pretty picture in an unimportant place of my contention as to k (Tisch does not refer to it, so I wish to call attention to it).
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. yal Matt.
vill. 18, oyAov —B sah soli (et W-H tat) oxrous N bok soli (rovs oxdous boh)
The rest wodvv oxAov, oyAov wodkvy (W), Toddous oyAaus OY oxdouUs TOAXKOUS.
A curious place occurs at viii. 27 jin where NBW 1 33 892 Hus Chr W-H make the order avtw uiaxevovew against vraxovovew avrw of all others, including coptic and the versions; k alone varies, with obaudientest tantum, and Hil 1/2 obedisse. In Luke the order of all is also «as uTakovovew avtw, but B omits there with 604. Why this change of order in Matthew against coptic, latin and syriac? d is available again here for the first time and reads obawdiunt et with the mass. Sod adds ° to NBW.
Matt.
vill. 384. eva (pro ows) BW alone and boh pina (sah xeKac) ix. 9. pad@arov NB*D sah [non boh], so at x. 3 again 12 init. o Se (—enoous) NBD35 248 892 d sah [non boh] aeth¥™*.
syr sin 32, xogov (—avOpwrov) NB 71 892 sah boh (ose Ro) aeth syr W-H contra rell omn. x. 32. ev Tots ovpavots (pro ev ovp.) BCKV al. sah boh Cyr sed Orig 1/4 B80 s3~ 43 5% See. S51. Ges BVX ad. sah boh Cyr sed Orig 1/8 xi. 16. ev ras ayopats (pro ev ayop.) NBZ (1) 124 157 892 ai. W-H Sod. sah boh contra rell et Clem (sed ev tn ayopa D syr sah™™®, in foro d latt aeth goth)
xii. 13, cou tyv yelpa (pro tnv xepa cov) NBL min pauc and 892 is the coptic manner. See above, and beyond for such preference under ‘‘ Genitive before the Noun in Luke.”
17. wa (pro ows) NBCD1A1 33 Orig Hus boh (see above, viii. 34) 22. See under “‘ Change of Voice.” 31. adePnoetas vutv tos avOpwros B 1 [non 118-209] sah syrbier Ath [non boh latt] xii, 28. ov de (—Sovdor) B157 g. h bok sah [non aeth rell] W-H tat This seems to be a nicety of “pairs.” 0 de edn autois..o d¢ Aeyovow uvtw. Very pretty but not legitimate. So both coptics ‘But he, said he to them. .but they, said they to him.” It is ridiculous to suppose that all others added this SovAcc. Besides Manich®»» opposes B and has it. Matt. xiv. 8. +rore B cum fam 13 Sod et txt, et sah diserte (ev rovrw Tw Katpw); et of k “cum detinuisset.”
{ This may be primitive. } Observe the different character of support to Bin these three places while sah boh are constant.
22, CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
This is clear B and sak sympathy and nothing else. Boh does not join nor 8 nor D nor W nor others.
Matt. xvi. 21. IC XC (pro o mncovs) &*B* Sod" sah 2/3 boho™ Practer dao aoginst
the rest, and they themselves corrected,f and against the other versions. (Dominus Jesus aeth, as often = merely “‘ Jesus.”’) N® 892 Orig Iren™ plane om. W-H follow NB. xvii..8. w avrov povov &
avrov w povov _B 604 Sod rendered perfectly clear from the coptics, where avros is tacked on to the word for poves. The Latins do not do it, so we may clearly refer this as to both N and B to Coptic I think or possibly Syriac.t Following so close on xvi. 21 it is
| pro tov incovy povov. This is
instructive. 14. AOovrav (—avtwv) NBZ 1124 245 Sod" sah xviii. 1 init. ev exewn be BM Sod” and only sah 3/6 boho™
11 vers om. NBL* 1* [non fam] 13 [non fam] 33 892* e fi sah. boh?! syr hier sin Orig (contra rell et syrr rell latt rell aeth ?). D has the verse and also W very specially. Observe the spacing fo 65 in W. (Sod also omits.) 14, warpos pov (pro mwarpos yuwv) BEHIT al. sah boh, only rz of Latins, arm aeth, syr sin (only of syr) and Orig* 16. Matter of order: waparaBe (ert) eva n Sv0 peta co. B ff, boh sah only [non al. Sod} 27. rou Sovrov (~exervov) BSod*°1 124 only with sah 4/7. It may be useful to mention the sah mss as they are very definite here. They are 111112114 f. (avrov syr cu sin, et aliter pers). 81. >avtou ot cvvdovdor = BB" cum sah boh xix. 16. oyw (pro eyo vel xAnpoveynow) BD Sod™ Orig 1/2. Coptic has no verb for ey#, and although oyw probably approxi- mates the Latin here, it is interesting to see that sah has erex: “take” as against Joh ht raepkAnportogsin “inherit” transliterating the Greek of NI and some. 21. rows mrwyous (pro wrewxous) BD only with sah boh against all the rest and against Clem Orig** with a host of Fathers. - 29. tov epov ovopatos (pro tov ovopatos pov) SB Sod: 124 [non fam]§ sah boh et W-H tat. ibid. woddkaTAactova (pro exatovrathac.) BL Sod fam ¢$° sah syr hier Orig? soli W-H tat [non & reil]
f So it is not likely that cither of the mss N or B influenced bok or sah, seemg that the corrections stared the copts in the face. Obs. a place like xxvii. 4 where afwoy is used by NB* and the mass, while d:xaov is transliterated by sah.
$ Syr uses the same expression xvii. 19; not so coptic.
§ Therefore, as I supposed, the Matthaean recension of 124 was revised in Egypt.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 23
Matt. Xx. 9. edOovtes de Bet W-H tat cwm sah boh*”: (rz syr cu non sin).
16. -—7oddor yap eiot KAyTOL odvyos Se exdexTor. NBLZ 36 892 sah boh?! (aeth alig, non Walton) against all the rest and datiom™ = syr™ arm Orig’® hoc loco (Barn Hom™™ Clem). This is supposed to be dragged in by the mass from xxii. 14, but Orig quotes twice at xx. 16, and thrice at xxii. 14. It seems a clear ‘“ Egyptian’ removal at xx. 16, for neither D nor W nor ¢ nor r, nor ff countenance the removal here and syr lat are a unit for the clause.
34. Savtev tov oupatov B et copt (contra Orig)
xxi. 11. >0 rpodytys unoous NBD 157 sah boh arm Orig 1/3 Eus
against all the rest and latt syrr aeth Orig 2/3
This Origenistic division is most illuminating in all these places, leaving NBD alone with Egypt for a base. (Cf BD supra xix. 21).
It is immediately followed by
xxi. 12. eis To vepov (—Tov Beov) NBL 18 [non fam] 83 73 604 892 d, sah boh again, with arm aeth Orig 2/5 Meth Chr Hil, but seems to be a clear harmonistic omission, for tov Oeov is absent from Mark (xi. 15) and Luke (xix. 45). (Sod adds %° #4lia)
Note how closely NB stick to copt here, with Origen again a poor wavering witness.
In such cases Tischendorf (as Turner has pointed out in a general way) abandoned his favourite N with great judgment and placed rov Oeov in his text, while poor Hort, abject slave to his standard, can only find room for tov Geou in his margin. The Revisers restore it to their text (but in Souter’s note he says “13 &c. 83 700,” implying the family 13, whereas the other members do not support 13).
As to xxi. 18, I have to refer to another place under “ Historic Present.”’ I have followed Dr. Schmiedel’s advice in making such subdivisions, but it has much inconvenience for the running argument. I state it once for all here.t Observe then that zroverre of NBL Sod 124 892 is the reading of boh (against sah). Therefore in what precedes here as to Coptic, boh is just as old as sah.
xxi. 15. +rovs (ante xpafovras) NBDILN (sah) boh arm syr against the rest and the usual cursives and Orig Meth. Boh is very definite here. Tisch. omits to add the versions.
Again Hort follows what is really a version tradition here against Origen and Methodius, L and the rest.
xxl. 29/31 vers invert. B pauc. cum sah boh ete.
KX. 37. 0 be edn avtw NBL 33 sah boh Orig (against D latt eby avTw moous, and o b€ inoous epy avrw of most, and o de tnaous evmev avtw of some)
t A more elaborate subdivision will be found elsewhere including ‘“‘ Form,’ which sometimes finds a place under the unique readings of B.
24. CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Mai
xxii, 89 init. Seurepa (~8e) N*B 157 sahl™ boh™ W-H. There seems no other attestation. (Sod adds *" [6 or e?] 4°). Other sah and boh codd have ae, but some boh ye. Latins have autem, while syrr diatess and Cypr have cau Sevrepa. Mark xii. 31 = ““Sevrepa avtn,” hence this seems Marcan influence, for Luke x. 27 continues simply “ «ae tov mAqovov.”
Exlii. 9. > ver o watnp NBU® 33 892 Sod*3 225 Hust 48 al® Nyss et sah boh W-H et Sod txt (contra rell gr et syr lat o watnp upwv)
38. —epnuos BL ff, sah boh syr sin. I place this here as it does not seem basic at all but Egyptian. Orig who (doubt- fully) supports once with Cyr 2/3 is contradicted by Orig sve Hus re ag well as Clem and Cypr and all other Greeks and Latins. ff, appears here owing to its Egyptian influences. I do not place this under ‘‘ Harmonistic omissions,” although at St. Luke xiii. 85 most authorities omit, for there a good many add. It probably belongs in St. Matthew and not in St. Luke. BL ff, sah boh syr sin are only complicating the synoptic pro- blem here once more. Soden has no new witness for omission.
Diatess § 41 is quoting from Matthew and has epnos. W-Hort here in Matt. exclude epnwos from the text but have it in the margin. Souter has it in his text but puts a footnote ‘ om. gpnuos.” He gives the evidence of BL, adding a black letter H(*'™). The ff2 is so small one can hardly see it, and black letter I makes one think it has large Latin support, whereas ff, here is representing Egypt, against e and all the rest and all vulgates.
xxiv. 31, 37, 38, 39 taken together have some significance.
40. > ecovra: Sv0 =-N*B p** 892 h rr, vg'®¥ and sah, against boh and the rest. (For the conjunction h rr, see under Lists for NS and Bat xxiv. 11 as well as here. This seems conclusive as to h for Irish origin. No other Old Latins join them; and observe the full array of ah nr rz at xxvi. 56). Add Soden
48. > you o xvpws NBCDIL 33157 209? 409 604 892 Sod. perpaue. Ephr? sah boh
ibid. ypoutes (—edAOew) NB 6 33 604 892 sah boh Ephr Irenint (against all the rest and against all Latins but Ireni™* which shows this is Iren** pure)
xxv. J. vravrncw (pro aravt.) NBOZ 1 [non fam] 892 (Meth 1/2)
[male Soden de 157] Cf eg,pen bor This in connection with xxv. 6 fin efepyecOe es amavtnow (—avrov) by NB 604 alone + Cyr Meth shows such a nice appre- ciation of the difference between uvravryow avtov and anavrnow without avtou that it should be carefully noted (Z is wanting in verse 6), because both coptics and all others and all Latin have avrov in verse 6 fin.
Cf in this connection xxvi. 42 wapeAOew (—am epov).
BIN ST, MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 25
Note further that at
Matt.
viii. 28.
34.
xxvill. 9.
xvii. 12.
xxii. 10.
x. 25. xvi. 16.
uTyvTncay auto is used by all on this the first occurrence of the expression.
€l$ UTTaVYTNOLW TOV LnooU NS 33
els VITAYTNOW Tw inToOU B 1 Sod
els cuvavTyow tov incov §=©C 157 892 ys* Cyr els aTrayTnow els cuvavTnolw Twa incov = Rell omn Tw t. Sod #9
urnvTnsev avtas is used again by N*BCI23 fam 1 fam 13 (partim) 604 892 min Orig Cyr against amnvrncev aut. of the rest
. UITNVTNTEY aAVTO NBCDGLA 1 fam 13 28 al?” Dam against
amnutncev of AIL wnc® al. pl
. QTAVTNTEL Upby unchanged by all (except v7. 28 Sod”)
. urnutncey (—avto) NBEWE 1 33 157 604 al” (rell virnvrnoev
+avto practer T al. pauc arnvt.)
