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 COLLATIONS OF ‘*THE MorGAN GOSPELS,” AND OF THE GREEK CURSIVES 157 AND 604 (700).

ὃ βίος βραχύς, ἦ δὲ τέχνη μακρή, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς, ἣ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή, ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή. Δεῖ δὲ οὐ μόνον ἑαντὸν παρέχειν τὰ δέοντα ποιέοντα, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν νοσέυντα, καὶ τοὺς παρεόντας, καὶ τὰ ἔξωθεν.

~—Hippocrates (Aphor. I.)

CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES

A Study and an Indictment

PARTA

BY

H. C. HOSKIER

PART I

Codex B and Its Allies

By Hoskier, H.C.

Bernard Quaritch - 1914.

THIS ESSAY IS RESPECTFULLY

DEDICATED TO

THE NEXT BODY oF

REVISERS

IN THE HOPE THAT

id 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 NK] V) 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 γὰρ ἐν λόγῳ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ἐν δυνάμει.---ἰ Cor. iv. 20. .. ἕκαστος δὲ βλεπέτω πῶς ἐποικοδομεῖ.---Ἴ. Cor, iii. 10. ὃ δὲ λοιπὸν ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ.---1 Cor. iv. 2.

1. Τὸ ἰβ high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked.

Jt had not occurred to me to write what follows until recently. I 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—‘ ΤῈ is the business of a eritic 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 many 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 (6... John xiii. 19 as to τίνας pro ods) the evidence of B ai. 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 agree 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 ἐξ, 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 ἃ 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. iil

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 Weitstein’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 hook where the matter is succinetly 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 wel) 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 Hesychius, 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. cb. 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: ‘‘ Praetermitio eos codices quos a Luciano et Hesychio nun- cupatos paucorum hominum adserit perversa contentio quibus utique nec in (toto) veteri instrumento 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 Eusebins

ὁ As to the date of the Decretum Gelasii itself see article by F. ©. Burkitt in ‘ Journal of Theol. Studies’ for April 1918, Ὁ. 470,

ὦ 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 m 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 is 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 tm or anyone else removed what are con- sidered such good readings in NB as:

Matthew vi. 7. υποκριται (pro eOvixot) xvii. 15. κακῶς eyes (pro xaxws πάσχει) xix. 4. κτίσας (pro ποιησας) xx. 84, ομματων (pro οφθαλμων) xxii. 10. νυμῴων (pro γαμος)

Mark ν. 36. wapaxovcas (pro ἀκουσας) vii. 4. ραντισωνται (pro βαπτισωνται) Xx. 16 κατευλογει (pro εὐλογεῖ)

Luke xi. 88, φως (pro φεγγος) xii. 28. audiafer (pro ἀαμφιεννυσι) xii. 56._ ove odare δοκιμαξειν (pro ov δοκιμαζετε) xxii. 55. weptaavrwr (pro ἀψαντων) χχῖν. 33. ηθροισμενους (pro συνηθροισμενους)

John iv. 15. δίιερχωμαε (pro epyepar) xi. 57. ἐντολὰς (pro ἐντοληνὴ xix. 41. ἣν τεθείμενος (pro ετεθη)

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 Egypt.

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 ἃ very ancient base, yet not “improved” on the principles of NB. 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 Hori’s whole classification is now adnutted 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 I 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 Hort’s classification.” —Crum and Kenyon, J.T.S. vol. i. Ὁ. 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. Ὁ. 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 δὲ, it is δὲ 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 is 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 ale Latin and the Itala,’ pp. 52 and 55.

“The text of Westcott and Hort is practically the text of NB. 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 δὲ 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’ δὲ and B occasionally ”’ [over 3,000 real differences between δὲ 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, xxvii. 17, Luke xi. 33, xix. 87] “B presents us with what is evidently a doctored text.” —¥F. C. Burkitt, ‘Hiv. da Mepharreshe,’ vol. ii. pp. 2884.

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 mot 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 Ὁ. iii we have really to distingaish 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. 380.

Hesychius of Jerusalem stated as 0b. 609 by Gregory, but in Gallandius vol. xi. Pref. p. vii as ob. in 433 or 486. 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.

Πάντα δοκιμάζετε " τὸ καλὸν κατέχετε.---1 Thess. v. 21, Γίνεσθε τραπεζῖται δόκιμοι.--- Αρ61165 Epiph. Origen Job

Zou γὰρ, φησὶν [ὁ Κύριος}, ἄνθρωπε, τοὺς λόγους μον ὡς ἀργύριον ἐπὶ τραπεζιτῶν καὶ ὡς Χρήματα Soxtudocat.—Clembhom.

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,+ which I think shows a smaller

1 ‘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 Sinaiticas the following will be found:

CENKAIATIOKPI6 1c

MPOCAYTONEINEN 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 αὐτὸν 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 KAIMNPOCAYTOYCEINE TINGCCYMWNYIOGHBOY:e EIC@PEAPMECEITAIK

we find veos comes below avravs, as in N oves comes below avroy. Hence there was a possibility of error oculi in both places, making for vos in one and ores 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 προβατον is faithfully reproduced in @ OVIS (ovis et bobis), We may even hazard that OVIS might have influenced ONOC in that dim yeriod when “‘ Western” and ‘“ Alexandrian ” texts were linking up.

vill CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES,

acquaintance with the testimony of the Mss themselves than I expected to find in his writings.

On p. 188,4 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 748, or Gregory 579, or von Soden ε 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 δὲ and B are opposed, in over 3,000 places? for he says on Ὁ. 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 NB 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

+ 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 vit/tx + 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 “lpter 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 as 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 corrapt.}

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. 1. 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 nat this 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 αὐ. 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 δὲ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ) it agrees with the codex Sinaiticus,”’

{ Note also the following opinions: “There is this peculiarity about the mss of the treatise De statu animae [of Claudius Mamertus] 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).

¢ 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 δὲ 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 A.D,, 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 ΜΒ of any part of the New Testament, and most fortunately covers a passage where the variants are extremely well marked (viz. Maté. 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 δὲ and B. With & and B (and of course ‘ Westcott and Hort’) it has Boes ft 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 γένεσις in Matt. i. 18 (not yernow), ἃ 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 δευγματίσαι for παραδευγματίσαι (ver 19) and the omission of ὁ βασιλεὺς 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 --ο βασίλευς in ver 6, followed by the statement that “the papyrus gives no support to ‘Western’ texts.” Yet, the omission of 6 βασίλευς is found in the Latins ὃ gi g2 k gat dim and vulgates JMC with

ft = Coptic, as the Coptic in Luke iii. 82, but there πο NB.

1 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 conipare 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. | i, 1 | Oxyr, ¥¥ B YIOY i 4, ΔΑΥΙΔ B AAYEIA 3 ZAPE 4 | 4, AMMINAAAB bis B AMEILNAAAB dis 5 BOEC {but so also δὲ coptk) | IWBHA ( 45 9 NCA cop al.) | 6 --οβασιλες ( 4, 4, NMaletlatt) ,, ΔΑΥΙΔ bis B AAYEIA bis COAOMWNA( ,,, ,,_ most 3188) | » THC OYPEIOY B THC TOY | OYPEIOY q εν» ΑΒΓΕΙΠΑ prim B ABIA » ABEIA sec B ABIA 7/8 ACA® ( » » NOD al) 8/9 OZEIAN -OZEIAG (but papyrus is faint | and pr loco looks like OZIAN) : 9-12" missing ᾿ = ~ 12 | » GEPELNHCEN] prim BO CENNA primt ‘4, Φέϊοα B TON CEAAGIHA i, illeg B CEAASGIHA AE TENNA t 13 » 13/14 Oxyr. illeg but: RN ABIOYT (ef lat) 14 ; - 15 i Oxyr. MAGOAN bis B ΜΑΘΘΑΝ sic bis 16 Pog, IWCHd B TON IWCH® 17 Ϊ ». ΓΕΝΕΑΙ B Al CENEAL fo AAYIA prim B AAYEIA prim : 3 ΔΑΥΙΔ’ sec B AAYEIA sec τ on ter B AGKATECCAPEG ᾿ ter 18 [ENECIC (but so also SCPSZa) - 4 TY X¥ B XY TY yap ( ” ” NCFZ ete) i 19 ' 4, AEIPMALTIEICAlt B AGITMATICAI 20 AAYIA B AAYEIA

ἰ

Ϊ i

Now this more complete tabulation is rather interesting. proves Burkiit’s case as against Burgon then “ figures lie.”

+ Cf Protev’ ad Lave i. 81,

+ Burkitt claims this as against παραδειγματισαι but it is ποῦ absolutely clear whether the papyrus

had παρα,

G, and H. merely say “ there is barely

room for rapa at the end of the line,”

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 maiter is simply absurd. Far more important than ΒΟΕΟ

XH CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

IWBHA or —o βασιλεὺς is the Oxyr opposition to B’s γεννᾷ 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 “ Egypt ") 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 δὲ 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 jirst 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 ΜΒ 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 8 “pre-Syrian.”

INTRODUCTION. ΧΗ]

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 Δ.Ὁ., 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 ΟΡΡΟΒῈ 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 hier and the diatess arab (not to speak of pers, which combines elements of all the Syriacs but principally of sy 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

Iil.

IV.

Vil.

VIII.

Hort’s critical principles B in St. Matthew's Gospel ‘

Editing—Solecisms—Latin sympathy —Coptic sympathy— 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 ἘΠΈΓΕΒΕ τς 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* ὦ and d—aAs 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. :

Further remarks as to the unity of ὦ 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 é

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—Solecisms-—Latin sympathy —(N.T. use of ἕως 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, ete. (272-297)—Conflict with Origen.

PAGES 1-V1 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_ ἐκεῖνος in St. John—Form—Synonyms—Homoioteleuton and homoio- arcton—Compound and simple verbs, on ἐρχομαι and διερχομαι (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. Lnke—As to γενόμενος and eyevero—xxiii. 34 new evidence for and against— Ag to Ccumenius—Hesychius and Origen—Dean Burgon’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 second-century witnesses, Aristides, Theodotus, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Naasseni, Hippolytus, Marcion, ete.—Hustathius and Antioch —On changing symbols of codices—Singular cursive testimony (435-454)—Von Soden’s N.T.—The Κοινή (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 περι and υπερ)

General Index .

PART IT.—VOUL. II.

VARIATIONS BETWEEN δὲ AND B. St. Matthew. : : ᾿ ἢ ᾿ δ Ἶ 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. Satmon, ‘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 1.

‘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 copted.”—Salmon, op. cit. p. 60.

CHAPTER. I. CopEXx B.

Horr’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.

Tt 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 sol at Luke xiii. 27,f of 8B solt at Luke xviii. 12, xix. 48, of BA sold at Luke xxi. 24, of BK soli at Luke xiv. 1 (square brackets) and of B fam 18 solt at Luke vi. 42.

Further, readings of B absolutely alone are dignified by textual notice. Matt. vii. 18 ἐνεγκεῖν. «ποίειν is read absolutely alone by B (see note on this elsewhere), and in Luke iii. 33 του apsvada8, omitted only by B, finds no place in Hort’s text; observe also Luke v. 2 πλοία δυο order of B alone among Greeks; v. 3 εκ τον πλοιου εδιδασκεν B alone ; the omissions by B only of av’ Luke xii. 58, of ἐν Luke x. 31, of προς 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 σταυρωσαι Luke xxiii. 23, θροηθεντες Luke xxiv. 37. Observe also the extraordinary εἰς τὸ ev τρυβλίον 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 καὶ ἡ αληθεια in the threefold claim “1 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 ἐντρεπτίκὴ in Luke xviii. ὃ as an attribute of the importunate widow, as does Evan 28, we should surely have found it in Hort’s text.§ Had B omitted ἐν αὐτὴ τὴ wpa in Luke xii. 12 with 33 and Origen we should have been favoured with this omission. Had B omitted τὴν before πίστιν in Luke xviii. 8 with Ὁ 240 244 we should have been asked so to read. Soden adds two fresh cursives for omission.

Had B added o enoous after ta θαυμασια a εποιησεν in Matt. xxi. 15, as does Evan 28 with Origen and syr hier and i! (α ὃ ὁ 6 7 fis gah rs μ dim gat Wurz" vg?®8®) we should certainly have found it in Hort’s text [ὦ σι 1 ᾳ vg®' do not add, but ¢ does. Tisch. errs in the N.T. as to this witness]. Soden adds 6 30 and ¢ 1091 for this. Observe Origen and r, alone omit ev Tw sepw in this verse.

Had W-H known that Sod 604 supported B at Luke viii. 25 for the omission of και υπακουουσιν αὐτῶ we should doubtless have lost the

¢ Such mss can easily be shown to be but one in stem. For instance B*R together alone at Luke v. 30 eyyoyv(ay for ἐγγογυζον, and again vi. 23 εν τοις ουρανοις for ev τω ovpavw. 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 ἃ 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 mundwm. 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: ratepes αὐτων B 604 (+ sah syr sin), neglected by W-H, yet vi. 81 -- καὶ ὑμεῖς 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 καὶ υπακουουσιν αὐτῶ, 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 ἀξίους xaprrovs into their margin. While at x. 1 —avtovs Β e Eus (now supported by 604 and Paris” and Sods ἢ) is not omitted by W-H. Atvii.47 +xas ante oduy. ayaa 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 πρὸς αὐτὸν 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 αὐτοὺς alone and do not brand or bracket it although B omits. Yet here B had support from e Hus#™ 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 τελειωθησεται (for τελεσ- @noerat), which is found in Paris®’ 60 y** δῦ 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 18 family only, for ro πως of NB and all the rest [except D ὦ arm πως; d follows D with guomodo against guemadmodum of the rest].

Or as at Matt. xv. 22 where 1 [non fam] and Origen read Sewws for κακως, but not NB or any others known (although there may be other cursives) ; δείνως occurs at Matt. viii. 6 and Luke xi. 53.

Or at Matt. xvi. 25 fin for evpnoe: avrnv where Orig Iren and fam 1 33 read ovtws σωσει avTny,

Or as at Luke xxii. 22 where Origen (recollecting eypayrev περι αὐτου of Matt Marc) adds avtw after tw ὠρίσμενον with sah syr hier, syr cu [non sin] aeth περ αὐτου. Had B done this we should have been told it was

+ 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.