. TUVHVTNTEV AVTW All (except D cuverdev R ovynvtncar) . uravTncas to pera = NABDRXA 1 33 fam 18 (partim) 157
Paris®*’ 892 Sod” aravtnca. Tw peta =LLWTATI unc’ al. pl Bas vIrnVInTay avTw NN Sod? fam 1 fam 13 [non 124] 157 [male Sod] 892 al” Bas Dam umnviTncav (—avtw) L et Sod tat ATNVTNCAV AUTO AWXTAATL unc? al. pl et B-V annvtncay (—avtw) Bet W-H txt
[omou noav D de (latt)] UTavrnce. up CXL al. pauc 892 Sods ATAVTNGEL ULV D 124 (az.) al. pauc. Orig
CuvavTnges vp NABPRWIAAII une? al. pl
. UTNVTNTAaY avTw SBCDEKLW 1 al” et 892
arnvrTncay avTe ATAATL unc? al. pl Orig Cyr Chr
. uUTAVTNTEY avTO by all (except Sod*’) . UTNVTNTEY avTw by all (except one) . es uravrnow avro NBEFHMQSWTAA al. pi
els atravtnow avro AKUTI al Origt® (avrov Sod’) evs cuvavtnow avto LX 157 al. paue es cuvavTnow avtov DG al®
. UITNVTNTEV AUTO by all (urnvtncav D ¢ d)
cuvavtnoas avtw by all (cvvavryncavta avtw two) uTavTycas nw NBCE min® Orig (auvatravt. two) aTravTncal Ni ADHLP al. pl Eustath Chr
26 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Acts
xx. 22. cuvavrycovta wow NBLP al. pl Ath Chr (SB epor) ovvavtncavta wow =ADEH ai. oupPncopeva por = C min® KXViii. 15. ets vravtnow vw &* sic (nuw Sod*” els uTravTnow nuwy 40 el; avravtrnow nuw ABHULPN ete Chr Thpyl 1/2 els atravrnow nov I min® Thpyl 1/2
1 Thess. iv. 17. evs viravtnow To ypiote evs acpa §=D* E* FG els UTAVTNTW TW KUPLH ELS aEpa D? els cuvayTnutw Tov Kuptou ets acpa )=— Epiph els atravrnow Tov xvptov es aepa = BB rell Orig® Hipp Dial Eus* Bas al. Heb.
vii. 1. cvvayrnoas, Heb vii. 10 cvynrtncey by all
Anyone who will have the patience to go through this list will see the drift at once. Until the list is drawn up we are at sea. Now it appears that vravtaw is purely Johannine, that St. Luke rather favours ovvavtaw (as shown by Acts x. 25, xx. 22; Luke ix. 37, xxii. 10), but also used vravr. or azravr. elsewhere, where the mss try to confuse us. St. Mark uses avavraw xiv. 13, and the mss are divided as to amavr. or uvtavr. at v. 2. St. Matthew uses viavrncay in viii. 28, where all are agreed, and doubtless cvvavryow at viii. 34, which NB wish to change to iv. He seems afterwards to employ azavt. but the Mss wish to harmonise his passages (or prefer the Johannine expression) and so confuse us at xxv. 1 and xxviii. 9. St. Matthew therefore uses all three expressions interchangeably and this has caused the trouble. T have no hesitation, after making up this list, of charging wilful change by NB at Matthew viii. 34, xxv. 1, xxviii. 9 (probably Mark v. 2, Luke xiv. 31) and Acts xvi. 16, where Hustatht contradicts Origen. Ceriainly someone is revising. Is it Antioch or Alexandria or Caesarea ? Well, observe Luke xvii. 12 and Acts xxviii. 15 for the keys and there will be found & and B opposing each other! There seems to be no kind of doubt in view of the wavering courses of Li and II and C and X that accommodation and revision went on in the different places. Instead of “‘neutrally” keeping clear of these matters, NB run to meet difficulty and again obscure the issue for us in some of these passages, and hence a text founded on NB obscures the problem of the varying synoptic language (see Luke xvii. 12 B ¢ W-H soli, L. & Sod solt}).
Epiphanius shows us at 1 Thess. iv. 17 how carelessly he differentiated between the language of one or of another passage.
After this digression we continue as to coptic sympathy :—
t Nor is Eustathius’ text of Acts any common “ Antioch” revision, He has a most peculiar cast alone with D in one of the few places which survive in his writings.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEN. 27 Matt. xxv. 3. ae yap (pro at Se Z 157 it?!, ac ow Dd ffo, autiwes X plur) NBCL 33 892 boh sah 6. —epyetas NBCDLZ 604 892 sah boh d Meth 1/2 Cyr [contra rell omn et syr lat] xxvi. 28. ~—xawns (ante SuaOnxyns) NBLZ 33 Sod%87 boh»™* [non sah, of ‘‘ Pistis’’| Cyr, against all the rest and Origen Iren. This hardly belongs in this list, but I do not know where to place it. Ido not charge this as a deliberate omission, yet it looks like one. The evidence is overwhelming for the reception of xawns, which Hort excludes. The Oxford edition of 1910 also excludes, but Souter gives the evidence, actually ranking “102” for omission. I should have thought 102 was exploded long ago as being merely a collation of B. Gregory in his Emendanda removed 102 everywhere. Souter adds Cypr for omission, as Von Soden (¢ is wanting). Hitherto Cypr had been given by Sabatier and Tisch on the other side. 45, wWou+yap BE p** = sah syr sin Ath”* t 55. xa@nuepay (— pos vpas) NBLA 33 604 892 sah boh syr sin Cyrs Origit 1/3 against all others and against Latin. 71. ovros (—xat) NBD Sod™ [non 604] sah syr sin (against all else). XXVii. 2. miAatw (—ovTiw) NBLY 33 sah boh syr Orig Petr. This is @ curious omission against the serried ranks of the other Greeks (and W and ® replacing the missing Greek of D here) and the Latins, on this the first mention of the name. The sah boh syr connection (in the absence of the Latins) does not mean that it is necessarily basic. It is to be seen abundantly elsewhere that syr sin and sah hang together, not always for the purest text. Orig with Petr confirm it as Alexandrian, but whether ‘‘ neutral”’ or not is another question. 23. —nyeuwv NB Sod 33 69 [non fam] sah [non boh] syr™* arm (syr™) W-H 42. Bactreuvs topanr ectiv (—e) NBDL 83 892 d sah (against boh and everything else including syr sin Hus Ps-Ath) 46. ehwer ehwee B e¢ sah literatim soli ef Mare ehot erate = Net boh literatim cum 33 al. pauc vg™ia | xv. 34 In Mark xv. 84 both NB have caw: edwt, while sah repeats ewer edwer and boh cedar erwt, but the syr differentiates (with the Greeks) as between Matthew and Mark. This tiny place therefore affords a con- siderable clue. It is probable that B and sah are closer in St. Matthew than elsewhere; in other words, sympathetic readings, although including syr sin or others, probably derive from sah, at any rate in
t ‘But we have not been able to recognise as Alexandrian any readings of B in any book of the New Testament which it contains.’”’ Hort, vol. ii. p. 150. Hort did not look very far. How about Athanasius here ?
28 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matthew. Similarly, as often before, N runs with boh here. It is probable that N had before him either sah anp boh, or an edition of boh which was nearer to sah than our surviving boh mss show.
“xxvii. 46. Xeua NBL 33 278 604 Evst 21 22 et boh (al. boh Ceara cum sah). ‘The rest Acua or Actua, and Aaya D ibid. caBaxravee B vid cum 22? al? sah (pro caBay. rell)
51. Order: ecxtcOn (atr’) avwbev ews xatw ets Svo0 (hoc loco) BC*L sah boh aeth (As syr sin omits xatw evs dvo and 4 Orig Hus omit es évo this can only come from coptic). [® goes with the rest and Latin order, placing es dvo after exyicOn. |
58. azrodo@nvat (—To cwua) NBL min™ against all the rest and the Latins and arm aeth goth syr pesh Orig™. The support is confined to syr sim and the coptics which include avro in the verb, while aeth is very definite against them. When acth has shown such intense sympathy with NS and B (being alone with B in Matthew three times, alone with & over a dozen times) it seems fair to bring it into play in a case like this.
xxviii. 6 fin. exevro (—o xuptos) NB 33 Sod‘ ¢ sah boh arm aeth syr sin Orig™ Cyr against the rest and D d, all Latins but e, and syr pesh pers (Aeth “sepultus fuit,” the Latins “ positus erat,” but e¢ “‘jacebat,” and observe coptic imperfect).
The e recension hangs absolutely to NB, for at xxviii. 8 e uses abissent (areNovoas NBCL fam 13 383) for exterunt of all other Latins (and e£eAoveaz all other Greeks).
See again xxviii. 14 —avrov NB Sod® 33 Orig®® and ¢ only, against
all else, all Latins, syr copt and Cyrtie
Add to the coptic list the places under ‘‘ Change of number ” where NB prefer the plural. In every case this has the countenance of the coptic.
Traces of Syriac. Matt. | - : 7 x1. 23. > at ev coe yevouevat B (instead of at yevoyevar ev cot of all
other Greeks and Latins and Coptic) is found to be the order
of syr sin (against syr cu). Syr sin says “ that in you were
seen,” but gives this order. It is a curious touch, not observed
by Mrs. Lewis in her English translation of syr sin, not noted
by Horner in his notes to sah, but standing plainly in Burkitt’s
notes to syrcusin (Hing and Syriac sides) andin Merx’ translation.
I have been accused of seeing fanciful resemblances which are
merely coincidences and at first sight this might appear to be a mere
coincidence. I am glad of the opportunity to be more precise and to
show that these things are not mere coincidences and that the study of
them is an absolute necessity (quite overlooked hitherto) if we are to make progress in tracing the text-history behind Origen.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 29
It is to be noted then that NBC 1 33 and a few cursives change euetvay to ewecvev in this same verse against fourteen uncials and the mass. The plural number is supported by all the Latins, and sah of necessity for that version has Sodom and Gomorra. The Greek of all is ev coSopors, but the Syriacs with the diatess arab have in Sodom and a singular verb. The bohairic has Aen coraoara and a plural verb. Syriac then and NBC are in sympathy here alone, whatever we may think of the whole situation, for euecvay may possibly be revision here for a basic ewevey. Yet how is it that D, all the rest, and all the Latins persist in the plural ?
The only point I wish to make at this place is, however, that as syr and NBC are shown alone together here for eyewev (against the otherwise friendly Coptic and Latin) it is clear the previous point as to special order in the verse with sy7 sin is well taken. Horner and Tisch are both silent as to the versions, which is a pity.
Matt. xiii, 86. Suacadnooy (pro dpacov) NB Sod*° 4 (none of the sympathis- ing cursives| Orig and syr copt. Obs. also the use of the word by Clem (Strom vi. 15: «al xara rov ths ddnbelas Kavéva dvacagodvres tas ypadds). [In xv. 15 Greeks all dpacov. Copt and syr use the same word as in xiij. 36, Latins vary as in xiii. 36]. Both W-H and Sod place S:acagyoov in their texts.
xii. 22, See under “ Change of voice.” 3B shares (alone among Greeks and Latins) the active voice of syr copt aeth.
31, abeOnoeras vty ros avOpwros B1 Sod™ and syrt sah Ath [non boh non latt]. The other Syriacs express, as often, “to sons of men,” which may have given rise to it. But perhaps place this under Coptic (sah) quite definitely, since Athanasius also witnesses. Note this as to Alexandrian readings of B.
Another peculiar case occurs soon after in sympathy with the versions, partially, at—
xii. 36. Aeyw Se vty ors Tay pyua apyov 6 Aadnoovaw o1 avOpwirot, So XB Sod and copt syr. The common Gk text read by nearly all is 6 éav Aadynowow. NB drop cay and change the subj. to the indicative. The Latins all say quod for o eav (except h quodcunque) with Iren'™t and Cypr, but have the subjunctive, so they no doubt read 6 éay AaAnowowv. Winer has no remarks on this peculiar place for NB, nor has Blass, although the latter speaks of it (p. 283) in connection with anacoluthon. We must draw our own conclusions, and those are that the syr and coptic versions influenced NB. There is much difference between “which men may speak” (Lat Gr) and “which men shall speak” (syr copt 8B). D also omits cav and has Aadovew with d. C has cay but writes AXaAqcoverr. Observe now that I and Orig are against NBD, writing o av Aarnowcw. (W-H follow NB without marginal comment.)
30 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Matt.
xii. 47 versom. N*BLI'126 225 238 400* Sod* (not particularly sym- pathetic cursives otherwise) ff; k syr cu sin sah (against boh aeth syr pesh arm and the rest of the Latins). I place this example here because ff; & are so thoroughly syriac in base it is probably the common base of NB sah coming out here, through syr, rather than an “improvement” in their time. Of course this can also be grouped under “ Omissions from homoiote- leuton”’ as ver 46 and ver 47 both end with Aadnoa in most Greeks, but in ver 46 BCZ end Aarnoa avtw, while & omiis.
xiv. 24. oradsovs moddovs amo THs yns (pro pecov THs Baracons vel nv eis pecov THs Bar.) B (Sod) fam 13 syr sah boh 29. nat nrOev (pro edhOewv) BC* 604 Sodsinae syr (ut veniret lat) xvi. 4. aster (pro &ret) B**! (syr word serves for either expression but actually pers" gives this petit following other B sympathy) xvii. 8. autoy ty povoy B™ cum Sod (and N*! w avrov povor) Cf. syr and copt and see under “‘ Coptic inflaence ” as well. 15. xupte eXenoov pov Tov vov pou B*", Cf. syr sol xupie pov edencov pe’ o wos pou... et aeth Domine miserere mei filiique mei xviii. 19. e£ vywy (pro vpwr) NBDL al. pauc. syr latt xxii, 9/10/11/12. See under ‘‘Improvement.”” As sah repeats the beth in verses 9, 11 and 12 and syr does not, it is probable that syr is the chief influence in NBL in verse 10. xxv. 23. > micros ns =B hr syr soli (et hoc loco et ver 21h r syr; in ver 21 vg®) quia super pauca fidelis ¢ (— 7s) 42. I do not know whether we ought to attribute + «ae before eduynoa here to syriac influence, but only BL add with syr pesh diatess and aeth (not exhibited in Walton’s translation, but present in the text). [W-H tat].
Add to the above an interesting place at vi. 1 where for eXenwoovvny of most Greeks and k, Sixastoovvny is read by N*°BD tf zd?! syr sin hier, while Socw is given by that early corrector N* with bok and syr cu (Swpa Ephr). The end of the words for “gift” and “righteousness” is the same in Syriac. S:catoovvny and Socw probably grew out of a revision, comparing with syr. But in verse 3 all have edenuoouvny.
[Observe the scant support NB get from the ms W in all the above. }
As to ‘* Form.”
I have neglected most small matters of form, as evav, xataBarw, petaBa, poBeobe, poryevOnvat (pro poryacbat), etc.
I might call attention to Matt. xxviii. 4 where NBC*DL 33 have eyevnOnoay and the rest eyevovro with Dion? Hus, while syr sin omits the verb altogether.
t Harris gives 892 for d:xaroovrny in verse 2.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 31
Observe Mark i. 27 eOauBnOycav NSB and all except D who with Orig writes eOau8noav, while W alone has efavyafov. (In Luke iv. 36 the expression is xav eyevero OapBos).
Synonyms. Matt. xili, 80. ayps N*e° L: Chr 1/3 See also ews BD Chr 1/3 Eulog XXvili., 15 ews NDI 213 Orig 1/2 peypt C rell et &> Chr 1/8 Hexyps B reli Orig 1/2 C and D alone are constant re- This tells a tale of preferences. spectively in both places.
Cf note on zreps/vmep under Luke vi. 28. Cf Matt. xx. 20 aw avtov (pro tap avtov) BD 604 (latt sah).
xxi. 2. xarevavte NBCDLZ® 892 min Orig® Hus 1/2 (parallel Mark xt, 2 and Luke xix. 30 «atevayts all) amevavtt KE reli Orig Hus 1/2 xxvii. 24. carevavtt BD soli et W-H tat
amevavtt & rell et Acta Pil
61. Katevayts D! atevavts NB rell emt wel
Mark
xi. 2. xatevavt. fere omn (parallel Matt. xxi. 2, Luke xix. 30) xu. 41. aevavre BU 33 min® Dam Kkateverrtov (fam 18) xatevavtt ®& rell et D et Origr® xill. 3. xatevayvts omn Luke xix. 80. xarevavte. —_fere omn (parallel Mark xi. 2, Matt. xxi. 2)
I think this tells the tale, without going outside the Gospels. In Matt. xxi. 2 xarevavrs has been borrowed from the parallels (Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30) where xarevavrs stands without variation. Why should “Antioch” vary uselessly in Matthew? It is the group SBLZ which “accommodated.’’ The adhesion of D is nothing, for he prefers xatevayts alone at Matt. xxvil. 61 and goes with B alone at Matt. xxvii. 24, while Eus is to be seen using both expressions in Matt. xxi. 2. I repeat:
Matt. xxi. 2. xatevavre NBCDLZ Orig 1/2 Eus 1/2 (contra rell et Orig 1/2
Bus 1/2) xxvil. 24. xarevayte BD soli (contra rell omn) 61. xatevaytt D solus (contra rell omn) These are the only occasions where the word is used in St. Matthew. Could there be a prettier picture that amevavrs is Matthaean? In the only place where we have the conspiracy of NBCDLZ both Orig and Eus
82 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
are found to hold both readings, of which xatevavts was preferred by the mss. Where their testimony is absent B ventures to join D in one place and not in the other. D alone is consistent in all three places. If D be right, the others are clearly wrong in not giving us xatevayrs in all three places.
But I am pretty sure that avevayvts is Matthaean, and xatevayts Marcan. Note again the Marcan wording:
Mark xi. 2. xatevayre all but a few scattering witnesses.
xii. 41. xarevavrs all and 69-124 (and catevwmiov 138-346-556) except BU min® Dam arevayrtt xii. 8. xatevavts all And note in St. Luke : xix. 80. xarevavts all but a few scattering witnesses.
So that although B tries to obscure the issue again in Mark (where the absence of ND shows he is wrong) he cannot do it. azrevayrs remains Matthaean, and carevayrs Marcan and Lucan.
[In the epistles carevwroy is the expression. Hence the reading above of part of the 13 family.] But it is just in such places that our tables of synoptic wording have become muddled owing to the use of the Westcott and Hort text.
As tO avaytaw, cuvavtaw, vravtam see under ‘‘ Coptic” at Matthew xxv. 1.
Grammatical Changes :
Of voice, of mood, of tense [and see separately for historic present, of case, of number, and of order.
Change of Voice. Matt. xii. 22. mpoonveyxav avtw Saipovifopevov tupdov Kat xwhov B (syrr diatess sah boh aeth) against all Greeks and Latins: mpoonvexOn avtw Satmortouevos TupAos Kat Kaos.
This is a most important passage, for it is uncomplicated by the parallel Luke xi. 14 (g.v.). It also involves a change of case.
Hort has the temerity to place it in his text on the sole authority of B® and versions, against ND and all other Greeks and all the Latins conjoined. Soden now adds 3 (6 30) and his 1444, but not Sinaz 260.
Of many minor variations in this passage and in this verse we need not take account here. The plain fact remains that B followed the versions here with the active voice, and from the form it is coptic rather than syr which (with ff; h) expresses “‘ and they brought to him a certain demoniac who was dumb and blind” (syr pesh; “blind and deaf” syr cu).
The matter is in a nutshell here for any who will examine it.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 33
Matt.
xix. 20. epuraka (pro epvdakaynv) NBDL 1 22 Ath against the rest and Origen Ath Chr. In Mark x. 20 edvdaka is read by AD 28 892 Clem Orig (the more semitic evounoa by fam 1 2°° syr sin, as Ephr Aphr in Matthew) but epuvdrataunv by NB rell. In Luke xviii. 21 epvrata by SABL fam 1 Dial against epuratauny D and the rest. The question may well be asked why syr sin uses evrornoa only in Mark, with fam 12°¢ This Marcan recension must be further enquired into. Servavi is there used by vg?™@ See further remarks under the head of ‘“‘ Improvement.”
Observe at Matt. xxvii. 57 NCD fam 1 33 273 604 Evst 17, but no others, change the voice of euafnrevoev, by B and the rest, to euabnrevOn, probably because it follows xaz avtos.
paOntevw ig essentially Matthaean (and only occurs elsewhere once in Acts xiv. 21 pabnrevoavres). At Matt xiii. 52 we read palnrevbeas, and at xxviii. 19 pa@ntrevoate. I only mention it to show how liberties are taken, even when the combination & 1 33 604 includes D. B is absent here from this combination and on the active side, and rightly, for the classical synonyms are generally used in the active voice.
Ignatius (ad Rom § v) however: ‘‘’Ev 6€ tots aduxjjpacw abitev paddov padyrevopat* ard’ od Tapa TodTO Sedixaiwpar”’ uses the middle.
Change of Mood.
xl. 36. 6 AaAncoucer (pro ocav AadAnowow) NB (and D do Aadovew) against the rest and L and Orig. (See further under ‘‘ Traces of Syriac.’’)
Change of Participle Tense: aorist for present.
xiii. 18. ozeipavtos (pro oreipovtos) N*BXW® 33 213 Sod*:* Hust 4 soli [seminantis latt copt (syr), D rell oretpovtos | 94. omepavte (pro gmepovtst) NBMXWATI min alig latt pl et verss [sed seminanti dh k 8 vg® et reli gr et D] It looks as if while omepavts may be right in xiii. 24 that omepovte is right in xiii. 18 and that NBXW® there are merely trying to equate the two passages, which should not: equate but differ slightly.
xii. 23. curves (pro curv) NBD*@ 238 892 Sod Orig. This appears very deliberate, as much for the sake of euphony with ozapess perhaps or for contradistinction of the pair axovov..cvyiwy as for anything else...omapeis ovTos eotiv o Tov Aoyov axovey Kat cues. They do not write suves but cuviets SO that apparently the present participle is intended
D
34 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt. * : but in a different form. But see Rom. iii. 11 where curiwy is
accepted by all.
Observe however B at Luke xxiv. 45 alone writing ovvewas (aor. inf.)
for cuvtevat. (W cvvetevat.) Xxiii. 17. 0 ayiacas (pro o ayatov) NBDZ 892 d (ad no doubt following his Gk, because all other Latins are against d). No cursives appear to join NBDZ besides 892, and sah boh arm aeth with the Latin appear to be against the change. I believe o ayiacas to be an ‘‘improvement,”’ followed however by Soden as well as Hort. The place, however, should be considered in connection with: 21. xatotxouvts (pro Karouenoavts) NBHS® fam 1 fam 18 etc. txt. recept. latt copt et verss vid. Here CDUZTAII al unc’ oppose with xatotxnoavrt, as do W2W and as does 892.
Here the versions reverse their position and go with NB. One’s preference would be against NB in xxiii. 17 and with them in xxiii. 21 where they hold the textus receptus.
Hort has a very unsatisfactory solution, for he places ay:acas in his text verse 17 without marginal comment, while in verse 21 against xatotxouvtt he has in his margin xatocxnoavtt, so there seems to have been no system, unless D was considered an absolute balancing factor. Soden has ayacas and xatotxnoayte.
As to Infinitive.
Interchange of present and aorist infinitive and imperative. Examples :
xii. 10. Gepareveat eas where & and B are on different sides.
Oeparrevewy xiii, 3. o7rewpas NDLMXW minn alig oTretpelv B rell xvi. 21. Secxvvae B™ cum Orig*™ [Soden adds nothing] Secxvvery N rell et Origsve XxHHi. 23. adewvat NBL x*F 7pe agvevat CD rell omn
As to infinitive tenses ¢f Orig Eus ad Matt xxiii. 87 emiovvata (pro emiovvayayev) and cf Luc.
Imperative. v. 42. 805 NBDW jam 18 [non 346] 892 Sod": 28° Clem Svd0u plur xix. 17. type BD soli et W-H txt (rnpn 2°)
THPNoOV NCL rell
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 35
Matt.
So at xxii. 17. evrov LZ 33
xvill. 17, evrov NL Orig against ere NB rell evmre B rell Cyr Bas and xxiv. 8. ewrov Li 1 33 against ere NB rell XXi. 2. wopeveoOe SBDLZi min” Orig Eus Chr aropevOnre C rell
Change of Case. Genitive Absolute.
viii. 1. xataBaytos Se avrov (pro xataBavrt Se avtw) BC(Z)W Sod and N> 892 min alig W-H & Sod txt
As this is the first case to be noticed, it should be observed most carefully that N* does not do this here. So that NS opposes B at the very outset of a series in ch. viii. as to what is, I am convinced, a deliberate change. The point is that, as Burgon expressed it,f writing upon “‘style’’: ‘‘ The attentive reader of 8. Matthew’s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his viii‘® and ix't chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel,— viz. in his xxi** chapter.” Burgon referred to viii. 1 xataBavrt avro, vill. 5 exceAOovte To I., vili. 23 ewBavts avtw, vill. 28 eAOovts avrw, ix. 27 Kat Tapayovtt To I., ix. 28 eAOovre Se, xxi. 23 Kat eAOovte avTw.
Now as B does not change all these datives, it might be thought that ‘‘ Antioch” for some reason had made a harmonious whole and turned some genitives into datives in the supposed revision. It is just here that ® offers its important testimony, for N does not use the genitive on the first occasion, thereby showing that it was Egypt which revised some of St. Matthew’s datives, and not Antioch which cancelled some genitives. See further remarks under this head in St. Luke and St. John.
The second case occurs four verses later, at :—
viii. 5. escedovtos de avrov NBCZ 892 min alig W-H & Sod txt (Orig esceXMovtos Tov Kupiov) but esredAOovte Se avtw all the rest viii. 28. nas edOovros avtov BC et N° ® Sod et Sod** 892 min pauc (Kat eAMovtev avtwyv &*) Kat eXOovtt avTw all the rest xxi. 23. «ae eXOovtos avtov NBCDL® 1 fam 18 83 604 8992 Sod’ [non al.] Orig bis W-H & Sod txt Kat €Movtt avTw the rest
What is this but a Greek “improvement”? The small limited group
speaks for itself. t ‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 141. D2
36 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
It is noteworthy that avtw dédaccovts remains unchanged later in the verse (although some Latins and Syr omit S:dacxorts, expressed by the other Latins ad ewm docentem) so that the dative absolute rather hangs together throughout: Kas edOovTs avtw ets To Lepoy mpoondov avtw SidacKovts...
See beyond in the other Gospels as to Genitive Absolute, where we find the same revision to the Genitive in St. Mark, but nothing of the kind in St. Luke and St. John, because there were no datives to revise !
Kind of Accusative Absolute (involving Change of Order). Matt. xxvi. 40. L alone [Soden adds no others] changes evpev avrous cafevdovtas to evpey kaSevdovtas autous Observe in the parallel in Lvuxkz xxii. 45 NBDLTY do the same: eupey KOLpwpevous avTovs instead of evpev avrovs Kxoys. Observe further that T is a graeco-sahidic, and therefore this Greek is contrary to coptic order. Note that d (alone of Latins) follows with dormientes eos, t and note that in Matt. xxvi. 43, Mark xiv. 37 40 no change is made in the order, and it becomes a personal matter where the change 1s made. To this add: xvii. 25. Among a tremendous variety of readings distributed over the “clever” mss, the usual reading ore evonAGev by the mass of Greeks is confirmed by the versions, but where Dd dn use a dative (absolute) evocAOovts, and 33 a genitive abs. eA@ovrwy avtwv, and Sod fam 13 ecedOovrwy, and @ is content with intrantes, % and B use an accusative, N* eseAOovta cus tH ovx., BN 1 892 edOovra evs ovx. In view of the immense variety of expressions [see under “‘ Differences between NS and B’’] it must fairly be admitted that NB are improvising. Now note: xxvi. 71, where NBLZ. 892 min pauc do not care for an acc. absolute, for they suppress avrov in e€eAOovta Se avrov, the reading of nearly all others. D® Evst 17 have e€e@ovtos Se avtou (d latin wanting) and the Latins mostly favour exeunte autem illo, but an “egressus.” As to b r they actually give us a Latin acc. absolute ‘‘exeuntem autem illum,” ff, as printed “ exeunte autem illum,” g; “ exeuntem illo.” W confirms e£eAOovra Se avrov, and from the Latin testimony it looks as if avrov had been suppressed by NBLZ.
+ As if “ dormientibus illis invenit eos.”
But not elsewhere in the other four passages (Matt. and Mark), so that, as I have often thought throughout the study of Luke, the conjunction of D with NBL has a different significance in this Gospel to what it has elsewhere. It is not ‘“‘ Western” agreeing with NBL, but NBLD in St. Luke’s Gospel the outcome of some common text tradition.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 37
Change of Case. Matt. x. 16. es To pecov AvKwy B (for ev rw pecw Avewv) ff, k vg® (Lucif). This is clear “improvement” after avocrehAw vas. Cf also Matt. xxvii. 5. (Note D™ at Luke x. 3 pecov AuKw).
25. Tw otxodeororn and Tots ouxvaxots B* alone (pro tov otxodecmotTny and tous otxtaxous) (governed by ereradeoav) ; commen text is exareoav, but nearly all authorities are for eexar. emixadew would seem to favour a dative, while cadew (except in middle) takes accusative. Iuachmann and W-H mg follow B.
xiv. 19. em. tov yopto NBC*IWES®@ Sod 1 22 838 al Origaet W-H Sod txt ert tov xoptov 16 61 892 latt sah boh pl aeth arm (syr cu) eme Tous yoptous C*E rell unc omn min pl [non verss praeter boh® syr sin ?| em. tav (THs) ynv (yns) boh® syr pesh emt TOU YOpTOUS Sic L (ef Exar nexoptcc sah)
Whether “ herbage” plural or ‘“‘grass”’ singular is original cannot be determined. I incline to the reading of D, regarding the genitive after emt here as an ‘‘improvement”’ of NB Origen.