Β ἃ

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 περί αὐτου; 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 vravtnces CLX, and συναντησεῖ NB unc" rell), while at Mark xiv. 13 he incorporates into the narrative εἰσελθοντων ὑμῶν εἰς τὴν πολιν 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 ovys Syvapiov συνεφωνησα σοι, and again *, again thro’ int 3.007 gry, Snvapiov συνεφωνησας μοι 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 : “καὶ 0 μαρκος Se κατὰ Tov τόπον ouTws aveyparpe* Kat οτε εγγιξουσιν εἰς ἱεροσόλυμα καὶ εἰς βηθανιαν pos...” and again *74 “Ἴδωμεν de περι της βηθφαγη μεν κατα ματθαιον, βηθανιας δε κατα papKov, βηθφαγη δὲ και βηθανιας κατα Tov λουκαν.᾽᾽

Nothing could be plainer as to the Marcan reading of εἰς Ιεροσολυμα kat εἰς βηθανιαν without εἰς βηθῴφαγη, and yet when in another place Origen comes to write out Mark xi. 1-12 he has there εἰς sepocodupa εἰς βηθῴφαγη και βηθανιαν.

We note in these two places—these two codices as it were—of Origen that they vary in the spelling of ev@us 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 παλιν, in the other it is present.

Again ver.3 one place τι ποίειτε rovro; in the other τὸ Avere Tov πωλον with D.

Ver. 4 one place καὶ ἀπῆλθον in the other καὶ ἀπέλθοντες

» oo Oupay i an την θυραν » 939 Τὸν πῶλον diserte ,, two others πωλον.

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 καὶ to Savetov adynxev avtw, Origen with 1 only and ff; sah boh (ex xviii. 82) says πάσαν τὴν οφείλην.

HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 5

Origen’s quotation, as given in Tischendorf, is o de σπλαγχνίσθευς em avTw KUpLOS οὐκ «.. ἀφῆκεν aVTOV povoy ἀλλα... πασαν THY οφείλην αὐτω. 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 NB 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 πασαν thy οφείλην for το δανειον.

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 αὐτον Incovy povov. This is read by B and by B only. δὲ supports with Incouy avroy μονον, both readings being obtained via the Coptic by δὲ and B. Hort did not know this, for the Coptic or Syriac has never been alleged in the critical apparatus as containing this αὐτὸν, 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 τὸν in place of avrov. [Sod = B.]

14, ἐλθοντων (-- αυτω)ὺ 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 δὲ here, to read ev εκεινὴ δὲ TH wpa With BM ὁ sah®® boh°™, These are the

6 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

Matt. only witnesses (καὶ syr cu). Boh™ ¢ is very suggestive,

against the shorter text for Gr™ Lapr™ Syr*4 Orig.

xviii. 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* ὁ ffi 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 παράλαβε ere eva ἡ ὃνο μετα cov of B ff and boh (these only). Where is the science? B is evidently the controlling factor. But B got this from looking atf 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 1c. I beg to say that only &*B* read thus (both corrected) and that their only support is sah?/? bofom 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. ὃ of B and fam 13 with sah most decidedly : “ev tovtw Tw kaw”? Even & suggests it with “cum detinuisset” against “‘Herodes enim tenuit’’ but Hort prints xpatnoas.$ For at viii. 18 Hort does not scruple to accept B and sah alone for his text of oyAoy against oydovs etc. And at ii. 21 he reads εἰσηλθεν (for ἤλθεν) NBC alone, merely confirmed by sah boh aqRwK Eg, pat ac eDorsit

Now these conjunctions NB and NBC and NBD have been given too much weight when insufficiently supported otherwise.

Observe xii. 17 wa (pro oras) 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 vui. 34 where wa (pro o7res) is read by B alone and boh. [Soden adds nothing. ]

Hort does not follow B here in viii. 34, but why not? If ee 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 pita caught B’s eye instead of o7ws? If so, where is the neutral text ?

The same remark applies to ews and ews od. In Matt. xviii. 30

1 As N in Matt. xiv. 1 etc. rerpaapyns more copt. ἱ Soden’s text accepts +rore with ™,

HORT’S CRITICAL PRINCIPLES. 7

NBCL write ews avodw for ews οὗ amodw of the rest; but in xviii. 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 Hpiphanius 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 δὲ or of D; and finally to shut the door on a possible neutral text reproduced in no Gk. mss 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.)

I re-affirm my belief that a polyglot text influenced δὲ throughout.t AndI 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 and a Graeco-bohairic us.

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 δὲ or B or both and the Coptic versions is ἃ sympathetic bond which antedates the Mss δὲ 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

{ In the list of differences between δὶ and B in Part II will be found plenty of material to support this proposition. 1 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., one 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 ὁ and sah preserve the shortest text, giving us (as to Zaccheus) simply πλουσιος for καὶ πλουσιος of 1 8, καὶ nv πλουσιος of NL 245 892 goth syr hier (and W-H marg), καὶ πλουσιὸος nv boh syr cu sin, καὶ autos πλουσίιος BKII big vg (W-H tat), καὶ avtos nv πλουσίιος U al. latt, καὶ ovtos ἣν πλουσιος A unc® al. f, ovros nv πλουσίος W 108 157, πλουσιος nv ante Kat ἀρχιτέλωνης syr pesh, πλουσίος (tantum) ante καὶ ἀρχιτέλωνης diatess arab, (V and Evst 47 omit altogether). W-H adopt B’s reading in text and &’s in marg, and neglect D d ὁ 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 ὃ Dr. Salmon (‘Some Thoughts,’ eéc. Ὁ. 98) says “1 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. 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 δὲ 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): “1 hold, on the contrary, that in critical science the rule nullum 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’”’]; “ (8) 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 ΜΒ 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 προς (pro ets) 127 sol = latt AD exttus 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 ἐὲ

contains ’’ (vol. ii. Ὁ. 150) had he never noticed the frequent preference given by B (and δ) to eavtov and εαὐτῶν over avtovand αὐτων In order to keep small detail out of my apparatus I began stupidly enough by not chronicling these things in δὲ 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) καὶ δουναι τὴν ψυχὴν την εαυτοῦ.

Then turn to Athanasius :

1 Pet. iv. 19 (where B alone omits αὐτῶν after ψυχας) Ath says tas eavTwy ψυχας in the coptic manner.

Observe further :°

(1) Jo.x.81. “εβαστασαν 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 οὐ sovdatoe 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. αφεθησεται vurv tos avOpwros B 1 sah and ATHANASIUS only. "Ἢ

(3) Matt. xxvi. 45. δου -Ἐγαρ BE and sah ΑΤΈΡ,

(4) Luke xi. 19. αὐτοί υὑμων «pitas ecovrat BD 604 Paris*’ only of Greeks, a,¢ dt of Latins, with ATHANASIUS, choosing this order out of five or six differmg orders by the other authorities.

(5) 15.0.1. 18. -- οὐδὲ ex θέληματος avdpos B* 17* Hus Clemtisvd and Arnants vid Ps, xxi,

(6) Jo. v. 87. exewvos (pro αὐτο NBULW a (goth) and ATHANASIUS (Ὁ ὦ 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 exevvos beyond under “‘ Syriac’’ heading in St. John’s Gospel at iv. 11.

(7) Jo. vi. 42. πως νυν (pro πως ov”) BCT W bok?! goth syr hier only and ArHanasrus4 (teste Tasch). Add Sod.

(8) Jo. x. 82 fin. Order >eue AOatere of NBL 88 157 Paris®’ Sod"? only of Greeks, but of 2é! vg, is the order of ATH. against DW and the rest and ὁ ὦ f 1 ὃ sah boh syr goth Epiph Hu

+ And this matter has some bearing upon our contention as to “pairs” of expressions,

HORT’S SYSTEM. EGYPT FREE FROM ANTIOCH BY REVISION. 18

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 τὴν εντολην (ew Marco vii. 8) for tov Aoyov of BD and versions, but even here δὲ is not agreed with B and writes tov νομὸν with CT* fam 18 and Ptol. The support of Ptol puts τὸν νομὸν into the second century, and is not far removed from τὴν εντολην.

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,’ Encyc. Bibl. 1903.

But precisely because long ago Hgypt 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. δοξασον pov to ovoya (pro δοξ. cov to ονομα)ὴ B™ cum Evan 5. But sol X and Arwanasius δοξασον cov τον νιον (Cyr refers to both). (10) Jo. xv. 21. αλλα ταυτα παντὰ ποιησουσιν εἰς υμας BD*LN? 1 88 Paris” Petra, all others ὑμᾶς or υμ. ὁ

(11) Jo. xix. 81. 9 nwepa ἐκείνη tov σαββατοῦυ (pro ἡ ἡμέρα exetvov του caBBarov B*H min pauc Elz pers c f g vgg and Cyril, all others exesvov.

(12) 1 Peter i. 11. Of the prophets of old: ερευνωντες εἰς Twa ἡ ποιὸν καιρὸν εδηλουτο ev αὑτοῖς πνευμα (-- Χριστου) προμαρτυρομενον τα εἰς Χριστον παθηματα.... B

Von Soden now adds the testimony of ATHANASIUS to that of Β for omission of Xpicrov. 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, aLL 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 Σ min* Hus substitutes eotas. Hort actually dignifies this with a place in his margin. Now if B be right, δὲ 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 ἔστω, while John Damascene confirms it absolutely, for quoting the same saying from St. James v. 12, where the rare form ἤτω obtains (and is constant in all Mss), he quotes it as ἔστω.

(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. evexa Be vi. 18. >vnorevew τοις avOpwros Ἐ (1) only 21. -- καὶ B and one boh codex 88. > την δικαίοσυνην καὶ τὴν βασίλειαν avtov = BB ibid. χρητε (pro χρηζετε) Bret

xii. 20. No one seems to have emphasised ληνὸν by B (for Auvoy, flax). I do not think this is an itacism because & and vg® check us. Anvos OF Aavos Means wool (“smoking wool”), but also in a sense wood (wooden winepress, trough, coffin, etc.), hence probably the lignwm 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. οὐκ αφεθησεταῖι (pro αφεθησεται primo loco) B*

B IN 851. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 15

Matt. ibid. ov μη αφεθὴη (pro οὐκ apeOnoetas sec loco) B

38. -- και φαρισαιων B min’? against all others

48 fin. — μου (post οἱ ἀδελφοὶ) B@ vid cum Hv Ebion*irh Rill. 4. καὶ ἔλθοντα Ta πετείνα κατεῴφαγεν B fam 18 only vid (and

not from a parallel) but cf. von Soden . τῆς γῆς (pro yns) B* (De novo B™! rns yns Marc iv. δ) . εκαυματωθήη BB (reli et & εκαυματισθη et D εκαυματισθησαν) . τα Kat δικαιοι B@ . EAaAncey (pro παρεθηκεν) B* vid et k [Negl. Soden] . ππ δια Tovto Be {Habet Marc vi. 14] . eres (pro ott) Ἐ δ᾽ cum 604; ewes) XN (sah expresses this curiously) ΟἿ. xxi. 46 which B was considering. 19. κέλευσατε (pro κελευσας) B* Sod¥4# 36. παρεκάλουν ( -- αυτον) B 892 Orig 1/2 Chr xv. 11. epxyopevoy (pro εισερχομενον) Bs! 15. avtw εἰπεν (pro εὐπεν avt@) Β pers 17. εἰσερχόμενον (pro εἰσπορευομενο)ὺ ΒΒ Orig 1/2. Add Sod™° 82, --ηδὴ B 106 801 ὦ vg" (cf syr copt aeth) xvi, 4. ates (pro ζητει) Be" (cum persit arab; cf. syr ancipitem curam linguae) 14. οἱ δε (pro αλλοι δε) B* et Eus (Chr) 17. -τ- τι Β5),͵ Add ϑοα939 teste Sod, sed contraed. 21. Secxvuvar (pro Secxvuev) Bs! cum Orig 22. Aeyes avTw ἐπιτιμωὼν Be (pro npEato eritipav avtw λεγων) and W-H marg Xvi. 25. azo τινος ( p70 aro τινων) B 288 sol. Cyr 2/4. Add Soda XVili. 9. cxavdare. (pro σκανδαλιζε) B*'. Correctors have not changed. It is accented cxavdanrel. 28. —exewos B 245 pers sol (arm*" contra codd) 80. > avtov ot συνδουλοι B! et copt xix. 22. ypnuata (pro xrnuata) ΒΝ (Chr) Is this “simple” and ‘“‘inartificial”? Hort says “no,” for he rejects it from his text and margin.

Cf Liddell and Scott swb χρῆμα: ‘The interchange of χρῆμα and κτῆμα is frequent, yet the same distinction holds as between χράομαι and κτάομαι, so that κτῆμα is strictly a possession, χρῆμα what one wants or uses.”

In other words ‘“‘money” to B or the scribe of B was more familiar (χρήματ᾽ ἀνήρ “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 κτήματα and ypnuara in x. 22/23 of the parallel.t

xiv.

bo ke aD RAS co

{ 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 χρηματα, having in the previous verse said merely nv yap πλουσιος σφοῦρα. In Mark x. 22 it is D which sub- stitutes ypnuata for κτηματα.

In this connection consider next (out of the regular order) :

Matt.

xxv. 27. τὰ ἀργυρια μου (for το apyupiov μο)ὺ 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 tt to x, gives the plural with NB. I think these two places looked at together are very instructive.t

. “πεῖς Oavarov vel θανατω B aeth . κατακυριευσουσιν. B 124 al. perpauc (contra rell et verss) . εὐναὶ ὑμων TpwTOS B alone among many variations,

apparently the nearest to copt.

. ov peers (for penne) 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 ὁ vatepos, for Evan 4 has o Sevrepos, and D with the other few ο exyaros. Hort places o verepos in his text.

xxii. 39.t ὁμοίως (pro ομοια) B* vid ἡ The one change hangs on abid.

ΧΧΊΙΙ.

xxiv.

ΧΧΥ.

XXVI.

27. 37.

- αὐτὴ B“ vid the other. ομοιαζετε (pro trapopoatere) B1 [non fam] — εαὐτης B 604 sols (bere Clem 1/3 Orig 2/6 Hus 4/5)

. εκ (proamo) B 4 Soden% #3448 (syr) Cf Marc xiii. 1

. πιστεύετε B 262 Orig?44 (¢f Mare xiii. 21)

. γαμίσκοντες Bet Sod

. eyeveto ( pro ‘yeyover) B (ef xxiv. 21 eyevero BD 604)

. πίστος ἧς (pro ns micros) Bhr (Iren™) syr

. —Tov ἀδέλφων μου Ba ΤᾺ. «τοῦ arm ? Clem 4/5 lib Ath . —ove pr. (ante εδωκατε) B* et vg™ soli

και (ante εδυψησα) BL aeth syr pesh diatess (contra rell omn et copt)

. KGL ἀποκτείνουσιν B min‘ r, vg" [non al.]

. πλεγων B σι soli vid

. μετ avTov (pro peta inoov) 5) υἱὰ cum Hil

. Suvopas B

. οἰκοδομησαι (— autor) B 1-209 [non 116] 69 [non fam]

Orig 2/4. Sod (Origen gives three readings here.)