The foregoing is more important than it seems, for very close after occurs another case which I think illustrates the matter perfectly, and fixes the authorship of both changes as that of Origen.
xiv. 25. emt tnvOadkaccay NBPT*WAO® Sod 1 [non 118-209] fam 13 22 238 Sod "9 Orig ere TnS Oaracons CD rell Eus§
Observe this is a change in inverse ratio to the last. The genitive of rest—(we can almost see Origen at work)—belongs to émi rod yoprov in ver 19, but the accusative of motion belongs to émi tiv Oddaccay in ver 25. Tisch emphasises our point for us by saying of Origen “ praeterea notat : ov ‘yeyparrrau* nAOe Tpos aVTOUS TrEpiTATWY ETL TA KUUATAa, AX ETL TA VdaTA,” Clearly then Origen employed the accusative after em here as of motion on or over the waters, and the accusative must be an emendation for the poor fisherfolk’s Greek genitive.
Itis true that in the next verse 26 NBCD(T*) have coovtes avrov emt Ts Garacons TepuratouvTa and not er: thy Gar. wepur. as the rest, but I doubt whether this affects my contention, as “they saw him on the sea.. walking.” Besides it is a delicate point as to the exact case which em should govern here.
My point seems well taken, because a little further on ® gets an opportunity and avails of it (xvi. 19) to exhibit the difference between dnons emt THs yns, Which he leaves unchanged, and Avaons ere THs YNS, which latter he changes to Avons exe THY yD.
But these little things were done in passing, because at xvili. 18 AvaNTe ere THS yns (Lollowing Snore ers Tys yns) is left unchanged by N.
38
Matt.
CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
xxv. 18. See p. 67. Nothing further occurs until 7, where NBDM©° fam 1 (118 hesitans) fam 13 [non 124] 106
XXVi.
XXVii.
Xi.
xiii.
[ xvii.
Xvi. RXV.
XXVi-
XXVii.
48,
82.
16.
31.
52.
801 604 et Fvstteee™ prefer ems rns xepadns for ems Tov Kehadny of the rest and Basil. In Mark xiv. 3 a partitive genitive is used xateyeey avtou Tys Kepadns (—emt). Perhaps the Marcan diction influenced NBD in Matthew. The presence of ten Lectionaries and but few cursives lends some emphasis. merrowev ext tw Sew B 213 alone for ver. emt tov Jeov with lait”! [non ¢ d f g, vg?®®] with Hus 1/2 and Juvencus. Apart from possible Latin sympathy, it would seem to be the most delicate appreciation among Greeks of the alternative case to use after a certain shade of meaning of the verb. I class it here and under Latin, as well as under solecisms of B. Observe Eus is on both sides. Hort put rw ew in his margin.
Change of Number.
. See under ‘“‘ Improvement.” . avEavovew and KxoTiwow and vnfovcw NB Sod fam 1 4 33
273 Sod!* Ath copt et verss for av€ave .. xomia . . vnGer (after Ta Kpwa Tov aypou) of all the rest. Soden txt plural as well as Hort.
erufntovew (pro erityte) after ta e6vn NB min pauc copt contra rell. We have to assume that all others strove for im- provement by writing the verb singular, or that NB thought it best to employ the plural. Soden txt plural like Hort.
. euewvev (pro euevay) see under ‘“ Syriac.” ] . (Improvement) edayov for epayev NB 0%. W-H not Sod. This
follows eio7\Oev, but is accommodated to the previous verse 3 ove aveyvwte tt exotnoe AGS ott evretvacev (avTOS) Kat OF mEeT avtov. Obs. here that the coptics oppose NB and have edayev.
. eaverethav (pro eEaveresrev) B only with vg and some latins
*‘ exorta sunt” (and k fructicaverunt) and coptic. axovovow (pro axovet) following wra (to accord with Brerovew, following however o¢@adpor) NBCDMX* al Orig latt contra unc” al. pl.
. L (and HUD) change eyevero following aria avtov to eyevovto.
Not so D* (although d is facta sunt) nor B rell. It is mentioned to show the tendency as represented by L.]
. See under ‘‘ Improvement.” . cuvaxOnoovras (pro avvaxOncerat) as to mavta ta evn
NBDGKLUII al. SiacxoprricOncovtat (pro -ceTat) a8 to Ta mpoBaTa NABCGH*ILM al. copt Orig 1/2 nyepOnoay (pro nyepOn) as to troAAa cwpata by NBDGL [non W] min perpauc copt Orig Hus (avertnoav Cyr) seems clearly Egyptian.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 39
{The singular verb after neuter pl. is not unusual in N.T. Greek. Cf Matt xiii, 4 xare@ayer all as to ta merewa, although some have dor. The Latins and d all venerunt and comederunt incl. d agst D* rOov .. xatepayev. The cases mentioned above trace to the ‘ version influence ’’ and predominantly to the coptic, which favours the plural after these neuters. But observe that W avoids all this. ]
The point here raised seems to me to be of a good deal of importance and quite interesting. At first sight the narrow view may be that these few Egyptian mss, representing as Hort might have said ‘the watchful scholars of Alexandria,” are preserving “the true text”? with their plural verbs, and that ‘“‘ Antioch,” in a purist mood, changed them to the singular after the neuter plurals. To do this ‘ Antioch” would have had to forget the versions ringing in its ears, and have outdone Alexandria in an affectation of purism in its Greek. Since the Egyptian practice however, as represented by the Copts, is to employ the verb in the plural number in such cases, it is more likely that these few Egyptian Mss (plus some others in certain of the cases) displaced the singular in the Greek from an innate habit in such cases. It would not merit so much attention if we did not find these mss habitually revising throughout. But as we do, and as we shall prove this in these pages, I consider the probabilities are that the singular number employed by the ‘‘ traditional ” text is the correct base and was modified in Egypt, owing to the ‘‘ version tradition.” The cases at vi. 28, 32 and xiii. 5 (B alone) are to be considered more especially in this connection.
Change of Order.
Matt. vi. 33. > Kat Ty Sixaocurny Kat Tyv Bac iheay avrov B alone
xi, 9. >mpodnrny ew for We rpodytny; N*BZW 892 Sod Orig 26. > evdoxia eyevero NBW Sod 1 33 892 k (copt) Sod tat
xi. 44. > evs tov ocwov rou emiotpeyw NBDZ 7 33 892 aeth against
rell and all other versions. Sod txt follows NB.
xiil., 89, > 0 de ex@pos extev 0 omretpas avta o SiaBoros B alone
eotw alone occupies this position in B. He may have hesitated as to omission of aura, or of eyOpos as some.
xiv. 18. > hepere pou wde avtous (pro depete fsot avtous woe) NBZ 33 vg? only. This is a small matter but an almost impossible order, and against sah and (bok). wéde is omitted (and the ‘‘neutral” text me judice is without it) by Dd 1 boh alig syr cu sin it?! [the vulgates vary the order tremendously] vg No doubt it was added in the margin of the parents of NBZ and found its way into the wrong place in the text. Soden however follows Hort and NBZ.
40 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Matt. Xvi. 21. > ors det avrov evs IepocodupaarenOey NBD* 1 fam 1333157
y** e Orig Ireni™* Hil (for ots Set avrov are Oew evs lepoc.). The change savours of improvement but Soden likes and adopts it.
xvii. 4. >oxnvas tpes Be (cf Luc ix. 83) W-H marg.
xix. 16. > rpocedOwy avtw evrev (pro tpoceOwv evrev autw) NB Sod? fam 13 157 892 Sod ** (et txt) e f sah arm aeth Chr Auct? imp (Just) against the rest and syr. This involves a change in the sense. Boh and Old Latins a b c g h q complete with TpoceNOwy aUTw ELTTEV AUTH.
It is rather indeterminate, for while Justin*?! says mpocedbovtos auto TWoS Kat evovTos, in Trypho he says Neyovtos avtw tivos (Clem*™ and Marcos™™ are indeterminate).
Xxil. 28. >ev Ty avactaces oww NBD fam 1 fam 13 2°° (Sod) 604 Sod'**s boh syx (om ovv syr sin) for ev Tn ovv avactacet of nearly all other Greeks and sah. Soden follows Hort and NBDL.
It seems to bea sheer improvement. D joins probably because d had it with the other Latins, who had already changed the order when translating, as syr pesh (but syr sin omits). What reason on earth could there be for poor ‘‘ Antioch”’ to change to ev ry ov avactace: ? 40. (involving change of number) A most important place :
ev Tavtats Tals dvow evTodats odos (om NI syr diatess copt) 0 vomos >Kpepmatas Kas ot Tpopytas NBDLZ> 33 892 (pro ev TavT. T. Svaoly EVT. OAOS 0 VOLOS >Kat OL TpOdNTat KpEewavTat W® unc™ rell min et fam 1 13 604 2P¢ omn)
The change is very old but still looks like ‘‘improvement.” With NBDLZ= 33 892 are ranged the Latins including Ter#/™ with syrr [but diatess™ “are hung the law and the prophets,” as aethi"* “pendent tota lex et prophetae’”’; notice the order], while for W® and the mass, including all the important cursives (but 33 892) are to be added sah boh very distinctly—sah : ‘‘The law and the prophets are hanging on these two commandments,” doh: “On these commandments two the law with the prophets were hung ’’—together with Clem’ (ev rovrw odos o vomos Kat ot Mpodnra: Kpe“avrat, and : ev TavTais AEYyEe TALS EVTOAALS ONOY TOY VopLOV Kat tous mpognras Kpepacbat Te Kat cEnprnoBa), also Orig 1/5 and Orig***. Basil is on both sides. Thus it is by no means certain that NB are right. Their great allies the sah and boh desert them,t and I prefer the harder reading of W. (Soden tat follows Hort and NB etc.)
xxiv. 44, > ov Soxerte wpa (pro 7 wpa ov Soxetre) NBDI 604 892 d vg boh Ath contra reil
It is a little suspicious for Ath joins, and Li says 7 wpa 7 ov Soxere, not going with XB, but Sod follows Hort and NBDI.
+ Plainly then neither sah nor boh used N or B.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 41
Matt. xxvi. 86. > exes mpocevEwpas (p7'0 rpocev€. exer) NBDL fam 69 [non
124]f 83 157 892 Sod® et tetabed f ffih qr sah boh Orig" (Hi 91-2 aeth itluc et orem). This is a place where with a good many others (not noticed) copt and lat together support NB. Read exes evfouae 604 [non —; corrige ed.| after the Egyptian form. Thus at xxvi. 89 mpoehOwr (for rpocehOwv) BMU™* are supported by Latin ‘“ progressus” (d only accedens) and sah boh very distinctly also support mpoedOwv.
Historie Present.
“Tt will be seen in the following lists that the ‘ historic present’ is very frequent in Mark’s narrative, comparatively rare in Matthew’s, and extremely rare in Luke’s.... Now if (as we see was probably the case in other matters) Matthew and Luke made this change of phraseology from Mark, they were only preferring a more usual to a less usual mode of expression. For it appears from the LXX that the employment of the historic present had been up to this time by no means common with the writers of the sacred story in the Kew or Hellenistic Greek... And Dr. J. H. Moulton says that it is common in the papyri.” (‘ Hore Synoptice,’ Hawkins, pp. 1483/4.)
It follows from this that St. Matthew and St. Luke changed the historic present of St. Mark’s source if that source was a written one and the one from which they drew. Or that they found in their ‘‘Q” few historic presents, or if they found them that they changed them.{
Then, later, the papyri show us, and Alexandrian second and third century writers bear this out, that the historic present, and especially the imperfect, came into vogue. Hence the changes in this direction found in 8 and B in Matthew, Luke and John (cf. Matt xiv. 19 xerever Orig 2/3).
If one consults Tischendorf at Apoc. xii. 13 as to eduefev, we read in his note: “N* e£eduw£ev (N* corrupte edwxev).” But it is nothing of the sort. ede«ey is corrupte for edvaxev. I found this confirmed by the full commentary of Oecumenius in Apoc 146 (Messina®) where the imperfect stands in his text and is repeated three times over in his commentary. Gigas’ latin also gives the imperfect. I mention this in an introductory manner, because the text of Oecumenius’ ms of the Apoc. is thoroughly blexandrian and unites the base of N and A, and this (unpublished) passage gives us a true picture of Alexandrian usage. See my article on Occumentus in American Journ. of Philology, Oct. 1913.
{ Hiat 18; apocevéopar xaxer 124, Ome exer 4.2? arm syr.
t This “Q” business seems to me to lack a proper foundation. St. Luke’s language is so utterly his own that he could hardly have used any other written source than notes prepared for his own use. Consult Dr. Hobart’s work on the ‘Medical Language of St. Luke,’ Dublin, 1882. Every page of St. Luke’s Gospel is saturated with his own way of expressing matters, now expanding, now contracting the narrative, but ever with a method, a manner and a diction which are personal.
42 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Matt. Kili. 28. Aeyouow (pro esrov) NBCD 383 (Sod) 157 892 Sod" latt pl (against rell and f ff; q sah boh arm aeth)
How come NB to desert coptic here? The authorities do not agree about this verse, for B drops the Sovdc: so as to make a pair o Se edn avrois . . ot Se Aeyoucw avto, and BC write avtw Aeyovow while ND Aeyovew avtw; and edn at the beginning is changed to the present by the Latins ait. Cf the next verse ¢yow or deyee NBC Jatt (all varying among themselves) against edn and evev of the majority. Cf also long quotation from Epiph™*" in Tisch. showing some interesting variations. (—avtw Sod cum pers).
xiii. 52. Neyes (pro ecmev) B**DIJ 892 Sod'** 444 yg it
But this is more than a historic present (Aeyovow avTw vas‘ eyet avtois...) to conform to the Aeyovew preceding, for it shows that when reyes follows Aeyovew thus, B°* does not object as the historic present is maintained, while elsewhere to avoid tautology (see under “ Improvement” Matt. xii. 48, Luke ix. 21) Aeyovrs is substituted for ewrovrs following €L7rev.