+ Cf Hawkins’ ‘Hore Syn.’ p.4. Plural never used in the LKX, where the singular ocours over 850 times. Soden adds © for the plural. 1 Male Horner ομοια.

B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 17

B* ( σι 4 7. aur gat vg®, corbam ad hr) aeth B@ (Ὁ roca)

. κορβαν . oca (pro ποσα) . tov βαραββαν B 1 Sod" Orig soli vid [non copt] . τὸν BapaBBav NBL 1 33 122 892 (sah boh xe Kappakac ef syr) If improvised in ver 17, probably also here) 24. κατεναντι (pro atrevavti) BD soli vid et W-H [non al. Sod] . περίεθηκαν B 131? for eOnxav of KNWAII syr bok latt longe plur and ereOnxav δὲ unc?! min?! ἃ h vg? Eus (sah) This is a clear improvisation by B, and would equate such a thing as περιέλειχον of 157 at Luke xvi. 21, except that it comes from Mark xv. 17 “καὶ περιτιθεασιν avtw πλεξαντες axavd. ated.” 88. εἰς Tov τόπον τον B'! (pro es τοπον) cf. sah boh et Luc xxiii. 33. See under “ Harmonies.” B 218 soli laté”™ Hus 1/2 Juvenc. W-H™s This seems to be a delicate choice of the dative after πεποίθεν. The acc. or dative can accompany πείθω according to its various shades of meaning. Here apparently “ He was fully persuaded of and conformed to God.”

43. emt τω θεω (pro emt Tov θεον)

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, . ews ετεκεν (PTO ews ou ετεκεν) . ehavn (pro φαινεται)

κυρίου (-- τοῦ NBCDW2ZA (observe both D and A are present) B"'[W-H] (ef Lue xii. 59) B 372 and laté

vi. 10. καὶ ἐπὶ yns (— της) NBWZA Clem Origsie 18. > νηστενων tors avOpmrrois B (ὦ) sola ix. 28. > rovto δυναμαιῖ ποιησαι Big vg™ x. 4. Kavavatos (pro xavavirns) BCD (χαν.) L min pauc copt it vg et ὃ 16. εἰς To pecov (pro ev Tw μεσω) λυκων B cum ff, k τοῦ Lucif. 23. Ἰσραὴλ (— του) BD [ W-H] latt (ef Marc xv. 32) xu. 1, 12. σαββατοις (pro σαββασιν) B™ e¢ vett sabbatis xii, 4. ὃ (pro ods) BDW 18 22124 ὃ dk q aur vg" syr ΧΙ. 5. e€averethav (pro εξανετειλε) B*! Cf lattexortasunt. See

. EMETED ELS

. αἰῶνος (-- τοῦ NBD fam 18 88 Orig 1/2 latt (contra sah et boh

‘“‘ Change of Number.” B* (pro erecev ert) sed B ipse vid ere substiturt

diserte τουτου του αἰωνος) σ

18 Matt. |

[ xiii.

xiv.

XV.

Xvi.

xiii,

40.

46

9.

29. . avaBavtwv (pro εμβαντων) NBDT° 892 (/att: ascendentibus)

81.

37.

CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

The above is followed suspiciously closely by κατακαίεται NB (Ὁ —ovra ) 1 [non 118-209] Cyr and latt ‘‘ comburuntur,”’ “exuruntur” (contra rell Gr). The Coptic word, one chosen out of many, cepoKg,oe (hence “‘sirocco”) may also intimate κατακαίεται rather than xaceras. W with the rest καιεται. A very curious case occurs here, where NB and all agree in menpaxev against the aorist of D alone ἐπωλησεν] λυπηθεὶς (pro ελυπηθὴὴ BD 1 fam 18 604. Some Latins contristatus without est (against the other Greeks and the important witnesses ὁ f k 4" copt arm syr). This λυπηθεις looks strangely like the Latin contristatus (—est), for the copula Se wanting in BD is found in the Latins ὁ f k q* (copt syr), which have contristatus est, showing that est did not slip in there by mistake. twavyny (—Tov) only BN*ZO 1 as lat. Otherwise sah boh “he took off the head of John.” πετρος (—6) NBD [non minn] W-H

κωφους axovovTas (pro κωφ. χλαλουντας) ΒΦ 59 115 288 and e “ surdos audientes”’ (while ὦ using surdos yet has loquentes, as also k). All the rest and Jatt have λαλουντας. I class this here because of the acceptance by ὦ ὁ k of surdos for mutos. xopos is used in N.T. both for dumb and deaf (vide our Eng. transl.). Boh turns the difficulty by beginning mutos loquentes, continuing et clodvs ambulantes et caecos videntes, and closing with the addition of surdos audientes, while a cuts out nearly the whole verse. > ro περίσσευον των Kr. npav. Latin order, supported only by BD 1 33 892 against the Greeks and other versions. ὠφθὴ (pro ὠφθησαν) [μωυσὴς και nretas following] corres- ponds to latt mult “ paruit.” The polyglot character of NB is shown in this same verse where they change the order μετ avrov συλλάλουντες (cum 60 loquentes) to συνλαλ. μετ αὐτου with W 1 ffi2 q sah boh aeth and syrr Cyr. So again xvii. 7 προσηλθεν o inoovs καὶ ἀψαμενος NBD fam 13 604 id?! vg syrr against προσέλθων ... nyrarto of the rest.

. συστρεφομενων Se avtav (pro avaotped. δε αντων) NB 1 892.

Cf laf! conversantibus; etre....ce ff; et Orig (“ neutral ”’) στρεφομενων δε αὐτων.

. φαρισαιοι {--οὦὗ BCLMWAII® αἱ. ραιιο boh Dam.

. oxo (pro exw) BD Sod™ latt Orig 1/2 (contra SLi κκληρονομησω) . eyes (pro epyn) B Sod” fam 18 only of Greeks with all Latins. . ποτ Β plur and latt (but against NCLMZ copt syr)

B IN §T. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 19 Matt.

xx. 20. am αὐτου (pro παρ avtov) BD 604 W-H. Cf latt sah 33. > οὐ οφθαλμοι μων NBDLZ 88 892 Sod5*""'4 latt xxi. 28. > δυο rexva Bi 142 299 Sod" lattom

xxii. 4. ητοιμακα NBC*DL 1 22 33 604 892"; against ἡτοίμασα of the rest, strengthened by Orig Cyr Chr Dam. Hort uses ητοιμακα

here without a sign in the margin. This is not Origen. 5. ere τὴν ἐμπορίαν (pro εἰς τὴν eum.) NBCDT"3®@ fam 18 33

125* 157 [non 28] 604 Orig and Lar.

30. —rov θεν BD fam1 [non fam 13] 604abcdef frzhqr τσ" syr cu sin sah arm Orig*® W-H, but cf Marc xii. 25 Note that W has τον @eov with the rest and does not go

with D here. xxiv. 8. -- τῆς (ante συντελειας) NBCLM Sod fam 1 33 157 892 Cyrtier 88. +exeuvass BD Sod™ latt and sah

xxv. 16. exepdycev (pro εποιησεν), and --τάλαντα fin by BCDL, and BL respectively, shows very strong Latin affiliation, both being against N and the mass.

29. του Se μὴ eyovtos (pro amo δὲ του μὴ exovtos) NBD 1-209 [non 118] 33 124 [non fam] = Lat.

41. κατηραμενοι (—or) NBLT" 33 Sod* boh Cyr 1/2 (contra rell et Patr Gr permultos) et Orig"®,

xxvi. 45. καθευδετε λούπον (pro καθ, To Novrov) BCLW 273 348 τοῖς ΡΣ 892 Sod+ seems to equate 757 and the Latin jam [see Liddell and Scott]. Syr with sah and aeth = “ergo.”

53. πλείω (pro πλειους) S*BD W-H [non minn]latt (against Origen) “Xvi, 43. ἐπὶ Tw θεω (pro ere tov θεν) B 218 soli latt?! et W-H mg. 49. evra B fam 13 (and εἰπὸν D 69) W-H tat=abed ff, g2q but not the others and no vulgates. All other Greeks oppose with edeyov. xxvili. 14. ὑπὸ του nyeuovos (pro emt Tov ny.) BD 59892 only with W-H marg. Cf lat “a praeside.” 15. apyupia (—Ta) N*BYW Sod! et W-H tat. Cf lat “ pecunia.” ibid. onpepov +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: xXVvill. 17. προσεκυνησαν (—avtw) NBD 88 only and lait (except 4) vg Hus Chr against all other Greeks +avtw with g syr and Coptic. Observe now from xxviii. 19 where B adds ovy with AII, and where D adds νυν (and some Latins both οὖν and νυν), that this Latin text favoured by B was not of the purest most neutral stock, for δὲ and all other Greeks add nothing, having πορευθέντες only with EVERY GREEK AND Latin FarHer from Irenaeus to Amphilochius. And the same remark c 2

20 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

applies to the βαπτισαντες of BD (soli; Soden adds none) laté in this verse against βαπτίζοντες 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 βαπτίσαντες 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 wa instead of omas (viii. 84), 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.

1. 5. Boes NB Ozyr? k sah boh W-H ii, 21, εἰσηλθεν (pro ηλθε)ὺ NBC 157 278 soli et sah (aqRuoK €9,pat) boh (Δ ει eHorert)

ili, 2. -- καὶ (ante λεγων) NB sah boh aeth σὰ 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 καρποὺς move. κάλους, bringing xadovs 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, avrov την οἰκιαν NBCWZ 1 33 892 Orig sah boh (ex more copt) contra rell omn et latt τὴν οἰκιαᾳν αὐτου. [Anyone who will compare what δὲ does elsewhere in this chapter (see Part II. under δὲ 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 πολλα to δαιμονιαΐ.

26. αὐτου τὴν οἰκαν NBWZ 1 604 892 Sod*4 sah boh (more

copt). Contra rell et Orig (hoc loco) !

Vili. 8. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ N*B 88 372 sah [non boh] W-H ἀπεκρίθη. .καὶ εἶπεν 807 et kk Ἷ καὶ αποκριθεις N> C et rell et latt

+ This is rather a pretty picture in an unimportant place of my contention as to ἢ (Tisch does not refer to it, so I wish to call attention to it).

B IN 57. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 21 Matt.

vii. 18. οχλον B sah soli (e¢ W-H tzxt) oxrous δὲ bok soli (τους οχλους boh)

The rest πολὺν οχλον, oyAov πολὺν (Ὁ), πολλοὺς οχλοὺς OY ayAoUS πολλους.

A curious place occurs at Ψ111. 27 jin where NBW 1 88 892 Hus Chr W-H make the order avtw umaxovovew against viraxovovew αὐτω of all others, including coptic and the versions; & alone varies, with obaudientes} tantum, and Hil 1/2 obedisse. In Luke the order of all is also καὶ utaxovovew 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 XBW.

Matt.

vill. 84, eva (pro ors) BW alone and boh pina (sah xeKkac) ix. 9. μαθθαιον NB*D sah [non boh], so at x. 3 again 12 init. o Se (-- ιησους) NBD35 248 892 d sah [non boh] aeth¥t. syr sin

82. κωῴφον (—avOpwmov) SB 71 892 sah boh (Nowe RO) aeth syr W-H contra rell omn. x. 32. ev τοὺς οὐρανοῖς (pro ev ovp.) BCKYV al. sah boh Cyr sed Orig 1/4 99: ὡς 45 " iis abe BS BVX al. sah boh Cyr sed Orig 1/8 xi. 16. ev ταῖς ayopats (pro ev ayop.) δὲ ΒΖ (1) 124 157 892 al. W-H Sod. sah boh contra rell et Clem (sed ev tn ayopa D syr sah™™S, in foro @ latt aeth goth)

XH. 13, cov την yetpa (pro τὴν χείρα 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 orws) NBCDI1 33 Orig Eus boh (see above, viii. 34) 22. See under ‘“‘ Change of Voice.”’ 31. αφεθησεται υμὲν τοῖς avbpwros B 1 [non 118-209] sah syrriet Ath [non boh latt] ΧΙ, 28. οὐ δὲ (-- δουλο Β 167 gz h bok sah [non aeth rell] W-H tat This seems to be a nicety of “pairs.” 0 de edn autos. .o δε 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 δουλοι. Besides Manich®?» opposes B and has it. Matt. xiv. 8. +rore B cum fam 13 Sod” et txt, et sah diserte (ev τουτω Tw Katpw); et of k “cum detinuisset.”

{ This may be primitive. } Observe the different character of support to B in these three places while sah bok are constant.

22

CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

This is clear B and sak sympathy and nothing else. Boh does not join nor δὲ nor D nor W nor others.

Matt. xvi. 21.

xvii..8.

14.

IC XC (pro o incous) N*B* Sod” sah 2/3 bohom practer duo goainst the rest, and they themselves corrected,f and against the other versions. (Dominus Jesus aeth, as often = merely ‘‘ Jesus.’’) N 892 Orig Tren“ plane om. W-H follow NB.

ἵν avrov μονον & iin Lies a μονοῖ, Ὁ B bOLRoa™ pro tov ἑήσουν μονον. This is

rendered perfectly clear from the coptics, where αὐτὸς is tacked on to the word for μονοςς The Latins do not do it, so we may clearly refer this as to both δὲ and B to Coptic I think or possibly Syriac.t Following so close on xvi. 21 it is

instructive. ἔλθοντων (—avtwv) NBZ 1124 245 Sod" sah

Rvili. 1 init. ev exewn δὲ BM Sod” and only sah 3/6 boho™ 11 vers om. NBL* 1* [non fam] 13 [non fam] 33 892* e ff, sah

14.

16.

27.

81. xix. 16.

21.

29.

bid.

boh”! syr hier sin Orig (contra rell et syrr reli latt rell aeth 3). D has the verse and also W very specially. Observe the spacing fo 65 in W. (Sod™° also omits.) πατρὸς μου (pro πᾶτρος vuwv) BFHIT αἱ. sah boh, only rz of Latins, arm aeth, syr sin (only of syr) and Orig®s Matter of order: παράλαβε (ert) eva ἡ Sv0 peta co. B ff, boh sah only [non al. Sod} rou δουλου (~exetvov) B Sod 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). >avtov οἱ cvvdovro. δ᾽ cum sah boh oxo (pro exw vel κληρονομήσω) BD Sod™ Orig 1/2. Coptic has no verb for ey#, and although cy probably approxi- mates the Latin here, it is interesting to see that sah has erext “take” as against boh NTaepkAnponogsin “inherit” transliterating the Greek of δὲτ, and some. τοις πτωχοῖς (pro wrwyos) BD only with sah boh against all the rest and against Clem Orig** with a host of Fathers. . Tov ἐμοῦ ovopatos (pro τοῦ ονοματος pov) SB Sod οὶ 124 [non fam] § sah boh et W-H tat. πολλαπλασίονα (pro εκατονταπλασ) Bl: Sod fam ¢° sah syr hier Orig? soli W-H tat [non δὲ reil)

ἡ So it is not likely that either of the uss N or B influenced boh or sah, seeimg that the corrections stared the copts in the face. Obs. a place like xxvii. 4 where ἀθωον is used by NB* and the mass, while δικαίον is transliterated by sah.

Τ᾽ 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. edMovtes δὲ Bet W-H tat cum sah boh*®: (γς syr cu non sin).

16. -- πολλοὶ yap εἰσι KANTOL odvyot Se εκλεκτοι. NBLZ 36 892 sah boh?! (aeth alig, non Walton) against all the rest and lattio™ = 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 6 nor 72 nor ff countenance the removal here and syr lat are a unit for the clause.

34. Savrev τῶν oupatoy B™ et copt (contra Orig)

xxi. 11. >0 προφητῆς unoous NBD 157 sah boh arm Orig 1/3 Eus

against all the rest and latt syrr aeth Orig 2/8

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, εἰς το tepov (-- τοῦ θεοῦ) NBL 18 [non fam] 88 73 604 892 ὃ, sah boh again, with arm aeth Orig 2/5 Meth Chr Hil, but seems to be a clear harmonistic omission, for tov θεοῦ is absent from Mark (xi. 15) and Luke (xix. 45). (Sod adds %° alia.)

Note how closely NB stick to copt here, with Origen again ἃ poor wavering witness.

In such cases Tischendorf (as Turner has pointed out in a general way) abandoned his favourite δὲ with great judgment and placed tov θεὸν in his text, while poor Hort, abject slave to his standard, can only find room for του θεου in his margin. The Revisers restore it to their text (but in Souter’s note he says “13 &c. 88 700,” implying the family 18, whereas the other members do not support 18).

As to xxi. 13, 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 zrosevre 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. Ἔτους (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.

xxi. 29/31 vers invert. B pauc. cum sah boh ete.

KX. 37. ο be egy avtw NBL 33 sah boh Orig (against D latt εφη αὐτω moous, and o δε inoous εφη αντω of most, and o δὲ enaous εὐπεν avtw of some)

+ 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. May

tt.

Exil. 39 init. δευτερα (—Se) N*B 157 sah™ boh°™ W-H. There seems no other attestation. (Sod adds *" [ὃ or e?] 333). Other sah and boh codd have ae, but some boh “τε. Latins have autem, while syrr diatess and Cypr have καὶ Sevrepa. Mark xii. 31 = “Sevrepa αὐτὴ," hence this seems Marcan influence, for Luke x. 27 continues simply “ «as tov πλησίον.

Kxilil. 9. υμων o πατήρ NBUD 33 892 Sod? 3" 225 Hyst 48 al’ Nyss et sah boh W-H et Sod tat (contra rell gr et syr lat o matnp υμων)

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 EusP? ag well as Clem and Cypr and all other Greeks and Latins. 2 appears here owing to its Egyptian influences. I do not place this under “ Harmonistic omissions,” although at St. Luke xiii. 35 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 ὃ 41 is quoting from Matthew and has ἐρημος. 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. ἔρημος. He gives the evidence of BL, adding a black letter %(% 5), The ff, is so small one can hardly see it, and black letter IL makes one think it has large Latin support, whereas ff; here is representing Egypt, against e and all the rest and all vulgates.

xxiv. 81, 37, 38, 39 taken together have some significance.

40. > ecovrar δυο ἀξ" ΒΒ p** 892 hr 7r, vg'®¥ and sah, against boh and the rest. (For the conjunction ἢ r 7, see under Lists for δὲ and Β αὖ χχῖν, 11 as well as here. This seems conclusive as to ἢ for Irish origin. No other Old Latins join them; and observe the full array of ah nr rz at xxvi. 56). Add Soden*

48. > μου ο κυρις NBCDIL 33157 209? 409 604 892 Sod. perpane. Ephr? sah boh

ibid. χρονιξει (—cAGev) NB 6 88 604 892 sah boh Ephr Irenit (against all the rest and against all Latins but Iren™t which shows this is Iren** pure)

xxv. 1. vravrnow (pro απαντὸ NBCZ 1 [non fam] 892 (Meth 1/2)

[male Soden de 157] Cf eg,pert bor This in connection with xxv. 6 fin εξερχεσθε εἰς απαντησιν (-- αὐτοῦ) by NB 604 alone + Cyr Meth shows such a nice appre- ciation of the difference between ὑπάντησιν αὐτου and avavrnow without αὐτου 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 παρελθειν (—am εμου).

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL.

Note further that at

Matt.

vili. 28.

84.

xxvill. 9.

xvii. 12.

xxii. 10.

x. 25. xvi. 16.

25

υπηντησαν avtw is used by all on this the first occurrence of

the expression. εἰς υπαντησιν του ιησου & 33 εἰς υὑπαντησιν TW ἴήησον Bi Soa”

εἰς συναντησιν τουίησου Ο 157 892 ys Cyr | εἰς απαντησιν

εἰς συναντησιν TW τησου Rell omn

τω t. Sod? 459

νπηντησεν αὐταῖς is used again by N*BCIIZ3 fam 1 fam 18 (partim) 604 892 min Orig Cyr against ἀπήντησεν αὖτ. of the

rest

. ὑπήντησεν αὐτῶ NBCDGLA 1 fam 18 28 al” Dam against

απηντησεν of ATI unc® al. pt

. QTAVTHTEL ὑμῖν unchanged by all (except υπ. 28 Sod

9)

_ πὙυπηντησεν (—avto) NBEWE 1 88 157 604 αἴ (rell νπηντησεν

+auto practer Τ' al. pauc arnvt.)

Paris®’ 892 Sod” aravtyoa To peta = =LWYATI unc’ al. pl Bas

. συνηντησεν AVTW All (except Ὁ συνέλθειν R συνηντησαν) . νπαντησαι τῶ wera ΔΑΒΌΗΧΔῚ 88 fam 18 (partim) 157

υπηντησαν αὐτω NN Sod fam 1 fam 18 [non 124] 157

[male Sod] 892 al” Bas Dam umrnvtncav (-- αὐτῷ) Li et Sod txt ἀπηντησαν αὐτῶ AWXTAATL une? al. pl et B-V απηντησαν (—avtw) Bet W-H txt

[σπου noav Ὁ de (latt)| υπαντήσει υμιν CXL al. pauc 892 Sods απαντήσει vv Ὁ 124 (ἀπ.) al. pauc. Orig

συναντήσει υμὲν NABPRWIAATI une® al. pl

. UTNVTNTAY avT@ NBCDKLW 1 al” et 892

ἀπήντησαν αὐτῷ ATAATI wne® al. pl Orig Cyr Chr

. ὑπήντησεν αὐτῶ by all (except ϑοῦ . vITNVTnTEey avTw by all (except one) . εἰς ὑπάντησιν αὐτὼ NBEFHMQSWTAA al. pl

εἰς arravtnow avto AKUII al® Orig’® (avtov Sod) εἰς συναντησιν αὐτὼ LX 157 al. paue εἰς συναντησιν αὐτου DG al®

,. UINVTNTEV AUTO by all (υπηντησαν ἢ ¢ ὦ

cuvaytnoas avtw by all (συναντησαντα avtw two) νπαντησαι ἡμῖν NBCE min® Orig (συναπανγ. two) ἀπαντησαι ἡμῖν ADHLP al. pl Eustath Chr

26 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Acts

xx. 22. συναντηήσοντα wot NBLP al. pl Ath Chr (BB enor) συναντησαντα pow ADEA αἱ. συμβησομενα por Ο min® XXVvili. 15. εἰς υπαντησιν vuw = N* sic (ημιν Sod” εἰς υπαντησιν nuov 40 el; ἀπάντησιν nuw ABHULPS* ete Chr Thpyl 1/2 εἰς ἀπαντησιν ἡμων I min® Thpyl 1/2

1 Thess. iv. 17. εἰς υπαντησιν τω χριστὼ εἰς acpa = D* E* FG εἰς υπαντησιν Tw κυριω εἰς aEepa D εἰς συναντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς acpa = piph εἰς ἀπαντησιν τον κυρίου εἰς αεβα ὃὲβ rell Orig’® Hipp Dial Hus”® Bas al. Heb.

vii. 1. συναντησας, Heb vii. 10 συνηντησεν 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 vravraw is purely Johannine, that St. Luke rather favours συνανταω (as shown by Acts x. 25, xx. 22; Luke ix. 37, xxii. 10), but also used uravyr. or atravr. elsewhere, where the mss try to confuse us. St. Mark uses azavraw xiv. 18, and the mss are divided as to aravr. or uravr. at v. 2. St. Matthew uses ὑπαντησαν in viii. 28, where all are agreed, and doubtless συναντησιν at viii. 34, which NB wish to change to ὑπ. 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. I have no hesitation, after making up this list, of charging wilful change by NB at Matthew viii. 34, xxv. 1, Xxviil. 9 (probably Mark v. 2, Luke xiv. 31) and Acts xvi. 16, where Hustatht contradicts Origen. Certainly 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 δὲ and B opposing each other! There seems to be no kind of doubt in view of the wavering courses of L 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 ὦ Sod soli !).

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 :—

Tt Nor is Eustathius’ text of Acts any common “ Antioch” revision. He has 8 most peculiar cast alone with D in one of the few places which survive in his writings.

B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 27 Matt. Xxv. ὃ. ae yap (pro at δε Z 157 ἐ{0ὶ, av ow Dd 9,5, autwes X plur) NBCL 33 892 boh sah 6. —epyetas NBCDLZ 604 892 sah boh ἃ Meth 1/2 Cyr [contra rell omn et syr lat] Xxvi. 28. -- καινης (ante διαθηκη)ὺ NBLZ 88 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 καινῆς, 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 Ὁ 55. καθημεραν (—mpos vyas) NBA 33 604 892 sah δον syr sin Cyrs Origi"t 1/3 against all others and against Latin. 71. ovros (-- καὶ NBD Sod™ [non 604] sah syr sin (against all else). XXXVI. 2. πίλατω (-- ποντίω) 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. --ηγεμων NB Sod 33 69 [non fam] sah [non boh] syr arm (syr™) ΚΗ 42. βασίλευς ἰσραηλ ἐστιν (—e) NBDL 33 892 d sah (against boh and everything else including syr sin Hus Ps-Ath) 46. ehwer ehwes B et sah literati solt ef Mare eho ἕλω = Net boh literatim cum 88 al. pauc vg" | xv. 84 In Mark xv. 34 both NB have λων edo, while sah repeats ἐλωεὶ ἔλωεν and boh edau edwst, 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, δὲ runs with boh here. It is probable that N had before him either sah snp boh, or an edition of boh which was nearer to sah than our surviving boh uss show.

Matt. Xxvil, 46. Xeua NBL 33 273 604 Hust 21 22 et boh (al. boh ereara cum sah). The rest Acua or λειμα, and λαμα D ibid. caBaxraver B™ vid cum 22? al? sah (pro caBay. rell)

51. Order: ἐσχίσθη (at’) avobev ews κατω εἰς δυὸ (hoc loco) BC*L sah boh aeth (As syr sin omits κατω εἰς δυο and ἃ Orig Hus omit εἰς δυο this can only come from coptic). [δὲ goes with the rest and Latin order, placing es δυο after εσχισθη.]

58. ἀποδοθηναι (-- τὸ cwua) NBL min™ against all the rest and the Latins and arm aeth goth syr pesh Orig**, The support is confined to syr sin and the coptics which include αὐτὸ in the verb, while aeth is very definite against them. "When aeth has shown such intense sympathy with δὲ and B (being alone with B in Matthew three times, alone with δὲ over a dozen times) it seems fair to bring it into play in a case like this.

XXVviii. 6 fin. εκειτο (-- ὁ xuptos) NB 33 Sod ¢ sah boh arm aeth syr sin Orig** Cyr against the rest and D d, all Latins but 6, and syr pesh pers (Aeth “sepultus fuit,” the Latins “ positus erat,” but 6 “‘jacebat,” and observe coptic imperfect).

The ὁ recension hangs absolutely to NB, for at xxviii. 8 6 uses abissent (απέλθουσαι NBCL fam 13 88) for exterwnt of all other Latins (and εξελθουσαι all other Greeks).

See again xxviii. 14 —avrov NB Sod 33 Orig? and ὁ only, against

all else, all Latins, syr copt and Cyrbe

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. : . Z xi. 23. > at ev coe yevopevat B (instead of ai yevomevar ev coe of all

other Greeks and Latins and Coptic) is found to be the order

of syr sim (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 83 and a few cursives change ἐμειναν 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 σοδομοις, but the Syriacs with the diatess arab have in Sodom and a singular verb. The bohairic has Aen conaoaxa and a plural verb. Syriac then and NBC are in sympathy here alone, whatever we may think of the whole situation, for ἐμεῖναν may possibly be revision here for a basic ewewev. 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 εμείνεν (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 8 pity.

Matt. xili, 86. διασαφησον (pro dpacov) NB Sod (none of the sympathis- ing cursives| Orig and syr copt. Obs. also the use of the word by Clem™* (Strom vi. 15: καὶ κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἀληθείας κανόνα διασαφοῦντες τὰς γραφάς). [In xv. 15 Greeks all φρασον. Copt and syr use the same word as in xiii. 36, Latins vary as in xiii. 36]. Both W-H and Sod place διασαφησον in their texts.

xii. 22. See under “ Change of voice.” B shares (alone among Greeks and Latins) the active voice of sy copt aeth.

31, αφεθησεται υμεν τοῖς avOpwros Β 1 Sod™ and sy 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. λέγω Se ὑμῖν οτι παν ρημα apyov ὃ λαλησουσιν οἱ avOpwrot. So XB Sod and copt syr. The common Gk text read by nearly all is ὃ ἐὰν λαλησωσιν. NB drop cay and change the subj. to the indicative. The Latins all say quod for o eav (except h quodcunque) with Iven'"t and Cypr, but have the subjunctive, so they no doubt read ὃ ἐὰν λαλησωσιν. 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). ΤῸ also omits eav and has dAadovew with d. C has cay but writes λαλησουσιν. Observe now that Τί and Orig are against NBD, writing o av λαλησωσιν. (W-H follow NB without marginal comment.)

30 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Matt.