We shall see much more later on of the historic imperfect favoured by the Alexandrian school and B. An illustration offers at Matt. ix. 9 of & (who also elsewhere prefers this) deliberately siding with D 21 892 d alone of all authorities (+ Sod*** et Sod txt!) for nxodovbe: here instead of nxodovbncev, which should be noted, as it opposes all other Greeks, and all Latins (but d@) and both coptics.
In the very next verse but one (ix. 11) NBCLW 892 al*"4 prefer edeyov with many latins to evrov against the rest and d k copt. Soden txt does not adopt edeyov although his same new MSS as in 1x.9do so. Again
ix. 19. nxorovbes NCD 38 Sod‘ (non txt) lati”; neodovOnoce B reli copt f k 28. They prefer this historic imp. even above the historic present, having here eheyer NBD 892 it?! boh, against dixit c gi h k sah syr Sod“ ecmev, and Aeyee CW unc! gr mult
The same applies to ix. 30 where NB* fam 1 22 892 (those faithful adherents, see at vi. 5, 18) Sod'”® et txt prefer eveSpinOn to eveBpimnoato of all the rest and versions (but comminabatur by aeths+ Walton)
xv. 25. mpocexuve: (pro mpocexuvycev) N*BDM 1 fam 13 33 al. tat rec Orig be a fi giz k boh*™ (sah adorans)
This is against all other uncials and W for mpocexuyncev including boh. (At xv. 31 B has edofacav with most, but NL min® and Latin huve
edo£afov. I mention it because k* not content with clarifica- bant actually has clarijficant.) xv. 36. ediSou (pro cdaxer) NBD 1 fam 13 33 157 892 d Chr Thdor™r schol
This against the other Greeks, all other Latins and versions. Why should the ‘“ Antioch” revision have constantly cancelled the historic imperfect? ‘Jar more likely that NB made the changes. A scholion is always a dangerous adherent for them, as here. We would surely
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 43
find a trace of dabat in a or e or & if legitimate. This remark is the more apposite because immediately afterwards at xv. 37 B alone with D and nearly all Latins has an important change of order which is clearly influenced by the Latin. (ed:dou xv. 36, Sod'*** only new witness, but also Sod txt). Matt. xvii. 20. o Se reyes (pro o S$ eerev) NBD 1 fam 18 83 it syr et Sod tzt contra C rell gr ct af g2n q eopt. xviii. 25. exer (pro exyev) Not content here with every and habebat of all Latins, B with only Sod 1 56 58 124 Sod Orig 1/2 makes a deliberate change to the present. xix. 21. reyes (pro edn) B Sod and fam 13 only of Greeks, with latz. xxi. 18. This is a very important place (following xxi. 1/12 where the synoptic influences are all at work). NBL 124 [contra fam] 892 with boh aeth*™ Orig 2/4 and Hus (and only these + Sod") read arovesre, making an historic present of it, “‘ but ye make it a den of thieves.” 604 avoids it and against it are the mass including DW with eromoare as Basil (and St. Luke), and 1 Justin Orig 2/4 merounxate (as St. Mark) and as latt “‘fecistis” with sah arm and Ireni™, But Soden txt prints rocerte.
Now the reason for the change by Orig 2/4 and Hus with boh aeth and only NBL 124 892 to zovecre appears most subtle. It would make three various readings in Matt. Mark and Luke instead of two (= one, because aorist = perfect). In Jeremiah vii. 11 no verb is used, the verb appearing in verse10. Thus10 fiz: ro un Troe wavra ta Bder. TavTa COn- tinuing (11) zy orndAatwy AnoTwY, 80 that, as ‘To wy Tovey” is used, there seemed liberty here in Alexandria to employ the favorite historic present.
xxi. 43. Observe a place emphasising the historic present [which here stands unchanged by all} for after dca rovro Aeyw vy NB Sod 28 64 118-209 243 2Pe 604 892 Sadi" 1 Husts septem with Arnob omit or. Here boh sah [except boh™] retain the usual introductory xe, as also syr and Jat, This matter is omitted in Tisch N.T., but supplied in ‘Hmendanda.’
NorE.—I dare not extend this essay to cover peculiarities of other Mss. Yet note that the historic present is favoured by L alone even when the others do not use it, e.g. xxii. 4 amootedker pro ameoterev Li only, although leaving aecteXev in ver 8 [Iren vers 3 “et mittenti”; Hil. ver 4 “qui vero iterum cum preceptorum conditione mittuntur’]. L of course is close to the “family ’’ NB, and observe soon after that L Orig Iren™ are alone in omitting avrov at xxii. 6, so that the text is “old” enough for azooreAXex in ver 4 to attract attention. Origen, as I have said before, is no fair representative of any pure text, for hereabouis he goes jumping about in his preferences, using aveAev at xxii. 7 (and deliberately, for he repeats ava:pover [observe the tense] soon after) with fam 1 22 against arwrecey of NB rell. Again, ver 8 he omits eotuw with Chr Dam and A only and Sod",
44 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
I may also call attention to the use by & alone at xxvi. 21 of Acyer for evrev of our Lord’s opening speech at the last supper.
And as bearing on the freedom with which such matters were handled in the time of Tatian, we notice that when quoting St. John i. 5 (contra Graecos) instead of saying «al % oxotla avto ov xaténaBev, Tatian 8ay8: Kal todTO dati dpa Td elpnuevoy* } cxoTia TO has ov KaTANapPBaveL.
Next we will consider Harmonistic Readings, and finally General Improvement.
Harmonistic Omissions. Matt. : xx. 16. The final clause woAAot yap etou KAnTOL odAvyou Se ExdeKTOL 18
removed by NBLZ 36 892 sah boh (some aeth mss, not Walton), but only by these, as being an importation from xxii. 14, But Orig>* witnesses for it at this place (besides thrice at xxii. 14). The Latins are a unit with all the Syriacs (both cu and sim being extant here at xx. 16) for the clause, not even ¢ or f or r, joining what I must regard only as an “Egyptian” conspiracy, and so I enter this also under “Coptic.” It is not a question, I am sure, of the coptics sharing an underlying text of NBLZ, for D is against them and W and all the rest, nor do the sympathising cursives join NB, not even 33, which here keeps with its great friend Origen. Here then our xIx century restoration did not give us even Origen’s Greek Testament, and Hort accuses him e stlentio of having failed to report the “ shorter” text here. But Hort had doubts, for he puts the disputed clause in the margin. Not so Soden, who simply excludes (with > 4“ #),
A light is thrown on the proceeding (but we do not observe these things contextually as we should) for at the beginning of the next verse B and 1 alone of Gks, with sAH BOH and Orig (only 2/3), write pedrAwv Se avaBawvew for cat avaBawov against % and the rest. Thus if the text were basic in xx. 16 jin for the “ non-interpolation,” why should N desert B here? It must be because B was following sah.
Again (same verse xx. 17) tous dwodexa (—pa0nras) is read by NLZ and D 1 892 with boh, but sah joins B in writing tous Swdexa pabntas (+avtov sah 1/2), so that sah and B are very close here. As to an underlying text, it is NS (or syr cu sin tous dwdexa avtov) which preserve it, for Orig (quater) goes with N against B here. Besides N gives us the syr base in the next verse xx. 18 evs Gavatov with boh?! pers for ev Oavarw (which B aeth omit).
xxii. 80, —rTov Geou BD fam 1 and all latt vett (but fi gio 2 syr cu sin sah arm and Orig, but probably because of Mark xii. 25.
xxili. 38. —epnuos fin. Only BL ff, syr 8 boh (some) and sah 3/4. The
group clearly belongs together, except perhaps syr 8. Origen
opposes (except Orig™® semel) and Clem arm aeth Eus Cyr
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 45
oe Iren™ Cypr have it. What is this but a harmonistic “shorter”? text based on the omission in Luke (xiii. 35)?
Many add epnyos in Luke, but there it would seem that the
evidence for the “shorter text” is ‘‘overwhelming.” Soden
does not adduce a single new witness for omission in Matthew.
Harmonistic Additions.
vi. 22. +oou (post ofOaruos prim.) B 372 it?! vg’® aeth Orig ex Lue xi. 84 against & and the rest. vill. 9. +raccopevos (post expe vo e€ovorav) NB 4238 273 372 421 q** (observe the extraordinary comment these six utterly diverse cursives offer on the situation, for it is not fam 1 or fam 13 or even 22 or 28, still less 157 or 33 or 892, which add with NB; such a point is quite lost by Soden who neglects the cursives previously reported, naming only 273 372) boh (sah) latt multi Chr (semel!), against all the rest ; comes from Luke vii. 8. (The excuse for the Latin [but f ff, 1 vgg" Hier and some others do not add] is that the Latin swb potestate is rather bare without the addition of constitutes.) xv. 38. +s (ante tetpaxicyduor) B (SN) Sod 1 fam 13 22 33 157 Sod?*° ff, (sah) arm aeth (ex Mare viii. 9) Sod outdoes W-H (marg) adding txt outright.
N seems to have been perplexed, for he and doh only omit in Mark, while in Matthew he has a change of order alone where he adds [and Tisch neglects to accept his witness there by error].
xxiv. 86. +ovde 0 vos N*etP BD 13-124 28 86 Sod™™™" aeth arm it” syr hier [non sin pesh |
This must come from Mark xiii. 32 where practically all have it. I do not wish to discuss this as it borders on another province of criticism, merely pointing out that NB on occasion can add (when it suits them) as well as omit. May I ask why other authorities “omit” here in Matthew while retaining in Mark ?
The O.L. here is very closely related to the Diatess which quotes from Mark xiii. 32, beginning a new paragraph at § xlii. 82 and running Mark xiii. 32/37 straight on.
Harmonistic Changes. Matt.
x. 13. See under “‘ Improvement.” xiv. 5. ewes (pro ort) B alone with 604 (ewady NM) Cf. xxi. 46 for the parallel under consideration.
xvi. 20. everiunoey B*D W-H“' de syr cu against the rest and Orig (ex Marc et Luc). Soden adduces no new witnesses and excludes.
xviii. 6. (improvement) wepse tov tpayndov only NBLZ=M 28 157 y* Sod?" [non tat] Orig 1/2 Bas Cyr (= Marc ix. 42, Lue xvii. 2).
The Latins here (even ¢) in Matt have in (against circa Mark,
46 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Luke) with most Greeks including 1 13 22 Orig 1/2, while only DU d have em.
Orig 1/2 is exceedingly suspicious, and why should zrepe be changed if original ?
Matt. xix. 24. tpnuatos N*B Orig 1/3 (Orig 1/3 rpvparvas cum plur, Orig 1/3 tpumns) Mark x. 25. tenuatos N* sol (Rell tpupadias et BY; al. rpvirnpuaros)
Luk xviii. 25. tpnuatos NBD 49 (rpvrnuatos LR 157 pauc, rpupadias plur)
Thus N is the only one who did not get tired of turning his pages backward and forward and who is consistent throughout.
(Clem, like Orig, varies: Sua rns Tpupadsas THs Bed., Sia tpnuatos padisos, Sia Tpurnpatos Ber., and fourthly simply d:a Bedovns.)
This is a place where we must call in outside assistance to settle a textual difficulty, and the matter appears quite simple.
St. Matthew doubtless wrote 8a rpurnpatos padisos,
St. Mark 4 » Ova (THs) Tpuparsas (Ts) padidos,
St. Luke 45 » a Tpnuatos Berovns.
We find NB changing St. Matthew’s tpuvrnuatos to St. Luke’s tpnpatos, but retaining St. Matthew’s pagudos. We find N changing St. Mark’s tpuyyadsas to St. Luke’s tpyyaros, while retaining the padgidos belonging jointly to St. Matthew and St. Mark, which however fam 13 changes to Bedovns in Mark, as rudely Clem, who mixes up the passages.
Then we find that while NBD give us correctly tpnuaros BeXovns in St. Luke, the others harmonise there by writing, incorrectly, tpurnparos of Matthew or tpvypadsas of Mark, and many pagidos for Bedovns.
I say ‘incorrectly’ because the wording d:a tpnuatos Bedovns harmonises so beautifully with other medical diction of St. Luke that it is hardly possible to challenge the reading of NBD(L) here. I quote from Dr. Hobart, ‘ Medical Language of St. Luke,’ Dublin 1882, p. 60: “‘ The words used by St. Luke are those which a medical man would naturally employ, for Beddvn was the surgical needle, and tphpa the great medical word for a perforation of any kind. But still farther, we meet with the same expression in Galen: @oatrws 8 Kal drt paypa tod SvatpHparos Tis Beddvns Sinpnuévov Evena tod cuvaryew GrAndo ros Ta popta TO Siaterunpévov copatos. And to express the puncture made by the needle: Sia Tov Kara tTHv BedOvnv Tejyatos. Tpfqua, peculiar to St. Luke, in medical language was applied to all perforations in the body, e.g. in the ears, nostrils, vertebrae, the sockets of the teeth, &c.’’ Dr. Hobart adds seventeen other quotations from Hippocrates and Galen illustrating this.
The question thus seems very simple and reduces itself to the fact that NS harmonised all three passages by employing St. Luke’s tpyjyaros
¢ The reading of B* is uncertain, but not rpyparos.
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 47
everywhere, that B did this in Matthew but not in Mark, while the
others, who correctly report Matthew and Mark, go wrong in Luke and
harmonise wrongly there to Mark’s tpuyadias or Matthew's tpurnpatos,
the matter being self-evident by their employ of padidos instead of
Berovns in Luke.
vee 17. For xa avaBawav B says pearov Se avaBavev. B is supported by 1 [non fam] sah boh syr pesh pers and Orig 2/3, but it seems a clear reflection of Mark x. 32 (whence the diatessaron draws) “noav be ev ty odo avaBawvorres es lepocodvya.”” I place this here and not under “Coptic,” but a glance under ‘‘ Coptic” will show that at xx. 8, 16, 34 there is an Egyptian conspiracy involving B in the four places, including xx. 17, so close and careful as to reveal B and coptic as editors, and not as neutrals.
Just so NX +min* exhibits the process on its side at xx. 24 by writing npEavto ayavaxrew with Mark (x. 41 [the diatess § xxxi. opens with the account from Mark x. 41/44]) instead of nyavaxrncav. And if we look beyond to xxii. 40 we find ~odos by N} alone is the way of the diatessaron with all the syriacs and sah boh?!; so that coptic is in sympathy here too.
Xxi. 2. xatevavts (pro arevavtt) NBCDLZ® 892 al” Orig 1/2 Eus 1/2 borrowing from Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30 where carevaytt stands by all. (See under “ Synonyms.”’)
7. ew avtwv (primo loco) NBDLZ® 33 69 892* Sod™ Origrs (against evravw avrwy of all the rest)
This seems to be merely a reflection of Mark xi. 7 em avrov and Luke xix. 35 ewe tov wwdov.
Tisch forgets to say that the rest of the 13 family omit the preposition altogether and write avtw.
xxi. 12. —rov Qeou (cf Mare xi. 15 Luc xix. 45) See under “ Coptic” and beyond under “‘ Improvement.”
25. ev eavtots (pro wap eavrows) BULM?Z 157 372 892 min® (copt) Cyr. This seems merely a “nicety” of harmony to Matt. xvi. 7 and 8 where ev eavrows is used on both occasions without fluctuation among mss. Why then should “ Antioch ” change at xxi. 25 to map cavtos? What reason would there be? xxli. 39. devtepa (~Se) NB 4 157 Sod? only (against the versions and sah boh pl) with sah™ boh®'*®™ comes from Mark xii. 31 “ deuvtepa avtn.”” Observe that B improvises (alone) in Matthew by substituting ojovws for opova avtn. XXVii. 29. trepieOnxay B18l. ef Mare xv. 17 wepiriOcacw. 33. els Tov Toroy Tov Be cf Luc xxiii. 33 exactly.
Here is harmony in full blast in this “neutral” text. Consult in
the same verse 83 —deyouevov by N alone (= Marc xv. 22) and the
48 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
picture is complete as to both NS and B harmonising in exactly the place where they should be most careful not to do so if they expect our confidence elsewhere.
{I would call attention to xxvii. 35 without any emphasis because the reading in the photographic edition of B cannot be determined. No mention of it is made in Tischendorf’s notes, but in Gregory’s Emen- danda attention is directed to B* Sveyepicay for Steyepicavro. In the photograph it reads AlemepicA™ with a very small to which was perhaps added by an early corrector. In the LXX as in B’s own text of Ps. xxii. the reading is Sewepecavro. If Sveyeproay B* be correct we have an elimination of sibi after diviserunt with cf fo gio 7 72 Aug?™ and vg omn (exceptis BQX Cerne dimma)t and syr, but sah boh are explicit “among them.” In Mark xv. 24 the expression is Siapepifovrar ta ysaria avtov, but in Luke xxiii. 84 (where B had just been looking; see above as to eis Tov Tozrov -Tov) it is Stvapepsfowevor Se ta tuatia, without any reflexive attribute. In Jo. xix. 24 the quotation shows Sveyepicavto, while in verse 23 the procedure is carefully explained, involving the middle voice, for it is said of the soldiers «AaBov ta watia avtov Kas eToinoayvy TETTAaPAa Een EKATTD TTPATLWTN pEPOS, KAL TOV xiTwva. | Matt.
xxvii. 46. eBoncev BL W2 33 69-124 218 604 Sod™ only as Mark xv. 34. All others with S and Hus Bas aveBonoey and a d ff, go h vgiandR (boh) exclamavit.
ibid. eXwer eAwer B (and sah) with cdo ehor N 33 (and boh) seem distinctly to favour the Marcan form. Observe that syr differentiates between the words used in St. Matt. and St. Mark as do most Greeks, whereas NB alone, as usual, obscure the issue. Yet Hort found absolutely nothing “ Alexandrian ” or ‘‘ Egyptian” in codex B. Here, absolutely alone, it is with sah in a particular form. He abandons the spelling of B here for that of N, although he was glad enough to seize eSonce of B in the same verse against XN. The Revisers recognise the harmony, and go back to aveBonoev and Ha: Hu, but the evidence in Souter’s footnote is wrongly stated.
General Improvement.
li, 22. Baotrever tys Tovdavas (—ems) NB 892 min pauc arm Eus. Contra rell et it et sah o tippo ex fowaaia sed boh plane xe apoceAaoc eTo! Noepo efiovacs = NB. NB ex boh, vel boh ex NB?? (Soden follows NB.)
+ In the quotation itself, omitted by most Greeks and d f ffi.2 gil vggl5t, sidt is found in a bc gz h q ra (mut r) vgg, but omitted by two vulgates™ 0.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 49
The answer seems given in this same verse where NBC*W alone change the order of npwdou tov marpos avtov of all anD sah boh to tov TaTpos avtov npwoov. (Sod does not follow, recognising synoptic influence.) Had sah or boh been copying NB they might have used this order.
v. 10. evexa Stxatoovyns (pro evexev Sx.) B solus. This is as clear as can be, preferring eveca before a consonant, besides being largely Homeric and classical. Cf Xoyou evexa “‘ dicis causa,” or Texvns evexa (Anth). But B repeats evexa next verse before ewov. [N does not join B. Soden forgets to record B.]
Observe, however, that B leaves evexey exou alone before a vowel at x. 18, 89, xvi. 25, Mark viii. 35, x. 29 primo loco, Luke ix. 24, but alone makes it evexa exov at Mark xiii. 9.
At Matt. xix. 29 it is N which objects to evexey tov eyov. &, with D and Cyr, writes evexa tov eyov, while B here remains with the rest. If B changes in one place and N in another we may be perfectly sure that it is editorial.
At Mark x. 29 evexey rou evayyedtov is now left alone by NB reil, and only changed here to evexa tov evayy. by D 71 and as Tisch. says “casio” (a few omit the clause). At Luke xxi. 12 all evexey tov ovopatos except D 71 who are for evexa tov ovop.
At Luke vi. 22 all are agreed as to evexa tov viov except inconsistent D who with FYPWI writes evexey tov wou, reversing his position.
At Luke xviii. 29 NB with Sod®*" prefer ecvexev tns Bacireias (evexev Ts Bac. the rest, except U 71 which here desire evexa).
At Matt. xix. 5 NBLZ Orig change evexev tovrov to evexa rovtov. It seems quite clear that Matthew wrote evexey throughout his Gospel.
At Mark x. 7 evexev rovtov is left unchanged by all.
At Luke iv. 18 ewexey eyypicev or evexev eyypioev are found.
I am far from saying that Neve or Bseribe or even Derive made the changes, but their texts at some time in Egypt when in papyrus book form were no doubt tampered with in order to try and make the matter smooth.
Outside the Gospels we find. Acts xix. 82 evexey cuvednAvbecay most, but evexa suvedX. NAB and four cursives; xxvi. 21 evexa Tovrwy apparently all; xxviii. 20 evexey yap tTys edmidos all but N*A which write ecvexev here ; Rom. xiv. 20 wy evexev Bpwuatos all; 2 Cor. iti. 10 evexev tys vmepRarnr. do&)s most and many Fathers, but ewexev rns um. S0&. by NABDEF**GP ; 2 Cor. vii. 12 evexev ter with infinitive by most including NB, only ewexev EK and L (primo loco) Thdt Oec. From this it is abundantly clear that changes everywhere are wilful. (Sod adds a few codd. varying.)
Matt.
vi. 7. vroxpitat Bj and syr cu [non syr sin pesh diatess | eOvixot all the rest
The verse runs : “ zrpocevyopevor Se pn Battodoynonte warep ot cOviKos * doxovert yap ott ev TH TOAVAOYLA auTwY eLoaxovOnoovTaL.”
B
50 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
Clearly vroxpitas is an “‘ improvement,” being set up as a better antithesis to BatroAoynontre than e@vixot would seem to be. ‘There is nothing “neutral” about this, and Origen is against it. Mirabile dictu W-H do not follow B here. How can Hort then account for what he wrote (p. 237) about the “simple and inartificial character” of ‘the few remaining individualisms of B,” “happily guiltless of ingenuity or other untimely activity of the brain ” ?
See Hort vol. ii. ‘Select Rdgs.’ p. 10 on Matt. vii. 138 “Or, as we rather suspect, as one of those rare rdgs. in which the true text has been preserved by N without extant support, owing to the exceptional intrusion of a late element into B (of which some examples occur further on in this Gospel).” But B is full of these intrusions and not only in Matthew!
Matt. xi. 15. —axovew BD 32174 604 dk syr sin (0 eywy wra [ axovew | axoverw)
xii. 9. —axovey NBL a e ff, k syr sin (0 exwv wra [axovew] axovetw) Here it is clearly seen that B #& and syr sin are the consistent ones in omitting. It might be thought basically “neutral” (= shorter text) but that there would be no reason to add axovew as all the rest do including copt.
xiii. 48. —axovesy N*B Sod 604 a b e k vg" [non D d syr sin T] xii. 48. tw AeyovTs (pro Tw ev7rovTt) NBDZI* 7 33 892 Host alig. Following ewrev to avoid tautology. See similar case at
Luke ix. 21. (Soden follows Hort here in Matthew.)
Other instances of this can be adduced, as at Matt. xxvi. 26. For evyapiotnoas of most (and W 28) evroynoas is substituted by text recept with NBDLCGZ mina for the blessing of the bread. This appears very like an effort to vary the evyapiornoas occurring again in the following verse 27 of the cup. For note that in St. Paul’s account in 1 Cor. xi. 24/25 the expression is evyapiornoas and that of the BREAD.
24/25. ckaBev aptov Kas evyaptotnaoas exdace Kat eve (NaBeTE
ayete) TOUTO “ov EGTL TO Twa TO UTEP VwY (KAwWpEVOY) TOVTO TTOLELTE ELS THY ELNV AVALVYHCW. WTAVUTWS Kal TO TOTHpPLOV. eee
Thus evyapiorncas is tied to the bread, and weavrws implies evyap:- atnoas de novo as to the cup. .
Whichever way we turn the NB grouping seems to be convicted of an endeavour to improve; in this case however the textus receptus is involved as well. Here Griesbach and Scholz I believe rightly oppose it. For such repetition is not distasteful to the Semitic mind. (See beyond on Matt. xix. 4.) But Soden reproduces evyapiotnoas in Matt.
Matt.
xiii. 36. Siacagpyooy (pro Ppacor) N*B (Orig semel) syr, but no cursives. Sod adds j and °° of uncials, of fam ¢* four cursives, and prints Stacadyoor in his text. Of the five next, four are omissions :
+ But syr sin has wacaxls for wasazeal of syr cu. Syr cu has axovew both at xi. 15 and xiii. 9.
BIN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 51 Matt.
a 45. ewrropw ( pro avOpwrw ewropw) N*BI50 59 Sod"? Ath Cyr 1/2 Chrys Ambr [Habent Orig Cypr gr plur syrr diatess arab latt] om ETrop@ vg diatess
The two words occupy one line in D d, and Cyr 1/2 is significant, while Orig and Cypr flatly contradict NB [Tert is silent].
The coptic is interesting, for unlike Gr-syr-lat order: avOp. epropw they say europe avOpwmre a “ merchant-man”’ as we would say in English.
&Vi. 18. Tuva (ue) Aeyovety o1 avOpwrot evvat (Tov) viov Tov avov quem (me) dicunt homines esse filium hominis.
This ye is omitted by NB 604 Sod*” [no other Greeks] syr hier copt aeth only c of O.L. and some vgg coda (8) against Hier specifically.
He isincluded by syrr it pl and Iven and all other Greeks. Clearly this omission is not “shorter” text, but constructional improvement, There could not be a clearer case where the Syriacs are specific with the Latin, and the Coptic only support NB as a distinctly Egyptian group joined by aeth and c also clearly of Egyptian provenance, yet Soden excludes.
[ X’s graeco-latin tendency is seen clearly in the neighbourhovd Xvi. 27 ra epya for tnv mpakw with d [contra D® rnv rpakw] opera sua and other Latins and copé.
No doubt the origin of the plural is due to an old unpointed syriac preceding the Latins which could be read either way. Hence as Latins and Greeks (except N*EF min*4) divide squarely here, the Latins did
not get it from the Greeks but from the Syriac. ] Matt. xxl. 12. “Kas econdOev a ta ets To Lepov Tov Geav.”
But NBL 13 33 73 604 892 Sod sah bok acth b Meth Chr Hil and Origen 2/5 omit tov Geov. On the supposition of the ‘“ shorter” text of course W-H follow suit with the omission. But is it not a gross mistake? Who would put in rov Oeou? ‘And Jesus went into the Temple” is quite sufficient. If the original writer did not have rov Geouv why should any add? The plain fact remains that Origen being on both sides gives away the change as an arbitrary excision, for the words appeared redundant. I cannot allow that the addition was made by scribes, but claim that NBL omitted as a redundancy. This is one of the few places treated by W-H. See their note in vol. ii. (‘Select Read- ings’) p.15. What they mean by “overwhelming” t evidence for omission I fail to see, “ overwhelming” meaning only three uncials (closely related), a pitiful handful of cursives, the arm (all mss?) aeth, and coptic,
t They write: “The absence of rov deov from Me xi. 15 Le xix. 45 (ef Jo. ii. 14) at all events cannot weigh against the overwhelming documentary authority for omission.” But the omission is doubtless traceable to Origen, who in his commentary on John (Book x. § 15) cites the three Gospel accounts, leaving out rov Geov in Matthew, as in Mark and Luke where the words are really absent. Elsewhere when quoting Matthew Origen has them. Soden holds rov @eov against NBL and his ™, although he has been religiously following them in a host of other things! Why are they right elsewhere if wrong here?
E 2
52 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
with Origen against them in proportion of 3 to 5 on the side of all other Gk documents and all Latins but 6, and all syrr, while syr cu actually doubles it, reading “‘ And Jesus entered the temple of God and put forth from the temple of God.”