‘xii. 47 versom, N*BLT 126 225 238 400" Sod* (not particularly sym- pathetic cursives otherwise) ffi 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 λαάλησαι in most Greeks, but in ver 46 BCZ end λαλησαι avtw, while & omits.

xiv. 24. σταδιους πόλλους απὸ τῆς γης (pro μεσὸον τῆς θαλασσης vel nv εἰς μεσον τῆς θαλ.) B (Sod) fam 18 syr sah boh 29. καὶ nrOev (pro edMew) BC* 604 Sodtinaue syy (nt veniret lat) xvi. 4. aster (pro ἕητε) B** (syr word serves for either expression but actually pers’ gives this petit following other B sympathy) ΧΥΪ. 8. avTov ἐν μονον B™ cum Sod (and NX! w avrov povov) Cf. syr and copt and see under “ Coptic influence ”’ as well. 15. κυριε ἔλεησον μου τον υἱον pou B*"!, Cf. syr sol κυριε μου ἔλεησον με΄ o wos μου. . . et aeth Domine miserere mei filiique mei xvii. 19. εξ υμων (pro υμων) 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. > πιστοςης ΒΒ hr syr soli (et hoc loco et ver 21 ἢ r syr; in ver 21 vg®) quia super pauca fidelis ὁ (— 7s) 42. I do not know whether we ought to attribute + καὶ before edupnoa 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 ἐσέ].

Add to the above an interesting place at vi. 1 where for ἐλεημοσυνὴν of most Greeks and k, δικαίοσυνην is read by N**BD ft 7?! syr sin hier, while Soow is given by that early corrector δὲ with bok and syr cu (Swpa Ephr). The end of the words for “gift” and “righteousness” is the same in Syriac. δικαιοσυνὴν and δοσιν probably grew out of a revision, comparing with syr. But in verse 3 all have ελεημοσυνην.

[Observe the scant support NB get from the us W in all the above. }

As to ‘* Form.”

I have neglected most small matters of form, as εἰπαν, καταβατω, μεταβα, φοβεισθε, poryevOnvas (pro poryacbat), etc.

I might call attention to Matt. xxviii. 4 where NBC*DL 33 have eyevnOnoav and the rest ἐγένοντο with Dion? Eus, while syr sin omits the verb altogether.

{ Harris gives 892 for δικαιοσυνὴν in verse 2.

B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 81

Observe Mark i. 27 εθαμβηθησαν SB and all except D who with Orig writes εθαμβησαν, while W alone has εθαυμαζον. (In Luke iv. 36 the expression is καὶ eyevero θαμβος).

Synonyms. Matt. xili, 80. ayps N* et L Chr 1/3 See also ews BD Chr 1/3 Hulog xxviii. 15 ews NDI 213 Orig 1/2 μεχρε Ὁ rell et δὰ Chr 1/8 pexpt B reli Orig 1/2 C and Ὁ alone are constant re- This tells a tale of preferences. spectively in both places.

Cf note on περιίυπερ under Luke vi. 28. Cf Matt. xx. 20 am αυτου (pro παρ avtov) BD 604 (latt sah).

xxi, 2, κατεναντι NBCDLZ® 892 min™ Orig”*® Hus 1/2 (parallel Mark xt. 2 and Luke xix. 80 κατέναντι all) arevavtt EK rell Orig®* Eus 1/2 xxvii. 24. κωτεναντι BD soli et W-H txt

απτεναντι ὃ rell et Acta Pil

61. κατεναντι D ἀπεναντὶ NB rell ἐπὶ wt

Mark ἢ

ΧΙ. 2. κατεναντι fere omn (parallel Matt. xxi. 2, Luke xix. 80) xii, 41. aevavts BU 33 min® Dam κατενωπίον (fam 18) κατεναντέε ὃς rell et D et Orig Xi. 8. κατεναντέί'. omn Luke xix. 80. xarevavte 7676 omn (parallel Mark xi. 2, Matt. xxi. 2)

I think this tells the tale, without going outside the Gospels. In Matt. xxi. 2 xarevayrs has been borrowed from the parallels (Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30) where κατέναντι stands without variation. Why should “Antioch” vary uselessly in Matthew? It is the group NBLZ which “accommodated.” The adhesion of D is nothing, for he prefers κατεναντι alone at Matt. xxvii. 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. κατεναυντί. NBCDLZ Orig 1/2 Eus 1/2 (contra rell et Orig 1/2 Hus 1/2) xxvii. 24. xatevaytt BD soli (contra rell omn) 61. xatevaytt 10 solus (contra rell omn)

These are the only occasions where the word is used in St. Matthew. Could there be a prettier picture that ἀπέναντι 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 Ὁ be right, the others are clearly wrong in not giving us κατέναντι in all three places.

But I am pretty sure that ἀπέναντι is Matthaean, and κατεναντι Marcan. Note again the Marcan wording :

Mark xi. 2. xatevayre all but a few scattering witnesses.

xii. 41. κατεναντι all and 69-124 (and careverrioy 138-846-556) except BU min® Dam ἀπέναντι xiii. 8. xatevavrs 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. azevayrs remains Matthaean, and carevayrs Marcan and Lucan.

[In the epistles κατενωπίον 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 t0 avavtaw, cuvavtaw, vravtaw 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. προσηνεγκαν avtw δαιμονίξζομενον τυῴλον καὶ κωῴφον B (syrr

diatess sah boh aeth) against all Greeks and Latins: mpoonvexOn αὐτω δαιμονιίξομενος Tupros καὶ κωφος.

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 (ὃ 30) and his 1444, but not Sinai 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.

tt.

xix. 20. εφυλαξα (pro εφυλαξαμὴ) NBDUL 1 22 Ath against the rest and Origen Ath“ Chr. In Mark x. 20 εφυλαξα is read by AD 28 892 Clem Orig (the more semitic ἐποίησα by fam 1 209 syr sin, as Ephr Aphr in Matthew) but εφυλαξαμην by NB rell. In Luke xviii. 21 εφυλαξα by NABL fam 1 Dial against εφυλαξαμην D and the rest. The question may well be asked why syr sin uses evrounca 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 εμαθητευσεν, by B and the rest, to εμαθητευθη, probably because it follows καὶ autos.

μαθητεύω is essentially Matthaean (and only occurs elsewhere once in Acts xiv. 21 pabnrevoavres). At Matt xiii. 52 we read μαθητευθεις, and at xxviii. 19 μαθητευσατε. I only mention it to show how liberties are taken, even when the combination & 1 33 604 includes Ὁ. 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 ὃ v) however: “Ἔν δὲ τοῖς ἀδικήμασιν αὐτῶν μᾶλλον μαθητεύομαι " ἀλλ᾽ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο δεδικαίωμαι ᾽᾽ uses the middle.

Change of Mood.

xii. 86. ὃ λαλησουσιν (pro οεαν λαλησωσιν) NB (and Ὁ do λαλουσιν) against the rest and L and Orig. (See further under ‘“ Traces of Syriac.’’)

Change of Participle Tense: aorist for present.

xiii. 18. o7eipavtos (pro σπειροντο) N*BXW® 33 213 Sod"-® Hust 4 solt [seminantis latt copt (syr), D rell σπειροντος] 94, σπειραντι (pro omepovtt) NBMXWATI min alig latt pl et verss [sed seminanti dh k 6 vg® et rell gr et D] It looks as if while omepavts may be right in xiii. 24 that σπείροντι is right in xill. 18 and that NBXW® there are merely trying to equate the two passages, which should not: equate but differ slightly.

xii, 23. συνιεὶς (pro συνιω) NBD*b 238 892 Sod™? Orig. This appears very deliberate, as much for the sake of euphony with o7apess perhaps or for contradistinction of the pair ακουων. «συνίων as for anything else...omapeis ουτος ἐστιν o τὸν Aoyov ακουων Kat συνίεις. They do not write συνεὶς but συνιεὶς 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 συνίων is

accepted. by all.

Observe however B at Luke xxiv. 45 alone writing cuvewas (aor. inf.)

for cuvtevat, ΟΝ συνειεναι.) xxiii. 17. 0 ayiacas (pro o ayafwvy) NBDZ 892 d (ὦ 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. κατοικουντι (pro κατοικησαντ) NBHS® fam 1 fam 18 etc. txt. recept. latt copt et verss vid. Here CDLZITAII al une’ oppose with κατοικησαντι, as do WSY 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 ayiacas in his text verse 17 without marginal comment, while in verse 21 against κατοίκουντι he has in his margin κατοικησαντι, so there seems to have been no system, unless D was considered an absolute balancing factor. Soden has ayacas and κατοικησαντε.

As to Infinitive.

Interchange of present and aorist infinitive and imperative. Examples :

xii. 10. θεραπευσαι cag where δὲ and B are on different sides.

θεραπευειν ΧΙ. 3. σπειραι NDLMXW minn aliq σπείρειν B rell xvi. 21. δεικνυναι B™ cum Orig*™ [Soden adds nothing] δεικνύειν δὲ rell et Origsve Xxii. 23. adewas NBL χϑὸ 7pe agvevat CD rell omn

As to infinitive tenses ¢f Orig Eus ad Matt xxiii. 87 επισυναξαι (pro ertovvayayev) and cf Luc.

Imperative. v. 42. δος NBDW fam 18 [non 346] 892 Sod": Clem διδου plur xix. 17. type BD soli et W-H txt (τηρη 2°)

τηρησον NCL reil

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 35

Matt. : So at xxii. 17. erov LZ 88 XVili. 17. εἰπὸν NL Orig against ere NB rell εἰπε B rell Cyr Bas and xxiv. 3. «ov I, 1 33 against ere NB reli χχὶ. 2. πορευεσθε SBDLZj min” Orig Hus Chr πορευθητε C rell

Change of Case. Genitive Absolute.

viii. 1. καταβαντος δε αὐτου (pro xataBayts Se avrw) BC(Z)W Sod and δὲ» 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 δὲ 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,t writing upon “‘style’’: ‘‘ The attentive reader of S. Matthew’s Gospel is aware that a mode of expression which is six times repeated in his viii*® and ix" chapters is perhaps only once met with besides in his Gospel,— viz. in his xxi** chapter.” Burgon referred to viii. 1 καταβαντι αντω, viii. 5 εἰσέλθοντι τω I., viii. 23 εμβαντι αὐτω, viii. 28 ελθοντι avrw, ix. 27 Kat Tapayovtt Tw 1., ix. 28 eAOovre Se, xxi. 23 καὶ ἔλθοντε 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 no¢ 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. εἰσέλθοντος δὲ αὐτὸ NBCZ 892 min aliq W-H ἃ Sod tat (Orig εἰσέλθοντος του κυριου) _ but εἰσέλθοντι δὲ avtw all the rest vill. 28. καὶ edXOovros αὐτου BC et δὲ ᾧ Sod et Sod®* 892 min pauc (και ἔλθοντων αυτων &*) Kat ελθοντι avTw all the rest XX1. 28. καὶ ἔλθοντος αὐτου NBCDL® 1 fam 18 88 604 899 Sod’ [non al.] Orig bis W-H & Sod txt Kat ἔλθοντι avTo the rest

What is this but a Greek “improvement”? The small limited group

speaks for itself.

¢ ‘Last twelve verses of St. Mark,’ p. 141.

36 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

It is noteworthy that avrw διδάσκοντι remains unchanged later in the verse (although some Latins and Syr omit διδασκοντί, expressed by the other Latins ad eum docentem) so that the dative absolute rather hangs together throughout: καὶ ἕλθοντε avtw εἰς τὸ Lepoy προσηλθον auto 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 51. 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 avtous καθευδοντας to evpey καθευδοντας avtovs Observe in the parallel in LuxKz xxii. 45 NBDLTY do the same: eupey κοιμωμενους αὐτοὺς instead of evpev αὐτους xo. 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 608, ἵ and note that in Matt. xxvi. 48, Mark xiv. 37 40 no change is made in the order, and it becomes a personal matter where the change ts made. To this add: xvii. 25. Among ἃ tremendous variety of readings distributed over the “clever” mss, the usual reading ore εἰσηλθεν by the mass of Greeks is confirmed by the versions, but where Dd bn use a dative (absolute) εἰσέλθοντι, and 33 a genitive abs. ἐλθοντων avtwov, and Sod* fam 18 εἰσέλθοντων, and a is content with intrantes, δὲ and B use an accusative, N* εἰσέλθοντα εἰς τὴν ox., BN? 1 892 ελθονταὰ εἰς ocx. In view of the immense variety of expressions [see under “ Differences between S 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 αὐτὸν in εξελθοντα Se avrov, the reading of nearly all others. D® Hust 17 have εξεέλθοντος δὲ αὐτου (ὦ latin wanting) and the Latins mostly favour exeunte autem illo, but an “‘egressus.” As to br they actually give us a Latin acc. absolute ‘‘exeuntem autem illum,” f2 as printed ‘“‘exeunte autem illum,” g; “ exeuntem illo.” W confirms εξέλθοντα 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. εἰς το μεσον λυκων B (for ev rw μεσω λυκων) ff, k vg® (Lucif). This is clear ‘‘improvement” after ἀποστελλω vas. Cf also Matt. xxvii. 5. (Note D™ at Luke x. ὃ pecov λυκων).

25. Tw οικοδεσποτη and Tots orxvaxots B* alone (pro τον οἰκοδεσποτην and τους οἰκιακους) (governed by erexadecav) ; commen text is exareoav, but nearly all authorities are for ἐπεκαλ. επικαλεω would seem to favour a dative, while καλέω (except in middle) takes accusative. Juachmann and IWV-H mg follow B.

xiv. 19. ἐπὶ tov χορὸ NBC*IWE®@ Sod 1 22 88 al Origa W-H Sod txt emt Tov xoptovy [Ὁ 16 61 892 latt sah boh pl aeth arm (syr cu) ems τοὺς χορτους ΟἿ rell unc omn min pl [non verss praeter boh® syr sin 2] ἐπὶ τὴν (της) ynv (yns) boh™® syr pesh emt TOV YOpTOUS 810 L (ef exax nexoptoc 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. ἐπὶ τηνθάλασσαν SNBPT*WAO® Sod 1 [non 118-209] fam 13 22 238 Sod" *"4 Orig emt τῆς θάλασσης CD rell Luss

Observe this is a change in inverse ratio to the last. The genitive of rest—(we can almost see Origen at work)—belongs to ἐπὶ τοῦ χόρτου in ver 19, but the accusative of motion belongs to ἐπὶ τὴν θάλασσαν in ver 25. Tisch emphasises our point for us by saying of Origen “ praeterea notat : ov γεγραπται λθεπρος avTous περίπατων ETL TA κυματα, GA ETL τα VdaTA,” Clearly then Origen employed the accusative after ἐπὶ 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 ἐδοντες αὐτὸν emi τῆς θαλασσης περύπατουντα and not ems τὴν Gad. περυπ. 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 δὲ gets an opportunity and avails of it (xvi. 19) to exhibit the difference between dnons emt τῆς yns, Which he leaves unchanged, and Avans ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, which latter he changes to Avons ἐπὶ THY γην.

But these little things were done in passing, because at xvili. 18 Avante επί τῆς γης (following δησητε ers τῆς yns) is left unchanged by δὲ,

38

Matt.

CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

xxv. 18. See Ὁ. 67. Nothing further occurs until 7, where NBDM@® fam 1 (118 hesitans) fam 13 [non 124] 106

XXVi.

XXVii.

[xi. xii.

xiii.

[ xvii. XVii. XXV.

XXVi.

XXVii.

48,

82.

23. . (Improvement) εφαγον for εφαγεν NB 0%. W-H not Sod. This

16.

81.

§2.

801 604 et Hvstteee™ prefer ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλης for ems τὴν κεφαλὴν of the rest and Basil. In Mark xiv. 3 a partitive genitive is used κατέχεεν αὐτου τῆς Kepadns (—emt). Perhaps the Marcan diction influenced NBD in Matthew. The presence of ten Lectionaries and but few cursives lends some emphasis. πέποιθεν et tw Sew 218 alone for wer. ee τὸν θεον with lait?! [non ὁ ἃ f σι 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 τω θεω in his margin.

Change of Number.

. See under ‘“‘ Improvement.” . avEavovow and κοπίωσιν and νηθουσν NB Sod fam 1 4 33

273 Sod'® Ath copt et verss for avéave. .. koma . . under (after τὰ κρίνα tou aypov) of all the rest. Soden ἐπέ plural as well as Hort.

επιξζητουσιν (pro επιΐξητει) after ra εθνη NB min pauc copt contra rell. We have to assume that ail 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. εἐμεινεν (pro eyeway) see under “ Syriac.” |

follows εἰσῆλθεν, but is accommodated to the previous verse 8 οὐκ ἀνεγνωτε τί ἐποίησε AGS ott ἐπείνασεν (avTOS) καὶ OF μετ᾽ αὐτου. Obs. here that the coptics oppose NB and have εφαγεν.

. εξανετείλαν (pro εξανετειλεν) B only with vg and some latins

“ exorta sunt” (and k fructicaverunt) and coptic. axovovow (pro axovet) following wra (to accord with βλέπουσιν, following however οφθαλμοι) NBCDMX% al Orig latt contra unc” al. pl.

. L (and HUD) change eyevero following ἐμάτια αὐτου to eyevovro.

Not so D* (although ὦ is facta sunt) nor B rell. It is mentioned to show the tendency as represented by L.]

. See under ‘‘ Improvement.” . συναχθησονταῦ (pro συναχθήσεται) as to mavta ta ebm

NBDGKLUI al. διασκορπισθησονται (pro -σεται) a8 to τα προβατα NABCGH*ILM al. copt Orig 1.2 nyepOnoay (pro nyepOn) as to πολλα σωματα by NBDGL [non ΝΥ] min perpauc copt Orig Eus (ανεστησαν 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 κατεφαγεν all as to τα πετεινα, although some have ἡλθον. The Latins and d all venerwnt and comederunt incl. d agst D* mov .. 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. > καὶ τὴν δικαίοσυνην καὶ τὴν βασίλειαν avTov B alone

xi, 9.» προφητην ew for We " προφητην; N*BZW 892 Sod™* Orig 26. > evdoxia eyeveto NBW Sod 1 33 892 k (copt) Sod tat

ΧΙ, 44. > εις τὸν οἰκον μου emiotpeyro NBDZ 7 33 892 aeth against

rell and all other versions. Sod txt follows NB.

xiil. 89. > ὁ δὲ εχθρος ἐστιν o σπειρας avta o διαβολος _B alone

ἐστιν alone occupies this position in B. He may have hesitated as to omission of aura, or of eyOpos as some.

xiv. 18. > φέρετε μοι ὧδε avtous (pro φερετε μοι αὐτοὺς woe) NBZ 33 vg? only. This is a small matter but an almost impossible order, and against sah and (bok). ὡδὲ 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. > ore det avtov εἰς Ἱεροσολυμα απέλθειν = NBD* 1 fam 1333157

y** 6 Orig Iren™ Hil (for ote Se avrov ἀπέλθειν evs lepoo.). The change savours of improvement but Soden likes and adopts it.

xvii. 4. >oxnvas τρεῖς Be (cf Luc ix. 88) W-H marg.

xix. 16. > προσέλθων avtw εἰπεν (pro προσέλθων evrev avtw) NB Sod” fam 18 157 892 Sod” (et tat) ὁ 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 ὃ ὁ g h q complete with προσελθων αντω ELTTEV AUTO.

It is rather indeterminate, for while Justin*? says προσέλθοντος auto Twos Kat εὐποντος, in Trypho he says λέγοντος avtw τινος (Clem™™ and Marcos" are indeterminate).

Xxil. 28. >ev ty avactaces ον NBDL fam 1 fam 13 2° (Sod) 604 Sod'ts boh syr (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 ἃ 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 τὴ ουν avactaces ? 40. (involving change of number) A most important place :

ev Tavtats ταῖς δυσιν ἐντολαῖς odos (om N) syr diatess copt) 0 νομὸς Ῥκρεματαῖι Kat ot προφηταις δὲ ΒΌΤΙΖΣ 33 892 (pro ev ταῦτ. τ. δυσιν evT. ολος ο VOLOS >Kat OL προῴφηται KpewavTat W® unc rell min et fam 1 13 604 2? 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 δέν “‘ 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 Clems (ev τουτω ολος 0 νομὸς Kat οὐ προφηται KpewavTas, aNd : εν ταυταῖς λέγει ταῖς ἐντολαῖς ολον TOV νομὸν καὶ Tous προφητας κρεμασθαι τε καὶ εξηρτησθαι), also Origi"' 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,f and I prefer the harder reading of W. (Soden tat follows Hort and NB etc.)

xxiv. 44. > ov δοκεῖτε wpa (pro ἡ wpa ov Soxerte) NBDI 604 892 d vg boh Ath contra rell

It is a little suspicious for Ath joins, and Li says wpa ἡ ov

δοκείτε, not going with NB, but Sod follows Hort and NBDI.

+ Plainly then neither sah nor boh used δὲ or B.

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 41

Matt. xxvi. 86. > exes προσευξωμαι (pro προσευξ. exer) NBDL fam 69 [non

1247} 88 157 892 Sod® et txtabed f Κι} 4} sah boh Orig™ (Hi G2 aeth iluc et orem). This is a place where with a good many others (not noticed) copt and lat together support NB. Read exes evEouar 604 [non —; corrige ed.| after the Egyptian form. Thus at xxvi. 39 προελθων (for προσελθων) BMU* are supported by Latin “ progressus” (ὦ only accedens) and sah boh very distinctly also support προεέλθων.

Historic 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.)

Tt 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 κ᾿ 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 δὲ 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 εδιωξεν, we read in his note: “N* εξεδιωξεν (N* corrupte edwxev).” But it is nothing of the sort. εδωκεν is corrupte for ἐδίωκεν. I found this confirmed by the full commentary of Oecumenius in Apoc 146 (Messina®) where the imperfect stands in his text and ἐβ 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 δὲ 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; προσευξωμαι κακει 124, Om exer 4.2°° arn syr.

} 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. ΧΙ]. 28. Aeyouow (pro εὐποὸ NBCD 88 (Sod) 157 892 Sod#' 8% laté pl (against rell and f ffi ᾳ sah boh arm aeth)

How come NB to desert coptic here? The authorities do not agree about this verse, for B drops the δουλοι so as to make a pair o δὲ edn αὐτοῖς. . ot Se λεγουσιν αὐτω, and BC write avtw λέγουσιν while ND λεγουσιν avTw; and edn at the beginning is changed to the present by the Latins ait. Cf the next verse φησιν or λέγει NBC Jatt (all varying among themselves) against e¢ and εὐπεν of the majority. Cf also long quotation from Epiph™" in Tisch. showing some interesting variations. (—autw Sod cum pers).

Kili. 52. Neyer (pro eemev) B**DI 892 Sod? 4 vg tt

But this is more than a historic present (λέγουσιν avTw vas " eyet avtows...) to conform to the Aeyovew preceding, for it shows that when reyes follows λέγουσιν 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) Neyovrs is substituted for ewrovre following εὐπτερν.

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 δὲ (who also elsewhere prefers this) deliberately siding with D 21 892 ἃ alone of all authorities (+ Sod*** et Sod txt!) for ηκοόλουθει here instead of ηκολουθησεν, 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 édeyov with many latins to erov against the rest and ὦ k copt. Soden tat does not adopt ἔλεγον although his same new Mss as in ix.9 do so. Again

ix. 19. ηκολουθεε NCD 33 Sod™® (non txt) lati”; ἠκολουθησεν B relt

copt f k 28. They prefer this historic imp. even above the historic present, having here ἔλεγεν NBD 892 it?! boh, against dixit σ 91 ἢ

k sah syr Sod“ εἰπεν, and reyet CW unc! gr mult

The same applies to ix. 80 where NB* fam 1 22 892 (those faithful adherents, see at vi. 5, 18) Sod!" et ἐπέ prefer ενεβρίμηθη to ενεβριμησατο of all the rest and versions (but comminabatur by aethimt Walton)

xv. 25. mpocexuves (pro προσεκυνησε)ὺ N*BDM 1 fam 13 88 al. tat rec Orig be ἃ ffi giz k boh*™ (sah adorans)

This is against all other uncials and W for προσεκυνησεν including boh. (At xv. 31 B has εδοξασαν with most, but NL ηυ and Latin huve

εἐδοξαζον. I mention it because k* not content with clarijica- bant actually has clarijicant.) xv. 86. εδιδου (pro εδωκεν) NBD 1 fam 13 33 157 892 ἃ Chr Thdor™ns schol

This against the other Greeks, all other Latins and versions. Why should the “Antioch” revision have constantly cancelled the historic imperfect? ‘Far 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 ὦ if legitimate. This remark is the more apposite because immediately afterwards at xv. 87 B alone with D and nearly all Latins has an important change of order which is clearly influenced by the Latin. (εδιδου xv. 36, Sod'*** only new witness, but also Sod tet). Matt. xvii. 20. ὁ δὲ reyes (pro o δὲ evrev) NBD 1 fam 18 88 it?! syr οὐ Sod txt contra C reli gr et a@ f gan 4 copt. xviii. 25. exer (pro exyev) Not content here with evyev 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, Aeyer (pro epy) B Sod and fam 18 only of Greeks, with lat. 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 acth™ Orig 2/4 and Hus (and only these + Sod") read ποιεῖτε, 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 evonoare as Basil (and St. Luke), and 1 Justin Orig 2/4 πεποιηκατε (as St. Mark) and as latt ‘‘fecistis” with sah arm and Tren, But Soden ἐξέ prints ποίειτε.

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 verse 10. Thus 10 fiz: to μη Trove wavra τὰ Boer. TavTa CON- tinuing (11) μη σπηλαίων λήηστων, 80 that, as “τὸ μὴ Tove” is used, there seemed liberty here in Alexandria to employ the favorite historic present.

xxi. 48. Observe a place emphasising the historic present [which here stands unchanged by all} for after δία τοῦτο Aeyw υμὲν NB Sod 28 64 118-209 248 2P° 604 892 Sod'"* * Hosts septem with Arnob omit or. Here boh sah [except boh™] retain the usual introductory xe, as also syr and lat. This matter is omitted in Tisch N.T., but supplied in ‘Emendanda.’

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, 6.0. xxii. 4 αποστελλεν pro αἀπεστειλεν Li only, although leaving ἀπέστειλεν in ver 3 [Tren 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 Li Orig Jren™ are alone in omitting αὐτου at xxii. 6, so that the text is “old” enough for ἀποστέλλει 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 ἀναέρουσε [observe the tense] soon after) with fam 1 22 against ἀπώλεσεν of NB rell. Again, ver 8 he omits ἐστιν with Chr Dam and ΔῚΣ only and Sod,

44 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

I may also call attention to the use by & alone at xxvi. 21 of λεγε 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 καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ ov κατέλαβεν, Tatian Says: καὶ τοῦτο ἐστιν dpa τὸ εἰρημένον " ἡ σκοτία τὸ φῶς οὐ καταλαμβάνει.

Next we will consider Harmonistic Readings, and finally General Improvement.

Harmonistic Omissions. Matt. . xx. 16. The final clause πολλοὶ yap εἰσι κλητοι ολύγοι δὲ EKAEKTOL 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 cw and sin being extant here at xx. 16) for the clause, not even 6 or ff ΟΥ̓́Τ 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 571 144° +),

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 BOoH and Orig (only 2/3), write μέλλων δὲ ἀναβαίνειν for καὶ avaBawev against δὲ and the rest. Thus if the text were basic in xx. 16 jin for the “ non-interpolation,”’ why should δὲ desert B here? It must be because B was following sah.

Again (same verse xx. 17) τοὺς δωδεκα (-- μαθητας) is read by NLZ and Ὁ 1 892 with boh, but sah joins B in writing τους δωδεκα μαθητας (+avrov sah 1/2), so that sah and B are very close here. As to an underlying text, it is δὲ (or syr cu sin tous δωδεκα αὐτου) which preserve it, for Orig (quater) goes with δὲ against B here. Besides δὲ gives us the syr base in the next verse xx. 18 εἰς θανατον with boh?! pers for ev θανατω (which B aeth omit).

xxii. 80, —rov Geou BD fam 1 and all latt vett (but Fi gio ἢ) syr cu sin sah arm and Orig, but probably because of Mark xii. 25.

xxili. 38. —epnyos fin. Only BL ff, syr 8 boh (some) and sah 3/4. The

group clearly belongs together, except perhaps syr 5. Origen

opposes (except Orig™® semel) and Clem arm aeth Eus Cyr

B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 45

ere Treni™* Cypr have it. What is this but a harmonistic “ shorter’? text based on the omission in Luke (ziti. 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. -Ἐσου (post οφθαλμος prim.) B 372 it?! vg’* aeth Origi*® ex Luc xi. 34 against δὲ and the rest. vill. 9. + τασσομενος (post εἰμι ὑπὸ εξουσιαν) NB 4238 273 372 421 αὐ (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 sib potestate is rather bare without the addition of constitutus.) xv. 38. +s (ante τετρακισχιίλίο.) B (δὲ) Sod 1 fam 13 22 33 157 Sod?** ff, (sah) arm aeth (ex Marc viii. 9) Sod outdoes W-H (marg) adding txt outright. δὲ seems to have been perplexed, for he and boh 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*etPBDD 13-124 28 86 Sod" aeth arm it” syr hier [non sin pesh | This must come from Mark xiii. 82 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 ὃ xlii. 32 and running Mark xiii. 32/37 straight on.

Harmomstic Changes. Matt.

x. 13. See under “ Improvement.” xiv. 5. ewes (pro ott) 3B alone with 604 (επειδη NEM) Cf. xxi. 46 for the parallel under consideration.

xvi. 20. ἐπετίμησεν B*D W-H™' de syr cu against the rest and Origa" (ex Marc et Luc). Soden adduces no new witnesses and excludes.

xviii. 6. (improvement) περι τὸν tpayndov only NBLZ=M 28 157 ys Sod?" [non tat] Orig 1/2 Bas Cyr (= Marc ix. 42, Luc 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 περι be changed if original ?