The calling of NBL copt aeth “ overwhelming” is undignified. It represents one single tradition. See under “Coptic” for probable harmonistic reasons for the omission. Soden does not omit. cri 6. wept Tov tTpayndov (pro emt or es Tov Tp.) NBLZZNM 28 157
237 253 258 y* al. pauc. Orig (SEMEL) Bas Cyr bis This clearly tells the tale. Orig only once, Cyril twice. The Latins oppose and the Syriac, but NB thought “about his neck’ was better. Why are 604 and 892 absent? The coptic does not agree with NB here. Schaaf and Gwilliam translate ‘‘ad collum” for the same syr expression. Only Burkitt says “about his neck ’”’ for the same syr preposition. It is clearly only a matter of taste, and in view of the circumlocutory nature of syriac prepositions (Schaaf p. 114 “circum, circa, ad, juxta, prope”’) it seems evident that NB are only “improving.” How could zeps have dropped out of the rest if basic? Soden refuses this “‘ nicety.”
xVili. 15. cay Se apaptnon (—eus oe) 0 adeAdos cov This is a radical and important change committed by NB 1 22 234* sah Orig Cyr Bases and clearly wrong. When D parts company with NB and goes with the mass and when that mass includes all the Latins and Syrr we may be sure NB with or without Origen are striving for improvement. We cannot consider a shorter text per se. We must investigate how each of these changes came about. Boh?! here oppose sah with arm aeth Chr Lucif Hil ete. who are all conjoined with +928, of the Greeks
plus Lat and Syr. W* does not omit nor 604 nor 892.
(A reference to Luke xvii. 3 where NB Sod again omit with AL fam 1 42 254 892 but also lat syr copt Clem Dam (Tert) shows that the omission in Matt. was probably influenced by their Lucan text.)
This is immediately followed by an addition which I do not believe is original but due to the “‘ version tradition.”
Matt. xviii. 19 for vzev of most Gks NBDL 892 substitute e€ vuwy with syrr [this seems to be opposed by a much older authority namely Ignatius®bes 4],
aviv 4, 0 KTLCaS am apyns apoey Kat Ondv errotncey avTovs. B 1 22
$0 33 124 604 Sod! & Sod boh sah Orig™* Tit Bostr Method r Ath Clem’°™ use xticas for the more Semitic sroimeas of all the rest.
I ask what can be more clearly an endeavour to improve? Tt avoids the tautology involved and seems clearly borrowed from Mark x. 6 “ azo Se apyns KTLTEws apoey Kat Ondy eroincer avTovs.”
The double use of zovew in Matthew is not abhorrent to the Latins,
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 53
and the Syriacs use the same word rn twice. Nor was it abhorrent to the translators of the L:XX, who render Gen. i. 27:
Kal ETTOLNCTEV O Oeos TOV avOpwrov " KA €LKOVA Geov ETOLNGTEV AVTOV: apoev kat Ondru erounoev avTous.
(Hebrew is yivra X12" bara x13 bara x73.)
In the small support accorded to B note that 124 opposes the family traditions of fam 13 which do not agree, and 1 opposes 118-209. Nothing can be clearer that «rioas is editorial.
Similarly in the same chapter verse 18 B 13-124-346-556 write en for evrev opposing all the rest and 69. Can we really suppose the later edn to be “neutral” opposing all other documents ?
Note that in the answer of the young man at Mark x. 20 the record of NB(C)A is edn, and returning to Matt. xix. 18 note that at the beginning instead of Aeyes avTw movas, NL substitute roas Pnocv, and B 18 edn avrw woas, all apparently in the nature of corrections, yet not in agreement with each other.
Two verses lower Matt. xix. 20 we find Origen (as well as aA. opposing the correction of NBDI 1 22 604 of edvaaka for epurataym while edvaata is read in Mark x. 20 by Orig Clem DA and 28 [not 28 in Matthew] and there in Mark opposed by NBCNWX. In Luke xviii. 21 most read edvaataunv but NABL fam 1 efvraka. It would seem as if in both Matthew and Mark NB take the wrong line.
xxiv. 16. devyerwoav e+s ta opp» BDA 892 min alig Patr et latt for ob. ert ta opn. It is much more likely that ew: should be changed to.es, than es to ert. The idea being in the minds of the grammarians that it was a flight To (‘‘in montes’’ Origi™® Ireni* Cypr Aug Hier r vgg) although most Old Latins retain the abl. in montibus (with only vg’), whereas ert ta opy is the more difficult and the most likely, signifying flight ¢o the mountains and upon them when there.
As to Luke xxi. 21 all Gks (but two) have es there. Hence the excuse to harmonise in Matthew is greedily availed of by B. I can see no other outlet. I will not admit that nearly all other Greeks substitute a more difficult em: in Matthew.
et Improvement (Addition). att. xxvi. 44 fin. Tov avtov Aoyov exmov +7radiv, This wad is added by
NBL Sod” 124 (against the family) t @ and boh [non sah]. There is no particular reason for this (syr sin ‘‘and again thus he spake”’; arm ‘‘and again the same word he said’’) unless erroneously incorporated from the wadw occurring above “caw arelwv mpoonv&éato,” for “Tov avtov Aoyov evrov”’ is
t Soden misquotes his «257 (Scrivener ‘a’ Adv. Saer.)
54 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
‘shorter’ text theory, and an abominable redundancy. No cursives but 124 seem to join, and as to a it occasionally does this kind of thing, e.g. John iii. 4 homo +wt nos.t Soden places this second sraduw in his text. Given the ordinary copying of mss, which was faithful enough in the main, how could zadw be dropped by all the rest?
Removing redundancy. Matt.
xi. 25. ott exputpas tavta aro copav kat ovveror NBD 12 Clem>™ (sed Clemr™ libere) Sod*xt non mss All others have amexpupas..amo with Iren® Hus Orig.
This seems clearly to savour of the removal of redundant ar from the verb. Alone it might not seem so, but in connection with the other points in the indictment it would seem to hold good.
(The Latins can yield nothing of interest here; sah seems to faxour NBD “thou hiddest these for,” but boh is “from.” Coming
close on syriac influence in verse 23 (see elsewhere) expuyas ay trace to this.)
See in St. Luke as to simple and compound verbs.
Further, consider the following improvement :
vi. 5. eas otay mpocevynobe ovn eceabe ws or uroxpitas Nt BZ 1 22 372 892 Sod*”® a b (c h nolite esse) f ffi go 5 [contra As] l vg goth sah boh aeth syr hier arm Orig Chr Aug Sodtxt Kal oTaY Tpocevyn OVK Eon woTrEp oO vIoKpitat DW rell syr cu d k gq [om ver. sin] diatess (hiant ¢ ffz mr 12)
¢ In this connection it may be interesting to connect a@ with Ber, which can be done in several places. But they touch in quite a peculiar matter of order, which deserves notice, at Luke viii. 23. For
kat xareBy = athayy avepov ets Tv Aum of alll Gks | et descendit procella venti in stagnum of Latins B alone has «, xare8n dada evs THv AtpyNny avepov and a et descenditturbo in stagnum venti }
Wordsworth does not notice this order in a, although quoting G 6 e 1 g for omission of in stagnum (add for omission ff ss in Tisch confirmed by Buchanan). The point I want to bring out is that B is therefore in no way “ neutral” or “pre-syrian”” here. He goes with a document generally called Western or Huropean or Italian (although a is really graeco-syriac-latin) and does so in a place where the omission by other Latins shows how the change of order probably took place owing to some confusion here. Hence Bain combination once more disproves “ neutrality ” for B and classes him with our other documents as a mixture. I will emphasise the point further from a passage very close by, viz. Luke viii. 29. Instead of nAavvero uo rou Samovoy ets Tas epnyovs, B supported only by = (against NS and all the rest) allows himself to substitute amo for vo, which must equate LATIN use of a@ daemonio for agency as sometimes elsewhere.
t N* leaves out ovx eceoGe by mistake. # in correcting gives cai orav rpovevyn ovux eve Oe (showing he knew both readings) and Ne has to set the matter straight.
B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL, 55
This is absolutely and clearly an improvement by a small coterie as above. In verse 8 it runs cov Se rosovros eXenpoovvny so that at first sight we might think that the majority had corrected the plural in ver. § to accord with this singular in ver. 3, but why then, in the first place, allow the plural 0 varoxpera: to stand in ver. 5? If Antioch had done the revising here they might have changed the hypocrites to ‘‘a hypocrite” or ‘the hypocrite,” but then they would have had to alter the whole of the rest of the verse. In the second place it is quite clear that NBZ did the revising (the inevitable Origen joins them) in order to avoid a singular comparison with a plural following. In the third place the change is opposed by DW dk t q and syr cu pesh diatess definitely [sin, the cautious, omits the verse]. For some reason Tisch misstates the evidence, only giving g on the side of D d, while he gives «7! on the other side. But if ever there was a place where we must balance correctly this is one. We now see that i¢”' is wrong, fordk gq witness for the side of D d, and 8 opposing A®™ shows it was the later latin witness which caused this. Sod cannot even produce *° for this.
One word more. Origen, who approves the course of NBZ, nevertheless writes wo7ep for ws (of NBDZ 33), showing that while they were about it NBZ took the opportunity to make this other change, for they prefer ws; to @o7ep on a good many other occasions.
We might refer to Luke xxii. 31/32 for further illustration: Zipev Sipev ideb 6 catavas éEntncato twas Tod cundoca ws Tov GiTov’ eyo Sé edenOnv wept cov iva pr ékdtrn H wists cov.
Here c seeing the difficulty writes ad cernendum without vpdas, but Tertullian ‘‘ wtt cerneret vos,” and Cyprian “ wt vos veraret.”
Another such transition (which Bornemann admits is “intentional ’’) occurs at Luke v. 4 and is highly instructive, for again another Evangelist is reproducing our Lord’s own words: os 8€ ératcato Aadoy elev mpos Tov Lipwva: éwavayaye eis TO BdOos, Kal yaddoate Ta Sixtva tpaw eis dypav. We cover this transition in English by saying ‘‘ Launch out [‘ put out,’ R.V.] into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught,” but the Latins cannot cover it, and they say ‘“‘ Duc (or adduc) in altum, et laxate....’’t
St. Paul is not averse to the method. Observe 2 Cor. xi. 6 “‘ei 6é kal (duitns TO AOyo, GAN ov TH yvwoer’ GAN’ ev rravTl harepwHéyTes (or havepwocavtes) év macw eis tas.” This is not quite so obvious, as éyw
+ Horner simply follows Tischendorf and only quotes q, so that he has failed to clear the matter. & has “et cum adoras non erit sicut hypocritae.” Unfortunately e ff, are wanting and m rr, If we refuse dk syr cw (conjoined here) a heavy vote in the proceedings what is the use of talking of them elsewhere as primary witnesses ? The public cannot judge intelligently when the evidence of these witnesses is obliterated from carelessness.
+ Wiclif is however true, and says “ Lede thow into depthe, and slake your nettis to take fisch.”’
56 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
with infinite reserve (as is usual with St. Paul) is suppressed. In our
English version on the other hand we have to bring it into pro-
minence: “But though I be rude in speech yet not in knowledge
{emphatically R.V. ‘yet am I not in knowledge’] but we have been
thoroughly made manifest among you in all things.” (R.V. varies this
diction.)
Another beautiful example is forthcoming in St. Paul’s writings, which although a little long Iam tempted to reproduce here and put it on record in this connection. I refer to Rom. xii. 16-20.
Ver 16 is plural : 16 abré eis ddAHAOUS foovodvTes* ply TA INrAA HpovobvTes, GNA Tois TaTreLvois cvvaTraryopevos’ wn yiver Oe Hpdviportrap éavTots.
Follows a kind of singular idea holding the plural :
Ver 17, 18, 19. undevl waxdy dvtl Kaxod drodiovtes* mpovoovpevot Kara évérriov Tdvtav avOpoTrav’ ei Suvatov, TO e& tuadv, weTa TdvT@Vv avOpdrrav eipnvetoytes* pr Eavtods éxduxobytes, dyarntol, GAAd Sore tomov TH Spy (yéypaTTas yap ‘“‘’Eyot éxdixnows, éyw dvtaTrobacw, Neyer KUpLos.’’)
Now follows immediately the singular, only separated by the parenthetical quotation above :
Ver 20. "Edy odv (vel adrAad édv) rewd 6 éxOpds cov, Worle avTov'
. dav Sid, worele adtov’ todto yap wordy, avOpaxas mupos
owpevoets eri Thy Keparyy avrod.
The interesting part is that he holds this singular in ver. 21 instead of summing up with the plural:
PN ViKw bd TOU KaKod, GAG vira ev TO ayaO@ Td KaKdv.
This again is lost in our English, for we translate :
“Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good,” which might be “Be thou... ” or “‘ Be ye...”
Now to return to Matt. vi. 5 and Luke v. 4. Of course there are no cross references between these two verses, yet it is instructive to note a point which occars here. There are no variations among Mss in Luke v. 4 except as to ws de or ore (D dae) at the beginning, but at the end fam 1 and 22 Sod’ omit ets aypav. Now these (fam 1 and 22 Sod1"*) are the very Mss which alone support NBZ in Matt. vi.5. I may say here that we are very much in need of a new collation of Evan 22. We do not know, to this day, whether “colb’”’ or “‘colb unus”’ of Wetstein’s Colbert Group means 22 or another. Consult Matt. vi. 18 a very little way farther on, xpuvdaww (for xpurtw) bis is found only in NB(D) 1 [against 118-209 this time] and 22 372 Sod”, showing they are simply descendants of the same family. [872 (=Sod**) joins here, absolutely of B family, not recorded above.] Soden cpupaiw.
xpugazos is more classical (or poetic, Pindar Aesch Soph ; Xen Plato use both) than xpura, but only occurs in the N.T. as xpudy Eph. v. 12.
But, I may be told, do you mean to put aside NBZ Orig supported by sah boh goth it® Aug? And I say yes, because before the benevolent
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 57
reader will have finished perusing these pages he will find that NBZ Orig sah boh represent but one text recension, and it® Awg no doubt are turning a difficulty ¢ as well, seeing that they are not supported by d k (unfortunately ff is wanting here in the early part of Matthew). Adhesion of the gothic here to NBZ is unusual and might be considered a balancing factor, but for the fact that it is abandoning its usual adherence to the other group, and therefore I consider its position to be suspicious also of “improvement.” As we find the syriac stand aloof from NBZ with d & D and all other Greeks we can see pretty clearly that the singular in apposition to the plural following is the correct reading and not the converse.