Matt. xix. 24. tpnuatos N*B Orig 1/3 (Orig 1/3 tpuparvas cum plur, Orig 1/3 τρυπης) Mark x. 25. τρηματος N* sol (Rell τρυμαλιας et BY; al. τρυπηματος)

Luk xviii. 25. tpnuatos NBD 49 (τρυπηματος LR 157 pauc, τρυμαλίας 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: δια τῆς τρυμαλίας της βελ., δια τρηματος ραφιδος, δια τρυπηματος Bed., and fourthly simply δια βελονης.)

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 da τρυπήματος ραφιδος,

St. Mark ip » δια (της) τρυμαλιας (της) ραφιδος,

St. Luke τὴ 1 δια τρημᾶτος βελονης.

We find NB changing St. Matthew’s τρυπηματὸος to St. Luke’s τρηματος, but retaining St. Matthew’s ραφιδος. We find N changing St. Mark’s τρυμαλίας to St. Luke’s τρήματος, while retaining the ραφιδος belonging jointly to St. Matthew and St. Mark, which however fam 13 changes to βέλονης in Mark, as rudely Clem, who mixes up the passages.

Then we find that while NBD give us correctly τρημαᾶτος βέλονης in St. Luke, the others harmonise there by writing, incorrectly, τρυπηματος of Matthew or tpvwadsas of Mark, and many pagidos for βελονης.

I say ‘incorrectly’ because the wording δια τρηματος βέλονης 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 βελόνη was the surgical needle, and τρῆμα the great medical word for a perforation of any kind. But still further, we meet with the same expression in Galen: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ὅτι ῥάμμα τοῦ διατρήματος τῆς βελόνης διῃρημένον ἕνεκα τοῦ συνάγειν ἀλλήλοις ἤτοε τὰ μόρια τοῦ διατετμημένου σώματος. And to express the puncture made by the needle: διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν βελόνην τρήματος. Τρῆμα, 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 δὲ harmonised all three passages by employing St. Luke’s τρήματος

¢ The reading of B* is uncertain, but not τρηματος.

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 τρυμαλιὰς or Matthew’s τρυπηματος,

the matter being self-evident by their employ of ραῴφιδος instead of

Berovns in Luke.

ee 17. For καὶ avaBawav B says μελλων 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) “σαν &€ ev τὴ οδω avaBawortes εἰς Ἱεροσολυμα.᾿ I place this here and not under ‘ Coptic,” but a glance under ‘‘ Coptic” will show that at xx. 8, 16, 34 there is an Hgyptian 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 δὲ +min° exhibits the process on its side at xx. 24 by writing npEavto ἀγανακτεῖν with Mark (x. 41 [the diatess ὃ xxxi. opens with the account from Mark x. 41/44]) instead of ηγανακτησαν. And if we look beyond to xxii. 40 we find ~odos by δὲλ alone is the way of the diatessaron with all the syriacs and sah boh?!; so that coptic is in sympathy here too.

ΧΧΙ. 2. κατεναντι (pro amevavtt) NBCDLZ® 892 al Orig 1/2 Hus 1/2 borrowing from Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 80 where κατέναντι stands by all. (See under “" Synonyms.”’)

7. em αὐτων (primo loco) NBDLZ® 33 69 892* Sod™ Orig?s (against ἐπάνω avrwy of all the rest)

This seems to be merely a reflection of Mark xi. 7 er avrov and Luke xix. 35 emt τὸν πῶλον.

Tisch forgets to say that the rest of the 13 family omit the preposition altogether and write auto.

xxi. 12. -- τοῦ θεου (cf Marc xi. 15 Luc xix. 45) See under “ Coptic” and beyond under “ Improvement.”

25. ev eavrots (pro wap eavrows) BULM?Z 157 872 892 min’ (copt) Cyr. This seems merely a “nicety” of harmony to Matt. xvi. 7 and 8 where ev eavrous is used on both occasions without fluctuation among mss. Why then should “ Antioch ” change at xxi. 25 to map eavrows? What reason would there be? xxli. 89. δεντερα (~Se) NB 4 157 Sod? only (against the versions and sah boh pl) with sah™ doh*'=* comes from Mark xii. 31 “ devrepa avtn.”” Observe that B improvises (alone) in Matthew by substituting ὁμοίως for ὁμοία avtn. XXVii. 29. περιεθηκαν Β 181. ef Mare xv. 17 περιτιθεασιν. 33. εἰς Tov τόπον τον δὶ of Lue xxiii. 33 exactly.

Here is harmony in full blast in this “neutral” text. Consult in

the same verse 83 —)deyouevov by δὲ alone (= Marc xv. 22) and the

48 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

picture is complete as to both N and B harmonising in exactly the place where they should be most careful not to do so if they expect our confidence elsewhere.

[1 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* διεμερισαν for διεμερίσαντο. In the photograph it reads AlemepiCcA’® 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 διεμερίσαντο. If διεμερίισαν B* be correct we have an elimination of sibi after diviserunt with cf ff 91.. 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 διαμεριξονται τὰ “ματιὰ αὐτου, but in Luke xxiii. 34 (where B had just been looking; see above as to εἰς Tov τόπον Tov) it is διαμεριζομενοι Se ta ἐματια, without any reflexive attribute. In Jo. xix. 24 the quotation shows διεμερίσαντο, while in verse 23 the procedure is carefully explained, involving the middle voice, for it is said of the soldiers ἐλαβον ta wmatia αὐτου καὶ εποίησαν TETTAPA μερὴ EKATTHO TTPATLWTN μερος, καὶ TOV χιτωνα.]

Matt.

xxvii. 46. eSonoev BLW2 33 69-124 218 604 Sod™ only as Mark xv. 34. All others with δὲ and Hus Bas aveBonoe and a ἃ δῇ, go ἢ τοῦ διὰ ἘΞ (boh) exclamavit.

ibid. ἔλωει ἔλωει B (and sah) with cdo ἕλω δὲ 88 (and δολ) 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 saz in a particular form. He abandons the spelling of B here for that of δὲ, although he was glad enough to seize εβοησεν of B in the same verse against N. The Revisers recognise the harmony, and go back to aveBoncev and Hy: Ηλι, but the evidence in Souter’s footnote is wrongly stated.

General Improvement.

ii, 22. βασίλευει τῆς Ἰουδαίας (—ems) NB 892 min pauc arm Eus. Contra rell et it et sah o ἄρρο ext fovaara sed boh plane xe Δρχελδος ETO! Novpo efiowaea= NB. NB ex boh, vel boh ex NB?? (Soden follows NB.)

¢ In the quotation itself, omitted by most Greeks and ὦ f ffi.2 gil vggl5t, οὐδὲ is found in a ὃ ὁ gz h g γὰ (mut r) vgg, but omitted by two vulgatesM 0.

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 49

The answer seems given in this same verse where NBC*W alone change the order of ηρωδου του πᾶτρος αὐτου of all anD sah boh to tov πατρος αὐτου npwoov. (Sod does not follow, recognising synoptic influence.) Had sah or boh been copying NB they might have used this order.

v. 10. evera δικαιοσυνης (pro evexev Six.) B solus. This is as clear as can be, preferring eveca before a consonant, besides being largely Homeric and classical. Cf λόγου evexa ‘‘ dicis causa,” or τεχνῆς εἰνεκα (Anth). But B repeats evexa next verse before ἐμου. [δὲ does not join B. Soden forgets to record B.]

Observe, however, that B leaves evexey ἐμοῦ alone before a vowel at x. 18, 39, xvi. 25, Mark viii. 35, x. 29 primo loco, Luke ix. 24, but alone makes it evexa ἐμου at Mark xiii. 9.

At Matt. xix. 29 it is δὲ which objects to evexey tov ἐμου. NS, with Ὁ and Cyr, writes evexa tov μου, 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 tov εὐαγγελίου is now left alone by NB reil, and only changed here to evexa tov evayy. by D 71 and as Tisch. says “cast” (a few omit the clause). At Luke xxi. 12 all evexev τοῦ ονομᾶτος except Ὁ 71 who are for evexa τοὺ ovop.

At Luke vi. 22 all are agreed as to evexa tov viov except inconsistent D who with FYPWI writes evexey τοῦ wou, reversing his position.

At Luke xviii. 29 NB with Sod'*" prefer εἰνεκεν τῆς βασιλείας (evexev τῆς Bac. the rest, except U 71 which here desire evexa).

At Matt. xix. 5 SBLZ Orig change evexev tovtov to evexa τουτου. It seems quite clear that Matthew wrote evecey throughout his Gospel.

At Mark x. 7 evexev τουτου is left unchanged by all.

At Luke iv. 18 ewexev eyypucev or evexev εγχρίσεν are found.

1 am far from saying that Neve or Bseribe or even Dive 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. 32 evexey συνεληλυθεισαν most, but evexa συνελ. NAB and four cursives; xxvi. 21 evexa τουτων apparently all; xxviii. 20 evexev yap τῆς ελπτιδος all but N*A which write esvexev here ; Rom. xiv. 20 μὴ evexev βρωματος all; 2 Cor. iti. 10 evexev τῆς ὑπερβαλλ. δοξης most and many Fathers, but ewexev τῆς ὑπ΄. δοξ. 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. viroxpitat Bj and syr cu [non syr sin pesh diatess | εθνικοι all the rest

The verse runs : “‘ zrpocevyopevor δὲ μὴ βαττολογησητε ὡσπερ οἱ εθνικοι * δοκουσι yap ott ev TH πολυλογια αὐτων εἰσακουθησονται."

B

50 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

Clearly υποκρίται is an “‘ improvement,” being set up as a better antithesis to BatroAoynontre than εθνίκοι 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. 18 “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 32174604 ἃ ζ; syr sin (0 exwv wra [axovey | ἀκουέτω)

xiii. 9. —axovew NBL a 9 ff ἢ syr sin (0 ἐεχων wra [axovew] axoverw) Here it is clearly seen that Β # and syr sin are the consistent ones in omitting. It might be thought basically “ neutral’? (= shorter text) bat that there would be no reason to add axovew as all the rest do including copt.

xiii. 48. —axovesy N*B Sod” 604 a ὃ ὁ k vg" [non D ἃ syr sin 1] xii. 48. τω AeyovTs (pro Tw εἰποντι) NBDZII* 7 33 892 Evst aligq. 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 ευχαρίιστησας of most (and W 28) evroynoas is substituted by text recept with NBDLCGZ min for the blessing of the bread. This appears very like an effort to vary the ευχαρίστησας 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. ἔλαβεν aptov καὶ evyapiotnoas εκλασε Kat evtre (λαβετε

aryeTe) TOVTO μου ETL TO Twa TO ὑπερ ὑμων (KAwWpEVOY) TOUTO TTOLELTE ELS THY ἐμὴν AVALVYNTLV. WTAVTWS καὶ TO TIOTNPEOV. oo

Thus ευὐχαριίστησας is tied to the bread, and woavrws implies evyapr- στησας 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 ευχαριστησας in Matt.

Matt.

“ xiii. 86. διασαφησον (pro φρασο) N&*B (Orig semel) syr, but no cursives. Sod adds ἃ and °° of uncials, of fam ¢* four cursives, and prints διασαφησον in his text. Of the five next, four are omissions :

+ But syr sin has wasaxls for wrxsazsal of syr cu. Syr cu has axovewy both at xi. 15 and xiii. 9.

B IN ST. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 51 Matt. ea 45. europa (pro avOpwrw eurropw) ὃξ ΒᾺ δὅ0 59 Sod Ath Cyr 1/2 Chrys Ambr [Habent Orig Cypr gr plur syrr diatess drab latt] om εμπορω ug Miatess The two words occupy one line in Ὁ ὦ, and Cyr 1/2 is significant, while Orig and Cypr flatly contradict NB [Tevt is silent’. The coptic is interesting, for unlike Gr-syr-lat order: ανθρ. εμπορω they Say εμπόρω ἀνθρώπω a “ merchant-man’”’ as we would say in English. Evi. 18, τινα (με) λεγουσιν ov ἀνθρωποι εἰναι (τον) νἱον του avov quem (me) dicunt homines esse filium hominis. This με is omitted by NB 604 Sod*” [no other Greeks] syr hier copt aeth only ¢ of O.L. and some vgg codd (8) against Hier specifically. με is included by syrr it pl and Iren 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 ὁ also clearly of Egyptian provenance, yet Soden excludes. [ X’s graeco-latin tendency is seen clearly in the neighbourhocd xvi. 27 τὰ epya for τὴν mpakw with d [contra D® τὴν πραξιν] opera sua and other Latins and copt. 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*F minli4) divide squarely here, the Latins did

not get it from the Greeks but from the Syriac. ] Matt. xxi. 12. “καὶ εἰσηλθεν a ta εἰς TO Lepov του Geav.”

But NBL 13 33 73 604 892 Sodwia sah boh acth ὃ Meth Chr Hil and Origen 2/5 omit του 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 του θεου ‘And Jesus went into the Temple” is quite sufficient. If the original writer did not have τοὺ θεου 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,

{ They write: ‘The absence of του 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. ὃ 15) cites the three Gospel accounts, leaving out του θεου in Matthew, as in Mark and Luke where the words are really absent. Elsewhere when quoting Matthew Origen has them. Soden holds του θεου 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?

EB 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 b, 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. ai 6. περι Tov tpayndov (pro emt or εἰς Tov Tp.) NBLZTNM 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 sy7 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 περὶ have dropped out of the rest if basic? Soden refuses this “ nicety.”

xvill. 15. cav δὲ apaptnon (--εἰς oe) 0 adeAghos cov This is a radical and important change committed by NB 1 22 234* sah Orig Cyr Bas?ries 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 922, of the Greeks

plus Lat and Syr. We 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. xvii. 19 for ὑμων of most Gks NBDL 892 substitute εξ ὑμων with syrr [this seems to be opposed by a much older authority namely Ignatius®rhes 4),

aviv 4, 0 κτισᾶς am ἀρχῆς apoev Kat θηλυ ἐποίησεν avTovs. B 1 22

80 88 124 604 Sod 118 & Sod*** boh sah Orig”* Tit Bostr Method r Ath Clem’™ use xticas for the more Semitic ποίησας of all the rest.

I ask what can be more clearly an endeavour to improve? It avoids the tautology involved and seems clearly borrowed from Mark x. 6 “ azro Se apyns κτίσεως ἄρσεν Kat Ondv erroincer avTous.”

The double use of ποίεω in Matthew is not abhorrent to the Latins,

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 53

and the Syriacs use the same word ama twice. Nor was it abhorrent to the translators of the L:XX, who render Gen. i. 27:

καὶ ETTOLNTEV O Geos TOV ἄνθρωπον "Καὶ εἰκόνα Geov ἐποίησεν αὐτον" ἄρσεν καὶ θηλυ εἐποιήσεν avtTous.

(Hebrew is yivra X22" bara N73 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 κτίσας is editorial.

Similarly in the same chapter verse 18 B 13-124-346-556 write edn 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 λέγει avtw ποίας, NL substitute ποίας φησιν, and B 18 εφη avrw ποίας, 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 a. opposing the correction of NBD 1 22 604 of εφυλαξα for εφυλαξαμηι while εφυλαξα 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 εφυλαξαμὴην but NABL fam 1 εφυλαξα. It would seem as if in both Matthew and Mark NB take the wrong line.

xxiv. 16. φευγετωσαν εἰς ta opn BDA 892 min alig Patr et latt for ob. emt ta opy. It is much more likely that ev: should be changed ἴο. εἰς, than es to emt, The idea being in the minds of the grammarians that it was a flight To (‘‘in montes ἡ Orig Trent Cypr Aug Hier r vgg) although most Old Latins retain the abl. in montibus (with only vg’), whereas emt ta opy is the more difficult and the most likely, signifying flight to 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.

Inwprovement (Addition).

ne 44 fin. Tov avtov λόγον evmwv +7radiv. This παλιν is added by NBL Sod” 124 (against the family) t ὦ and b0h [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 παᾶλὲν occurring above “παλιν are lov mpoonvéato,” for “Tov αὐτὸν λόγον εὐπὼν 18 quite sufficient. Here is an absolute contradiction of the

t Soden misquotes his «257 (Scrivener ‘a’ Adv. Sacer.)

54 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES.

“shorter” text theory, and an abominable redundancy. No cursives but 124 seem to join, and as to ὦ it occasionally does this kind of thing, e.g. John iii. 4 homo +wut nos.t Soden places this second παλιν in his text. Given the ordinary copying of mss, which was faithful enough in the main, how could wadw be dropped by ail the rest?

Removing redundancy. Matt.

x1. 25. ort εκρυψας ταῦτα aro σοφων καὶ cuverov NBD 12 Clem’™ (sed Clemb™ libere) Sod*xt non uss All others have απεέκρυψας. «απο with Iren®* Eus Orig.

This seems clearly to savour of the removal of redundant am 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) εκρυψας ay trace to this.)

See in St. Luke as to simple and compound verbs.

Further, consider the following improvement :

vi. 5. καὶ οταν προσευχησθε ove ἐσεσθε ws ov υποκριταί Nt BZ 1 22 372 892 Sod” a ὃ (ὁ h nolite esse) f fi g2 ὃ [contra At] l vg goth sah boh aeth syr hier arm Orig Chr Aug Sodtxt καὶ οταν προσευχὴ οὐκ Eon woTrEp οὐ ὑποκριταὶ DW rell syr cud k ᾳ [om ver. sin] diatess (hiant e ff, mr 12)

{ In this connection it may be interesting to connect @ 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 κατεβὴ λαίλαψ avepov ets τὴν λιμνην Οὗ all Gks | et descendit procella venti in stagnum of Latins B alone has κ, κατεβη λαίλαψ ets τὴν λιμνην avepov and ὦ et descenditturbo in stagnum venti }

Wordsworth does not notice this order in a, although quoting G ὃ e1 q for omission of in stagnum (add for omission # as 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 nAavyero uo του δαιμονιου εἰς τας ἐρημους, B supported only by = (against δὲ and all the rest) allows himself to substitute amo for uo, which must equate LATIN use of ὦ daemonio for agency as sometimes elsewhere.

t ΝΡ leaves out οὐκ ἐσεσθε by mistake. # in correcting gives καὶ οταν προσευχή οὐκ eve Oe (showing he knew both readings) and N¢ 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 ποίοντος εἐλεημοσυνὴν 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 οὐ υποκριται 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 ἵ gq and syr cu pesh diatess definitely [sin, the cautious, omits the verse). For some reason Tisch misstates the evidence, only giving qg on the side of D ὦ, while he gives «! on the other side. But if ever there was a place where we must balance correctly this is one. We now see that id?! is wrong, for dk q witness for the side of Ὁ ὦ, and δ opposing A&®™ shows it was the later latin witness which caused this. Sod cannot even produce δ᾽ for this.

One word more. Origen, who approves the course of NBZ, nevertheless writes wa7ep for ws (Of NBDZ 88), showing that while they were about it NBZ took the opportunity to make this other change, for they prefer ὡς to ὧσπερ on a good many other occasions.

We might refer to Luke xxii. 31/82 for further illustration: Σίμων Σέμων ἰδοὺ ὁ σατανᾶς ἐξητήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς τὸν σῖτον" ἐγὼ δὲ ἐδεήθην περὶ σου ἵνα μὴ ἐκλίπῃ ἡ πίστις σου.

Here c seeing the difficulty writes ad cernendum without ὑμᾶς, but Tertullian “uti 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: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν εἶπεν πρὸς τὸν Σίμωνα: ἐπανάγαγε eis τὸ βάθος, καὶ χαλάσατε τὰ δίκτνα ὑμῶν εἰς ἄγραν. 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 (ov adduc) in altum, et laxate....”t

St. Paul is not averse to the method. Observe 2 Cor. xi. 6 “ εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, GAN οὐ TH γνώσει" ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ φατϊερωθέντες (or φανερώσαντες) ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. This is not quite so obvious, as ἐγὼ

+ Horner simply follows Tischendorf and only quotes 4, so that he has failed to clear the matter. ἃ has “‘et cum adoras non ertt sicut hypocritae.” Unfortunately e J ave 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 : τὸ αὐτὸ εἰς ἀλλήλους φρονοῦντες " μὴ TA ὑψηλὰ φρονοῦντες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ταπεινοῖς συναπαγόμενοι" μὴ γίνεσθε φρόνιμοι παρ᾽ ἑαυτοῖς.

Follows a kind of singular idea holding the plural :

Ver 17, 18, 19. μηδενὶ κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ drodiovres* προνοούμενοι καλὰ ἐνώπιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων" εἰ δυνατόν, τὸ ἐξ ὑμῶν, μετὰ πάντων ἀνθρώπων εἰρηνεύοντες " μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ (γέγραπται γὰρ “’Eyol ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, Neyer κύριος.

Now follows immediately the singular, only separated by the parenthetical quotation above :

Ver 20. Ἐὰν οὖν (vel ἀλλὰ ἐὰν) πεινᾷ ὁ ἐχθρός cov, ψώμιξε αὐτόν" ἐὰν διψᾷ, πότιξε αὐτὸν" τοῦτο γὰρ ποιῶν, ἄνθρακας πυρὸς σωρεύσεις ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ.

The interesting part is that he holds this singular in ver. 21 instead of summing up with the plural :

μὴ νικῶ ὑπὸ τοῦ κακοῦ, ἀλλὰ νίκα ἐν τῷ ἀγαθῷ τὸ κακόν.

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 io 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 ἃ point which occars here. There are no variations among MSS in Luke v. 4 except as to ws δὲ or ore (Ὁ da 6) at the beginning, but at the end fam 1 and 22 Sod’ omit εἰς 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, κρυφαίω (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.}] Sodéen** κρυφαιω.

κρυφαιος is more classical (or poetic, Pindar Aesch Soph ; Xen Plato use both) than κρυπτω, but only occurs in the N.T. as κρυφὴ 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 ἐξ Awg no doubt are turning a difficulty ¢ as well, seeing that they are not supported by ὦ ἃ (unfortunately “5 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 ὦ k 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...” t

Finally observe in the same chapter vi. 16 αφανιζουσιν yap το mpoowroy S 2449, k sy pesh pers for apavifovcw yap ta προσωπα.

Note also in Matt. vii. 16 pnts συλλεγουσιν aro axavOwv σταφυλὴν CEGKLMSUVWXATI al. pl arm aeth Lucif (although opposed by NB(C) Jam 1 22 892 latt syr goth copt with σταφυλας) may be the right reading ; observe LWX for σταφυλὴν and Clem (but cf. Luke vi. 44).

Inyprovement (continued). Matt.

vi. 8. Addition: 0 θεος o πατὴρ υμων N&*B sah [| W-H] non Sodzee x88 ο πατὴρ ὑμων D reli et verss sine o θεος

vil. 8. avoeyeras (pro ανοιγησεται fin) Bonly (and syr cu boh Aphraat). Clear ‘‘improvement’’ to correspond with AapSave and cupicxer above, against Clem δὲ and all other Greeks, Latins and sah. B does it again (alone with Ὁ, 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: ore tovro durayat ποίησαι only Bl gq and vg against ore δυναμαν in first position all others and versions (although varying somewhat otherwise ; see under NB in Part IT).

x. 2. +xat ante taxwBos NB d (contra D*) syr (contra rell gr et latt sah boh aeth). When &B abandon coptic sympathy there is always a reason, and this must have been considered an im- provement. Why should all the rest drop it? (+«as 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 bohomu and Clem Hus is certainly right.

t See Winer, p. 778 (* Breviloquence,’ section 2 f.) comparing Kenophon (Cyr. 5, 1. 8) ὁμοιαν ταῖς δουλαις εἰχε τὴν εσθητα. AS to Luke v. 4 it 15 referred to on Ὁ. 725.

58 CODEX B AND ITS ALLIES. Matt

“x. 8. θαδδαιος (pro λεβαιος) NB 17 124 sah bohec ffi gal [Non clare Sod]

13. ef ὑμας (pro προς vyuas) NBW 174 (248) 372 892 βοᾶν τς,

This is done to complete the idea of “pairs” in the sentence

εἰρηνη ὑμων em’ auTny, and εἰρηνη ὑμων ed’ vas επιστραφητω,

if indeed it be not borrowed from Luke x. 6 em’ avtov..ed’

vpas. Actually 243, instead of strengthening NB, shows this

by adding ανακαμψει from Luke. There is no earthly reason

why all other documents should substitute προς for ed’ if ef’

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 δὲ (with C 157 Sod*° only) confirms my view

as to “pairs” immediately afterwards, for at x. 15, not content with yy

σοδομων καὶ γομορρων, it adds a second yn, writing yn codopev καὶ yn

youoppwv. 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. ors ουτως Sevdoxia eyeveto ἐμπροσθεν cov NBW 1 33 892 Καὶ OTL οὕτως >eyeveTo εὐδοκία ἐμππροσθεν cov Rell The versions do not support NB here. In Lukex. 21 BC*LX& (a perfect family coterie, but against δὲ as well as the rest) have also εὐδοκία eyevero and there with many Old Latins.

Improvement ‘‘ Niceties.”

xi. 29. πραυς NBC*D Sod*™ Clem 1/2 Orig bis Ath 1/2 Bas 1/4 Cyr 1/2 πρᾶος ell omn et min omn vid Origr? Hus*e?? Ath 1/2 Bas 3/4 Cyr 1/2 Chr; et Clem(Strom) λαβετε τον 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 he placed ἐλεος (for ἔλεον) by NBCD* 1 33 in both places (and again xxiii. 23). Note that all others oppose as well as ὦ and Clem** (against Origen). The LXX reading (of most of its mss) of ἔλεος would account for ἔλεος. For observe in this connection, and in this vicinity, Matt xii. 17/18 wa πληρωθη τὸ ρηθεν δια Ἡσαιοι (xlii. 1/4) τον προφητου Aeyovtos wWov o

B IN ST. MATTHEW’S GOSPEL. 59

παῖς μου ον NPETLOG, O αγαπητος μου ov (pro εἰς ov) evdoxncev ἡ ψύχη μου. So N*B 115 244 892 ff, Hus>is 1/2 against εἰς ov εὐδοκησεν of all the rest and latt sy copt. A reference to Isaiah xlii. 1 (Septuagint) shows ἐσραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτὸς μου, προσεδεξατο avToV ἡ ψυχὴ μου.

[D* indeed here writes εἰς ov for the first ov (as syr) against quem of d opposite, and D*" has ev w for the second ets ov. |

Matt.

᾿ (Questionable.) xi. 29. apraca: (pro διαρπασα)ὶὺ BC*WX 892 min” sah? against διαρπασαι ND rell omn et latt (diripere) et Mare iii. 27 “ Nicety”’: ΧΙ]. 82. (sec loco) ov μὴ αφεθὴ Bs" et W-H mg. ov μη αφεθησεται N* ove αφεθησεται Net yell omn

This seems a strengthening “nicety”” on the part of B, for Luke xii. 10 = οὐκ αφεθησεται, and Mark iii, 29 οὐκ exes αφεσιν.

Another ‘‘ nicety ’’ (favoured by W-H and Sod tat** 950 *) occurs at:

xiii. 48. ta καλα εἰς aryyn (pro τα Kanda εἰς ἀγγεία) NBCM**N 1 [non 118- 209] 124 [non fam] 892 Evst 48 (notable conjunction among our minuscules of editorial work) Orig® Cyris Istd. ἀγγειον is a pure Matthaean word occurring only here and at xxv. 4 where ev τοῖς ἀγγειοίς 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 εἰς ayyera (or εἰς Ta αγγια Ὁ).

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 Ty πατριδι αὐτου Kat ev τὴ οἰκία avtov. It is read by eleven uncials and LXW®> min pl latt pl syrr Bas Chr and Orig 2/3, and is Semitic. BD 88 604 (al? perpauc) adk = εν τὴ πατριδι (-- αὐτου) καὶ ev τὴ οἰκία αὐτου 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 τη δια πατριδι καὶ ev TH οἰκια αὐτου as Sod'**, L fg. vg” omit the second clause, but L with 15 uncials including W has ev ty watpids αὐτου. C conflates ev τῇ ἐδέία πατριδὶ αὐτοῦ Kat εν TH οἰκια αὐτοῦ exactly as sah (which probably gave rise to some of the trouble) neq fare Merit Reo...

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.” δὲ 157 Paris” and three lectionaries write ty apyn καὶ εξουσια του ἡγεμ., eliding the second article before εξουσια. I mention it because Tisch omits this in his notes (it is added in Gregory’s ‘Emendanda’) and because the Coptic πε. for καὶ (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.{ Sod has no new support for δὲ.

wey. 88. NBC?T° 1 22 892* min” ffi copt aeth (Orig?) Did omit edOorres. This is peculiarly interesting, for although 1 omits, 118-209 with 28 substitute ovres. 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 ἔλθοντες, which represents a far more graceful act, and syr cu sim: “came near and.” The point is this. In ver. 82 we read καὶ avaBavrov (εμβαντων) αὑτων εἰς TO TAOLOV εκοπασεν ο ἄνεμος. They had already entered the ship, and for some reason ἔλθοντες seemed out of place in ver.