As a matter of fact we ourselves are in the habit of using the same construction. We say currently ‘‘ Don’t be like the sharks down in the market place’ (meaning ‘‘Do not thou be like...”) Similarly the French say: “Ne sois pas comme les Anglais qui...” or the Germans: “ Sei nicht wie die Amerikaner...” £
Finally observe in the same chapter vi. 16 agavifovow yap to tpoowmov S 2449, k syr pesh pers for apavifovew yap ta TpogwmTa.
Note also in Matt. vii. 16 pnts cvdAXeyouow amo axavOwv ctagvAny CEGKLMSUVWXATI al. pl arm aeth Lucif (although opposed by NB(C) Sam 1 22 892 latt syr goth copt with otapvaAas) may be the right reading ; observe LWX for oradurny and Clem (but cf. Luke vi. 44).
Improvement (continued). Matt.
vi. 8. Addition: 0 Geos o watnp vpwv N*B sah [| W-H] non Sod? xs 0 TaTnp vawv D reli et verss sine o Oeos
vii. 8. avouyerat (pro avowynoeta fin) Bonly (and syr cu boh Aphraat). Clear ‘‘improvement” to correspond with AapBave and euptoxet above, against Clem ® and all other Greeks, Latins and sah. B does it again (alone with D, which is here wanting) at Luke xi. 10 absolutely for the same reason. Sod attributes both readings to mere error (p. 908 Band I Abt. 11). He is indeed charitable. But W-H do not agree with him, printing them marg. in both places.
ix. 28. Order: ots rovro durayat romncat only Bl gq and vg against ore Suvvayac in first position all others and versions (although varying somewhat otherwise ; see under NB in Part ID).
x. 2. +xat ante vaxwBos NB d (contra D*) syr (contra rell gr et latt sah boh aeth). When XB abandon coptic sympathy there is always a reason, and this must have been considered an im- provement. Why should all the rest drop it? (-+«az Sod? ™),
{ They are clearly wrong with B again in vi. 22 reading, “The light of the body is thine eye”’ (from Luke xi. 34) instead of ‘ the eye.” N here opposes B, and with f goth syrr sahomn bohoma and Clem Eus is certainly right.
} See Winer, p. 778 (* Breviloquence,’ section 2 f.) comparing Kenophon (Cyr. 5, 1. 8) opocav rats Sovdais ecye THY evOnra. AS to Luke v. 4 it is referred to on p. 725.
58 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Matt.
KX. 8. Oad8asos (pro NeBatos) NB 17 124 sah boh c ffi 9.1 [Non clare Sod]
13. ef vuas (pro mpos vuas) NBW 174 (248) 372 892 Sod”™™.
This is done to complete the idea of “pairs” in the sentence
eipnyn vpev em’ auTny, and expnvyn upwv ef’ vas eTioTpagyTo,
if indeed it be not borrowed from Luke x. 6 em’ avtov..ed’
vpas. Actually 243, instead of strengthening NB, shows this
by adding avaxapyyre: from Luke. There is no earthly reason
why all other documents should substitute apos for ed’ if ed’
were original. The Latins oppose and both coptics differen-
tiate. Needless to say W-H fall into the trap. Soden does not.
I wish to add that & (with C 157 Sod*° only) confirms my view
as to “pairs” immediately afterwards, for at x. 15, not content with 7
codopay Kat youoppwv, it adds a second yn, writing yn codopov Kas yn
youoppov. That this is absolutely gratuitous is proved by the abstention
of the friendly versions.
We shall see much more later and throughout the Gospels as to
this matter of ‘‘ pairs”’ by the Egyptian school.
Improvement (Order).
xi. 26. ots ovtws >evdoxia eyeveto eutrporbev cov NBW 1 33 892% OTL ovT@S >eyeveTo evdoxia eurrpoabev cov Rell The versions do not support NB here. In Luke x. 21 BC*LX& (a perfect family coterie, but against N as well as the rest) have also evdoxia eyevero and there with many Old Latins.
Improvement “* Niceties.”’
xi. 29. mpavs NBC*D Sod*! Clem 1/2 Orig bis Ath 1/2 Bas 1/4 Cyr 1/2 mpacs Rell omn et min omn vid Orig*P? Husre Ath 1/2 Bas 3/4 Cyr 1/2 Chr; et Clem(Strom) daBere tov mpaov A glance at this will, I think, show Alexandrine scholarship preferring the rarer form. Observe how the Fathers are divided against themselves, with the balance in favour of zpaos. Hort says (voli. p. 549) “The perpetuation of the purer text may in great measure be laid to the credit of the watchful scholars of Alexandria, .. .” but here, as elsewhere, the readings vary in different places in their writings. They were far from being “‘ watchful,” but they did enjoy “niceties” even if not consistent in the application of them. ix. 13 and xii. 7. Under this head may perhaps be placed «Acos (for edeov) by NBCD* 1 33 in both places (and again xxiii. 23). Note that all others oppose as well as d and Clem*** (against Origen). The LXX reading (of most of its mss) of eNeos would account for eAeos. For observe in this connection, and in this vicinity, Matt xii. 17/18 wa TANpwOn To pybev Ea Hoaior (xlii. 1/4) tov mpopytov AeyovTos wou o
B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 59
TALS {LOU OV NPETIOA, 0 aryamnTos ov ov (pro eis Ov) evdoxnoev 7 apuyn pov. So N*B 115 244 892 ff, Husbis 1/2 against evs ov evdoxncer of all the rest and latt sy copt. A reference to Isaiah xlii. 1 (Septuagint) shows sapana 0 exdexTOs pov, TpocedeEaTO avTOV 4 uy [ov.
[D* indeed here writes ets ov for the first ov (as syr) against guem of d opposite, and D* has ev w for the second evs ov. |
Matt.
(Questionable.) xl. 29. apraca: (pro d:apraca) BC*WX 892 min” sah? against SiapTracas ND rell omn et latt (diripere) et Mare iii. 27 “ Nicety”’: xii. 82. (sec loco) ov un adeOyn = BS et W-H mg. ov pn ageOnoetar X* ove abeOnoerat Net yell om
This seems a strengthening “nicety”” on the part of B, for Luke xii. 10 = ove ageOnoerat, and Mark iii. 29 ove exes adeowy.
Another ‘‘ nicety ’’ (favoured by W-H and Sod tat** °° %) occurs at:
Xlii. 48. ta Kara aus ayyn (pro ta Kara es ayyera) NBCM**N 1 [non 118- 209] 124 [non fam] 892 Evst 48 (notable conjunction among our minuscules of editorial work) Orig? Cyr>is Isid. aryryerov is a pure Matthaean word occurring only here and at xxv. 4 where ev Tots ayyeioss is left alone by all. I consider ayyn, the non-diminutive form, to be a ‘“nicety” of Origen. The Old Syriac omits here at xiii. 48 saying “ the good (as) good,” but DW and the rest have ets ayyeva (or es Ta ayyta D).
57. The “pair” of clauses here: “in his country and in his house” has given rise to a great deal of variety.
I believe the “‘ received” text to be correct: ev tT waTpids avtou Kat ev TH o1xia avtov. It is read by eleven uncials and LXW®> min pl lait pl syrr Bas Chr and Orig 2/3, and is Semitic. BD 83 604 (al? perpauc) adk = ev 1m rwatpi&s (—avtov) kat ev Ty o1xva avtov making the possessive serve once for the two as W-H. This Origen does not agree to. NZ fam 13 892 ff Orig 1/8 = ev ty edsca warpids Kae ev TH otKta avtov as Sod", L f 9, vg” omit the second clause, but L with 15 uncials including W has ev ty warpiés avrov. C conflates ev ty vdea matpids avTov Kat ev TH ouxta avtov exactly as sah (which probably gave rise to some of the trouble) neqFere Revit MRMeeog...
We see Origen as usual divided against himself, yet not supporting BD for the “ shorter” text, which here I believe to be a mistake by BD.
A study of such “ pairs”? conveys a gcod deal of information. Thus at Guke xx. 20: To “deliver him unto the power and authority of the Governor.” NN 157 Paris and three lectionaries write Tt) apyn xa efouc.a tou nyeu., eliding the second article before efovoia. I mention it because Tisch omits this in his notes (it is added in Gregory’s ‘Emendanda’) and because the Coptic nexx for «as (although it retains the article
60 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.
prefixed to the second noun) may have given rise to this. ‘‘ Pairs,” therefore, are always worth watching.t Sod has no new support for X.
ee 33. NBC?T° 1 22 892* min” ff, copt aeth (Orig?) Did omit edOorres. This is peculiarly interesting, for although 1 omits, 118-209 with 28 substitute ovtes. The very manner of the coptics shows that they had well considered the place, and they too make a great show of ovres. The rest and DW all have eMMorvres, which represents a far more graceful act, and syr cu sin: “came near and.” The point is this. In ver. 32 we read Kat avaBavrov (euBavtwv) avTwv els TO TAOLOV ExOTTaTEY O aVELOS. They had already entered the ship, and for some reason edovres seemed out of place in ver. 33. It is true it does not read (as Tischendorf would have one suppose) ov de eAOovtes ev T@ TAoW...., but ov Se ev Tw TAL EAOoVTES TPOTeKUINGTAY aT. But eAGovres has been removed and not added, I feel sure.
Another “ nicety ’’ obtains in the following verse:
xiv. 34. n\Oov ems thy ynv NBCD*NT°WALONt fam 13 33 157 238 245 Sod™’™ e¢ “ad terram’”’ (sah € OPAl elnkap, boh eHorwn elnkag,t) syr, et syr cu sin diserte
nrOov evs tov ynv Ei rell omn latt “in” et d Orig** et Sod tat
This is a distinction and a ‘‘ betterment.” d opposes D and Origen is against the NB group, whose adherents are none too many. I consider e to be wrongly grouped by Tisch and Horner and to belong to the side I have put it on.
[ A touch suggested by Origen in xiv. 36 is rejected by NB, but not by some of their followers. He would have (bis) wa cay povov aypwvrat with ® 1 [non 118-209] fam 13 [non 124] 22 38 al. alig. All the uncials have wa povov aovra. The vg and some itala (but not de “ut tantum’’) have “ut vel fimbriam...” and f ‘‘ut tantum vel fimbriam.” | xv. 35/36. nat maparyyeras.. .edaBev NBD 1 fam 13 33 W-H Sod
(Orig evOade Se ov Kedever adra TraparyyeNret) Kat exeNeuoe.. . Kat AaBwv Rell Gr fl gq vg AQMAPATTEIE ae..-aqxr sah ows, AYySongen...aqdi bor Kat exédeuoe...Kat edaBev syrabceg, k (et praecepit et accepit)
et cum jussisset. .accepit d
First observe that Origen directs this operation on the part of
t We may cite another instructive instance where N and not B is offended at a “pair” of readings and cancels the second. It is all in the same neighbourhood (see xiii, 28, under Coptic). This occurs at Matt. xii. 37. N alone prefers ex yap rwv Aoyor cov Sixawbnon Kat ex Tov Noywv (—cov) KkatadicacOnoy. Soden does not add one single new witness.
t~ Soden refuses em: (upon what principle ?) against all his 7 family and nine new witnesses.
BIN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 61
NBD*. The comparison is with xiv. 19 where NZ Orig had exedevoev (against xeAeveas of most, xedevcate B* Sod). Observe sah uses a different word here from the one in xiv. 19, transliterating in xv. 35 but not using the participle. d does not agree with the exact participial form of D, nor do any Latins, nor is it borne out by sy. As in 36 init. Syrr and latt (except d) maintain the «av ehaBev of the Greeks, it looks very much (whether «as mapnyyee be correct or not), as if NB had inverted the construction and that xa: wapnyyere (or rapnyyerre Se as sah)... AaBov or kat AaBov was what was intended, and not xas wapayyetdas... ehaBev. For the question is as between ‘‘ Commanding the multitude to sit down...he took the seven loaves...” or ‘‘And he commanded the multitude to sit down...and taking...”
Follows another case of probable “‘ finessing”’ :
Matt.
xvi. 19. ras Kredas (pro Tas KAets) N*B* (both corrected) LW Sod Orig 4/5 against tas «xAes by all others and N°B* Orig 1/5 Eus Chr Phot. Doubtless Origen caused this.
xvii. 4. woinow (pro romowpev) NBC* 174 604 b fi fe. This is different. Because, as mrovnowpey obtains in Mark and Luke (ix. 5, ix. 83), it might be thought that this wouow was the “ neutral” text in Matthew. I think it is a mistake however, as both coptics are against it, as all the syriacs and Origen distinctly. This is a place where we may emphasise the importance of a concurrent study of the versions.
They are so often with us in whole or in part, that their absence here is very important. How come 0 and ff,» of the Latins to join ? In the first place faciam occupies the last place in the short line of 6 and a ligature for us may easily have disappeared or been omitted in copying b or the parents of 6 fi.. As to the parallels, D only indulges in roiunow in Luke (d facio), but in Mark D d for rromow and faciam are joined by no Greeks but by b 7 ff2, all Latin support therefore. The point is perhaps not worth debating, but I incline to think it is an ancient Latin error which has crept into the three places. It is very curious that D, who perpetrates woinow alone among Greeks in Mark and Luke, should be absent from NBC in Matthew. But the other versions are check enough, without speaking of the absence of 892 and others.
A little matter of order follows however in the verse which is highly instructive. B and ¢ alone write cxnvas tpets for tpets oxnvas of all the rest and the versions, incl. Latin. But in Luke this is the order (and of some in Mark). Ergo, B was looking at a parallel, and that parallel probably Luke ix. 33, and his conjunction with e in Matt. shows a Latin sympathy which may have extended to and account for qomow as well.
Xvil. 7. Kat arpapevos avtwy for cat mato avtwy kat NB 892 only. Anyone who will consult the beginning of this verse with its
62 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,
Matt. : three verbs will see that there is an opening for finessing;
NB avail of it; so does sah, and so do some Latins in other respects. But I expect boh or syr is nearest the truth. Soden follows NB 892 with %*. See his note. xvii. 15. xaxos exer (pro xaxws tacye) NBLZ42M Sod cum Orig